Re: Re: Re: From Mouthpiece to Bell Flare ?????


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick Denney at his long and pedantic worst on February 26, 2001 at 20:30:16:

In Reply to: Re: Re: From Mouthpiece to Bell Flare ????? posted by Randy Mac Iver on February 26, 2001 at 18:14:29:

Rebuttal accepted in the cheerful spirit in which is offered. I won't rebuff your rebuttal, but will rebut your rebuttal in the same spirit. Like you, I'll go point by point.

But first let me explain my previous post. At first I thought your question was based on a complaint about all the talk of these details, until I saw your concurrence with my items 6 and 7. It was that complaint that I was targeting in my first response. Your rebuttal corrected my mistake. I realized that your apparent frustration stems from the belief that the mechanisms are known and we merely dance around them without getting at them. I feel your pain, believe me. My "rebuttal" is really a more serious attempt to address that more serious complaint.

This is long. If these issues appeal to you, I think it will be worth the journey, but consider yourself warned.

1. I believe that indeed makers do not know how many of these properties work together. They have some computer programs that calculate a few things, perhaps. But that isn't the same thing. It would be most accurate to say that they have a box they work within. I'm speculating here but I'd sure I'm right. They are pretty sure that anything inside that box will approximately work, and that anything outside that box probably won't. They arrived at that box mostly by experimentation, but perhaps one or two walls of that box can be specifically determined (the effect of the taper on intonation is perhaps one example if we are to believe Fred Young). They are pretty sure that bigger horns sound bigger than smaller horns, and things like that. Scientists call this box a solution space, and most complex systems have a solution space that cannot be determined precisely.

But companies repeat their designs over and over again, and many prototypes get heavily modified before they are sold. And there are some horns that are universally regarded as having poor performance in some areas. For example, I've heard very few people praise the intonation of a Kalison, and most folks don't like the compensating register of the Besson EEb. Yet there are some players who play beautifully on both without regard to these widely recognized problems, and many examples are sold.

As an engineer who designs control systems for random processes, I know the difference between deterministic and stochastic processes. I believe that there is in tubas more stochasticism than we realize. Also, chaos theory has taught us that complex processes based on nonlinear mechanisms can produce wildly different results with only slightly different influences, even without introducing stochasticism. I believe both of these effects limit our ability to deterministically design a tuba with specific capabilities. The artist gains a feel through experience for what defeats the engineer's attempt to define cause and effect, and most tubas are at the very least tweaked by artists. They are certainly evaluated by artists. I would put people like Matt Walters in the artist category--he understands many causes and effects but would be at a loss to define the mechanism connecting them.

2. Orchestral players like big horns. Well, okay, some of them do. So, perhaps for that situation we can narrow it down to two concepts, represented, say, by York and Alexander. Each of these horns is great, but in very different ways and for different reasons. And every orchestral player of one of these will have at least one other tuba, and usually several, for times when this instrument is not appropriate. For just the narrow job called "orchestra tuba playing", we cannot settle on a single design for all applications. Even for a narrow part of orchestral playing, which we can call "earth-moving", we can't settle on fewer than two types of horns represented by five or six different brands. Why? Because player tastes vary, halls vary, conductors vary, and traditions vary. So, just within orchestral playing, the selection of a horn that is universally "great", based on a complete understanding of cause and effect, eludes us, and we still haven't even considered jazz, quintet, tuba ensemble, brass band, wind band, and solo playing of various sorts. And then we must consider historical requirements to play instruments commensurate with our commitment to the artistic sensibilities of the composer.

Yes, we see trends. Some designs persist while others die off. But that goes back to that box the makers work in as much as anything. Why doesn't Cerveny make a front-action piston tuba? Because it is outside their box. They know rotary tubas, and have no experience with piston tubas of that sort. Other makers with broader resources who coopt artistic technicians with more experience can work in a bigger box.

It is likely that someday the York design will be considered passe, and some other design will prevail. But I think that will be because we no longer want that sound, and instead another sound is favored. The greatest innovation occurs early in the development of something new, and the curve for tubas is starting to flatten out a bit, as it has long ago for most other instruments. Change is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

3. Versatility implies broad application. Why are some horns versatile and others not? Some horns consume a large measure of the solution space, others just one particularly important corner. Understanding versatility is part of understanding the solution space.

4. Maybe the non-pros like you and those with whom you play possess pro skills, but me and the guys who have sat next to me in 80% of the groups I've played in have definitely been amateurs who don't need and cannot use many of the features a pro would prefer, such as "player-adjustible" intonation, for example. There are more of us than you think, heh, heh. Just show up to any TubaChristmas and we'll outnumber you.

