Lexus verses Duesenberg

[LoyalTubist]

I go for the 1926 Martin recording bass, myself.

[Onebaplayer]

Which one has a better picture stamped on it? Do either have a different color lacquer?

[Rick Denney]

The older ophicleide has thicker brass and an ivory mouthpiece, but the newer, "improved" ophicleide only has a plastic one and has very thin-walled brass. The "classic" ophicleide is hand built and has a really great tone (for an ophicleide) whereas last year's "re-created" one has improved key work and some improvements in tone hole placement.

Which one would you choose and why?

Which should I choose, an original Gautrot ophicleide, a dead parrot, or a horsechestnut tree?

Rick "the Larch" Denney

[Rick Denney]

...that I'm not sure I'd call those instruments "Holton-made" anymore.

Part of the charm of a Holton is the gross inconsistency brought about by guys who built them because they were not good enough to build the more profitable Farkas-model horns. It makes the search for a good one that much more interesting.

A Holton that has been Oberlohed achieves a life far grander than its humble beginnings. Holtons are blue-collar. Dan dresses them up in a tux and teaches them to say "the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain."

I prefer my Holton to a Yorkbrunner partly because it was available in BBb, but mostly for about, oh, 16,000 additional reasons. It's good that I also prefer the sound, but in the end it doesn't really matter. There was no romance in the decision.

As appealing as it would be to have Dan turn the Holton into an artwork, I think I'd be just as happy to iron out the dents, shorten the first valve, do a good valve job, and make the slides move the way I want them to. It seems appropriate to have a few scars and three different styles of water keys. And I'll never be willing to spend what it takes to turn it into Hungarian royalty.

The correct comparison isn't Lexus versus Deusenberg, but rather Mercedes versus a '57 Chevy.

Rick "who oiled his way across the floor, oozing charm from every pore" Denney

[iiipopes]

Which is more desirable? The commercially produced high end tuba or the classic tuba that has been professionally restored?

The answer to your question is, "Yes."

[windshieldbug]

Lexus verses Duesenberg

The older ophicleide has thicker brass and an ivory mouthpiece, but the newer, "improved" ophicleide only has a plastic one and has very thin-walled brass. The "classic" ophicleide is hand built and has a really great tone (for an ophicleide) whereas last year's "re-created" one has improved key work and some improvements in tone hole placement

Depends on what you're doing with them. Just as I think that veteran horns were made to be played, I think that veteran cars were made to be driven. I prefer them. But no way am I going to leave a Duesy in the parking lot while I'm at work...

[tofu]

The problem with the analogy is that it doesn't work. The Duesenberg SJ (a supercharged 8 cylinder) in its time simply was head and shoulders above everything else. In 1931 this was a vehicle that produced 265 HP. A Model A Ford produced 45HP, a Lincoln 85-90 and a Cadillac V-16 did 160 HP. They had a 100 HP advantage over everybody else in the world. Mechanically nobody was even close.
The chassis alone cost $9000. A complete Model A Ford was $450.

A Lexus while a fine vehicle, simply in it's time doesn't stand head and shoulders above the competition such as Mercedes or BMW. Versus a Duesenberg in real world driving today you would drive the Lexus.
Think about it this way, if you went back to 1931 and your choice is Duesenberg or Lexus you are going to drive the Lexus because it is a superior vehicle in every way (brakes,handling,airbags,engine HP,comfort,air conditioning, auto transmission etc.). Other than styling the Lexus wins.

To cross thread this to The Elephants post about Hirsbrunner being the Rolls Royce of tubas even as a kid I used to think this was stupid. But after Wade posted that I have been thinking about it - and - I've changed my mind. They are right - it's the RR of Tubas.

If you know RR you know that the Siver Ghost back at the begining of the 20th century was a superior car mechanically and reliably. Everything after that was really inferior to it's immediate competition. A 1932 V-8 Ford with its one piece cast block is a better and way more reliable car to drive than a 1932 RR. Many of the the custom bodies that old rich women had stuck on Rollers were downright butt ugly. Rolls was always 5-10 years behind techinically until very recently with the change of ownership to BMW and then Volkswagon. In the 70's they bought parts like auto trannys from GM.

