The problem with a quality instrument...

[iiipopes]

I'm just glad I got my quality instruments, of all types, when I did over the years, as I know I would not now be able to afford them.

[Three Valves]

does the ability to own expensive gear guarantee musicianship?

This is about access and fairness.

Musicianship be dipped!!

[bort]

I agree and guess I'm screwed then -- my last 3 tubas were Rudy Meinl, B&S, and Willson. I kind of fell asss backwards into some very nice horns, so hey, smoke 'em if you got 'em!

[Michael Bush]

I've owned four truly professional quality European tubas.

Bloke did his best to make the tuning slides of one of them line up but there's only so much you can do, even with his skills. Sold it to a college student, but the guy he said was his teacher told me at ITEC he couldn't think of what player or tuba I was talking about.

The second one ended up with a student who is now a professional, making a living with it.

The third I sold to a student who has as good a chance as anyone, and better than most, winning a job.

The fourth I sold to a student about whom the jury is still very much still out.

Meanwhile, having owned all those, I'm playing middling quality tubas in middling quality ensembles. Suits me fine. I know what is better and what is worse, and this arrangement suits me fine.

[Dan Schultz]

The problem with getting to use a truly high quality instrument is that it ruins you for anything less ...... Or just play crap. Then you'll just never know the difference.

+1

I AM NOT a World-class musician but I feel I know the difference between junk horns, tolerable horns, and great horns. I've been fixing these things for about twenty years now and have had the opportunity to play and/or own examples of almost everything 'out there'. I currently use Rudolf Meinl 5/4 BBb as my 'go to horn' for concert ensembles and can honestly say that there are darned few tubas currently on the market that can match it.

[iiipopes]

I agree with Dan - a person should play the best quality horn that can be afforded, whether new or used, domestic or foreign make.

I have played both, as many of us have: high quality instruments that showed my deficiencies as a player, and low quality instruments that my playing had to be adjusted so the instruments' deficiencies would not glare. I much prefer the former, as it gives me something positive to work on - my playing skills.

[roweenie]

I might (for laughs...??) consider renting a car like an old Yugo for local/commuter use for a couple of days, but - had they also made airplanes - I don't believe I would be interested in riding in one of those.

I got a real (although unfortunately, rare) belly laugh out of this statement....

[MaryAnn]

I have a top quality horn (Schmid.) It is easy to play compared to a lot of other horns. But at my level, I screw up enough that having a lesser quality horn would be noticed by me but not likely by the audience. The tone, though, is something else. I like the tone of this horn with me playing it and doubt I could get the same satisfaction out of something lesser. If I want, I can blow the Holtons off their chairs with the Schmid, and cause the percussion to step backwards at times. But that's not really necessary, is it?

[Michael Bush]

should

People are not buying the tubas they "should"? Choosing tubas is clearly too important to be left to individual, rogue tuba players. Tuba players must be held accountable to fulfill their moral obligations when selecting a tuba!

[Three Valves]

I can't make up my mind...

better consult the E.U.!!

[Three Valves]

= "Trigger??"

[bisontuba]

TRIGGER....

[iiipopes]

should

People are not buying the tubas they "should"? Choosing tubas is clearly too important to be left to individual, rogue tuba players. Tuba players must be held accountable to fulfill their moral obligations when selecting a tuba!

"Should," in the context of my post, is to be taken like any other school instrument discussions. Many parents of younger players, and the players themselves, are often lured by "all that glitters is not gold," cheapies instead of a solid, reputable, will last as long as the player, proper instrument.

I stand by my use of the word "should." We would all be better off, myself especially included, if we did more "should" and less "wanna," in all contexts. Yes, especially since a tuba is the anchor of the concert band, a person should be held accountable to fulfill their moral obligations as the instrument selected.

Here comes the rant: I currently play in a variety of ensembles where the respective tuba players simply do not have a clue as to the concept of supporting an ensemble. I'm not talking about the respective musical abilities. In one ensemble, I switched to trumpet because I wanted to play it again. In another, I specifically switched to euph so that I would not have to be in section with the two players that came over from another band that I quit for the same reason. Do I say anything? No. That is all the musical outlet they have, whereas I get to play in as many ensembles as I desire, and have gotten to, and will in the future, get to sing and play in other countries, even other continents. So I quietly leave the tuba section to them instead of fighting a losing battle about such novel concepts as staying on top of the beat with the director's baton, tone, intonation, blend, etc. In other words, playing what I "should" instead of what I "want."

[Three Valves]

Here comes the rant:

You say that as if what preceded it was not a rant!!

[Rick Denney]

Dan makes an excellent and probably the most important point.

You don't have to be a super star to make good use of a good quality instrument.

Boy, that's a relief. It would really suck if tuba players actually had to deserve the instruments they own.

