Re: Re: Re: German? American? A rose by any other...


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

Posted by Rick Denney on July 03, 2001 at 10:31:02:

In Reply to: Re: Re: German? American? A rose by any other... posted by Lee Stofer on July 02, 2001 at 21:58:42:

I agree, and I don't disagree with anything Joe said, either. Notice my use of the word "tend."

The three "German" F tubas I played were remarkably different. But I wasn't interested in their differences, I was interested in their similarities, and they do have them. They are more like each other than any of them is like a 621. Of course, I judge them with me playing them, so that's one inescapable (and potentially fatal) similarity.

And the 621 shares similarities with some other F tubas, in particular the Willson. This seems inexplicable on the face of it; the 621 is tiny and the Willson huge. They certainly sound different, but again I'm interested in the similarities. They share a playing concept that seems to me completely different from the German-style instruments.

So, to me, what makes a "German" F tuba German is not only the sound, but the way it plays and the way the player interacts with it.

I don't have a problem with thinking of ways to characterize different horns, as long as the basis for the characterization is clearly stated. It's not at all the same thing as characterizing people, though even that can be done in a morally and scientifically careful and correct manner by focusing on underlying similarities rather than differences. When we do that, we discover that the lines aren't where we thought they were. It ain't the rotary valves, for example, that make German F tubas German. We also discover that archtypical instruments define each category (e.g. Alexander for the German style), but that the boundary between those categories is fuzzy at best.

And, regarding the heritage of the 621, I suspect it went something like this: Yamaha, in response to requests from some of their sponsored players for a pro-quality horn for small ensembles, presented the pieces it could make for small horns, and invited the requestors to assemble those pieces in useful ways. This was exactly the same process by which the Conn 52J was developed, and yet that instrument is remarkably different than the King from which many of the parts were derived. Can anyone confirm my supposition?

Rick "who resists the temptation to give up on words" Denney




Follow Ups: