Re: Re: Re: Bucking the trends


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

Posted by Jay Bertolet on April 24, 1999 at 07:07:26:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Bucking the trends posted by John Cooper on April 23, 1999 at 14:48:26:

I remember the question you posted before as well. I'm sorry you didn't get the response but I'm pretty sure I answered the questions. No matter, here are my thoughts.

I use my 641 as a specialty horn only. It plays, in my opinion, just like a typical smallish F tuba. That is to say that the sound is markedly different than any other tuba I have and it has serious problems in the low range, unlike other Eb tubas and some of the bigger F tubas made today. The intonation on it is pretty good to the point that I don't really have to do any slide pulling. I use mine primarily for Berlioz pieces like "Benvenuto Cellini", "King Lear", and "The Corsair" which require alot of high range playing but not too much projection. I've also used it on the Brahms "Requiem" and in a couple of different operas as an experiment. It has a superb high range and tends to accept lots of volume without too much of an argument. But its problems in the low range, in my opinion, make it unsuitable for more versatile applications like brass quintet. I don't use it in the opera anymore, either. The only modification I made to mine is that I added a fifth valve but this didn't really help the low range problems. I've never compared the dimensions of a 641 to a Mirafone 184 but I can tell you, having played both tubas, they don't play at all similarly. The Mirafone is much more balanced in its approach and, in my opinion, is a better choice for quintet playing and a more versatile horn altogether. Certainly, the 641 is very cheap. Mine is the same as the one in the Brasswind catalog except I paid $1300.00 for mine about 8 years ago. That made it the perfect experimentation horn for me and the cost was the only reason I was willing to give it a try. Actually, I'm very pleased with how it worked out and if I can solve the low range problems on it, the 641 would make a pretty reasonable substitute for a Cimbasso. Other 641's might play differently, I just had them send me one and I bought it. Mine may be better than the norm as I've heard lots of complaints about the intonation on these tubas. Since mine doesn't seem to have this problem, perhaps I should count myself as lucky on the first try.

I hope this helps you out. Good luck!


Follow Ups: