Re: Re: Re: Re: Getzen G-50

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

Posted by Lee Stofer on April 18, 2002 at 10:52:59:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Getzen G-50 posted by vs 56J on April 17, 2002 at 21:47:58:

I have had only limited experience with both of these models, but here is what I noted.
Both seem to have been aimed at the "one horn to do everything" niche, and both of them could fulfill that role. I feel that the Getzen would fare best as a solo/ small ensemble horn, and I'd want the additional size of the Conn if I were playing with a larger ensemble, personally. Observed quality of both horns was good, if not always excellent.
Actually, I wish UMI, Holton, SOMEONE, would go to the trouble to tool-up and build some big tubas again. I've heard all the excuses, it's so expensive, it's so much trouble, we don't think it would be profitable, it just can't be done, etc. If all that is true, then how do people in countries with a higher cost-of-living than ours like Japan, Germany and Switzerland manage to build big tubas, ship them to our country (an extra expense), and still make a profit? There is nothing really high-tech needed to build a tuba. What is needed to build a great tuba is skilled workers who will settle for nothing less than excellence. One American manufacturer boasts of having super-accurate cutting tools for making their piston valve ports, but what good does that do when the person who assembles the pistons leaves globs of solder in the ports, that then gets plated over?! Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox . . .
-Lee Stofer

Follow Ups: