Alexander question

[ScotGJ]

Ok, here are probably a few dumb questions. WARNING: I should preface this with I have been out of the tuba world (untill 8 months ago) for 25 years so readers may encounter blatant ignorance.

I am horn shopping for a 4/4 CC and I just got to play a beautiful Alexander from about 1966. The fellow who owns it is an elderly man who bought it new but says he never played it a whole lot and does not have much info about it. He could not identify the model number but said Alexander only made one model back then. So first question is: Is that true? I don't think so.

I played it for a couple days and encountered all the things I've heard about Alexanders-- great tone, free blowing, and some very odd intonation. What concerned me the most about the intonation was the whole horn was about 3-5 cents flat with the main tuning slide pushed in. I tried several mouthpieces and none seemed to help. I assumed that the horn took standard shank mouthpieces because that is what the owner used but I am wondering if the flatness was because a Europen shank size should be used. So second question: What shank size would a 1966 Alexander be built to accept?
All my mouthpieces (standard) fit into the receiver exactly the same as they fit into the other horns I have used.

Lastly, if it is not the mouthpiece, do some Alexanders have a history of having the whole horn flat? Thanks for any insight you can provide. It is a beautiful horn with a beautiful sound and I hope there is a remedy.
Scot

[jonesbrass]

Scott,
I don't have all the answers for you- but I've been to the Alexander factory in Mainz many times and can tell you that they are very helpful. If you can't get answers here, you could always email them. There really is something about the tone of an Alex, and I think you're very lucky finding a 1966 "closet special" Alex CC. Good luck.

[Uncle Buck]

I don't know much (or anything) about Alexanders, but . . .

If you haven't played for about 25 years, and if you aren't planning on trying to play on a "professional" level, I wonder if your best choice is a horn that will always leave you fighting intonation issues. Unless you are going to be playing in circumstances where the audience will notice the tone advantages of the Alexander (very, very rare circumstances), you might want to consider something a little more user-friendly.

[ScotGJ]

Thanks everyone for the input so far. I like to gather lots of information, let it perk around for awhile, then I follow my instincts/gut. Thanks for helping with the information part.

Though I have made a living for years as a player (bass guitar) and as a teacher, I do not want to pursue tuba playing as a "professional" endeavour (whatever your favorite definition is at the time-- see other links) but I am totaly obsessed with playing tuba and loving the obsession. So I want to play at a very high level.

This is not a "what horn do you think I should get" question but a specific interest in why this horn is the way that it is. I doubt that I would buy it, but the man who owns it is a good guy, and if I could help him understand his horn better he may enjoy it more, or have a better chance of selling it.

Thanks again for the input.
Scot

[MikeS]

I don't know much (or anything) about Alexanders, but . . .

If you haven't played for about 25 years, and if you aren't planning on trying to play on a "professional" level, I wonder if your best choice is a horn that will always leave you fighting intonation issues. Unless you are going to be playing in circumstances where the audience will notice the tone advantages of the Alexander (very, very rare circumstances), you might want to consider something a little more user-friendly.

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time letting this one pass by. I don't fight to play my Alex in tune. In fact, I've found that once you make a few adjustments it's a lot easier to play in tune than many tubas I've encountered. You begin by accepting that you will be playing your D's and G's 1-3 and tune the third valve slide accordingly. The horn will respond quite well on these notes and there will be no discernable change in timber. After a while you cease to think of these as "alternate" fingerings. You tune the fourth valve slide to get a good low F 1-4 and use the fourth valve pretty much exclusively for the range just above pedal C. If you want, you can have the first valve slide cut down far enough to get a first valve D in the staff but, I think, this is strictly optional. The only reason to do that would be to get a more secure attack on that note, but I have no problems with 1-3. On my 163 the only note I'll tweak with the first valve slide is (sometimes) the F in the staff.

I would bet your horn is a 163. When I get home tonight I'll do a bit of digging and see what other models might have been available then. My 163 came with a "Euro"-sized receiver. The standard PT shank fits perfectly while the standard Bach shank is a bit small. A lot of Alex's have a very large receiver. If you encounter one of these it will be apparent pretty quickly. Alexanders are large bore horns and require good air speed to maintain pitch. Try really working at keeping the airstream moving and see if that brings up the pitch.

Uncle Buck does have a good general point. An Alex, along with larger horns like a PT-6 or a bigger Rudy Meinl, will be more work than a Mirafone 186, a King 2341 or a Yamaha 321. These horns might not be the best choice if you plan to be a casual player. On the other hand I find there are quite a few times where the sound of an Alexander gets noticed. Let us know what you decide.

[Mark E. Chachich]

Scot,

First, your questions are not dumb questions. OK, now that that is out of the way, I will do my best (as an Alexander 163 player since 1975).

Question 1:
Alexander made different models, even back then. In the US generally the 163 (CC or BB flat), the 164 (very large BB flat) and a F tuba that I cannot remember the model) were the models that were available. The Alexander catalog listed more models.

Question 2:
The older contrabass Alexander tubas (that I have seen) took a larger shank then commonly used in the US.

Question 3:
I have heard that some Alexanders are flat, but this is not the case in my experience. Try different mouthpieces (an Alex mouthpiece from this time has a large shank, small hole and are shallow). I use a Bach 7 with an Alexander shank and have no problem with intonation.

Alexanders are known for strange intonation; however, I feel that once you learn the specific tuba and get used to it there are no real problems. All tubas have problems, you have to find the set of problems that you can live with. Back in the days that I played professionally I had no problems playing my Alexander 163 in tune. I still play my Alex and still have no problems playing in tune. I have never thought that this type of tuba was all that hard to play and I like the sound and response of the Alexander.

Also, back in the 1970's I remember considering the 163 as a large 4/4, now people often say it is a 5/4. My opinion has always been I do not care what/4 people call a tuba.

Please feel free to PM me if you want to discuss Alexander tubas more.

best,
Mark

[finnbogi]

Does anyone recognize this Alexander B flat model?
Could it be an older version of the 164?

[Mark E. Chachich]

finnbogi,

That is not a 164, the 164 Kaisertuba is very large. The Alexander 164 and 163 (and other models) are pictured on the website:

http://www.gebr-alexander.de/

That looks like one of the smaller BB flat or CC Alexander tubas that I do not find listed on the website (smaller then a 163). I have played one of the small Alexanders (nice tuba), so I know that Alexander made this size tuba at one time (and perhaps now as a special order).

best,
Mark

[finnbogi]

Mark,

Thanks for your reply. I am (perhaps obviously) not familiar with the Alexander contrabass tubas, I have only tried their F tubas.
Have you any idea how big this horn is, for example compared to the Miraphones?

Cheers,
Finnbogi

[Tom]

Question 1 (Alexander models):

Alexander has made a number of different models in BBb, CC, F, and even Eb for many, many years in rotary configuration with 4-6 valves. Most (but not all) of the Alexanders in the United States are post WWII instruments and are mostly 163 (4/4 rotor) tubas in either BBb or CC. The Alexander 163 CC was a very desirable orchestral tuba through the 1960s and 1970s, particularly. The 164 mentioned in the thread at one point is a 6/4 tuba in the German "Kaiser Tuba" tradition. Their standard F tuba offerings had model numbers of something like 155, 156 (that may have been the Eb model number...I don't remember exactly), and 157. The Alexander 151 is their Bb tenor tuba.

I suppose a good rule of thumb would be to say that if the tuba is similar in size to a Miraphone 186 (especially an older one with the smaller bell) then it is a 163.

Question 2 (Alexander receivers):

There have been at least two different receivers used on Alexander tubas for years at a time. Doug Elliott has indicated to me that Alexander switched from a super huge (ie nothing modern would fit at all) "kaiser tuba" size to a smaller-but-still-larger-than-modern-euro-shank size in about 1970. Others have insisted that their post 1970 tubas still have the kaiser receiver. I'm not really sure who is right, and it is likely they both are, as Alexander didn't seem too terribly consistent from tuba to tuba. My Alexander 163 CC (originally believed to be a late 1960s-early 1970s tuba and later confirmed to be from 1983) has that smaller-than-kaiser-but-still-larger-than-modern-euro-shank size receiver mentioned earlier. A modern euro shank (large) mouthpiece will wobble and even fall out of the receiver on my tuba. I tried a kaiser shank mouthpiece from Alexander in it, and the mouthpiece shank was too big. So, I ended up using a Doug Elliott "A" shank (the A+ is the kaiser shank) and also had an adapter made that would let me use a modern euro shank mouthpiece in the receiver.

Question 3 (Pitch):

It is interesting that you found a flat Alexander. Most of the ones I have been able to try and have heard about from other owners tend to be sharp, especially the valve combinations (which really isn't too uncommon). Alexanders are very open tubas, too which can cause wild variations in pitch to those not used to that.

I have a 4 valve 163 CC with really quite manageable pitch. It is not a walk in the park, but it isn't the nightmare you hear it made out to be. Perhaps I got an exceptional Alexander, but I am able to play it in tune with traditional fingerings without too much trouble. Sure, I'll use a standard CC tuba alternate fingering here and there (really only about two or three), but that isn't a catastrophic problem in my book. That said, some Alexanders do just plain suck...likely as a result of the inconsistent construction that comes with having an entirely hand made instrument. For those that find they can work with the pitch, the sound is to die for. Nothing else sounds like an Alex. It is a sound that has to be experienced to be understood.

