Saxophones Do different brands have their own tone? What makes a pro sax better?

Victor Feldman is great on a live Cannonball Adderley album the name of which escapes me, recorded when he joined the quintet after Bobby Timmons left. His composition called 'Azule Serape' is wonderful.

I have to agree with Simon about the various Art Blakey Jazz Messengers groups, some excellent players came through his bands. Quite accessible to listen to as well, being led by a drummer tends to make a band have a bit of a toe-tapping element (Max Roach with Clifford Brown is worth a listen too).

Apparently Art's favourite musician to work with outside of the Messengers was Thelonious Monk who had a very individual rhythmic approach to piano-playing. Monk is someone else well worth listening to, many top players (Miles, Trane, Johnny griffin, Mulligan) recorded with him through the years. My favourite is the Town Hall concert with an 8 or 9 piece band, also his quartet featuring the wonderfully dry-toned tenor player Charlie Rouse, who can almost match Monk's fragmentary approach to rhythm playing.

One thing Monk really appreciated was the value of silence; when you're listening to a tune you can suddenly realise there's no piano behind the horn solo, which creates a good impact when it starts up again.

Cheers, Bob
 
Dylan wrote:
Hi Simon
I've been enjoying reading your posts. very informative 😛

I started listening to Tubby Hayes a couple of years ago - the current fave is the "Couriers of Jazz". That leads me on to my question about Ronnie Scott. What a fantastic player 8) I would like to get some more of his work - however, I cant seem to find any albums with him as the sole horn. Do you know if he did any?

Thanks

Ronnie was famously diffident about recording, a general reflection about what he thought were his limitations as a saxophonist. It didn't seem to matter that players such as Sonny Stitt, Sonny Rollins, Roland Kirk, George Coleman, Bob Berg and James Moody all thought highly of his music. Consequently Ronnie recorded very little under his own name after the early 1960s. His early career was extensively documented by Esquire Records, and his collaboration with Tubby Hayes in The Jazz Couriers yeilded four albums on which Ronnie rose triumphantly to the challenge set down by his upstart co-leader. As noted, by far the best is the 1958 session "The Couriers Of Jazz", one of my all time favourite jazz albums.

There are several CDs available which feature Ronnie out on his own, away from Tubby. Here's a brief overview, which may be helpful:

Ronnie Scott - "Great Scott" (Giant Steps/Global Warming GIST 013)

This double CD chronicles Ronnie's rise from teenage sax-whiz with the big band of Ted Heath through his pioneering efforts as one of the UKs first (and finest) beboppers to his own fondly remembered nine piece band from 1953. Over the few years it covers you'll hear Ronnie develop from a big toned Swing stylist to a Stan Getz devotee and eventually strike a mature balance between the two.

Ronnie Scott - "The Night Is Scott and You're So Swingable" (Redial 558 898 2)

A classic Scott album recorded over two sessions in 1964 and 1965 and one of the few to feature Ronnie as the sole front line horn. The first date has him playing some beautiful ballads with a string section arranged by the marvellous Richard Rodney Bennett. a track like "What's New" illustrates perfectly Ronnie's mastery of tone.
The second set is more gritty and features Ronnie's regular quartet of the day including Stan Tracey. Scott's own "Treat It Lightly" (inspired by Sonny Rollins) is a hard hitting and wonderfully direct performance and a good illustration of Ronnie's ability to synthesise the latest trends in jazz saxophone whilst still remaining identifiably himself. Very recommended.

Ronnie Scott - "When I Want Your Opinion, I'll Give It To You" (Jazzhouse JHAS 610)

Recorded live at Ronnie's own club during 1963-5, these tracks, whilst not the best sounding recordings he made, certainly convey the gritty authenticity of Ronnie relaxing on his home turf. Mostly featuring the quartet with Stan Tracey, the highlight is a blunt and swinging reading of "Bye, Bye Blackbird".

Ronnie Scott & The Band "Live At Ronnie Scott's" (Columbia 494439 2)

This was Ronnie's ill-fated supergroup formed in 1968, a powerful nine-piece band featuring TWO drummers, and the sax section of Ray Warleigh, John Surman ans the leader. The album abounds in good tunes (by Joe Henderson, Kenny Wheeler and Gordon Beck) but the bigger front line means Ronnie's moments to shine are fewer than they might be. His opening solo on Henderson's "Recorda-Me" however is one of his best, a winding improvisation full of references to his biggest influence on tenor, Hank Mobley.

