TubeNet

A "pedigree" adds information about an instrument. The same way that Stradivarius violins (I saw it spelled 'violings' on the news this morning) are referred to by an outstanding performer that owned them; it infers certain characteristics about the instrument.

On a more concrete level, it means that the tuba probably ain't junk and might well be one of the better of a particular model. Bill Bell's personal Meinl Weston played a lot better than any of the other Bill Bell model tubas I have played. I was shocked at the difference.

But... you know this and are only starting a discussion.

May not mean anything....

However, on the trumpet, if you somehow get a real Dizzy bent horn and you want to play it in public, you better be able to solo kinda like Diz or you will look like an idiot. (Ditto a replica Diz bent horn)

If I made a 'big deal' of saying I had a, say, 'ex-Warren Deck horn' (there was at least one like that at Baltimore Brass recently) I had better be competent otherwise, what's the point?

A famous 'ex-' horn may be so modified for the 'ex-' that it might be kinda weird for someone else. (See 'Dizzy' horn)

Now, if I was selling a horn, I would make sure all of the 'ex-' who had owned the horn were known and documented if possible. Ya never know what someone would pay 'good money' for.

I would pay more for a horn that was worked on by a great horn jockey than for one that had been owned by an 'ex-'. Sometimes, a great player can make a piece o' crap horn sound great. Also, there are horns (Alex) which sometimes require advanced ability to show off what they do best. I'm afraid I would sound horrid on an Alex while a better player would get that great sound.

Does this make sense??? (Didn't think so...)

My former F tuba, a Rudy Meinl 4/4 6-valve horn, was previously owned by Tommy Johnson. He said that he had bought it off a dentist along with it's "sister", a Rudy F cimbasso.

Tommy told me that it had the nicest high register of any tuba he had ever played, and I would agree with him on that point. He played it in the studios a few times, but the stuffiness of the low C, B, and Bb got to him after a while. I really think he sold it because he had decided that his Yami-822 was going to be his all-around horn, and that he still liked his B&S with the Mirafone bell better for soloing.

Since then I've replaced that horn with a Yami-621, and never looked back. Although the Yamaha doesn't have the beautiful tone of the Rudy, I got sick of struggling to get a nice sound in the low register. If I was in an orchestra, I would have been happy with that horn, but I'm so much happier now with an all-around tuba that is easy to take anywhere and can play ANYTHING.

Tommy customised that horn through Robb Stewart, and that was a big plus. Often times a horn one gets from a pro might have better thought-out tweaks that other horns might be missing.

Think about this though. As a professional top player, one gets many great opportunities to try new horns, and also has money to invest in their craft. They also receive horns for free at times, and at great discounts. Why not try everything for a time, and turn over the stuff you don't like?

Like any instrument purchase, it's hit or miss buying a horn from an established pro, just like from anyone else. They may have played it for years on end, but it's not the right horn for you personally. They may have hated the horn and were desperate for space in their home studio, and it might be the best horn you've ever tried.

Tommy gave me a great deal on that horn, and I was able to sell it for quite a bit more than he "let me have it" for. I sure appreciated the great price at the time as he was always so giving to his students. By buying a horn like that from a pro, one might get a better deal, as the pro most likely got the best price available as well.

But never forget that a musical instrument is only a piece of material, put together with the incredible creativity of the human mind. I know one thing for sure. Just because a famous player owned (and even played) an instrument, doesn't make it any better than any other instrument made in the same factory. A tuba is a tuba is a tuba. The music that came out of it with a player in times past is gone, and the music that comes out in the future is only what we make of it.

-DK

There seem to be two kind of pro players - the guys who find a horn and keep it for life, and the guys who change horns every 2 years. If a pro owned a horn for any reasonable length of time, then there must be some admirable traits about it. Otherwise, that horn would never have been purchased in the first place. Think about it - are you going to risk your livelihood over a bad instrument?

* I am from the Noo Yawk area; "guys" fits either gender.

bloke wrote: If an instrument was FORMERLY owned by a player who is widely known as a VERY fine player - supposed a person who possesses a high level of discretion...

What does high level of discretion have to do with it? Are we worried that this person might afterwards let on that we bought a turkey from him?

IF that player decided to rid themselves of that instrument, what does that - necessarily - say about the attributes of that particular instrument?

The `decided to rid themselves' phrasing vaguely implies that this isn't a yard sale purchase or joke gift from student, but rather was used for some of the aforementioned very fine playing. That seems like a key question. Fine ownership means much less than fine playing does.

Given that, I wouldn't be worried that our fine playing individual had discerned some flaw in the instrument. It could easily be the kind of flaw that's actually a virtue for a less advanced player.

bloke wrote: (Actually, Ron Bishop now owns a tuba that I bought "new" and customized, so does that reflect NEGATIVELY on MY judgment?)

maybe not, but it seems to reflect well on your customization!

But, did Ron play it in the orchestra? Or, did he get it after he retired???

bloke wrote:Why DID they sell those instruments...because they decided they were REALLY GREAT, but decided to dispose of them anyway...??

Well, sometimes people who wouldn't be caught playing a dog find something they like EVEN BETTER

(besides, what would you know- you play a helicon in an orchestra, fer chrissakes... )

- might be fickle
- might have a bunch-o-money burning to be spent on something with sparkle.
- might just need a different axe (bigger or smaller) for a new job
- might jez wanna change for the sake of change
- the previous owner might have passed-away and the horn then re-enters the market

or....the old horn just might suck.

I dunno.

Actually, why do students tend to bring pros their instruments to have them test them out and give an opinion? The most logical conclusion is that the pro's discretion is supposed to be superior, that's why they're a pro. They're less likely to make an incorrect assessment of a given instrument because of their superior playing skills and experience.

Of course, the flaw in that argument is that those assessments only really apply to the pro and their playing. How that stacks up with the student's playing is anybody's guess. The practice continues so something must be discernible to somebody.

I can only say that any instrument I ever owned was bought because I liked how it played, I could afford it, and it was available for purchase. I can also say that any horn I ever sold was sold because I found something better for me. I tend to select horns for specific jobs and when I find something that does the job better, I buy it (if possible) and get rid of what I had. Considering how widely different every player's skills and horn requirements are, I'm not sure you can make any judgements about the instruments that are sold by pros without playing them first because you don't play exactly like they do/did. I think the best you can discern is that maybe, depending on the quality of the pro selling the horn, it might be somewhat collectible at some point. Which definitely rules out any of my horns right off the bat!

bloke wrote:IF that player decided to rid themselves of that instrument, what does that - necessarily - say about the attributes of that particular instrument?

It says that the instrument no longer paid its way, assuming the pro was not also a hobbyist tuba collector.

For example, is the Gronitz PCK that you sold recently an inadequate tuba? You bought that instrument to meet a particular need, and after you were done exploring that need you no longer needed it. And you sold it, as you have sold a lot of tubas that were not paying their way. But the reason many of them weren't paying their way had less to do with those instruments than the sorts of gigs you were getting at the time. Did I hear that wrong?

Of course, none of that says anything about whether the instrument will meet someone else's needs.

My York Master was owned (and bought new) by Oscar Lagasse. He sold it to Chris Hall long after he had stopped playing altogether. Chris bought it--I'm partly guessing here, and I don't think he'll mind me speculating--because he'd just gotten Herb Wekselblatt's gig and wanted a decent Bb tuba. Wekselblatt had held that gig for decades on a Bb tuba and I gather Chris didn't want to change course too quickly. After a reasonably period of time, he switched to C and then sold the tuba to Chuck. Chuck has a better Bb tuba (a Larry Minnick frankentuba with a Keefer bell and modified Conn valveset--and an ugly tuba that plays beautifully), and sold the YM to me. That instrument is not without its flaws, but there's nothing about that story that would suggest they were glaring. I bought the tuba because Jay Bertolet thought it a great instrument for the qualities I was (publicly) seeking.

I suppose that means it had plenty of pedigree, but still didn't exactly meet all the requirements of the owners following Lagasse. Even I use my Holton much more frequently. But I haven't played many Bb tubas of that configuration that I thought were much better.

Rick "whose playing doesn't live up to the pedigree of his tubas" Denney

There are a lot of cornet players in this part of the country who proudly proclaim that they are using "Bobby Hackett's cornet!" ... Hackett used to sell his horns frequently, saying that they were "nearly new, upper register never been used". His name added a lot of value to the instruments (in the eyes of the buyer) which probably enabled him to make a few bucks when he needed to.

Unless I have provenance directly from the "famous" owner about the quality and playability of the instrument, I'd be concerned it was an unload that didn't meet playability standards, as pointed out above about a lot of "famous" players are used for testing new and redeveloped models.

If I were in such a market for such an instrument, I'd be more likely to be interested in purchasing an instrument from the "famous" player's estate, because, unless it was a forgotten or specialty use instrument, the fact it was retained until death is more likely to mean that it had more desireable playing characteristics.

iiipopes wrote:If I were in such a market for such an instrument, I'd be more likely to be interested in purchasing an instrument from the "famous" player's estate, because, unless it was a forgotten or specialty use instrument, the fact it was retained until death is more likely to mean that it had more desireable playing characteristics.

You can argue that from the other side, too. An instrument might have been so bad that the performer didn't want to foist it on anyone else, or have his reputation sullied by selling it. This might be especially true if the performer is a public endorser of that brand.

It comes back to instruments having to stand on their own. The provenance may not mean anything negative, but it may not mean anything positive, either. A firm recommendation from a pro who has built a trust relationship with the buyer is worth a lot more, whether or not the pro owns the instrument. Even then, it assumes an understanding of the buyer's requirements.

Rick "who makes few assumptions" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:It comes back to instruments having to stand on their own. The provenance may not mean anything negative, but it may not mean anything positive, either. A firm recommendation from a pro who has built a trust relationship with the buyer is worth a lot more, whether or not the pro owns the instrument. Even then, it assumes an understanding of the buyer's requirements.

Right on, Rick!

I have two provenanced instruments in my collection, due to very different causes. One is a gold presentation double-belled baritone, encrusted with jewels in the colors of the Italian flag, made by Conn for the Italian-American club to give to Simone Mantia. He sold it for the money (not unlike many musicians of his time). The second is an monster rotary Italian Eb, which my teacher gave me precisely because although he loved it's sound (world-class, really!), it's intonation is exactly the opposite of the Chicago Yorks; unmoving and unworkable.

The instrument HAS to work for the person performing with it, any other consideration is by far secondary.

the elephant wrote:

Uncle Buck wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mom_&_Pop_Store

But did anyone ever try to sell Jon Voight's old tuba???

What about the Empire State Building statuette-sized hole in the bell?

I asked a very distinguished player about the best tuba he ever owned, and he told me very directly what it was and the name of the student to whom he sold it. He then told me I should check out his sponsor's new line of tubas.

Tabor

This thread only goes to prove that regardless of the "pedigree" or "provenance" of an instrument, you should still try before you buy to see if it fits you and your playing, regardless of where it may have come from, where it may have been, and whose hands it passed through along the way.

the elephant wrote:Some professors do not realize just how much they come off as high pressure used car salesmen. (Some of them even dress the part, too … )

"Only played on Sundays by an old widow"

the elephant wrote:

windshieldbug wrote:"Only played on Sundays by an old widow"

"This used tuba has only ever been used to play Leroy Anderson pieces. No challenging pieces such as the Ride or Fountains have ever been played on it. It's fresh, not all blown out!"

Oh, how true this year especially! This is the centennial anniversary of Leroy Anderson's birth. So the director of the university community band I play in has systematically through the last fall season and this spring season programmed as many of his works for band that are still in print or can be borrowed from other institutions' libraries.

So, having literally played a significant portion of his catalog at this point, I can vouch for elephant's comments!

http://www.leroyanderson.com/