From: Douglas Tate Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 08:11:22 +0100 Subject: Why the #270
Pete M and Frank C write
Frank >> artist was Douglas Tate with his ancient, modified, beautiful 270. ......cut............. No amplification. Beautiful tones filled the > hall over the beautiful piano accompaniment. Played a baroque violin
Pete >I'm curious. Why the 270? Why not a 280 or even a 64X? I've >never played either, trying to understand the differences.
_Pete M.
There are two possible answers here. 1. Ask back a question why the violin and not the cello?? the two instruments are related as are the 270 and 280 but people make choices depending on what they want to play, the tonal characteristics they wish to employ and...how much money they have.
2 Shove you the real dirt! I used the 270 to start with because it was all I could afford. I WANTED that big 280 thing, (I also wanted go faster stripes on my roller skates). The 270 worked well for me most of the time giving good sound and consistancy. Then when my wages rose to the equivalent of 4dollars 50 a week I went into the realms of hire purchase and bought a 280. It was in a stupendous shiny wooden case with a yellow interior and I could hardly see the damn instrument for tears. I fell in love with it straight away, it had a wonderful sweet and gentle tone,was a marvellously subtle instrument. Couldn't make it very loud because of its construction and my lack of ability, but then, I was only playing for me. After a few years of this and no interest in the 270 at all Hohner changed the design. The put in the long slide movement with the bigger holes.
Now, remember, the 280 was regarded as THE professional instrument even though the 270 was used by most of the British professionals Adler, Reilly , Geldray, Chesney.
The explanation Hohner gave was that ~beginners~ complained that they found the bottom notes difficult. So to hell with what the professional players wheo were advertising their instruments though, over we go to plastic and a long slidemovement, coverplates which were sharp and a shape which no longer fitted the mouth. On top of that they went out of tune incredibly fast, I remember a three week period when I ruined seven instruments. At that point I dug out the old 270.
Imediately I regretted a bit of the range going, I would have liked the two holes below middle C to cover violin music. But the sound was mor direct.
Since that time I have done some design work on the thing (Its all in my book folks!) (Cheap at any price) (Commercial over) which has been quite widely quoted already so I wont go into it here.
I keep going back to the various 280 designs to try them with the following results. I can't obtain the range of volume I require, I can't get the subtle variation in tone I need, I can't move as fast on the thing, I don't like the base sound (although it is rich and improved on the 64X, the best one yet) The slide movement is clunky. I could go on.
My ideal instrument would be a 14 hole going down to G below middle C with the following features ........ You think I'm going to tell YOU!?
It is my aim to start building a 270 model based on my stainless steel one. The intention is to sell the damn things so that I can eat and also to try and inject a reasonable instrument into the music workplace for less than the ridiculous price of the Silver Concerto but with a better spec and playability than the Amadeus, and with some improvements on my present instrument.
Yes, I am also starting to discuss this and swap technical ideas with an American who has all of the critical qualities required to get me going on the project. The BHF was a good place for more than one reason!
