I was speaking of scientifically robust statistical tests. The first test you described was to ask listeners to identify five different (but known) saxophones from their sound alone, trying to hold other variables (e.g. the player, the mouthpiece, reed, recording setup, mixing, playback) constant.a) yes, I did.
b) no, it isn't.
The 'second test' (same test, actually) is just a quick example of how a listener/player who has been around the block a few times, played a fair number of different horns, etc...would be able to discern.
I was about to say something similar, but even just the first, the who part would make this difference: Dave Sanborn or someone at that level, would instinctively react to the entire context and modify his playing, embouchure, breath etc, to compensate for differences. Even with conscious effort, it would be hard not to.who the player is, how familiar they are with each instrument, what their mouthpiece is, what they play (e.g. long tones, scales, unaccompanied tunes), how it is recorded, how it is mixed and how people listen to the recordings.
That's a huge factor, too. Also, if listening to someone play in a studio and a good mic with no effects or EQ is a totally artificial effort that may not have much value.depends on where you play, as playing with an orchestra in a section with 12 other saxes and 70 other musicians asks something different then being the sole sax player in a small punk band.
But an infinite number of monkeys will identify them all!So a deaf monkey randomly guessing is most likely to identify either zero or one saxophones correctly.
Because they put in the hours of practice and dedication together with a drive to just play music. They may well have started with a different (probably cheaper) setup, but their drive to improve together with phenomenal technique, meant they could try out different setups to fine tune their sound to what they were searching for.I think it's telling that many of the greats play the same horn for their entire career. Habit? Comfort? Or lack of the need to move up? Or, there is no real 'up'?
Most of you would know more about this than I.
As a quick aside...I always find your choice of words interesting. Sometimes when folks disagree with someone, they have a tendency to take the other's fairly moderate claim, rephrase it, and explode it into something which starts sounding a bit absurd.
I challenge you to find where I stated "manufacturers drove the revolution'.
But you just said, twice, that it isn’t the players driving it.What my point was, and is, is that...TODAY....the VAST majority of new/contemporary horns are of the modern sonic paradigm. That isn't particularly arguable, really.
That is quite different from stating "manufacturers drove the Revolution".
Indeed there was a 'shift' in the tonal paradigm of saxes starting in the 70's and Yama and Yani, as they took over the market, defined the new sound. This 'shift' was the result of a LOT of things...not simply a few companies deciding they were gonna build a brighter horn.
Mmm, players wanted brighter punchier horns to suit the music they were moving in to.Sax music shifted away from bebop and post-bop, the last vestiges of BB continued to fade from popular music, rhythm sections became electric, rock kept getting louder (think, for example, of the George Harrison guitar sound vs. the Hendrix sound), Motown crashed the pop charts, Jazz Fusion began developing, avante-garde became stylish. I can keep going.
Artists needed and wanted horns with more edge and cut.
You don’t mean that manufacturers made horns that sounded like the players wanted??Companies were aware of this. So this is probably part of the reason that the Japanese were so successful in bumping off the 'traditional' American and European models in most genres of music.
See above.Also, look at what Selmer came up with - the VII. Today folks look at it as 'the child which should have never been born' and such...BUT....Selmer was at the forefront.
Does one think they would actually just produce a 'botch' ? Just blow the whole affair ? The introduction of the VII....this was a much-awaited event back in the day.
It wasn't a botch, sonically. There was serious intent in that horn.
There are elements of the VII tone, when compared to the VI or SBA, which were an attempt to produce a model which would meet the needs and desires of the 'new sound'.
So let me get this straight. The big companies are making horns that sound the way that players want? And the smaller companies are making horns like the bigger companies...because the bigger companies know what the players want?Fast forward to today .
"TODAY....the VAST majority of horns are of the modern sonic paradigm".
In new horns...there is LESS diversity in tone available out there today- particularly for players with moderate budgets....those folks arguably making up at least 75% of all sax players (higher, more likely).
This is probably the result of new companies employing a particular business model - looking at things not from an innovative point of view, but rather the more post-1980 business view of "what did the biggies do that was successful ?
Let's knock THAT off - but, of course, NOT REALLY - we will change things as necessary to keep our expenses down and our profits maximized".
Because the industry is run by smart people who know that players will only buy what they want.Soooooo...the result is.... a lot of companies .....producing a lot of sameness.
So, as choices are limited for most (who seek a new instrument), the INDUSTRY today plays a significant role in what the 'common' or 'familiar' tonal qualities of the Saxophone (trumpet, drum set, etc) are.
No, not really. All you’ve done is rearrange and repeat what I said in my previous post and somehow decided that it supports your original point – which it quite clearly doesn’t.I hope that clarifies my point.
I understand where you were coming from, and please keep in mind a bit of my reply was tongue-in-cheek.I was speaking of scientifically robust statistical tests. The first test you described was to ask listeners to identify five different (but known) saxophones from their sound alone, trying to hold other variables (e.g. the player, the mouthpiece, reed, recording setup, mixing, playback) constant.
This is highly arguable ....and has been brought up before when discussing the saxco playtests.I was about to say something similar, but even just the first, the who part would make this difference: Dave Sanborn or someone at that level, would instinctively react to the entire context and modify his playing, embouchure, breath etc, to compensate for differences. Even with conscious effort, it would be hard not to.
(...I stole that term from Tim Price, actually....a term which he has used in the same context of discussion as this one...it seemed to me to be a really good terminology when discussing a widespread change/shift to the sound qualities of an instrument...)
I won't disagree with your opinion per se, but task is a big word, if you know what I mean. Here's what I mean.If a player's task
Beautiful. Which school if any is Branford Marsalis playing classical?
Quote from Branford Marsalis FAQWho are your favorite classical music composers? In the past you seemed to have an inclination for the French school….
Saxophone players prefer the French School, because many of the 20th Century French composers actually wrote for the saxophone.
Ask @Stephen Howard as they seem to make a difference on some Tenors at least. I don't know about altos as nothing could turn them into acceptable Tenors so why bother?I notice they are available for my YAS480. Why would I (or anyone) want one?
On the other forum, there is a thread with consensus that a V1 neck turns a 62 into an 82Z for a much cheaper outlay than buying an 82Z, too. Cue more discussion perhaps.But here's a canny tip. If you have one of the newer models - beg, borrow or steal a crook from a MkI 62 and see whether you feel it makes a difference. I think you'll be surprised...