Modernized vintage

Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. While my "ugliest" tenor may not win any Ms. Universe pageants, it wins hands down in the tone contest. (Maybe it's already been said here, but you can't play looks.) It has the best sound of any tenor I have ever played, or for that matter have ever heard in person. Other players love to play it, and I love to hear them play it. I trade horns with them, just so I get to truly hear what the Zephyr really sounds like. It even beats my Martin, which is not an easy feat.

My Handcraft was brilliantly restored in 2000. I haven't yet had to get it regulated if you believe it. I used it regularly for years, and it's done a lot of travelling and shows with me. I'm very tempted Lance, to come and visit you and talk about a mod for the left pinkie cluster. That is the horn's only downside. It is a pinkie buster.
 
I think you guys (not Helen) are confusing superficial cosmetics with form, but then again, depth perception may not be your thing. From an aesthetical standpoint, I prefer the old, crusty, corroded original Martin, which is far from pretty, because the designers put as much thought into crafting it's shape and symmetry, as they did into how well it sounded. It's original and pleasing to look at. Form makes a statement whether you are able to appreciate it or not.

As original as Leopold is in his mechanical ideas, and they are awesome, dumping the original Martin shapes for cookie-cutter, prefab, keys, that are identical to the very cheapest Selmer copy, doesn't do his original work justice. He certainly has the skills to make at least his own version of a Selmer thumb hook, a neck locking mechanism, LH table keys, etc., since he made his own version of the rest of the mechanism.

So he gets a, "pretty good" from me, not because he isn't good, but because he could do so much better. When he puts as much thought into the form of each part as it functions aesthetically, as it functions mechanically, then I'll say. "perfect and amazing".
 
Helen said:
(Maybe it's already been said here, but you can't play looks.)
Click to expand...
I've said something along the lines of, "I like Shiny. But you can't play the Shiny."

This brings us to another comment that I made awhile back regarding folks like Groovekiller that buy horns like the Vibratosax and such: I do think that the shiny (or, in the case of the Vibratosax, it's just "the pretty") can help you to stand out and that can make people remember you more, which can lead to more gigs. Another interesting effect is that if your horn stands out amongst the flock of other instruments, people assume that you're the best player ... allowing you to blame the 2nd chair player when you're 10 cents out of tune or blow an entrance :).

============

MM, I think we understand what you're talking about regarding aesthetics -- i.e. a mechanism should be built to work well and should be elegant in form -- but, of course, we're taking it in another direction.

I'm reminded of the comments of Stephen Howard on the Pierret: some of the keywork mechanisms look clunky, but they do the job. And quite well.

One of the problems in talking about the aesthetics of a mechanism is that some of the best ones aren't found on the best horns and folks that have horns that are arguably great can argue that if $best_horn_in_the_world has a G# cluster designed in a particular way, that must be the best design, as it's on the $best_horn_in_the_world. Hey, I've argued elsewhere that the best design for an alto sax would be a straight horn, but that design hasn't been often executed -- so is it really the best design?
 
MartinMods said:
From an aesthetical standpoint, I prefer the old, crusty, corroded original Martin, which is far from pretty, because the designers put as much thought into crafting it's shape and symmetry, as they did into how well it sounded.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with this actually, I'd even say this modern version looks industrial and not very nice in comparison, but agree in spite of that I choose not to judge this modernized version in that spirit and think that it shouldn't.

As far the vintage pinky keys vs. modern pinky keys, I know some players think that a good old-style pinky table design can be as good with some getting used to. That is definitely true, but only sometimes. I know some players who actually prefer this pinky table. But there's no question that some players don't and wouldn't like this, even with improvement of levers etc. This is not a problem. It is like someone might really not like [insert type of food that many people love] but they might be a great cook in spite of that.

MartinMods said:
"pretty good" from me... then I'll say. "perfect and amazing".
Click to expand...
Maybe a language thing, I don't know. For me it's not "pretty good", for what I consider that it is I would say it's very good, excellent really (as I said I don't judge it for what I feel that isn't, if I did then it would also lose points for me). But I definitely wouldn't call it "perfect and amazing" either. There are a lot of things in between.
 
Something from the grumpy old man in the back of the room

I have two things to say on this topic:

the first is that I dislike stinking old saxophones (and clarinets, and bass clarinets, and bassoons - especially bassoons). So, all other factors being equal, I'd opt for new and well maintained over old and decrepit. Nothing superficial about it - I just don't like mildew. (It probably has to do with my time in the field in RVN, where Ms. Mildew was a constant companion during the rainy season.)

The second is that don't underestimate the power of good looks (whether in people, overall presentation, or shiny colored horns) when in a performance situation. We musicians tend to view everything through our eyes, rather than those of the "rest of the world".

We see clever licks, and flawless intonation; but they tend to see a) the vocalists (everyone understands singing since everyone can at least croak out a tune, so they can easily relate to a vocalist at some level - saxophone skills are a lot thinner on the ground, and most can't begin to comprehend what we do); b) the appearance of the performers (which generally means the leads and the vocalists); and only then do they worry about those faceless guys and gals in the back row and what they might be doing.

So, if a group is trying to make the grade with the general public (rather than with a narrow band of jazz aficionados), "little things" like appearance do matter.
 
Helen said:
Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. While my "ugliest" tenor may not win any Ms. Universe pageants, it wins hands down in the tone contest. (Maybe it's already been said here, but you can't play looks.) It has the best sound of any tenor I have ever played, or for that matter have ever heard in person. Other players love to play it, and I love to hear them play it. I trade horns with them, just so I get to truly hear what the Zephyr really sounds like. It even beats my Martin, which is not an easy feat.
Click to expand...

Hereunder the ugly tenor which gives the best sound I ever had and one of the best sound I ever heard, etc. What a coincidence !
Long live Zephyres!
J
 
What serial # is your Zeph Jacques? Yours looks absolutely stunning compared to mine.
 
Helen,
Its no 423 680, which is rather late (1966 I think) and supposedly not so glamourous for a Zephyr, a new proof that all these rankings are very, very relative.
Re the look: as you know, pics tend to embellish the story (which is good when selling...)...
Cheers
J
 
Mine actually looks worse in photos than it does in real life. It is just delacquered naturally, and has maybe about 5% or less of the lacquer left, and that is mostly on a few of the keys. It's one of those horns that looks like it belongs in a blues band (which I coincidentally happen to play in).

I think the Zephs are under-rated for the most part. People are too stuck on the Super 20s IMO. I think with these old guys you have to take each on a case by case basis, which likely explains your mid 60s Zeph.

Layne, my tech in Halifax, swears by his post-HN White Super 20. He has had it since new, and has had the opportunity to play it against every other Super 20 out there, but believes it surpasses them. He thinks that the first generation of post HN White S 20s were the best. I've heard others say that as well. Interestingly enough, those people were also techs who were sax players.
 
How true ! The number of saxes I played is minute compared to that of most of you guys on this forum, and thus statistically irrelevant, but, apart from this great Zeph, I happened to own a fantastic looking 10M, rolled tone 1941, great year (for 10M anyway..), the works, which sounded totally dead and a cheap Chu Stencil made for Geo. M. Bundy which outclassed by far the 2 or 3 "real" Chus I had the opportunity to play. These discoveries are one of the many joys of sax.
 
The 10M is another horn that IMO is highly over-rated. (I own one, so I can get away with saying that.) ;) I think there is nothing wrong with them, and that they sound fine on their own, but once you start comparing them side by side to other vintage horns like the Zephs, the Hohner President, or the Dörfler & Jörka (which were Toneking clones) under whatever name you choose, you start to notice how white bread they sound. Sure they sound like a tenor, and yes, they sound decent enough, but there is nothing particularly spectacular about them.

One of the reason I really love the vintage horns is because they do all sound different. Before the days of computerization and automation, things were still more hand built, and individual horns varied more from one to another than they do today. Although this might have arguably led to more duds, it also lead to some more interesting differences in tonal palette even among horns from the same manufacturer and of the same model. For me, I find the differences in the tonal palettes the most interesting thing to investigate and pursue in horns.

All things being equal, I should sound the same on all my tenors, yet I don't. There are subtle differences that are noticeable enough for even a non-saxophile to hear when listening to me play unaccompanied. While I realize this is pure indulgence on my part, and likely a justification of my G.A.S.;)--since I now only play in electric environments with a guitar and key board player who finally drove me to use my own pedals--I just love having my tenors out and playing through them all regularly. (Yes, even my 10M.) It is one of the simple things in life that gives me great pleasure, and is an excellent source of stress relief.
 
I took more of a look at http://www.meinsax.de, today, because our good friend Quinn just sold a SML tenor that was rebuilt by them for $5500 US. I think that's the highest price I've seen paid for ANY SML in any pitch.

(The ebay ad is here and the meinsax.de page is here.)

My #1 comment is that the work done is truly awesome. The #2 comment is that it's truly beautiful. #3 comment is the money put into the horn was probably a LOT more than $5500. Say the horn's worth $2500 before the keywork mods. The mods cost almost $5000. (I'm sure Quinn got it for less than $5500, so Quinn makes a profit and the buyer gets a really good price.)

I'd assume that the keywork was offset, not the toneholes. If the toneholes were tinkered with, isn't that kinda like saying, "Yes, we love the vintage sound ... but this needs to be fixed"? I was also a tad amused that meinsax.de customized a Selmer S80 II. A modernized modern horn?
 
pete said:
I'd assume that the keywork was offset, not the toneholes. If the toneholes were tinkered with, isn't that kinda like saying, "Yes, we love the vintage sound ... but this needs to be fixed"? I was also a tad amused that meinsax.de customized a Selmer S80 II. A modernized modern horn?
Click to expand...
I've tried a Martin he modified to his system with modern keys. On that one, I'm pretty sure I remember the upper stack and lower stack tone holes were offset i.e. cut and re-attached the body between the stacks.

Re "Yes, we love the vintage sound ... but this needs to be fixed", well, yes, it is pretty much like saying that, or at least changing the sax for the offset stacks which many players prefer. So this would work great for someone who likes how this sax plays but prefers offset stacks, which many players do.

Re the modified Selmer SII, it's not really modernized, just modified to the new systems which are the key cups and the hinges. I didn't actually like the floating "mode" and preferred the "normal" method which makes the mounting system of the key cups irrelevant really. One thing I didn't like was the mount for the E key (lower stack) was too close to the pearl and my finger touched it, which was uncomfortable.
 
The SML looks awesome - and the selling price was awesome too - but it's not my cup of tea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom