Old Conns vs. New Selmers -- Why We Can't Have It All
SaxKat
await Paul's reply, I thought I'd post it for here for consideration.
First, a little background. I have always played on modern
instruments, mostly Selmers, and, for the most part, I am very pleased
with my sound on both alto and soprano. I have never really played
tenor much, until 2 or 3 years ago, when, encouraged by one of my sax
teachers, I began to experiment with it a bit.
My first tenor was an early Yamaha 62; then when the Selmer Reference
tenors came out, I purchased one of them. Recently, I picked up a
very nice silver-plated MK VII tenor. However, despite a few positive
comments to the contrary, I have never really felt like I found my
voice on tenor. I tend to play tenor in the alto range, and have
always had difficulty playing the lower range of the instrument. In
addition, I could never really make the tenor sing, the way I can my
alto or soprano. This experience led me to conclude that I am not
really cut out to be a tenor player. That is, until a few days ago,
when everything suddenly changed...
Last Monday, I showed my son's sax teacher, my Selmer Reference and MK
VII tenors, and asked for his thoughts on them. He plays an old Conn
-- I'm not sure of the vintage, but I believe it to be a Chu Berry,
from the 1920s-30s, as it has the fingernail file G# key, and art
deco-style engraving.
Basically, he echoed my own impressions of the Selmer tenors.
Although he found them to be fine horns in many respects, such as
mechanics and intonation, he didn't think that either of the Selmers
really sang. He found the Selmer Reference tenor to be a bit stuffy,
and lacking in tonal flexibility. His comment was that it seemed to
be a bit over-engineered, although he thought that it would be an
excellent horn for a classical player. Then he invited me to give his
Conn a try.
I'm a self-acknowledged techophile, so please try not to laugh when I
say that I wasn't the least bit interested in trying this ancient
relic from the dim past. However, to be polite I did try it, and all
I can say is that I am still recovering from my shock. I started out
by playing a scale in the middle register. The notes popped out with
such ease, it almost felt like the horn was playing itself. Then I
tried playing the dreaded lower range of the horn. Again, everything
played with ease -- the low Bb, B, C & C# -- no struggle, no
over-blowing just to get the notes -- just, big, full, lush, resonant
sound!
Okay, this is finally where my question comes in, and here it is: What
the heck is going on here? I realize that is a pretty broad
question, so let me try to narrow it down just a bit...
What is the technical explanation for the vastly superior performance
of the old Conn? Is it the bore dimensions? Size of the bell?
Geometry of the neck? Rolled toneholes? Composition of the brass?
Why, in the approximately 80 years of saxophone manufacturing
experience, research, and technology that has since transpired, has no
one been able to take the performance characteristics of the Conn, and
mate it up with a modern mechanism? Is it really that impossible to
do? Has anyone even come close to doing it?
Do we really have to give up modern mechanisms, good intonation, the
front F & high F# keys, and other technical innovations and
improvements, in order to get a free-blowing horn with a big sound?
Before I part company with my Selmer tenors, I would greatly
appreciate any light that anyone might be able to shed on this
apparent saxophone conundrum.
--Jeff Paull
Hubert Barth
right setup when I played a Mk7 tenor. It always was like having a
piece of cloth down the bell.
I can only recommend to play around with necks. They can make a huge
difference.
My MkVI and M10 tenors both play very well. The 10M is a tad more
easily responding and the MkVI has more complexity in tone.
regards
--
Hubert Barth
Cologne/Germany
http://www.bigbands.de
PT
Many years ago I was in a similar position. I started off as an alto player.
When I discovered there was more pro work on tenor I switched to tenor,
tried a few Selmers and settled on a MKVI (57xxxxx). The tenor felt exactly
as you have described, I always felt like an alto player on it, dry, stuffy
low notes. I was doing rock tours and sessions eventually and in the middle
of a long album studio stint with Richard Thompson I got a Conn 10M.
Suddenly all the low notes were singing, intonation all over was spot on.
This was a later Naked Lady 10M, (I had previously tried Kings and Conn Chus
but never liked the intonation with a modern mouthpiece). The action took me
a couple of months to get really comfortable with, but no problems with high
F# as this model has a front F. (The side Bb key with front F makes a great
F#).
