Re: Re: 7 Valve Tuba


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

Posted by Matt G on January 25, 2001 at 14:42:29:

In Reply to: Re: 7 Valve Tuba posted by Frederick J. Young on January 24, 2001 at 17:55:25:

This is not to throw flames but rather clarify some issues, so here goes:

As far as the York and its copies go, aren't they an idea from approximately around the 1920's. By saying that I mean the development of the taper design to lead to the "pipe organ" sound on the lower fundamentals. As oppossed to the double horn system which is much older than the "York" concept. The newest type of tuba could really be said to be a compensating horn as oppossed to a full double. Also the fact that the valves are very heavy and cumbersome and that we have to resonate more mass and moe tubing, it eliminates some of the agility that we as players need that the more modern repertiore demands from us. I feel that york copies are quite good at retaining a great deal of this agility in spite of thier size. I think that the idea of a modern instrument should be referred to in the design of it's tapers and branches to correct intonation and create effeciency instead of the valve systems. While I think a horn of Dr. Young's design might accomplish some of it's goals, I feel that the idea of a double tuba, because of it's apparent inefficiencies will never replace the straight ahead 4 and 5 valve designs. If this were not true, a huge number of people would be playing those new Beson compensating BBb's and I'm sure compensating CC's with front action would be readily available. While i'm sure more technology went into the "machine" part of this horn, I don't think that is is really any more advanced than all of our "yorkalikes".

Matt G

p.s. I don't have much trouble spanking out CCC's where they can be heard by the audience on my 6/4! ;')


Follow Ups: