Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cerveny 693 vs ST.Petersburg.HELP!!!!!!!

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

Posted by Joe Baker on December 22, 1999 at 20:27:22:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cerveny 693 vs ST.Petersburg.HELP!!!!!!! posted by Dale on December 22, 1999 at 17:57:09:

(Ascending soap-box in XXXL flame-retardant Elvis jumpsuit, and wearing comfortable shoes so I can stay up here a long time)...

First, let me tell you I've never seen, played or heard a St. Pete. I have no idea how they are built. Second, I have no rocks to throw at any of the posters who think that 'made like cr*p' is a sufficient assessment; I simply disagree. Now, I completely understand that if you're making a living with a tuba then ONLY the best will do; but for most of us if it's the best or nothing, then it's nothing. We will HAVE to choose which sacrifices we make to bring the instrument into budget. There are some here who seem unwilling or unable to comment on a horn in the context of a (sometimes very) limited budget. For lots of us cost is one of the very most important factors. For example, after not owning my own tuba for 18 years, only occasionally playing one that belonged to my church, I finally was able to justify spending $675 on a Yamaha 103 (3 front valves, 3/4 BBb). To many of you, such a horn would be unthinkable, and rightly so; you're trying to be professionals, and both the intonation limitations and the range limitations of having only 3 valves would utterly rule out this horn. Yet for me, a guy who just passionately wants to be able to get back into the band -- darn near any band -- it's a dream horn, because I could afford it.

What does this have to do with "it's made like cr*p"? Simple. If I know I'm going to have to make sacrifices, I want to know what sacrifices come with each instrument. With the money I have in hand, my choices might be horn A that sounds good and is a tank, but has three valves, horn B that has four valves and is well built but will undoubtedly attract the least socially acceptable moose(s?), or horn C that sounds good and has four valves, but that is made out of the brass equivalent of aluminum foil. The BUYER is the one who ultimately must decide what sacrifice to make, and he can't do that if he doesn't have the DETAILS of just what qualifies the horn as 'made like cr*p'.

Finally (lowering blast shield on flame-retardent helmet) while I have no doubt that many negative comments come from informed individuals making the best and most objective assessment possible, I believe there are also some who hop onto the bandwagon, knowing that "all the really hip players don't like that horn." They are the ones, as a group, that are MORE LIKELY to whip out a vague comment like 'made like cr*p'. Please note that I have NOT accused any individual of belonging to that second group, nor is it my intention to imply such to be the case.

(Stepping down from soap-box...)

Now, a question for the instrument repair types, if they haven't tuned me out already:
all brass work is done with annealed brass, right? As I understand it, the annealing process softens the brass, making it more workable (and more dentable). Is there any way to 'un-anneal' brass, making it more resistant to dents? Thanks for teaching us so much about what you do.

Follow Ups: