What is Cutting a tuba?

[Sam Gnagey]

I've just finished writing an article for the ITEA Journal on my process of building CC tubas. It may appear in the next edition.
Sam

[tbonesullivan]

Most of the "cut" tubas I see on the secondary market (yes I browse a ton) are BBb cut to C, often York, but other makers as well. I wouldn't consider them really "cut" unless the key of the instrument has been change. Valve block and top to front action conversions are usually not labeled as "cut", but as "converted", and as mentioned before, a lot are done simply because the original valves are shot and/or not really suitable for modern playing. There's only so far you can get with 3 valve top action BBb or Monster Eb.

In the trombone world, the only "cut" horns usually heard about are Alto trombones made from small bore tenor trombones. Larry Minick was one who did a bunch of those, as well as many other great things before he passed away at the relatively young age of 55.

[Wyvern]

I made an instrument like this... Size of a marching baritone, but in the key of E-flat. It was the body and bell from a marching baritone, a bunch of extra tubing from a couple of baritones (for the valve tubing), a custom receiver (made by Kanstul) to accept a tuba mouthpiece, and most of the inner branches of a Conn 10J tuba (plus some of its valve tubing for the instrument's main tuning slide). Worked wonderfully!



It probably wouldn't be that difficult to swap in a slightly larger rotary valve section (like .600" maybe a tad larger - mine only had a .560") and reroute the leadpipe somewhere else for a front action instrument.

Was that not rather heavy to hold up for any length of time?

[roweenie]

Nice build, Kiltie!

As to cutting a BB flat to an E flat, I don't see that as being a viable project, unless there is a LOT of cylindrical tubing involved - you would have to lose roughly FIVE FEET of tubing to make it happen.

I don't have a lot of experience in cutting horns (actually, none, as I don't believe in it) - all the projects I've worked on are really better described as "conversions" (top-to-side action, remaining in the same key).

The valveset, in my experience, takes the most actual amount of physical time to shorten from BBb to CC. The shortening of the bows, though, (allowing the valveset to properly nestle, and in a user-friendly location) requires the most head-scratching time.

......the Holton 345 is additionally a "special case" because the BBb version actually has "room"..... to add a 5th rotor

According to my experiences, this is true, except I'd add that ANY conversion from top to side action presents a challenge in the layout of the branches, and I'll add that once you've got the layout all planned, it can be a challenge to get the valveset to nestle properly AND in PARALLEL to the completed bugle assembly.

There are some BB flat tubas, however, that lend themselves pretty easily to this job. This was the happy circumstance I had with the horn linked to below:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=75487&start=20#p607416" target="_blank

It was accomplished with no compromising of the taper of its branches.

[Three Valves]

Was that not rather heavy to hold up for any length of time?

That's what a tuba bearer is for!!

[GC]

Along those lines: http://www.bassethoundmusic.com/fluba.html

[happyroman]

Bob Rusk used to specialize in cutting BBb Yorks to CC tubas. If you go to Mike Grose's TubaPeople TV on Youtube, there are two very nice interviews with Mr. Rusk, one on his studies with Arnold Jacobs and one on York tubas (and his experience cutting them). If memory serves, he said that he was aware of 12 CC York tubas (from the factory). He also said that the mandrels at the York factory were made for BBb tubas (it was likely too expensive to have two sets, one in each key), and in order to produce a CC tuba, they used the BBb mandrels and cut it to CC. Mr. Rusk wanted a York CC for use in the Milwaukee Symphony, and since factory CCs were rare, and BBbs were plentiful, he decided to start with a BBb and cut it to CC.

[tbonesullivan]

That is interesting, but probably rather common in the industry. I wonder how many CC conversions Rusk did. The cut down yorks I have seen were all by him, except for one by Bob Schelp, which is at Dillon Music right now.

It is a shame that all the brass they trimmed off was discarded. Lately there have been a lot of people analyzing brass from older instruments to see the composition, and how things have changed.

[roweenie]

He also said that the mandrels at the York factory were made for BBb tubas (it was likely too expensive to have two sets, one in each key), and in order to produce a CC tuba, they used the BBb mandrels and cut it to CC.

I'd be curious to know where Mr. Rusk learned this information, but now that he's gone, unless he quoted a source somewhere, we may never know.

My theory (which may very likely jibe with Mr. Rusk's story) is that I suspect York used BB flat high-pitch top-action (early, pre-1910) tuba mandrels to build their CC tubas. This would result in minimal (if no) cutting required.

The CC horn I built that I referenced earlier in this thread was a product of just this.

These high pitch horns are frequently "cut" to CC to this day, as they are a relatively easy conversion. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the CB-50 tuba is copied from one of those conversions.

[The Big Ben]

He also said that the mandrels at the York factory were made for BBb tubas (it was likely too expensive to have two sets, one in each key), and in order to produce a CC tuba, they used the BBb mandrels and cut it to CC.

I'd be curious to know where Mr. Rusk learned this information, but now that he's gone, unless he quoted a source somewhere, we may never know.

My theory (which may very likely jibe with Mr. Rusk's story) is that I suspect York used BB flat high-pitch top-action (early, pre-1910) tuba mandrels to build their CC tubas. This would result in minimal (if no) cutting required.

The CC horn I built that I referenced earlier in this thread was a product of just this.

These high pitch horns are frequently "cut" to CC to this day, as they are a relatively easy conversion. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the CB-50 tuba is copied from one of those conversions.

Here is a youtube video of a interview with Mr. Rusk where he discusses York tubas, York's construction methods and how he went about creating the cut tuba. There is another video in the series where Mr. Rusk is interviewed about Arnold Jacobs.

https://youtu.be/TE6E2Ne_D5k" target="_blank

[roweenie]

That's a very interesting video - thank you for sharing it!

I think I need to be a little more clear in what I was saying earlier - my theory didn't apply to the "two-off" 6/4 "Chicago" Yorks (which, I gather from that interview, Mr. Rusk was referring to), but specifically to the remaining "ten-off" 4/4 CC Yorks, and how they might have been made.

I'm basing my assumption on the practical possibility that York would use existing, no-longer-useful high pitch BB flat mandrels to build a 4/4 tuba pitched in CC, rather than fabricating new mandrels for that purpose, or using low pitch mandrels, only to then cut two feet out of its taper.

[Slamson]

I have to agree that for the most part cutting a tuba is a risky, and seldom profitable thing to do. On the other hand, my old teacher, Art Hicks had a Cerveny BB-flat with string valves cut to a CC and it was really great. But then, I think it was Cliff Blackburn who did the cutting.

I'm surprised that Lee Stopfer hasn't chimed in on this thread! He lives for this stuff!!!!!

[joh_tuba]

Any guess what Mr. Rusk said was the reason Jacobs never bought an HB-50 that they had to bleep out at the 18:30 mark?