Posted by Jay Bertolet on January 14, 2001 at 12:23:06:
In Reply to: Re: Chicago York posted by Frederick J. Young on January 14, 2001 at 08:52:29:
Interesting statements but hardly germane to the discussion of the relative worth of a particular design of tuba. Are violinists "living in the past" when they covet a Stradivarius violin? These instruments wouldn't be receiving so much attention if they didn't produce a desirable sound. And not to seem too immodest, I consider myself a pretty good player and I'm confident that I don't need Arnold Jacob's tuba (or even one like it) to be successful. I buy instruments for one reason only: I like them because they work for me.
But to address your specific statements, I don't feel that instruments made today are much, if at all, better than those made in the recent (last 75 years) past. In fact, many of the same truisms of older instruments remain today. Manufacturers still make good and bad instruments within a specific model line. The best policy is still to play on the specific horn you're going to buy because they can vary quite a bit in quality from one horn to the next, even within a given model. This is about the only place I've seen a marked difference in the manufacture of tubas. These days, production techniques seem to be much more standardized (assembly line oriented) and so the differences from one horn to the next seem to be less noticeable. But this also precludes that one really good tuba that somehow gets produced, at least in my experience.
I respect your feelings about the York tuba you played and how it didn't work for you. And I'm sure that you don't own one yourself which is a good thing because it didn't work for you anyway. But there are those of us who have bought them that really enjoy them. I also own other very new instruments that work fine for me too. I guess it's all about finding the right tools for what you want to do. To that end, I'm willing to consider all alternatives.
My opinion for what it's worth...