Ronnie Scott - "Never Pat A Burning Dog" (Jazzhouse JHCD 012)

Ronnie recorded even less in the 1970s with just two albums (the marvellous "Scott at Ronnie's" and "Serious Gold") to his name, both of which deserve to reappear on CD. This, his final album, was recorded in 1990 and remains a fine epitaph. Everything Ronnie believed in in saxophone playing is here: the intensity of bebop, the plaintive balladry of Getz, the playful lyricism of Latin Jazz and the heat of Brecker-esque funk is here. He shares the frontline with trumpeter Dick Pearce on some tracks, and on one vies with the youthful Mornington Lockett on tenor. By far the best however is the quartet version of the ballad "This Love Of Mine", each note sounding as if Ronnie were somehow "playing" the lyric.

Ronnie's development as a tenorist was, as he'd always admit, deeply affected by exposure to some of jazz music's leading saxophonists. Hearing Getz transformed him in the late 1940s, as did hearing Sonny Stitt a decade later. When he opened his club in 1959, prolonged first hand encounters with the finest tenorists followed and his outlook changed again. Zoot Sims, Hank Mobley and Joe Henderson all caught his ear in the 60s, as did Coltrane and, most importantly Sonny Rollins. Later, players such as George Coleman and Bob Berg broadened his circle of influence wider still.

Like all good jazzmen, Ronnie was able to take elements of all these players very personal and disparate styles and filter them through his own musical personality. Therefore his "mature" style embraced an elegant and cello-rich tone as well as harder Brecker influenced multiphonics.

It was unsurprising then that visiting American players held Ronnie in mutually high regard. Unfortunately, his own reluctance to realise how good he himself was remained with him to his death. This combined with his reputation as "the guy who runs a jazz club" to wrongly eclipse his true stature as a creative jazz voice.
However, the musical situations Ronnie often found himself in were such that they in retrospect create a far truer picture. Not for nothing was Ronnie a regular member of the international Clarke-Boland band, wherein he sat between Johnny Griffin and Tony Coe, two of the most wickedly accomplished tenor virtuosos of their generation.

An album which captures one of Ronnie's friendly musical jousts is:

Ronnie Scott and Sonny Stitt - "The Night Has A Thousand Eyes" (Jazzhouse JHAS 614)

recorded in 1964 whilst Stitt was guesting at Scott's club. Over three long informal tracks Scott "battles" Stitt to a photo finish. Stitt was a notorioulsy belligerent musical character, who could unseat even the most confident jazzmen who dared lock horns with him. Not Scott, who emerges with flying colours.

On the subject of Ronnie's ability to stimulate his musical partners, Tubby Hayes declared that working with Ronnie for 2 and a half years in The Jazz Couriers had been invaluable to him, a sentiment that apparently was reciprocal.
Tubby even went on record as saying that when he began to learn the tenor it was Ronnie Scott, ahead of any American players, who became his first role model.

(To find out more about Tubby's early musical career check out my notes to a major new 4-CD Boxed Set of Tubby Hayes which will be issued soon. It includes several previously unreleased tracks, a 10,000 word booklet essay and many rare photographs. More details will follow)
_______________________________________________

Currently listening to Alan Skidmore playing Where Are You?
 
What can I say? That is a fantastic synopsis of Ronnie's recording career - thanks very much. I will use that as a basis for tracking down some of the recordings.

I read Ronnie's book - "Some of My Best Friends Are Blues" - at a very tender age and can recommend it to anyone who is not aware of Ronnie's skills outside of the running of the club. Some hilarious anecdotes as well.
http://www.jazzscript.co.uk/extra/rev.scott.htm

Thanks again Simon.
 
Dylan wrote:
What can I say? That is a fantastic synopsis of Ronnie's recording career - thanks very much. I will use that as a basis for tracking down some of the recordings.

Thanks. Incidentally, I've done a few articles for the Jazzscript website including a review of "Some Of My Best Friends Are Blues", as well as an article on Tubby Hayes and, something which may well interest others on this thread, an overview of British Jazz Saxophonists from 1950 to 1970, which of course features Ronnie, Tubby and their significant contemporaries.
________________________________________

Currently listening to Ronnie Ross playing Cleopatra's Needle
 
Lee wrote:
"Never Pat A Burning Dog". What a great name for an album. What does the album cover look like?

"Never Pat A Burning Dog" was Ronnie's personal name for Chick Corea's composition "Got A Match" which he featured regularly with his quintet. Oddly, there is no version of this tune on the CD.

John Critchinson, Ronnie's regular pianist from 1978 to 1996, now works with my quartet and from many a late night drive home from gigs I've learned quite a bit about Ronnie. It seems he often had personal names for tunes, for example Horace Silver's gorgeous "Gregory Is Here" became "Gregory's Pecker" as if in twisted reference to the film actor.
_____________________________________

Currently listening to Tubby Hayes playing Raga
 
Simon, I can sort of sympathize with that. I play in a Latin dance band with a bunch of Hispanics, and almost all the song titles are in Spanish. They'll call out a song, and frequently all I can do is respond with a loud "huh?" I mean, excuse me, but to me the names sound about the same. So they have adapted some of em just for me. "Goat Chili", "The Dog Song," "Thelma's Full Moon"...stuff like that.

