The name Stan Getz is synonymous with many things: jazz, improvisation, tenor saxophone, and of course the Selmer Mark VI—just to name a few. There isn’t a serious tenor sax player alive, who likely doesn’t know that Getz’s use of the Mark VI is in large part, what still drives the horn’s popularity, and price, today.
Source: AGRESORES DISIDENTES: STAN GETZ, THE SOUND
Despite the evolution in saxophone sound over the past 40+ years, Getz’s particular tenor sound is still emulated by many tenor players today. They will spend literally thousands on a 5 digit horn, and hundreds on a vintage, hard rubber Brilhart, Berg Larsen, or Otto Link mouthpiece (all pieces that Getz played at one point or another in his career), in an effort to come close to recreating that famous sound.
Because of the saxophone’s monophonic nature, Stan Getz viewed the instrument’s sound as a translation of the human voice. Unlike a guitar or piano that can play more than one note at a time—thus being capable of playing complicated harmony parts—the saxophone is only able to move from note to note in a musical passage.
Getz said:
The saxophone is actually a translation of the human voice, in my conception. All you can do is play melody. No matter how complicated it gets, it’s still a melody.
Source: World Jazz Scene
It’s a safe bet that most of the readers of my weblog are familiar with Stan Getz, and how he used both simple and complicated melodies in his playing. However, not everyone might have seen this 1972 show from Montreux.
Besides Getz it features Tony Williams on drums, Chick Corea on keys, and Stanley Clarke on bass. This all-star line up puts on a 1 hour show that is sure to please even the most discerning jazz aficionado. Enjoy…
Oh, and just a side note… What do you make of his horn? Is it a newer Mark VI? Did he trade in his 5 digit VI for say a 6 digit one? 
If that were true, what would that suddenly do to the 6 digit Mark VI prices? 😈
Or perhaps he had his trusty 5 digit horn relacquered? 
Well if that wouldn’t send a shock wave through the saxophone world, I don’t know what would. Suddenly all the “rules” that are perpetuated on the ‘Net about relacs would no longer be “true”. Say it isn’t so… 😉 
Clearly I was just “stirring the relacquer pot”—specifically the Mark VI relac pot. Also, I love poking holes in the 5 digit Mark VI theory.
Since Getz is one of the main reasons the 5 digit horns fetch as much money as they do, and there is such a price discrepancy between 5 and 6 digit horns, I think this video makes a compelling argument for the sound coming from the player, rather than the horn.
I find watching his embouchure is interesting. His upper and lower jaws line up perfectly. Very few players play like that. The other thing that is interesting, is that not only do his cheeks puff out, but so does his neck.
When you combine these 3 things you can see, with all the internal things you can’t (like his chest cavity, air passage, larynx, tongue position, etc) only then do you get to the root of Getz’s sound. This is of course the same for all of us.
I realize I’m preaching to the choir here, but it’s shocking how many emails I still get from young players who are looking for info on what horn to buy in order to sound like player X, Y, or Z. Despite all the info “out there”, the myths still persist that horn A will allow you to sound like player X.
At what point does the Internet become too big, and the sea of information too vast, to make the retrieval of good, solid, information almost impossible? We’re not there yet, and we might not even be close, but I can see that day coming I think.
Indeed, he has small cushions of air everywhere. It has some resemblence to Don Byas (example: Perdido 1958 Youtube).
To add some water to the “laquer debate”
There is no laquer debate, by lack of a third party judge on the subject.
The “discussion” looks more like a general consultation in which rules are stated based on trivial evidence.
Stan is more important than the laquer on his saxophone.
He can make it sing.
Actually I would it would be a much bigger surprise to find out he only had 1 tenor rather than several to choose from. If for no other reason because :shit: and he would never know when he might have to come up with a different sax on short notice Plan for the worst Hope for the best. :devil2:
Agreed! My primary horn is a humble (but well-adjusted to my liking) Jupiter JAS-767 made in 1990. My backup horn is a (not quite “broken in” to my preferred touch) Jupiter JAS-767 made in 1991. They LOOK vastly different because the 1990 horn has been losing lacquer since about 1992 and I have stripped the worst-affected parts (bell and neck) and re-plated them in silver, then gold wash inside the bell. The 1991 has nearly perfect lacquer (of a much lighter color), so in between the two they must have figured out their orange lacquer sucked.
There is a great deal to be said in favor of having a backup horn that acts as much like your primary horn as possible. This is why I have sold the Yamaha-made Vito that was my backup, and the dark brown Orpheo that was the backup after that. Both came reasonably close to the Jupiter in sound and response and intonation, but the action just felt completely different on both of them. When pressed into service in a pinch, this is NOT what I want. Both were acceptable in their own right, they were just different and required time to adjust — time I typically do not have when reaching for a backup horn.
To add fuel to the “lacquer changes sound” debate — not even I can tell the difference in sound between the two horns. Not when playing them, and not when I record them. The 1990 horn has tons of miles on it, the 1991 has virtually none. The 1990 has even been dented and repaired a time or two. (Currently they both have dings in the necks, and they don’t SEEM to do anything but I can’t be sure because I don’t have an un-dented neck to compare to.)
Helen likes having a stable of significantly different horns, and so would I if I still had a stable of horns. My tenors are vastly different (Yamaha YTS-21 with the low C# properly articulated to match the 32/52/62, and a Chinese horn branded “Mercury”) and FEEL vastly different. The Yamaha is lightweight and has a very middle-of-the-road, adaptable sound. The Mercury is a TANK and has a much darker “vintage” sound. Maybe that’s what the “Designed in USA” etching is meant to convey. When I play-tested the Mercury, I had my mouthpieces with me but not the Yamaha. It wasn’t until I got home that I realized how incredibly different the two instruments are. For most purposes, I call on the Yamaha because it weighs so much less, but for a big band or a concert band, I’d go with the Mercury. I have two tenors but a backup for neither.