Against the "cloned instrument" idea

[bort]

There have been a LOT of posts recently about in praise of the progress (and early success) of "cloned" tubas. Seems like there area a LOT of supporters in this front. I am not one of these people.

Does anyone else have a big problem with this? I have no trouble with anyone (not limited to the Chinese) wanting to start developing musical instruments. More power to them. But they should learn how to design their own instruments, not just re-manufacture something that already exists (to clarify, I am NOT knocking on Kanstul in this regard, as they are trying to promote the rebirth of American tubas, NOT undercut the competitors they are cloning).

To me, these (albeit higher-quality) knockoff tubas are an awful lot like:
-- bootleg DVDs
-- downloading ripped mp3's for free
-- fake iPods/iPhones readily available in Asia

All of these are decent, and even passable for the "real thing." Don't get me wrong; there is a good amount of technical skill needed to make any of these things passable, let alone impressive. But I'm less than impressed that someone took something that already exists, and rebuilt it...and using a fraction of the R&D involved means it'll sell for a fraction of the cost.

I know it comes down to dollars and cents, about "what's the best tuba I can get for $xxxx." But I can't support the obvious copying of a well-designed tuba for the only purpose of selling it cheaper.

Anyone else hoping that the "cloned tuba" movement fails?

[Tubaguyry]

If you've ever bought a generic prescription rather than the name brand, or a store-brand version of Coke/Dr. Pepper/cookies/whatever, or basically anything that was invented by one company and copied by another (computer monitors, furniture, cars, anything else you own), then you have taken part in the same phenomenon of which "cloned tubas" are a part. I seriously doubt this will ever change -- someone produces something that people like, someone else finds a way to make their own version cheaper. But just as Sam's Choice Cola tastes enough like the original name brand drink for a lot of people, there are many for whom close isn't enough, so they buy the name brand. The same will continue to be true for tubas. Remember, MORE competitors in a market, not FEWER, is better for the consumer.

For the record, I don't really like the idea of a cheap Asian knockoff of a high quality instrument, either. But I understand that they aren't going to go away.

[MartyNeilan]

You are right, cloning a known good design is bad.

Like all those CSO York wannabes that sell for 20-35,000.

Or those sporadic attempts at capturing the "Alex" sound but with good intonation.

Or that guy on the left coast who tries to build trombones with tuning-in-the slide like some from the "heyday" of American brass production.

Or all those string instruments that try to copy Stradivarius and Guarani designs.

How dare they!

[Donn]

To me, these (albeit higher-quality) knockoff tubas are an awful lot like:
-- bootleg DVDs
-- downloading ripped mp3's for free
-- fake iPods/iPhones readily available in Asia

Not so much like them, to me. Those products can be identically copied - I mean, sure, you may be dissatisfied with the reliability of your fake iPhone, but a real iPhone can have problems too. While they work, they'll work the same. The digital stuff can have its problems, but it's the same data.

A tuba is a little more ambiguous. As far as I know, the gross superficial contours of a Miraphone 186, for example, may be of relatively less importance than the exact taper of the leadpipe, or say the bracing. What the Chinese steal there is branding, as much as anything else. They're selling tubas to people who don't care about the pedigree, who don't really know much more than big shiny tuba shaped object, so the notion of a 186 copy is a sort of fraud by mutual consent.

Not that I like it, but it's hard to see the difference, compared to all the other copying that goes on in the tuba world. Sooner or later we'll all have the same tuba, the best tuba, thanks to all that copying, don't you think?

(I think Guarani are South American Indians -- famous for violin designs? Maybe.)

[The Big Ben]

If you marvel at Nikon and Canon cameras and optics, please know that the Japanese directly copied the Leica for their first camera and optics industry. Nikon also directly copied the German Contax camera. Hints of the Contax heritage can be seen up to 70s vintage Nikons.

Everyone has to start somewhere.

[Z-Tuba Dude]

If you marvel at Nikon and Canon cameras and optics, please know that the Japanese directly copied the Leica for their first camera and optics industry. Nikon also directly copied the German Contax camera. Hints of the Contax heritage can be seen up to 70s vintage Nikons.

Everyone has to start somewhere.

Heck, in the learning process of old, young composers would copy (by hand) scores of established composers, to learn how they constructed their music!

[JCalkin]

You are right, cloning a known good design is bad.

Like all those CSO York wannabes that sell for 20-35,000.

Or those sporadic attempts at capturing the "Alex" sound but with good intonation.

Or that guy on the left coast who tries to build trombones with tuning-in-the slide like some from the "heyday" of American brass production.

Or all those string instruments that try to copy Stradivarius and Guarani designs.

How dare they!

I think the situations you reference are different in that the item being copied is no longer being produced/sold by the original manufacturer and so the ONLY way go get it is through a modern copy.

The OP is referring to Miraphone (for example) having to compete directly with a copy of its own design being sold "off the same shelf", side-by-side, with the copy going for far less $$$.


FWIW, I don't necessarily think that the Chinese (f0r example) copies are ALL a bad thing because if they continue to increase in quality and keep prices low, it keeps the "real" brands honest, price-wise. At least to a point. Such is the nature of the current market system.

To the OP, the answer is simple: let your money do the voting for you. Feel free to buy only "name brand" instruments for yourself. Nothing wrong with that, either. Be aware, however, that the cheaper copies/knockoffs/stencils/etc can be good ways for younger/less wealthy players to get their own instruments and thusly serve their own role in the modern tuba culture. This provided they have the guidance and/or experience to not buy a dog, but that can happen with name brand horns, too.

[Wyvern]

To me, these (albeit higher-quality) knockoff tubas are an awful lot like:
-- bootleg DVDs
-- downloading ripped mp3's for free
-- fake iPods/iPhones readily available in Asia

The big difference with these 'clone' tubas is that the do not pretend to be the model on which they are modelled - they do not have "Miraphone" or whatever on the bell. If they did, then it would be fraud, but as it is they have just produced a tuba BASED on a successful design.

My visits to China have highlighted to me that there is no brass playing tradition in China - and as a result no experience in instrument design. Already Tubatinker's comparison has shown that they are not the same tuba, even if they look alike. Those that care, will still want the original.

Where I see the biggest hit might be on the second hand market - Very few kids are going to want an old tatty tuba, when they can get a shiny new Chinese equivalent for less?

[Dan Schultz]

I don't have any problem with the copies. I've owned 'em and played 'em. I have the REAL 1291 and the clone 1291. I think they have their place in keeping the industry healthy and honest. A REAL 1291 lists for $15,000. I find that a little tough to swallow. Does anyone know anyone who paid list price for one of these horns?

A little less than ten years ago, I had the opportunity to tour an AMERICAN woodwind manufacturer. What I saw was a receiving department full of import cartons. Imported components of old reliable AMERICAN names were being re-badged and assembled there. I thought that was a bit deceptive but also considered that it's actually the consumer who draws the line for quality and pricing.

Now... if the 1291 clone was engraved "Miraphone".... I would have a HUGE problem with that.

There is a difference between the real tuba and the clone tuba. However... in my humble opinion... there's not a difference of $6,000. Don't know if the Chinese horn is just cheep.... or the German horn is just too blasted expensive!

[Mike Finn]

Where I see the biggest hit might be on the second hand market - Very few kids are going to want an old tatty tuba, when they can get a shiny new Chinese equivalent for less?

Not just kids!

On the other side of that coin, who's going to want to buy a ratty old knock-off? (Who wants to buy a nearly-new knock-off? There's one now in the For Sale forum here that has seen hardly any use, gotten great reviews, is priced well below the already super low list price, yet it hasn't sold in a couple of weeks.) I would expect the Miraphones to hold up better, and therefore hold their value better over the long haul. How long will these copies last, anyways? Will they show up on the used market (in quantity) or are they truly "disposable" as some here have labeled them. My Dalyan is holding up OK, but it's only been a couple of years and is played mostly in my living room (and the cramped lesson room at the store, and a few local churches...).

I too have mixed feelings about these instruments, but am very glad to see such great strides in quality control recently.

[MartyNeilan]

(I think Guarani are South American Indians -- famous for violin designs? Maybe.)

Danged online spell checker changed it. At least it didn't change Stradivarius to Stratocaster.
(And talk about clones, look within the electric guitar world!)

[bisontuba]

Hi-
I really don't care what 'label' is on a horn, or where it was made--I care about how it plays, how it sounds, and is it affordable. If it was made out of lunar rock, assembled by Martians, played well and was labeled as a 'BLANK' tuba, fine with me. I listen with my ears, not my eyes...
Regards-
mark
jonestuba@juno.com" target="_blank

PS Here's a thought--how come M&M offers a warranty on their 'clone' tubas and the mighty European/Japanese don't--for those of you who have posted having piston valve problems on a certain German maker's instruments, why not ask this maker if they too will match the warranty of the 'clone' instruments and pick up your repair bill on their/your problem pistons......"Thing's that make you go hmmmmm...."

[MartyNeilan]

PS Here's a thought--how come M&M offers a warranty on their 'clone' tubas and the mighty European/Japanese don't--for those of you who have posted having piston valve problems on a certain German maker's instruments, why not ask this maker if they too will match the warranty of the 'clone' instruments and pick up your repair bill on their/your problem pistons......"Thing's that make you go hmmmmm...."

A warranty on something like a tuba is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.
Chris Farley in "Tommy Boy" nailed it:

Let's think about this for a sec. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting....
Here's the way I see it. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box 'cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside....
'Course it does. Why shouldn't it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right?....
The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times....
Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of stuff. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

[bort]

Lots of interesting discussion here! And I'm surprised how much in the minority I am!

I realize there are countless products that have been copied, duplicated, inspired by, etc... in all aspects of our lives.

The part I don't like about this is that the clones offer no new thought or improvement over the originals. There is no goal other than to get a share of the market by producing a "close" copy at a significantly lower price. I realize that the Miraphone 1291 copy, for example, does not say "Miraphone" on the bell, nor should it. But not like that's fooling anyone.

As Dan shows us, the original and clone are put side by side, with some differences, but maybe not enough differences for most people. That's some serious competition for a company, to compete against yourself!

[funkhoss]

I think the real "ethical" question when it comes to buying a Chinese-made instrument (or anything made in China, for that matter) has to do with how the price is kept so low.

How are the workers in the factory treated? What are their working conditions? What is their salary? What kind of impact does the factory have on the environment (air pollution, water pollution, energy use, etc.)?

Certainly, things that are made in China (or other Third-World countries) are often significantly cheaper than things made in Western countries. But in the end, who pays for that cost? If it is paid by poor, exploited laborers or by future generations that will have to deal with the effects of environmental degredation, perhaps we should think twice about whether or not "cheap" is really a good thing after all...

Sam F.

[pgym]

Personnally - I smell something fishy with these clones legally...

And what, precisely, would that be? Can you point to a component on a tuba, euphonium, trombone, or other bass instrument that is currently protected by a valid patent that is being copied by cloners?

Thayer valves? Sorry, the patent expired in 2004.

Rotax rotors? Sorry, Willson's patent applies to their manufacturing process, not for the rotor itself.

"Look and feel"? Sorry, not patentable.

Pagym "who has some ethical qualms about the practice of cloning instruments, but has yet to come across evidence of legally suspect behavior on the part of cloners"

[tbn.al]

But in the end, who pays for that cost? If it is paid by future generations that will have to deal with the effects of environmental degredation, perhaps we should think twice about whether or not "cheap" is really a good thing after all...

Exactly Sam! We'll all have used up our entire musical allotment before the bill comes due. Why worry? It will be someone else's problem. My grandaughter or her grandaughter. They can handle it. After all, there is music to be played tonight!

[Wyvern]

I think the real "ethical" question when it comes to buying a Chinese-made instrument (or anything made in China, for that matter) has to do with how the price is kept so low.

No doubt they can keep the prices so low because the wages in China are so low against the west - maybe only 10% of German workers!

Mind you I expect the workers making tubas do not fell exploited. Their condition are likely no worst than other factories in the far east and they are just pleased to have a job to put food on the table.

[Roger Lewis]

One should remember that this is exactly how Yamaha got it's start, wasn't it?

Just an observation.

Roger

[iiipopes]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. What Roger Lewis said. Yammy still doesn't really have a new design after all these decades, either.