cjk wrote:Let's say all RickBATs have a 6th partial F that is 25 cents sharp. Let's say all BlokeBATs have a fifth partial D that's 25 cents flat. Let's say those are facts. Are RickBAT and BlokeBAT owners really that sensitive that they take offense when those facts are mentioned?
I'll leave that to you to decide. But I do notice that when someone exposes the faults in very high-end instruments (some of which have risen to the ranks of mythical), those who "know better", including owners, friends of owners, students of owners, and admirers of owners, do seem to come to their defense as if it was an attack on their person. I would agree that this is neither necessary not completely rational. And that's what makes it similar to political discussions.
But I think you are making too much of Joe's joke about having ventured into "political" terrain. It seemed to me that he was actually making a satirical observation, that discussions about specific models seem to resemble political discussions in that they often devolve into hurt feelings and injured pride. But having made that observation, he was open to speak a little more TRVTH, at least from his perspective, which he did.
We have revered the CSO York and some of its copies to the point where any complaint about it or them is seen as an attack on their designers/owners/defenders. That's silly, of course. I played one of those early 2165's, and frankly I could not make a sound on it. I'm sure that was my own limitation--Lee Hipp didn't seem to have the same trouble when he auditioned (unsuccessfully as I recall) the same instrument with the SA Symphony. Another top pro summed it up well for that instrument: the York was described by Jacobs as making the most of what the player had to offer, while the 2165 was designed to make the most of what
Warren Deck had to offer. Assuming my Holton is more like the York (a grand assumption, of course, and at least partly at odds with the development history of the 2165, which is, of course, the subject of this thread), I would say that I know what that means. Based on my own experiences playing them, some of the big tubas magnify, and some subdue. Those that subdue can be overcome, and perhaps with great success, but only by making great demands on the abilities of the performer. Those that magnify aren't as demanding, but also are reportedly not as flexible. With them, you have to relax and let the horn do the work, as one top pro described it to me. You get what you get with them.
Now, let me venture into very dangerous waters: It has been observed to me by at least one top pro that those instruments that have to be subdued seem to be associated with players who have had later troubles with such ailments as focal dystonia, perhaps because of the work required to play them well. That top pro did not mention any names at all, and left it as a general observation. I report that for what it's worth without personal knowledge. But the source was highly credible, though you'll have to take my word for that.
I like my Holton because it magnifies what I give it, with a result that never fails to give me a thrill. It's one of two tubas I own that I always thank myself for buying every time I blow a note on it (the other one is a Yamaha 621 F tuba). I've played some big tubas that did that, including one Yorkbrunner, a couple of 6450's, and a couple of Rusk-converted Yorks. (They may have had other weakness that I am not skilled enough to observe.) I have played many big tubas, including some with unassailable pedigrees (and from the same sources as above), that did not. Many of my play tests, though not all, by any means, were made in a big, relatively quiet room, and in direct comparison with my Holton.
Rick "thinking that what makes something political in the modern sense is how people respond to it" Denney
