Will A Better Horn Make You A Better Player?

[Helen]

A discussion we were having in another thread got me thinking about the age old question...

Will a modern horn make a person a better player? I think that's an interesting question that could use it's own thread. There are lots of angles that we could explore there.

For me, this is the real issue. I could be very happy continuing to work on my playing on the Martin...except for the nagging feeling that I have that I might be better off with a horn with all the advantages/advances of a modern horn with modern (i.e. Selmer style) keywork.

Rory

So what are your thoughts about this? It seems to me that there are lots of possible variables.

I think to some degree it depends on who the player is, what the horn is, and the condition of each.

Let's for a minute assume that the player is a grade school student, and the sax is a leaking Grange student model from around 1976 that needs a rebuild. As a teacher, I would have to say "yes", a better student model sax, in better repair would allow the student to progress into a better player. It could lessen a student's chances of quitting due to frustration, and would most likely allow the student to progress more quickly through the beginning stages of saxophone-playing hell (from a parent's perspective ;-) ).

If, on the other hand, the player is a pro, or a semi-pro, and has a pro model sax, then I'm not so sure if an "upgrade" in saxophones will make the person a better player. In this case the sax is a tool to you, and you're used to your tools. You know exactly how to use them; what they can do; and how they can do it. I remember talking to Jane Bunnett a few years ago at a jazz festival we were both performing at. She and I were both playing Mark VI sopranos. I asked her if she had ever thought of switching to a newer horn. She told me she had play-tested the new Selmers, but didn't have time to relearn how to play a new horn.

When is it time for an upgrade from a student to intermediate or pro horn? What about high school or university students? What about adult students? What about vintage horns? Modern (Mark VI & newer) versus vintage?

I've pontificated enough for one post. How about someone else jump in. I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on all of this.

 

[Steve]

At one time I was a Couf (alto and tenor, and sop) fanatic. Of course, growing up in "Couf-land" does that to you. BUT when I was in high school, and played alto in the regular WindEnsemble I ALWAYS played my Selmer.

I never knew why until maybe 10 years ago now I was play testing horns and found an interesting situation. In more complex music that I was playing I could play much better on the Selmer than Couf on the my RightHand lower keys- especialy evident on tenor, and not so much on alto. I also found out that my personal ergonomics perferred the non-tilting Bb mechanism.

The RH issue was due to key placement. The Selmer offset key stack and side key and pinky touches were so much better placed than the Couf's straight stacks that I easily felt and knew that I was a much better technical player in regards to the RH

In regards to the LH pinky, I preferred the Couf's non-tilting Bb mechanism. I was faster on it than on a VI and VII and SA80, CB, Yamaha 875 (close, real close though for the 875) and a few other horns I was playtesting. Of Course the Couf did not have the C# stop mechanism to prevent slopping fingering which could open the C#. But it just worked better for me.

But the RH ergos, and playing was black and white to me, and I ended up (painfully) selling off the Coufs over the years.

So for me, would a "modern horn" make me a better player.

Well, as above showed you it theoretically would. BUT the Selmer SBA fits me better than any other horn and I am fast on each one I played ... but the cost of those are too high. And then, the SBA, age-wise, is not a modern horn.

So in the end, it's more down to ergonomics and fit to "my ergonomics" that makes me a better player.

 

[tictactux]

So in the end, it's more down to ergonomics and fit to "my ergonomics" that makes me a better player.

ACK. Two variables - state of repair, and ergonomics can make you a better player.
The rest is, in my opinion, just marketing and of course personal preference or whatever triggers the buying motivation.

 

[Steve]

I assumed that the "state of repair" of the instrument was top-notch (I can, I'm a tech). But that does bring up a good point.

Alot of players may not like a horn because it doesn't play well for them - assuming player, mpc et all are fine. This is unfortunate as a bad setup Selmer mk VI could be junk next to old Vito-Yamaha (which I choose because I love the Vito-Yamahas & the french Vitos).

But many students out there have a horn in hand and play it. They don't know that there is a leak somewhere or a mechanism is not functioning properly. This can really happen on used and older horns as they have gone through many hands and have been used alot.

 

[Al Stevens]

Generally speaking a better instrument can improve your playing because it makes some things easier and its ease of use and quality of sound moves you to reach out more.

Ask any professional violinist who has played a Strad.

My piano playing improved significantly when I upgraded from a nice old upright to a new Yamaha C3 grand. At the time I was a professional jazz pianist. I played at home only to learn new tunes. The better instrument enabled some technique that the old guy kind of discouraged. And then there was the sound. When an instrument sounds right, one is inspired to make more and better music. You play more, thus you improve.

When I upgraded, so to speak, from a fairly new YTS 82ZU to a ratty looking 50-year-old Mark VI tenor, my playing improved. The older horn was better--more comfortable, more in tune, and with a warmer tone. I just wanted to play it all day.

So, can it? Definitely. Will it? That's up to you.

Better horn? Probably. Newer (as in modern) horn? Not necessarily.

 

[jbtsax]

A better player, perhaps. A better musician, no.



John

 

[Gandalfe]

A better player, perhaps. A better musician, no.

This short answer ignores the many variables that come into play like condition of the older horn. And if you will need to put $600+ into repairing you vintage instrument but can get a decent horn for say the same amount, then things get interesting.

 

[Helen]

A better player, perhaps. A better musician, no.

John

This short answer ignores the many variables that come into play like condition of the older horn. And if you will need to put $600+ into repairing you vintage instrument but can get a decent horn for say the same amount, then things get interesting.

Actually, I'd have to agree with John. Addressing any problems with the horn and all the other variables etc, does address the player aspect of the equation, but the player's overall musicianship, not so much.

 

[Al Stevens]

Musicianship does improve with practice. If a better instrument encourages you to practice more, well, attribute it to whatever makes you comfortable, it doesn't matter. As long as something keeps you practicing.

"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."
-- Attributed to many, few of whom deny having first said it.

 

[steen]

I think it is a two tiered question. Tier one is comparing an instrument new or used that is defective in construction or condition to one that isn't. That is a no brainer. Of course the better instrument will make you a better player. I own a few tenors and one of them has leaks that have to be taken out out but I simply haven't had the chance due to a daunting work schedule. I can play this horn with leaks but the attention immediately shifts from what I normally would be struggling with to just getting the notes out sounding reasonably OK. If you start students out on a defective instrument, you may never get their musicianship to florish.

Tier two is whether switching from one well adjusted horn to another makes a difference. Like Steve, I believe ergonomics do matter. I never could get around to the angle on the pinky cluster on a 10M and a complete dislocation of my left pinky certainly shut the door on that one. Surprisingly, on a 12M it is angled differently (more forward), which is enough for me to play the instrument (at my very amateurish level). Likewise, it is sufficiently better (for me) on Bueschers that I doubt it would be a major issue over time. However, for professionals, I image that the speed of the keywork at some point limits what you can play. I don't believe it is a complete coincidence that most of great players in the past have ended up playing Selmers, or horns with Selmer styled keywork. Did that improve the musicianship of, for instance, Dexter Gordon or Sonny Rollins? Of course it didn't. I agree completely with John in this respect.

Yay - post number 100. Thank you Ed for WooF (and the rest of you for putting up with me).

Cheers,
Steen

 

[rleitch]

Like Steve, I believe ergonomics do matter. I never could get around to the angle on the pinky cluster on a 10M and a complete dislocation of my left pinky certainly shut the door on that one. Surprisingly, on a 12M it is angled differently (more forward), which is enough for me to play the instrument (at my very amateurish level). Likewise, it is sufficiently better (for) on Bueschers that I doubt it would be a major issue over time. However, for professionals, I image that the speed of the keywork at some point limits what you can play. I don't it is a complete coincidence that most of great players in the past have ended up playing Selmers, or horns with Selmer styled keywork.

This is pretty much exactly where I'm at (in part because I keep hearing about these amazing horns from Taiwan).

 

[Al Stevens]

I don't it is a complete coincidence that most of great players in the past have ended up playing Selmers, or horns with Selmer styled keywork. Did that improve the musicianship of, for instance, Dexter Gordon...? Of course it didn't.

This argument assumes that Dexter's Selmer was a "better" horn than Dexter's Conn. Are we sure of that? Are there those who might disagree?

 

[Helen]

How about Adrian Rollini who played the vintage bass with its left, pinky-buster, cluster of keys, with the fluidity of pros who play modern-style horns?

Maybe if our own Groovekiller notices this thread he might have some insight into this. I remember exchanging some emails with him a year or so ago about his fluidity on a very modern Eppi bass, versus his vintage one.

 

[steen]

This argument assumes that Dexter's Selmer was a "better" horn than Dexter's Conn. Are we sure of that? Are there those who might disagree?

Sorry for my usual inadequacies in expressing myself concisely. This was not at all what I intended to imply. Only noting the fact that most of the great professional players ended up playing Selmers or alike, and that the keywork likely was an important factor, as one would be hard pressed to argue that Selmer is better in the sound department than the vintage American horns (or Keilwerths).

 

[pete]

How about Adrian Rollini who played the vintage bass with its left, pinky-buster, cluster of keys, with the fluidity of pros who play modern-style horns?

Maybe if our own Groovekiller notices this thread he might have some insight into this. I remember exchanging some emails with him a year or so ago about his fluidity on a very modern Eppi bass, versus his vintage one.

Well, as long as we're taking Groove's name in vain ....

He's got a recording of him playing that 1860-odd A. Sax baritone. While I'm relatively positive it would have been EASIER for him to play on, say, a brand new Selmer S80 Serie III bari, he still sounds pretty good on the A. Sax horn.

I think we've covered all the bases:

* A new horn is definitely superior to any horn that's in poor repair. That almost goes without saying.

* A modern horn does have somewhat more convenient and ergonomic keywork. At the very least, you might be able to play a little faster because you don't have to deal with, say, the double octave keys found on most pre-1914 instruments. However, some folks do prefer "old style" (post 1914, say, and pre-Selmer-SBA-style) keywork, so this isn't everything. Hey, I don't think I've ever needed that articulated G#.

* A modern horn may be better designed and be inherently more in tune (CAD can do this), so you don't have to work as hard to play in tune. However, some older horns do have fantastic intonation, too, but may not have fantastic ergonomics. Modern horns can have both.

* A brand new horn may make you want to play more and more practice = better player. That's not necessarily because of the horn, but if a horn is EASIER to play, it'll make you want to play more.

Another way of looking at it:

If you were taken into a room with the BEST MADE horn of each era, in perfect condition, what would you pick up? I don't think I'd want an A. Sax (1843 - 1880-ish). Heck, the EARLIEST horn I'd pick up would be an SBA bari (low A, of course) and start comparing it to the Buffet S1, the Yani super-pro horns, the new S80 Serie III, the Keilwerth SX90R, SML Rev. D (there are no Gold Medal baris) and the Yamaha 62. I wouldn't play with a Martin Magna, say: I love the tone, but really, really, REALLY hate the ergos and think the intonation is better on the other horns I've mentioned. I wouldn't bother with a Super 20 or Conn 12M: love the tone and lack of a low A -- and I know the other horns I've mentioned have vastly superior intonation. I wouldn't bother with a Buescher Big B: love the tone and intonation, but hate the ergos and lack of a low A. Other vintage Keilwerths? I think the SX90R is probably better, so there's no need to bother, which is my same argument with the Yanis. I've been told that the SBA bari is better than the Mark VI bari -- and I know how the latter sounds/plays -- and I was unimpressed with the S80 bari, but the Serie III might be better.

 

[SOTSDO]

One of the critical issues when addressing any subject like this is to either control, or otherwise account for, all of the variables in the equation. While some of these vary between types of instruments, all of them have similar problems.

In order to test out the assumptions above, you need to ensure that a number of different things happen in a "controlled" manner:

Variety of horns

Very often, for us non-repair people, talking about how a Couf or an Eppersheim may or may not function, is much like talking about how conditions are on the moon. We can read all about them, but ultimately we will never experience them first hand due to scarcity. I have been told by many over the years to stop yammering about "full Boehm" clarinets, since the objector has never seen one outside of a catalog. For me to see an Eppersheim, I would have to journey some number of miles. Others would have to do the same thing for a Mazzeo clarinet (at least one that works), or a Conn curved soprano, or a (insert name of obscure instrument here).

And, after all of that comes the making sure that the instrument(s) in question are in proper mechanical condition. In all my years of proficient clarinet playing (just about 45 at this point), I have seen precisely one working Mazzeo clarinet and one Couf saxophone. (In neither case was I able to play the horn in question.)

While I'm not God's gift to saxophone playing, I have been exposed to many hundreds of saxes during that time span. With clarinets (and bass clarinets), where I have been a bit more of a gift, if only of a lesser god in this case, the numbers probably range up into the thousands. Yet, with all of that, only one working Mazzeo and one Couf of any functionality.

A floor, not a ceiling

While a pro may be able to overcome some of the issues with a given horn, the horn still has to be a "working" one before he (or the rank amateur) can actually play it. This is where the "clarinet shaped objects" tend to get in the way.

Even though they look just like a clarinet, and smell like one, and may more or less taste like one, you'll never get it to function as well as a base price Vito, all other things being equal.

Talking apples and oranges, singly and in dozens

Very often, the various sides of a comparison have so many other variables introduced as to make the whole discussion a futile one. One player argues for his "setup", which includes a YTS 52 with a Vito mouthpiece and a rock hard reed, while the other counters with his Super Balanced Action with a metal Runyon and reeds like mush. And both have hard to quantify skill levels. Little common ground, with either equipment or skills.

As mentioned above, it's quite hard to "talk" about music. That's one of the reasons that interviews of the Saxophone Journal type tend to degenerate into a chat session about who people know, "war stories' and "hep cat" talk. Fold this into the factors immediately above, and you are suddenly talking past each other.

One leg of a hundred

Push comes to shove, there are dozens (if not more) of factors that influence music making. It's a lot more than tone, or timing, or phrasing, or personality, or the mouthpiece, or the neck, or the horn, or the pads, or the neckstrap, or paying attention to the beat, or not paying attention to the beat, or tuning, or the attack, or following the section leader, or whatever. It's all of that, or some of that, or (in some cases) none of that. While certain generalities surely apply in all cases, others may work some of the time, and not work other times.

Reed strength/mouthpiece tip opening (and rail taper) are a ying and yang situation, with one dependent on the other. But, you will hear some folks arguing nothing but reed, while others obsess over the mouthpiece alone.

Ideally, we should all be able to experience all of this first hand, and that would help isolate the critical factors in each player's mind. But, this is where the experience factor comes into play. Someone with decades of experience is going to be in the position to sort these factors out, whereas a grade schooler will most likely not.

And now, ego rears its ugly head

If everything else sorts out alright, and all of the factors can be weighed correctly, you are still running agin the grain of human nature, of "not invented here", and of the tendency for settled issues to remain settled. And, this may be the biggest stumbling block of all.

There is no shortage of ego in the music business, and even the most open-minded of us has a position or positions that we take that are not "negotiable". Start bumping into these, and you might as well give up - heels dig in, folks start puffing up, and discussion quickly descends into argument, often a heated one.

Ideally, we shouldn't be doing this through words alone. Teaching comes best by example, the old teacher-student paradigm being living proof of this. But, my interacting with you in a useful fashion, either as a teacher or a student or as a peer, presumes that I'm in the same room, something that is not always possible. So, we muck on in the best fashion that we can.

In the good old days before USENET or AOL or all of the new ways of communicating, such interconnections were reliant upon the print media, or letters that we wrote to one another, or the occasional telephone call, clinic or bull session. Now, such "discussion" proceeds at the speed of the hunt and peck typing skills that most possess.

At any rate, at least it's all being talked about. I don't know that we (or you, or them) will ever arrive at agreement on even a tenth of the issues involved. But at least we are talking...

 

[Ed]

A horn is nothing more than a tool. Just like a mouthpiece or a reed. Granted a much more expensive tool.

If it doesn't help you get to the sound in your head then it's not the horn for you. If the key work is difficult then it is not the horn for you. If you play enough horns, mouthpieces, reeds, and have a decent set of ears you will probably find a setup you can live with for a week or two.

 

[Groovekiller]

First, let me say that I always buy the very best horn I can afford, especially with instruments that are not my main axe, such as flute.

As for instruments that I play a lot, I don't care what the consensus is. I know what plays well for me, and I buy the horn I like and keep it in good playing condition. I don't get obsessive about playing condition - I always have a good spare horn and when my main horn sucks, I use the spare until I can fix the main axe. There is something to be said about a good backup instrument, especially when you make your living playing woodwinds. It doesn't have to be "hip." It just has to be good.

This comment comes from someone who plays constantly for a living and also repairs woodwinds for a living. I could repair my own horns every day, but I don't. As a point of information, many pro players don't bring their horns to me for repair until they are virtually unplayable. Generally, the very best players are also the most conscientious about having a horn in perfect playing condition, but there are glaring exceptions that amaze me every day. Great players can "play through" problems with their axe that would stop the average player cold.

Symphonic players are the most conscientious about their instruments, and I will always admire them. They have to be able to play ANYTHING, and for the most part, they do. I never see these musicians playing cheap instruments. For the most part, the top commercial players, who do the Broadway shows and recording sessions, are the same way. They know what works for them, and that's what they play, cost no object.

 

[MartinMods]

A better horn will always make you a better player for two reasons:

1. It responds, in a controllable manner, both mechanically and acoustically to what you want to do. When it comes down to it, acoustic considerations are more important than those mechanical. Mechanical issues can always be remedied.

2. #1 excites you so much, you want to go practice.

What is a better horn? It's different for everybody.