At what point is it a Frankentuba?

[timayer]

So as not to co-opt another thread, I thought I would just start a new one here.

The discussion in the Eastman vs. Wessex vs. BMB 6/4 thread is tending in this direction- At what point is a tuba a Frankentuba? We routinely hear about/see/see for sale instruments formerly owned by pro's where the leadpipe has been changed out, water keys changed out, valves added/removed/altered, etc...If you look at Roger Bobo's old tubas, there were a great deal of changes made. I'd say Warren Deck is pretty well known for having played on Frankentubas. There has been recent discussion about changing leadpipes on old Alexanders. Bloke routinely discusses changing out the leadpipe on a 2155 with a MW45 leadpipe.

So either every horn with an alteration is a Frankentuba, or we need to draw the line somewhere else. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus" target="_blank)

I think the general feeling is that "Frankentuba" is something akin to a tuba constructed out of parts, not a tuba with one or two alterations made to enhance it.

However, as I have been very clear about before: I know next to nothing about constructing horns. So I'll leave it to those that do to figure this out. If anyone wants to.

For my part, I'm playing a Gnagey 4/4 CC right now that definitely fits the bill. I certainly wouldn't refer to it as a "King" or a "Holton." But I don't know if *mumbles incoherently* years ago when I played a 2155 whether I would have considered it a Frankentuba if the leadpipe had been changed out. It still would have been a 2155. However, if I had put a new valve cluster on it, I probably would have.

Anyway. We all seem to have more time to sit and think these days, so enjoy.

[Bill Troiano]

I would think that most of what players have done to their tubas would be considered modifications. That is, swapping out smaller parts for another or adding something, but that doesn’t change what the original tuba was. To me, a Frankentuba would be an instrument that was totally changed from what its parts originally were. A tuba with any combination of a new valve section, or a bell section or any tuba cut from its original key to put it into a higher key, would be a Frankentuba.

[iiipopes]

Frankentuba? Any time a significant structural element is changed. (OK - argue) For example, my 186 has a Besson bell. I call that a frankentuba. Many old tubas have had worn out valve sections replaced instead of the pistons replated, refitted and otherwise repaired - frankentuba. Gnagny has made an art of rebuilding tubas of different King, York, and other parts - frankentubas.

What I would not call a frankentuba: rotary tubas where the "S" linkages have been changed to dubro or mini-ball; reconfiguration to address a glaring design flaw (like the Jupiter 582 - that second valve slide needs to be angled up to avoid water collection); modifications to make the tuba play better (as modifying the upper loop on the 1st valve circuit of a souzy to "ride throttle" for intonation); and so forth.

[timayer]

Bringing all of my reading and analytical abilities to bear on your post, I have come to the following conclusion: I can call my MW182 with a replacement water key a BAT Frankentuba.

I feel like this is what you were saying

In all seriousness, thank you for the very detailed thoughts.

[Rick Denney]

I agree with Wade. A Frankentuba defies a brand/model designation, because too many important parts came from different brands or models.

If the new valve body is configured just like the old one, it’s not a Franken, it’s a restoration. If upright valves and a .656 bore are replaced with a .750 valve body from a different instrument, it’s a Franken. If a bell from an old Miraphone 186 is put on a new Miraphone 186, it’s not a Franken, because “Miraphone 186” still works.

A Beuscher Bb body with Meinl valves and a York Monster Eb bell, converted to C, is a Franken.

I don’t agree that it’s about craftsmanship, though the early examples (I’m thinking of Carl Kleinstuber’s webpage from 20 years back) were more about making it work than making it pretty. A Franken may or may not be restored in the process.

The CSO York is not a Franken because the lead pipe was changed, or because Hirsbrunner overhauled and restored it after shipping damage. The objective of that overhaul was to make it like it was, not to make it into something significantly new.

And on Wade’s BAT comment, the only rotary tuba that I think earns that appellation is the 6/4 Rudi. The tall and large rotary tubas may be called a 5/4, but their makers often call them “kaisertubas”. My HBS-193 is described asa kaisertuba by Hirsbrunner. It’s just about as big as my Holton, but only the Holton is the BAT of that pair.

Rick “laughing at the idea that a pro-level BAT frankentuba can be consistently had for the price claimed in that other thread, anecdotes notwithstanding” Denney

[roweenie]

How about a horn that uses components from the same manufacturer, although different physical instruments?




Every component is original York except for the mouthpipe, 5th valve, and the odd piece of straight tubing.

Many of the old American manufacturers built custom instruments that weren't found in their catalogs that we wouldn't consider to be Frankenhorns - if it could have existed, is that close enough?

And, when using newly manufactured components on an in-tact bugle, when does it stop being a "conversion" and start becoming a "Frankentuba"? Or, are there different categories of "Frankentubas"?

Would you consider this work of art a "Frankentuba"?

[Matt G]

I made a post a little while back using the term...

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3744&start=20" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Here’s an imgur link to the horn in question:





I currently own this horn:



This would likewise qualify as a “Frankentuba” yet I don’t think anyone would necessarily call it that. It’s a “prototype” in spirit of the Eastman 632 and extremely well built by Matt Walters. It looks like it was design from the ground up to be what it is. You have to look closely to see that it’s made from different parts from different manufacturers.

So it would seem that the Frankentuba term requires some additional subtleties.

[Rick Denney]

How about a horn that uses components from the same manufacturer, although different physical instruments?




Every component is original York except for the mouthpipe, 5th valve, and the odd piece of straight tubing.

Many of the old American manufacturers built custom instruments that weren't found in their catalogs that we wouldn't consider to be Frankenhorns - if it could have existed, is that close enough?

And, when using newly manufactured components on an in-tact bugle, when does it stop being a "conversion" and start becoming a "Frankentuba"? Or, are there different categories of "Frankentubas"?

Would you consider this work of art a "Frankentuba"?

I think it's a Frankentuba, simply because the assembly wasn't trying to re-create something the manufacturer made, but rather to make something the manufacturer never made. What made Yorks Yorks was at least in part in the mind of Pop Johnson, and an assembly of York parts is perhaps modeling what was in his mind, but that makes it a simulation of his thinking, not a restoration of it.

I know a guy who makes modern violins to a very high level. He has the training, experience, and intellectual credentials to imitate the classical makers (Strad, Guarneri, Amati, etc.). I once asked him his goal, and he said that Stradivarius made violins of 15 different designs over his career. His goal is to understand those 15 designs so well that he can make the 16th. These are not Strads--these are simulations, and the last one would be a projection. Now, would it be any different if he found a Strad boneyard and took a belly from one pile, a back from another pile, the neck from still another pile, and so on? It would still not be a Strad, it would be a model or simulation of a Strad made using Strad parts. Now, when those parts from one instrument are found in an attic, and my friend reassembles them into something that once existed, that is a restoration, not a simulation, even if he gets some things wrong and even if he has to replace a few parts. All Strads were one-offs, so I don't see that as a determinant.

Rick "alternative history may be realistic, but it's still fiction" Denney

[bort]

This is a real Franken tuba:

[bort]

Also, don't forget... "Frankenstein" is the person who created the monster, not the name of the monster itself.

[timayer]

Also, don't forget... "Frankenstein" is the person who created the monster, not the name of the monster itself.

A poignent reminder. So Joe, Wade, Tabor, and Terry were FrankenTuba all along.

MYSTERY SOLVED.

[Rick Denney]

...
This would likewise qualify as a “Frankentuba” yet I don’t think anyone would necessarily call it that. It’s a “prototype” in spirit of the Eastman 632 and extremely well built by Matt Walters. It looks like it was design from the ground up to be what it is. You have to look closely to see that it’s made from different parts from different manufacturers.

So it would seem that the Frankentuba term requires some additional subtleties.

Wade's point was that the term emerged before Matt became famous for his creations. But I don't think the term is pejorative. Frankenstein's monster was a monster, sure enough, but the monster was also seven feet tall and much stronger than a human. So, it was in some ways an improvement, and in other ways, not so much. But even if the craftsmanship made it appear like the real thing, it would still be something out of the mind of Dr. Frankenstein.