Actually I believe Freddie Gregory did put a Selmer action onto a Conn once,
however once you are a reasonably experienced player, the action should not
take long to get used to.
I can't answer any of your questions though. I think the best thing is to
keep this revelation quiet, if everyone finds out that these horns are that
good the price will rocket. Currently you can get a very nice Conn tenor, a
pro flute and a years supply of Chinese dinners for the same as a Selmer.
--
best regards
Pete Thomas - www.petethomas.co.uk
"SaxKat" <sax...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:b4adb38f.03052...@posting.google.com...
Scott J. Tringali
playing styles.
My very limited view is that Selmers tend to go out of adjustment easily on
the low end, making it difficult to play down there. I've literally played a
freshly tuned horn for a month, and had the bottom end go out, only to find
the the G# lever out of whack. My alto VI and bari SA80 are the same way. It
could be the horn you played is better maintained. (Once I learned how to do
this particular adjustment myself, things got much better -- especially as a
bari player who spends lots of time on the bell tones.)
Many people claim one horn sounds better or plays better than another... I
just don't hear it. Given a high-quality horn, the only thing I've ever
noticed that makes a difference in sound, to me, is the player, mouthpiece,
reed, and overall condition of the horn.
Now, given those combinations, some horns will work better than others, so
swapping horns can make it APPEAR like the horn is better, but I just think
the case is finding a better match to the other variables. I think you are
simply finding a horn that works better for YOUR set of variables.
One thing that is totally objective for me is the action. No matter what
mouthpiece I play, that doesn't change. Also other things like weight,
balance, looks, durability, price, etc.
Toby
from model to model and even from horn to horn within models.
I started playing tenor on a beautiful Mk VI that was not by any standard a
great horn. The sound didn't have a good core and the bottom end was quite
stiff. One day a friend brougt out his old SBA tenor. Night and day. The
horn had a wonderfully easy response right down to low Bb and the tone was
centered and sweet.
Now I have an old Super 20 and a "The Martin". While I prefer the 20, the
Martin is a great-playing horn too, with a rich, full tone and good
response.
If you believe the scientists this all depends on the bore geometry, or at
least 99%. Bore design is a black art of sorts, since there is no "right"
bore. It is all an interactive balance of trying to overcome intrinsic
shortcomings (such as the additional compliance created by the toneholes,
the neck truncation for the mpc, the bends in the bore at the neck and bow)
and create a reasonable compromise in other areas. A larger bore, for
instance, might give a "bigger" sound but decrease responsiveness. Widen the
cone angle and you might get a better low end but destabilize the intonation
in the palm keys. There are tradeoffs everywhere, and each manufacturer
needs to decide what he wants and what he is willing to sacrifice.
It's my guess that many modern horn manufacturers are looking for a "big"
sound so that the saxes can hold their own against amplified instruments.
This was ostensibly one reason for the bore redesign of the Mk VII as
opposed to the VI. And apparently there is not enough market to justify
making many different models to suit different needs as in the car market.
So we definitely are in "one size fits all" territory.
That being said, good regulation is essential for the kind of response you
found in the Conn. Pads have to close without leaks, and they have to seat
correctly with a minimum of finger pressure. I don't know the condition of
your Selmers as opposed to the Conn, but this might well have a lot to do
with issues of stiff response, especially in the low end. Even one small
leak, almost imperceptible, can change things very much for the worse.
Toby
"SaxKat" <sax...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:b4adb38f.03052...@posting.google.com...
P. Tung
"PT" <p...@reply.via.my.website.com> wrote in message
news:MEoza.24911$xd5.1...@stones.force9.net...
> Hi Jeff
>
> Many years ago I was in a similar position. I started off as an alto
player.
> When I discovered there was more pro work on tenor I switched to tenor,
> tried a few Selmers and settled on a MKVI (57xxxxx). The tenor felt
exactly
> as you have described, I always felt like an alto player on it, dry,
stuffy
> low notes. I was doing rock tours and sessions eventually and in the
middle
> of a long album studio stint with Richard Thompson I got a Conn 10M.
> Suddenly all the low notes were singing, intonation all over was spot on.
One factor here is that 10Ms play really well through leaks and minor
adjustment issues -- VIs tend to be very very sensitive to leaks and other
imperfections of adjustment. A VI that is really tight will have a good
bottom end, in keeping with the personality of the rest of the horn, much as
the 10Ms lower end is in keeping with the personality of the middle and high
notes.
I think alot of people think they have bad VIs because they have not gone
all the way with what can be done with a VI, repairwise.
On alot of Joe Henderson's recordings, I think, "Man, I wish I could've
gotten my hands on his horn to get his subtone open and working for him."
It always sounds like he plays the bottom end a certain way because he's
concerned it is going to misfire on him.
>
> This was a later Naked Lady 10M, (I had previously tried Kings and Conn
Chus
> but never liked the intonation with a modern mouthpiece). The action took
me
> a couple of months to get really comfortable with, but no problems with
high
> F# as this model has a front F. (The side Bb key with front F makes a
great
> F#).
>
> Actually I believe Freddie Gregory did put a Selmer action onto a Conn
once,
> however once you are a reasonably experienced player, the action should
not
> take long to get used to.
Another place that apparently did some modernizations on Conns, apparently,
was a place called Blashaus or something like that. Tim Price sent me
private email to this effect.
I've changed out keywork on my own two Conn tenors for balanced action-style
and slicker stacks because...well...when it is there for you to do, and
you're tired of being frustrated, you just do it.
Alot of people are capable of work like that, but just don't because not
many people want to pay what that kind of work is worth. Most techs with
that level of skill also run their own businesses, and can't justify
spending the time (i.e. losing the income from a paying job) to do a job
like that on spec. Hence, not too many Conns have been "rekeyed."
Stephan Boesken in Germany is another person who can be trusted with that
kind of work.
The going rate, for a Chu tenor with modernized keywork, with most of the
people I'm aware of who can do it and are willing to, is about $5000.
Kneel Jung
>gotten my hands on his horn to get his subtone open and working for him."
>It always sounds like he plays the bottom end a certain way because he's
>concerned it is going to misfire on him.
Joe used that Selmer D and soft reeds
ALWAYS .. an with that kinda setup
the bottom end is gonna sound that way.
The way he punches notes on the bottom
is a different sound than the way Newk
and other players in that era and in that
mold did, but it's just the way it sounds
with that combo vs. a Link and harder
reeds .
Joe said that when he first got to NYC
in the early 60s a lot of players on that
scene had complemented him on how
well he had the bottom of the horn worked
out .
I don't think Joe was a real subtone kinda
player in his really firey influential period.
Not an argument, per se, just my own
observations about a personal hero of
mine .
dave williams
Kneel Jung
>least 99%
I agree with that . Maybe it's not 99%
and of course I realize that that is in
arbitrary pecentage anyway, but I can
definately say that the bore /taper has
the lion's share of influence on on the
way a horn plays .
The Chu tenor in particular plays the
way that it does because of the bore size.
I have a Chu a 10M and a 30M .
The Chu has a smaller diameter bell and
bow than the 10M/30M and it has the
easiest low end response .
The new generation of Borgani tenors are
back-engineered from the Chu berry bore.
I believe they took one of Joe Lovano's
Conns and blueprinted the bow and bell
dimensions _in particular_ because the
Borganis have massive low end respone.
I have a Borgani tenor also .
Now I didn't get out my calipers to verify
this but from a visual standpoint the Chu
and the Borgani look almost identical in
the diameter of those areas.
The King Super 20s, in particular, had
something going on w/ their neck bore
& taper that gave them their egde(pun
intended) . At least this is what Bob
Ackerman, like him or not has come up
with in his many years of examining the
vintage saxophones .
The Super 20 that I have has a unique
curve to the neck that I think along with
the bore, bow width, bell size makes it
do what it does
Kings are really free-blowing saxophones.
Anyway ....
A Selmer is not a Conn, Martin, King etc.
dave williams
Protected Identity
He sounds so different, tho, on some of the early recordings, from session
to session. It really sounds like either the reed or the horn is exercising
alot of influence on that.
I know I could be wrong. Usually when I hear something, I can make it
change (for the better, in the player's est.) for the better.
I've never worked with a player of Henderson's renown, tho maybe for some of
similar sensitivity.
"Kneel Jung" <knee...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030524105742...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Paul Lindemeyer
Sorry for being a day late and a dollar short with the question you
originally addressed to me. I won't fib to you about why: my experience
with late model Selmers is minimal. I guess I'm just too (self?)
satisfied with my old horns to bother exploring newer, more
cost-intensive options. While I was sitting back trying to think if I
had anything at all to address your question, a lively debate sprang up
among people who obviously did have.
I don't have much I feel I can contribute there, other than to add that
some players have been touting Keilwerth as a "Conn-like" pro
alternative with updated mechanics. Keilwerth supposedly used Conn as
the model for their sax sound, and part of the horns' popularity has
been that small group of players who differ with the modern sax tone
for philosophical reasons, as well as esthetic ones. (Basically put,
Selmer started a trend toward brighter sax sound that a vocal minority
resents as not the intention of the inventor. Not a group I identify
with, but you may perhaps, as the superiority of the old sound is
obviously a matter of conviction with you.)
As far as the technical and design traits, yes, everything you mention
probably plays a part in making the Conn sound (rolled toneholes
possibly excepted). The thing is, there are a lot of secrets and
intangibles in instrument making. It really is as much art as science.
I think a lot of it in any era is pure trial and error. What is not is
often either so jealously guarded it exists only in the minds of
craftsmen and designers - or in Conn's case, thrown away and lost
forever, except for what could be patented, which is great for gimmicks
and "features" but doesn't tell us Thing 1 about sound.
Anyway, thanks for remembering an out-of-print author, and keep blowing
that Conn. It will give you a new lease on tenor.
-P.
PT
Damn and its Christmas soon. So I have a collectors item (even more
collectable than my Conn sopranino)
If paul has any stashed away somehere I'd recommend you all hound him for a
copy
BTW I agree totally with Keilwerths having a different sound, I'd never
equated it with a Conn sound though. There you go.
--
best regards PT www.petethomas.co.uk
To avoid spam there is no direct reply address
To reply privately please use the "contact" button on my website
"Paul Lindemeyer" <pa...@lindemeyer.comspam> wrote in message
news:290520030515234088%pa...@lindemeyer.comspam...
Paul Lindemeyer
<p...@reply.via.my.website.com> wrote:
> Out of Print!!!
>
> Damn and its Christmas soon. So I have a collectors item (even more
> collectable than my Conn sopranino)
>
> If paul has any stashed away somehere I'd recommend you all hound him for a
> copy
Read all about it at http://www.lindemeyer.com/
(click on SAX BOOK)
CDs too.
PayPal, checks, money orders or Conn sopraninos accepted. :-)
-P.
SaxKat
also benefit from another very insightful response that I received
from RC Witworth. My own response follows RC's message.
Jeff,
I read with interest you post a week or so ago. You were discussing
the surprise at experiencing a Conn 'nailfile' vintage tenor. These
are sonically very nice horns. Having been through a dozen tenors I
understand where you are. After owning so many tenors and trying to
stay away from Selmers due to cost and just lack of finding one that
blew me away, I finally had to give the Reference 54 a try. To make a
long story short, I went through a batch of five Ref 54's before I
found one to take home. I spent 5 hours in the store checking
intonation against a Stroboconn spinning wheel tuner. So, I took my
new Selmer Ref 54 home and began the task of making it into the horn I
knew it could become. After adjusting key heights, sealing pad leaks,
lacquering pads to prevent soaking, softening springs, repositioning
keys and lowering the left thumb rest height, I finally had the horn I
wanted. I did this work in two separate sessions totalling probably 6
hours of work. Believe me when I say that this particular Reference 54
spills out low Bb with the slightest breath of air and has a bellowing
resonant sound unlike any of the 13 tenors I ever owned (including
Conn 10M, King Super 20s, etc.) My point is that simply because you
tested one off the shelf Selmer Ref 54, does not mean you have fully
exhausted what Selmer has in store for you. It sounds to me like the
Ref 54 you have used for comparison is a lame example or at least one
that that not yet been 'set up'. I only wish you could experience mine
so that you could see the entire picture. Though I think the Reference
54 is the ugliest horn ever made, for me it is the best I have ever
owned or even play-tested. And I don't even (usually) like Selmer
saxophones!
Best of luck in your search. Oh, and I'd gladly sell my Yamaha Custom
875 tenor for a very reasonable price. To me it is the second best
horn I have ever had.
RC
My response to RC:
Dear RC,
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my question, and for sharing
your personal experience with me. It sounds like I am following a
similar path to the one that you have already traveled.
Realizing that you can't always go by first impressions, I played the
Conn again on Monday. Again the big Conn sound was there, but this
time I noticed some distinct disadvantages to the horn also. The
mechanism is very awkward and clunky. Low B and C# are nearly
impossible to find, and even when you do find them, the keys are very
stiff, making it difficult to execute the notes cleanly. The G# key
is positioned too low, and the RH side keys are too high. Of course,
there is no high F# key, and even worse, standard tenor fingerings
don't seem to work at all in the altissimo register. The intonation,
while not too bad, is not as locked in as on modern horns. And, let's
face it...most of these antique saxes are nothing special to look at
-- would you put your old plumbing on display up on stage?
In short, I don't think I will be able to give up playing a sax from
the modern era -- I'm just too used to the superior mechanisms and
other advantages to go back. That leaves me with the problem of what
to do about the sound.
It sounds like with a bit if ingenuity, and perseverance, you were
able to make the Selmer Reference 54 work for you. You must have seen
the potential in that particular horn before you made a commitment to
stick with it.
Unfortunately, I cannot report the same positive experience with my
Reference 36. It takes a great deal of effort to play, and even after
expending the effort, the resultant sound is nothing to write home
about -- in short, it is not a very enjoyable instrument to play.
Thinking it might be me, and not the horn, I had a few professional
sax players try it also, but their impressions were not very different
from mine. I was hoping that having it regulated would help, but I
just got it back from the shop, and there was no discernable
improvement. I guess if I had your patience, I would try to go
through a bunch more of them before moving on, but this one has left a
bad impression -- look for it to be listed soon on eBay.
Don't get me wrong, none of the pros said anything bad about the horn,
(just nothing special either). It is a very pretty horn, and in the
right players hands (probably a classical player), this Reference 36
might be considered a real treasure. It is just not the right
instrument for me. I sound much better on my old Yamaha 62 (which I
just gave to my son, who will need it for his school jazz band), and I
find it to be much more enjoyable to play, which has led me to order a
new one to replace it, at least until I can find something that I like
better. According to the WW & BW, tenor players like the new YTS-62
model (with the new G-1 neck) so much, Yamaha can't fill the demand
for them fast enough. Hence, WW & BW won't have any in stock until
late summer, but I found one for sale on eBay for $1795 from a dealer
in Australia. I am also about to try out my silver-plated MK VII,
which I just got back from the shop today.
Even though I play a 128,XXX MK VI alto, and love it, I really don't
want to go down the MK VI road again, because finding a good one is a
real crapshoot, and even a bad one in need of a complete overhaul
costs over $5,000. But just like the process I had to go through to
find the right alto, I will keep experimenting, trying out different
tenor sax/mouthpiece combinations. Ultimately, if I have to play on a
MK VI tenor also, I will, but right now, I think there are some
viable, and more cost-effective options worth trying out first.
Like finding that special someone, I know that it can be a long, and
somewhat frustrating process, but something tells me when I find the
right one, I will know it. I guess, in the final analysis, that's
what true love is all about.
Best Regards,
Jeff
Paul Lindemeyer <pa...@lindemeyer.comspam> wrote in message news:<290520030515234088%pa...@lindemeyer.comspam>...
Joel Seligmann
I had an old (1928) gold Martin tenor...a working-musician's horn by
the looks of it: oft-repaired and frayed around the edges, so to
speak. But what a sound! Some people already referred to this quality
in the thread: the thing was resonant...it sang. Well, I wanted
something like it but with a little more structural integrity and an
instrument that didn't look like it was about to be thrown out. So I
bought a 1954 The Martin tenor. What a beautiful looking
saxophone...all hoey colored and shiney. But from the first note I
played, I knew I had made a mistake.
Something happened to saxes in the forties, fifties, and beyond. They
lost their focus, their resonance...the metal was different, the bore
had changed, and the bell got bigger. All these changes dissipated the
sound.
I am now with another old gold Martin and have a satin silver one as
backup. I figure they're my saxes for life...for once you've made that
sound, felt that vibration, there's no going back to the future.
Like...have they figured out Stardivarius's secret yet?