Vintage or New Saxophones

[Ed]

Pete,

That's an interesting question. I don't know many people who have played the Inderbinen. I know I haven't. I do own an 87k Mark VI alto and that's my horn of choice. It is not the perfect horn in terms of intonation but it's close enough. The tone is what keeps the horn in my hands.

 

[Gandalfe]

Besides price, what makes you think the Inderbinen is the best modern sax. To me it is more of a mythical instrument. I believe the Selmer Paris Reference series horns are the best out their today. I've never felt better keyworks and the intonation is stellar.

 

[SOTSDO]

All too often in the world of music, the point of view of a musician regarding instruments is limited by the field of horns that they have been able to experience. For someone to start venturing set in concrete opinions about horns without having 'done the spectrum' from A to Z is (by definition) not talking from a position of strength. And, with very few exceptions, that's the way it's going to be.

While I've not run the gamut of saxophones like some, I've looked at a woodpile full of clarinets over the years, both bog standard sopranos and Eb and bass horns aplenty. And, I've not only limited my experience to Buffet versus Leblanc versus Selmer versus Yamaha, but also other makers (B & H, Rossi, even an Eaton) and other mechanisms (Mazzeo, Stubbins, Oehler, Albert) in the bargain. But, even with that spectrum, I don't claim to be able to state "This is the horn!" Too many individuals in the world to make a statement like that.

I do know that, from the horns that I have tried, I still prefer a Selmer Series 9 to the others (Buffet included), that I prefer a full Boehm horn to all others (Albert and Oehler included), and that I prefer the feel of a Selmer saxophone to all others that I have tried. But, I prefer the sound of a well set up Conn alto to any of the others.

The thing about my opinions, though, is that they are based upon experience, not just what I've read. Most condemn the Conn saxophones without ever having tried one, and not one in a thousand clarinet players has ever used the full Boehm keywork that so many condemn out of hand. What's that all about?

(It would be different if these instruments were not available in the first place. But, you can buy a Conn sax for a low price on eBay, put it through a non-cosmetic overhaul, and end up with a monster horn. Same goes for old full Boehm instruments.)

A better way for these "experts" to couch their statements is something like "In my opinion, Buffet makes the best soprano clarinets of those that I've bothered to try", or " I prefer the Reference 54 tenor out of those that I've tried over the years." A lot more accurate, and perhaps a better starting point for the advice so freely given...

 

[pete]

Besides price, what makes you think the Inderbinen is the best modern sax. To me it is more of a mythical instrument. I believe the Selmer Paris Reference series horns are the best out their today. I've never felt better keyworks and the intonation is stellar.

I didn't get shot down for saying the best vintage sax is a 5-digit Mark VI. That amuses me more than saying that the Inderbinen is the best modern horn.

You also didn't read my disclaimer that I didn't think it was the best. As a matter of fact, I don't think either is the best example for either category, but I'll immediately get pilloried if I said, say, "Vintage, Buffet S1." "Modern, Borgani Pearl." Or something like that.

The Inderbinen has a good following of musicians that have played a large quantity of really good horns. I think one of those folks called the tone "sublime".

However, it's not my intent to "crown the winner of best horn", it's to point out that if you had a choice between vintage *insert horn name here* and modern *insert horn name here*, which would you choose? If I had a choice between, say, a perfect condition Conn New Wonder and a Yamaha 62, I'm taking the 62. Even if I don't consider the 62 "the best" modern horn -- because I don't think the New Wonder is "the best" vintage horn.

Again, I'll point out that I posted that this is a topic with no bottom.

BTB, I liked the Selmer Series 10. And the R13. I owned a Centered Tone. In my opinion, I liked my Yamaha YCL-34 about as much. (Not that I'd refuse you if you gave me an R13: I'd sell it and buy a few Yamaha horns.)

 

[Connical]

Why is it that some of us are drawn to the vintage sax ? When you talk about modern saxes, as Gandalfe mentioned. They are superior in most measurable ways. I honestly can't answer this question. I've often had similar thoughts regarding cars.

I bought a new Ford Mustang in 1986. In all ways, it would better a 1966 Mustang in handling, acceleration, braking ... . Again, a 2006 Mustang would outperform the 1986 in every category as well. So why is the original still so sought after ? Aesthetics ? Maybe. But I must admit that the new Mustang is as good looking to me as an original. Different, but IMO, as good. Cost ? An original 1969 Boss 302 would easily fetch more money than a new one sells for. Yet it can't match up in any performance category. Just saying it's rare or collectable doesn't explain the allure either.

So why is it that some of us treasure the outdated items ? I suppose if I could explain it better, this post would be much shorter. =) I guess it's not easliy explained or measured. If it was, corporate America would flood the market with analyzed and designed antique and collectable stores. With all the right merchandise that would be sure to sell and generate the most return on their investment.

Back to the car analogy. If I was to enter a race. I would definitely want a new Mustang. If not, I would lose handily.
So why do I stay with an older sax ? This post has knocked something loose in my hard head. Perhaps it's time to sell my vintage stuff and get with the times. Who knows, I might actually like the new stuff. =)

 

[Gandalfe]

If you have a horn that works for you, why buy another? I heard a kid on a corner in Victoria, BC playing a Bundy 23 and sounding better than I have ever sounded on my horns. The thing was beat to hell and probably leaking like a sieve. I'd be embarrassed to show up to a session with my shiny, new horn.

 

[Connical]

I know what you mean. The Conn does work for me. To be fair, so has many others. I also own a YTS-62. It's currently being used by my friends son. I've had that tenor for over 25 years. It is in most ways, (Not all) a more refined and advanced tenor when compared to the 10M. For some reason, I have never felt as strong about that horn as I have others. The crazy part about that is, I have never owned a horn as long as that one. (Although I am being pestered to sell it to them). It does everything very well, something that I can't say about most of the other horns I've owned. That's why I have kept this horn for so long. I have yet to find a horn that is so much better that it makes me want to give that one up. But, when my friend came to me for a sax, it was the one that I felt more comfortable lending to a teenager.

As for why buy another ? Since Ebay and the internet has exploded, I have bought and played a wide range of saxes that I would never before had access too. Some that I've had, I totally understand why they are so popular, others, not so much. But all in all, it's been fun, and I enjoy finding them and playing them. At least until the next one comes along. =)

 

[pete]

Why is it that some of us are drawn to the vintage sax ? When you talk about modern saxes, as Gandalfe mentioned. They are superior in most measurable ways. I honestly can't answer this question. I've often had similar thoughts regarding cars.

I bought a new Ford Mustang in 1986. In all ways, it would better a 1966 Mustang in handling, acceleration, braking ... . Again, a 2006 Mustang would outperform the 1986 in every category as well. So why is the original still so sought after ? Aesthetics ? Maybe. But I must admit that the new Mustang is as good looking to me as an original. Different, but IMO, as good. Cost ? An original 1969 Boss 302 would easily fetch more money than a new one sells for. Yet it can't match up in any performance category. Just saying it's rare or collectable doesn't explain the allure either.

So why is it that some of us treasure the outdated items ? I suppose if I could explain it better, this post would be much shorter. =) I guess it's not easliy explained or measured. If it was, corporate America would flood the market with analyzed and designed antique and collectable stores. With all the right merchandise that would be sure to sell and generate the most return on their investment.

Back to the car analogy. If I was to enter a race. I would definitely want a new Mustang. If not, I would lose handily.
So why do I stay with an older sax ? This post has knocked something loose in my hard head. Perhaps it's time to sell my vintage stuff and get with the times. Who knows, I might actually like the new stuff. =)

One of the differences between a car and a sax is that a 2008 Inderbinen has essentially the same keywork laid out in essentially the same way as the 1854 A. Sax horn -- but a 2008 Taurus doesn't even START the same way as a 1918 Model T.

The reason why someone owns a Pierce Arrow rather than a Pinto is because of the style. I know that a few vintage cars are comfortable, safe and easy to drive, but newer vehicles generally outclass them. By a lot. Yes, your 1957 Roadmaster might survive a collision with a tank, but my Taurus with airbags means I have a better chance of walking away.

In the saxophone world, there really has been no major development beyond the automatic octave key -- which came out in the 19th century. The interesting venting and/or keywork experiments like the Leblanc Rationale/Semi-Rationale and Loomis Double-Resonance designs went away because they didn't offer a significant enough improvement for the money. And other things, like the Grafton Acrylic Alto and Selmer Padless, went away because they just plain didn't work.

The Mark VI is a more successfully marketed version of the Super (Balanced) Action: it's really difficult to tell the difference between a late SBA and a VI, without cheating by looking at engraving.

Here's a good question: why did the Selmer SBA become the monster Mark VI whereas the Buescher Aristocrat just died out? Is it just because of the fancy keywork? Just the bell keys on the correct side of the horn? Take a really, really good shape Big B Aristocrat and play it next to a really good shape VI. I bet they'll sound the same. I'd rather have the VI, though -- all other things being equal -- because I prefer the keywork.

Why do I prefer a VI to the Martin Committee? Keywork and intonation. Why do I prefer a VI to the Conn 30M? Keywork. Why do I prefer the VI to the Buffet SuperDynaction? Ummm. I really don't, but the VI has SLIGHTLY better keywork and SLIGHTLY better intonation. And higher resale.

But would I prefer the VI to a Yamaha 82Z? I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I've played the older high-end Yamahas and I don't see them being worse than a VI. They've got better intonation, too.

 

[SOTSDO]

Uh, a Roadmaster will not survive a collision with a tank - voice of experience here, although it was with a 1960's era American Motors station wagon, left abandoned in a field next to the post library at Camp Radcliff during the dog days of summer 1970.

Not content with this single data point, I also tested what would happen with motorcycles, three wheel motorcycle "busses", and sundry other motor vehicles. Advantage, tank - each and every time.

Like all other auto/tank encounters, the civilian vehicle (and Jeeps and small trucks and mules) literally gets sucked under the tank and knocked all to smash. You will still see tires and an engine block and a rear axle here in and there, but that's all folks.

The scene in the James Bond film Golden Eye is illustrative. The Trabats that were chasing after Jimbo through the streets of Helsinki (it was a stand-in for Leningrad/St. Petersburg) were folded up by the ex-Soviet T-72 like a fish down a pelican's gullet. No matter that Jim's tank driving style would have resulted in several thrown tracks - it still looked pretty impressive.

When I was a very young spud (all of twelve), I got to drive a Cord up and down a driveway of a country estate near Saint Louis. It may have been the car to envy in the 1930's, but that paragon of fit and finish was a rough, crude vehicle compared even to the Yugos that I saw and drove on one occasion in the 1970's. The only way that the front wheel drive Cord could be turned was with what seemed like the world's largest steering wheel (done in wonderful, exotic wood).

Sometimes, the good old days were terrible...

Also, besides the advent of the automatic octave key, the saxophone was also extended down to the low Bb. And, who can forget the much reviled fork Eb mechanism of the Conn horns.

I grew up with a manual octave key system on an old Buffet Albert system bass clarinet. It wasn't that cumbersome to operate once you got used to it, but the automatic system takes less thought. And, it sure was less touchy than the current article.

I am the world's greatest fan of Selmer saxophone keywork. No other horn that I have been able to try (admittedly more limited than my selection of clarinets over the years) comes within 20% of feel, ease of use, and general all around saxy-ness. Tone and articulation and smell and other factors may exist and deserve to be qualified. But, the Selmer "keyboard" seems (in my eyes, at least) to be the berries.

 

[pete]

I am the world's greatest fan of Selmer saxophone keywork. No other horn that I have been able to try (admittedly more limited than my selection of clarinets over the years) comes within 20% of feel, ease of use, and general all around saxy-ness. Tone and articulation and smell and other factors may exist and deserve to be qualified. But, the Selmer "keyboard" seems (in my eyes, at least) to be the berries.

However, in my opinion, the Yamaha improvements on the Selmer design are pretty darn nice. I like, especially, the front F. The low A on the bari is nicely done, too.

Well, a '71 Riviera might give a smaller tank a run for its money . (Terry's got heavy experience with tanks. I was wondering if he'd comment.)

Anyhow, while the extension to low Bb -- and then low G on some of the horns "produced" today -- and extensions to altissimo F, F# and G are kewl, they don't affect your playing as much as the auto octave key. Usening the car analogy, it's not like I have to go out with a crank and turn over the engine.

The extensions are important, definitely, but there were low B horns produced up until and possibly through WWII -- and are still made today, if you count the junk horns from India. Or the relatively recent "student" Buescher Academy and later Yani "reduced keywork" horns.

I had a point in here somewhere ....

Oh. You can (and Selmer, Yani and Yamaha have) put the saxophone design on a computer and try to correct for the flaws in the design. That can produce a horn with a lot better "natural" intonation than vintage instruments. The "fork" Eb may never have come about if the saxophones in the early part of the 20th century were designed on computer.

But the fork Eb is INTERESTING. Martin had probably the most interesting placement. Buffet had the most intriguing designs (which may have been licensed to Selmer). Looks like Conn and Buescher kept the fingering the longest. I've gotta say that I've had several horns with that keywork and I've never used it -- but I don't like seeing horns that have the vents with them corked or worse, with a piece of metal welded over the vent.

 

[sideC]

Wow. Old cars and saxophones, two of my favorite subjects.

Last week, my wife and I put 1,500 miles on our restored to original condition 1969 Buick Skylark Custom convertible. We drove from NJ to Flint, Michigan to the Buick Club of America national show. Ours was one of about 800 old Buicks that showed up from all over the country to be part of the show. We've owned our car for 30 years, and it's won awards on the national level. It was my daily driver from '78 till '90.

The '57 Biuck Roadmaster is a fantastic automobile, but you're talking about a 51 year old ride. If it has an automatic transmission, then it would be the legendary Dyna Flow. These suckers leaked when they were brand new. You need to find an old time dyna flow mechanic to get it properly sealed today. They're tricky to do. And it'll still leak some. The engines like to overheat in hot weather, so you really have to know how to humor these babies so that they run cool. How do you get it started? You turn the ignition key on the dash to the "start" position. You then press the gas pedal all the way down to the floor to engage the starter switch, which is under the gas pedal. And the big 364ci nailhead v8 roars to life.

What's it like to drive a 39 year old car 700 miles from NJ to Flint? Hot. My car has ac and it works, but I need the compressor resealed so it won't spray freon on my detailed, pristine engine compartment. So we drove in 90 degree heat without ac. And we had to drive at 50mph because we were following my friend's '49 Buick Super. Also my car doesn't have cruise control so I would have occasional pain in my right knee from manually holding the throttle open.

What was it like to drive the 700 miles back from Flint to NJ. Wet. We battled torrential rain, and did I tell you that our car is a convertible? Rain leaked in through the passenger side where the window meets the roof and my wife got more than a little wet. This car has always leaked at high speed in heavy rain, even when it was nearly new. The new convertible roofs give much better protection.

A 2008 Taurus will never have nowhere near the amount of class that any Pierce Arrow has. Pierces were only built between about 1900 and 1933. So the newest Pierce is 75 years old. Who's going to be talking about a 2008 Taurus 75 years from now? And to set the record straight, 1918 Model T Fords had electric starters on them. Charles Kettering invented the electric starter for Cadillac in 1911, so Ford had it by '18.

As far as saxophones are concerned, the automatic octave key was a large step foward, but so was the articulated G#, so was the tilting spatula, so was balanced action. Believe it or not, the left hand thumb rest and the righ hand thumb hook set up on mk6's was a big leap foward for working professionals. Gig hours were very long back in the mid '50s, and hours and hours of playing would take their toll on the players of that era. I'm told that jazz clubs worked bands from 9pm till 4am in NYC back in those days, and gigs were 6 days a week. When I first started in the business, my first really good gig was from 7:30pm till 1:30am 5 nights a week. Me playing tunes with a rhythm section. So that's a lot of time with a saxophone strapped around your neck. All of these advances are appreciated when you are dealing with many long hours of playing.

