Re: Re: Re: T.U.B.A. ?


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

Posted by Dale Phelps on March 15, 1999 at 13:09:27:

In Reply to: Re: Re: T.U.B.A. ? posted by Sean Chisham on March 15, 1999 at 10:52:31:

I hope this post is not perceived as simply cynical,
although I am very skeptical about the role and "universality"
of T.U.B.A., I know legitimate and well-meaning dialog is far more valuable
than real, or even perceived, mud-slinging.

I was a member of TUBA for a few years when I resumed playing tuba,
after an 8-year break after high school. Initially it seemed to provide
simply the newsletter, although each newsletter had a member's composition
included, these things had way too many notes for me to even want to look at!
Later I found the "journal" to be more interesting to me on an equipment
level...horns buy and sell (sorta like dmudd's used tuba/euph page today.)
That was then, today I am sure that I'd find compositions "for tuba" interesting,
and it is likely that some of the journalism/articles would be a good read as well.

Funding of the organization proper is hard for a west-coaster like me
to justify or get behind though. None of these conferences (to my knowledge)
are regularly presented in California. The explanation is it is hard for exhibitors
to justify shows out here when their market is in the midwest or on the "right" coast.

This rather undermines the position of "your money pays for more than a newsletter"
don't you think? And if this were not the case, why is it these same exhibitors cannot pick up some of the costs of our "brotherhood"...or at least ad costs for our journal? I should think the sale of one or two 6-figure tubas would more than offset ad costs, even if TUBA doubled what they probably charge for advertising now.

Messrs. Phillips and Perantoni WERE strong pitch-men in their heyday, but they were also busy hustling to design/sell/market horns as well. Remember, the mid-to-late 70's were a period of double digit inflation and cutbacks at most colleges and universities.
This may be why you hear their names applied more to mouthpieces or tuba model names than who their students are or what their students are doing. Sure, everyone has to make a buck, but isn't it surprising that not one TUBA board-type person has gone on record as simply (perhaps even humbly) saying "yes we have our shortcomings." If this statement is EVER proffered it is always followed by the proverbial big fat "BUT." Thus it's no wonder that the so-called "brotherhood" has been reduced (I fear) to little more than a gaggle of young poseurs and posturers who'd more likely sneer at another player's fracked note than encourage an 8th grader to take lessons (unless of course "they" were giving the lessons.)

Now I am sure most of the board members have more honest musical talent in their little fingers than I will ever be able to compensate for by practicing 2-3-or more hours per day
forever. But just like in management in business or industry or even universities, simply being "good" at the topic may not mean capability in managing supporting or directing of those people who are "good" at doing whatever it is they do. Ever play in a group who chose their shop steward based on their playing ability? (be honest)
So now we have it. The real question if effectivity, and close behind that is "who benefits most from T.U.B.A." Is it the so-called "brotherhood", or manufacturers, designers, clinicians, teachers? Funding problems...membership problems...production problems...these can be easily resolved, not by appealing to the "brotherhood" blindly, but by taking a careful look at who benefits most directly from the venue, and then obligating them to be stand-up about footing the bills. EVEN if it means "paid staffers" for a special interest group like tuba, it can mean "paid staffers" who are gifted as support staff/admin or simply production folks, and not primarily as players.
I guess if I say I won't hold my breath it'd be cynical. Ah well, so be it.




Follow Ups: