Saxophones 1940s Martin Handcraft committee 2 v 1940s Conn 6 m

[Punchysax]

I thought I would open a topic of battle of the altos a 1940s Martin handcraft committee 2 v a 1940s Conn 6m
What you think is the better horn sound wise and any personal experiences of either horn .

 

[turf3]

I have a Martin Committee 1 (same horn except for some minor keywork tweaks) and a 6M. They're different but I wouldn't say either is "better". The Conn is more projecting, the Martin sweeter in tone.

 

[thomsax]

I prefer the Comm II sound to Conn Artist sound. I think the solid nickelsilver keys are much better than Conn Artist keys .... . When I bouhgt my Martin Handcraft (Committe) and Handcraft Comm II saxes, many years ago, the prices on Martin saxes were lower compared to Conn Artist. So I got good saxes for less money!!!

Martin Committe II and "The Martin" were maybe re-designed to meet the new need that the music industry was searching for. The big band era faded out and smaller combos/ solo saxophonist took over.

 

[turf3]

Well, Committee II was released in 1938, long before the fade-out of the big bands. Committee III was released in 1945 which would mean design work was started before the war, also long before the fade-out of the big bands.

The truth of the matter is that Martin had a problem settling down to one model. They switched models (often with only minor changes) like most of us change socks. Considering their position in the market, it looks exactly like a marketing team that doesn't know how to climb out of fourth or fifth place and just tries to change stuff in the hope that it'll magically do the trick. This seems to have stopped with the Comm III; I'd bet that there was a different group of marketeers after the war. (I don't think they ever climbed out of that fourth/fifth place, behind Selmer, Conn, and Buescher, and maybe King. I would guess that King and Martin fought it out for last place in sales volume.

Martin keywork seems more precisely made and designed than Conn keywork. The Conn mechanism works and has a fine FEEL, but the mechanisms can be a bit string-and-sealing-wax, compared to Martin or Selmer.

 

[thomsax]

Around 1940 and the years immediately WWII sax players and bands/orchestras like Louis Jordan and his Tympnay Five, Joe Liggins and the Honey Drippers, Paul Williams and his Orchestra, Jack McVea and his Door Openers, Tiny Grimes and his Rocking Highlanders, Todd Rhodes Orchestra, Sonny Thompson with The Sharps & Flats ..... became very popular. Jukeboxes were loaded with their records. The bands had often more than one sax and later on saxplayers like Red Prysock, Sam "The Man" Taylor, Noble Watts ... made their own careers. The huge Big Band era was over .... radio and jukeboxes became the channels for the new music.

Both King and Martin re-designed the saxes with King Super 20 and "The Martin" models to face the new music called R&B and Rock & Roll. The Martin company was the last american manufactor who had a patent on the tube. Saxes had to play in bands with electric guitars and basses. Martin Committee became the Stratocastors' and Telecastors best friend.

 

[turf3]

Your history is all bollixed up. You're compressing fifteen years of musical history into one.

Need to read some history.

Just as an example, the Committee III was released in 1945. Since pretty much all musical instrument companies were converted to war production by 1942, that means the design work for that horn was done in 1941-1942, or before. Long before "R&B" or certainly "Rock and Roll" were even a glint in the milkman's eye. The King Super 20 was also released in '45, so its design work too would have been done in 41-42 or so. And in truth it and the mid-late 30s Zephyr are acoustically the same horn, so the King Super 20 released in 1945 really has an acoustical design dating back to something like 1936, the very peak of the big band era.

Finally, the big manufacturers were NOT chasing business from people like Louis Jordan who were barely even known in the early 40s.

 

[thomsax]

Just as an example, the Committee III was released in 1945

""The Martin ....." was introduced in 1945. There was no Committee III . Not even a Committe I. You need to learn how write correct!

 

[turf3]

Well, everyone I know calls it either "The" Martin or "Committee III". While this terminology might not have been used by Martin, everyone knows what we're talking about.

It was released in 1945, design work surely done before mid 1942 when pretty much all US manufacturing companies were converted to war production. In 1942 popular music WAS big bands. Therefore the product could not possibly have been designed for rock and roll which didn't even exist as an identifiable genre till almost ten years later. It's theoretically possible the product could have been designed for the jump and RB bands that were beginning to capture some notice, but it's unlikely. If you were in charge of new model design at Martin or White in 1940-41, would you have designed instruments for a bunch of obscure black dance band musicians, or for the white big bands like the Dorseys, Miller, Herman, Sammy Kaye, Shep Fields, Guy Lombardo, etc. and their thousands of imitators?)

Electric bass didn't exist as a going concern till Fender introduced the Precision in 1951.

I don't believe either Martin or HN White employed psychics to identify music trends that would come along a decade later.

And for that matter, if you actually see what guys in R&B and early rock and roll bands played, it was a grab bag - mostly Conn and Selmer, Conns because they were everywhere and Selmers because they were generally regarded as the best.

 

[thomsax]

If you were in charge of new model design at Martin or White in 1940-41, would you have designed instruments for a bunch of obscure black dance band musicians, or for the white big bands like the Dorseys, Miller, Herman, Sammy Kaye, Shep Fields, Guy Lombardo, etc. and their thousands of imitators?)

No, but the music industry changed and I guess they had to accept the changes. Bad or good? I wrote for some weeks ago how the swedsih music industry changed in the 30's. In 1935 more records were sold than sheet music. Before 1935 sheet music was the thing. Just a sample .... . To record music became important. The music became louder and better. Who wanted to listen to muffled big band reording/broadcast when you could listen to Louis Jordan .... . To be frank the sax and saxophone music was/is a very small niche.

One of the Martin committe members, Tex Beneke, played in Glenn Miller Band. Important to the "Miller Sound"?

 

[turf3]

Well, in truth the classic "MIller sound" refers to the sax section with clarinet lead. Beneke, while certainly a competent professional tenor saxophonist and soloist (and a charming vocalist), was very much in the conventional vein stemming from Coleman Hawkins. He didn't do anything particular to define the Miller band's sound in my opinion.

 

[turf3]

I would suggest that the real tonal changes occurring in saxophones were three:

1) Sometime in the late 1910s or early 1920s, the original Sax concept was modified into what we might call the "golden era" saxophone sound; a broad yet projecting sound, rich in lower harmonics. This is the classic sound of the Conn New Wonder and beyond, the King Zephyr and Super 20, the Martins from Handcraft on. Buescher seems to have hewed a bit more to the original Sax concept until their 400 model of 1942/45 which in my opinion doubled down on the "Big American sound" of the Conn and did even more of it. The Selmer models before the Balanced Action were also of this ilk.

As far as I'm concerned, a Martin Committee 1 from 1936 and a Martin Committee 3 from 1968 are essentially doing the same thing; same for Conn, the Buescher 400, and the King saxophones. All those model changes Martin went through in the 30s, finally culminating in "The" Martin, never really changed the horn all that much, not if you compare it to a French school horn (see below).

2) in the mid 1930s, Selmer came out with the Balanced Action which had a distinctly more "focused" and penetrating sound, probably targeted at players in large sax sections needing to cut through a large band (jazz and popular music bands were growing during this period). This led to a bifurcation of acoustic designs, with the classic "American" sound on one side, as characterized by Conn, Buescher, King, and Martin - and the "French school" sound on the other side, typified by Selmer and Buffet but also Dolnet and Beaugnier. To me, the American Big 4 retained their basic tone qualities from the 1920s clear through the end of their production in the 1970s and 80s.

3) In 1975 Selmer issued the Mark 7 with a major redesign of bore and keywork. The acoustic design appears to have been targeting a more powerful and penetrating sound even than the Mark 6 it replaced. While this model was a market failure, and did not spawn any descendants, it was another branch on the saxophone sound family tree.

But it's very important to consider that far more important than changes in the horns were the changes in what were considered "standard" mouthpieces. Take any sax and put a Rascher or a Berg 0 chamber on it, and the tonal changes due to mouthpiece selection will completely overwhelm the tonal differences between a Mark 6 and a Buescher 400 or a Conn New Wonder and a Beaugnier.

 

[thomsax]

I thought I would open a topic of battle of the altos a 1940s Martin handcraft committee 2 v a 1940s Conn 6m
What you think is the better horn sound wise and any personal experiences of either horn .

Hard for me to say what sax is the best. I play tenor and baritone most of the time. My Martin altos are resting, I just can't get along with altos.

I have six "Martin Handcraft" and "The Martin". So all made with the committe concept(s) as base:

1940 Martin Handcraft Comm II, alto #136 XXX
1957 "The Martin Alto", #198 XXX
1938 Martin Handcraft , tenor #128 XXX
1955 "The Martin Tenor" #190 XXX
1959 "The Martin Tenor Magna", #208 XXX
1962 "The Martin Baritone", #212 XXX (RMC)

The 55 tenor is also resting. Playable ... but needs more than new pads, corks and felts ...... . So I can't cure the other things the sax is suffering from.

I had contact with Martin players (prof, semi-prof, amatuer/hobby) over the years and I'll try to "sum-up" some common comments about these saxes:

- Well built and sturdy saxes. Thick wall design.
- Sound/tone; on the brighter and rich when it comes to over-tones. One guy said it had a "wide octave" , whats' that? Handcraft has more focus edge compaperd to the The Martin which have bigger and more and more spread sound/tone. Some guys thinks the saxes are a bit powerless caused by low key heights and?
- Intonation; Martin are known for it's even scales.
- Necks: Martin (committee) spend a lot of efforts to make a good neck. Back in the 20's and early 30's some of Martin's intonation problems were caused by the necks. Committe necks is a neck without braces. And they stay round. A The Martin neck is longer than a Handcraft neck. A little bit easier to use modern mouthpices.
- Keys; Handcraft have silverplated solid nickel silver keys. Nickelsilver is harder and more corrossion resistance compared to brass.
- Key action; low key heights, thin pads and factory set-up gives Martin fast key action.
- Moutpieces, most of the guys (Rock & Roll saxophonists) were on metal mouthpieces with medium or small chamber. HR pieces for the jazz guys.

.... and many other comments (ramble). This is not a review ...

I have owned and play three Conn Artist saxes:

1957 Conn Artist 6M, #699 XXX
1947 Conn Artist 10M, #328 XX
1938 (?) Conn Artist 10M ( I don't remember the serial number, It was back in the late 70's and my intersts for saxes were not soo big back then).

Even if the Conn from the 30's was used a lot over the years, and ready for the bench, I think it was the best one. The other Conn Artist saxes were made when Conn more or gave up to be a premium saxophone maker. Not bad, but my Martin played better. Of course a Martin is a Martin and a Conn is Conn .... so hard to compare. And many years ago as well. But the sky didn't open when I played a Conn. No limits with Martin committee ....... .

 

[turf3]

You simply can't go wrong with a Martin Committee of any generation, or a Conn New Wonder or Artist. They're different, but neither one's "worse" or "better".

 

[Vlad]

An interesting discussion to read with my coffee this morning 🙂 The changes in musical styles in the period is probably a good subject for a university thesis type thing no doubt !
Having had a few Conns and Martins over the decades the best sounding tenor I ever had by far was a Martin stencil called 'Indiana' with an indian chief head logo, like a mug I prob traded it for something else, definately the saxophone I'd like back again. though it was likely a one off that came out just right, kind of the opposite of the 'friday afternoon job' !

 

[thomsax]

The "Indiana" saxes are good. I sold my Indiana alto (RMC, no "Chief" engraving) to a guy that have read on internet that Indiana saxes were the same sax as "Committee" or "The Martin". I had my Handcraft Comm II alto and "The Martin Alto" for sale at the same time. So he could play and compared the saxes side by side. I showed and told him what were the differnces. It was just 2000,00 more for the real things. And they were also renovated by a real sax tech. Not by me. "Internet-sax-sales-talk" did that make us more clever? I decided to keep my saxes. So they will not be sold. Re-cycling is better ....!?!?!?

 

[Pete Effamy]

Never played any of the big American name saxes. Definitely missed out.

 

[Vlad]

I suppose I was lucky being a youngster in the 70s, many of the 'secondhand junk' saxophones you were likely to come across were indeed the old American famous names. I always find it astonishing what some of them sell for now compared the comparitively 'few quid' you could pick them up for then.