Posted by Rick Denney on February 09, 2001 at 22:49:51:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Gee, your instrument sounds nice" posted by Benjamin Schardt on February 09, 2001 at 20:32:54:
Oh, what the heck. I can't think of anything more fun that comparing cameras to tubas. Let's see where this goes.
With that sufficient warning, only the terminally bored will continue. Second warning: read on at your own risk. (Sean, there is tuba content way down there, heh, heh.)
We all know our tuba history, so let me summarize just a bit of camera history.
In the 30's Leitz designed an incredibly simple and rugged camera with a focal-plane shutter that allowed relatively inexpensive interchangeable lenses. Innovatively, it used 35mm movie film. Leitz and others designed a series of lenses for this camera that were fine lenses in their day and not terribly expensive, except that a loaf of bread was terribly expensive for many people in the 30's. Carl Zeiss made the Contax camera, and followed a similar philosophy in their lenses.
After WWII, Leitz and Zeiss continued making fine lenses that were even finer because of technological gains during the war.
Professional photographers, especially war-time photojournalists, used the Leica because it was the only reliable choice (the Contax was too finely made and complicated for rough service). Press photographers in non-wartime circumstances, however, did not embrace the small cameras, and the standard professional camera of the 1950's was either a bigger Rolleiflex (which used a Zeiss or similar Schneider lens) or a much bigger Speed Graphic.
When the Japanese started listening to Demming and created what would become a quality-oriented manufacturing capability, they lacked only design capability. So they borrowed design concepts from the leading products of the day, and developed from there. They borrowed the Leica and Zeiss concepts to make the first Canons and Nikons, and the Rolleiflex was the model for the first Mamiyas, Minoltas, and Yashicas.
In the 1970's Leica lenses had become rather outdated, and the best lenses available for small cameras were made by the Japanese. Leica caught up, of course, but their lenses are not sharper or contrastier that the best Japanese lenses. But the European lenses have a quality that is unmatched in Japanese optics. Because of the glass they use, these lenses have a smoothness in the out-of-focus areas that is much different than the harder-edged rendering of the Japanese lenses. The term for this effect is bokeh. Therefore, some people still pay the ungodly prices for Leica equipment because of the bokeh, when most of them can't tell good bokeh from bad bokeh, and in fact can't define the term. It is because of this bokeh that I started collecting Russian and East German lenses and cameras, because it was the only way to get lenses with that approach without paying West German prices.
(If you substitute the names of the major tuba manufacturers and playing characteristics--intonation, sound, etc.--in the above description, you might be surprised at how accurate it is.)
Okay, now for the tuba parallel.
Some people revere old Yorks and similar instruments because they have a quality of sound that is unique to them, and they are willing to put up with other foibles to get that quality of sound. This is like putting up with funky Russian cameras to get Zeiss Jena lenses with nice, soft bokeh, or like buying a nearly wornout vintage Leica.
Some of these will prefer, instead, modern copies of heirloom instruments that are among the most expensive horns on the market, much as a person might pay a similar amount for a usable Hasselblad or Leica setup. Both tubists and photographers in this category want the heirloom characteristics but in an instrument that is new and perfect.
Others, on the other hand, prefer the commanding sound of a different sort of horn. This corresponds, maybe, to lenses that are contrasty, like modern Japanese lenses. They don't mind the hard-edged bokeh.
Still others need horns that have precise intonation and well-slotted notes, and they'll give up certain sound qualities to get those features. In photography, the parallel is represented by lenses that are fast (that is, have a wide aperture), or incredibly sharp at the expense of contrast or color rendition.
Finally, many players have some horns only suited to special applications. Photographers may own a dozen lenses even though they use one or two most of the time. I don't use my Russian fisheye lens or my Zeiss Jena portrait lens very often, but when they are needed nothing else will do.
There are tubas that are the archetypes for each of these categories, and there are tubas that are derived from them. Some are designed to be cheap, but still have an essential character of that which they copy. A Jupiter, for example, is designed to have some of that warm, old American tuba sound, and a Cerveny (or even a St. Petersburg) attempts to provide some aspects of an Alexander. These are the choices made by those who can't afford the archetypes but still want something of that approach.
Lots of folks just get something recommended by people they respect, and don't know or care about these subtleties. (Those people stopped reading this post long ago, heh, heh.)
Here's the point. A few photographers have a good idea of their artistic objectives, and they choose carefully the equipment that fulfils their vision, regardless of cost. Their work establishes the state of the art, and lesser photographers often buy the same equipment hoping that some of that cachet will make art of their images, too.
Now, let's change the wording a little.
A few tuba players have a good idea of their artistic objectives, and they choose carefully the equipment that gives them their voice, regardless of cost. Their work establishes the state of the art, and lesser tuba players often buy the same tubas hoping that some of that cachet will make art of their playing, too.
So, a photographer with no vision in his head will on the whole produce garbage using any camera from an Instamatic to a Leica. Their bad images, however, might be sharper and better exposed with the Leica.
A tuba player with no music in his head will on the whole produce noise on any tuba from a Lark to a Hirsbrunner, but on the latter instrument might be in tune while producing this noise.
Therefore, the horn cannot make a bad player good. It cannot create music. But it can keep from adding more technical faults. And a fine musician can make music on a hosaphone, but it's much easier to achieve his artistic objectives on an instrument that fits that artistic vision.
Rick "this is what happens when I'm traveling on business and sitting in the hotel with nothing to do" Denney