Yorks

[clagar777]

Who here has played on the CSO Yorks? Are they better than any horn out there that can be purchased? Or, does Mr. Pokorny just keep playing York just for nostalgia's sake? Or, since CSO owns them, does he have to play them?

I am in no way suggesting that he switch horns, or disrepecting the history of the Yorks. I am just curious.


BTW, For Sale: PT-606PS

[Rick Denney]

Who here has played on the CSO Yorks? Are they better than any horn out there that can be purchased? Or, does Mr. Pokorny just keep playing York just for nostalgia's sake? Or, since CSO owns them, does he have to play them?

I am in no way suggesting that he switch horns, or disrepecting the history of the Yorks. I am just curious.


BTW, For Sale: PT-606PS

I have not played the CSO Yorks. I have not talked with Gene about it.

But I'll guess, and I bet I'm right.

Gene playes the CSO York because it is a very good large tuba. I do believe there are other large tubas that are nearly as good, or as good, or in some ways better. But the Yorks stand up to the copies, while often enough the copies don't stand up to the Yorks.

Gene is not obligated to play the York. Arnold Jacobs was quoted as receiving some satisfaction from Gene's choice to use the York. There are those who believe that Gene sounds better on other instruments, and those who just plain don't like the Yorkish sound.

In the bassoon world, everyone wants a pre-war Heckel, but they want it play loud with a big sound, like a modern Fox 601. So, they buy an old Heckel, and adulterate it with a range of "improvements" so that it will play loud like the Fox. They won't just buy the Fox, because everyone knows the Heckel is better, right? See the silliness in that kind of thinking?

If you want a York, I bet there's a Yorkbrunner, or Yamayork, or Floydophone, or even an old Holton that does what you want a big tuba to do. In may do some things even better than the York. But you'll have to search for the one that does it.

Bloke has played the York briefly, and reported that it had the quality of providing a clear, centered sound even when the pitch was being bent. He suggested that bending the pitch was required on that instrument, given that it had similar intonation issues to many big tubas.

Rick "thinking no tuba is perfect" Denney

[KenS]

I spoke with Mr. Pokorny about 10 years ago about the York. He said that it was a really nice benefit to the job.

My feeling from that brief conversation, was that he plays the horn because he wants to, and because he enjoys playing it.

[Steve Marcus]

Gene even chooses to play the York in quintet performances.

[Mitch]

I haven't played the Chicago Yorks, but I've played a horn that was the "next best thing."

It was a 6/4 silver-plated horn, converted to front action from a 3-valve upright. I believe all that was original, though, was the bell and bottom bow. The conversion had been done by Walter Nirschl, and was apparently the first real Nirschl-York. It was built in such a way that it looked exactly like the Chicago Yorks. If memory serves correctly, the bell diameter was something like 21.75". It was huge.

I was told by the owner, who had played the CY's that it not only looked like them but played exactly like them, too, including the quirks.

And it played like no other horn ever. The projection was like THX/Dolby. It filled a room like you wouldn't believe. I borrowed it for a couple weeks because I was considering buying it. In one "test," I asked my teacher, an incredible tubist with a Yorkbrunner, to play it while I and a friend sat back in the hall. He went back and forth a few times between the York and the HB50, and the difference was significant, IMHO. The HB50 had a great sound, but it was like it had a specific core, and the sound had a definite direction and you could hear it coming from a specific point, if that makes sense. When he switched to the York, it was like the sound was everywhere all at once. It still had core and weight, but was so resonant with a rich sound and it was just, well, everywhere. It filled the room like no other horn.

During that trial (in grad school), I took the horn to rehearsals. The first time the conductor saw it, he did a double take. Playing like I was used to playing (on an HB2P), the tuba section got "the hand" more times in a few rehearsals than we had the whole year. It had an incredibly present sound.

I wish I'd bought it. Didn't really have the money. Should've sold my right arm for it. Of course, I wouldn't have been able to hold the horn up, but I would've figured something out.

[brianf]

I've played both the CSO Yorks and own a 4/4 upright B flat. I've also played a number of York clones, Brunners, Floydophones, Ruskcuts and Yamayorks.

Yes, there are problems with the Yorks, not all notes are in tune. If you think (and sing) the note in tune, it will play in tune. If you want to pull slides to get it in tune, you might have a problem since the word "ergonamics" was not around during the days of York.

The main thing that seperates York from the rest is the sound, its like comparing a Harley to a rice burner, there is a distinctive sound. Legend says that the Yorkmeister, Bill Johnson was very selective chosing the brass he used to the point of tapping sheets of brass with a hammer then listening for the ring. The composition of the brass had more copper than most of today's brass and was thicker. These horns were from a different era, handmande without modern hydrolics.

Guess Bill Johnson was ahead of his time.

[Alex C]

I am fortunate to have played the CSO York that Mr. Jacobs used for most of his career. It is hard to summarize the difference because the combination of aural and physical experiences was so unique. It is hard to remember them all after so many years.

Yes, it is different from most horns. Yes, it is a lot different from most of the 6/4 horns produced since. The general difference between the Euro-Yorks and the CSO York is sound. The Europeans have tried to "fix" what is wrong with the design or maybe "improve" the design.

An example is the 4th-valve-to-main-tuning-slide. Pop Johnson made the fourth valve tubing larger that the .750 bore but he didn't design a change in the port size of the valve. Immediately after the valve block, the bore size reduces back to .750. It doesn't make sense but it works. Jacobs always heralded this as a stroke of genius. When I played one Euro manufacturer's copy, they talked about how proud they were of fixing that.

Impressions: The York was responsive like very few other instruments I have ever played. "It went where you wanted to drive." There was little resistance and I don't remember any note not responding immediately. It was "easy" to play.

Saying it produced a massive sound is not sufficient. It produced a very colorful sound, that is, overtones were prominent in the sound. I was very attuned to that aspect of sound at the time. It was wonderful to close my eyes and be able to easily pick out overtones throughout the overtone series.

Playing the York certainly helps you understand why Jacobs played the way he did. A friend of mine, Richard Murrow, first said this about Harvey Phillips and it makes sense. The instrument you use affects the way you play.

None of this diminishes the Euro-Yorks (I haven't seen the Yamaha version). The Euro horns, for the most part, play and sound like European tubas. I don't think they design a "light" response into them on purpose.

The Euro-sound is far darker than the York, less higher overtones. That's OK, I'd love to have a Yorkbrunner... but only because I'll never have a York. I like Nirschl's York copies too, but even they aren't all the same (consistant).

I hope other people who have played the CSO York will respond.

[windshieldbug]

why can't someone make a York copy exactly like the real thing?

Its probably like carbon dating... you can get the dating and composition right, but you'd essentially have to destroy a part of it to do it- and how can you be sure that the part you pick isn't integral to the part that makes it a York...

Just for interest, I'll mention that these's a moderator in the York section of Kenton Scott's Horn-u-copia who worked with Bill Johnson and many of the old York gang in Grand Rapids after York was sold to Fischer.

[Frank Byrne]

I got to play York #1 (the one he described as "my good horn") during a lesson when it happened to be in the studio.

In a word: unbelievable. I was playing a big Holton at the time and thought I knew what it would be like, but the York was the quickest responding, most agile horn I've ever played. It was also the most efficient horn I've ever played. You got more sound for less air than comparable instruments. That is one reason he referred to this as "an old man's instrument" I think.

The sound is rich and resonant, but on the bright side in some respects. However you figure it, it was and is an amazing instrument. And the combination of Jacobs and Kleinhammer in Orchestra Hall was heaven on earth.

Frank

[Daniel C. Oberloh]

Bill Johnson was very selective chosing the brass he used to the point of tapping sheets of brass with a hammer then listening for the ring. The composition of the brass had more copper than most of today's brass and was thicker. These horns were from a different era, handmande without modern hydrolics.

Just curious Brian,

Where did you get this information? I ask because I have personally worked on and rebuilt a lot of old American basses and have not noticed any real difference in the quality of brass or its thickness whether it was a Conn, King, Martin, Holton or York.

I have noticed design characteristics that differ from maker to maker but I am fairly confident that the brass used was for the most part uniform in its formula as well as its thickness. I have observed that the workmanship was equally consistent from maker to maker. As for tapping on the brass, consider this; the brass when ordered in large quantities is delivered from the mill in coils, not flat sheets as some may think. Remember, York made thousands of band instruments not just these two tubas. It is very difficult for me to envision Mr. Johnson who at the time (1930-33ish) was the owner of the company, out on the factory floor personally sorting through the material (virgin brass coils), unrolling these heavy coils looking and tapping for who knows what? If he did, it was probably for show. I don't think in the 30s York was using hydraulic expansion forming like Conn but they did use tube drawing machines like everyone else and manually bending filled tubes/branches or stamping/pressing bow halves. Truth be told, Conn did not start using hydraulic expansion in production work until 1920 or there about and they still bent a lot of parts manually prior to the hydraulic treatment, especially when it was a "one off" custom tuba as the construction of a custom die for the hydraulic expansion equipment would have been prohibitively expensive for such an item. The one and only real difference that I see in the documents I have read, is what York claims in there catalog of the early 30, stating (I am parafrazing) that unlike most other manufacturers of the day who use simpler and less costly methods to fabricate bells, York still "hand hammers" and hand spins all of there bells. Simply put, a good initial design with the right fabrication technique applied, yields the final desired product. No need for smoke, mirrors, voodoo or pixie dust.

Just my 2¢ worth, maybe less


Daniel C. Oberloh
Oberloh Woodwind and Brass Works
Seattle, WA
206.241.5767
www.oberloh.com