Buescher 400 Top Hat & Cane vs a King Super 20
JL
or a King Super 20) will produce the most volume, fattest sound and
best for a repair person for future maintenance? Thanks.
Stephen Howard
Tough call - both horns are quite 'booty' in their own way.
Personally I'd go for the Buescher, it has slightly more of that
'morish' quality that makes you not want to put it down - and much as
I like the King ( a lot - see my review of late model ), and there's
no doubt it's a thrilling horn to play...I feel the Buescher is a
touch more precise and controlled under fire.
The only way to know for sure is, of course, to blow them yourself.
Repairs aren't an issue - they're both vintage horns, they both have
their own quirks...it's just a matter of finding someone who knows
what they're doing.
Biggest problem with the TH&C is the point screws ( parallel type - no
provision for adjustment ), but these can be swapped out if
functionality is more important than originality.
Regards,
--
Stephen Howard
Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
sdm_sax
Dunno, but I'd rather have the King - a nice Silversonic preferably.
jbt...@yahoo.com
Stephen Howard
>Comparing intonation the Buescher would win hands down.
...as I said in my King review..."Tuning? It plays in tune - if you
can't play it in tune you're not man enough to own one!"
I don't find it any more or less difficult in terms of tuning compared
to any other horn of the same era - but they're undoubtedly not
contemporary horns.
amy.la...@gmail.com
jbt...@yahoo.com
> ...as I said in my King review..."Tuning? It plays in tune - if you
> can't play it in tune you're not man enough to own one!"
> I don't find it any more or less difficult in terms of tuning compared
> to any other horn of the same era - but they're undoubtedly not
> contemporary horns.
That's quite a flippant response to my statement Stephen. Of course an
accomplished player can play any instrument in tune. The issue is how
much humoring of the pitch is going to be required that at some level
distracts the player from pure musical expression. Do a side by side
comparison of the Super 20 and the 400 using the same embouchure
throughout the range and a tuner and get back to me.
John
Stephen Howard
I think your problem with tuning lies in the response you gave - I
would never use the same embouchure for any two saxes.
For example, in my review of the Yamaha YSS475 I noted initial
difficulties in getting it to play in tune. That's because I would
have started off with my standard embouchure - which may well suit a
wide variety of sopranos, but apparently not the 475.
Thus I would have played the horn and used my ears to guide my
embouchure.
Do I conclude that the 475 has tuning issues or that it's difficult to
play in tune? Certainly not.
I've played a fair few of them since that review and not had the same
problem.
An embouchure isn't a 'one size fits all' solution - rather it's an
infinitely variable control with a complicated and delicate feedback
mechanism and as such there's a lot that can wrong. Stick it on the
end of an instrument that is at best approximately in tune and it's no
wonder that players get caught out from time to time.
Every horn player is going to come across a horn they struggle to play
in tune sooner or later, but that doesn't always mean the horn is out
of tune.
Regards,
--
Stephen Howard
Woodwind repairs & period restorations
Iain Churches
"Stephen Howard" <sees...@email.uk> wrote in message
news:6im4r4lnb4bnqu4sb...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 19:41:47 -0800 (PST), jbt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Mar 6, 6:44 pm, Stephen Howard <seesig...@email.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> ...as I said in my King review..."Tuning? It plays in tune - if you
>>> can't play it in tune you're not man enough to own one!"
>>
>>> I don't find it any more or less difficult in terms of tuning compared
>>> to any other horn of the same era - but they're undoubtedly not
>>> contemporary horns.
>>
>>That's quite a flippant response to my statement Stephen. Of course an
>>accomplished player can play any instrument in tune. The issue is how
>>much humoring of the pitch is going to be required that at some level
>>distracts the player from pure musical expression. Do a side by side
>>comparison of the Super 20 and the 400 using the same embouchure
>>throughout the range and a tuner and get back to me.
>>
> I think your problem with tuning lies in the response you gave - I
> would never use the same embouchure for any two saxes.
>
Stephen. I am a complete beginner. Can you please elaborate
on the above statement.Can there be more than one correct
(appropriate) embouchure?
Iain
Stephen Howard
The embouchure describes the way in which you 'mould' your mouth in
order to blow an instrument.
At its most basic it is the correct formation and placement of the
lips on the mouthpiece to allow a note to be produced - at a more
advanced level it is the way in which you adjust a number of factors (
such as lip position, bite strength, oral cavity etc. ) to regulate
the tuning, tone and volume.
Technically speaking there is no correct embouchure - if the player
can produce the notes and produce them reliably, in tune and with a
stable tone then they can be said to have an appropriate embouchure.
Time has shown that certain types of embouchure suit certain types of
instrument - but no two players will have the same embouchure.
For sax players the most common basic embouchure involves placing the
upper teeth on the beak ( the top portion of the mouthpiece tip ) and
the lower lip rolled back over the bottom row of teeth.
Some players use a double embouchure in which the upper lip is rolled
back over the top row of teeth as well.
A common variation is the side embouchure, where the mouthpiece is
placed in the mouth slightly to one side ( typically the left ) - and
this seems to have evolved from the practice of sitting down to play (
in big bands etc. ) and the need for a clear view of the music.
The embouchure is modified as required by means of blowing the
instrument and listening to the resultant note. In the case of tuning
anomalies the player might adjust the tension of the lips and the
strength of the bite - as well as the air flow and pressure.
In the case of tone the player may adjust the oral cavity and the
position of the tongue.
The beginner will find they have to make conscious adjustments
initially - but the more experienced player will adjust 'on the fly'
without thinking.
A reasonable analogy that most people can get to grips with is the
process of driving a car with a manual gearbox. Their first attempts
will probably result in the engine stalling - but after a while they
get a feel for the 'bite point' of the clutch, and the feel of the
gear change.
If they then jump into another car they will use the same basic
techniques to drive it, but will very quickly modify their technique
to take into account a different clutch bite point and an unfamiliar
gearbox. As long as these two factors are not too far outside their
range of experience/comfort, all will be well.
I should be kept in mind that any given mouthpiece may not work for
you on any given instrument - and that while you may be able to play
any number of instruments in tune and with a good tone on that
particular piece, you may well find that there are some instruments on
which it proves to be more unstable.
In such cases you would need to change both the mouthpiece and your
embouchure - and that can be a very important factor in deciding
whether a particular horn suits you.
I would advise you to have at least a few lessons, at which your
teacher should be able to demonstrate the most common embouchure and
check your formation of it - as well as show you how to make basic
adjustments in order to change the tone/tuning.
Joe Blow
Having owned both a Super 20 and 400 in alto and tenor models for
years I'd, assuming both are in similar condition and cost about the
same, recommend the tenor Super 20 over the Buescher and the alto 400
over the alto Super 20. All four play quite easily in tune after one
gets used to them with the King tenor having slightly squirelly bell
notes until one gets used to them and the Buescher being a little more
fussy in the low end of the second octave for me. Both are very nice
horns though. The mechanism on the Buescher, especially the tenor, is
more apt to be a long term maintenance pain than the King.
While the King has lock nuts on the pivot screws which are colorful
and probably un-needed they are no drawback; just a colorful
feature. The rest of the King mechanism is pretty bulletproof with
the only annoyance being the bell cup opening adjustment which is done
via cork on the feet instead of via bumpers on key guards.
The 400 is a far more elaborate mechanical piece. There are links
between rods and arms, carefully shaped ninety degree bits of metal
which slide into places to effect linkages, and the kranz (tone ring,
bell ring, whatever ring under the edge of the bell) which, in the
event of a ding to the bell lip, is HELL to properly fix
cosmetically. There are also the snap in resonators to contend with.
I left them in place on mine and retained them upon repad but for many
repair techs the things are a big pain. The end result is that on the
bench there's more to keeping up the Buescher than the King. This is
more of an issue with the larger amd more "apt to get banged about and
mechanically wear at stress points" tenors. Newer 400's (prior to the
disintegration into student model) have a much simpler bell key system
with the bell keys on the left side instead of behind the bell. Seem
to play about identically to me but lose a lot of the "neat old horn"
cachet.
Again, both are nice old horns. Good luck.
Joe Blow
> issue to any experienced PROFESSIONAL repair tech. In fact, both the
> Kings and Bueschers are fun to work on and restore. Without knowing
> Joe's formal musical training and skill as a serious saxophonist, it
> is difficult to access how valid his comments are when it comes to how
> saxophones play. In other words, just because some "Joe Blow" on the
> internet says the Goodson sax plays better than say a Cannonball, I
> would not rush out and buy one. Perhaps Joe can qualify himself for
> giving advice on instrument repair and saxophone performance so that
> we all can better know how much weight his comments merit.
>
> John- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:56:47 -0800 (PST), jbt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Gotcha Henry. First one to get pissed off loses. It's a game
> > stupid. I've taken you from "I want to be your buddy email" to this
> > vitriolic rant without even breaking a sweat at the keyboard. Chuck
> > is even an easier mark. He went from "happy new year John" to pissed
> > off in a matter of minutes. And ansermetniac's fuse is even shorter
> > than his penis.
>> John.
No interest in your internet hobby john.
Comments are made from someone who owned and played the horns in
question for decades and who has lots and lots of happy owners of
horns I've repaired and worked on. JBT, a complete unknown except for
his own assertions, has his own take.
Good luck to the original poster; you'll probably be happy with either
model.
Joe Blow
>
> > No interest in your internet hobby john.
>
> > Comments are made from someone who owned and played the horns in
> > question for decades and who has lots and lots of happy owners of
> > horns I've repaired and worked on. JBT, a complete unknown except for
> > his own assertions, has his own take.
>
> > Good luck to the original poster; you'll probably be happy with either
> > model.
>
> is not an internet game. You have repeatedly on this and other forums
> have tried to impress people by posing as an expert with your
> voluminous and detailed posts that rarely say much---if anything at
> all. If you had any credentials as an authority on playing the
> saxophone or instrument repair you would not hesitate to give them.
> If my hobby is calling people on their bullshit, then so be it.
>
> John- Hide quoted text -
>
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:56:47 -0800 (PST), jbt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Gotcha Henry. First one to get pissed off loses. It's a game
stupid. I've taken you from "I want to be your buddy email" to this
vitriolic rant without even breaking a sweat at the keyboard. Chuck
is even an easier mark. He went from "happy new year John" to pissed
off in a matter of minutes. And ansermetniac's fuse is even shorter
than his penis. John.
John-
No attempt to impress anyone here. I actually owned and played
the horns in question for years. Have you ever encountered them in
more than passing? The guy asked a question- I tried to helpfully
respond based upon personal experience with the issues at hand. He,
based upon his postings, appears a lot more likely to fit the happy
amateur profile which I personally match than the pedagogue monument
you seem to strive for. I'm no more an authority than you- but
actually had something to contribute in this specific case- other than
picking fights on the internet which appears to afford you pleasure.
I figure he'll form his own opinion based upon the preponderance of
the postings. Have a nice day.
saxxs...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can always tell when John runs out of his medication.
Seriously though, I personally would love to hear a clip of John
playing sax, but he won't release any. His qualifications include
teaching beginning band for many years and pimping horns for the folks
at cannonball. That means his ear must be most excellent.
How about it John, lets hear something. Give us a 12 bar blues break
in your favorite key.
Stephen Howard
>
>> I think your problem with tuning lies in the response you gave - I
>> would never use the same embouchure for any two saxes.
>
>Excuse me Stephen. I think you misunderstood my comment. I don't have
>a problem with tuning. What I was referring to is playing each
>saxophone with the same embouchure tension (not lipping and adjusting
>notes) throughout its range using a tuner to note the intonation
>tendencies of each instrument.
I'm intrigued - exactly what use is such a technique other than to
perfectly demonstrate how not to play a sax?
> Of course no saxophone is made
>perfectly in tune. Each is unique with different notes that must be
>"humored" to one degree or another to match the tempered scale.
Right - so the exercise above is utterly pointless.
> Some instruments require greater adjustments on more notes than others and
>those are often described a being more "out of tune".
Like that YSS 475 you mean? I really had to fight to get that one in
tune.
You have to learn to play each and every horn in tune - because if you
don't, every horn will be out of tune.
Some people will struggle more with some horns than others, but that
doesn't mean the horn is out of tune or that they're bad
players...it's just an unhappy relationship. Ain't no big thing.
>
>I agree that different size saxophones take slightly different
>embouchures, and also that mouthpieces with different lays and tip
>openings take a slightly different embouchure tension, but I have
>never heard anyone claim that they use two different embouchures on
>two different makes of tenor sax using the same reed and mouthpiece.
Hell, I use different embouchures on two tenors of the same make and
model.
Every horn has its own unique tone - and every time I blow a horn I'm
looking for that 'sweet spot' where the horn feels most natural. The
horn that's going to impress me most is the one that sounds most like
the core tone I have in my head, and that does so with the least
amount of effort.
>Perhaps your definition of embouchure is different from mine which is
>how you form your mouth around the mouthpiece.
Perhaps it is - I certainly don't consider it in any way to be a
static 'set-in-stone' thing. If it was, they'd have made a credible
machine that could do it.
>
>If you are referring to the fact that when you pick up a bright
>sounding tenor you voice the notes differently in the throat and cover
>more of the reed with your lip to take the edge off the tone and make
>it sound closer to your concept of a dark sound, I understand that.
>However in actual performance most players own and play the sax that
>naturally matches their concept of tone without having to artificially
>force it to produce a sound that differs from the "personality" of the
>sax.
See above.
I don't see how you can't consider that to be a change in embouchure.
You point up the technique of covering more of the reed with the lip -
which equates to a change in embouchure, and even something as
seemingly insignificant as pulling your tongue further back into your
mouth is going to have an impact on the entire oral muscle group.
Regards,
--
Stephen Howard
Woodwind repairs & period restorations
Stephen Howard
wrote:
<snip>
>
>While the King has lock nuts on the pivot screws which are colorful
>and probably un-needed they are no drawback; just a colorful
>feature. The rest of the King mechanism is pretty bulletproof with
>the only annoyance being the bell cup opening adjustment which is done
>via cork on the feet instead of via bumpers on key guards.
Those lock nuts are a bit of kludge, and a right royal pain to set up
properly.
If they're not properly locked they'll vibrate loose - and if you
tighten them up good and proper they sometimes bind onto the screw (
which kind of defeats the object of adjustability ).
They're best locked chemically with a threadlock solution...but then
the screw slots aren't overly generous when it comes to undoing them.
I note that they're used on the Tubax horns - I discussed their use
with Benedikt, but he seemed to think they were a good idea because
they allowed the player to make adjustments. Fair point - but so does
a decent point screw with a nylon locking insert...with far less
faffing about.
>
>The 400 is a far more elaborate mechanical piece. There are links
>between rods and arms, carefully shaped ninety degree bits of metal
>which slide into places to effect linkages, and the kranz (tone ring,
>bell ring, whatever ring under the edge of the bell) which, in the
>event of a ding to the bell lip, is HELL to properly fix
>cosmetically.
The linkages aren't too much of a problem - except when you take the
horn apart and lose the damn fiddly things.
The bell rim collar is, as you say, hell to fix it is cops a whack -
but then again it can stand quite a whack.
> There are also the snap in resonators to contend with.
>I left them in place on mine and retained them upon repad but for many
>repair techs the things are a big pain.
I have to say - I can't see at all how they can be pain. The only real
drawback with them is that if the clip(s) break then they won't want
to sit tight....but then all you need do is shellac them in place over
the stub. It's a very simple and effective fix.
Some would say that the resonators are a tad undersized - and that
would be fair comment.
> The end result is that on the
>bench there's more to keeping up the Buescher than the King.
In my own experience I find that there's more servicing needed on
Kings than Bueschers, and I do find the locking points somewhat
time-consuming to deal with ( so more expensive )...but I wouldn't
consider the difference to be at all significant in terms of making a
choice between the two.
<
>Again, both are nice old horns. Good luck.
Yep, very much so - but I'd also recommend looking at a Martin. Much
simpler horns all round, and capable of more boot than a shopful of
Doc Martens.
Regards,
--
Stephen Howard
Woodwind repairs & period restorations
Joe Blow
I certainly respect your opinion. Given a fully competent repair shop
it apparently is easier to set and forget the Buescher- much to my
surprise.
There are, though, a LOT of less than fully competent shops out
there. While I have always retained the snap on resonators myself I
draw your attention to the roughly 2,347,987 (give or take) posts on
assorted sax web sites where posters from all walks agonize over the
things and come up with incredibly convoluted answers to what
essentially ought to be a non problem. Just because it ought to be a
non problem doesn't mean that it isn't for many "drop it off at the
local shop" players though.
