Here it is in all its glory. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody.
Last edited:
Straight baritone
- Thread starter Groovekiller
- Start date
I'm six feet, one inch without shoes. It's a low Bb bari, no low A. The builder, Peter Nixon, engineered the top bow to bring the mouthpiece down to a lower level for shorter players.
It plays OK, at least as well as a curved Amati. I've played a few of those brand new. Pitch is good, Peter Nixon did a good job. New tone holes were brazed on like a King Super-20. Someday I'll get a chance to relly go over it carefully and we'll find out what it is capable of. Right now I'm slammed with work.
Happy holidays.
Happy holidays.
That is really cool!
Thanks for sharing. I'm looking forward to hearing some low end duets......
Thanks for sharing. I'm looking forward to hearing some low end duets......
At least there have been some concessions to practicality. One prior straight baritone that I have seen (in photos only; I've never actually touched one) resembled an Alphorn more than anything else. While it might work (hell, almost anything can be made to work, after a fashion), the practicality of one in a world of standard doorways and spiral staircases into orchestra pits and the like would be limited indeed.
A straight soprano I can understand, although there are some who cannot handle that length and have to be accommodated with a slightly bent neck. A straight alto I can tolerate, especially since I've played bass clarinets since I was a wee sprout. But, beyond those limits, make mine a crooked one, please.
Upon the anniversary of Sax's birth a few years back, I saw (very brief) footage of the sax collection at the museum at Dinant. In that collection, there were very clearly soprano, alto, tenor and baritone horns all on display. The tenor was unusual in that it appeared to have a baritone like crook instead of the now-usual numeral 7 configuration that we see today.
Mind you, the shot only lasted five to seven seconds. But, I've played saxes for a long time, and I'm pretty sure of the sequence of the horns in the shot, and in the relative sizes of the instruments on display. (And, yes, I was sure that I was looking at a low B baritone.)
I've hated playing the tenor ever since the first time that I picked one up, mostly due to the ergonomics of the horn. Dropping that horn angle a bit closer to that of a baritone or alto would go a long way towards addressing my concerns.
But, not enough to justify the expense of it all.
A straight soprano I can understand, although there are some who cannot handle that length and have to be accommodated with a slightly bent neck. A straight alto I can tolerate, especially since I've played bass clarinets since I was a wee sprout. But, beyond those limits, make mine a crooked one, please.
Upon the anniversary of Sax's birth a few years back, I saw (very brief) footage of the sax collection at the museum at Dinant. In that collection, there were very clearly soprano, alto, tenor and baritone horns all on display. The tenor was unusual in that it appeared to have a baritone like crook instead of the now-usual numeral 7 configuration that we see today.
Mind you, the shot only lasted five to seven seconds. But, I've played saxes for a long time, and I'm pretty sure of the sequence of the horns in the shot, and in the relative sizes of the instruments on display. (And, yes, I was sure that I was looking at a low B baritone.)
I've hated playing the tenor ever since the first time that I picked one up, mostly due to the ergonomics of the horn. Dropping that horn angle a bit closer to that of a baritone or alto would go a long way towards addressing my concerns.
But, not enough to justify the expense of it all.
A huge disadvantage of straight saxophones (which gets worse the bigger they get) is the need for much longer hinge rods. Keys on saxophone are usually made of a softer metal (than clarinet/flute/oboe/etc.) and are also much bigger, so flexing of keys is a problem. It's even a problem on (low C) bass clarinets which usually have harder keys than saxophones. I personally think that for this reason alone a straight saxophone (other than soprano) is not a good idea. It's definitely possible to improve the feel of those keys but it will never really feel as good as shorter keys (unless changing other things which will then have even worse compromises). Because of flexing, you can't have the same closing pressure of pads while also having simultanious closing. The much bigger case and instrument is also a disadvantage.
Selmer and Eppelsheim (and Yanagisawa and old Kings) have addressed the problem of flexing in long rods by using nickel, which is better at eliminating the problem.
It's interesting to note that 150 years ago Adolphe sax used rods of very large diameter for long keys, and mounted them very close to the body using posts on large ribs for extra strength. I've never seen another manufacturer who has eqalled the durability and dependability of the earliest saxes by Adolphe Sax.
Straight saxophones in large sizes have little or no advantage other than their visual impact. I never use mine unless I'm looking for instant celebrity status. A bold plaid suit works almost as well.
It's interesting to note that 150 years ago Adolphe sax used rods of very large diameter for long keys, and mounted them very close to the body using posts on large ribs for extra strength. I've never seen another manufacturer who has eqalled the durability and dependability of the earliest saxes by Adolphe Sax.
Straight saxophones in large sizes have little or no advantage other than their visual impact. I never use mine unless I'm looking for instant celebrity status. A bold plaid suit works almost as well.
Randy, don't give me that good of an opening .
Terry, Sax's original patent drawings do suggest that the tenor neck was supposed to be a little different and that the C bass and baritone were supposed to be fully curved, like the Tubax (or, more accurately, the ophicleide), but the oldest known surviving Sax instrument is a bari that looks ... more or less like Randy's A. Sax bari. Or your modern horn, for that matter.
I've actually not worried too much about the keyrods and flexing because I'm pretty well positive that the rods are longer on a contrabass than on even that straight bari, but more the response. Longer rods necessarily mean that it takes more effort to press down the key and a stronger spring to spring it back, which could translate into poor response. Indeed, I've never heard a "classical" contrabass -- one that was made earlier than WWII, that is -- that played anything at great speed, I don't think. I'll have to re-check my recording of So Low.
.Terry, Sax's original patent drawings do suggest that the tenor neck was supposed to be a little different and that the C bass and baritone were supposed to be fully curved, like the Tubax (or, more accurately, the ophicleide), but the oldest known surviving Sax instrument is a bari that looks ... more or less like Randy's A. Sax bari. Or your modern horn, for that matter.
I've actually not worried too much about the keyrods and flexing because I'm pretty well positive that the rods are longer on a contrabass than on even that straight bari, but more the response. Longer rods necessarily mean that it takes more effort to press down the key and a stronger spring to spring it back, which could translate into poor response. Indeed, I've never heard a "classical" contrabass -- one that was made earlier than WWII, that is -- that played anything at great speed, I don't think. I'll have to re-check my recording of So Low.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tammi
Private woodwind instructor
That is just freaky looking. In a good way!
I'm short enough that I could probably set the bell on the floor (on padding as to not cause any damage) and maybe reach the mouthpiece. Sitting would require a very, very tall stool.
Anyway, it looks like it would be a lot of fun to play.
I'm short enough that I could probably set the bell on the floor (on padding as to not cause any damage) and maybe reach the mouthpiece. Sitting would require a very, very tall stool.
Anyway, it looks like it would be a lot of fun to play.
I assume that when you say "nickel" you actually mean what (at least we locally call) German silver, or maybe more common in other places (USA?) to call nickel-silver, which is a nickel and copper (sometimes with varying amounts of zink) alloy. Just trying to get rid of ambiguousy (is that the word?) from the terminology, especially for someone like me with English as a second langauge. I doubt they actually use nickel which is VERY hard.
I think that is probably a good idea, although it doesn't eliminate the problem, as it obviously exists on low C bass clarinets which have German silver rods. The specific design of those rods is probably more important, and on some bass clarinets they managed to control it pretty good (the latest Selmer is a pretty good example, in that regard at least). I haven't examined an Eppelsheim instrument closely but was told by a very good repairer that he made great design (other than material) to deal with those long rods. I am not sure but I will think about whether German silver keys have a disadvantage (maybe more brittle? harder to adjust? maybe heavier per same size?).
That's interesting! I didn't know that. Although weight is obviously a disadvantage. Especially now when saxophones (I think?) have more keys on them. I think making a modern saxophone with thicker keys and bigger posts/ribs/etc. will definitely make weight a serious issue.
I agree about the visual impact but I wouldn't say it's necessary an advantage. Sometimes it is, depending on the philosophy or the music/performance, but actually I would consider that impact, in some cases, a disadvantage.
Nitai
Last edited:
This bari seems to be sort of a novelty. Although the rods flexing is not necessary something to really worry about, I think it should be a consideration for a "real" saxophone (i.e. one you only buy to play and it should play as good as possible). Fact is some manufacturers are dealing with this problem. Maybe more accurate would be to say, you shouldn't worry about it with instruments where this problem was correctly dealt with.
The response problem you describe very possibly can be caused (or helped) by the flexing of keys, because of the problem I mentioned - keys needing same closing pressure but also closing at the same time, two things that are the opposite of each other. I've seen low Eb bass clarinets, and even tenor saxophones, where this was a problem affecting adjustments. Even on some altos it can happen (to much less degree though).
By the way, I've heard someone playing the Bb tubax so fast, with such percise articulation in all registers, including the lowest, the same as possible on the fastest tenor or alto saxophones!
Nitai
I think I'd take tubes instead of rods. I seem to remember that at the same weight, a tube is more resistant to torsion and flexing than a solid rod of the same weight...
That's because the tube places its mass further from the centerline, this to gain a larger overall "girder" dimension, which in turn is more rigid and thus resistant to torsion. This, for any given weight of metal, a tube of the substance will develop more strength than will a rod.
Of course, this added size becomes a problem in and of itself. At some point, increase of diameter becomes impractical. But, that's physics for you.
The tubular "rods" used on most instruments are a weight-saving measure. A tube of the same diameter as a rod of the same metal will have the same strength af far less over-all weight. This paradoxical behavior lasts up to the point that the walls of the tube (which are themselves girders) can resist the twisting forces directed into them, at which point they tend to fail in spectacular fashion.
On my Selmer extended range bass, the tendency to flex on the lower joint is overcome by the use of what used to be called "pillow blocks", intermediate (and usually quite primitive) bearings that support the middle of the run of the rod. A similar arrangement is present on virtually every saxophone.
Of course, this added size becomes a problem in and of itself. At some point, increase of diameter becomes impractical. But, that's physics for you.
The tubular "rods" used on most instruments are a weight-saving measure. A tube of the same diameter as a rod of the same metal will have the same strength af far less over-all weight. This paradoxical behavior lasts up to the point that the walls of the tube (which are themselves girders) can resist the twisting forces directed into them, at which point they tend to fail in spectacular fashion.
On my Selmer extended range bass, the tendency to flex on the lower joint is overcome by the use of what used to be called "pillow blocks", intermediate (and usually quite primitive) bearings that support the middle of the run of the rod. A similar arrangement is present on virtually every saxophone.
Tery is right. Remember that you need to mount those hinge rods or hinge tubes somehow. To mount a bigger hinge tube (without a rod screw in it which would defeat the purpose) would probably be with pivot screws, the same as hinge rods. The hole would have to be relatively small for regular size pivot screws to fit. For a much bigger tube, with much bigger hole, with bigger screws, probably needed much bigger posts, again adding to weight. Also I'm really not an expert of the business side of making saxophones, but if the size needed is not a regular size maybe it costs a lot more?
But tubes might have another disadvantage when adjusting the instrument. As you probably know many adjustments are done by bending (both by repairers and at the factory) and sometimes it's probably the hinge rod that is twisted for adjustment, and not the key cup arm or touch-piece that are moving. It can already be a problem sometimes with long rod screws. I'm not sure, but I'm wondering if tubes would make that a problem. On some long hinge tubes with rod screws, adjustments by bending can sometimes bend the hinge and make the rod screw stuck. I'm wondering if a tube without a rod screw can break, etc.?
Yes, some low C bass clarinets have that, like the newest Buffet and Selmer which are pretty good in that regard. However this only helps against the long rod buckling, so although it definitely helps against making the problem much worse, it doesn't completely prevent it.
Nitai
Last edited:
Hey, I think I read "somewhere" that there are a few other (non-Peter Nixon) straight baritones. I think it was a 6 foot tall Beuscher made for a movie???
You're correct. That baritone sax was made for Benny Meroff, a vaudeville star, in the 1920s. There is a movie clip of him playing the instrument out there somewhere.
The same instrument is now in the posession of Vince Giordano in the New York City area. Vince is an authority on early jazz and commercial music, and he's the perfect guy to own that horn.
That instrument is the ultimate collectable straight baritone. It may have even been a factory job from Buescher. Here's a photo:
Last edited:
French horn player Arkady Shilkloper (http://www.jazz.ru/eng/pages/shilkloper/) was here and played an alphorn (he plays many brass instruments), and only after the concert we realized it was a folding alphorn. It was built in section that inserted into each other, and was very small and light, smaller than an alto sax, and fit in some sort of bag. I think it was made of carbon fiber, and it sounded as good as any horn. Actually, since he was using finger memory paterns, some people didn't even realize it was all overtones, because of his very fast and accurate playing. It was a novelty but only in a good way.
I am not completely sure, but I think the alphorn he played was made by this company http://www.swisscarbonalphorn.com/