Posted by Rick Denney on March 06, 2003 at 12:17:01:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: King 2341 Info Needed posted by Todd W. White on March 05, 2003 at 21:42:11:
No need to yell--I'm right here.
I've played bunches of old Kings, and I like many of them, but I don't worship them. Sorry.
You are countering yourself. On the one hand, you say that your old King is so well in tune that you have no need to ever adjust the first-valve slide. On the other hand, you say that people should pick one good instrument and stick to it for 30 years to learn its idiosyncracies to avoid having to worry about intonation. If the intonation is perfect, should it not be perfect for any player after a few weeks?
The notion that any instrument can be perfectly in tune, when we are so often faced with matching our pitch to ensembles that are not perfectly in tune, frankly baffles me. If our pitch doesn't match the ensemble, then we are out of tune. Period.
My main argument is, however, that you first praise all 1241's, and then state a qualification that 1241's from some periods are better than others. Which period should we buy? Why? I said that there are good and bad 2341's, and you said there are good and not-so-good 1241's. I gave an example of an excellent 1241 that I helped a family member purchase, but then said that the best of the new Kings is still a better instrument. I'm not sure that anything you've said has refuted that, other than the capital letters.
Lots of great tuba players have help to design instruments that only they can make work. Mr. Bell's involvement in the early Kings is surely a strong recommendation, but no guarantor of success.
Rick "who never said he thought we could make a perfectly in-tune instrument, which is why he wants that adjustible first slide" Denney