Sometimes I wake up at night with one of those mixed meter tunes going in my head. I can remember all the notes, even see em on the paper, but have no idea what the song title is. Wierd.

BTW, where would one get a peek at your new album in the US?
 
Lee wrote:
BTW, where would one get a peek at your new album in the US?

My new album ("Introducing Simon Spillett" on Woodville Records WVCD 116) features my regular quartet of John Critchinson (piano); Andrew Cleyndert (bass) and Martin Drew (drums).

It is available from the end of this week, although the "official" release date is February next year - something to do with distribution I think - after which it should be available from Amazon.

For the benefit of any international posters outside the UK, John Critchinson was Ronnie Scott's pianist for close to twenty years and has also worked with James Moody, Johnny Griffin, Chet Baker and Joe Henderson among mnay others.

Bassist Andy Cleyndert has a similar international pedigree and these days is a regular in the Stan Tracey Trio.

Martin Drew was Oscar Peterson's drummer for nearly thirty years from the mid-1970s, and racked up an impressive number of showings on the Pablo label with all manner of top jazz players such as Dizzy Gillespie and Freddie Hubbard.
_______________________________________

Currently listening to Joe Henderson playing First Trip
 
Time to revive this old thread i believe it's a fascinating question. Loads of people talk about specific brands having a "core" sound or tone that makes it unique, yet at the same time we see a lot of people saying the saxophone itself is behind other aspects of tone generation mainly reed, mouthpiece, player of course and for some people, ligature. This is probably even more relevant today with the introduction of more and more brands that may be or purport to be copies of existing established brands.
 
This has been a great thread to read through, thanks for reviving it so me as a newbie had a chance to read through.


I just did a blind test for my wife, who has very good ears, last weekend. It was a shootout between my Martin Handcraft alto and my Martin CommIII alto. She simply listened while I played. I used the same reeds and mouthpieces on both.

Before we began she was sure the Handcraft fit me better and she'd prefer it. After playing she noticed a huge difference between them in the quality of sound and tone. She blind picked the CommIII, stating that it was significantly better.

We had also done a similar test last year between a Conn 14m and the same CommIII. Again the CommIII was vastly superior in her ears.

We also did a test between several MkVI Altos last year at a shop too. One was pretty bland to both her and to myself playing it while the other was much higher quality in terms of sound and tone. I'd really like to do a compare of the CommIII to the good MkVI. However, going by memory the Martin is not as ergonomically friendly(for. The palm keys and pinky table) but the sound is definitely vastly superior to my ears as well as its overall feel to me. It can all be so subjective. I'm sure if I had the MkVI for awhile I'd sound similar on it and get used to the feel of it too.

To throw in an Asian horn, the MkVI felt and sounded almost identical to a Cannonball Raven alto I played. The only difference to me was the weight of the Cannonball. It was much heavier.


All this to say that even between saxes of the same make there can be a fairly big difference. Of course, one should factor in the maintenace condition of the horns too. However, there is something to the vintage American vs French or Asian horn debate, from a newbie perspective. They do feel different of course, but they do have a different core to their sound.

After I played Martins, they just sound different and have a quality to them that I really enjoy, even over other vintage American horns. I enjoy any sax but I love the way I sound on a Martin vs others.
 
All this to say that even between saxes of the same make there can be a fairly big difference.
As another relative newbie I agree. I recently got a YTS-32 after playing a YTS-25 for a year and the difference in tone and the richness of the sound is very noticeable to me. This is with the same mpc, reed and lig. My wife who is not 'musical' says the 32 sounds 'lusher and richer' than the 23. But I guess it still has that Yamaha core sound which to me is different to that of a Yanagisawa or TJ Raw or a Selmer.

I've also got a Vito 7131 tenor which is a rebadged YTS-23. To me and the missus it has a warmer tone to that of the YTS-25; it's closer to the YTS-32 but not as full.

One of the altoists in our band has a vintage Martin and to me it sounds at times more like a tenor than an alto. Nicest sounding alto I've heard.

TL;DR
IMO as a novice, different horns do sound different to me. The player, mpc and reed have a significant input but the horn itself has it's basic 'voice' as determined by it's bore, neck, set-up etc.
 
Playing devil's advocate here, take to horns of the same make and model and play them and you'll find differences. The MK VI is notorious for that, many in the know claim there are good ones and bad ones. And a few in between

However, I am still attributing these sentiments primarily to the state the instrument is in. I recently got a "bad" MK VI tenor and was able to turn it into a good one. COA, a few new pads, felts and corks and especially a neck tenon adjustment changed the personality of the horn from a defiant toddler to an elegant debutante.

