Re: Re: converting a contrabass bugle


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

Posted by Leland on October 14, 1999 at 16:40:48:

In Reply to: Re: converting a contrabass bugle posted by Randy Mac Iver on October 13, 1999 at 23:12:02:

The Yamaha 201's that you mentioned have not been received well at all in corps, apart from directors who are wanting to defray costs of new corps-only contras by adopting a design that can be rented out by school bands in the corps off-season. Everybody else, from the players who use them to the players who hear them, seem to agree that the converted 201 is simply not a good instrument. A horn that's designed from the ground up to be in GG will play better, with better sound and consistency -- as long as it's designed well at all.

But, that doesn't mean that more _thorough_ conversions aren't feasible. Zig Kanstul, in the mid-80's or so, had produced some 2v contras for the Velvet Knights that were based on the bell & outer bows of B&H tubas, and they sounded decent (not as good as Kings, though). They were no longer convertable back to BBb, but that's fine.

It's true, though -- contra design has been an issue of debate with us. After all, the concept is maybe a hundred years newer than the sousaphone or helicon, and the first ones were, for lack of a nicer term, bastardizations of baritone bugles. King's K90 (designed by Zig, incidentally) kickstarted the manufacturers into larger, better-sounding contras, and the BBb marching tuba is just starting to catch up (again, no small thanks to Zig and his current Kanstul-built 5/4 BBb).

Seeya,
Leland


Follow Ups: