Yesterday I spent the afternoon and evening hanging out at my friend’s studio. He’s a pro player from Vancouver, who owns—among other very cool things—2 Cannonball tenors. The first is a Silver Plated, Big Bell Stone Series. I’ve played this sax a number of times, and have always liked it. The second is a fairly recent acquisition, and was new me. It is also a Big Bell Stone Series, but is an unlacquered Mad Meg.
Mad Meg T5 Source: Cannonballmusic.com
I usually don’t take a sax along when I go to Ray’s place, but this time I did. I took along my 1950, 307XXX Zephyr tenor. My Zeph is 95%+ unlacquered, but it lost its lacquer the natural the way: through 60 years of pro use.
I thought it would be interesting to play these 2 unlacquered horns side by side for a while to find out what they could do, and how they stacked up against each other.
In total Ray and I spent about 4 hours in his studio playing sax. For the first 2 hours I played his while he played mine. And then I played mine for last 2 hours to really compare them properly.
My set-up for this experiment was what I use on my Zephyr: My vintage Dukoff S7, a Rovner ligature, and a Fibracell 2 ½ tenor reed.
The Cannonball is a beautiful horn with great ergos, has great projection, and rich, full sound. It can handle anything you throw at it, from the softest of subtones, to the most screaming of altissimos. It is extremely easy to play. I found you could jump from B3 to B1 in the blink of an eye with no difficulties whatsoever. (Remember I’m a vintage sax player, so I’m used to playing horns that require a little more effort.) In short: it’s a great horn that I certainly wouldn’t mind owning. Of the 2 Cannonballs that Ray owns, I prefer its sound over that of its Silver Plated, Stone Series cousin.
However, compared to the 60 year old Zephyr, the unlacquered Cannonball is lacking a certain something in its sound. That something is colour, and by colour I am referring to overtones or harmonics.
Since sound is rather hard to describe with words, I found a really good article by saxophonist Sue Terry, on woodwind sound that likens sound to light, which might help people get their head around this concept.
You’ve seen light through a prism, splitting into individual colors that we call a rainbow. The colors of the rainbow are a part of nature and will never change. Sound is also divided into frequencies, or vibrations—just as light is. Any given tone has a specific frequency, and that frequency contains within it still other frequencies—those of the overtone series. The overtone series is a rainbow made up of sound frequencies rather than light frequencies.
Source: SBO Magazine October 1, 2002
In other words, the Zephyr has more overtones in its timbre than the Cannonball Mad Meg, which makes the 60 year old Zeph somewhat more complex sounding. Is it enough to be noticeable by the audience? I doubt it. In a room full of saxophone players you would get some debate going vis–à–vis the sound of each horn. However, put it in a band, amplify it, and crank up the sound via the sound board (the conditions that both Ray and I play in), and there’s not enough difference that it’s noticeable.
However, as a recent experiment of mine with a non-musician friend has pointed out, if you play your saxophones with the same set-up, in sequence to a listener, they are able to detect the slight nuances of the horns. At least my friend was. And while not a musician, she is an avid lover of music.
I must admit I do like the ergos of the Cannonball saxophones. But do I like them enough to trade off the richness of the tonal palette that I get from my Zephyr? No.
Beyond the ergos, modern saxophones do have an ease of play to them that their vintage predecessors do not have. That is the primary reason that vintage saxophones are not recommended for beginning players.
However, when an experienced saxophone player has the opportunity to play test a vintage horn¹ that is top playing condition, they then have to make a choice: Do they want to trade off modern ergos, etc. for sound?
I have yet to play a modern sax that matches any of my vintage saxes in the tonal complexity department. Even Gandalfe’s Reference 36, while close, was not quite as complex as my Mark VI.
People much more knowledgeable than I about metallurgy, can debate whether or not metals age over time, or through vibration. Or perhaps vintage horns were simply designed and constructed differently, and that causes vintage saxes to have more complex sounds than their modern counterparts.
Perhaps you disagree completely with my thesis. Maybe you can’t hear a difference in the harmonics between vintage and new horns. Perhaps you think it’s all in my head. In that case, I hope you enjoy your new horn. There are some great ones out there.
I know there are other people of the opinion that vintage saxophones are simply “not as good as” (whatever that means) modern saxophones, and that anyone who believes differently is simply wrong. (Those people are usually trying to sell us a new sax.)
In the end each player needs to make an informed decision for themselves. There simply is no right or wrong answer.
___________________________________
¹ By vintage horn, I’m not referring to any old horn. I’m referring specifically to a pro model horn. I am also assuming that the sax is in no need of repair. Nada. Nothing.
I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment here. :devil2:
The trouble is, you played ONE Mad Meg. How many Zephyrs and Mark VIs have you played? I’m willing to bet more than one, at least for the Mark VI. If *I* have played multiple Mark VIs (which I have), I’m sure you have too. In college, I was lucky enough to have the equipment manager as a girlfriend, and the director knew that I’d leave instruments in the same (or better) condition as before. That meant I got to play anything I wanted that wasn’t already claimed.
I played a Mark VI bari when I first switched back after playing alto for a semester or so. I played a Mark VI alto for that first semester. We were a curious bunch, and would happily let each other play our horns, even our personal ones. Everyone else in the section played VIs too, except the lead alto player for the first semester who had a Yanagisawa. His departure was the whole reason we juggled the lineup and I ended up on bari.
Then I hooked up with the equipment manager and got to play through everything. That’s where I got my fondness for Holton French horns. I also decided I liked the brand-spanking-new S80 bari slightly better than the VI. It was immaculate, still in the plastic with the keys wedged with cork. More frightening, NOBODY KNEW WE HAD IT until we unlocked that closet. Does that mean the S80 bari is a better horn than the VI? Probably not. But THAT one definitely was better than the particular VI available.
I’m not disputing your preferences in any way, shape, or form. That would be stupid — you like what you like. I just think the sample size is too small to be able to say “vintage horns sound bigger”. I know the Cannonballs are designed to be big-sounding horns, so you’re testing an appropriate modern horn. It’s just that it’s fairly likely you have a better-than-average Zephyr. The bad ones are stuck in closets or melted for scrap by now. On the other hand, that Cannonball was probably very typical of what they make, unless Ray got to cherry-pick a batch of them.
If he DID cherry-pick from a batch of them, I’ll shut up because then you really were comparing two above-average horns.
My point about the complexity in the sound of vintage horns isn’t based on just the 4 hour play test of the Zeph vs the Mad Meg. It is based on my owning 6 very different vintage pro tenors, all in top playing condition, and comparing them to the new horns that I’ve been playing over the past few years.
Of all the new horns–both Asian and European–that I’ve played, the one that comes closest to any of my vintage horns, is Gandalfe’s Reference 36. It is an amazing horn that he bought through Kessler Music, and was set up beautifully by them before it left their shop. (Kessler is a Selmer Pro Shop.)
Another one that came very close (perhaps just as close, but I didn’t get to play it nearly as long) was Steve Goodson’s Sax Gourmet model tenor sax from a couple of years ago. It too had a complexity to its sound that I have not found in other modern horns I’ve tried, or listened to in person.
Thanks for the light prism analogy. It helps create a “visual” concept of the complexity of saxophone sound.
For more years than I like to admit I played a Mark 6 from new.
I thought it was okay but other experienced tenor players seemed less than impressed with it’s sound – it lacked a warmth and presence in the upper register.
Two years ago I bit the bullet and sold it! It’s replacement is an
early SA 80 – chosen for the depth and warmth of the sound – something supposedly intrinsic in a Mark 6. It took playing a couple of good vintage Conns and Bueschers to hear and feel what I’d been missing!
Hi Ross. Welcome to my site.
Yes, I’ve heard that there are some VIs that are lacking that certain character that makes the model what it is. I have come across some, however, they have been in poor repair, so it was impossible to say if it was the horn itself, or if it was the fact that it needed some work.
In your case however, it seems that you got something that works for you, and in the end, that’s really all that matters. Who cares what the label says.
Glad that quote from Sue Terry worked for you. When I first read it, I thought it was brilliant. It really helped put the whole idea of harmonics/overtones into an understandable concept that I could use with my students.
I’m a visual person, and learn best through visual input. I wish my instructors would have been able to explain it to me in that way years ago. It would have saved me a lot of frustration. 😡
Thanks for dropping in Ross. Hope you do so again!
Regards,
Helen