TubeNet

So...when does a tuba stop being its original make and model? Often times as players
find older tubas they make changes to the original instrument. We change bells, add
valves, change out valve clusters, change leadpipes. So when does a Holton, a Martin
stop being and becomes the Frankentuba?

My tubas keep tight reign on there identity. They won't loose they're identity until some major part comes lose.
(Sic)

Similar questions have been debated by other hobby groups such as old car restorers and such. Although less of an issue for us because we don't have show competitions, I suggest that when you change an integral part of the tuba with a part that is not from the original manufacture ( or a part designed as original equipment), you have created a frankentuba. For example, replacing valve buttons, adding a rod to help slide pulling, replacing the lead pipe with factory or secondary market replacement, replacing tubing with the same thing (size, etc), or refinishing the horn is not something that changes the identity of the horn. Replacing the bell, valve set, or other major component with one from another brand is a degradation of the identity. Adding a valve is up for debate.

opus37 wrote:Similar questions have been debated by other hobby groups such as old car restorers and such. Although less of an issue for us because we don't have show competitions, I suggest that when you change an integral part of the tuba with a part that is not from the original manufacture ( or a part designed as original equipment), you have created a frankentuba. For example, replacing valve buttons, adding a rod to help slide pulling, replacing the lead pipe with factory or secondary market replacement, replacing tubing with the same thing (size, etc), or refinishing the horn is not something that changes the identity of the horn. Replacing the bell, valve set, or other major component with one from another brand is a degradation of the identity. Adding a valve is up for debate.

Yeah, this the answer.

How about taking parts from various different horns of the same manufacture and bringing them together to form a model that never originally existed?

If the parts are not from the same model horn, the tuba has still lost its identity. It will not be either of the models that the parts are from. So, it might still be a Besson, but not one of the models that it started as.

My opinion: if you have to explain what it is, or what it's made out of... it has lost its original identity and gained a new one.

I think it is an issue for both, but as a player, I would hate to think I'm buying say a 345 and then find out that the guts of the horn are from something else.

bloke wrote:It this an issue to collectors or to players?

Sellers. It's a whole lot easier to sell a tuba that IS something, instead of selling something that is "like" something, or "the same as... except..."

That said, after an identity is established, that problem goes away. I'm sure at one point, the Gnagey CC needed constant explanation that it's a King 2341, cut to CC, and with an old York bell attached to it. It was a successful product and it now has an identity of its own, so now when we talk about a Gnagey tuba, we all know what it is.

roweenie wrote:How about taking parts from various different horns of the same manufacture and bringing them together to form a model that never originally existed?

Back "in the day", if you had the status (and the cash), you could go to C.G. Conn, or Frank Holton, or "Pop" Johnson, or whatever, and say "I want this, even though it doesn't exist in your catalog" (think "Chicago York", or "Helleberg rotary CC"), and presto, you'd get a horn.

What's the difference, other than who soldered the parts together?

eupher61 wrote:there identity

eupher61 wrote:they're identity

I guess it's true about the 3rd time being a charm..........you almost made it!
their identity

Untersatz wrote:

eupher61 wrote:there identity

eupher61 wrote:they're identity

I guess it's true about the 3rd time being a charm..........you almost made it!
their identity

Thus showing the truth of the notion that the best humor will be completely missed by some.

Well, yes, but the humor was aimed specifically at those of us who know right away that "loose" is wrong in that usage, and while you might guess that anyone who'd notice the "their" misspellings would be in that crowd, it isn't a given. For today's pedantic message: "lose" is the way something gets lost. "Loose" makes it "loosed", generally involves reins or tethers or something, and hardly ever is applied to anything but hounds.

To the subject, even if it's just the valve caps or something, modifications might as well be reported to prospective buyers.

jsmn4vu wrote:

Untersatz wrote:

eupher61 wrote:there identity

eupher61 wrote:they're identity

I guess it's true about the 3rd time being a charm..........you almost made it!
their identity

Thus showing the truth of the notion that the best humor will be completely missed by some.

+1

______

Funny Thread.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Probably not dealt with in most music theory courses. Maybe they should rethink that.

ghmerrill wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus" target="_blank

Probably not dealt with in most music theory courses. Maybe they should rethink that.

Nuts-and-bolts meets philosophy....

That's what makes topics like this so interesting (to me).

Just remember, intellectual and intelligent are not the same thing.

bloke wrote:Who needs more than three valves?

We really do need a "like" button.

ghmerrill wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Probably not dealt with in most music theory courses. Maybe they should rethink that.

Not if the discussion found at that link is any indication of what they'd be able to do with it.

The meaning of words isn't like the laws of nature, something you can sort out by sufficient thought and experimentation. If you want to know the answer to questions like this, the key is to find out why people ask them. Hence "are you a collector", etc. Or the safe answer, since in generally you don't really know why someone would ask, is any modification makes it not original.

The use of an "illustrative" example like Theseus' boat is just a way to make an easy question unanswerable - since we don't know why anyone would care, any position is defensible. Sort of a "make work" program for philosophers.