5. Well, then let me make sure I have it right. The question at hand is, what makes a great tuba a great tuba? Well, first, you have to define "great." That definition has changed over the years, and will continue to do so. I'm sure there were players (probably most players, in fact) who thought that Jacobs's York was not a useful innovation but rather a faddish beast that was undermining all that they felt artistically important in a tuba player. Remember that Donatelli ordered the horn because Stokowski--a conductor--asked him to. We only know an anecdote explaining why he sold it to Jacobs. It was not the sort of horn other famous orchestral players used. Bell's King, for example, was a much different horn, more about focus than foundation (to borrow from Dale). Had Jacobs not established such artistry on that sort of horn, we might still think the Rudy Meinl, Miraphone, Alexander, and the like--closer descendants to Bell's King--are the ultimate orchestral horns, as did many players in the 50's and 60's.

I'll concede that perfection is unattainable. I'd be satisfied with a definition of "great" that could last the ages.

This is nothing new, by the way. I know a violin maker who insists, based on plenty of the right kind of direct study, that Stradivarius violins are the way they are because of their imperfections--the f holes don't line up and so on. Modern copies correct these "errors", even the computer-designed ones. His reproductions earn him $35,000 apiece, and yet we are still after 300 years only making reproductions. There are no modern violins that sell for even a large fraction of a real Strad in good condition. Did Stradivarii understand what made a great violin? Certainly not in any formal way. But he defined "great" in a way that has lasted, even if only by example. The York is like a Strad in that way--it is one archetype for a "great" instrument. But only one. And we only think so because Jacobs taught us what it could do.

8. My point is that all evaluations are subjective, even if by self-preservation. Nobody will want to admit that they paid too much for their horn. Consequently, they will more favorably view horns like their than horns than like the one they could not afford. This makes it much harder to define "great." Reductio ad (not that) absurdum: "My St. Petersburg is a great tuba." Would one who said that do so if they had paid $15,000 for a Hirsbrunner?

9. These items DO relate to the question of what makes great tuba great. As an engineer, when I'm asked to design a system, the first and most important thing that I do is make a list of requirements. We could do that with a tuba:

a. good intonation (whatever that means, and it means different things in different applications)
b. great sound (which is different for different folks and in different situations), including,
b1. wide and consistent dynamic range, and
b2. wide and even scale
b3. good tone
b4. good projection
c. good ergonomics (not so easy, but some instruments seem incredibly out of whack on this one)
d. inexpensive (I'll reluctantly moderate this to "good value")
e. easy to play (and this is the reason given by most professionals to justify their choice, though they may put it in different terms, such as "efficient")
f. durable
g. maintainable
h. mechanically functional

Most of these requirements cannot be defined. If we cannot define the requirements that go into a great tuba, then how can can we determine what design elements contribute to a great design? It's hard to define cause and effect when you not only don't fully understand the mechanism linking the two but also don't fully understand the effect you are trying to achieve. So, my comments relating to shifting or undefined requirements DO address the question at hand, which is what makes a great tuba "great"?.

Consider Joe S.'s simplified dictum that the leadpipe affects this, the taper that, and the bell the other. He makes that assertion not because of any scientific study, because it seems to have worked that way on the horns he has fiddled with. A horn with good intonation stayed that way with a new bell, and a bell that sounded good on one horn sounded good on another one. And that's with Joe's definition of good sound and intonation. His definition of good intonation for him, by the way, doesn't agree with mine, because my requirements are different.

10. If the taper is proportional to the length, which is, in fact, the definition of "taper", then an F tuba culminating in a 10" throat will have a different taper than a C tuba culminating in a 10" throat (I'm speaking diameter here, and avoiding the more variable bell diameter). For example, my 621 F has one taper, but a 621 C has a different taper and a 621 BBb a different taper still. So, even though from a distance they look the same they are all different instruments in ways not related merely to their pitch. Sure enough, a BBb 621 feels much stuffier to me than a 621 F. Likewise, a Miraphone 186 BBb is a different horn than a 186 CC, though in my view the difference is slight and does not suggest one is better than the other. According to Fred Young, for any given length of instrument there is an ideal taper that solves all harmonic intonation problems, but this is not necessarily the ideal taper for creating a sound that many players want. The question is, which is better?

I think that many times the instruments defined as great are the ones most praised by the best players. Not many equipment freaks these days would define a Miraphone as a "great" tuba, but it may come closer in the requirements listed above than many others that are "great." Why is that? Because of some little thing that I forgot: Not all requirements count equally. Nobody cares if the intonation is good if it sounds like a hosephone, and nobody cares if the sound is to die for if they can't get within a quarter tone of a tempered scale.

Rick "who is late for dinner and will therefore skip a proof-reading step that usually misses the most egregious errors anyway" Denney

"Yes, dear, I'm leaving the office NOW."


Follow Ups: