TubeNet

I am always slightly amused by these questions and, for that matter, the answers. If I had infinite resources, I might ask myself what tuba should I get to play in the brass band, which one for the orchestra, which one for ensemble work, and might even go as far as to ask which tuba should I play when there is a J in the month!!
I have only one instrument that I play, and play it for all composers in all ensembles, adjusting my technique to the circumstances in which I play, no one has ever complained that my instrument is too big, too small, too quiet or too loud. I wish I could have an infinte variety of tubas to play, and I guess a few of us have access to a number of instruments, but most of us have 1 instrument and usually have to play it all the time.
It might be amusing to think "what should I play in..." but the reality is you have to play with what you've got.

I was thinking the same thing, and am in the same situation owning one nice playable horn. My instructor in jr college (John Van Houten) mentioned that you can always play a big horn a little smaller, but you can't play a small horn bigger. So my friend and I were both thinking of getting 186's, he ended up getting a 188 and I have a PT6. I have played in wind ensembles, brass bands, a quintet, and (currently) community band, and never considered changing or adding tubas to my arsenal.

That being said, I DO see the value in having or being able to change horns to fit the group, but as we all know, good tubas aren't cheap. Adjusting my play of the one horn I have seems to be the more economical solution.

Typically, and this is likely to sound snobbish but PLEASE don't take it so, the desire/need for instruments for specific purposes is from a higher level player, whose working situations demand a specific tool for a specific job. A mechanic has different types of wrenches for different purposes, some of which look very similar. One works for one type of job, another for another job.

Frequently woodwind players have different instruments of the same type for specific styles of music (French, German, Russian). A good friend who is a multi-instrumentalist was recently speaking of his purchase of a French bassoon, on which the pitch is somewhere between low and high, and the work he's having done to alter it.

A BAT usually won't work for a quintet, although I've heard many try and a couple succeed. A 3/4 Yamaha probably won't work for Bruckner or Tchaikovsky. A CC works in a brass band, but it's still of questionable appropriateness. "The Ride" can be played on F, but not easily and really not with the best result. (Believe me, I've tried.)

I would love to have a Conn 24 J for playing old jazz and ragtime. I wouldn 't ever use it in a German style band, an F is perfect for that use for me.

As it is, I have 3 instruments right now: a relatively large F, a small BBb, and an F helicon. These three do suit all the needs I have for playing the various styles that I do, but were I an orchestral player I'd have at least 3 more--a big BBb, a big CC, and a small CC. A small F would probably be smart also.

The right tools for the job, that's all it is.

Peter,
I'm not sure I understand what your point is exactly?
Here's another English point of view.
Of course one has to "play with what you've got" but that doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job.

We both come from the UK where the large B&H Eb's are most common.
It's perfectly true that one can play the entire repertoire on such an instrument and I actually think the Comp Eb's are very versatile.
Solos - yes.
Quintet - yup.
10-piece - Eb will do, but I'd prefer a contrabass.
Brass band - yah.
Wind band - yeah, if there's more than one of you - it CAN be done with one on Eb but the resultant sound will be lacking.
Small orchestra/light rep - Oui oui : )

All those settings will suit a big Eb just fine, it's when you get to play big meaty works in a decent orchestra that the Eb is found wanting. Listen to our best players tackling big works on their Eb's - great sounds, no question. Hear those same pieces played well on contrabass and compare the sound-worlds.
Still want to try those big works on Eb??
Like I said, it absolutely can be done but you have to work incredibly hard to get any sort of result. All of the big stuff wants a big tuba - that's what it's written for.

I don't know anyone who's spent any length of time with a good contrabass want to go back to playing just Eb.

I like having more than one tuba - you can never have too many! I currently own a whole bunch of tubas but only play two of them daily. Peter, if you're ever near Chester you're welcome to come by and see what you're missing out on...

Peter, Cannot argue with "you have to play with what you've got" and yes, in the UK, we can get away with playing everything on an EEb. Most tuba players do so without complaints and it may be hard to believe looking at my collection now, that I used to play everything on a Besson 981 EEb too. But then I started to regularly go and listen to concerts in London by top professional orchestras from around the world and soon realised the different tonal colours that the range of tubas can produce which enhance the music being played.

A British EEb is a very adaptable tuba and can produce the goods, but it can never make the clear lyrical tone of an F tuba, the depth and richness of tone of a 6/4 CC, or provide the broad bass foundation of a Kaiser BBb.

I too never had complaints playing my EEb for everything in the past, but it is very noticeable how much more my sound gets complimented by other musicians with my now more varied (and hopefully more appropriate) tubas for the music.

The number of tubas I have is, I will confess a personal indulgence (a benefit of being single and having a good job), but if you ever get the chance to play a 5/4, or 6/4 CC (or BBb), my advice would be go for it. You will hardly believe what you were missing! *

* But do note if you try one in a shop, or practice room, that such big tubas need space to sound, so you will only really hear the difference once you play in a decent size space

Bob1062 wrote:I could play huge on my tiny Eb

There is no doubt a small tuba can make a big sound (too many people seem to mistakenly equate size with volume!), but there is no way a 'tiny' tuba can provide the tonal breath to provide a satisfactory bass foundation to a large ensemble

Bob1062 wrote:Most people would probably opt for a bigger contrabass and an average size bass tuba. I want a big bass tuba and a tiny one. Or an Eb and a cimbasso....

That is because you are a trombone player at heart Bob

Bob1062 wrote:

Neptune wrote:

Bob1062 wrote:I could play huge on my tiny Eb

There is no doubt a small tuba can make a big sound (too many people seem to mistakenly equate size with volume!), but there is no way a 'tiny' tuba can provide the tonal breath to provide a satisfactory bass foundation to a large ensemble...

Well.... I did. About a 50ish piece orchestra with trumpets, 2 trombones (I doubled on bass), a bari sax and 3-4 string basses.
...<snip>...

Bob, I really like your spirit. However, Neptune was referring to "tonal breadth", which is a rather different concept from loud. I'm sure you have the ability to play loudly enough to dominate even a large ensemble. That is not the tonal concept that the overwhelming majority of tubists have. The majority concept is a wide sound that furnishes a foundation without standing out. That is simply not possible with a cimbasso, bass trombone, contrabass trombone or a tiny Eb tuba. [Actually, I like those little eefers, and own two of them.]

I'm writing this not to try to tell you that you are wrong. I don't think you are wrong; I just think you have a sound concept that is rare in the tuba community. I'm pointing this out so that newer tubenetters will know that your advocacy is for sounds that differ from what most tubists strive for.

Please continue to have fun and follow your passions. And, consider spending some extended time with big tubas and their gorgeous wide sounds. After a while, you might like it.

Cheers,
Allen

I have more than one tuba for the simple reason that it makes the wide rather of literature I want to play easier. Tubas are asked to cover both string-bass and 'cello roles, and while I've heard string-bass players play 'cello parts, it always sounds better on a 'cello. And that has nothing to do with dynamics, technique, or anything related to the skill of the performer (except the performer's skill in choosing the right tool for the job).

I would far rather have one tuba than no tubas, and if I could only have one, I'd use it for everything and be pleased for the privilege. But I'm fortunate at this stage in my life to be able to afford a range of instruments, and can own them without endangering anyone's ability to eat regular meals. My collection of tubas is not preventing someone more deserving from having access to a great tuba. So, where's the harm?

It would be even easier to justify as a professional. In fact, the only instrument I own that has earned it's professional keep is an F tuba not my primary instrument. Had I played only a contrabass, I would have been forced to the bottom part in that quartet just to blend sounds properly. And that would not have played to the group's collective strengths. Professionals are most productive when they produce the most salable performances for their given capacity to perform. It's tiring playing all that high stuff and making it sound clean and clear on a big contrabass tuba. And it's tiring playing all that contrabass-specific stuff in band and orchestra on a bass tuba and making it sound big.

