Low A
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Joined
·
2,155 Posts
Yeah, why did they decide to make a short run of alto's with the low A and not the tenor?
Or did they at one point? They think a C is more useful than a G?
Or did they at one point? They think a C is more useful than a G?
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
I would definitely welcome it.
I'm sure all of us have encountered music where that low A is called for. I hate having to transpose the melody up a whole octave or, if I don't do that and instead play just that A note an octave up - it sounds "ok" sometimes, but to me it's just wrong.
Geek stuff:
With traditional Bb to F keywork, the current dedicated-key range of the tenor sax is concert Ab2 to Eb5.
Giving the tenor a low A and a high G would extend its range to cover the full bass and treble clefs: concert G2 to F5. Such keywork for the high G might also allow for better altissimo combinations.
Even with a low A and high G, such a tenor sax would still fall short of even the alto clarinet (Gb2 to Eb6), which to me has the ideal range.
I've wondered, though, whether saxophone design has matured - we don't have some of the interesting key mechanisms we used to have. That we haven't seen much in changes (other than high F# on tenors and altos and high F#, G on sopranos) may be because innovation costs money and is risky and the manufacturers want to stay with a known, proven, design.
Yet, as competition becomes more fierce and profit margins dwindle, having something like a low A might be a selling point - even if only an option.
I'm sure all of us have encountered music where that low A is called for. I hate having to transpose the melody up a whole octave or, if I don't do that and instead play just that A note an octave up - it sounds "ok" sometimes, but to me it's just wrong.
Geek stuff:
With traditional Bb to F keywork, the current dedicated-key range of the tenor sax is concert Ab2 to Eb5.
Giving the tenor a low A and a high G would extend its range to cover the full bass and treble clefs: concert G2 to F5. Such keywork for the high G might also allow for better altissimo combinations.
Even with a low A and high G, such a tenor sax would still fall short of even the alto clarinet (Gb2 to Eb6), which to me has the ideal range.
I've wondered, though, whether saxophone design has matured - we don't have some of the interesting key mechanisms we used to have. That we haven't seen much in changes (other than high F# on tenors and altos and high F#, G on sopranos) may be because innovation costs money and is risky and the manufacturers want to stay with a known, proven, design.
Yet, as competition becomes more fierce and profit margins dwindle, having something like a low A might be a selling point - even if only an option.
Joined
·
43,595 Posts
the only instruments with extended range which have been successful are the baritones because the low C makes them be in the same range as the Cello
The low A was present in at least two altos ( Selmer & Couesnon) and the particularly ill advised Conn-O-Sax ( which extended to high G) .
In modern times only Saxophones made in Brasil feature lower than low G but it isn’t clear , other than bringing down the walls of Jericho, what they are for
The low A was present in at least two altos ( Selmer & Couesnon) and the particularly ill advised Conn-O-Sax ( which extended to high G) .
In modern times only Saxophones made in Brasil feature lower than low G but it isn’t clear , other than bringing down the walls of Jericho, what they are for
Joined
·
131 Posts
I don't think lengthening the bell and adding one hole is such a problem for the manufacturer. Even Selmer produced low-A M6 alto saxophones. True, this was just an experiment. Probably, the manufacturer does not see this in great demand.
Joined
·
43,595 Posts
It's not as simple as that! well, the Mark VI low A was a problem and never played in tune , it was not an experiment since it went into regular production, Selmer was NOT the only one, Cousesnon produced one too ( rare but not impossible to find)
By the way, the Selmer Low A Mark VI WASN'T the first selmer low A there are more , so it wasn't even a first thought which went wrong ( Model 22 and 26 were also made in low A version)
http://www.stohrermusic.com/2011/11/couesnon-low-a-alto-the-other-low-a-alto/
![]()
Long ago there was Arno Bornkap who bought a mark VI low alto and had it heavily modified to play in tune....
here the story (in Dutch) of the incredible work it took ( and still didn't work ) the B and C were repositioned! Took lots of money and effort and still there were notes not precisely OK
https://www.saxomania.com/modificatie/
the CONN-O-Sax ( tuned in F) had a low A and a high G
![]()
By the way, the Selmer Low A Mark VI WASN'T the first selmer low A there are more , so it wasn't even a first thought which went wrong ( Model 22 and 26 were also made in low A version)
http://www.stohrermusic.com/2011/11/couesnon-low-a-alto-the-other-low-a-alto/
Long ago there was Arno Bornkap who bought a mark VI low alto and had it heavily modified to play in tune....
here the story (in Dutch) of the incredible work it took ( and still didn't work ) the B and C were repositioned! Took lots of money and effort and still there were notes not precisely OK
https://www.saxomania.com/modificatie/
the CONN-O-Sax ( tuned in F) had a low A and a high G
Joined
·
566 Posts
I have a Selmer Mark VI low A alto, and have performed with it. It is as well in tune as any conventional Mark VI alto. It is a good playing and good sounding instrument. As for the Connosax, it was not ill-advised as an instrument, as it is superb to play in many different professional settings. The ill-advisement was in marketing!
Paul Cohen
Paul Cohen
Thing is, the "money register" for baritone is at the bottom. Even extending it one semitone allows a lot of things you want to do (avoid breaking lines that go down to concert C). I don't think there's much demand for one additional semitone at the bottom of the tenor or alto.
It looks like the marketeering of the Connosax was around novelty value. I think it would have been better to promote it as, for example, a modern affordable Heckelphone that you can play with saxophone fingerings, or something similar.
It looks like the marketeering of the Connosax was around novelty value. I think it would have been better to promote it as, for example, a modern affordable Heckelphone that you can play with saxophone fingerings, or something similar.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