Matt has the skills and understanding to make tubas from scratch, but not the interest, tooling, funding, or time. So, he uses parts from other instruments. That makes those instruments a Frankenstein, but certainly not a monster. It's a prototype if it is used as the basis for production, and some of his creations certainly were. But being a prototype doesn't make it not a Frankenstein. But think of how good Dr. Frankenstein might have gotten had he made 15 monsters instead of one. As it happens, he made two (the Monster and his Bride). I wonder if Matt's first or second such assembly was as good as the ones he used as a prototype for the Eastman 632.

Also, I can think of a certain Holton recreation that presented as one of the most beautiful tubas of that type I've ever seen (in pictures, at least). But neither its creator nor subsequent players thought it had really solved any design problems common to the breed. I can also think of a slapped-together Frankentuba that Larry Minnick assembled, now owned (I hope, still) by Chuck Guzis, that used a Keefer bell and a range of other parts. It looked rather terrible, but played gorgeously. So, looking like a factory creation does not seem to me the same thing as being a factory creation.

But I can totally understand not wanting to call one of Matt's projects a Frankentuba.

Rick "manufacturers buy parts from each other, too" Denney

[timayer]

I have never considered "Frankentuba" to be pejorative, nor have I ever understood it to be used that way. If anything, it has always denoted some sense of fun and creativity.

[Rick Denney]

I have never considered "Frankentuba" to be pejorative, nor have I ever understood it to be used that way. If anything, it has always denoted some sense of fun and creativity.

Rick "yup." Denney

[Matt G]

I wasn’t trying to say “Frankentuba” was a pejorative term but rather had an essence about it of being somewhat “home grown”, as pointed out above.

Some people will take the necessary time to make an amalgamated tuba look like it’s made from a single piece. Others do what is necessary to make it playable and deem that sufficient.

Either way it’s the person who is paying that deems which is more desirable.

[roweenie]

I think it's a Frankentuba, simply because the assembly wasn't trying to re-create something the manufacturer made, but rather to make something the manufacturer never made. What made Yorks Yorks was at least in part in the mind of Pop Johnson, and an assembly of York parts is perhaps modeling what was in his mind, but that makes it a simulation of his thinking, not a restoration of it.

I'm reticent to split hairs (and I'm assuming your comment applies to both horns I posted above) but this statement implies that you are privy to information that none of the rest of us have.

That first horn that I pictured above (which I built, BTW), is in essence a 4 valve side-action model 91. We happen to know for fact they made 3 valve versions, because we have pictures and surviving examples, but I've never seen one in any catalog. Just because no one alive today has ever seen a 4 valve version doesn't mean it didn't exist - we would need the York records to prove that (or disprove it), which we just don't have.

The Chicago CC Yorks never showed in any catalogs either, nor will we ever know whether or not they ever made a BB flat version configured that way. Not likely, but we can't just make a blanket statement saying it didn't exist, because we just don't know (although, granted, this one is certainly less likely than the one I built).

(I actually have my suspicions that the valvesets on those Chicago Yorks weren't even made in-house, which opens up a whole new can of worms.....)

FWIW, here's my version of what that might have looked like - I just completed it a few weeks ago:

[Matt G]

roweenie, those are some nice looking builds. Thanks for sharing!

[Matt G]

I alter every instrument that I personally own, until I am convinced that the results are the best the basic design can produce for me, and that the basic design has reached its full potential.

...The mechanism is 90% complete, but I still haven’t done the last 10% on the left hand #2 slide trigger on my F cimbasso that I built.

Having just played the Hebrew slaves chorus from “Nabucco” with that instrument, I was reminded that there is still work left to be done.

Don’t forget to cryogenically treat the bell.












/s

[Ace]

A few years ago, I sold my Conn 52J CC tuba to a guy in New Jersey. He told me that when he picked it up at the Amtrak terminal he immediately took it to Alan Baer's workshop and had some tweaking done. He did not specify what was done. I've never been clear on what "tweaking" involves, but is it possible that some tweaking might lead to creation of a Frankentuba?

Ace

[Donn]

Frankenstein made his monster out of parts, such that no part formed the majority. If that 52J is still mostly the same 52J that left your hands, it's only a Tweakentuba.