I'm lucky, though patience was a factor. I have owned some very competent instruments, and a few great instruments. But construction quality and greatness are often unrelated, except that bad enough construction can ruin any horn. For me, though, it's about the design.

My Holton was not very well made. But after Joe fixed the things that made it a chore to play (lousy slide alignments, leaky valves), it wouldn't be embarrassed in the company of any BAT. It may not be better than a few that are exceptionally good, but it won't be embarrassed. But fixing it up repair things like the first valve slide being a quarter-inch out of alignment because the nuckle on the valve was never trimmed to be square with the tubing. I'd been playing for 34 years when I found it.

My York Master is unique and interesting, and it certainly ranks among the better piston Bb tubas ever made. But why couldn't they have put a proper taper in the receiver? I think they just forgot. This one came to me after I'd been playing for 29 years.

We must remember that B&S tubas were cheapie second-world imitations of fine West-German tubas like Alexander. But they got the design right, and the construction ranges from competent to excellent. My 6-valve version came to me 42 years after I started playing tuba.

My Yamaha F tuba was the F tuba that budding pros bought when they needed an F tuba but couldn't afford to pay more than the $3000 that the 621 cost when it first came out. But it was one of the great small F tubas. Construction was, like for all Yamahas, competent but not beautiful. I can't think of any other small F tuba that is as playable as the 621. I waited 21 years for an F tuba that really worked for me.

And then there is the Hirsbrunner. That instrument has all the credentials of being as finely made as any tuba, with a price to match. And it plays beautifully. But I've played Hirsbrunner tubas that weren't so impressive, even though they were as well made and as expensive. After 45 years of playing, I was almost too old for it. But I'm getting over that.

Nope, I just can't find that much correlation between price, construction quality, and greatness. Sometimes, it all comes together, but one might have to wait decades for that to happen.

Rick "who bought the first HBS-193 he ever played" Denney

[Ken Herrick]

is that if you own one, you have no excuse for sounding lousy!

[ghmerrill]

OK...

Let's get serious...
no politics / no sarcasm...
#Remington
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHZ7zXLvOkY

Great advice. (Is that sarcasm? Oops.) Just take the 12 ga. outside and fire off two blasts -- never mind where or if some wayward kid has stumbled onto the property, or maybe it's the USGS, or ... (I know he must know better, but sheesh! Also, I'm skeptical that anyone aside from the equivalent of a Spetsnaz team could stumble onto his property. But never mind.)

But there may be a brass instrument allegory in here somewhere ...

Should it be a classic American shotgun, or one of the high-end British or European ones? Or maybe one of the really nice expensive Japanese ones? Italian, maybe?

My wife doesn't care for the 12 ga. recoil. She claims an old rotator cuff injury -- which she claims she got from too aggressive vacuuming decades ago. Sure. A couple of weeks ago she bought what she regards as a more suitable and easier to use perimeter defense tool (mostly for wildlife), more suitable for a lady. Then I convinced her to take back two of the (four!) 30 rnd mags she got with it and replace them with 10 rnd mags. It's good quality. Says "S&W" on it. But to me it seems like something made of Leggos -- since it's a lot of plastic and every part is plug and play. She could have spent about five times as much for one of the high-end European brands (Swiss or German or Austrian), but it suits her needs and inclinations. She likes it and can use it effectively. So I don't think she can be morally condemned for going the cost-effective route.

Seems like the same thing may apply to brass instruments, although I'm sure the old boys sitting around trap and skeet clubs would disagree.

[Michael Bush]

She could have spent about five times as much for one of the high-end European brands (Swiss or German or Austrian), but it suits her needs and inclinations. She likes it and can use it effectively. So I don't think she can be morally condemned for going the cost-effective route.

Seems like the same thing may apply to brass instruments, although I'm sure the old boys sitting around trap and skeet clubs would disagree.

This is exactly my point. Thank you for putting it well.

Here are three all-but-indistinguishable tubas, to a blindfolded player. To a player looking them over carefully, there are a few compromises on the one that costs ~1/3 of the others, though not many. The ones there are can be sorted out in two or three hours of shop time. Which one "should" an amateur buy, who could afford any of them but has other options (as everyone does) for money?

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

In my view, talking about what one "should" own or play in this context is nonsense. To treat it as an unshakeable principle that "a person should play the best quality horn that can be afforded" is arbitrary. People "should" buy and play what makes sense to them. I don't get the need to moralize about it.

[Donn]

"Should" is not necessarily about morality.

You "should" wear eye protection while operating a table saw. Many people don't. That doesn't involve any moral dilemma, but does occasionally involve an eye injury. After the eye injury, the victim may realize "I should have worn eye protection." Or maybe not.

[Donn]

I think I see what you're talking about, but it seems to me both eyes would have had to be injured.