Rolls lived on status/prestige fueled by marketing, high quality materials such as Connolly Leather interiors and the sellability of hand assembly. It was an overpriced inferior in many ways product sold to folks who had more money than brains or were willing to pay for the status/history.

Sounds like a Hirsbrunner to me!

[Alex C]

Having owned to classic American tubas (neither one a York) and one brand spankin' new foriegn tuba, I feel qualified to jump into the fray.

I kept my Holton CC after comparing it to one of the contempory York copies (maker will remain un-named). My choice was verified by a tubist in one of the full-time US orchestras who said of the new horn, "I'd never consider owning this instrument." The Holton was a better instrument, by far, even with 20-plus years of use.

The Conn Donatelli I owned was always a great instrument. The first time I picked it up and played it, my S/O's eyes opened wide and I knew I wouldn't have to convince her that I needed it. Adding a fifth valve and having the pistons re-fitted by Anderson's made it more functional, up-to-date and efficient but did not change the basic horn.

Which leads me to believe that if the instrument doesn't have potential, you can't spend enough to create potential.

I believe the literal comparison between the Duesenberg and the Lexus doesn't work. How does this work for strings?Dusenberg = Stradavarius, Lexus = (insert modern violin here). Everybody would choose the Strad.

[LoyalTubist]

Back to the Timex vs. Rolex analogy:

I have never owned a Rolex. I don't think I will ever own a Rolex watch. But I have owned a Timex. I have one that doesn't look good anymore, but it is a 40 year old self-winding (what's that?) watch that still keeps good time and made in the USA.

Simple and useful is always better than flashy. If I find a 1926 Martin recording bass for sale, and the price is fair (and I can afford it), I'll buy it.

[tofu]

You know when you really think about it what the Duesenburg vs Lexus idea from the original poster really shows is that you can play an old tuba from the twenties in a modern orchestra and be every bit as good as somebody playing a brand new modern tuba of whatever make you think is the best. An example would be the CSO Yorks.

On the other hand no matter how great a race car chassis from the twenties was nobody including the very able Fred & Augie Duesenberg of yore or the great Harry Stutz of Indy fame or the fabulous McClaren in his prime in Formula One or even Carrol Shelby would have been able to make it competitive in racing today. Chassis and drivetrain design have evolved that much over the last 75 years.

I think it really demonstrates how very little tubas have improved over the last 75 + years. You would think we would have seen more evolution and innovation. Of course if everybody had to have a tuba like they seem to have to have a car there would be a whole lot more R&D dollars and companies willing to take design risks. What we need is to increase the number of tubas via a new political campaign of a chicken in every pot, two cars in the garage and a tuba in every house!

[Rick Denney]

Intonation, power and tone quality have all advanced considerably, so all I can say is those old Yorks, Holton's and Conns must have been way ahead of their time to stand comparison with modern tubas.

It's not so much that they were innovative. If you look at the Yorks and Conns of the 20's, they are not that different from the Yorks and Conns of the turn of the last century.

America's biggest contribution has been the amalgamation of Perinet valves to large rotary tubas. And that was probably a manufacturing convenience.

And the conductors of the time wanted a big sound, probably to compete with the popular wind bands, orchestral organs, and new recordings. It was Stokowski who demanded the construction of the CSO York.

The old Bessons and Booseys had reasonable intonation compared with American instruments of the day, based on the limited samples I have played. What they lacked was a powerful, big sound. But I think that was a difference in sound concept more than in technology. I have a good chunk of experience with a Besson Class A BBb tuba with three compensating enharmonic valves. Even after a valve job, the instrument had a thin, airy sound and required an approach different from what I put into it. I suspect the players of such instruments used smallish mouthpieces and had a sound more euphonium-like in their heads.

And German tuba players had a different objective, one of reinforcing the trombone section rather than providing a unique voice. The concept of the unique voice seems to have been American in origin, though I go back to Stokowski being the person who requested (of Donatelli) to have the York made.

I also see a band influence. Outdoor concert bands were in their heyday in the early 20th Century, with many towns having professional bands as a matter of course. That history is a little different from the brass-band heritage in Britain. It's not impossible that orchestras, seeing the commercial success of bands, were trying to create more of the sonority of the band without giving up their wider tonal palette. That's pure speculation, of course, but it's based on what might be a more American view of the value of commercial success.

Rick "thinking instruments accommodate sound concepts rather than creating them" Denney