Vintage saxes vs. modern saxes and technology

[Benny]

Quite true. I realize it's not an exact parallel, but the point is, technology has little to do with it.

totally agree.
machines have taken much of the humanity out of many instruments

[58tenor]

why can't technology and all that modern stuff help make a better saxophone?

It has

[Yamahaaltoplayer]

To 58tenor, then why are there people still playing vintage?

[jaleelshaw]

I also agree with the statement about machines taking the "humanity" out of many instruments made today. But I have to say, my IV has been out of commission for the past couple of weeks, forcing me to have to play a couple new horns. I definitely feel as though the new horns are more "even" as far as intonation goes. The high and low notes also pop out alot easier too. These horns don't have the sound that my IV does, but they do have something the many older horns don't.

[Sebastian]

I also agree with the statement about machines taking the "humanity" out of many instruments made today. But I have to say, my IV has been out of commission for the past couple of weeks, forcing me to have to play a couple new horns. I definitely feel as though the new horns are more "even" as far as intonation goes. The high and low notes also pop out alot easier too. These horns don't have the sound that my IV does, but they do have something the many older horns don't.

What did you try that you liked?

[Kenneth]

The high and low notes also pop out a lot easier too.

This might actually have to do with how well the horn is set-up (pad height and seal etc) and the whole mouthpiece, reed and ligature thing, an issue that's a whole other thread. I've found that a properly tweaked vintage horn will play from top to bottom as easily as any properly tweaked modern horn, and more, have great sonority all the way to the top, whereas I find modern horns rather thin in alt. The conclusion is, I'm just a huge fan of vintage horns, and there's no beating the cool engraving , although the Selmer Reference Bird series and that Lady Godiva thing on the Cannonballs are pretty cool.

[HeavyWeather77]

I also agree with the statement about machines taking the "humanity" out of many instruments made today. But I have to say, my IV has been out of commission for the past couple of weeks, forcing me to have to play a couple new horns. I definitely feel as though the new horns are more "even" as far as intonation goes. The high and low notes also pop out alot easier too. These horns don't have the sound that my IV does, but they do have something the many older horns don't.

Something tells me you'd sound pretty damn awesome on anything, Jaleel...

I've definitely played some vintage horns I've loved. But I'm a firm believer that some horns, regardless of vintage, work better with different people. I played a Series II that destroyed almost every VI I've ever played (it belonged to a student of mine who refused to sell it to me). I think it pays to have an open mind and understand that, since all these things are-- even today-- still made by people, there will always be variations between instruments that drastically affect how different players respond to them.

[BeyondSax]

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?

Most of the very best violin musicians probably own a violin made by one of the following great masters of violin making: Stradivari, Amati, Guarneri, Vuillaume, Bergonzi, or Stainer. This is true even though the design of violins has been pretty standardised and stable for a very long time. So these players could easily get a modern German or Chinese instrument made to exact specs - but don't.

My own preferences for vintage vs modern have to do with several factors: intonation throughout the entire range, dynamic range, presence or absence of muted or muffled notes, ergos, ease of achieving overtones, etc. etc. In sopranos, the best all around horn I have found to date is a Yamaha 62R about 40 years old. It almost seems to play itself. My Buescher TT straight sops, curved sop and Tipbell sops are almost as good, but tend to go sharp above high D. My Yanis are also quite good and get play.

In baritone, the best horn I have played to date is a modern Yani B901. But in this instance, I haven't been able to get my hands on many vintage baris (I also own an Adolphe Sax Baryton made in 1867 which sounds very good but has limited range and abysmal ergos).

So, I guess I don't have a particular prejudice. But have just seemed to find what I like mostly in the older horns.

[Kenneth]

My own preferences for vintage vs modern have to do with several factors: intonation throughout the entire range, dynamic range, presence or absence of muted or muffled notes, ergos, ease of achieving overtones, etc. etc. In sopranos, the best all around horn I have found to date is a Yamaha 62R about 40 years old. It almost seems to play itself.

The fact that Jaleel (thanks a million for the tracks on your website, I listened to them all -- really, really cool) is also looking for one makes me really curious about the 62R...

[hgiles]

I also agree with the statement about machines taking the "humanity" out of many instruments made today. But I have to say, my IV has been out of commission for the past couple of weeks, forcing me to have to play a couple new horns. I definitely feel as though the new horns are more "even" as far as intonation goes. The high and low notes also pop out alot easier too. These horns don't have the sound that my IV does, but they do have something the many older horns don't.

Your (six) VI sounds great in a particular register at the expense of sounding great in another register, evenness of scale, intonation. Great players can make up for these deficiences. Lesser players cannot.

FWIW, I am probably going to start playing on my Buescher Big B on my jobs and see how it goes. I think I like the overall tone of it in comparison to my Z. Once I get on the job with it I will determine if the tone is worth the other things I'd be giving up. We'll see.

[Fader]

Technology doesn't take the soul out of music - The logic behind such statements doesn't stand up to reality. Bad musicianship though.....that's different.

[Benny]

Technology doesn't take the soul out of music

no-one said that

[SuperAction80]

Bad musicianship though.....that's different.

Hey, no need to tell it like it is!!!!!!111

[Fader]

OK then...."Technology has taken the "humanity" out of many instruments" is the actual statement....also untrue in my opinion - "Craftsmen" were making crappy instruments by hand long before technology became a factor. You can still buy new, excellently made instruments.....The "humanity", if you will, is put in by the musician.....I've seen too many lousy players with great instruments, and great players pouring their soul into crappy instruments to believe anything else....

[JL]

Technology doesn't take the soul out of music - The logic behind such statements doesn't stand up to reality. Bad musicianship though.....that's different.

That wasn't what I said (I do agree about bad musicianship). My point is modern technology hasn't really done much, if anything, in the way of improving the saxophone. Certainly it has helped to produce more horns, more quickly, but that's not the same thing as making a better horn. Great saxophones were built with the "old" technology and craftsmanship, up to and including the Mark VI.

Modern technology has come up with better computers, better automobiles, better airplanes, better televisions, and all sorts of other improvements. It just hasn't done much in the way of improving a saxophone, imo. And what's to improve, anyway? All the great players of the past sounded just fine on the horns from the '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s. There are more than enough good saxophones around.

The real improvement is up to the player!

[Buck Laughlin]

In many industries, changes are made to sell more durable goods. Without a "new and improved" model, many people would never buy a new durable good. I don't know if it's behind the series of modernized models from saxophone manufacuturers, but it might be a factor. Sometimes the changes aren't always for the better, despite being billed as such.

Buck

[hakukani]

In sopranos, the best all around horn I have found to date is a Yamaha 62R about 40 years old. I.

You meant 30 years old, right?

(The 62 didn't come out until 77 or 78)

[58tenor]

Today's "soulless" saxes will be the hot vintage classics 50 years from now. By then everything will be made by nanotechnology and we'll pine over the "good old days" when they had real manufacturing. Imbuing instruments with terms like "humanity" is meaningless. A sax cannot by itself do anything at all except occupy space and look pretty. It can't make any music by itself.

And it's been said before but I surmise Adolphe would be knocked out by how his marvelous invention has evolved as well as it's popularity.

[backer]

Deleted: Pointless

[alsdiego]

Deleted: Pointless

LOL.......... Backer, I also think the A992 is a fabulous horn, but in A/Bing it with my 52 year old Buffet alto, it didn't seem "better", just different......... maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see the dramatic technology improvements in saxophones which are so obvious in other products.......... it may be that the manufacturing concept of "repeatability" has been dramatically improved, but the basic saxophone has evolved very little, IMHO.............