At what point is it a Frankentuba?

[bort]

This is a real Franken tuba:

[bort]

Also, don't forget... "Frankenstein" is the person who created the monster, not the name of the monster itself.

[timayer]

Also, don't forget... "Frankenstein" is the person who created the monster, not the name of the monster itself.

A poignent reminder. So Joe, Wade, Tabor, and Terry were FrankenTuba all along.

MYSTERY SOLVED.

[Rick Denney]

...
This would likewise qualify as a “Frankentuba” yet I don’t think anyone would necessarily call it that. It’s a “prototype” in spirit of the Eastman 632 and extremely well built by Matt Walters. It looks like it was design from the ground up to be what it is. You have to look closely to see that it’s made from different parts from different manufacturers.

So it would seem that the Frankentuba term requires some additional subtleties.

Wade's point was that the term emerged before Matt became famous for his creations. But I don't think the term is pejorative. Frankenstein's monster was a monster, sure enough, but the monster was also seven feet tall and much stronger than a human. So, it was in some ways an improvement, and in other ways, not so much. But even if the craftsmanship made it appear like the real thing, it would still be something out of the mind of Dr. Frankenstein.

Matt has the skills and understanding to make tubas from scratch, but not the interest, tooling, funding, or time. So, he uses parts from other instruments. That makes those instruments a Frankenstein, but certainly not a monster. It's a prototype if it is used as the basis for production, and some of his creations certainly were. But being a prototype doesn't make it not a Frankenstein. But think of how good Dr. Frankenstein might have gotten had he made 15 monsters instead of one. As it happens, he made two (the Monster and his Bride). I wonder if Matt's first or second such assembly was as good as the ones he used as a prototype for the Eastman 632.

Also, I can think of a certain Holton recreation that presented as one of the most beautiful tubas of that type I've ever seen (in pictures, at least). But neither its creator nor subsequent players thought it had really solved any design problems common to the breed. I can also think of a slapped-together Frankentuba that Larry Minnick assembled, now owned (I hope, still) by Chuck Guzis, that used a Keefer bell and a range of other parts. It looked rather terrible, but played gorgeously. So, looking like a factory creation does not seem to me the same thing as being a factory creation.

But I can totally understand not wanting to call one of Matt's projects a Frankentuba.

Rick "manufacturers buy parts from each other, too" Denney

[timayer]

I have never considered "Frankentuba" to be pejorative, nor have I ever understood it to be used that way. If anything, it has always denoted some sense of fun and creativity.

[Rick Denney]

I have never considered "Frankentuba" to be pejorative, nor have I ever understood it to be used that way. If anything, it has always denoted some sense of fun and creativity.

Rick "yup." Denney

[Matt G]

I wasn’t trying to say “Frankentuba” was a pejorative term but rather had an essence about it of being somewhat “home grown”, as pointed out above.

Some people will take the necessary time to make an amalgamated tuba look like it’s made from a single piece. Others do what is necessary to make it playable and deem that sufficient.

Either way it’s the person who is paying that deems which is more desirable.

[roweenie]

I think it's a Frankentuba, simply because the assembly wasn't trying to re-create something the manufacturer made, but rather to make something the manufacturer never made. What made Yorks Yorks was at least in part in the mind of Pop Johnson, and an assembly of York parts is perhaps modeling what was in his mind, but that makes it a simulation of his thinking, not a restoration of it.

I'm reticent to split hairs (and I'm assuming your comment applies to both horns I posted above) but this statement implies that you are privy to information that none of the rest of us have.

That first horn that I pictured above (which I built, BTW), is in essence a 4 valve side-action model 91. We happen to know for fact they made 3 valve versions, because we have pictures and surviving examples, but I've never seen one in any catalog. Just because no one alive today has ever seen a 4 valve version doesn't mean it didn't exist - we would need the York records to prove that (or disprove it), which we just don't have.

The Chicago CC Yorks never showed in any catalogs either, nor will we ever know whether or not they ever made a BB flat version configured that way. Not likely, but we can't just make a blanket statement saying it didn't exist, because we just don't know (although, granted, this one is certainly less likely than the one I built).

(I actually have my suspicions that the valvesets on those Chicago Yorks weren't even made in-house, which opens up a whole new can of worms.....)

FWIW, here's my version of what that might have looked like - I just completed it a few weeks ago:

[Matt G]

roweenie, those are some nice looking builds. Thanks for sharing!

[Matt G]

I alter every instrument that I personally own, until I am convinced that the results are the best the basic design can produce for me, and that the basic design has reached its full potential.

...The mechanism is 90% complete, but I still haven’t done the last 10% on the left hand #2 slide trigger on my F cimbasso that I built.

Having just played the Hebrew slaves chorus from “Nabucco” with that instrument, I was reminded that there is still work left to be done.

Don’t forget to cryogenically treat the bell.












/s

[Ace]

A few years ago, I sold my Conn 52J CC tuba to a guy in New Jersey. He told me that when he picked it up at the Amtrak terminal he immediately took it to Alan Baer's workshop and had some tweaking done. He did not specify what was done. I've never been clear on what "tweaking" involves, but is it possible that some tweaking might lead to creation of a Frankentuba?

Ace

[Donn]

Frankenstein made his monster out of parts, such that no part formed the majority. If that 52J is still mostly the same 52J that left your hands, it's only a Tweakentuba.

[Rick Denney]

I think it comes down to whether the instrument was substantially what the manufacturer intended, versus substantially what Dr. Frankenstein intended. I don’t think that is splitting hairs. A certain amount of tweaking (or, in the case of my Holton, correcting) achieves the potential of an instrument for its owner, as intended by the manufacturer. But a Frankenteined tuba creates something mostly from the mind of Dr. Frankenstein, even if he uses all parts from one manufacturer.

That a manufacturer might have made something similar is alternative history. Interesting, plausible, maybe even possible, but still fiction.

In any one case, we can argue about where that fuzzy boundary might lie, and how fuzzy it is. For most cases not cherry-picked to illustrate that fuzziness, it’s obvious. But does it really matter?

The old car biz has a good term for an old car that has been updated to more recent standards: Rest-o-mod. It’s a restoration but modified to modern standards. I have a 1973 GMC Motorhome. I converted the front suspension to use parts from a mid-90’s one-ton truck, which made it more serviceable and increased the front brake size substantially. I replaced the rear drum brakes with a disk-brake kit. “Frankenstein” is too strong, but “restoration” not strong enough. It’s a rest-o-mod.

Rick “looking original is not the same thing as being original” Denney

[roweenie]

There are also "transplant survivors".

Here are some big 6/4"-y sousaphones made decades ago by some people who speak Portuguese.
Some claim these are crap (and they're not the most amazing), but - well - they sound pretty good, and they've lasted this long (with a bunch of annual sticking-back-together), so...

Anyway, out of a set of eighteen or so (after the first branches have been de-dented countless times) the first branches on three of them now feature bad spider cracks...

...but there are also three others that were designated (though repairable, yet again) as "parts" instruments, and those three featured NOT-cracked first branches...so (this year), I'm doing three first branch TRANSPLANTS (from the designated-as inviable metal masses to the viable metal masses...ie. "picking winners and losers"...a one-man death panel, if you will).

...so here are the inviable metal masses


...and here are those (de-dented "good enough", but not yet shiny) who've been selected for transplant to live off of stronger "hearts", and to play yet another day

All I can say is......"biceps".......

BTW, I've been curious as to the quality of the valves on those horns.....?

[roweenie]

There are also "transplant survivors".

Here are some big 6/4"-y sousaphones made decades ago by some people who speak Portuguese.
Some claim these are crap (and they're not the most amazing), but - well - they sound pretty good, and they've lasted this long (with a bunch of annual sticking-back-together), so...

Anyway, out of a set of eighteen or so (after the first branches have been de-dented countless times) the first branches on three of them now feature bad spider cracks...

...but there are also three others that were designated (though repairable, yet again) as "parts" instruments, and those three featured NOT-cracked first branches...so (this year), I'm doing three first branch TRANSPLANTS (from the designated-as inviable metal masses to the viable metal masses...ie. "picking winners and losers"...a one-man death panel, if you will).

...so here are the inviable metal masses


...and here are those (de-dented "good enough", but not yet shiny) who've been selected for transplant to live off of stronger "hearts", and to play yet another day

BTW, I've been curious as to the quality of the valves on those horns.....?