Sax on the Web Forum banner

Vintage saxes vs. modern saxes and technology

37K views 87 replies 42 participants last post by  Farooque Ahmed 
#1 ·
If some people prefer a specific vintage sax over a modern one, why can't technology and all that modern stuff help make a better saxophone? Cars now are more fuel-efficiant and/or have better preformance than older cars. What about saxophones?
 
#3 ·
It's a subjective matter really, but for all intents and purposes, modern saxophones are more perfect in terms of tone and intonation. Some players, most who have grown up on vintage, feel that older horns have more character and are more flexible. Some have even learned how to use the quirks of vintage horns to their advantage. Take for instance, a note that blows flat and needs to be lipped up can more easily be used when you are intentionally trying to bend that note.

I also feel that there is a certain mystic with old instruments that can not be duplicated by their modern counterparts. There's something cool about playing on a 60 year old Buescher 400 as opposed to a run of the mill Yamaha Custom or Selmer Serie II. After all, the latter are still being made in abundance as the former is becoming harder and harder to find.

Finally, a lot of vintage horns seem to have advantages in certain areas. IMHO nothing compares to the deep low end of the old Bueschers, or the booming sound of the old Conns, or the screaming altissimo of the old Kings. Of course, all of these horns had weaknesses that rivaled their strengths. The modern horn is designed to be the best possible compromise between feel, tone, and intonation. Some players like em, while others feel that modern horns sound "neutered".

In all, there is really no right or wrong choice. Go with what you like.
 
#10 · (Edited)
It's a subjective matter really, but for all intents and purposes, modern saxophones are more perfect in terms of tone and intonation. Some players, most who have grown up on vintage, feel that older horns have more character and are more flexible.
I gotta disagree that modern saxes are more perfect in terms of intonation. I've owned a yas-62, serie ii, 82Z and Martin Committee altos and serie ii, yanaigawas 991, ST90, 82Z and Martin Committee tenors. NONE of them more in tune than another- just different in their tendancies.
The Martins ARE very flexible and if you really don't aim the pitch it just doesn't give it to you like other horns do.
That said, I'm yet to play an 'in-tune' saxophone. If heard plenty of out-of-tune players though.

I actually think that in terms of keywork, today's horns are over-engineered.
Particularly in the palm keys, low c/Eb spatulas and the main stack table.
 
#4 ·
For what it's worth I play all new(ish) horns-- Z tenor, Series III alto, YSS475 soprano. I used to play vintage tenors but I prefer the Z to anything I've ever owned, and my Series III plays as well as any Mark VI I've ever tried. When the C# vent isn't leaking... there's one piece of technology I could do without...
 
#8 ·
I actually think that in terms of keywork, today's horns are over-engineered. I find my 1933 Conn transitional really easy to play, everything seems to fall naturally under my -- small -- hands, and the response is quick and precise.
As has been pointed out, intonation is as intonation is. It's up to you.

Plus, after you're done, because of the relatively "unbusy" keywork, you can easily clean and dry all the pads and toneholes. Maybe on the vintage Conns the grub-screws are a pain, but that's the only gripe I have. And there's no beating the sound, which in the end, is all that really matters, at least to me.
 
#9 ·
I remember trying a Buescher being sold by a sax tech when I brought my Conn 24M to him for repad. Although the sound and intonation are good, what I did not like was the keyworks. I would rather go for a horn with keyworks which suit my fingers (short) and just compensate whatever shortcomings it may have on intonation with my embochure.
 
#11 ·
I have read (I think here on SOTW ) that some people have tried having their vintage horns rebuilt with modern keywork. I think the great expense ( or working hours investment) which would be involved in something like this is only justifiable if one can do this on his own and has enormous skills , time and willingness to experiment but there is very , very, little to be gained from such a thing other than having a unique saxophone which ( I am sure that some would argue ) has or not such special sound qualities.

With regards to innovation not having been applied to the more that a century old musical instrument . I would say that this is, in general terms, incorrect.
The saxophone has undergone some, although unsuccessful but stunning, evolution by the likes of Jim Schmidt whose saxophones (and flutes) are anything but ordinary or traditional. Yet, this is perhaps one of the few attempts to have been reforming the saxophone as it wwas invented (to be fair , also the Tubax and the soprillo by Benedikt Eppelsheim, to a certain extent, are). The saxophone is like the bicycle, although some different projects have been introduced (the many layback bicycles ) the most successful design is still one of the oldest ones , albeit improved in the different materials used to produce a modern type.
 
#13 ·
Modern vs Vintage is alot like Photo's Vs Memory

Having a Photo is having a perfect recording of a event - while your memory (with no photo to refer to) will be more apt to make it seem unforgettable and legendary.

I think its all the imperfections in a vintage horn that makes a player HAVE to participate more in its performance - and thus making it a more personal experience. Modern horns are Sooooooo nice that the player doesn't have to do much to get a great result.
 
#14 ·
Vintage saxophones were designed to play with a big sound - loud - because they didn't have microphones and PA's to help them. And thusly, they are very flexible as far as tone quality and intonation are concerned. This is a good thing if you know how to tame one - You play the horn and you tell it what to do. Then you have a seemingly endless pallet of tone color and effects to use in making your music.

If, however, you haven't yet developed your chops/ears enough to tame one of these, then it is going to take you all over the place - to key centers that don't even exist.

Modern saxophones are designed to be "safer" in regards to intonation, and as a result, they have far less flexible tonal qualities. For this reason, some players consider them "nutered".

Maybe someone will disagree, but from my experience, once you can play a vintage horn and make it do what you want, you have absolutely no interest in playing a modern saxophone. They are too limiting tonally.
 
#36 ·
Vintage saxophones were designed to play with a big sound - loud - because they didn't have microphones and PA's to help them. And thusly, they are very flexible as far as tone quality and intonation are concerned. This is a good thing if you know how to tame one - You play the horn and you tell it what to do. Then you have a seemingly endless pallet of tone color and effects to use in making your music.

Maybe someone will disagree, but from my experience, once you can play a vintage horn and make it do what you want, you have absolutely no interest in playing a modern saxophone. They are too limiting tonally.
I would distinguish between a 'big' sound and 'loud' though. I hear most modern players play too loud, they fill the room with volume rather than resonance and sonority. I do agree with you though, completely.

So in my mind...which is an opinion - which i know somebody will disagree....we should be learning on the modern horns - graduating to the vintage horns and then resting either in the vintage world or carrying onto the transitional (for lack of a better word) world of instruments between vintage tone and modern mechanics.
Charlie :)
This is why there are many many fine flute players the world over who realise the potential of a fine Louis Lot (or other great French flutes) or an older Powell.

Regarding the idea that technology can improve everything, I would take issue with that. Craftsmanship and artistry is a large part of designing a great musical instrument. Surely no one would say any modern violin can stand up to a Stradivarius, to use a rather extreme example. Modern technology hasn't improved the ability of an artist to produce a great painting. And I have seen no evidence whatsoever that modern technology has produced a better saxophone.
However, they have discovered now that the wood that Strads were made from had a very different density due to the colder European climate then- and this likely largely contributed to their sound.
 
#17 ·
One would think...I played one next to my 82000 MK6 Tenor. It had similar qualities, but it still felt like a modern horn. I had the feeling that I wanted to take it apart, take off the finish, and put some dents in it so I could take them back out. Then maybe it would do what I wanted.

milandro - thanks
 
#25 ·
Exactly....

Which is why people love them - less work to get a better sound.

Wait a second - did we ever take the minute to think that by reducing the difficulty to get good tone and good intonation we would be hurting other factors in making music ......like......oh i don't know....musicianship that comes from experience ...which come from practicing.....which doesn't happen if you feel like your sound and intonation are ok....

I may sound down on modern horns - however I do think they have their place. I think students who get modern horns can progress in many other areas quicker because they don't have to worry about tone or intonation as much as if they were playing a vintage horn.

Isn't this why the Selmer Mark VI became so popular? It was made in "the day" when tone was still being thought of in a way that we now call "vintage" and the mechanics were better then anything before.

Isn't what everybody copied in terms of mechanics for a long time the Mark VI? Then didn't these mechanics get improved upon leading to what we have now - "modern Mechanics"?

So in my mind...which is an opinion - which i know somebody will disagree....we should be learning on the modern horns - graduating to the vintage horns and then resting either in the vintage world or carrying onto the transitional (for lack of a better word) world of instruments between vintage tone and modern mechanics.

Isn't this why everybody says - why cant we make a vintage sounding horn with modern mechanics? Or modify vintage mechanics?

Personally one of my life dreams is to design a set of mechanics that can bolt onto a vintage horn with no alterations to the body - that would give a more modern feel....its a matter of time before somebody does it - even if it is exact replacement parts for vintage horns.

Wait a sec - how did i get on this soapbox?????

I'll get down down - thanks for listening

Charlie :)
 
#83 ·
I think this illustrates JL's point perfectly: I would choose the Buescher over the Selmer not because vintage horns are better per se, but because I might actually be able to afford the Buescher.:(

R.
 
#22 ·
It is all about the sound. Show me a modern horn that I, or anyone else, can make sound like a good vintage horn and and I'd be happy to try one.

2 recent examples- Last night I was at a friend's house and played her B&S tenor back to back with her old Martin. The modern horn felt OK, but the Martin killed it for sound.

A few weeks ago I A/B'ed a True Tone alto and a Series 1 tenor against the new Cannonball vintage line. I liked the Cannonballs as well as any modern horns I've tried, but the Bueschers still sounded better to me. If your mileage varies, by all means buy whatever floats your boat. It's fine with me if you want to buy a sparkly new Yamaha that depreciates more in a year than the price of a couple of True Tones.
 
#24 ·
I think modern keywork is over rated. It's just the keywork most people are accustomed to. Selmer became the most admired sax, so everyone imitated Selmer. The simplicity of early keywork has advantages -- not the least of which is cleaning the G# pad. :D
 
#26 ·
The simplicity of early keywork has advantages -- not the least of which is cleaning the G# pad. :D
Exactly!

To add to what I'd said earlier, I think the whole pinky assembly is waaay over-engineered on modern horns -- I really disliked the one on the Yamaha YAS62 that I've since sold, and I don't particularly like the one on the YSS475 I occasionally play. All done in the name of ease of play or "balance", but for me, nothing beats the directness of the Conn 6M pinky keys, although you first have to build up those tiny muscles in your finger ;).

To repeat, in the end, it's the sound, and nothing but the sound, that matters, and I LIKE the vintage Conn sound. Plus these old Conns were built as tough and as reliable as they come. Except for those grub screws...
 
#27 ·
Some vintage horns are great - Some modern horns are great.

With the automobile industry, you've had thousands of folks working day and night for decades doing nothing but trying to improve on the design.

With something like a sax, there are probably less than a 100 people worldwide whose "job" it is to design a better sax......
 
#28 ·
Personally I think that the "Tilting Bb" may have been the worst idea to ever hit the saxophone world. I've gotten used to this key, but I still prefer horns without the tilting feature. Heck, the Yamaha 23 is the only modern horn that comes to mind that got the LH pinky cluster right.
 
#34 ·
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Keilwerth trying to get that old Conn sound?
Maybe it is the older Keilewerths like the Couf and the New King I am thinking of, but the ones I have played seemed like a pretty good compromise between vintage sound and modern ergos.
 
#35 ·
Mostly I would say it's about the TONE quality of the vintage horns; not all of them, of course, but the better vintage horns do seem to have a superior tone quality to the modern horns. And I'm sure there are some exceptional modern horns as well, but in general they don't have the tone quality of the vintage horns.

The whole idea that modern horns have better intonation and ergonomics is way overblown, imo. No saxophone plays perfectly in tune, including modern ones. But a vintage Buescher Aristocrat comes as close as any modern horn, and closer than most of them. Also, my MKVI tenor (assuming it's considered vintage) has very good intonation.

Regarding the idea that technology can improve everything, I would take issue with that. Craftsmanship and artistry is a large part of designing a great musical instrument. Surely no one would say any modern violin can stand up to a Stradivarius, to use a rather extreme example. Modern technology hasn't improved the ability of an artist to produce a great painting. And I have seen no evidence whatsoever that modern technology has produced a better saxophone.

Modern technology has helped produce better automobiles, definitely, but not a better saxophone. The automobile/saxophone analogy does not work on any level.
 
#38 ·
I have enjoyed my vintage (Dolnet-bari, York c-melody, Holton-bari) as well as my modern axes. I wouldn't trade my modern Keilwerth bass sax for a vintage one that's for sure. I would--on the other hand--probably sell my Yamaha YBS-62 for a good vintage bari. The modern keywork helps out alot of people with small hands. My free jazz instructor and I both agree my bass has that great vintage bass sound with good intonation; of course, having a nice vintage mouthpiece or two doesn't hurt. Its been running strong for over two year with no issues. :santa:
 
#39 ·
Anyway, I think saxophonists have some very interesting things to look forward to in the future, provided they can earn enough money with their craft. Most pro saxes today are mass produced. As soon as pro sax players can afford to spend, say $8,000+ on a completely hand-made, custom saxophone, like a professional flautist spends on a flute, then we will start seeing some real artist instruments.
 
Top