VMI Mel Culbertson Neptune=King Daddy?

The bulk of the musical talk
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 6650
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:18 am
Contact:

Post by Rick Denney »

TubaTuck wrote:Hey Rick:

Great info. I'd love an opportunity to play that behemoth..OH! I forgot...I don't know how to play a CC! I'm gonna learn though.

So, what's the story on these "Nirschl" Yorks? Who actually makes them? Who sells them. Its my understanding that this was an attept to copy the York that Jacobs played with the CSO? Is this true. Were they successful. You ever play one?

Tuck
Nirschl is made by Walter Nirschl, who bought the Boehm and Meinl factory in 1991. Nirschl had a fling with Boosey and Hawkes, and has supplied parts to other manufacturers as well.

The big Nirschl is a copy of York #2, which Floyd Cooley measured for Nirschl to use during the period when he subbed in the Chicago Symphony (Arnold Jacobs sold both of the instruments to the CSO between his retirement and passing).

There are other copies of the Yorks, too. Holton was perhaps the first copy with the Model 345. It's different enough from the York to have it's own personality. The York-model (HB-50) Hirsbrunner was the first high-end copy of the York, and has been in production with a few changes since the early 80's when it first came out. Yamaha has just come out with a York copy, the 826-CC.

The Meinl-Weston 2165 was originally inspired by a Holton copy of a York, and has undergone a long evolution since the middle 80's when it came out. The 2265 is the current version, and now M-W has introduced even newer models.

All of these have their roots in the Monster BBb Bass offered by most of the big-name American makers in the first half of the 20th Century. Conn had the 36J Orchestra Grand Bass back in the 30's, for example. I think it was that instrument that led to the use of "grand orchestral tuba" as a general term for relatively short but extremely fat tubas with front-action pistons.

I have played most of the grand orchestral tubas at one time or another. I believe my battered old BBb Holton stands up to most of them. The one Nirschl I tried did not move me, but you can't judge by two minutes in the Elephant Room of a conference, and also these beasts are often as different within a brand as they are across brands. I have been really impressed by some of the conversions of old BBb Yorks into modern front-action tubas. The one big Conn that I owned had intonation challenges that were beyond me.

The Grand Orchestral tuba has been quite popular with some orchestral tuba players, even going back to the 20's and 30's. The York, for example, was made for Philip Donatelli of the Philadelphia Orchestra. This influence countered the 4/4 rotary tuba made popular even earlier by August Helleberg and then reinforced by Bill Bell. The rotary-tuba influence was stronger even then, and grew in strength up to perhaps the 70's, when the Yorkbrunner came out. At that time, the trend has gone the other way, to grand orchestral tubas instead of smaller rotary tubas. And the two influences have mixed producing such hybrid instruments as the VMI Neptune.

The general trend in all orchestras has been to larger and louder equipment. This is true with all instruments.

The Germans have always used big BBb rotary tubas in their orchestras as a specialty instrument. Their main instrument is an F tuba. The biggest Rudolf Meinl BBb tubas grew out of that tradition. They share the same roots as the rotary tubas popular in America. Their response to the trend for bigger stuff has been to upsize the standard rotary tuba rather than adopt the American-style grand orchestral tuba.

All this is a generalization, of course. There are some American orchestras whose player do not use really big equipment, and many who still use the traditional 4/4-5/4 rotary tuba. And there are some European orchestras going to the American design.

Rick "doing his part to feed Tuck's tuba fever" Denney
Naptown Tuba
bugler
bugler
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:34 pm
Location: Indy

Post by Naptown Tuba »

Tuba Tuck Wrote:
Great info. I'd love an opportunity to play that behemoth..OH! I forgot...I don't know how to play a CC! I'm gonna learn though.
Tuck, It's NOT a CC, it's a BBb.
Gnagey/King Satin Silver CC
User avatar
averagejoe
bugler
bugler
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: Atascadero, CA

Post by averagejoe »

I once played a Neptune 4098 and a pt6 side by side. The pt6 had a warmer sound, while the neptune seemed mushy. Of course these observations aren't completely fair because I didn't play either very long, but I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents and say that culbertsons creation is not a king daddy (although I wouldn't turn one down if the price was missing some k's)
User avatar
averagejoe
bugler
bugler
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: Atascadero, CA

Post by averagejoe »

they were both rotary
Michael Woods
bugler
bugler
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:40 pm
Location: San Antonio

Post by Michael Woods »

I got a chance to play Lee Hipps Neptune today and boy do I like the way his horn blows.

