I've read it. Pretty interesting. I wouldn't run to read it though.

 

It's interesting to read, but like Dannel said, I wouldn't go too far out of my way to do it. Despite the $100 words in the title, the content is not particularly scientific or technical - essentially 50 pages telling you why you should play Buescher gear. It IS worth it for the line about modern saxophones being an abomination on the scale of genetic mutation. In short, some of his points are sound, but if you're looking for an intense source on saxophone acoustics you would be better served by Laurence Wyman's dissertation.

Interesting, yeah I read enough of John Edward Kelly saying how modern horns are an abomination from The Devil's Horn. Alright, cool, I'll look for Dr. Wyman's though, that sounds a little more informative and useful...

 

It's interesting to read, but like Dannel said, I wouldn't go too far out of my way to do it. Despite the $100 words in the title, the content is not particularly scientific or technical - essentially 50 pages telling you why you should play Buescher gear. It IS worth it for the line about modern saxophones being an abomination on the scale of genetic mutation. In short, some of his points are sound, but if you're looking for an intense source on saxophone acoustics you would be better served by Laurence Wyman's dissertation.

 

self deleted...

 

The Devil's Horn misrepresents the entire Rascher school and contains a lot of bad information.

Hakukani, I don't know if you've read this essay we're talking about, but it's nothing like that. He talks about resistance in the horn. This isn't a battle of "oh keep it original" it's a battle of acoustical issues which are quite different from vintage to modern horns. Please don't come in here spouting nonsense like that. It would've been better just not to post if you don't have anything real to add to this conversation.

 

Really? Well I never new that, but then again it is way more jazz oriented. I've read many other articles and books so I have an idea of what the Rascher School and it's methods, just not exactly so I guess now I'll just have to look up more info. Good thing I have plenty of time in college for this

 

Every wind instrument has some sort of resistance to it. The least resistant instrument I can think of is a didgeridoo. Because of the little to no resistance this instrument has, we're required to circular breath in order to keep a note going longer than a couple seconds. Resistance allows us to move around the horn the way we want and resistance adds or takes away the level of brightness(overtones in the sound). Everyone has different levels of resistance that they want to deal with.

I am a big believer that everyone is different and the same formula will not work with everyone. John-Edward Kelly is his own kind of deal. He certainly does not define the Rascher school. The members of the current Rascher Quartet are completely open-minded and will not tell someone to play on certain equipment. Even Bruce(tenor player from the beginning in 1969) teaches numerous students that play on selmer-brand equipment. Most of my students I point in the direction of Vandoren Mouthpieces and Yamaha/Selmer equipment. It's just easier to produce a good sound with that equipment. Bueschers-style horns and Rascher-type mouthpieces require a bit more training to form a decent sound on. This isn't always everyone's primary concern.

The entire "Rascher" school of thought is much more than just the kind of equipment you play on.

Perhaps you find the old Buescher instruments dull because that is how your oral cavity is. I play on them and think they are capable of having an extremely live sound. JEK recordings do sound a bit hollow and dull, but that is more the recording than anything. I wouldn't judge how he sounds unless you hear him live. In fact, I would never judge completely how someone sounds unless you hear them live.

As far as the "ites" of the Rascher school. Every style or "school"(and by school I have noticed that even under the "french" or "american" school there are numerous different followings.... and this is only for classical playing...) has their own "ites." There are just as many, if not more, people out there that say the only way to play saxophone is to play on a Mark VI, or a Selmer-type, or some mouthpiece. I listen to as many, if not more, recordings of non-rascher people than I do of "rascher" people. I enjoy them, but for different reasons.

Everyone has their different opinion. You may listen to the rascher quartet or my quartet live and hate the way we/they sound or the way we/they interpret things. In the long run, that is how we feel we should sound and that is how we feel like interpretting a work. Doesn't mean that's the only way, that is just our way. That is our form of expression. It is, however, not in the best taste to poke fun at an aspect of a group's philosophy or make a mountain of a mole hill.... especially about something that is commonly misinterpreted.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure. There is certainly no point in the first man telling the second man not to waste his time with that garbage or making fun of how he's using that garbage.

I've ranted long enough.....

 

Dannel,
It's a good/valid rant. I'm just going to quote you out of context here because I found the two lines collectively amusing....

.....I am a big believer that everyone is different and the same formula will not work with everyone.

.....Most of my students I point in the direction of Vandoren Mouthpieces and Yamaha/Selmer equipment. ....QUOTE]

edit: Well... I screwed up the embedding of the quote, but you'll get the gist.

 

I find it very difficult to believe that you cannot get an accurate reproduction from a recording of Kelly's sound.

Some of the recordings on his site are advertised as having won awards for best recording.

"honored in 1999 by the Finnish Recording Society.
Selected one of 1999's 10 best recordings by Germany's Neue Musikzeitung"

Concerning resistance: Does the impedence (which is actually more accurate a term in this case) presented by a horn and mouthpiece/reed combination have a signficant effect on the sound itself?

 

As far as the "ites" of the Rascher school. Every style or "school"(and by school I have noticed that even under the "french" or "american" school there are numerous different followings.... and this is only for classical playing...) has their own "ites." There are just as many, if not more, people out there that say the only way to play saxophone is to play on a Mark VI, or a Selmer-type, or some mouthpiece. I listen to as many, if not more, recordings of non-rascher people than I do of "rascher" people. I enjoy them, but for different reasons.

That's why I include the "lunatic fringe" when I talk about "schools" of playing. There are certain teachers who INSIST on certain equipment, and that is the way it is in their studios. Now, there is a difference between a teacher who says "I can't teach you on that horn because I am not familiar with it's characteristics" (for example, some on who brings in a Buescher into a lesson with a French teacher) and one who says "I won't teach you because you are playing on x horn."

 

I've heard Kelly live, and I can tell you that his real sound is very different than his concertos CD. He says himself that the reissue of that CD (the one we all have) messed up the sound engineering somehow. His other CD's are more accurate to the sound I heard live, but most people who do not appreciate his type of playing do not have those CD's.

The same holds true for other saxophonists. I heard Timothy McAllister live a few years ago, then bought his current CD. The sounds were completely different, so it is completely plausible in my mind that CD's do not always accurately represent the sound they are attempting to emulate.

Phenomenological Perspective means his perspective based upon his laymen's observations. In other words, when talking about the parabolic curve of the saxophone, he did not subject his saxophone to scientific measurements. He took the keys off and looked down the body of the horn and saw the curve.

The resistance he talks about has to do with the constriction of the opening from the mpc to the neck of the saxophone. Open chambered mpc's have a much larger chamber in comparison to the neck of the mpc than non-open chambered mpcs. Thus, there is a resistence as the air/sound waves are forced into the smaller opening for the neck. His conclusions about what affect this has on the saxophone tone is from his own personal observations.

 

Sounds like some folks need a real recording engineer. Like maybe Turnaround or myself...

 

I showed John's booklet to a college professor/acoustician/performer and leading member of the Acoustical Society of America (NOT a saxophonist), who was, in a few weeks, to deliver the keynote address at their Pan American Meeting in Mexico a few years ago (they are meeting there again this year). He said...and I quote, "this is the most lucid description that I have ever read of how resistance in wind instruments functions." He went on to comment on the general validity and intelligence of J-E. K. whom he does not know, but about whom he knows plenty.

Most of the posts about this booklet unfortunately reveal more about the lack of clarity on saxophone acoustics by most saxophonists than on the content of J-E.K's booklet.

 

I would love to read the booklet, but not enough to purchase it. His aphorisms still make my teeth hurt. He's in good company, though--Susan Sontag's writing has the same effect on me.

Who was this professor you speak of?

Welcome to SOTW.

 

The professor spoke informally to me about this, without expecting that he might be quoted. He is a distinguished professor of music at a very large & very good school of music in the USA.

 

I've almost finished reading the other book referenced above "The Devil's Horn", and I couldn't find a better place to post the question, but there seems to be a theme running through the entire book (unless it's wildly inaccurate!) from people that have a deep connection with the instrument all have a general opinion that things have changed on the Saxophone for the worst. I beleive that Francois Louis bemoans the advent of square chambers away from the original round ones.... the guy mentioned above (John-Edward?) in previous posts also talks about the lesser resistance of modern horns/mpc's and how it harms the tone, and several other times through the course of the book others complain about the move away from the "elliptical" horn as Sax intended to the "brighter" or more projective modern horn. All seem to concur that this started happening around the 1940's. So based on this I have a few questions.

1. Why doesn't anyone make horns like they used to "as Sax originally designed" and if they do why don't we hear more about it?
2. Same as above but for MPC's ... Francois Louis mentioned that he made these true-to-original style MPC's for some great names, why is no higher volume manufacturer doing something similar, and if they are, why aren't they shouting about.

I'm just trying to understand that if some very well respected names are in agreement about this, why is none of the manufacturers release "authentic" elliptical style horns? Especially of there's a market for them?

Forgive my ignorance, I'm a relative newcomer to the instrument and the history and the mystique surrounding it fascinates me. Regarding an earlier poster that mentioned that the book is about Jazz, I have to disagree. Because Jazz and the Saxophone are inextricably linked, there is a large part of the book that talks about Jazz, it's inevitable, but the book covers Jump Blues, Swing, and everything else, from Sanborne to Rascher to Louis Jordan to Maceo Parker, a very enjoyable read.

Cheers

Tony.

 

1. Why doesn't anyone make horns like they used to "as Sax originally designed" and if they do why don't we hear more about it?
2. Same as above but for MPC's ... Francois Louis mentioned that he made these true-to-original style MPC's for some great names, why is no higher volume manufacturer doing something similar, and if they are, why aren't they shouting about.

I'm just trying to understand that if some very well respected names are in agreement about this, why is none of the manufacturers release "authentic" elliptical style horns? Especially of there's a market for them?

I suspect that those original instruments and mouthpieces play very softly compared to what we're used to. Perhaps not enough potential buyers to make it worth the effort for an instrument maker.

I've listened to some clips of original Adolph Sax saxophones compared to modern day counterparts and the difference in tone is astounding. I'd love to have the opportunity to play one once. I think it would be very instructive. I suspect that the closest we may be able to come is from certain vintage horns currently on the market. Which is why I love my old Conn (and Buescher).

Still, it seems that some smart instrument builder ought to be able to make a saxophone that sounded closer to the original, even if these were custom models designed for individual players and not mass produced. I would suspect however that there will always exist the temptation to "correct" certain aspects of the original design, hence potentially compromising such an endeavor.

 

I recently bought a Sigurd Rascher mouthpiece (for tenor) out of curiosity and was reminded of the booklet which is the subject of this thread. I had ordered it awhile back and have since reread a few more times.

So I have a question. Kelly says that the mouthpiece began changing from a large chamber to a smaller chamber (by the 1930's) which violated a fundamental acoustical principle of the saxophone, that of resistance. I thought that large chamber mouthpieces were still the norm well after the '30s. Kelly asserts that "for nearly 50 years, not a single new saxophone mouthpiece has been manufactured with the tone-defining saxophone mouthpiece prescribed by Adolphe Sax". I'm not exactly sure which 50 year span he's referring to. But can that be correct? Didn't Buescher continue to make large chamber pieces for a long time? Certainly Otto Link. Interestingly, Kelly does not discuss tip openings.

There are also his comments about the parabolic design of the bore as conceived by Adolphe Sax (which has since been abandoned). There have been previous discussions about that here. It may have been that this was discontinued well before Kelly says it did (1935 in his words). Kind of hard to evaluate the importance of this feature if there so few of such instruments readily available to play. Also hard to know whether to attribute any difference to the parabolic bore or perhaps other differences in build. Kelly asserts that horns with a parabolic bore (up to 1935, again his words) vibrate "vigorously" throughout the registers. He suggests testing this by feeling the bell while a horn is being played. In a modern instrument the vibrations in the bell will be less when the horn is played in the upper register rather than the low, but uniformly in an instrument with a parabolic bore. I tried this (with assistance, of course) on my 1927 Conn tenor and found that the low notes vibrate the bell more strongly than higher pitches. Inconclusive for me at least.

I do find the idea of keeping to the original principles as conceived by Adolphe Sax to be intriguing if not admirable. I only wish that more reliable information were available about design and manufacturing processes. I do agree that there is something essential at risk of being lost if these concepts are forgotten.

 

I recently bought a Sigurd Rascher mouthpiece (for tenor) out of curiosity and was reminded of the booklet which is the subject of this thread.

Not to go off topic, but please share your impressions of the Rascher mouthpiece?

 

The Kelly booklet was written 2001.
According to Mouthpiece Museum http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Buescher.html

By the 1950s Buescher had stopped producing the traditional barrel-chambered mouthpieces in favor of 7), and concert saxophonist Rascher approached the company about re-introducing the traditional Buescher model.

So these are the 50 years

Kelly writes

for nearly 50 years, not a single new saxophone [you accidentally inserted "mouthpiece" here] has been manufactured with the tone-defining saxophone mouthpiece prescribed by Adolphe Sax

You could buy the mouthpieces seperately, but the manufacturers didn't sell them with a new saxophone.

 

You could buy the mouthpieces separately, but the manufacturers didn't sell them with a new saxophone.

OK, that makes sense, thanks.

Not to go off topic, but please share your impressions of the Rascher mouthpiece?

I can't properly compare it to any other classical type mouthpieces because I don't have any. I have a few mouthpieces that I play which are around an 8 tip opening with large chambers and small baffles. I bought the Rascher because I thought it would be instructive to hear just what the trade-offs are in terms of volume and projection versus tone quality. The Rascher has a fuller fundamental core tone whereas my other pieces can sound a bit more diffuse by comparison. Of course they are louder and on them I can "curse" with greater ease. While the Rascher has much less prominent high overtones I find the tone to be totally balanced with a nice top end.

I sometimes imagine a visual corollary. If one were to take a stick of black charcoal lengthways to a white sheet of paper, depending upon how hard you pressed the charcoal into the paper you could get a lighter, airy shade of gray (with a lot of the white paper showing through) or a darker fuller shade (with less of the paper showing through). For me the Rascher is the latter. By practicing with the Rascher from time to time it reminds me of the fullness of tone that I would like to achieve on my other pieces.

I'm starting to feel as if too many mouthpieces are made to be immediately loud and powerful whereas volume and projection really ought to come from the player in order to retain as much tone and flexibility as possible. In that respect I tend to agree with the general premise of Kelly's booklet. Next I guess I need to find an original Adolphe Sax tenor to try!

I'd like to hear from EE regarding the Rascher mp as well. I could be wrong, but I think EE is playing it in this video.

Yes, you're correct. Rascher mouthpiece and the horn is a Buescher Aristocrat. I recorded that on my zoom recorder with no processing of the sound. I make no claims as to the merits of my so called "classical" playing.

 

I'd like to hear from EE regarding the Rascher mp as well. I could be wrong, but I think EE is playing it in this video.

 

 

Sounds like he knows his stuff!