Sax on the Web Forum banner

The Mark VI "thing": Why can't they get it back?

183K views 873 replies 156 participants last post by  CashSax 
#1 ·
Everyone talks about that "thing" a good Mark VI has that Selmer has been unable to capture since they stopped making them.

A few questions:

1. Why did they stop making them? What did Selmer think people would gain from the Mark VII that they didn't get with the VI?

2. Now that these horns are so revered, sought after, etc, why hasn't Selmer brought them back? I understand the Ref 54 is supposed to fill that void, but most opinions I read on it aren't nearly as glowing as they are for a real Mark VI. Is it wrong to assume that they would still have the tooling or casts (whatever) and whatever specs necessary to make them again? If so, why wouldn't they?
 
#60 ·
Yep. Even if they somehow made a perfect clone of a Mark VI, the "real" VIs would still have the ineffable mojo -- not necessarily for *musical* reasons....
 
#62 ·
The MK7 is just a MK6 with bigger key work designed for fred hemke from my understanding. i when i played an alto the key work was bigger than my tenors.

Selmer will never be what they used to be untilthey redo their quality controll. their current policy is to sell everything that comes out of the factory.
 
#63 ·
Is a Mark VI generally accepted to be harder to play than a modern horn? I've seen comments to this effect a few times in this thread, but when I pick one up, it blows at least as freely as my Series III, and I might even feel more resonance through my fingertips, which is nice. On tenor, compared to my Martin, I feel like when I pick up a VI, it "just works," as opposed to being forced to get a sound I want and get the action moving cleanly. I've always had really positive experiences playing these, except for one horn which was leaking like a sieve.

P.S. In response to one comment, when it comes to personality, values and especially GAS, guitarists≈sax players.
 
#68 ·
Is a Mark VI generally accepted to be harder to play than a modern horn?
I wouldn't say harder to play so much as you won't be able to do anything more with it (than a modern horn), or play it to its full potential until you have put the time in on it. In truth, this can be said for any horn, but it's probably more true for VIs and other vintage horns in general, than for the modern horns. I'm going largely on what I've heard about modern horns being very consistent, in tune, etc.

It's all a bit of a trade-off, but what Thomas and others are saying about the flexibility in tone and intonation sounds right on to me. I've noticed the same thing with my Bueschers. They can be played in tune easily if you use your ear, but are also very flexible, so you have to use your ear. The bonus comes in being able to use this flexibility well. And there also seems to be a fairly wide 'tonal pallet' with many vintage horns, especially the MKVI.

Then again, this might all be in my mind, and maybe I don't really know what I'm talking about! But it seems to me to be the case. I did own a Yamaha Custom alto for a few years, and that horn just didn't seem to have the flexibility I'm talking about here. Not compared to a couple of Buescher altos I have owned. Same seemed true of some modern tenors I've tried, but I sure haven't tried them all.
 
#64 ·
I think a VI takes some getting used to. This is especially the case if you are coming from modern horns. I dont find mine resistant at all. However, they are flexible to the point of being initially hard to play in tune. I recall being all over the map with pitch when I first got mine. I would venture to say that you can get more variance in pitch from a VI without bending the reed (just using your throat) than you can out of any modern horn. So, Id say they are harder in that respect.

In that respect a remake of the VI would be a tough sell on todays market. You have to keep in mind that they need to sell a lot of horns...many to players that are not accomplished. I can already hear hundreds of band teachers saying, "Go buy a Yamaha".
 
#66 ·
I think a VI takes some getting used to. This is especially the case if you are coming from modern horns. However, they are flexible to the point of being initially hard to play in tune. I would venture to say that you can get more variance in pitch from a VI without bending the reed (just using your throat) than you can out of any modern horn.

In that respect a remake of the VI would be a tough sell on todays market. You have to keep in mind that they need to sell a lot of horns...many to players that are not accomplished. .
I find this pitch flexibility/sensitivity one of the MK VI tenor's greatest assets. It makes one a better player, great for developing the ear, and a invaluable tool for the improviser. I would add to your take on "many players who are not accomplished" those players who are just plain too lazy to do the work to become accomplished. The first step in being a musician is the mastery of the instrument. Most are too lazy to enjoy that work.
 
#72 ·
I dont have recordings but yes the horn does seem more flexible and its very sensitive. Once you know the horn it doesnt feel that way but (as I mentioned) when you come from a modern horn where the intonation feels more locked in the difference is much like going from driving a chevy sedan to a tight, high performance vehicle. At first it feels hypersensitive and it wants to get away from you. Eventually everything gels and becomes second nature. Im not knocking modern horns but this is the best analogy I can think of at the moment.
 
#74 ·
Unfortunately I've never had the opportunity to play a "known good Mk VI" so I only get to read about how awesome they are on the internet =(
If someone in the Tampa Bay area has one and wouldn't mind letting me try it let me know =D
 
#76 ·
Same here!

I have to say though, the first time I had a chance to sit down in a room with a professional player and really hear one played up close, it blew my mind!

Of course, I've also heard less skilled players sound...like themselves...on them!
 
#79 ·
I would also like to know the answer to this. I can see how a mouthpiece can be less flexible (small tip opening and/or longer lay), but not a saxophone. Take any one note, say a G. When you are playing that one note it's basically a fixed length conical tube with a few turbulences caused by the toneholes and/or tenon joint. Flexibility of that G is created by the player using jaw or mouth cavity.

So presumably the saxophone is built to react more or less to those parameters. It can only be in the size or conicality of the bore, or something to do with the turbulences of the toneholes or tenon. ???

But I'm willing to bet it was just that particular horn.
Me too.
 
#83 ·
Selmer already made their money on that model line. And it isn't like you simply can't find a six no matter how hard you look for one. The question is how much cash are you willing to spend and how many sixes might you try before you find the one you want. If all the sixes went away and there was a demand for them I bet there would be a more definitive clone. Because the demand would be there. But at the moment it's just a matter of how much is the player willing to spend for a used instrument with generations worth of storied history behind it.

If I found a ref54 or a Series II I liked, I would be playing one. But I gotsta say, my 67RUL is a real player. It would have to be a no comparison deal to replace that one. Something really special. Just not looking for one of those right now. Not to say they aren't great, but that isn't the hunt that's on at the moment.

I'm definitely waiting to see what the upcoming Blessing sax will be like. I would love to be playing a modern American made horn made at that level of playability.

Harv
 
#98 ·
I guess James Carter and Tom Scott are not top musicians in the industry? What world do you live in ?
 
#99 ·
Obviously many great players play on different brands and styles (I think SBA is kind of preferred by a lot of jazz players these days).

It's just hard to ignore the presence of the VI in saxophone history. I think even a lot of former VI players have moved onto something else these days. However, with the VI being the "top of the line" through the 50's, 60's, and 70's - a good majority of professionals still play on these horns and why wouldn't they?

I'm more afraid of the saxophone maintaining a relevance in popular music than I am whether the VI or SBA or the Super chi/ny/la 894-AFT super-deluxe jazz hornet will be the "standard" of horns to come.
 
#100 ·
Obviously many great players play on different brands and styles (I think SBA is kind of preferred by a lot of jazz players these days).

It's just hard to ignore the presence of the VI in saxophone history. I think even a lot of former VI players have moved onto something else these days. However, with the VI being the "top of the line" through the 50's, 60's, and 70's - a good majority of professionals still play on these horns and why wouldn't they?

I'm more afraid of the saxophone maintaining a relevance in popular music than I am whether the VI or SBA or the Super chi/ny/la 894-AFT super-deluxe jazz hornet will be the "standard" of horns to come.
I agree.
 
#101 ·
I'm more afraid of the saxophone maintaining a relevance in popular music than I am whether the VI or SBA or the Super chi/ny/la 894-AFT super-deluxe jazz hornet will be the "standard" of horns to come.
Not trying to do a smackdown on your post, Swampcabbage, but isn't that battle way beyond lost? I don't think the sax is relevant in any way in popular music anymore...

And jazz is certainly no longer "popular" music. Whatever the hell Lady Gaga (love her soft-core videos, can't remember a note of her tunes) or the guy whose song has the "F*ck You!" chorus or Justin Bieber is popular music, stuff as nourishing and substantial and long-lasting as a bag a Cheez Curls, and stuff where you're as likely to hear a sackbut as a saxophone.

I agree with your larger take on the VI, but wonder what you mean by this...
 
#102 ·
Well, there is still a small amount of relevancy. There are acts that still use horns (Beyonce, Prince, etc...) but it is getting more sparse by the day. The absence in pop culture (of any sort - even the loss of smooth jazz radio hurts a little) means less visibility and less interest for students which means less appreciation. Albeit that the relevancy is negligible - for me, here in the NE region, there is still some relevancy in the "function" or "GB" work - "Brick House" and the Motown stand bys still help me witht he bread and butter around here. As the generations lose interest in these eras of music - so does the viability of making extra bread - (who even makes a living just playing anymore - unless you want to live in a boarding house).

I have already come to terms with the fact that the function looks like this for me - 1st set - Dinner (Sinatra, Beatles, Billy Joel, maybe a standard or two). 2nd set - Some funk and soul (Brick House, Michael Jackson, Aretha Franklin, Beyonce, Stevie Wonder); start moving into hits from the last 10 years maybe some 80's music (80% sax, 20% percussion). 3rd set - MORE COWBELL!!!!

My hope is that with its loss of relevancy - maybe younger folks will see it as a form of rebellion (my dad wants me to take guitar - but I'm playing the sax and he HATES IT). (Yeah, right).

So even though jazz is irrelavent on most levels - the sax still remains slightly viable (at least more so than trombone) even though a trombonist has more opps in a symphony and brass quartets than the saxophonist does (thats true even if sax is your double).

so, all we got left, really, is soul, funk, some blues and the occcasional rock band. As I see it anyway.
 
#115 ·
This thread has got a bit off topic in that the original questions were....
If the MK VI is so good, why do they not produce it again, and if there are technical
reasons why that cannot be done, what are those issues.
Now the discussion seems to have devolved into the same ol' arguments back and
forth regarding the merits of the MK VI, and comparisons to modern horns.

I have a good MK VI. My friend has a good SBA.
A year ago I bought a $500 budget Chinese manufactured sax as a backup.
Recently I had the opportunity to try out a couple of P.Mauriet saxes. One with
RTH and one with the straight tone holes.

After playing the Chinese sax for a while I found that on some notes I would
accidently strike a sound that had a quality that really knocked me out.
A sound that was more complex and that I had never experienced on my VI.
Now some may say that the VI is just more focused and has a more pure sound.
Although much of this horn is copied on a Selmer, there are a couple of ergo
issues, and the intonation is different with the palm keys. I tended to play these
notes sharp on the Chinese sax unless I compensated for the difference.

Then going back to the MK VI after playing this sax, I was initially disappointed with
the VI and was ready to give it away because it seemed to choke up. Then I realised
that I had to modify the way I played to get the sound out of the VI, and after a
few minutes I was back to playing the VI as I had done before. I was relieved that
my VI, was still the preferred horn for me.

Then I tried the Mauriets. Both of these were noticeably more free to blow in the
lower register. This is probably an unfair comparison because it is sometime since I
have had the setup on my VI checked, and being the age it is, it can go out of
adjustment relatively easily. The PM's were new and superbly set up.

The PM's were almost identical ergonomically to the VI except the LH palm keys were
slightly higher and initially I had to be careful not to accidently bump them. After a
short while I felt these palm keys were better posistioned for me than the VI, which I
feel need some risers. (I have relatively small hands).

All in all, I thought the PM's were an improved MK VI with all the good qualities of
the latter, although my friends said they preferred the sound of the Selmer better.
I'm not sure I agree with them.

Going back to the Selmer after playing the PM's required no readjustment on my
part at all. (Except I had to be more careful when playing down the bottom
in order to pop the notes out.)

I have not played all the modern horns that are available today, but I'm sure there
are others just as good as the PM's. Based on my experiences, I don't see the need
to reproduce a VI as I feel the modern horns have moved forward from this design
and are superior.

I don't buy into this 'flexibility of pitch' argument. As others have pointed out, that
really comes from the player and the mpc setup.
 
#116 ·
I have tried to ignore this thread but curiosity has prevailed! A few feet from where I write rests a 1959-1960 Selmer Mk6 alto-(5digit) An ex-pupil is selling this horn to help finance his small engineering company--times are hard--which employs local people in an area of very high unemployment.
This weekend a buyer is travelling from The Netherlands to England to buy this horn and I have been asked to check it over etc. bearing in mind it has not been played for many years. This horn is expected to fetch --by prior agreement ---well over £3000.00GBP.
OK the horn plays well enough a few tweeks ,a few turns of various screws. "Well enough" is not good enough IMO to warrant such a hefty price tag but I wish my friend well and wish to see his business stay on track and if some mug is willing to pay 3 Grand to help 20-30 guys to keep their jobs I'm happy.
The point of this tale??--next to the Mk6 resides my Selmer Serie 3--also an alto, naturally I compared them, even swopped necks and used a Meyer 6MEZ. The best bit?
The Serie 3 is a superior saxophone in terms of general playability-- no "gurgle" I'd forgot about that, always thought it was me back in the day--better top end and much easier
below E--no gurgle! Where the Mk6 DID have IT in bucketfuls was in the mid range F1 -G2. In other respects the Mk6 was just a good alto saxophone period.
No one has been more critical than me about current Selmer Quality Control but my 10year old Serie 3 IS without doubt the better of the 2.
FWIW the buyer is getting this horn for his daughter who is apparently a very serious player in Netherlands.
Anyway thats my 2 pennorth suppose I better prepare myself for the "flack"!
 
#119 ·
Anyway thats my 2 pennorth suppose I better prepare myself for the "flack"!
No flack from me: if I'd had a chance to play my 5-digit alto before buying it -- I'd never have bought it!
 
#123 ·
The problem is, I think, that a saxophone is basically, just brass pieces stuck together but in a very special way. The mark VI was hand made by people who was knowing how to assemblate the pieces together. If you want good old instuments, you nedd to find the brass, etc... and maybe some factories can produce it but you need also to find the good people to assemblate this and perhaps it'll be very difficult to find.
 
#124 ·
Funny, in the guitar world pretty much all the major players have reissued all their classic instruments.. at big bucks of course. And when most people go play them they are initially sucked in by the allure of having that one of a kind '59 Les Paul or '54 Strat, but once that wears off they find it's not really any different from the current standard product being made at less than half the cost. The Mark VI had a great run and I think if the reissued a Mark VI based 100% on the original specs people would snatch them up as quickly as they could make them (at $10K or more as they'd have to be made using the same handmade processes), and then in a couple of years you'd see many of them being sold off because mediocre players bought them and still sounded mediocre, even with a supposed exact replica of the "greatest sax ever made", naturally it will be the horns fault. Selmer has to put up with enough reputation damage even with the really great horns they currently offer, all because their new horns aren't Mark VI's.
 
#129 ·
Funny, in the guitar world pretty much all the major players have reissued all their classic instruments.. at big bucks of course. And when most people go play them they are initially sucked in by the allure of having that one of a kind '59 Les Paul or '54 Strat, but once that wears off they find it's not really any different from the current standard product being made at less than half the cost. The Mark VI had a great run and I think if the reissued a Mark VI based 100% on the original specs people would snatch them up as quickly as they could make them (at $10K or more as they'd have to be made using the same handmade processes)....
The thing is there are a LOT more guitar players out there than sax players. This is all down to money & profit. I don't think the profit is there because very few are going to believe a new horn is really a MKVI, even if it truly is an exact replica. They will only pay the big bucks for the real, authentic, vintage horn.
 
#126 ·
Yes, it is. For a lot of reasons, we don't want to improve things or change. Nowaday, we can make very precise work and I think we're able to produce very fine instrument, even finer than the Mark VI but if you want to earn money quickly, it's not the good way. You'd better to produce cheaper things and sell a lot of it as most of people aren't good musicians and just want for reasonnably priced instruments. And honestly, the saxophone just help you but it's a lot of work before. I tried some mark Vi and SBA and sommetime, I fell an improvement and sometime not. And my teacher could play amazing stuff on every sax he has....
 
#127 ·
Yes, it is. For a lot of reasons, we don't want to improve things or change. Nowaday, we can make very precise work and I think we're able to produce very fine instrument, even finer than the Mark VI but if you want to earn money quickly, it's not the good way. You'd better to produce cheaper things and sell a lot of it as most of people aren't good musicians and just want for reasonnably priced instruments. And honestly, the saxophone just help you but it's a lot of work before.
You hit it right there. Necessity is the mother of invention! People want something reasonably priced. When I think Ref 54 or 36 and look at the price, I can buy a Mk6 or Balanced Action for the same amount or less so why would I want to buy something new? Everything works on incentives and motives. Selmer simply doesn't have the incentive to build something they built in such large quantities before. They are perfectly capable of making a good 6 but a mk 6 certainly isn't rare.

This is way off mark and I'm sorry to those it may offend but I think it's interesting. Why exactly have these horns gone through the roof? Are they that great, that rare? I think they can be great instruments myself. I feel like the prices on instruments, homes, and most other goods only rose due to one real driving factor: credit has been made so readily available to everyone in the last decade. 8 years ago I had my choice of 100% original 57' Mk6 or re-lacquered SBA tenor for $3k at my local music shop. They were worth that to me, every penny. And with some saving, hard work, those prices were obtainable. Remember layaway and saving? The prices they get now simply aren't worth it to me. Us retailers could charge more simply cause our shoppers bought into the illusion they had the money to take it home right away. We've become weak and lazy because of this, and not to mention, deeper in debt. I sold alot instruments in the early 2000s and had I waited until 2007, would have been able to get 3 or 4 times the amount I sold them for. Something just seems artificial about that.
JB
 
#130 ·
Maybe, people who can get 12000$ for a sax are collectionners... To answer to grumps, I think we can recreate samurai swords but it'll take you 20 or 50 years to be a master and to make real good swords. But you have to live between that and nobody want a new japanese sword nowaday so no one will last time to learned how to make it. Knowledge can be lost but can't vanished.
 
#136 ·
My take on this is quite a bit left of center (some might say crazy) but since everyone is entitled to their opinion here’s mine;

Growing up and living in the New York City area I’ve played dozens of VI’s and many of them back-to-back which makes a big difference in your perception of how well they play. When you are able to play several horns on the same day, in the same room, with the same mouthpiece/reed combo, one after another, it makes the differences between instruments more apparent. After accounting for the differences in setup and condition my experience is that there are a fair number of good playing Mark VI’s as well as a whole lot that don’t play particularly well- they aren’t bad horns, just IMHO, not worth the $3k premium they are commanding over other pro tenors.

In addition I’ve found that the ones that have been played the most tend to also play the best. This seems to imply some sort of cause and effect relationship which we explain away by believing that folks find the best playing horns and play them. The ones that don’t play quite as well end up in closets or attics not getting as much use. Recently (last 10 years) it has also been in vogue to believe that unlacquered horns play with more resonance than lacquered versions of the same instruments. This belief seems to be mostly fueled by people playing superior sounding vintage horns with the lacquer largely worn off. I’m beginning to come to the belief that in both cases we have the cause and effect backwards. The horns play (are played by good players who play) with more resonant tones which breaks the lacquer down quicker and causes them to become “unlacquered”. They don’t play better because they are unlacquered, they become unlacquered because they play (are played) better.

Likewise, I’m not convinced that many Mark VI’s play so well because they were made 50+ years ago out of old shell casings, by old world craftsmen using old world techniques and old hand tools. They play well because many of the guys who have played them over the last 50 years have been good players and they’ve had all these years to basically become “broken in” by these good players. I realize that this idea that great horns are not “born” but made over time is way outside the mainstream belief but my own experience and observations have convinced me it is plausible.

So, with this in mind, I believe that even if Selmer could perfectly reincarnate the Mark VI- the new ones would not play as good as the 50+ year old ones simply because they haven’t been played for 50+ years.
 
#137 ·
" The horns play (are played by good players who play) with more resonant tones which breaks the lacquer down quicker and causes them to become "unlacquered".

Nah. They have more resonant tones because the dude attached to the other open end of the horn can really play. The main reason he can really play is because he does it all the time, every day, practicing and playing. This of course wears the lacquer away.

" So, with this in mind, I believe that even if Selmer could perfectly reincarnate the Mark VI- the new ones would not play as good as the 50+ year old ones simply because they haven't been played for 50+ years. "

If you could magically 100% recreate a mark vi in sound and spirit, but introduce it as the "New Sears and Roebuck Saxxy 1000", there would still be people who say it sucks or not living up to the hype as a new mark vi retro model.
 
#139 ·
If you could magically 100% recreate a mark vi in sound and spirit, but introduce it as the "New Sears and Roebuck Saxxy 1000", there would still be people who say it sucks or not living up to the hype as a new mark vi retro model.


Exactly! This is the point I tried to make somewhere earlier in the thread. And I think the folks at Selmer understand this. It doesn't deter them from claiming a given new model plays/sounds like a VI, but I suspect they understand the fact that those who either believe or don't believe that hype would react exactly the same even if the new horn was an exact copy.

KeithL wrote: "In addition I've found that the ones that have been played the most tend to also play the best. This seems to imply some sort of cause and effect relationship which we explain away by believing that folks find the best playing horns and play them."

This implication is much more reasonable then some crazy idea about "breaking the horn in" or lac being worn away by resonance, etc. I'd say in general that it's true the better horns got played more. I'm sure there were exceptions where a horn ended up in someone's closet, but overall the horns that don't get played and get sold on are likely not the best ones.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top