Posted by Wade on August 15, 2003 at 18:54:56:
In Reply to: Re: Newer tuba models are missing ________ . posted by thread-man on August 14, 2003 at 19:06:53:
I am not willing to swallow that whole line quite yet, Joe. Your theory is not all-inclusive in its definition, therefore, it is only partially true. But I see where you are coming from and mostly agree. However . . .
Alexander 163s with the old mammoth leadpipe are VERY NON-RESISTANT and have boat loads of character (mucho core with lots of high overtones as well). They are the most free-blowing tubas that I have played. In fact, they blow so freely that when one buys an old one, they must relearn how to blow in order to remain efficient in an orchestral setting, or the "Ride" would turn them inside-out those first few months. And they have weird pitch, too, in many cases.
I have not yet blown a BAT that is as open as my Alex. That might just be an example of my skewed perspective on things, however, as I have played on fewer than 15 real BATs (meaning HB 50s, 2165s, Holtons, and Nirschels . . . I have played a lot on the big Conns as well, but the inconsistency was amazing). The Alex, however much smaller, is always more open FOR ME. Maybe mine is odd, however. (That can serve as my excuse if I am proven wrong.) ;^P
I agree with your theory in principle, but see at least the one big exception.
What do you think? Pop a top, kick up your feet onto my nice TubeNet pickle barrel and set a spell . . .
Wade "lots of time to kill tonight, unfortunately" Rackley