TubaForum.net

Eastman.. and I quote... has "eliminated the position"

That is GREATLY disappointing. Chuck did so much for Eastman for so many years.

That is sad to hear. I really like my Eastman Tuba.

Wonder what this means for future development there. If they're eliminating the position entirely are we gonna get new models or just what we already have?

Sounds like thier new tubas will be designed by engineers with out any input from real musicians. And improvements on existing models will be made via lean manufacturing principles to reduce cost and increase productivity regardless of actual musical improvement. Leading me to believe that the actual quality of thier instruments will decrease from a musical perspective while thier perceived quality (engineers and management) goes up. Sales will eventually drop as a result because they have lost the focus on thier customer base. Thier thought process is were going to sell you what we want to make rather than make what you want to buy. Having been in manufacturing for 20+ years, I have seen this many times. Sad.

I was sent this posting a few days ago

https://www.eastmanmusiccompany.com/acc ... brasswinds

This seems like something they could have added to his roles (since he demonstrates at conferences, I’m sure sets prices and everything else he is already doing that this role entails.

He was the one who jumpstarted the engagement of the tuba models.

Based on what you folks report just occurred, why would anyone be interested in applying for that job?

bloke wrote: Fri Sep 12, 2025 3:38 pm Based on what you folks report just occurred, why would anyone be interested in applying for that job?

When that was shared with me, hearing rumors that Chuck was no longer with them, this was the first thing I thought.

Aren't most Eastman tubas copies/clones of existing or previously made tubas?

I think it's safe to say the tuba that got the attention of the tuba community was the Eastman 632, which was based on the prototype that conn Screwed up when they built the 56J. It wasn't a copy of the 56J like most people assume. If it was, it wouldn't have been as good as it was.

That's what I like about Eastman, and why I bought my 534 last year. It's BETTER than the original. I've played too many King 2341's to count, and I haven't played any since the prototype that I would put on the same level as my 534. I asked Chuck how they managed that, and he told me upgrades that Eastman made since the last time I played one 10 years earlier.

I will concede that most of eastman's tubas are based on existing designs, but that's nothing new, it's been happening for decades with every company, even miraphone.

I can tell you what you already know: "position eliminated" means -- that person was not doing what we wanted him to do but was instead doing what he wanted to do, so we fired him, and we'll hire someone who is willing to do what we say.

LeMark wrote: Sat Sep 13, 2025 8:46 am I think it's safe to say the tuba that got the attention of the tuba community was the Eastman 632, which was based on the prototype that conn Screwed up when they built the 56J. It wasn't a copy of the 56J like most people assume. If it was, it wouldn't have been as good as it was.

That's what I like about Eastman, and why I bought my 534 last year. It's BETTER than the original. I've played too many King 2341's to count, and I haven't played any since the prototype that I would put on the same level as my 534. I asked Chuck how they managed that, and he told me upgrades that Eastman made since the last time I played one 10 years earlier.

I will concede that most of eastman's tubas are based on existing designs, but that's nothing new, it's been happening for decades with every company, even miraphone.

I believe the 52J was the original horn. I still say the 54J was the best, and the 56J was the worst.

I’ve played several amazing examples of the Conn 5XJ series, as my repair tech is the one who designed them. Some of the ones that came out after he left Conn Selmer such as brace tensions. Several of my classmates had these and it changed my view after playing how they should be played.

Then, at a conference Chuck was at, and he had to step away for a call, I tried their horns. The 632 was such a let down compared to the Conn 52/54J. The Eastman lacked center and core in comparison, and the Eastman had no low range.

I used to not be a huge fan of the Conns until I played how they were supposed to play.

According to Matt Walters. UMI cheaped out and used off the shelf parts for many parts of the horn, including the 5th valve assembly

The prototype I played on Eastlake in 1999 was a satin lacquer 20 inch bell horn for what eventually became the 56j. At the time they thought it was going to be released as a king

Will this be the beginning of Dalyan, Mk II?

If we're talking about C tubas in this particular size/style class, the Getzen CB-50 was/is the best of this class (ok: "in my opinion") as it was based on the Holton/York 32 inch tall BB-flats (though - sadly - cut to C...suffering the "less resonance" thing that all cut-downs of BB-flats suffer, yet still the best of these C things in this size/style range) rather than a cut-down King (retrofitted with something like a vintage King 1215 bell - which defined/defines a 35-inch tall instrument and - thus - shorter tapered bows).

Being subtly smaller in several ways, I personally believe (if one is to - sadly - cut a Holton/York 4/4 to C - or copy one that was cut to C, and just based on playing tests over the years) that the Holton/York design is better suited to being cut to C than the King design (which seems to feature a a bell fabricated from a dusted-off King 1215 bell mandrel, which defines a tuba three inches taller than Holton/York)...but Getzen was the only one (so far) who's done this...and - once the Canadian Brass endorsement was taken over by Yamaha - the CB-50 wasn't produced much longer, was it? (though the CB-50 surely is easier to play in tune - and with a more pleasing resonance - than either the YCB-621 or the YCB-822, agreed?)

better than any of the C tubas in this size/style class...??
an un-cut Holton/York 32" tall BB-flat 4/4 tuba retrofitted with (as apparently was the Getzen copy of the cut-to-C Holton/York) a King valve section.

...cough-cough...




JP seems to be much more interested in trombones...but (based on their build quality) I'd like to see them produce a wonderful BB-flat instrument like the one I repaired and assembled (pictured just above)...and sure, a copy of the CB-50 (cut-to-C version).

btw... "Yorkboy" has also built two or three of these Holton/York 32-inch-tall BB-flat instruments (4+1 front-action config), whereas his feature more traditional-appearing circuit "wraps". He does wonderful work.

I'm thinking this is one of his 32-inch-tall York BB-flat jobs (more traditional assembly: fatter from front-to-back)




oh yeah...Here's a picture of the (factory-cut to C) sadly long-discontinued 32-inch-tall Getzen CB-50.
...5th valve in the mouthpipe tube...?? ...looks ugly / works just fine


bonus for @Three Valves someone's ugly-ass feet (At least, they're covered with socks.)