Finnbogi:

The tuba pictured is either a 163 BBb (the CCs have a vertical pull tuning slide), or it is one of the rarely seen 3/4 Alexander BBbs. I have never been able to play a 3/4 Alexander, but know that they exist. Dave Kirk (Houston Sym.) has one in CC. I am not 100% sure the one pictured is a 3/4, but it looks noticeably smaller than my 163 CC, but it could just be the angles.

I'll see if I can come up with any pictures for the good of the thread.

[Jonathan Cruz]

the measurements I have taken from my 70's era 164 BBb are
bore: 0.840"
End of shank: 0.605"
bell: 17.75"

When I talked to Doug Elliot, said it would take his "A" shank. the shanks on the alex's are different as it is a straight tube as compared to the standard tapered pipe. it shallows amost american shanked mouthpieces. I also own an Alex F from the 40's the shank is smaller that the kaiser. I measured 15mm, but I'm not sure if I used a caliper to get that one.

[Tom]

The shanks on the Alex's are different as it is a straight tube as compared to the standard tapered pipe.

Alexander receivers are really nothing more than a sleeve fitted over the end of the leadpipe that serves as a brace for mounting the leadpipe to the bell.

When you insert a mouthpiece into an Alexander, you are inserting it directly into the leadpipe.

The receiver area on my Alexander 163 has almost no taper to it. It has been suggested to me that the lack of taper was a factory defect, but I have seen so many others with the same type of receiver that I believe it was not a defect, but rather the way they were intended to be built.

A Doug Elliott "A" shank fits my receiver better than anything else, but I can still tell that the taper of his shank and the taper of my receiver do not mesh as they are really "supposed to"

[Tom]

Do all the C models have a vertical tuning slide?

It would seem that a simple rod could fix some of the odd notes, especially the G.

Yes, the CCs have vertical pull tuning slides.

My 163 CC had a tuning rod on the main slide when I bought it. I had it removed in short order. It made the pitch seem way more far out of whack than it really was, and caused me to "get lost" on some notes because I was too busy farting around with the tuning slide jigger.

Tuning slide rods might work great for some, but for me it was a major distraction.

[Ferguson]

If you fall in love with that old Alex, then don't fret having the tuning slide shortened a bit if mouthpiece testing doesn't solve the pitch problem for you.

I import Alex tubas into the US, and I have found that the pitch on the new 163 CC's is really excellent.

Best,

Steve Ferguson

[Mark E. Chachich]

Finnbogi and Tom,

The tuba pictured is not a 163. I think that it is an Alex "3/4" but I do not know the model number. I have only played one of these "3/4" Alexanders (and I liked it).

Finnbogi,
As for the size comparison, the Aleaxnder 163 is a larger tuba (bore through the valves) then the Miraphone 186. For the Alexander 3/4 tuba I really can not make a good comparison because of my lack of experience with the Alexander 3/4.

Scott,
Please let us know if you get the Alexander and how you like it.

best,
Mark

[Tom]

Finnbogi and Tom,

The tuba pictured is not a 163. I think that it is an Alex "3/4" but I do not know the model number. I have only played one of these "3/4" Alexanders (and I liked it).

I tend to agree with you that it isn't a 163. I was just pointing out the angle of the photograph makes it difficult to me to really judge the size of the pictured tuba and that I could not make a positive id.

I tried to cover that base by saying "...or it is one of the rarely seen 3/4 Alexander BBbs. I have never been able to play a 3/4 Alexander, but know that they exist. Dave Kirk (Houston Sym.) has one in CC. I am not 100% sure the one pictured is a 3/4, but it looks noticeably smaller than my 163 CC, but it could just be the angles."

[Mark E. Chachich]

Tom,

I agree with you about not being able to make a positive ID using a photograph. I was looking at the proportions and it seemed (to me) not to fit the 163, if we could get the bore size through the valves that would be most helpful.

best regards from another Alexander 163 player,
Mark

[ScotGJ]

I want to play a few more horns before I make up my mind--since I am just getting my playing legs back under me I want to be sure I do a thorough search--- but the Alexander is still haunting me.

Thanks everyone! I'll let you know when I make the final decision.

Scot "who is not sure if it is love or just two ships passing" B

[Ferguson]

As for the size comparison, the Aleaxnder 163 is a larger tuba (bore through the valves) then the Miraphone 186.

I'm sure you're right, but confusion may arise because the 163 and 186 bodies are almost exactly the same size. In fact, they both use the same Cronkhite case. No comparison in playing though - for my money, the Alex is the winner every time.

Best,

Steve Ferguson