TubaForum.net

Talking about players who promote themselves on the internet, the trite comment is that "they could make a garbage can sound good" (etc...)

INSTRUMENTS:

The fact of the matter is that any really good player can make most any functioning tuba play, but it's going to be limited to how eager an instrument is willing to be played.

People who play for the fun/love of something will claim (I don't need/can't justify anything better than this...), but look at most of our cars. I'm probably way in the minority of people who actually don't own cars better than those needed...and look at the prices of medium-fancy to fancy cars... "but my spouse..." Fine, they get a fancy car, but (getting real) look at your OWN car...and so many are making payments on them - which also requires expensive "comprehensive" insurance.

I understand that commuters can spend two hours a day driving (yikes ), but what about those who love to play the tuba, own "sorta OK" tubas, and spend the same amount of time - daily - with those?

Lots of Chinese tubas - today - are pretty darn good, but others (and even when priced at several thousand dollars) really are not... I remember when Yamaha (after making instruments for Conn, G. Leblanc USA, UMI, and others) finally started REALLY promoting themselves with their own name, and were viewed with suspicion. Today, they're charging some of the highest retail prices (whether or not those prices are justified, and whether they are made partially or completely in Japan, China, or Indonesia) of just about any manufacturer...so (back to other Chinese makers) just because a China-made tuba is priced at $5K - $13K doesn't mean that it's $5K - $13K "good" (and it's interesting to note which of those $5K - $13K instruments from China are frequently seen in the second-hand market...and people also confuse "build quality" with "playability". A really well-designed YET poorly-assembled instrument could easily outplay a poorly-DESIGNED instrument, though (of course) WELL-designed and WELL-assembled is what we all hope to own. I continue to offer the "blind date" analogy, whereby if a blind date is described by their friend as "sturdy", how eager is that person going to be to go on such a date?


MOUTHPIECES:

At this point, it would be extremely difficult for someone to talk me into a different mouthpiece rim PROFILE, but I'm ALWAYS looking for better "everything else" to go with PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL tubas that I own/use. Again, I always use the same rim PROFILE, but not (completely) the same rim. I use one particular rim PROFILE with (these days) with 33.2mm, 32.9mm, and 32.3mm embouchure openings (ie. overall donut sizes). "Same exact rim for everything" (I've completely convinced myself) is not advisable, but "same rim PROFILE" absolutely works for me.

Recently, I've SIGNIFICANTLY changed the cup/throat/back-bore of one of the mouthpieces that I use (with my largest instrument) to GREAT advantage, and I've SIGNIFICANTLY changed the cup/throat/back-bore of ANOTHER one of the mouthpieces that I use (with my smallest instrument -which accepts a "tuba" mouthpiece) to GREAT advantage/benefit. To be clear: I'm PLAYING both of those instruments WAY BETTER than I was. I continue to look at euphonium mouthpieces, but believe that I'm currently using the best one (for the particular euphonium - which is an extra-large euphonium). I actually own an "emergency" (for really high stuff) much smaller (still a) euphonium with which I use a totally different mouthpiece.

Instruments matter.

Mouthpieces matter.

REALLY GOOD equipment (BOTH design-wise AND build-quality-wise) is REALLY FUN to use.
FUN matters.

Superstar players' signatures on mouthpieces do NOT matter.

btw...I currently have NO tubas for sale (at least, not here at blokeplace), and - as far as my line of mouthpieces are concerned - anyone can take them or leave them.

- signature attaching un-checked (per usual)

I hear ya 100%, but being one of the more amateur players on here I would offer a slightly different view. I wish I had time to practice a lot more. If I can get an hour in a week of practice plus rehearsal and maybe a weekend gig I am doing great. I could probably convince my wife to let me buy a new tuba, but I have a hard time justifying it to myself. There are things that would have a bigger return on investment for me, a family vacation, supporting my kids activities, etc.

Right now I don't feel limited by the instruments I have. I play mainly on the sousaphones, and use my 20j and the small 3 valve Eb for practicing. I am playing street band stuff and bar gigs, so often "louder is better then good" There after probably things I could do to make my life easier and better, like trying some different mouthpieces. One day I hope to be able to take lessons, but right now with a lot of hours and work travel, tons of time away from the house with being a party of my kids activities, it just isn't in the cards. Seems silly to spend the dough on a tuba which wont get played anywhere but my basement.

I understand that...and I've been through months of NO practicing...playing gigs "on fumes".
Truth be told, I watched some late-night TV when I could have been playing my instruments...but (being really exhausted) maybe (??) that's about all I could do...but (even NOW) when I feel "exhausted" - and get through the FIRST FEW MINUTES of playing (ok: "practicing") at home, I'm often no longer exhausted...

...but (to the points I made in the original post) REALLY good (easy to play, as well as well-assembled) equipment is what allowed me to play "on fumes" - and that includes REALLY loud, REALLY soft, and whatever else I might have encountered.

I don't know if I'll decide to hold on to it, but the SOUSAPHONE that's currently here in the tuba room (no it's not a JP...This thread is NOT about hawking wares) is an old 30-pound (actually 30 lbs...not "that thing must weigh thirty pounds!") King (from the H.N. White days...another really fine piece of equipment.

bloke wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 2:05 pm ...
People who play for the fun/love of something will claim (I don't need/can't justify anything better than this...), ...

REALLY GOOD equipment (BOTH design-wise AND build-quality-wise) is REALLY FUN to use.
FUN matters.

I completely sympathize with gocsick. I went years with barely any playing because other stuff won the struggles for time and money. Now I'm playing regularly, but just for fun.

I'm on my third F tuba in 18 months. All three are German rotary tuba, all finely made, of similar vintage, and superficially with similar designs (size, tubing layout, ...). The reason I'm on the third is that each one has been easier -- for me -- to play well enough to not get kicked out of the bands.And not by just a little bit, either. With each change, I've been like, "Wow. I'm not having to fight this aspect of the tuba that I didn't even realize I was fighting." With one, a section mate said, "this new tuba sounds like less work."

As bloke suggests, this latest one is really fun. It lets me practice less, but is so much fun that I want to practice more. Funny (and frustrating) thing is that the price was not much different from the first tuba, so you can't just say, "spend more money and you'll get a better experience."

Yes. It has nothing to do with money. It has to do with better.

BRS wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:00 pm ...What’s better for me may not be better for others...
Maybe 50 years ago - when I was first learning to get around fairly well on the tuba (I'm not talking about 56 years ago, when I was first learning to play) anything that didn't play like a 186 was a "weird" instrument. I'd like to think that - today - when I pick up something, I spend the first 2 minutes to 20 minutes to 2 months figuring out how that particular instrument needs to be played in order to get optimum results, rather than just frowning because it doesn't play like the current instrument I own plays.

Build quality, there’s no substitute.
Amazing playing characteristics aren't a substitute, but are just as important.

Don't mind me, I'm always argumentative. My Dad would take either side of an argument simply to entertain himself.

Excellent post!
Thank you Joe,
Mark

bloke wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 2:05 pm......REALLY GOOD equipment (BOTH design-wise AND build-quality-wise) is REALLY FUN to use.
FUN matters.

THIS.

I'm speaking towards things like (hmm...OK)

- someone who's been playing a Cerveny "piggy" for decades, picking up a 186, and immediately proclaiming (even though several pitches are innately much closer to tune) "yuck...stuffy"

...or

- a any-tuba player picking up a c. .500" bore valve trombone with a 12C mouthpiece and asking "How the hell could anyone ever manage to play one of THESE things?!?!"

...or

a lifetime 184 playing picking up and blowing into a Holton 345 for the very first time

etc...
----------------------------------------

for me:
#1 - easily able to be played in tune
#2 - offers ease of flexibility/facility
(the two primary characteristics which contribute to me being asked back to yet another gig)

As far as "immediately 'shaking hands' with me" and "immediately feeling like a good ol' pair of shoes"...My 98 was not that (yet I could imagine how it eventually would be that), and it now is...and (as with every other tuba I've ever owned) it asked for several enhancements, in order to come a bit closer to nirvana.

100%

I have never been a great player, but once was "good". I am no longer good, but still do enjoy playing. At this stage of my life, I choose for things to be easy. I spent a few years searching for the perfect mouthpiece after playing the same Bach 18 for 35 years. I came back to that 18 or something really close to it in stainless. I have good horns, not expensive ones (except for one semi-expensive one) - they are easier. I leave a very playable, nice 186 clone at the school where we have community band. It takes work to play it - it's not easy, but it's practical. Like most things in life, nothing is a perfect fit - it is always a compromise. The less compromises, the better, however!

It's pretty simple: the goal is to find a setup that makes playing as easy (and therefore fun) as possible. Good equipment exists to make that happen. Brass instruments are tools...you wouldn't use a bad set of hand tools or power tools if you could help it, even if they could technically complete the job. If you can afford it, why wouldn't you use the best tools? Doesn't matter if you're a hobbyist handyman or a professional tradesman...everyone wants their tools to work for them rather than against them.

BRS wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:25 pm Every instrument has to be learned. Some people run with the pack or struggle too long with horns that should be abandoned.

Yep. As a type of example (difficult for me / great for others) don't think I could ever become really artistic with a 5J or Olds 0-99-4, but someone like a bass trombone player is likely to find those to be ideal doubling instruments... and it's not because of their size for me, it's probably just because of their size in proportion to their length. Of course, I can play them... and maybe (??) I could get to where I actually liked them, but I've been around those things for an awfully long time - being a fessunul instrument savior. Testing them, I'm usually pretty eager too get them in the case and get the case latched - after they're repaired.

BRS wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 6:26 am

bloke wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 2:06 pmAs far as "immediately 'shaking hands' with me" and "immediately feeling like a good ol' pair of shoes"...My 98 was not that (yet I could imagine how it eventually would be that), and it now is...and (as with every other tuba I've ever owned) it asked for several enhancements, in order to come a bit closer to nirvana.

When I played the couple 98’s I did in the past (Midwest, Mira dealer), I enjoyed the visceral feedback they provided, but I almost immediately knew that the “cost - benefit” ratio (not cost as in $, but cost as in overall efforts expended…) didn’t calculate in a positive manner. I take great joy in watching you enjoy yours, but there are others that do much more for me. That you describe your experience with over the top words like “nirvana” makes me smile.

As far as the 5J goes, I’m glad others enjoy them and I don’t have to endure them other than if they show up broken, which, luckily, isn’t very often anymore as I think they’ve mostly aged out around here. The (real) Olds tubas offer a bit more charm to me than the 5J, but they take “work” and, again, are now mostly beat.

Valve venting, correcting the length of the first circuit (shorter), and - finally - a mouthpiece with more resistance built in (though similar to the one that I started out using) were the things that - more than all the other things I did to it - made it an easy-to-play instrument that puts out a lot of resonance (with correct pitch) with not all that much effort. The rotors have to be immaculate in order to be fast, but I can keep them Immaculate pretty easily by oiling them every time I play them and jetting hot water through them (while wiggling them) every couple of months.

You've seen the other stuff I did to it, but these things helped more than anything else, and they're not big things.

I'm not going to use and keep any instrument that makes me feel tired when playing it, and I'm certainly not going to ever accept finding myself perspiring when playing a tuba.

I had spoken to the person that owned this instrument for well over two years (maybe twice that long) about eventually purchasing it from them. They were in no hurry, and it took me a while to decide to psychologically/emotionally embrace the fact that the United States C tuba thing is a no-explanation/just because thing, offers no advantage, necessarily defines that resonance sacrifices must be made, and presents serious design and intonation challenges to builders (having put together a couple of C instruments myself). It also occurred to me that - as central European orchestras actually require B-flat instruments, most of the classic orchestral literature comes from that region, and that's what I'm using it for - that perhaps they actually know something. All that having been said, this instrument is still undeniably a hybrid combination of a kaiser design and a 6/4 design. My belief is that it was rolled out before the American reawakening of B-flat popularity was in full swing, and - even today - Americans feel funny paying professional tuba prices for B-flat tubas, because they (via private teacher attitude-messaging) very much associate them with school and student instruments, in this country... Things that reinforce these attitudes and beliefs are that (indeed) most all student instruments in this country are B-flat instruments, and the ones made in the past in this country were often difficult or semi difficult to play in tune, certainly including the very large ones, with King probably making those (medium large) which were easiest to play in tune, but still associated with school use much more than professional use.

I'm not defending what I decided to do, but simply explaining why I decided to do it, and I'm delighted to sell other people whatever they would like to purchase, particularly if I happen to have it to sell to them. I certainly don't have any spare 98's laying around here.

A really fine professional player stopped by here yesterday for me to do just a little bit of work on one of their instruments they were selling. I had them play the 98, and - even though they were using my mouthpiece and playing on a foreign-to-them instrument - the sounds they were immediately (from "over there", rather than on top of my head - when I play it) were really making me smile. It made me more understand the positive reactions that I get from others, when playing it.

I remember seeing pictures of that instrument and I've wondered the same thing. My suspicion is that they were struggling with C-length intonation (as I've stated that I believe it's a huge challenge to get from mouthpipe bore to that bell throat bore over only 16 feet - while still offering usable intonation, as it's difficult enough doing it over 18 feet). Everyone here knows that I love Miraphone quality, I love the Miraphone people, and I love certain models that they produce. I do believe that they have a tendency to feel that they might need to try to outsize everyone else when it comes to developing models. I'm going to say outright that I think the 129X C tuba models bore sizes are too large, I think the Petrushka F bore size is too large, and there might be some other examples... but lovers of those instruments might be shaking their heads while reading this. I'm a player who thrives off of resistance, and I tend to use it to my advantage. For a C instrument, that prototype looks (??) too large. I think Yamaha - with Gene Pokorny's guidance - was absolutely on the right track by making their best-of-all 6/4 C instruments smaller than the others.

If indeed those outer bows are the same as used on the 98, that was a really good decision, even though it wasn't marketed successfully, or perhaps was - as I previously suggested - before it's time.

Finally, if indeed those are the same outer bows and bell, my guess is that the player in the picture is not particularly tall, as the 98 is not a remarkably tall instrument.