I'm a user of loctite Blue on pretty much every adjustment screw on
anything mechanical both to lock things down and for ease of later
removal since the stuff substantially inhibits corrosion. But putting
the King lock nut pivot screws in perspective; I DO see them as a
solution in search of a problem, almost all "adjust then hold with a
jam nut" plans from motorcycle/ auto valves to the King's are a bit
squirrelly in practice, and I'm a long time LeBlanc Rationale player/
sufferer- and if you want really finicky screw/ locknut adjustments in
action look no farther. As a result the King pivots were below the
noise level for me. Once you're going to use the loctite there's no
longer a need to go beyond "just snug" and it's then easy to adjust
them.
The little right angle things on the 400 (loss aside) tended to
eventually wollow out their sockets and click-clack like deranged
castanets. Since the socket portion were not in cylindrical rod ends
normal swedging was out, bits of fish skin a la clarinet pins didn't
cut it, and quite frankly the rattle was both irritating and a pain to
deal with. Local tech's solution was to use thick grease which was
only temporary. I wound up building up the things with a solder flash
and then buffing them back down to a snug fit. Again I figure the
clickety-clack issue is likely to develop, it irritated me severely,
in my personal experience local shops were nonplussed by the problem,
and so I put it down as a minus. A fully competent tech would
certainly cure the problem and it would probably take another forty
years or so to come up again.
Those are specific issues with my very small sample size though-
you've certainly had many come through and on the odds are probably
far more apt to give a likely outcome for the OP and if I was him I'd
take your assessment over mine.
On the Martin- agree completely though a purchaser'd want to carefully
check the integrity of the tone hole soldering on an older horn.
Always something!
Stephen Howard
wrote:
<snip>
>
>There are, though, a LOT of less than fully competent shops out
>there. While I have always retained the snap on resonators myself I
>draw your attention to the roughly 2,347,987 (give or take) posts on
>assorted sax web sites where posters from all walks agonize over the
>things and come up with incredibly convoluted answers to what
>essentially ought to be a non problem. Just because it ought to be a
>non problem doesn't mean that it isn't for many "drop it off at the
>local shop" players though.
Two million?? Blimey! I really should look at the problem again then,
in case I'm missing something!
>
>I'm a user of loctite Blue on pretty much every adjustment screw on
>anything mechanical both to lock things down and for ease of later
>removal since the stuff substantially inhibits corrosion. But putting
>the King lock nut pivot screws in perspective; I DO see them as a
>solution in search of a problem, almost all "adjust then hold with a
>jam nut" plans from motorcycle/ auto valves to the King's are a bit
>squirrelly in practice, and I'm a long time LeBlanc Rationale player/
>sufferer- and if you want really finicky screw/ locknut adjustments in
>action look no farther. As a result the King pivots were below the
>noise level for me. Once you're going to use the loctite there's no
>longer a need to go beyond "just snug" and it's then easy to adjust
>them.
Loctite Blue is the stuff to use - though it can be quite ferocious in
combination with a small, clean screw...but then it's not often you
find such screws without at least a smidgeon of oil on the thread.
Of course, the Buescher has parallel points - and when the key barrels
wear it's a mighty expensive job to fix.
>
>The little right angle things on the 400 (loss aside) tended to
>eventually wollow out their sockets and click-clack like deranged
>castanets. Since the socket portion were not in cylindrical rod ends
>normal swedging was out, bits of fish skin a la clarinet pins didn't
>cut it, and quite frankly the rattle was both irritating and a pain to
>deal with. Local tech's solution was to use thick grease which was
>only temporary. I wound up building up the things with a solder flash
>and then buffing them back down to a snug fit. Again I figure the
>clickety-clack issue is likely to develop, it irritated me severely,
>in my personal experience local shops were nonplussed by the problem,
>and so I put it down as a minus. A fully competent tech would
>certainly cure the problem and it would probably take another forty
>years or so to come up again.
Big hammer...and a nail. Works every time. Honest ( guv ).
Another fix is to send the horn off to a repairer who will
subsequently sell it.
>
>Those are specific issues with my very small sample size though-
>you've certainly had many come through and on the odds are probably
>far more apt to give a likely outcome for the OP and if I was him I'd
>take your assessment over mine.
>
>On the Martin- agree completely though a purchaser'd want to carefully
>check the integrity of the tone hole soldering on an older horn.
>Always something!
Ya pays yer money, ya takes yer choice....
Stephen Howard
>On Mar 8, 2:40 pm, Stephen Howard <seesig...@email.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'm intrigued - exactly what use is such a technique other than to
>> perfectly demonstrate how not to play a sax?
>
>Obviously you have never had a student "map" the intonation tendencies
>of his instrument in order to better understand what notes need the
>most adjustment as part of the learning process to play in tune. This
>is a standard part of pedagogy in the US and is used by most teachers
>on most wind instruments. Please don't belittle my comments that you
>don't understand.
What you proposed was playing two horns with the same embouchure -
which is a whole 'nother world away from having a student blow his/her
horn to see which notes need work on.
I don't mind you taking me to task on my responses to comments you've
made - but if you're going to do so on comments you haven't yet made
then I'm going to write you off as a nutter. I hope that's very clear.
>
>> > Some instruments require greater adjustments on more notes than others and
>> >those are often described a being more "out of tune".
>>
>> Like that YSS 475 you mean? I really had to fight to get that one in
>> tune. You have to learn to play each and every horn in tune - because if you
>> don't, every horn will be out of tune. Some people will struggle more with some horns than others, but that
>> doesn't mean the horn is out of tune or that they're bad
>> players...it's just an unhappy relationship. Ain't no big thing.
>
>Instrument makers of woodwinds have struggled for years to perfect the
>tonehole placement and tonehole sizes to adjust the scale and bring
>the naturally out of tune notes closer to the tempered pitch when the
>instrument is tuned to A 440 and at 72 degrees F. This is especially
>true on flutes. On several older makes of saxophones and many of the
>least expensive imports the unadjusted pitch of individual notes is
>much farther off the scale and hence they are known to have
>"intonation problems". That simply means that while an experienced
>player can play them in tune, it requires far too much effort and
>distracts from other elements of playing.
It doesn't seem to bother a staggeringly ( i.e. a lot ) huge number of
players who prefer to play on older horns. And why should it, indeed?
To be frank it sounds suspiciously like 'I read this in a book' stuff
rather than based on anything that evidently happens out there in the
real world.
>
>> I don't see how you can't consider that to be a change in embouchure.
>> You point up the technique of covering more of the reed with the lip -
>> which equates to a change in embouchure, and even something as
>> seemingly insignificant as pulling your tongue further back into your
>> mouth is going to have an impact on the entire oral muscle group.
>
>Now you have lost me again. The "obicularis oris" muscles that form a
>pattern around the mouth are shaped and tensioned in a specific manner
>to play each wind instrument. They are not connected to the tongue in
>any shape or fashion. If this were the case every time someone
>started a note with the tongue, the embouchure would change. I'm not
>talking about the beginner who moves the tongue too far in the mouth
>and who's jaw goes up and down when they tongue. That poor habit can
>be corrected BECAUSE the two are separate muscle groups.
Easy to test. Everyone can have a go at this one.
Stick a fingertip or two in the mouth and form an embouchure around
it/them. Don't do anything, just hold them there....and feel the small
changes in pressure.
Now try moving the tongue.
The practice of forming the lips requires muscles to be under tension
- and that in itself requires constant adjustment in order to maintain
that tension. That equates to movement.
When it comes to such practices as physically moving the lips ( as you
stated ) then there's absolutely no way you can't consider that to be
a change of embouchure.
>
>The "embouchure" is at the front of the mouth. When changes are made
>inside the oral cavity the common terminology used here is to "voice"
>the note. In the rare instance that opening inside the mouth causes
>the jaw to drop and the formation of the lips to change slightly that
>is an embouchure change accompanied by a voicing change in my set of
>definitions.
Again, when forming the oral cavity your muscles are under tension -
and they're also acting against a variable air pressure.
In short the whole thing is a complex feedback mechanism that's
constantly changing. You can't physically use the same embouchure from
second to second, let alone from horn to horn - and why on earth would
you want to...it clearly will not work.
Iain Churches
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:35:16 -0800 (PST), jbt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You have to learn to play each and every horn in tune - because if you
> don't, every horn will be out of tune.
Stephen. Could you give me some idea of how this is done, please.
Iain
Toby
<jbt...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:df4f0769-2969-417d...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
I haven't played a 400 but I own an old full-pearl Super 20 and the tuning
is superb with the exception of the side C. I do think that the Super 20
changed quite a bit in the run, and the newer ones are nowhere near as nice
as the older ones.
Toby
Stephen Howard
<snip>
>
>I hope you understand that we really are essentially in agreement on
>the fine points of playing, but I think you see and define playing
>skills from the top down while my orientation as a professional
>teacher is from the bottom up. I still would like you to consider the
>concept of when you are testing and evaluating a saxophone for your
>reviews to turn off your "embouchure adjuster" and play the instrument
>just as it is. It takes a lot of discipline and concentration for a
>skilled player to do this. That way you are hearing and feeling the
>instrument itself and not the skill of the player. Does that make
>sense? Of course I know that is not how the instrument is played in
>actual practice, but it is merely a tool to evaluate the tendencies of
>the instrument itself.
I understand that - it's essentially what I do when I test a horn,
though I don't so much turn the embouchure off as consciously note
significant differences to the ideal ( my personal ideal, that is ).
All that points up though is how far it is off 'my' ideal, and with a
particular mouthpiece - and is only of any use where a truly genuine
problem exists ( such as an entire range of notes being out, or an
individual rogue note ).
>
>Back to my comment way back that was misunderstood. The idea I wanted
>to convey was to play the King throughout its range without adjusting
>the embouchure to force notes in tune and then play the Buescher
>without adjusting the embouchure in the same fashion. This would be
>done to compare both saxes to see which naturally is the most in tune
>and needs the least player adjustments to its intonation.
What you're essentially saying then is that if you don't play the horn
properly you'll have problems. I'd agree with that - and the same
would hold true of any two horns played side by side in such a
fashion. I don't believe that's a valid way to make a blanket
judgement with regard to tuning - and if it were the case that the
King S20 was a particularly difficult horn to play in tune it wouldn't
have the substantial user base, both professional and amateur, it so
evidently has.
Some people will always have problems - I had a particularly tiresome
client who used to spend ages on the phone moaning about how he could
never find a horn that played in tune...and we're talking moderns
horns here.
Stephen Howard
If you blow a note and then completely relax your embouchure you'll
notice that the pitch tends to drop. If you then tighten the
embouchure up the note will sharpen.
As a proper technique this is known as bending the note - and was a
technique used by many players to great effect. If you listen to some
of the Billy May big band tracks you can hear the entire sax section
using this technique in unison.
At a very basic level you would blow two notes and alter your
embouchure to bring them in tune relative to each other and to concert
pitch. It's pretty much the same as singing two notes - your first
note provides the reference point, your second will require you to
make adjustments to bring it into tune.
Most people manage to sing ( roughly ) in tune without much effort -
and the same applies to playing a horn in tune.
Iain Churches
Good answer. Thanks
Iain
Arthur Trinchera
> Anyone know which one of these two tenors (Buescher 400 Top Hat & Cane
> or a King Super 20) will produce the most volume, fattest sound and
> best for a repair person for future maintenance? Thanks.
HI JL
I'm just one guy but I play King Super 20 with the silver neck. I know
the Top Hat is supposed to be good but my vote would be the King.
The Low reg Mechanics are very dated but the sound is fat. I don't know
how the mechanics on the Buescher compare.
Anyway, you asked so just my opinion.
Arthur
funk...@gmail.com
I'm another King S20 owner (circa 1961-62), and man, I love that horn!
It has such a distinctive voice and tone that it would be hard to
replace it for the kind of R&B/jazz/funk that I play. It's upper
register is awesome. Have you ever had the experience where you hear
your saxophone and it *doesn't* sound like you, but rather, like the
sax you heard on "that one recording". I think that's when I fell in
love with the King S20. It's just got that sound.
I previously played a Yamaha yts-61, which I still have and is a great
horn, too, but it doesn't have the character of the King. Yes, I
suppose note-for-note, the Yamaha is easier to keep in tune and
naturally is a little more exact in pitch, but I don't have many
problems with keeping the King in line. I would say if you found
certain notes were playing out of pitch, there are things you can do
to set up your horn to get those notes closer to pitch, like tweeking
the cork on the side keys to keep certain pads from opening too far,
etc.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Good luck and keep on playing!
Cheers,
Bryan Husk
www.groovology.com