Rick "hoping that's not a note of envy that I detect" Denney

Rick "hoping that's not a note of envy that I detect" Denney[/quote]

I promise you that I have attained a state of maturity in which I am not envious of anybody for anything, I do consider myself very fortunate to own my own (only) instrument, and not to have to play the 24 year old beaten up instrument that belongs to the band I play in. If I had the resources (including space and a wife of even more infinite patience) then of course I would have one of each size of tuba, including piston and rotary valves.
And of course I realise that pros and perfectionists will want to have the specific instrument for a specific application ( and no, I don't beieve the suggestion was in any way snobbish), even if it only used once in a blue moon, nor do I suggest that anyone should "settle for" anything but the best they can get.
I did say that I am amused by, but not critical of the questions or answers, and I suppose that I hope no one gets put off playing any sort of music in any sort of band because they don't have the perfect instrument.

Bob1062 wrote: I have the opposite problem. I could play huge on my tiny Eb, but while I can play pretty softly on the 187 I don't like it for anything but dedicated contrabass parts like lower band parts and such.

Different specific instruments all have their quirks. I think the advise I was given was A: good and B: correct the majority of the time.

Obviously there are a ton of reasons to own more than one tuba. Because there is without a doubt a "best place" for every tuba/player combo to be playing. Especially for a professional player. But to stretch the boundaries a bit isn't sacrilege either. And am I "jealous" of someone like Rick for having a collection of such a stature? You bet I am! But it's not a "green-eyed monster" style of jealousy, it's a "Man, wouldn't THAT be cool?" style.

Even pros need the be justified with their tuba selections, right? Spending $X,XXX or $XX,XXX "just because" is never a good idea. If it's the difference in getting the orchestra seat or not getting it, then by all means, it's justified.

Of course, if you have the means to spend that kind of money without getting the tuba/gig paying itself off, then more power to you. If it's worth it TO YOU, then it's worth it.

-Jason "who always thought that dude in college lugging around both a CC and an F tuba was kind of a tool, but I was probably just jealous" Park

Mister JP wrote:If it's the difference in getting the orchestra seat or not getting it, then by all means, it's justified.

I'll venture into scary territory and express the considered opinion that pros look for instruments that produce the product they need the most easily because the more work they have to do, the more subject they are to overuse injuries, nerve damage, and the effects of aging. As I consider the wonderful players who have had their careers cut short by, say, focal dystonia, I wonder if their equipment was the sort that made them work too hard. It's a pure speculation, of course, and may be completely wrong, but I don't doubt that they seek the instrument that makes their job the easiest.

I know lots of young pros who earned their stripes using Alexander tubas. Those produce a legendary tone, but they are a lot of work to play well. Most of those performers (not all, of course) that are in regular symphony pro gigs now play something that requires a lot less work.

When I play in quintet, I can play all the notes on my Holton. But I would have to use an ultra-shallow mouthpiece, play in the bottom third of dynamic range of the instrument, and work hard to keep the articulations light, light, light. Playing so far outside the center path on that instrument leads to unreliability. It's just SO much easier with an F tuba. But if I try to make that F tuba sound big like the Holton, I have to use a toilet-bowl mouthpiece which screws up the intonation, and in the end the sound is still too strident when really pushed.

I know folks who can get the tonal variety on a 4/4 C tuba, and I admire them. But if doing so is more work for me, it's more work for them, too, cutting into their headroom.

These are motivations way beyond just getting the gig. Once you have the gig, you want to keep it until old age, right?

Rick "an amateur who doesn't need ANY tubas" Denney

peter birch wrote:I promise you that I have attained a state of maturity in which I am not envious of anybody for anything

Well, that puts you ahead about 99% of the population, so I congratulate you.

As far as not discouraging those who only have one instrument from exploring every opportunity, we both agree completely. And we've all been there at one time or another. (Most of us have also wished, even secretly, that we weren't so constrained.)

Rick "sometimes envious, but mostly of ability" Denney

Thanks for the response, Rick. Great insights, as usual. I really wish something like TubeNet would have existed when I was a student, my life may well have turned out much differently. Getting informed opinions of players coming from all walks of life is awesome.

Jason "who was hoping for a long response from Rick, but wasn't counting on it" Park

Rick Denney wrote:

Mister JP wrote:If it's the difference in getting the orchestra seat or not getting it, then by all means, it's justified.

I'll venture into scary territory and express the considered opinion that pros look for instruments that produce the product they need the most easily because the more work they have to do, the more subject they are to overuse injuries, nerve damage, and the effects of aging. As I consider the wonderful players who have had their careers cut short by, say, focal dystonia, I wonder if their equipment was the sort that made them work too hard. It's a pure speculation, of course, and may be completely wrong, but I don't doubt that they seek the instrument that makes their job the easiest.

I know lots of young pros who earned their stripes using Alexander tubas. Those produce a legendary tone, but they are a lot of work to play well. Most of those performers (not all, of course) that are in regular symphony pro gigs now play something that requires a lot less work.

Rick "an amateur who doesn't need ANY tubas" Denney

This is subject matter is of particular interest to me.

I am of the opinion that even pros make compromises in their equipment selection. If by "work" you mean response and intonation issues, many currently popular 6/4 tubas that see lots of high profile orchestral action are no less (and sometimes even more) work to play than an Alexander. I think the shift from Alexanders (in particular) had more to do with a change in sound concept (to more of an Arnold Jacobs sytle of playing) and the development of high quality equipment that took tuba playing in that direction, such as the Yorkbrunner and the 2165. As is the case with nearly any given model of tuba, some Yorkbrunners and 2165s were better than others...some were simply outstanding while others flat out stunk. In fact, 2165s are almost as notorious as Alexanders for being difficult to play. Though I'm sure some pros found these easier to play, many pros flocked to them for the sound.

For example, Matt Good of the Dallas Symphony once told me about his jump from an Alexander to a 2165, saying that the first time he played the 2165 in the orchestra, heads turned and he received comments along the lines of "that's it!" It worked better in the Meyerson and fit better into the sound concept he and the orchestra were going for.

I regularly spend time with a high profile orchestral tubist that is using a Yamaha York. His comments to me regarding the tuba and his experiences with it indicated that he is using it because "artistically" it is closer to what he wants and what the orchestra "needs" and that he does prefer it to his Yorkbrunner, though he did not say because it was easier to play, just that he liked the characteristics of the Yamaha better than the Yorkbrunner. This same pro also regularly plays on a Fafner Bb in the orchestra. Again, his comments were that "artistically" he liked the Fafner for supplementing his contrabass work for things like Wagner, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich because it was the sound he was looking for with a flavor the Yamaha York couldn't provide. He did tell me that he wished the Fafner played a bit more like a Yorkbrunner type instrument because the Fafner is a "difficult" to play, but that he is able to live with the Fafner for its purposes because he does have a Yamaha York and a Yorkbrunner at his disposal for other things.

All this means to me is that even pros make compromises in their equipment selections for a workable combination of sound and playability to suit their situation. Inonation and response issues are something they have to deal with too and just because a particular tuba finds its way into an orchestra doesn't mean that it is easy to play.

