Why has the mighty Alex fallen out of fashion?

[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.

[Matt G]

Also, to Rick’s point, digitized recordings don’t settle many of these arguments.

I was lucky enough to hear Warren Deck live. No recording does that sound justice.

Audio fidelity has made great strides, but it’s still no substitute for being there.

[Ted Cox]

Having played an Alex as my main instrument for nearly three decades, I suspect I might have something to offer regarding this thread. About six weeks ago, I purchased a 164 CC with five valves built in 2004. This model is nothing more than a BIG 163 with a not so great reputation. For the past two seasons with the Oklahoma City Philharmonic, I've been using a Rudy 5/4 for some, but not all of the rep. 164's rarely come up for sale and I was curious.

What I've discovered with the 164 is they magnify weaknesses, and few egos care to deal with not sounding so great. My teacher in college was Harvey Phillips - and he said we should sound bad in the practice room. Meaning, we should be working on those things we don't do so well. The 164 has made me a better player these past six weeks. Any Alex demands the "right" air. What I can get away with on my 163's, I can't on the 164. It really tells the truth. Each and every breath I take to play the 164 has to be full and relaxed. Then, the airflow playing has to be the same - from beginning to the end of the breath. If that doesn't happen, the 164 scolds me.

When I got my first 163 in January of 1992, I clearly remember the learning curve. Little by little I figured out how to make the instrument work. The 164 is the exact same process. Practice and patience. The reward is the sound - which improves daily. Musicians are sound artists - and art takes time and work. Too many want to be able to pick up a tuba and sound great instantly. Our principal bassoon bought a Heckel bassoon from the 1920's that he found. He had it restored and then spent the next year learning how to play it before he brought it to work. To me, that's artistry.

As for the intonation: yes, it has its tendencies, like all tubas. Again, if you don't give it the air it demands, the intonation issues are magnified. There isn't a note I can't play in tune on the 164. I'm willing to learn an alternate fingering or move the first valve slide - that's just how I learned to play tuba.

There are so many choices of equipment these days - few will spend the $$ to have an Alex 164 built. Few will take the chance to spend time learning how to generate the magnificent sound these instruments are capable of. I look forward each and every day to picking it up and playing it - this 164 just "feels right". Most likely it will be at least until September before I take it to work. Perhaps my fellow musicians will have the same reaction my wife had after she heard me play its first few notes - "wow!"

[A.N.Other]

First of all, this is my 1st post here after a lot of reading of interesting and useful stuff ...

I can just underline that practising on an Alex 164 makes you a better player also on most other Tubas. The instrument will let you do whatever you want but you also have to play exactly what you want. There is almost no automatic focus of pitch (and also sound regarding the low and high range). Most important is to give a lot of air, stay relaxed, focused and not try to compensate missing air with force! On the other hand it offers a superb high range for such a big instrument. My Besson is the extreme opposite regarding pitch which is very focused and leaves little freedom to the player, it also needs a lot of air but much more power maybe better described as the players tension to create its sound. But the result for both is absolutely rewarding! My 1930's Alex is technically overhauled with all mayor dents fixed but far from perfect condition yet it can be played in tune with a great sound.

However, having owned a GR51 and played some other of the current models in fashion I can understand why these models are preferred. The Alex is a real challenge compared to other instruments. And of course the price of a new one is not quite affordable.

But as an amateur I do not care have to care about perfect economics and the effort I have to put into my playing. So the GR51 went away in favour of my Besson 226 which I kept instead and comparing both german tubas the B&S was never a real match to my 164 in my personal opinion.

Both instruments, even the Alex, are rarely seen here in Germany and with their small dents, scratches and unlacquered surface (Alex) or with almost no lacquer left (Besson) are mostly regarded as some other old tuba...until they are heard.

Regards,
Thomas

[Rick Denney]

more stuff

' funny how so many tubas sound really good when the sound (with slight shading of overtone spectra)
- begins/end when it should
- is balanced, regarding volume level
- is at the proper pitch level, and
- the other instruments are playing at their proper pitch levels
- imitates a really good singing voice - in some way or another - when moving from one pitch to the next

' curious how (as the recordings of this are possibly viewed as passé, and also are not legion) Mr. Bobo's playing (on considerably smaller instruments that either 5/4 Alex tubas or lap sousaphones) is rarely discussed.
I lived through the "everyone should hate Miraphone, and Hirsbrunner-anything is The Amazing $h!t" 1980's.

In the 80's, I thought rotary Hirsbrunners had a closed, even muffled sound. But these were relatively compact (I have no memory of specific models). Of course, I never played an HBS-193 in the 80's--the word "compact" applies in no dimension.

I grew up when the instrument to own was a Miraphone, and not least because of Bobo. I could not afford one and didn't get one until the early 90's, however. And then the one I got, even though a respected 70's model, was not exceptional (either exceptionally good or exceptionally bad--rather a "typical" Miraphone 186). But I could not play loudly on a 186 without losing tonal depth--certainly my own limitation. I also know those who still kill it with Miraphones who received approving glances from their occasional pro colleagues when they brought to rehearsal something bigger than a 186, like, say, a Rudy Meinl 5/4 or an Alex.

What Bobo could accomplish with a 188 and what someone else might accomplish with a 186 or 188 aren't the same things, of course. Even Gene Pokorny is a former Miraphone player, probably as influenced by Bobo and the LA scene as much as anyone in the day.

But all of that was a long time ago.

It was in the 80's when I first heard a pro orchestra player transition from an Alex to a Yorkbrunner. I'm basing my initial perceptions of those differences on

1.) Being a season ticket holder from 1981 to 1993, with several years before and after that transition,
2.) Sitting in the same seat for the portion of that period when they performed in the same large hall,
3.) The same player before and after the change in instrument,
4.) The player willing to tell me his own impressions after I had already formed my listening conclusions (I took lessons from him),
5.) A player whose playing of the Alex was widely respected,
6.) A player who studied with Jacobs (and Beauregard, among others), and so not alien to the York concept yet still adopting the Alex concept for the first third of his career,
7.) Performances where all those fundamentals you mentioned were already about as good as it gets.

The difference was not subtle, but neither was just spectral shading. It had to do with how the sound seemed to move around the room and approach the listener.

I did not notice the same substantial difference in the smaller hall they moved into, with the current player in that orchestra, when he was trying out a 2165 in lieu of his Alex. I cannot explain that, though I suspect the hall had a lot to do with it.

Rick "again, they both sounded 'really good'" Denney

[Alex C]

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...

There were several instruments Mr. Jacobs wanted but even when he got them he preferred his York. Many fine tubas went through his studio without ever seeing the CSO stage. The sound he preferred was obviously, his York. He preferred it in quintet and in band as well in orchestra.

The accounts of his using any other CC tuba amount to a dozen times in a forty year career. Not enough of a variance to raise a question as to what Mr. Jacobs liked. He liked his York.

Large bell tubas able to produce "the string bass style sound" are well represented by the Conn 2X-Js, the Martin large horns and even the Holton. However, the York does not fall into the same category. The York sound was never dark enough to fit into that category. The instrument was too responsive for an average player.

Oddly enough, most of the "York copies" are basically dark in tone and are nothing like the York. They are not bad horns, they just are not like the York.

[Rick Denney]

Oddly enough, most of the "York copies" are basically dark in tone and are nothing like the York. They are not bad horns, they just are not like the York.

I agree. The Holtons from before the "clone wars" could attain the sort of bright color the York delivered with the right player, but they didn't do so consistently by any means. Mine is not at all "dark"--it has quite a lot of zip in the sound from a range of higher overtones. But it is "deep", which I think is something different.

Again, though, for me it wasn't just the spectral difference in sound, it was a difference in the way the sound propagated to my seat on Row JJ of the Lila Cockrell Theater in San Antonio.

Also, remember that the instrument I play now is a lot more like an Alex than a York, just as my Holton is a lot more like the York than it is an Alex. But it also has quite a lot of zip in the sound. I need to fire up the spectrum analysis tool again, maybe.

Rick "filling a room with presence rather than punching directly to the eardrums of the distant listener" Denney

[Donn]

Again, though, for me it wasn't just the spectral difference in sound, it was a difference in the way the sound propagated to my seat

Apologies if I missed this, but what do you suppose is the net effect of that propagation difference, that would be perceptible at your ear? Or ears, I guess - a difference function between ears?

[sloan]

Again, though, for me it wasn't just the spectral difference in sound, it was a difference in the way the sound propagated to my seat on Row JJ of the Lila Cockrell Theater in San Antonio.

I suspect that it was *precisely* the spectral difference that caused the difference in the way the sound propatated...

[Matt G]

Again, though, for me it wasn't just the spectral difference in sound, it was a difference in the way the sound propagated to my seat on Row JJ of the Lila Cockrell Theater in San Antonio.

I suspect that it was *precisely* the spectral difference that caused the difference in the way the sound propatated...

Agreed.

[bort]

On a personal and selfish note, I'm glad the Alexander has "fallen out of fashion". Otherwise, the guy who previously owned my tuba might not have sold it.

[SousaWarrior9]

On a personal and selfish note, I'm glad the Alexander has "fallen out of fashion". Otherwise, the guy who previously owned my tuba might not have sold it.

I feel the same way about my tubas. Big 3 valve BBb tubas with recording bells have been "out of fashion" since long before my time, while the big 5 valve York copies are all the rage, meaning that I've been able to get ahold of some really nice playing instruments that have many of the same playing characteristicsas those ever-so-fashionable Yorks, for less than a tenth of what those generally sell for. Sometimes it pays to be out of fashion.

But I digress. Back on topic: I've only ever played one Alex before. An old, university-owned 4+1 F. And it seemed to fit the standard stereotype of Alexs: numerous intonation isdues with a unique sound and character. I can totally see how one would be too frustrated with its issues to own one, then again I can totally see why someone would tolerate said issues in order to get that sound. To each their own.

[Rick Denney]

Again, though, for me it wasn't just the spectral difference in sound, it was a difference in the way the sound propagated to my seat on Row JJ of the Lila Cockrell Theater in San Antonio.

I suspect that it was *precisely* the spectral difference that caused the difference in the way the sound propatated...

Could be. But it could also be the intensity of the waves by direction from the bell. Certainly an exponential horn creates greater intensity in the center of the field (relative to the whole field) than does a bi-radial horn, for example. Sound professionals call these "long-throw" horns versus "near-field" horns for that reason. That means what I hear from the instrument with greater central projection is influenced to a greater degree by what's aimed at me versus what is reflecting from all the other surfaces between the instrument and me. Or, if the central emphasis is not aimed at me, it's affected to a greater degree by that path that the central emphasis takes, and less by the sum of all the other paths that reach my ears. This creates an aural image that two ears will interpret spatially. What I don't know is to what extend that difference changes the spectral characteristics versus the brain's ability to sort out the timing differences of the various paths. I do know that sound professionals will apply a time delay to rear speakers with respect to front speakers in a PA system, which gives the illusion that the sound coming from the rear speakers is actually coming from the front of the room. But I also know that subtle timing changes will create a range of interference patterns that will affect the spectrum. There's a lot to how we perceive spatial sound, and certainly the spectrum is part of it. But as I wave my arms based on what I know from PA system design, I don't think it's all of it.

If it is the result of combining interference patterns in a large room, or the timing differences in the multipath image, or the relative emphasis of the center of projection versus the peripheral projection, then it seems unlikely to me that a microphone, particularly one placed on stage, above the stage, or anywhere close to the source, will capture the effect. I've heard recordings of players whose sound I know well from having heard them many times live on stage, and the effect does not come across.

Rick "pretty sure it's a complex non-linear effect that would be a challenge to model" Denney

[peterbas]

deleted

[Matt G]

Time to make beam response patterns now, I guess?

[tclements]

I think everyone just wants to play BATs.....