You can probably apply the same to any other horn out there, at least to some degree, so a one off to one off comparison does not really mean anything to me.

Yes, there are differences between horns and how they play, no doubt but unless every horn is in top condition - and that's where the pro horns often have an advantage - it's apples and lemons.
 
I'm unfortunately not blessed with golden ears. I can't tell any difference between a YTS-32 and 25 if both are in good nick and leak free. I sound essentially the same on most horns, no matter the make. But a few have a little something special like my Mark VI's. And I'll admit some horns are a bit fuller or brighter than others, but not much.
 
I'm unfortunately not blessed with golden ears. I can't tell any difference between a YTS-32 and 25 if both are in good nick and leak free.
Neither my wife nor I have 'golden ears' but we can tell the difference between my 25 and 32. Both are in top shape and I agree fundamentally sound the same but to us, the 32 has a richer more complex tone than the 25. It's not massive but obvious.

Caveat, I've only been playing for 15 months so perhaps someone with more experience and ability would make the sound the same.
 
However, I am still attributing these sentiments primarily to the state the instrument is in. I recently got a "bad" MK VI tenor and was able to turn it into a good one. COA, a few new pads, felts and corks and especially a neck tenon adjustment changed the personality of the horn from a defiant toddler to an elegant debutante.

You can probably apply the same to any other horn out there, at least to some degree, so a one off to one off comparison does not really mean anything to me.
It's true to say that a seemingly 'poor' MkVI can be transformed with a decent service - but it's also, unfortunately, true to say that there can be a very wide variation in how each horn plays. One of the best MkVIs I ever played was a 70's model - one of the worst was a 5 digit closet queen.
Most modern horns fit into quite a narrow quality band. A 'Monday morning' Yamaha won't be very different from a 'Friday afternoon' one (though that difference is worth having). The MkVI seems to be curiously variable - even when compared to stalwarts like the Conns/Martins/Kings et al. And I have no idea why.
 
It's true to say that a seemingly 'poor' MkVI can be transformed with a decent service - but it's also, unfortunately, true to say that there can be a very wide variation in how each horn plays. One of the best MkVIs I ever played was a 70's model - one of the worst was a 5 digit closet queen.
Most modern horns fit into quite a narrow quality band. A 'Monday morning' Yamaha won't be very different from a 'Friday afternoon' one (though that difference is worth having). The MkVI seems to be curiously variable - even when compared to stalwarts like the Conns/Martins/Kings et al. And I have no idea why.
Which was exactly my point. My own '68 tenor (assembled France and set up/engraved in Elkhart according to Douglas Pipher) is the best I've ever played but I have seen a bunch of duds. Definitely would like to get my hands on one of those and see how much can be accomplished with a little TLC. But you are right, they are out there and I haven't seen any good explanation,
 
It's true to say that a seemingly 'poor' MkVI can be transformed with a decent service - but it's also, unfortunately, true to say that there can be a very wide variation in how each horn plays. One of the best MkVIs I ever played was a 70's model - one of the worst was a 5 digit closet queen.
Most modern horns fit into quite a narrow quality band. A 'Monday morning' Yamaha won't be very different from a 'Friday afternoon' one (though that difference is worth having). The MkVI seems to be curiously variable - even when compared to stalwarts like the Conns/Martins/Kings et al. And I have no idea why.
That was what I noticed too. The 2 I tried were vastly different, but no less than top-shape. One was a late 50's (a closet queen like @LostCircuits said), the other a 70's. They were alot different, but the 70's played vastly better, especially when I tried it with a BSS neck. That opened it up a great deal.
 
Which was exactly my point. My own '68 tenor (assembled France and set up/engraved in Elkhart according to Douglas Pipher) is the best I've ever played but I have seen a bunch of duds. Definitely would like to get my hands on one of those and see how much can be accomplished with a little TLC. But you are right, they are out there and I haven't seen any good explanation,
Thing is, there's much debate about what constitutes a 'dud'. At the lowest level even a poor MkVI is a decent horn - but the purchase price makes all the difference. Pay £3k and you've little to complain about. Pay £6k and it all changes.
But...a very great deal depends on the player's needs. I've fixed up many a 'dufff' MkVI - but the client has been absolutely delighted, because they bought the horn on the basis of its response - and all they want is for it to give of its best. Might not be my cup of tea, but that's not my job. I can only go on what I expect of a VI given the range of examples that I've tried.

I'm working on one right now (a tenor). No idea how it will turn out other that I'll be better than it ever was. But it still might not be good enough for me. But if it's good enough for the client, that's my job done.
 

Social

New! Social Feeds

Look out for the navigation icon:

Follow CafeSaxophone

Latest Song of the Month

Trending

Forum statistics

Topics
32,045
Messages
577,834
Members
8,111
Latest member
Simonob
Back
Top Bottom