Injury relative to playing difficult to use tubas is also an interesting subject, something I'd like to study/read more about. I think there are SO many variables in that one that it would be difficult to lay blame on the equipment.

peter birch wrote:Rick "hoping that's not a note of envy that I detect" Denney

I promise you that I have attained a state of maturity in which I am not envious of anybody for anything, I do consider myself very fortunate to own my own (only) instrument, and not to have to play the 24 year old beaten up instrument that belongs to the band I play in. If I had the resources (including space and a wife of even more infinite patience) then of course I would have one of each size of tuba, including piston and rotary valves.
And of course I realise that pros and perfectionists will want to have the specific instrument for a specific application ( and no, I don't beieve the suggestion was in any way snobbish), even if it only used once in a blue moon, nor do I suggest that anyone should "settle for" anything but the best they can get.
I did say that I am amused by, but not critical of the questions or answers, and I suppose that I hope no one gets put off playing any sort of music in any sort of band because they don't have the perfect instrument.

Sorry Peter but I'm still having difficulty grasping your exact point.
You state "If I had the resources then of course I would have one of each size of tuba, including piston and rotary valves." - yet anyone with more than one instrument has presumably allocated their resources to facilitate the ownership of multiple instruments, sometimes at the expense of other material/luxury goods; that is their choice. I fail to see your point.
Also, I don't see how you can say you are 'amused by' yet 'not critical of' these questions and answers?
To be 'amused by' implies a level of criticism to me at least. Anyway, if you aren't criticising, what's the point of your post?

If you are saying it's daft that some folks try to play a different tuba in every conceivable situation then I think most people here would broadly agree with you, myself included. If however, you're suggesting single-tuba-ownership be the only way to do things, I strongly disagree.

Have you spent much time with anything but your trusty Eb (and no, I'm not including B&H Bb's - sorry AndyC if you're reading this!)??
Perhaps you'll explain your position if only for me, since I'm confused.
Best,
Mal

I understand the point of your original post to be that it is possible to have one tuba and, if played properly, use it in any playing situation. I would tend to agree that it is not necessary to have more than one tuba, but that does not preclude the concept that certain tubas make it easier to provide the sound concept desired for a particular setting.

I have three tubas that I use regularly, a 4/4 BBb, a 5/4 BBb, and a large Eb. As a rank amateur I found it difficult to balance well with a brass quintet even using my 4/4 BBb. I bought an Eb and found it much easier to get the tonal quality that fit with the group. I have the large BBb with a 24" recording bell that I use when playing with large groups outdoors, like on July 4 when I play with an 80+ piece band for a crowd that's usually over 30,000 people. I also have a handful of other tubas that I bought when I was making a lot of money just because I liked them for one reason or another. They get played occasionally, but I still like having them.

I can't speak for professionals, but I still think that it is a reasonable question to ask about which horn people have found to work best with certain pieces. On the other hand asking someone else what horn works for something is like asking someone else to tell you your favorite color. What might work for them is not necessarily right for you. They can provide broad generalities about certain categories of equipment, but the biggest difference in how something plays is still the lump sitting in front of the mouthpiece (which somehow actually supports your original point).

Tom wrote:I am of the opinion that even pros make compromises in their equipment selection. If by "work" you mean response and intonation issues, many currently popular 6/4 tubas that see lots of high profile orchestral action are no less (and sometimes even more) work to play than an Alexander. I think the shift from Alexanders (in particular) had more to do with a change in sound concept (to more of an Arnold Jacobs sytle of playing) and the development of high quality equipment that took tuba playing in that direction, such as the Yorkbrunner and the 2165.

I'll quote again from Mike, who I really hope isn't offended by me quoting things he said to me in some cases 25 years ago, "With the Alex, you can do anything, but you have to do it. With the Yorkbrunner, the thing I had to get used to was to relax and let the horn do the work."

Also, I don't in any way equate a good Yorkbrunner to a 2165. An unattributed quote from a pro this time: "The York was designed to make the most of what a tuba player could provide. The 2165 was designed to make the most of what Warren Deck could provide." Given that the 2165 was at least broadly based on a Holton, and given that I play a Holton, this has made me curious and I've made comparisons in some detail between my Holton and other large tubas of that type. And I've discovered that just because something looks like the CSO York doesn't mean it plays like the next thing that looks like a CSO York. I've played Holtons that were work (for me, at least) to make any sound on, while mine provides a rich, vibrant and colorful sound even with me playing it. I've played Yorkbrunners that seemed to play themselves (including an early hand-made model that I tried out at an ITEC in the middle 80's and still remember with fondness), and I've played them that seemed dead to me. Most 2165's I've played seemed to suck the air right out of me, and I'm sure would need someone who can move buckets of the free stuff to reach anything like their potential. I've played Nirschls that even without a tuner in front of me sounded like a non-Western instrument, and other Nirschls that would sing beautiful if you breathed into them.

Thus, I don't think I can say that all grand orchestral tubas are easier to play than an Alex, but I know that many are. They may not be as capable of tonal variation, but they do what they do with greater ease and efficiency (in terms of product/work). I know they don't get the same effect as an Alex, and I know that the effect they do get is part of the motivation for playing them, but that isn't the whole story. I also know that my Holton is far easier to play than many Holtons, and even than many high-end instruments inspired by the CSO York. It only gets difficult when I try to push it harder than it needs to be pushed (an example of needing to relax and let the horn do the work).

Quoting (loosely) again from Mike on something he wrote on Tubenet a long time ago, he tells the story of having the opportunity to buy his Alex back maybe ten years after he sold it. He described how he played it for about 10 minutes at Powell Hall, during a rehearsal, but then set it aside and went back to the Hirsbrunner. He said it was just too much work, and he was afraid the maestro would really like it and request that he keep playing it.

I don't know if it's possible to make my Miraphone 186 sound like my Holton, but I do know that trying to make it do so would be extraordinarily difficult. That's no knock on the Miraphone--there are things it does more easily than the Holton. Which brings us back to the point of the thread.

Rick "not trying to fight the battle of everyone else in the brass section playing too loudly, but agreeing that it's true" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

peter birch wrote:I promise you that I have attained a state of maturity in which I am not envious of anybody for anything

Well, that puts you ahead about 99% of the population, so I congratulate you.

As far as not discouraging those who only have one instrument from exploring every opportunity, we both agree completely. And we've all been there at one time or another. (Most of us have also wished, even secretly, that we weren't so constrained.)

Rick "sometimes envious, but mostly of ability" Denney

don't be too quick to congratulate me, I may have that bit of my life sorted, but I have a long way to go in others areas.

And for Peach...well, the point is to provoke a discussion such as this. I am a professional educator and live by a principle that there is no such thing as a stupid question, I may be amused by the questions people ask here, but I think that that is far from being critical. Neither would I be critical of anyones choice of what they do with their hard earned resources, nor do I expect anyone else to be critical of mine. As far as owning 1 tuba or multiple tubas go, it is of course none of my business, and I have no comment or critcism for anyone whatever you have.

Rick Denney wrote:
I'll quote again from Mike, who I really hope isn't offended by me quoting things he said to me in some cases 25 years ago, "With the Alex, you can do anything, but you have to do it. With the Yorkbrunner, the thing I had to get used to was to relax and let the horn do the work."

I don't doubt this was the case for him at all. In fact, I have actually played his Alexander (albeit briefly)...that particular Alexander was/is a lot of work to play and I'm sure that Yorkbrunner was easier to play.

Rick Denney wrote: Also, I don't in any way equate a good Yorkbrunner to a 2165. An unattributed quote from a pro this time: "The York was designed to make the most of what a tuba player could provide. The 2165 was designed to make the most of what Warren Deck could provide."

Given that the 2165 was at least broadly based on a Holton, and given that I play a Holton, this has made me curious and I've made comparisons in some detail between my Holton and other large tubas of that type. And I've discovered that just because something looks like the CSO York doesn't mean it plays like the next thing that looks like a CSO York.

I don't think I equated a good Yorkbrunner to a 2165 at all...just cited them as two prominent examples of the sorts of tubas that grew in popularity in the orchestral realm in the 80s and 90s and I beleive it is part of the reason Alexanders fell out of favor. Even the Nirschl could be used as an example. Yes, the Holton 345 (from the 1960s, I believe) was around prior to both of those. I didn't reference the CSO York at all, other than perhaps in passing when I offered up Arnold Jacobs as the sort of playing (and basis for the type of tubas) that I believe helped fuel the 6/4 CC craze. That said, I think there is a legitimate need for a 6/4 CC in the large orchestra setting to be able to keep up with trombones (also playing increasingly larger equipment over the years), trumpets, and horns. Then there is the issue of balancing 60 string players and 4 or 5 percussionists. I have not personally played the CSO Yorks, but those that have tell me that they are no walk in the park either, and that like playing an Alexander, you do it for the sound.

Rick Denney wrote: Thus, I don't think I can say that all grand orchestral tubas are easier to play than an Alex, but I know that many are. They may not be as capable of tonal variation, but they do what they do with greater ease and efficiency (in terms of product/work). I know they don't get the same effect as an Alex, and I know that the effect they do get is part of the motivation for playing them, but that isn't the whole story. I also know that my Holton is far easier to play than many Holtons, and even than many high-end instruments inspired by the CSO York. It only gets difficult when I try to push it harder than it needs to be pushed (an example of needing to relax and let the horn do the work).

I have an Alexander 163 CC in 4 rotors, which is the same configuration as Mike's old Alexander. Much like your particular Holton, my Alexander is a great one and is much, much easier to play than many other Alexanders. Others that have played my Alexander have all said the same thing...an exceptional Alexander. No alternate fingerings necessary, no trombone like slide manipulation, and no cut slides. Not every Alexander is a great tuba. They all have "the sound" to some extent, but some are just plain bad tubas and offer nearly hopeless or uncorrectable intonation problems (which is why they often get cited as examples of difficult tubas), but there are examples of any given tuba model like this. My point was that it is not a problem exclusive to Alexanders and I don't think it is fair to say that Yorkbrunners or Holtons or 2165s, or whatever tubas are necessarily easier to play than any other and that just as with the "Alexander sound," pros have developed an interest in a new sound, not necessarily something anymore user friendly than their previous tuba, even an Alexander.

Rick Denney wrote: Quoting (loosely) again from Mike on something he wrote on Tubenet a long time ago, he tells the story of having the opportunity to buy his Alex back maybe ten years after he sold it. He described how he played it for about 10 minutes at Powell Hall, during a rehearsal, but then set it aside and went back to the Hirsbrunner. He said it was just too much work, and he was afraid the maestro would really like it and request that he keep playing it.

I'm not surprised to hear that (and I remember you posting this before). His particular Alexander was one of the infamous Alexanders that was a lot of work to play and forced you to constantly battle with intonation. I have played it. Sounded great, but was a lot of work. I have not played enough different Alexanders to know if his was "bad" or "ok," but I know what a great Alexander is like, and his wasn't one, in my opinion. If I had to pick between that Alexander and almost anything else, I would pick that something else. That said, I believe this tuba is owned by a very fine tubist in the Dallas area today that is quite happy with it.

Tom wrote:His particular Alexander was one of the infamous Alexanders that was a lot of work to play and forced you to constantly battle with intonation. I have played it. Sounded great, but was a lot of work. I have not played enough different Alexanders to know if his was "bad" or "ok," but I know what a great Alexander is like, and his wasn't one, in my opinion.

I have no basis for rendering an opinion myself, given that I never played it and have zero experience with playing Alexanders in general.

I will note, however, that the general consensus at the time seemed to have been that Mike's Alex was actually rather special as Alexes go. But that's more hearsay. Old Holtons and Alexes probably have both earned reputations for 1.) inconsistency, and 2.) magical properties for the good ones.

Rick "who defends Holton about as vigorously as Tom is defending Alex--'if you find a good one!'" Denney