. . . . . . . . . .


Well I like everything about that horn.

He is currently playing some of the Laskey mouthpieces on it. Sounds real nice.
User avatar
Lew
5 valves
5 valves
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:57 pm
Location: Annville, PA

Post by Lew »

Tom wrote:Look here:

http://www.tubameister.com/4sale.htm


It's a 6/4 Rudy Meinl BBb custom built tuba.

I haven't the slightest idea how it plays. As close as I've ever got was a 5/4 Rudy Meinl CC that I used to have...hardly the same.
I tried this a few times earlier this year at the USABTEC. It is as large as it looks! In many ways it is effortless to play, meaning the response is very quick and intonation seemed very good. OTOH, I found myself wanting bigger lungs aftger playing it for a while. That may be due to my being used to playing on 0.689" bore horns (Besson 983 and King 2341) vs. the 0.870" bore through the valves of this thing. The bore increases very quickly through the tuning slide, with the far side of the tuning slide being over an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful piece of workmanship and great sounding tuba, but too much tuba for an amateur like me. I was still tempted to buy it but couldn't justify the money for something that I probably wouldn't use taht much. I would think it could be called the "King Daddy" of tubas available today, whatever that means.
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 6650
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:18 am
Contact:

Post by Rick Denney »

DP wrote:Coupla/three comments:
1) I believe it was "York number 1" that was sent to Hirsbrunner for copying, but it was in the mid-80's.
2) The Holton 345 is not really a York copy at all, but it is a large horn designed to a great extent to Arnold Jacob's specification when he received sponsorship money from Holton in the 50's and 60's. It is similar to the Yorks, but taller and of all the big horns discussed has the most characteristically-unique sound.
3) The MW 2165 "project" started in 1991, there was one "copy" based on a Holton factory CC made in 1972, subsequent horns went through constant major as well as minor design changes. I don't think there's ever been 10 2165's in a row (out of hundreds!) built exactly the same!
1. Yup.

2. The 345 was made for Jacobs to use with the Holton-sponsored Chicago Symphony Brass Quintet. And my understanding was that Jacobs was interested in an available instrument similar to his York that he could recommend to his students. It was certainly modeled on the York, even if it wasn't a copy, per se. The valve tubing arrangements are very similar, and quite different from older front-action Holtons that I've seen. But Holton used their own mandrels for the outer branches and bell.

3. The 2165 introduction was later than I remembered, but '91 still sounds right. I lived in San Antonio at the time, and Orpheus was an importer. I played one of the first ones they brought into the U.S., and at that stage of my development I could barely make any sound at all on it. Now that I've been playing the Holton, the 2165's seem a lot more accessible to me.

Rick "whose Holton has a colorful sound that the 2165 requires much more skill to create" Denney
User avatar
chronolith
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by chronolith »

Having owned and performed on both (Culbertson Neptune and PT6), I will affirm two things said before:

1. If you can find a good Neptune - it is a great horn. My previous Neptune was without a doubt the most nimble and quick responding 6/4 I have EVER played. I do miss it, but having had some back problems, the distribution of the weight (not the weight itself) was proving to be a bit of a problem for me. The horn was a rotary and it was a much smoother player than the piston Neptunes by far. It had some quirky tuning problems but nothing good ears and good habits won't fix. It is not a diffucult horn to justify purchase given the price, but make sure you know the difference between a good horn and a great horn before you commit to a Neptune. Also make sure you have a good horn for smaller ensembles. The Neptune is NOT appropriate for some situations.

2. The PT6 has a well deserved reputation. It is my main horn these days. Extremely versatile and right at home in just about any group. I could go on and on...

At the end of the day I would choose a PT6 over a Neptune easily. I would choose to own a Neptune if I was a collector of horns and I would use it (and without reservation) in certain orchestral situations where it would be best applied.

Consider your needs first and don't get sucked into the idea that bigger is better.

P.S. I contacted a few people while I owned the Neptune about getting the spatulas replaces with ones that didn't have designs on them. I thought the floral patterns were a bit much!
User avatar
chronolith
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by chronolith »

The spatulas wasn't enough for me to NOT play the horn certainly, but if I had my choice I would take flat and smooth.

Totally about taste. Didn't affect performance in any way!

I always wondered why you don't get some different spatula designs out in the world. Maybe a set that are slightly spooned? Or a set engraved with images of famous tuba players or Mt. Rushmore or something...
Post Reply