Why has the mighty Alex fallen out of fashion?

[Alex Reeder]

The horn I regret selling most would probably have been my Alex F. It was the old style 3 valves in the left and 3 valves in the right hand when I bought it, and had been converted to the more conventional 4 +1 configuration by Dick Ackright. When I listen to the recordings I have of myself playing that horn, I think it is the most beautiful sound that I've made on an F tuba. However, the low register was incredibly difficult to deal with. This is why I've recently bought a Miraphone Firebird. I think it captures some of that beautiful German sound with a much more accessible low range. If Alexander has done anything in the past 20 or so years to improve the low register of their F tubas, I would certainly love to try one. But, I have also found them hard to come by to try them out. Do they show up at the big conferences?

-Frank

The Meinl Weston 2182 may be just the horn you're looking for- have you tried one? The bottom bow and bell are exact copies of an Alexander, but it has pistons, a more solid low range, and good intonation.

When I was looking for an F tuba, I knew exactly the sound I wanted: Michael Lind from his Virtuoso Tuba CD. That has been my ideal sound concept and goal from the beginning- clear and so rich it almost feels like the sound wraps around your ears like earmuffs (anyone know what I'm talking about?). I'm able to make that sound on the MW 2182, and I'm in heaven. I only found out about the legit Alexander connection after I bought the horn- that Michael Lind plays an Alex F, and the bottom bow and bell of the 2182 are copies of an Alex F- the facts confirmed what my ears told me.

I was choosing between the Firebird and MW 2182 for a while, but ended up going with the 2182 for the sound. When I got that sound, I had to have the tuba.

[Tom]

The Meinl Weston 2182 may be just the horn you're looking for- have you tried one? The bottom bow and bell are exact copies of an Alexander, but it has pistons, a more solid low range, and good intonation.

When I was looking for an F tuba, I knew exactly the sound I wanted: Michael Lind from his Virtuoso Tuba CD. That has been my ideal sound concept and goal from the beginning- clear and so rich it almost feels like the sound wraps around your ears like earmuffs (anyone know what I'm talking about?). I'm able to make that sound on the MW 2182, and I'm in heaven. I only found out about the legit Alexander connection after I bought the horn- that Michael Lind plays an Alex F, and the bottom bow and bell of the 2182 are copies of an Alex F- the facts confirmed what my ears told me.

I was choosing between the Firebird and MW 2182 for a while, but ended up going with the 2182 for the sound. When I got that sound, I had to have the tuba.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. While I'm glad that you really like your 2182, it is a far cry from an Alexander F tuba. As for the copied bell and bows, do you have any verifiable information to support that claim that you know of a "legit" Alexander connection? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I'd really like to have a look at your information out of curiosity if there is something. It's supposed to be a copy of Micahel Lind's Alexander but with pistons? News to me.

From the Alexander F tubas I've played and their currently published specs, the Alexander is almost 2 inches taller, so it can't have the exact same bell and bottom bow as the 2182 or they'd be the exact same height, right?

That said, there is a lot more to an Alexander F tuba than the bell and bottom bow. Even if the 2182 had the exact same bell and bottom bow, with the rest of the 2182 being about as different as it gets F tuba wise, I can't see how there is really much of a comparison. Heck, they don't even share the same type of valves!

The only reason that I haven't purchased an Alexander F tuba to have along with my SLP is because I haven't found one that I want that is for sale yet. I've tried a bunch of them...new, old, raw brass, lacquer, nickel silver, 4 valve, 5 valve, 6 valve, etc. Just like with the Alexander CC tubas, nothing in the world sounds like an Alexander F tuba. They make (imho) the most beautiful F tuba sound out there, but can be quite a challenge to play. Someday I will buy one.

The 2182 is nice, but it's no Alexander.

[BVD Press]

Rick "who also wishes Schmitz was still playing" Denney

Hi Rick,

If you don't have it already, I highly recommend this:

http://chesterschmitz.com/schmitz_music.html

The musicality is utterly amazing....I let someone borrow my copy so I am not sure which horn Chester is playing on, but it is such an inspiring CD. And even better it is music and not just frills....I try to get out and run a few miles a day and this has become one of my vices for sound...A big 'ol bravo to Chester for me...

Now back to Tuba Quartet tunes...

[Wes Krygsman]

Did the Chester Shmitz link work for anyone? It's not working for me.

[ckalaher1]

I've heard people say on previous occasions that the MW2182 is somewhat based on the "what if an Alex F had pistons" idea.

I've tried a couple, but they didn't seem to project that well. Nice tubas though.

[MikeMason]

Mr.Schmitz is principal tuba in the mobile symphony these days,FYI ...

[toobagrowl]

^ I knew about his solo CD, but I'm just glad he is playing somewhere and not totally "retired". Seems he is playing on a silver B&S PT-6 these days. Mobile is getting to hear that beautiful tuba sound that was once up in Boston years ago. I think Schmitz just wanted to "semi-retire" and take a smaller job and more laid back/less hectic lifestyle.

http://www.mobilesymphony.org/contact-u ... cipal.html" target="_blank

As far as the Alex sound, well only Alexanders have them. But the closest thing I have heard to Alexanders from other tuba makers has been the rotary Meinl-Westons/Meltons. The big MW "Hilgers" BBb, MW2155R, and MW Touno are closer to the Alexander tuba sound than any other tuba. Those tubas have a beautiful sound! I love the Alex sound, but sometimes I think I like the MW rotary sound just as much, maybe even better.

[Alex C]

One professional tuba player said of his Alexander tuba, "I never brought it into a rehearsal because if the conductor heard he would inisst I play it all the time and it is just too much work to play it in tune."

[bort]

One professional tuba player said of his Alexander tuba, "I never brought it into a rehearsal because if the conductor heard he would inisst I play it all the time and it is just too much work to play it in tune."

What's weird to me is that the 6/4 York copies all seem to require some (or more than some) slide pushing/pulling from their players, but that is seen as non-problematic. Maybe that's still viewed as "less work" or at least not "too much work," but I just don't know. I think the left arms of some 6/4 tuba players can look pretty busy.

I've had my Alex 163 for about 2 months, and I think it's great. My only intonation beef is that it's a 4-valve tuba, and playing way down low is just different than it is on a 5 valve tuba. That's just mathematics though, and would happen with any 4 valve CC tuba. I just need to put in the time to work it out in my brain and get it under my fingers. It's no fault of the tuba! A fifth valve could always be added, if I got desperate or brave enough to try. It would have to be something that can be un-done, though.

I think what has been said before remains true -- some old Alex 163 CC tubas were better than others when it comes to intonation, but they were pretty consistent when it comes to "the sound." There's a reason why people were willing to work through weird intonation to get to the sound they wanted.

And conversely, there are some extremely fine and consistent modern tubas out there these days, that are very easy to play, but don't sound nearly as interesting. Yamaha 822 CC, I'm looking in your direction!

Not so long ago, there were far fewer models of CC tubas available. So when there were clunkers out there, they still got played. Perhaps Alexander caught onto all of this 15-20 years ago when they redesigned the 163 CC, and made it a much more consistent tuba by modern standards.

Beyond that, just remember, Alexander doesn't build 5/4 or 6/4 piston CC tubas. That has as much to do with the lower Alexander numbers than anything else. Meaning -- if you're on the audition circuit and everyone around you has a 6/4 piston CC... is your "in" really going to be a completely different type of sound?

Not out of fashion in Bort's world!
|
|
V

[bort]

Alexander ad from the October 1920 issue of the International Musicians Journal:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv ... tachment=0

Second ad from the top. Nothing exciting, but thought some Alex fans might like to see it.

100 years later... that's a vacant plot of land in Detroit.

[timayer]

What's weird to me is that the 6/4 York copies all seem to require some (or more than some) slide pushing/pulling from their players, but that is seen as non-problematic.

exactly.

People are surely weary of seeing me post this, but (having gone through several...and with none of them having proven itself as The Great Silver Hope) I'm TOTALLY over those. I will remain convinced that their appearance (as #1 on the list, whether many/any will admit to it) is what sells those things.

Wild intonation characteristics (whether a 6/4 C lap sousaphone, an Alex, some oboe that plays way-sharp halfway up the instrument, or a trombone where nearly every pitch requires some significant deviation from the basic slide positions) are distractions from making music.

Brief thoughts as a career listener to (but not player of) the York-style horns - They sound better playing excerpts as a solo instrument than anything else, even if other horns (again, in my opinion - many better players than me obviously disagree) sound better in the group. So in an audition, which is mostly a solo performance, they will give a better impression than an Alex. And because they won auditions consistently, people bought them for auditions, and final rounds are now populated almost solely by these horns, and so by default they continue to win auditions. So people who want to win auditions buy them to learn how to be effective on them. Which is utterly reasonable. And so on and so forth. They are also now "the sound" that conductors expect (want?) to hear.

But, and this is why I hesitate to post the above, there has to be something to them. Because many very fine players choose them as their main horn after winnings jobs and getting tenure. And I implore everyone to trust those opinions much more than mine. I spend a lot of time thinking about tuba playing while I'm supposed to be doing other things, I play as much as I can, but I don't play enough or at a level where you should really care what I think.

BUT AS A LISTENER I have always preferred other horns in ensembles.

[The Brute Squad]

Alexander ad from the October 1920 issue of the International Musicians Journal:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv ... tachment=0

Second ad from the top. Nothing exciting, but thought some Alex fans might like to see it.

Odd wording. Makes it sound like they made double tubas.

[Rick Denney]

Mike Sanders once told me that the Yorkbrunner's big challenge for him was learning to relax and let the tuba do the work. He said that the Alex would do anything, but the player had to make it happen. I think it's about efficiency, and what it takes to explore the potential of the Alex's sound. So, it's not just whether the instrument has intonation challenges requiring alternate fingerings or slide pulling. It's also what it takes to deliver the desired effects in terms of presence, power, articulation, dynamics, and tone.

I just finished listening to some early Chester Schmitz, playing on both his Alex F and his 163. They displayed superb musicianship and lovely performances--easily as good as I've ever heard from anyone for those works--but these live performances were not technically perfect. Orchestra players these days worry about every lack of perfection they display, and that is a function, it seems to me, of competing against recorded music. Not only do they have to match the technical perfection and sound clarity of studio recordings, but they have to play loud in the way I can listen to the recording loudly on my amplified sound system at home. Audio nuts these days buy amplifiers that are far more powerful than people listened to back when Chester made those recordings (1971), when a 20-watt stereo was "decent" (now, audio nuts just aren't happy at less than a hundred watts, and many are much higher than that). So, people listen to music loudly, and expect that same kind of visceral experience when attending the concert in person. (There are also the famed Loudness Wars of the decades since the 70's where recordings have used processing increasingly to make the music seem louder, but at the expense of dynamic contrast--less of a problem with classical music than pop music, but still a problem.)

Doug Yeo has written about this a lot, talking about how trombone players in particular have greatly increased the loudness of their playing over the years. Tubas have kept up. With the demands on loudness and technical perfection, orchestra pros are perhaps driven by efficiency--how much effort it takes to deliver the (louder and more perfection-driven) required product, in all its dimensions. That was certainly built into to what I understood of Mike's comments.

(My comments as a player would have even less value than Tim's, which is why I'm not expressing an opinion as a player except in this parentheses. My current main axe is certainly more Alex-like than York-like, though I own and have played extensively both types. But I play in a band that plays everything too loudly, as do most amateur bands, and in dead high-school auditoriums with no shells. I can get out of the curtains and off the stage more efficiently with my Hirsbrunner (which is more Alex-like) than I ever could with the (York-like) Holton. I am not a power player by any means. Put me in a live hall with a shell, and I might choose differently. I do realize that this counters my postulation above about the loudness issue, but I'm thinking about power players, not about me.)

Rick "still preferring the presence of the grand orchestral design over the power of the Alex design in many halls and for a lot of the literature, from the listener's perspective" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Alexander ad from the October 1920 issue of the International Musicians Journal:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv ... tachment=0

Second ad from the top. Nothing exciting, but thought some Alex fans might like to see it.

Odd wording. Makes it sound like they made double tubas.

I don't know about when that ad was made, but since then they have certainly made double tubas.

Rick "recalling one in F and C that was reasonably well regarded for what it was" Denney

[Rick Denney]

fwiw...I don't find 6/4 piston C tubas to be louder.

