Saxophones How do we define "vintage" or "not vintage" ?

Words, as I mentioned above, don't get meaning from definitions.
In a formal, legal, technical, scientific context; a definition has limited use within an argument or theory or law or contract...
... But in real life words need space to breath and grow.
For the sake of this forum IMO, the community can agree internally on definition. IMO it may help resolve some of the ambiguity in discussions. How others approach it outside the forum is up to them. I don't think it is a matter of right versus wrong, scientific versus non-scientific, theory versus law, and etc.

It boils down to community preferences.
 
For the sake of this forum IMO, the community can agree internally on definition
Sure. The forum is just so good at coming to a consensus on anything :rofl:

And, anyway, pretending one has a "definition" is, outside of some disciplines, just polemics. With no method of interpolation or extrapolation from definitions it's just Control freakery.

And how are you going to enforce it?
Report posts? Make sarcastic comments, like the spelling police? Give a grade A to F?
 
And, anyway, pretending one has a "definition" is, outside of some disciplines, just polemics. With no method of interpolation or extrapolation from definitions it's just Control freakery.
I am not talking about pretending. I am speaking of community determined thresholds. Pretending is for social media.
 
I tend to think of it as before the end of the MKVI. I somehow can't find it in myself to talk about a vintage MKVII or for that matter any horn made in the mid 70s onwards as vintage.

I've also seen people use the wine analogy as if an old horn can only be "vintage" if it's a specific brand or model.

Anyway we can safely say "they don't make 'em like that any more."
Pete pretty much nailed it here in terms of how I think of vintage saxophones: Horns up to and including the MKVI. Anything post MKVI being 'modern'. I can definitely see the argument for modern horns starting with the MKVI, but I'd argue that even though most horns following the VI were based on the VI design, none of them were even close to being identical to a VI. IOW, they don't make 'em like a VI anymore.
 
Have you ever played an SML? Some were close IMO.
No, and I'll admit I haven't played a lot of modern horns, so I may have overstated the case a bit. However, I have played a Yamaha (I owned a Yamaha Custom alto for a time) and play-tested a Yani. Neither of them played or sounded just like my VI, even though the Yamaha was reputed to be based on the MKVI design. I'll accept that there may be some horns that are close to a VI, but I doubt they'd be identical.

In any case, the VI is likely in a 'grey area' as to whether or not it should be called vintage. Certainly, the pre-Selmer American horns (Conn, Buescher, Martin, King, etc.) would be vintage.
 
The term social media is not really used much to include forums. In the context above it was differentiating between what is commonly called social media and traditional forums.
Really?
Could you elaborate?


Sorry. That was unnecessary.

But obviously I was half joking half making the point that the meaning of "social media" has changed through time. Words do that. It's why definitions are flakey. People lean on "definition" polemically to seem formal and riggerous. But it isn't good English... The designated language of the cafe.



1980s–1990s: Bulletin board systems (BBS) and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) were popular during this time period

The Café uses Classic/Vintage social media 😛
 
Last edited:
The Café uses Classic/Vintage social media 😛
I don't see that analogy on Wiki, nor do I consider them an ultimate authority though on many subjects it helps to capture history.

Forums like Café Saxophone, The Saxophone Museum, The Woodwind Forum, Cox Engines Forum, Stunt Hangar, Motorcycle Forums, The Voyager Association, and etc. are not considered social media. They are specific interest groups. There is limited off-topic discussions permitted in their off-topic thread sections for the sake of socialising and getting to know members better, but it is not the main thrust of discussions.

Their memberships do not consist of anybody and everybody but those interested in the central purpose of their forums.

Social media on the other hand: one does not need to create a topic or participate in one to post messages, although there are threads on topics of interest. It is reverse of "specific interest" forums.

To add, in various social media, one can limit receipt of posts to a circle of previously defined friends with unlimited posting duration. In specific interest forums, there is direct / private messages, but these are limited in scope to addressing a specific topic or issue, thus are narrowly focused, of usually short duration, and a limited specific audience for each thread. Also usually storage space is limited and once these have served their purpose, they are deleted to keep within alotted storage space.
 
I don't see that analogy on Wiki
No. But the analogy is amusing... If not a little boring to elaborate. Still.

Lots of us feel the basic, topic specific, thread based forum is - as per the dictionary definition 2. above - "something from the past of high quality, especially something representing the best of its kind". Vintage. Compared to the dross to be found on the likes of Facebook and the slop now being generated by AI Powered social media.

Of course BBS was a form of social media in the day.. just peoples understanding of social media has evolved. That's how language works. Dictionaries give definitions - but they're not more than hints as to meaning at a giving time - and are regularly updated
 

Similar threads... or are they? Maybe not but they could be worth reading anyway 😀

Social

New! Social Feeds

Look out for the navigation icon:

Follow CafeSaxophone

Latest Song of the Month

Trending

Forum statistics

Topics
32,049
Messages
577,928
Members
8,116
Latest member
bariisax
Back
Top Bottom