Old-style key layout

[Bobby G]

Following on from Jools' thread about the ebay cheapie Cavour, I have some questions about older styles of key layout.

In the thread, Jools describes a similar tenor he once had as having a very lush 30's sound, which I have to say is a sound I really like in the right context.

I have an old Dolnet alto from about the mid-40's which has what would be considered quite awkward keywork - no articulation on the l.h. pinky table, which in itself is offset and laid out at a slightly unusual angle, and an octave button rather than a key which curves around the thumbrest - but once you've been playing it for a while it feels quite comfortable once you've got used to it, and it does have that lush sound; old Martins are also often described as sounding very lush.

Is this true of other older horns with less-than-perfect ergonomics - is it a case of if the horn sounds good you can get used to any strange key layout within reason? I know quite a few people swear by these old horns so there must be something about them - the sound, as discussed elsewhere is probably determined by things like internal dimensions, and maybe tonehole placement, rather than the material used, but does the older-style key layout have a restrictive effect on the playability of the horn? Or was the 'simpler' type of playing pre-bebop due to the musical styles of the day, before the harmonic innovations and breakneck tempi of a lot of bebop tunes?

Also, I imagine the lush sound of these older horns would have come from, or been enhanced by, a mouthpiece with a larger, round chamber - is it possible to emulate or get close to that sound on a modern (narrower bore?) horn such as a Yamaha using a similar mouthpiece?

 

[jools]

OOooh you've started an ""old versus new" war again. ROFLOL.

I once played an 1890 Adolphe Sax. Almost no keywork at all, nearly impossible to play (using modern technique) but OMG the sound! sweet as cherry pie. But, I am sure you hit the nail when you suggest that horns evolved with the player's requirements. There's no way you can play double-time bop on some of those older horns. In the same way today, they've added all kinds of extra trill and altissimo keys to appeal to todays player's requirements.

 

[Bobby G]

Didn't mean to start a war Jools, I am a peaceful tolerant sort of geezer really (why can't I see your avatar btw?).

So, as I suspected, the older styles of keywork may not allow for the faster Bop stylings so easily, but this doesn't really worry me as I'm not really a speed-merchant. In general, though, would you say it's possible to get used to these older-style key layouts? In the case of my Dolnet I'd say yes, but from what I've read it seems there are many different layouts to contend with.

 

[jonf]

They're very variable. I've got two altos, and C Mel and soprano all from 1926 or earlier, as well as a modern Yanagisawa as a benchmark of modern ergonomic excellence. Buescher alto, 1925 - nice light set-up and OK layout. Can play very fast in most of the range, but palm keys need risers. Left pinky layout awkward. Conn C Mel, 1926, pretty good, nearly as easy to play as a modern sax. 1917 Conn alto - pretty slow, but that's mostly because it's knackered. 1925 Buescher sop - frankly pretty awful, palm keys far too low, left pinky keys very poor.

You do get used to them, and I try to play them all regularly, so I don't get too much of a shock by their feel. I think a large part of how you can get on with dodgy ergonomics depends on your hands. I've got big hands with long fingers. This means I can easily reach all the keys even if their placement is a bit odd. The down side is long fingers push your hands away from the palm keys.

They all have a great tone, though. So does the Yanagisawa - if anything, to my cloth ears, the best of the lot. Much the easiest to play, the fastest, etc. But expensive.

 

[jools]

The ones I've owned (Cavour and Pierret) were grusome to play. Usually little finger issues. Maybe people back then had smaller hands. *shrug* Didn't own them for long so can't comment much further. Hopefully someone else has more experience....

 

[Linky Lee]

With regard to my Martin Handcraft alto (1925), it certainly is harder to play than my 62. The main issue with the Martin is A) the thumb rest is tiny and the octave key is rounded and small so darn awkward! The bell key layout actually works really nicely as a unit, very easy to get around, but it's almost at 90 degrees to the body and isn't articulated (though I have had a bit of a mod done). You also lack a side F# and front F key. There is also the Eb trill key which I got corked up.

The actual mechanism and feel of the action though is really really good. It's responsive if slightly inaccurate, probably due to the long springs found on it. One other thing that's niggling is that the front Bis key sits very low down between the B and A keys when depressed making it almost impossible to use in a fast situation where I usually prefer it to a long Bb or side Bb.

All the older horns tend to have their mixture of awkward key bits, but I do feel that I get a really lush tone from the Martin that I just can't get from any other horn.

What I will say though, is personally for keywork modern horns win, for lush sounds old horns win. But I think to get the best of both you're looking at the Beuscher 400. Pete may back me up here but the keywork is fantastic for a vintage horn and the tone is definitely awesome. Overall probably the ultimate alto for that 'everything' role. The pinky arrangement may look odd but it works, and well.

I think the 62 isn't far off though, just thinner in tone but then maybe made up by other things such as weight, build quality etc.

 

[phil_edwards]

I've never understood this one. A year or so ago I tried some new horns as I always wondered just how bad my '36 Martin Alto was, having been told many times that old saxes are ergonomically bad... which is nice as you have a built in excuse for 'errors' :laugh:
Anyway, I couldn't feel any real diference between the Martin and a Yam, a Yani, a Mauriat, and a TJ, other than the new ones all had RH side keys higher up relative to the thumb hook, hence HARDER to reach without moving your hand out of position. So that didn't seem much of an improvment for 70-years of development.

Granted, I probably need to factor in that I've got used to the Martin, and I use palm risers on 2 of the keys, but I didn't find any ergonomic reason to change.

perhaps I'm odd...

regards, Phil

 

[thomsax]

Martins (Elkhart) are thickwalled saxes and they produce a lush.

Dolnets are also lush. I sold my Dolnets Bel Air (47xxx alto & tenor) last year and they had a really nice tone. I mounted Martin Chanu pads with brown plastic resonators. I also "opened up" the horn ... sat the keys higher than they should be. The sax sings better and more. Some lost in action - you have to give up some speed. I got this tip from a player that plays a modern Yamaha.

 

[Bobby G]

Well, I don't have a problem with opening up a horn to make it sing better as I'm not what you'd call a fast player, but isn't there an optimum height (or range from low to high) beyond which you can get intonation or tuning issues?

 

[thomsax]

The Dolnets Bel Air were designed and constructed for the standards and demands in the late 40's or early 50's. That means that a modern mouthpeace can get you a probleme on saxes like Dolnet Bel Air. The tone on my Dolnets were "closed" with my Dukoff X7/D6 when the keyhights were sat as near as original. When I opened them up the tone became more open. The horn "sings" better (louder, brighter)! Dolnets can be "lush" and "velvet-like" but also very powerful. Like a Martin! Again, it's my personal opinion!

The speedlimit on a Dolnet is the key-design/- layout!