Did early saxophonists have a bad sound?

[Papetti]

Did the saxophonists of the early days have a bad sound compared to today's? Because

- today, mouthpieces are produced with a much higher technology, and some are further refaced. I have doubts whether completely handmade mouthpieces from rudimentary material with the technology of those days had perfect details.

- today, ligatures claim to touch the reed on its acupuncture points, and open its chakras. Many sax and clarinet players would attach the reed to the mouthpiece with a string in the early days.

- today, horns have better pads and springs. Leaks are easier to spot with a lamp. They probably would play with horns that had many defects compared to today's standards -and even some leaks.

I personally believe that their tone was not that bad. OK, they may have had a coarse sound, not, however, because of the imperfections on their equipment but because of that different embouchure and blowing techniques had not been developed yet, and that coarse tone was what was expected from the sax; they had not heard Desmond or Getz.

It is my contention that, to some extent, a good player can produce a sweet tone even with an awkward setup and horn. The other day, I found the very first stock mouthpiece that came with my horn. I had discarded it since I was unable to produce a satisfactory tone with it. Now, however, after a few years' practice, I am of the opinion that I had been unjust to it. Lastly, I believe that the type of the ligature has a minimal effect on the sound produced.

What do you think?

[SaxMoose]

First of all, what do you refer to as "early"?
In order of your statements,

- Some of the mouthpieces valued most today are from way back when. And though we have better technology, a lot of mouthpiece companies go with quantity over quality.

- Some people still do use string, and a lot of people including myself say that the ligatures really don't do much and the touching reeds on specific spots to create a better sound is BS.

- Like I said before, back then, a huge percent of the work was hand-worked compared to today. This can be bad or good, but take Selmer's for example, many of them straight from the factory have irregularities, etc. and not everyone gets them set up for another something-hundred bucks. Today's horns have many defects too.

And you never know, you just heard them through recordings etc., maybe the "coarse" sound you're describing is from the unsophisticated recording equipment.

Idk, this is all just my opinion.

[Little Sax]

When Jay Easton played the Adolph Bass sax with original (or at least "period") mpc, I thought it sounded better than his modern Selmer (even with the Adolph being full of leaks).

Listen for yourself. Follow this (http://www.jayeaston.com/galleries/sax_family/sax_AdolpheSaxBariBass.html) link, and click on the "mp3 comparison of Sax bass sound vs. Selmer bass sound" sound-clip.

[bandmommy]

If the early saxophonists managed to sound great on such 'rudimentary' instruments they were far better musicians than any of us could ever dream of being.

[TruMusique]

As Saxmoose has put, even with all the advanced technology, most companies go for quantity over quality...that's the reason for the vintage saxes "better" than modern in quality and tone.

Think...can any modern horn compare with complex tone of a vintage Buescher? If there is, I haven't found one yet and I've played pretty much all the top saxes of the major companies.

Also as mentioned above, equipments from early on (especially mpcs) are more valued than present day mpcs no matter if machined or handmade. Since they don't make them anymore and can't make them like they were anymore, I would think "early" saxophonists didn't have sub-par equipments.

Just look at all the attempted copies of "meyer bros" or "meyer New York"

I'm sorry but I'm not sure where you got the idea of early saxophonists having a bad sound. Most modern players listen to early saxophonists and learn the concept of good sound.

[DavyRay]

I have to disagree. I do not think early saxophones were primitive.

- today, mouthpieces are produced with a much higher technology, and some are further refaced. I have doubts whether completely handmade mouthpieces from rudimentary material with the technology of those days had perfect details.


Many modern mouthpieces are inconsistent in quality. They are refaced by people using sandpaper and files, by hand. Hand finishing was the norm on vintage mouthpieces.


- today, ligatures claim to touch the reed on its acupuncture points, and open its chakras. Many sax and clarinet players would attach the reed to the mouthpiece with a string in the early days.


Read the ligature forum threads. Many players prefer ligs unchanged from 1919 designs.


- today, horns have better pads and springs. Leaks are easier to spot with a lamp. They probably would play with horns that had many defects compared to today's standards -and even some leaks.


Springs have not gotten better. Some are as good as the old ones. Others are just cheaper to make. Today's pads are gotten harder. Older pads sealed better because they were softer. They had a less precise feel, but they sealed well. Resonators add brightness and volume, but that is just a style preference. It also helps when playing in a group with electric guitars.

[bandmommy]

They just don't make 'em like the used to that's for dang sure.

Personally I'll take a vintage 'student/intermediate/second line/stencil' over many of todays' first line pro horns.

[warp x]

They just don't make 'em like the used to that's for dang sure.

Personally I'll take a vintage 'student/intermediate/second line/stencil' over many of todays' first line pro horns.

Ditto. There's something about a good vintage horn that just can't be beat by any modern one.
In answer to the original post: if you take the time to listen to some of the very early saxophone recordings, you'll find out that the saxophonists did not have a bad sound at all. Sure, they sounded different from today's players, but the quality of the sound (and of the musicianship) was equally high then as it is today, maybe even higher.

[calisax]

They just don't make 'em like the used to that's for dang sure.

Personally I'll take a vintage 'student/intermediate/second line/stencil' over many of todays' first line pro horns.

I disagree, based on one scientific fact. Horns today are machine made with computerized accuracy, and well, computers are better at accuracy then human hands. Yes, the assembly is mostly done by hand still, but I'd rather see a bell and pad cup power-formed instead of hand pounded. Many of the modern horns, 82z, Ref 54, etc... stack up just fine to the ole dinosaurs. To each his/her own however... I love vintage too. I just don't agree with undercutting the modern makes.

As for the question, "did early sax players sound bad?" Heck no!! Explore more early artists. Listen to Phil Woods' early work, Sonny Stitt, Coleman Hawkins. Don't forget, professional recording standards have improved as well. :)

[warp x]

As for the question, "did early sax players sound bad?" Heck no!! Explore more early artists. Listen to Phil Woods' early work, Sonny Stitt, Coleman Hawkins. Don't forget, professional recording standards have improved as well. :)


That's not what I would call early. I was thinking more of Trumbauer or Rollini, or Wiedoeft.

[milandro]

That's not what I would call early. I was thinking more of Trumbauer or Rollini, or Wiedoeft.

yes THOSE are early saxophonists that we know about because the played in the recording era, but many before them played in the time when no recordings of any fidelity was made! (the saxophone was invented in 1846 and the earliest recording method the Edison Wax cylinder was invented in 1877 and reached " popularity " much later!).

The playing style and the music (and the tone associated with them are not all that popular with the way we play today but mind you the likes of Wiedoeft are yet to apear again on the world scene!) are unfamiliar to most of us so it might sound " worse" to a casual listener but just give it a chance! ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yMwc8olTLE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpdU90eT-Vo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia8B2ytKcFo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmhf15-DAxg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyWq5_kf9vs&feature=related

[Twombles62]

Yeah, everyone before Brecker really sucked.

I haven't really heard anyone older than Coleman Hawkins or Johnny Hodges, but they both had amazing tones.

[Pete Thomas]

Leaks are easier to spot with a lamp. They probably would play with horns that had many defects compared to today's standards -and even some leaks.


I don't think leak lights have had a an effect on anyoane being able to make less leaky instruments, a cigarette paper will find a much smaller leak than a leak light can. And they had cigarettes in the old days.

I heard from Stephen Howard who restored some original Adolph Saxes for the Horniman museum that they had a very good sound.

[jicaino]

Johnny Ellington? Johnny Hodges!

Otto Hardwick
Stump Evans (first sax virtuoso in the history of jazz)
Harry Carney
Sidney Bechet, you might dig or not, but he sure could sound like a train!

open your eyes and ears. Fausto Pappeti sucked waaaay more badly than any old fart sax player, fro crying out loud. He sounded like a clarinet dipped in honey and half rotten.

[Twombles62]

Oops. I fixed that :p

[warp x]

yes THOSE are early saxophonists that we know about because the played in the recording era, but many before them played in the time when no recordings of any fidelity was made!


Well, of course. But we obviously can't dicuss their sound, can we?

[Papetti]

Thank you so much to everyone who spent time in replying; I learned many things. Especially to Pete Thomas (I did not know the cigarette paper trick).

However, I think I have been misunderstood on some points since I did not formulate my initial message elaborately. By "the early saxophonists" I meant the first generation. In the "Cambridge Companion to the Clarinet" by Lawson, I read that "the first clarinets had a strident tone similar to that of a trumpet" ( see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarinet ). As the sound of the sax is even buzzier than that of the clarinet, I deduced that the sound of the first saxes were even more "coarse". But then again, if the first saxes made by Adolphe Sax play that well as Pete Thomas says, mine was a wrong inference.

Other than that, I in my message I also indicated that I also think that it is the player that makes the biggest difference. I also completely agree that ligature has a minimal function on the sound.

[Pete Thomas]

yes THOSE are early saxophonists that we know about because the played in the recording era, but many before them played in the time when no recordings of any fidelity was made!


Well, of course. But we obviously can't dicuss their sound, can we?

Yes, because the instruments still exist.

[warp x]

Yes, because the instruments still exist.

Well yes, but the players don't, so we can't discuss THEIR sound.


Edit: otherwise the original question would have been 'Did early saxophones have a bad sound' no?

[Tobias]

IMHO, the old players sounded great, again you see, the realy sound quality comes from the playing person not the equipment.
The modern equipment is first of all way more easy to play. But after playing a horn 15 years you can handle your horn better than any new Yamaha when you use it first time.

But indeed I think there is a difference in sound (but it's hard to say because also the recoding quality has changed)
When I just look a the tone quality I think modern players are better but the old players are more characteristic and colourfull.

There is a quite similar thread ("the good ol days" or something like that)

[cjmdsax]

I doubt the original poster was thinking that literally. If we have the instruments and can hear a number of people play them, I think we can make a very good guess as to how they sounded when the original players played them. Everyone plays somewhat differently, but I find it hard to believe that a group of players playing them today would sound significantly different in any way than a group of players from back then except perhaps in terms of style.

[Enviroguy]

In general their are several factors that folks should consider when talking about 19th Century saxophones.

First, it was a much slower time and, in general, players had more time to learn their craft.

Next, there was a larger need for live music since there was no commercially available recordings.

Since there were no recordings, players had to learn the tone and style of the masters first hand or not at all.

Since there were no recordings, audiences had little chance to hear true master musicians so music played by less accomplished musicians probably sound great to the general audience.

The style of music being played was usually much less technical than today. So slower more-primitive keywork was probably not that much of an issue.

At least to me, brass instruments from this period have a darker or hollower sound. So I figure a "woody" sounding saxophone was just the thing. No special mouthpieces required. But this one is just speculation on my part.

And I have one more speculation on this. It appears that early recording and radio made music sound buzzy and thin. To me, it looks like instrument makers from the early 20th Century started making instruments that sounded more like radio and Victrola music and that became the popular sound of the era. This can even be heard in vocals from this period.

[warp x]

I doubt the original poster was thinking that literally. If we have the instruments and can hear a number of people play them, I think we can make a very good guess as to how they sounded when the original players played them. Everyone plays somewhat differently, but I find it hard to believe that a group of players playing them today would sound significantly different in any way than a group of players from back then except perhaps in terms of style.


Well, there is a big difference in the concept of sound between now and then. Much bigger than 'everyone plays somewhat differently'.

[Tobias]

Of course the sound has changed. Enviroguy is right.
Today most players have more higer frequenzes (all the high baffle mouthpices, look at brecker)
But they also need it to fight against all the electic guitars

[cjmdsax]

I was thinking more along the lines of how the instruments and mouthpieces of the time actually work. The original poster was concerned about the quality of materials and how that might have affected the sound. I think we can determine the differences simply by playing them along side more modern instruments.

The other side of it as you mention, warp x, is the players themselves. I believe you are right about the sound concept. We can hear a lot of differences in sound and style concept in early recordings, and what we are talking about goes back a lot farther. To complicate that, the sax was brand new and really didn't have it's own concept yet, no masters to follow.

[Tobias]

The quality of the instruments was good, better than today with all the cheap products. In the old days everything was made per hand.
But the developent wasn't as far as today.

[cjmdsax]

I agree, but I also think that development includes how they are made. I don't think modern manufacturing necessarily means cheap quality although it can mean that. Handmade can be excellent but can also be more inconsistent. There was a lot of hand labor for Selmer mark VI and they range from great to just ok. They don't all play great, at least that seems to be common knowledge about them.

[Tobias]

Selmer still has this kind of range.
The quality of the modern japanese is unbelievable good, but just a look on the chinese. Also the taiwanese are still not so good in quality (the sound ist great and most of the materials).
Often some people say, that knowladge is lost, because selmer can't reproduce the Mk6 (I'm no fan from this statement, but I'm not sure if I could deny that)

Just look at the intonation, no old horn has a intonation as good as a modern pro japanese.

When I blow in a modern pro horn and a good vintage horn I stated this general Issue.
On the modern horns I sounded qualitvly better. More beaming, wider and fetter. On the Vintage horns it sounded more characterly and often has more colours.

But from a professinal view I always would chose the horn which allows me a qualitvly better sound, more easy handling and is more reliable (intonation, technical issues and so on).
And I thing the old cats would have thought the same way.

[warp x]

The other side of it as you mention, warp x, is the players themselves. I believe you are right about the sound concept. We can hear a lot of differences in sound and style concept in early recordings, and what we are talking about goes back a lot farther. To complicate that, the sax was brand new and really didn't have it's own concept yet, no masters to follow.

Yup. And I'm sure there must have been many great players that were never recorded. Who knows what would have happened to the sound concept if they had?

[EZ]

Over time the "sound" of the saxophone has evolved with the context of popular music and culture. What sounded fascinating and exhilarating then may not anymore (for some) have that same personal, emotional response from the listener.

http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/5853/bechet.gif

[kavala]

We look at early photos and the fashions and hairstyles look hilarious.
Even ones from twenty years ago.

The same can probably be said about saxophone tone.

As we have become accustomed to the Brecker/Sanborn/Coltrane sound,
when we go back and listen to the early guys they sound a bit dated.

One big exception in my book is Parker who sounds as modern today
as any contempory player.

[DavyRay]

...

And I have one more speculation on this. It appears that early recording and radio made music sound buzzy and thin. To me, it looks like instrument makers from the early 20th Century started making instruments that sounded more like radio and Victrola music and that became the popular sound of the era. This can even be heard in vocals from this period.

Do you mean like Rudy Valee and singing into a megaphone?
Here's Rudy with a saxophone! (they stop the video before he plays.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb36JID2jRA&feature=related

What does that say about Selmer "Radio Improved" saxophones?

[SuperAction80]

I always thought that the early saxophonists had decent tones. You have to take the recording quality into consideration when listening to that old jazz. I also think that these guys sound "dated" because of the actual style of music. Before Goodman, Krupa, Parker, Miles, and Gillespie, jazz had a completely different sound. It was a simpler style for a simpler time. Not to say that those guys were not talented, quite the contrary. I personally think that the jazz from around 1900 to the 1920's was some of the most beautiful music ever created. It also went very well with those very old WB cartoons. You know, the ones where Elmer Fudd was morbidly obese.:D

[calisax]

That's not what I would call early. I was thinking more of Trumbauer or Rollini, or Wiedoeft.

Ha ha... I was being sensible warpy. Obviously the thread starter was referring to "audible" earlier recordings. You know, artists that even those of us lamoes have heard of. Would you happen to have any grey poupon? ;)

[HSkid]

i have only played for 6 years on a vintage 1936 horn and wouldn't trade it for any horn that i have seen. my horn has a fuller clearer sound then any student horn and it hasn't broken down for the sake of breaking down which happens to a few of my peer's horns.

[hakukani]

Having heard recordings of Weidoft, I can definitely say that he had plenty of technical facility. His articulation was impeccable.

The earlier horns, without rollers and having a double octave key would've been interesting to play, to say the least.

I see no reason to believe that pre-Wiedoft players sounded bad. Different, certainly. Goodness gracious, have a listen to the singing style of turn of the century opera stars. Nobody sings that heavily, with a thin fast vibrato like they did back then.

[zxcvbnm]

I play a 1927 Buescher alto and a mouthpiece from the same period and the sound is way better than anything modern IMO. Intonation is fine too.

[zxcvbnm]

Well, that's one of my Buescher altos, the other one is 1951.

[SOTSDO]

Bear in mind that what we hear of the early players (even St. Rudy) is largely shaped by what was doing the recordings. Like the sound track to an old cartoon, the articulations will come through loud and clear but the tone and timbre will not.

At least with the saxophone we have recordings from way back. There's no way to know what the early clarinet players sounded like, and from that has arisen a lot of myth. WIth the cross fingerings needed on the early clarinet, Muller (a virtuoso by all accounts) would have sounded muffled and out of tune compared with a modern player of even modest abilities. (I've played a "classic" clarinet - it made me appreciate Klose's modifications all the more.)