Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: York tubas


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

Posted by Rick Denney on July 10, 2002 at 11:15:25:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: York tubas posted by Jay Bertolet on July 09, 2002 at 17:54:20:

The whole notion of not being able to reproduce a Strad is a bit off, I think. They can reproduce Strads that are as alike Strads as Strads are like each other. Which is to say, not that alike. I'd bet that if you could quantify what made a York a York, and if you put dots on a graph to represent that quantity, you'd get a scatter. That was Marks' point. And I'd be further willing to bet that if you put the Nirschl's and original hand-made Yorkbrunners on that graph, their dots would fall within the scatter of the real York dots. That we don't have that quantitative characteristic is the whole reason for this discussion. Without being able to measure it, we can't explain it, and without that explanation, we can fool ourselves too easily.

The copies are more likely to be too perfect than not perfect enough. Our manufacturing skills may be too good to find the particular mix of screw-ups that makes the Yorks what they are. Your Strad example helps here, too. One of the most careful violin makers in the world is Charles Irvin. It is his observation that Strads are Strads not because of the wood or the varnish or those other things, but because of the imperfections. He believes that Stradivarius purposely introduced imperfections to round out the tone, such as the f holes not lining up perfectly (which they don't on real Strads), and the hand-cut perling of variable width. Most modern makers try to apply far more precise modern production techniques, assuming that these imperfections were unintentional and destrimental. They don't realize that these imperfections may have resulted from purposeful trial and error (or even through happy accident that was understood and built into future designs). While I don't know any world-class violinists, the very good ones that I do know who have bought one of Charles's violins claim that he comes closer than any other modern maker to the real thing.

I think if we were to go back to, say, 1930 and ask Bill Johnson what made that instrument so special, he would say, "Special? What's so special about it? I only sold two, and the first guy didn't even like it enough to keep it and he sold it to a student." If you could bring Mr. Johnson to the present time, then once he'd got over his amazement, he would not be able to tell you what made the tuba so special. He might even prefer some of the newer offerings out there.

Reverse engineering, which is what we are doing with the copies, does not follow the same path as the original maker and won't be able to say which factor is important and which isn't, even assuming that Bill Johnson had an idea of it. But I'd bet the biggest difference is still the players themselves, and their expectations. Donitelli and Jacobs were looking for something new, and we are looking for something old. That's a huge difference in perspective.

If you wanted to make a real copy, good documentation of their production methods would be of much greater value than having their tools. Conn has a tradition passed down from worker to worker, but that thread has been lost with York and will never be re-established. Even so, I think the current copies are about as close as the modern mind will ever be willing to acknowledge. Our descendants are going to be amused.

Rick "who thinks musicians naturally distrust 'progress'" Denney


Follow Ups: