Sax on the Web Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

How do you release tension on a saxophone?

9K views 107 replies 41 participants last post by  SAXISMYAXE 
#1 ·
So I have heard of releasing tension on brass instruments and my boss does this specially for pro trumpet players. She does this by using high heat to take off all of the excess solder between braces. Normally when this is done you can flick the edge of the bell and the whole horn will ring. But I've heard of people using the same terminology for saxophones, saying they can release the tension on a sax too. Does this involve a similar process of just taking off all the excess solder? Or is there something more?
 
#47 ·
I'll try and keep an open mind. Meanwhile ..... What this guy said!


"Blind testing Strads and Guarneris misses a fundamental point, says Frank Almond
20 July 2017
1 Comment
Save article

Researchers who seek to compare Old Italian instruments with modern ones under scientific conditions don’t appreciate that the potential of a Strad is intrinsically entwined with its player

Instruments by Antonio Stradivari and other Old Italian masters sound and play pretty much the same as modern instruments, but newer instruments are louder. Also, soloists and audiences can’t really tell the difference anyway. So indicates the latest published analysis of tests overseen by acoustician Claudia Fritz and violin maker Joseph Curtin. Much debate has ensued regarding the researchers’ methodology and results, particularly among professional players and luthiers. I was intrigued by the original tests in 2010, and enjoyed a cordial but lively blog exchange with Ms Fritz at the time.
It occurs to me that a critical (and perhaps cryptic) factor has been left out of the research, something that an experienced string player will know well, which is that an instrument and a player mysteriously adapt and acclimatise to one another over time and under different professional circumstances. Undoubtedly this correlation is to some degree the result of practical adjustments – to the set-up, choice of strings and bow, and so on. But perhaps there is a psychological component, too, given the storied histories of some violins crafted by old masters and the luminaries whose hands these instruments have passed through.
I’ve had the unusual good fortune to play on three golden-period Strads for several years each, the latest being the ‘Lipiński’ from 1715. In each case it took at least three months for me to recognise fully what was possible (or not) with these extraordinary functional antiquities under a wide variety of conditions. I observed that as time passed my violin also seemed to open up and adapt. And what about that psychological element? Try as I might, I can’t ignore the fact that Giuseppe Tartini was the first known owner of the ‘Lipiński’ or that this instrument was played by the concertmaster of the Leipzig Gewandhausorchester in the premiere of the Brahms Violin Concerto. Nor can I entirely forget the theft – and subsequent recovery – of the ‘Lipiński’ in early 2014, a brutal attack on us both that (according to the FBI) remains the only targeted and planned armed robbery of a specific high-end instrument on record. Like it or not, I am now part of a lineage and legacy that has changed the way I live and work with this violin on multiple levels.
Some of the processes of connecting will, of course, occur with a much newer instrument as well, although for me the result has always been quite different. At various points in my career I’ve had the opportunity to play some spectacular modern instruments. Curiously, though, over time my artistic options seemed to narrow rather than expand, even with some of the finest contemporary instruments. Something important was missing after a few weeks or months had gone by – a certain ease of playing and, most importantly, the full palette of sonic colours I had experienced with old instruments, even if the violin did project well.
Researchers seem fixated on attributing the various qualities of Old Italian instruments to specific elements – the passing of time, the varnish, and so forth. In my view it’s a thousand different factors mixed together inexplicably, and that are largely ‘untestable’ in a traditional sense. Many professional musicians will develop a unique bond with an instrument, old or new. I have found this connection to be far more profound with the ‘Lipiński’ – especially now. I remember being utterly traumatised and disoriented when it was stolen, and not just because I had been shot with a Taser. It was as though a fundamental part of my life was gone forever; that artistic chapter abruptly concluded. Would I have felt the loss with the same intensity if my violin had been made in 2012? Speaking as someone who lives and works with one of these enigmatic objects, the outcomes of a clinical acoustic study are not ultimately that meaningful. I’m quite happy to explore the sonic and artistic capabilities of the ‘Lipiński’ every day, whatever the research says.
Photo: Frank Almond with the ‘Lipiński’ Stradivari"
©Jennifer Brindley



That's what I suggested in an earlier post .... that you need players with more experience on these Strads to get their best sound out. That seems to me to be the experiment's biggest flaw (not the only one). This test is not that different than going to the music store to try out horns, blindfolded, and seeing what the clerks and random patrons think. What on earth can you tell from that? You need to take the horn home, and get to know it for a while before it's going to sound its best. Get that part of the test fixed up and see where it goes ....

The paradigm is wrong. The way this experiment is set up, it tests to see how random professional violinists sound on various instruments that they don't know and have never played before, as though they were trying them out in a music store, blindfolded. That's not the manner in which these "extraordinary functional antiquities" were played when achieving their incredible reputation. So, the experiment is basically moot imo.


Turtle
 
#56 ·
I'll try and keep an open mind. Meanwhile ..... What this guy said!

"Blind testing Strads and Guarneris misses a fundamental point, says Frank Almond

But perhaps there is a psychological component, too, given the storied histories of some violins crafted by old masters and the luminaries whose hands these instruments have passed through.

And what about that psychological element? Try as I might, I can't ignore the fact that Giuseppe Tartini was the first known owner of the 'Lipiński' or that this instrument was played by the concertmaster of the Leipzig Gewandhausorchester in the premiere of the Brahms Violin Concerto. Nor can I entirely forget the theft - and subsequent recovery - of the 'Lipiński' in early 2014, a brutal attack on us both that (according to the FBI) remains the only targeted and planned armed robbery of a specific high-end instrument on record. Like it or not, I am now part of a lineage and legacy that has changed the way I live and work with this violin on multiple levels.
To paraphrase the pivotal scene in "Kung Fu Panda" when Po asked his father what was the secret ingredient in the secret ingredient soup: "The secret ingredient is that there is no secret ingredient." It was special because everyone believed it is so.

The quote above basically reaffirms the importance of that psychological component that makes the Lipinski Strad to that violinist. It is something he cannot unlearn so his relationship to it is colored by this. He and many others simply refuse to accept any possibility that the Old Italians are not inherently superior and so their approach to the instruments and the way they perceive them in sound and playing is "informed" by this very idea. Again, this is a very human trait. There is a reason that there is a very healthy industry that sells homeopathic remedies.

There will be more studies comparing the Old Italians and high end moderns to come, so we shall see. However, I do believe that if the outcomes show no differences in playing to skilled musicians or to highly discerning audiences that there will always be people who will remain unconvinced. I only jumped in because of a statement that these studies were "not scientific" but it appears that the true objection now is that they are "too scientific."

-floobydust
 
#48 ·
As a major fan of empirical data & the scientific method, I admire the double-blind safeguards in the tests cited above. However, a comparison between a Strad & a really good modern fiddle cannot be controlled properly because the listeners are listening with modern ears.

It's quite likely that the typical ambient soundscape for people in the 1700s was different, & quieter, than ours. Unless they worked in a mill or fired cannons in battle or rang church bells for a living, they might hear in an average year nothing louder than costermongers' cries or horses' hooves clattering on cobblestones. Think of it: no military jets, no raves, no bikers, no subways, no pneumatic drills, no radio or video, no incessant A/C whoosh, no earbuds blasting choons into eardrums from 2 millimeters away.

I'll bet (but alas, can't prove) that the violin makers, players, & typical audiences of the 1700s had hearing much more acute than ours. Perhaps they could perceive fundamentals lower, or partials higher, than the range that defines our limits. Perhaps their neural circuitry was more sensitive to nuances of sound because their brains didn't need to filter out so much noise. I wasn't there, but it's a plausible scenario.

So it comes as no surprise that we might fail to discern the subtlest sounds a Strad can generate, as it's no surprise that an instrument crafted by modern makers might please modern ears.

For a truly controlled experiment it would be necessary to transport an armload of modern violins back to the 18th century & reprise the entire rigmarole with players & listeners of that era.

DeLoreans, however, do not handle well on cobblestones.
 
#52 ·
So it comes as no surprise that we might fail to discern the subtlest sounds a Strad can generate, as it's no surprise that an instrument crafted by modern makers might please modern ears.
There's a couple of assumptions here:- Firstly that the older instruments are designed for the times. All Stradavarius instruments have been modernised to accommodate modern strings that have a higher string tension. Neck angle etc has been altered, so you are hearing an instrument that it different to its original design.
Secondly the new instruments aren't purposely different. Generally speaking violins are copies of an old master - a Stradavari or Amati violin. Sometimes people will modify the design as they see fit, but we're looking at instruments that are not that dissimilar.
The assertion is that the old masters were and are better sounding. They are supposed to stand out better in an orchestral situation which is why the new test included playing within an orchestral setting.

It's a bit like comparing modern saxophones that are essentially MkVI copies to a MkVI. The myth is the MkVI sounds superior. In any tests we've seen on here, it's extremely difficult to pick out the superior instrument, which goes to show that reputation plays a big part in what we think sounds better.
 
#50 ·
The magic is in not under-estimating your instrument and being willing to dive 100% emotionally into exploring all the ways you can make it sound. To make music that is really powerful and connects with others on a deep level takes a lot of work and focus, mind and body. It's tough to accomplish that if you are second-guessing your gear. What we think is just as important or more important than the mere reality of these objects.

If owning a Strad or a Mark VI that's been thermo-relaxed is what it takes to cure you from blaming your gear for your musical shortcomings, then they are worth every penny.
 
#54 ·
One of the problems here is that people are misunderstanding what a scientific experiment can and cannot do, and another is that people are redefining the question in ways the experimenters did not intend.

If you do a double blind test of a variety of violins, both aged Italian master instruments and new ones, and neither the players nor an experienced audience can tell the difference, you have clearly demonstrated that there is no OBJECTIVE difference between old Italian master instruments and new ones. I am sorry, you can blow all the smoke you want, but that question is answered.

(Hold on a bit, and I will get to the questions that the experiment did not answer.)

I have read many many reports of similar types of experiments, and over and over again the experiments demonstrate that elements of what one could call "mystique" do not matter technically. Experienced people can't tell the difference between concrete flutes and silver ones, between cryogenically treated instruments and not, between silver and gold, etc., etc., what have you. And EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. these results are presented, the "pro-mystique" people immediately start redefining the question.

The question WAS NOT: "If a player knows what he is playing, and the thing he is playing is a thing that the player knows has lots of "mystique", and the player believes the particular instrument has special qualities that will make him play/sound better, and the audience also knows the player is playing an instrument with lots of mystique, and the audience also believes that the instruments with those characteristics will make the player play/sound better, THEN will the player and audience characterize the "mystique" instrument as playing/sounding better?" Because that's what the "pro-mystique" people now enter into the discussion, one way or the other.

Finally, the question of whether old Italian master violins have been altered, or whether they were played in a different environment back in the day, or whether the master makers had more acute hearing, is irrelevant. Today's violinists and audiences generally BELIEVE that there is an OBJECTIVE difference in the quality of a Strad - a Strad played today, with all the alterations that have been made to it - and a high quality modern violin, a difference that can be heard in today's auditorium or practice room, with the ears that are affixed to the heads of today's humans. The experiment referred to demonstrates that there is NOT A DETECTABLE OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCE. It does not however speak to people's feelings about a 400 year old violin. Those are not being tested.
 
#55 ·
If you do a double blind test of a variety of violins, both aged Italian master instruments and new ones, and neither the players nor an experienced audience can tell the difference, you have clearly demonstrated that there is no OBJECTIVE difference between old Italian master instruments and new ones. I am sorry, you can blow all the smoke you want, but that question is answered. .
B.S. Set up a double blind test that is free of glaring flaws and perhaps the question can be mostly answered. The researchers themselves know they don't have anything definitive, because they continually set up new and adjusted experiments. Besides, how many times do we have to endure the phrase, "It's the Indian, not the arrow." While that's nauseating to read over and over again, there is truth in it. What the audience and the players are mostly hearing are violinists, not violins. And mostly what they're hearing are pros who don't know these instruments, trying them out as though they were in a music store.

The experimenters want to know if the Strads sound superior but continually tie the hands of the players and alter the instruments so that they're absolutely sure to not sound as good as they could.

Turtle
 
#58 ·
My apologies to the OP that this thread has been hijacked. So, returning to the original question, I have been led to believe that the acoustic principles of a sax is quite different from brass instruments and that is why issues of materials (and possibly tension) matters far less in a sax compared to a trumpet. That it really is the air column vibrational tendencies defined by the volume/shape of the instrument instead of resonance/vibration of the metal.

Someone correct me is I'm incorrect here in my understanding, as this has been MY ASSUMPTION.

-floobydust
 
#60 ·
My apologies to the OP that this thread has been hijacked. So, returning to the original question, I have been led to believe that the acoustic principles of a sax is quite different from brass instruments and that is why issues of materials (and possibly tension) matters far less in a sax compared to a trumpet. That it really is the air column vibrational tendencies defined by the volume/shape of the instrument instead of resonance/vibration of the metal.

Someone correct me is I'm incorrect here in my understanding, as this has been MY ASSUMPTION.

-floobydust
Back to the OP's question, right! :toothy9:

I was going to say about tension ..... While I'm not sure about solder, and joints that were soldered, I continually work on reducing tension where I find it, so that it makes the horn play better. Those two points are the neck tenon and the ligature on the mp. If either is tightened too tightly, the horn's playing suffers. At least that's my experience. I'm continually re-adjusting both of these to be as loose as possible, and still function (the neck doesn't swivel around on you and the reed doesn't move on the table). After the horn warms up, the neck tenon will get tighter, so I keep releasing that. Of the two, I think the ligature being just the right degree of tightness is the most important. If that's clamped down too tight you're fighting it. My 2c on tension.

And, from my wayward experience on trumpets, I would say they're very different than saxes. They have smaller tolerances. They're a closed system (even when you aren't pressing buttons), and ultra-directional with lethal projection, which is of course why you don't want to be positioned in front of one in the orchestra. And the material of the bell, especially, makes a big difference in the sound. With trumpets, brass doesn't sound the same as copper.

Turtle
 
#61 ·
I own a few old violins and have owned literally 100's. I've bought and sold many at auction and through and from well known shops. I've played at least 10 Strads a few Del Jesu violins and many other old Italian and German and French violins. I have been to blind tests of the instruments including many new ones. I have a 1685 Balsano or Venetian violin right now. I can tell you my experience is that the old ones sound better. It is wholly subjective. Just like with the saxophones. There is a definite "old " sound and it may not be right for everyone. But no two old violins sound alike. A real scientific study is impossible since too many variables exist to produce true nexus from one observation to a rule or conclusion. The conclusions are all subjective anyway. I had a friend years ago at the New England conservatory. His name was Er Ping and he was from China. He had lived through the Cultural Revolution and buried his violin under his house for 12 years. He came to America to study and gain a degree in violin performance. He had an old (19th century) Hopf violin that was high arched and should not have sounded good at all. When anyone but him played the instrument it was dull and one dimensional sounding. I offered to give him a better violin since I was making some side money dealing old violins to other students and finding them in NYC and elsewhere. When he played that violin, with "improper" steel strings and a strong set up, he sounded brilliant and the violin sounded as good as any I have ever heard. He never sounded as good when he played one of the "better" violins, new or old, that I had him try. He would never part with that violin and would never stop playing it. He was a great musician. During a class we had on world music an instructor played the tune "Drowsy Maggie", an Irish fiddle tune for us and asked if anyone could sing it back after one listen. I sang it back because I knew the tune on the fiddle and from countless jam sessions with Irish musicians playing backup guitar. Right when I finished Er Ping sang the tune perfectly and more faithfully to the version that we had heard a minute before. In the end, it is the musician , not the instrument who makes the sound. It helps to have a instrument you love and that is set up properly and plays with ease. But the character of that old violin Er Ping played was 99% the character of Er Ping.
 
#75 ·
Almost all string players I know (I know many) tell me that it can take a lot of time to get to terms with a string instrument. Sometimes more than a year. You know the sound is there but it takes time to get it out. The promise of that sound is enough to keep going at it. To a lesser degree (perhaps) the same applies to other instruments. Doing a side by side comparison test, while fun, does not mean a lot without this time factor.
 
#80 ·
I wonder what the effect would be to replacing pearls with crystals coordinating to chakra points...might realign the aura and relax the sax.

But real talk on point, with so much keywork on the horn (and ignoring whether the "relaxing" works on brass instruments argument), I doubt that there is any amount of solder/whatever that would make a significant difference with all the machinery on the sax.
 
#81 ·
Facts are good. Fake news is bad.

All you have to do is stick your head out the window once in a while to observe what's going on. In the last 30 years, my local weather has gone from 4 distinct seasons, each with its own variable weather pattern, to basically 2 seasons. Summer, which is longer, much hotter and has very little variety any more, and winter. And, of course, this will be the hottest year on record, to replace last year's records.

Check out the extreme weather. Is it getting worse? Gee I don't know ...... Maybe those 2 back to back category 4 hurricanes (nothing like that ever occurred before) are a clue. Or, the wildfires out West, which are increasing in intensity and frequency with each passing year, causing my valley to be filled with smoke for the last month (I'm a little pissed off about that ... I like to breathe). Climate change deniers are not only wrong, they're dangerous. They are mostly connected to heavily polluting global industries (the essential reason we're in trouble) or lobbying for those industries. Climate change deniers, if they don't have a vested, financial interest in that position, are either not paying attention, woefully ignorant or just plain stupid.

Yeah, it's happening. The facts are in. Pick a side. Either you're on the side of humanity or you're on the side of the (dying) fossil fuel industry and other heavily polluting industries around the world. Are you for clean air, water and a liveable climate or are you for relaxing regs (no matter what the consequences) so that a few can get wealthier, at everyone else's expense. That's the whole shebang in a nutshell. End of rant.

Now, back to the subject of the thread ...... violins. :)


Turtle
 
#83 ·
Facts are good. Fake news is bad.

All you have to do is stick your head out the window once in a while to observe what's going on. In the last 30 years, my local weather has gone from 4 distinct seasons, each with its own variable weather pattern, to basically 2 seasons. Summer, which is longer, much hotter and has very little variety any more, and winter. And, of course, this will be the hottest year on record, to replace last year's records.

Check out the extreme weather. Is it getting worse? Gee I don't know ...... Maybe those 2 back to back category 4 hurricanes (nothing like that ever occurred before) are a clue. Or, the wildfires out West, which are increasing in intensity and frequency with each passing year, causing my valley to be filled with smoke for the last month (I'm a little pissed off about that ... I like to breathe). Climate change deniers are not only wrong, they're dangerous. They are mostly connected to heavily polluting global industries (the essential reason we're in trouble) or lobbying for those industries. Climate change deniers, if they don't have a vested, financial interest in that position, are either not paying attention, woefully ignorant or just plain stupid.

Yeah, it's happening. The facts are in. Pick a side. Either you're on the side of humanity or you're on the side of the (dying) fossil fuel industry and other heavily polluting industries around the world. Are you for clean air, water and

Turtle
I sure am glad that ANYTHING political I've ever posted got yanked faster than Canklesaurus Rex lost the election.
To your pseudo-intellectual crap you just posted........BS.
 
#88 · (Edited)
I will point out this thread kind of is discussing politics now, even if a scientific argument should really not be considered politics at all...
I'll also say that I don't believe there would be much tension in a saxophone other than possibly in the bell to body brace, like was said earlier in the topic.
 
#93 · (Edited)
Deleted
 
#102 ·
The behavior of metals when subjected to forming operations is hardly "the most obscure topic". Every mechanical engineer learns the basics as a second year engineering student, in the course "Strength of Materials". Wanna bet how many mechanical engineers there are in the world?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top