Saxophones Saxophone Evolution

[JayeNM]

This is my own conslusions/thoughts. They are based on articles, books, contact with guys who knows and have worked on Martin saxes and a former Martin worker (in the 50') that I had contact with in late 80's.

Where were they made?
I don't think they were made in separete buildnings . But two companies IBICO (Indiana Band Instruments Company) and Martin Band Instruments. In the 50's they were made in the same building but not at the same time. The staff was told to clear out the benks/workplaces and make ready for Indiana production. They used old tools for Indiana. The tempo was high and the quality control was less. The shouldn't so much time on each saxophone. So they did lots of Indian during a short (some weeks or months?) time. And If you see the serial charts many Indiana were made in late 50's. But It was also during thes years the big market for student saxes increased.

What was the design?
I think te early versions were just a cheaper model. Bare brass, maybe bodies and necks that were not good enough to sell as a Handcraft. I don't know if there were sopranos, or c-melody. I've seen baris. And Martin never made bass saxes for the market. Maybe some prototypes? I guess the ones with split bell keys werer based on old Handcraft saxes. I pretty sure the Indiana saxes are based on Handcraft Standard and Handcraft Special. The Committee model were a complete new construction when it reached to market in 1935. The soldered on toneholes had bevelded toneholes on HC STD and HC Special and Indiana. But never on a Committee. The neck is also different on these models. The Eb vent was never on a Committee sax. But you can never be 100% sure. I can't see any bigger changes been made on the Comittee tubes over the years, The necks became a little bit longer and the bell flair became also wider on "The Martin" (Martin never used Committee I or III as model names, just Comm II). The Martin saxes had many patents. The "polyconical bore" (was the last patent on an American saxophone 1947), the combined neck, bell to body brace, low Bb and Bb key guards .... were all us patents in 1947. Nothing you do over short period so I guess the started with this before WWII. To have a second line or student sax made out of new patents are very unlikely. So I don't think Indiana shared the same body and taper as the Committee models. Maybe some detalais that they used on Indians but nothing that changed the sound. Two things I've think a lot about. Why did Martin continued with soft soldered tenoholes on a student sax while the labor cost wnt up after WWII? What about the few Kohlert (Winnenden) saxes in the 50's that had the same type of toneholes. Also on some Keilwerth and Hohner? There was a insrument manufactor in PA, USA called "Imperial"that Martin bought up?

...did you happen see the link I provided in reply #11 ?

(And did anyone here happen to read thru that thread ? (It is long, yes) )

That was a thread begun by a person who had a some relatives/family members who worked at Martin. To me, it gives some pretty definitive answers as to the structuring of the factory(ies)....FWIW

 

[JayeNM]

The author of the offending article apparently seems to think that he knows a bit more than he does know.
Naughty, naughty!

But that doesn't mean that the whole article is rubbish.

Of course, none of us in the Café would ever suppose that we know more than we actually do. I myself am scrupulously careful never ever to venture an opinion that I have not thoroughly checked, using at least two reliable sources.

But in this case the sin is minor in my opinion. It is certainly not gaslighting, which is a deliberate psychological attempt to manipulate and control another person by undermining their self-belief.

THIS ^^^^^.

I agree 100%. Gaslighting, I don't see it, myself...as gaslighting indeed has a clear intent, and part of that intent is to deceive.

I see no clear intent here beyond the author trying to communicate some facts and some of his impressions/opinions.

Are some ersatz ? Yes . Are some astute ? Yeah, a few. Are some, while debatable, interesting ? I think so, yes.
Are some reasonable characterizations or positions ? Yes.

Like @jbt....I find many here to be over-reacting considerably.

If one thinks that the essays/reviews/articles of the majority of folks who publish things on the 'net which are sax/instrument related are purely selfless, objective products...whatever you are smokin'...I don't want any.

There are some interesting aspects to the piece, and accurate ones as well. And some which are not.
Throwing baby out with bathwater is oftentimes not a great modus operandi.

 

[Colin the Bear]

Old saxes better than new saxes? Well...nostalgia isn't what is was years ago.

 

[just saxes]

I'm dropping this. You guys may find some of the content useful to slog through. I literally can't read it.

I've dealt with too many people of this type. One of them is killing 10s of thousands of people in my country with his stupid wonkery.

If you have these types of people in your life, you have more than one. I have none. Zero tolerance for that. Don't even want to witness people tolerating it.

Rejecting & calling out narcissistic behavior where it makes sense (for each person that's different, what is a useful/unuseful moment) is more important to me than talking about saxophones. No discussions of saxophones per se has ever changed the world much in a negative way. The way we do, or don't, has the potential to, though, and does.

That guy does not love saxophones, whatever he tells himself or others. He loves attention. If he loved saxophones, his article wouldn't be such garbage. I think some may feel, through an inapt projection or something, some sympathy with that guy when I attack what I see as evil and harmful about him (and I do mean him, the person, not the article). It's not his ignorance that makes me feel obligated to get my filet knife. That is not in any way even a picadillo. It's the goal of establishing false expertise, and the narcissistic delusion. That is harmful in small ways and great every single place it appears, though whether that harm is ultimately harmful to society on the very bottom, bottom line, is another question.

I don't care what he has to say about saxophones. Neither does he.

 

[thomsax]

It's internet. And internet is full of crap. We are all, more or less, a part of it. Internet is also good because there are nowadays facts available. It's easy check up facts as well.

 

[just saxes]

It's internet. And internet is full of crap. We are all, more or less, a part of it. Internet is also good because there are nowadays facts available. It's easy check up facts as well.

On this I can agree to agree.

 

[h4yn0nnym0u5e]

From Duty Calls
(For @Pete Thomas : "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. This means you're free to copy and share these comics (but not to sell them). More details.")

 

[just saxes]

From Duty Calls
(For @Pete Thomas : "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. This means you're free to copy and share these comics (but not to sell them). More details.")

Well, OK. This seems aimed at me. But I'm doing the opposite of that. I'm answering in good faith, but I'm specifically not doing that.

And it's a different thing to read that kind of article when it relates to your profession, and the kind of things you have to deal with day to day.

Trolling is gaslighting, by the way. The most fundamental pleasure in gaslighting/trolling isn't the lying itself, it's the feeling of being rewarded through it (with the sense of having sort of dominate someone else by getting them to either agree with a falsehood, or to show submissiveness by humoring falsehoods, etc. -- the reward of getting away with it, or even being applauded/rewarded for it). It's not good, in any of its forms, ever. It just seems like it is, because that's what the internet's doing to people's personalities and brains.