Posted by Rick Denney on June 17, 2003 at 10:38:40:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Copying Whom? (Long) posted by Chuck(G) alias WTH on June 16, 2003 at 23:55:49:
Chuck, I've always said that the popularity of the instrument was based on what Jacobs did with it. If that isn't putting credit where it is due, then I don't know what is. But it's more than that, too. Bobo did the same thing with Miraphone, but I don't see many orchestral musicians using Miraphones for orchestra use the way he did. You yourself suggested that few would want to play Bell's Kings in regular use. That tells me that the fat piston contrabass's appeal for Jacobs was more universal, and less dependant on his unique skills and musicianship.
But all that is secondary in this line of discussion. It seems to me quite appropriate to study history for history's sake, and the development of the instruments is interesting for purely historical reasons. I don't see the harm in tracing the origins of various instrument types, and that has been my focus throughout this discussion. Your complaint, it seems to me, applies to other threads and different questions.
I have observed tremendous scholarship in the history of Stradivarius and Guarneri violins, tracing back to Amati, and forward to the Cremona tradition. I know a scholar and Cremona-trained violin-maker who has measured original Strads in incredible detail, and because of that formed an opinion that their assymetry, and not the antique wood or whatever, is a big part of their success. His copies are very expensive and highly regarded by those few who have bought them, even though he eschews the Cremona tradition as trying to fix the these "errors" in the original Strad designs. His goal in life is to understand the 15 or so Strad designs so well that he can predict and develop the 16th, but he realizes that this goal is probably unattainable.
Some probably think that this course of study detracts from the artistry applied to Stradivarius violins over the years by the great masters, giving credit to the instruments where it belongs with the musician. But it seems to me that there is room for both courses of study. The great musicians apparently thought those Strads gave them something useful, and they paid a fortune to get whatever it is.
Modern tuba players gravitate to the fat piston contrabasses for a reason. We've talked a lot on this forum about what those reasons might be, both good and bad. Now that I own one of these instruments, I understand that the attraction is not mythical--the instruments really do have special qualities in many cases. Understanding the history of their development surely can't be wrong. I frankly can't see how that would deprecate what Arnold Jacobs accomplished in his career, but I can see how it might help to create a more balanced view of the fat contrabass's role in the pantheon of instrument designs. Yes, Jacobs could have made music on a garbage can. But he didn't. The York he played most emphatically was not a garbage can, or it would be sitting in someone's collection (like Bell's tubas) instead of being used on stage by Gene Pokorny. Jacobs himself referred to the York as both a "hunk of brass" and "the Stradivarius of tubas", and I think the ability to use both descriptions provides a good balance between the role of the musician and assistance provided by the instrument.
Rick "who disagrees with Chuck with considerable trepidation" Denney