When people (nationally/internationally) really began noticing these (the original), London was uber-miking that orchestra (ref: "Full Frequency Recording[s]"). It made a huge splash on the front of the famous Gabrieli lp, but - when one flips the cover over and reads the back, it's learned that this particular instrument wasn't involved in very many of the tracks.

Being (again) shaped much like sousaphones (sure: "raincatchers", as were used in the Sousa band...though some of those were actually 7/4), they fall into the "should be felt, and not heard" old-old-OLD school tastes, regarding tuba sonority...

...YET...it requires semi-ball-busting effort to get them to sound like (well...) 4/4-size or 5/4-size tubas...and - by the time they're really "humming" with a 4/4 or 5/4 type of resonance, 6/4 tubas are REALLY loud...like: "six or seven desks of 1st and 2nd violins" loud.

...plus the epic slide pulling (often: sharp 2nd and 6th partials, flat 3rd partial, wonky 5th partial, etc...)

To me, the Yamaha one (so far, for me, when playing them) is the easiest to play in tune, but (not particularly liking those things in general, as expressed above) that's moot, as far as I'm concerned.

That does not square with my listening experience, to be honest. But the distinction between presence and loudness (or presence versus penetration) is easy to confuse, probably.

And when I first heard a Yorkbrunner played by a competent orchestral musician, I was on the absolute back row of the mezzanine of a 2300-seat auditorium. The Yorkbrunner sounded as though he was sitting in the next seat, while the Alexander had always sounded like it came from "over there". Both were plenty loud when needed. It depends on the hall, at least.

Rick "who never noticed Mike tromboning the slides on the Yorkbrunner any more (and probably less) than on the Alex" Denney

[Jonathan Fowler]

I find that my new-ish (2001 or so) Alex 163 is much easier to play in tune than my Hirsbrunner HB50 that I once owned. It might be partly due to that fact that I'm a better player now than I was when I owned the HB, but with a 2nd valve slide-kicker pretty much any tuning issues are negligible. The resonance on the 163 is better than anything I've ever played; can't say I've ever felt like I needed more sound or anything larger once I learned how to play it.
Hands down it is the most rewarding experience to play this instrument over anything else I have owned.
I know there is still a feeling that they are old-school out-of-tune...but I think if the "community" gave them second look we would see a surge in popularity. But then again, I don't mind the novelty of playing something a bit different.

[bort]

I find that my new-ish (2001 or so) Alex 163 is much easier to play in tune than my Hirsbrunner HB50 that I once owned. It might be partly due to that fact that I'm a better player now than I was when I owned the HB, but with a 2nd valve slide-kicker pretty much any tuning issues are negligible. The resonance on the 163 is better than anything I've ever played; can't say I've ever felt like I needed more sound or anything larger once I learned how to play it.
Hands down it is the most rewarding experience to play this instrument over anything else I have owned.
I know there is still a feeling that they are old-school out-of-tune...but I think if the "community" gave them second look we would see a surge in popularity. But then again, I don't mind the novelty of playing something a bit different.

Ooh... I'd love to see your 2nd valve kicker. Can you post a photo?

[toobagrowl]

fwiw...I don't find 6/4 piston C tubas to be louder.

When people (nationally/internationally) really began noticing these (the original), London was uber-miking that orchestra (ref: "Full Frequency Recording[s]"). It made a huge splash on the front of the famous Gabrieli lp, but - when one flips the cover over and reads the back, it's learned that this particular instrument wasn't involved in very many of the tracks.

Being (again) shaped much like sousaphones (sure: "raincatchers", as were used in the Sousa band...though some of those were actually 7/4), they fall into the "should be felt, and not heard" old-old-OLD school tastes, regarding tuba sonority...

...YET...it requires semi-ball-busting effort to get them to sound like (well...) 4/4-size or 5/4-size tubas...and - by the time they're really "humming" with a 4/4 or 5/4 type of resonance, 6/4 tubas are REALLY loud...like: "six or seven desks of 1st and 2nd violins" loud.

...plus the epic slide pulling (often: sharp 2nd and 6th partials, flat 3rd partial, wonky 5th partial, etc...)

To me, the Yamaha one (so far, for me, when playing them) is the easiest to play in tune, but (not particularly liking those things in general, as expressed above) that's moot, as far as I'm concerned.

I think Joe hit the nail on the head. I mentioned in a York CC post about an original 4/4 York CC my DMA professor had. Not only has he been principal tubist with a full-time ICSOM orchestra since 1981, during my studies with him he used that horn and a Cerveny Piggy CC (a horn he used when his original York got stolen) and had more resonance and projection than any other tuba performer I have heard live, and I've heard the big 3 orchestras in my state, one of which had many players rotating through over the years hearing them due to a vacancy.

I think everyone who thinks a 6/4 "lap sousaphone" projects more should listen to the NYPO/Bernstein recording of Copland Symphony 3, or the Mussorgsky/NYPO recording with Sinopoli. The horn Warren Deck is using is no larger, and I suspect smaller, than an Alexander 163. Mike Thornton, when he was with Cincinnati Symphony, used an Alexander 163CC during his entire career (in fact, he had 2). I never got to hear him live, but I know plenty who did, and as heard on the recordings he did over 20 years, was nothing short of amazing. Many of the Russian orchestras, like the Kirov/Mariinsky Orchestra, Bolshoi, etc., used St. Petersburg (Leningrad) tubas, again with superb sound and projection.

Large tubas are a sound concept, not a volume concept. Many of these were originally designed for bands to emulate the string bass style sound and for blend. Arnold Jacobs seemed to have wanted the York 4/4CC that Bob LeBlanc had, as he preferred that sound. Bigger is not always better, and this is coming from a born and bred Texan...

^This. Both of you hit the nail on the head I still love the Yorkbrunner sound also; mostly when Chester Schmitz or Warren Deck played one

C. Schmitz/Alex 163/Boston Pops: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B9yP5yl7Cro

I hear PLENTY of tuba presence in the above recording, and the playing is rock solid and superb. And the sound is just amazing
None of today's 'hot shot' players can touch it, imo.

The 6/4 York-a-phones aren't even arguably the best even for large concert bands (too 'pretty' a sound/too many overtones/not enough fundamental). The old large Conn tubas, while kinda 'woofy' by themselves or in smaller groups, sound really great if played more 'laid back' (not 'orchestral style') in large wind/concert bands, because they have the closest 'string bass section' type of tuba sound.

[Rick Denney]

Sorry, guys. What I’m talking about you simply can’t hear in a recording, especially with the sound system most people have. I agree it’s a sound quality rather than how much it moves an SPL meter, but it’s also a way in which the sound propagates, which a microphone does not capture and which most recording engineers would mix out even if it did.

And I’m not making a value judgment. Both approaches can be amazing from the listener’s perspective.

Nor do I think either approach will necessarily fit the sound of any given orchestra or composition.

Finally, not all Yorkophones are the same. Some of them fit Jacobs’s description as an “old man’s tuba”, and some of them don’t. One top pro said to me some years ago: “Jake’s York makes the most of what you give it, while the 2165 makes the most of what Warren Deck can give it.” Some are more demanding than others.

Rick “it’s not a competition” Denney

[timayer]

One top pro said to me some years ago: “Jake’s York makes the most of what you give it, while the 2165 makes the most of what Warren Deck can give it.”

I love that.

Finally, not all Yorkophones are the same.

Having had the privilege of hearing "audition" concerts years ago with several players playing in a top-flight orchestra over several months, mostly with their York copies, I completely agree. The specific horn and player made a very audible difference.

And, frankly, that's probably what's causing a lot of the difference of opinion here - We have all heard different players on different horns with different ensembles in different halls.

I can think of one concert cycle I played on my PT6 where the conductor kept asking for more and more and more, and I couldn't imagine why after a point. Well...my bell was pointing into the wings of the stage I realized. NONE of my sound was getting out into the hall. I turned my chair about 45 degrees and I think the conductor grew a third hand solely because two hands weren't enough to give me. Someone who heard me at the beginning of rehearsal would have a VERY different opinion "of a PT6" than someone who heard me later in the rehearsal. Despite the fact that the PT6 had very little to do with what they would have heard.