So I'm saying all this, I guess, to say that for me, the old cars are beautiful when you don't have to put the pressure of modern commuting and traveling on them everyday. A long vacation trip once a year to be with a bunch of other old cars is a fun adventure, we had a natural ball. But to do that all the time in the 40 year old car, no, I would be grueling. That's why I have a modern car.

And the same thing goes for me, in my judgement, for my devices, when it comes to saxophones. I'm dealing with some very hard playing on a daily basis, and the horn is taking a beating in my hands, for many hours a week. So I need something that's going to have to stand up under the pressure. So the 1921 Ajax Supreme True Sonority Radio Special is not going to cut it. I might be able to take it out every once in a while, let the other players try it out, and admire it's beauty, the engraving of Mt. Rushmore on the bell, but I need something a little more rugged to get the job done.

 

[Groovekiller]

I might be able to take it out every once in a while, let the other players try it out, and admire it's beauty, the engraving of Mt. Rushmore on the bell, but I need something a little more rugged to get the job done.

So do you want to sell the horn with the engraving of Mount Rushmore?

 

[sideC]

So do you want to sell the horn with the engraving of Mount Rushmore?

No! But I am thinking about selling the one with the engraving of George Washington dancing the Lindy Hop with Betsy Ross.

 

[Ed]

The reason a lot of players like the Mark VI is that the intonation is just slightly better than the SBA and the tilting table keys. People moved to the Mark VI for a couple of obvious reasons - a) better keywork than any of the other pro horns available at the time and b) great marketing. It helped that the horns are very nice.

I prefer the feel of a vintage VI to just about any other horn. It has a couple of minor issues in terms of keywork that most players either get used to or employ risers to overcome. My Mark VI's have risers on the palm keys and the Oleg B flat extension. The Yamaha 82Z has the most comfortable keywork on any horn on the market - IMHO. The Yanagisawa's are a close second.

 

[Gandalfe]

No! But I am thinking about selling the one with the engraving of George Washington dancing the Lindy Hop with Betsy Ross.

Pictures please.

The Yamaha 82Z has the most comfortable keywork on any horn on the market - IMHO. The Yanagisawa's are a close second.

Really? When compared to the Selmer Reference series?

 

[Ed]

Really? When compared to the Selmer Reference series?

The keywork layout on the Reference series is decent but the 82Z is more faithful to the layout of the VI which I find to be the most comfortable for me. I think players with larger hands might prefer the present layout on later Selmer products (Serie II's, Serie III's and Reference) over the VI. I have short fingers so I really appreciate the horns from Yanagisawa and Yamaha.

 

[Gandalfe]

I thought you and Pete haven't played the Reference yet. I've owned both the Yamaha Z and Reference alto and tenors. I'd luv to explore the 'differences' in keyworks issues.

 

[Ed]

I've played both the alto and tenor versions multiple times (and multiple examples). There's not much out there that I haven't played.

 

[Dave Dolson]

I think the Ref 54 alto is the smoothest feeling alto I've ever played . . . and yes, I once owned a Z, which was the best of the Yamahas I'd tested. But I'll admit that everyone is different, that's why there are M-B's and BMW's (I MUCH prefer BMW, by the way).

I am not one to think much about how a horn's keys are laid out. I just pick up the thing and play it. Within a few notes, I'm home.

Yes, I have experienced a very small number of horns with awkward keywork, so bad that I inadvertently opened keys (mostly palm and side keys), but those were rare among all the horns I've owned and played.

Frankly, the Z I owned was just another alto. DAVE

 

[Ed]

To further muddy the discussion . . .

I prefer the low e flat and low c layout on my vintage Buescher 140 over all others. The keys are flat and don't have any dish ala the VI but does have a similar shape. Very easy to roll between them when necessary.

The main difference I felt in my hands between the VI and the Reference 54 was the feel of the action. Stephen Howard put it best when he said:

"The action, as factory set, was rather high - and very stiff. It was simple enough to shim the key feet to knock the key heights down just a fraction - but it's a great deal harder to get that classic 'snap' into the action.
The reason for this is the length of the springs on the right hand key stack. If you compare them to those on the MKVI you'll see that they're about 30% shorter. This has implications for the feel of the action.
You can demonstrate how this works by taking a wooden ruler and placing it on a desk, with about six inches protruding over the edge. Give it a twang ( the ruler goes 'boooing' ). Now move the ruler so that only four inches protrudes and give it another twang. It's a very different feel, isn't it?
This is essentially what's going on with these shorter springs. You can bend them and tweak them to some degree, but nothing will replace that extra kick you get from a slightly longer spring.
I was rather disappointed about this - a killer horn should have a killer action."

You can find his complete review of the Reference 54 alto here: http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk/Reviews/Saxes/Alto/Selmer_Ref54_alto.htm

My complaints with the Reference 54 series are many but they mostly revolve around the marketing of the horn versus what the horn really delivers. I also find it curious that the 54 tenors differ so greatly in terms of keywork from the altos.

The Reference 54 (and 36 tenors) are fantastic horns. Where they come up short is living up to the hype of being in the spirit of the Mark VI (and BA for the 36). They should have just called it the Reference series and avoided the comparisons.

Now to answer Jim's question about what I feel is different between the Reference and 82Z horns:

On tenors, I generally have preferred the 36 over the 54. The finish is nicer and the tone has a bit more spread to it. The keyboard is spaced a little bigger than I like but it's nothing that one could not get used to pretty quickly. Keywork compared to the 82Z - The 82Z has a more compact keyboard and the reach to the table keys is a little less. The table keys on the 82Z are slightly smaller than the Reference and the B flat has a more pronounced "kick up" on the B flat. The other advantage the Yamaha has over the Reference in terms of keywork is that the front F is a teardrop shape whereas the Reference is a standard pearl. The pearl works fine but the teardrop shape is quicker to operate as you can just roll your finger.

On the lower stack the Yamaha 82Z e flat and low c touch are very close to the VI design with noticiable dish. The Reference horns have a different shape to the key and a lot less dish. Either is workable but I slighly prefer the feel of the Reference in this area. I also prefer the layout of the side F sharp and the high F place on the Reference horn over the 82Z. The 82Z is quite functional and everything falls under the fingers just fine but it doesn't look as refined as the Reference. I prefer the key spacing on the 82Z. The E flat and low C touch are placed a little higher on the tube than the Reference and as a result it is a very comfortable reach. I also feel like the Reference horn puts my right hand in a less than optimal position. I find that I have to shift my hand to hit certain keys. I don't feel this sensation on the 82Z.

Most of the above holds true for the altos as well. The notable exception is that the 54 alto has the same style E flat and low C as the VI so the 82Z and 54 are quite similar in this area.

I thought I would quickly touch on the area of tone which in the end is what is most important. On alto, I find that the 82Z and the 54 are both pretty even up and down the stack. The 82Z like most Yamaha's favors the higher partials and the 54 like most Selmer's has a richer midrange. I have described the 82Z has reminding me of a VI on steroids. They seem to play with a lot of power but it also has a bit of that lyrical quality that I find in my VI. I haven't lived with one but it I also find that they can be subtle. Essentially, I find that they have a very large dynamic range and like most really nice horns there are a variety of colors to explore. The 54's I have played have struck me as less power than the 82Z but that doesn't mean they can't fill a room. I find less of the famous Selmer core in the 54. The tone is rich and full. It can be dark and you can play it bright. What it lacks is the lyrical quality of my VI. It plays great but it doesn't sing. I'm a more melodic player so horns that have a lyrical quality to them appeal to me a great deal. To sum up - the tone is richer on the 54 and the 82Z sings a bit more. The 82Z is also a brighter horn. I think the 82Z benefits from a less bright mouthpiece whereas I think the 54 and a vintage Meyer is the perfect jazz combination.

If I had to pick I'd throw a Yani into the mix :-D