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'.
No problem. I stated “ It's not the horns that are moving there - it's the players.”
To which you replied:
“Respectfully disagree.”
If you disagree that it’s the players that have driven the revolution, then who did? There are only two factors in the equation – the people that play the horns and the people that make them.
Then we have some maths...
“If 90% of available new horn options are of a 'modern toned' paradigm....and the 10% which are not are priced quite high, out of the range of, say, 75% of sax buyers....it is not the sax buyers who are creating a 'demand' for that particular sonic quality.”
...and a clearer insistence that it’s not the players who are driving the revolution. Therefore, again, it must be the manufacturers.
There’s nothing ‘explosive’ or ‘absurd’ about it – it’s simple logic.
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".
But you just said, twice, that it isn’t the players driving it.
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.
Probably the R&D depts. getting fed up with complaints about tuning – and realising that, with the technology of the day, it was going to be hard to deliver on tuning without sacrificing some tonal glamour.
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.
Mmm, players wanted brighter punchier horns to suit the music they were moving in to.
As I pointed out.
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.
You don’t mean that manufacturers made horns that sounded like the players wanted??
I pointed that out too.
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'.
See above.
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".
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?
OK, I think I’ve got that.
Oh hey, I pointed that out too.
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.
Because the industry is run by smart people who know that players will only buy what they want.
Look at the recent rise of unlacquered horns – prompted by a load of BS on one or other of the social media groups. I GUARANTEE you that some bright spark on one of the manufacturer’s boards said “Hey folks! These dudes think that unlacquered horns give a better sound! And the best of it is that it will cost us less to make ‘em...and we can charge more for ‘em!”
I hope that clarifies my point.
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.