Rain and thunder here in Sweden so I can’t sleep. Here comes my opinons about the American post WWII saxophone manufactoring. And don’t look too deep into my English. Its late or early… I don’t know what?
I think there were a lots of things that made American manufactoring less interesting for the investors. I think it was a lot about politics and money.
Selmer changed the saxophone manufactoring the day the intotrudced the Selmer SA in 1936. It was new when it came to the keyworks. It allowed the player to play faster. The sax was louder as well. There were also some other technical innovations that cut costs for manufactor and made the life of the saxtech easier. Soundwise I think the American saxes were equal or even better. King (H.N. White) made the King Zephyr Special (roughly the same sax as the Super 20), Martin made the Comm I and Comm II (searchlight), Beuscher introduced the 400 model and Conn did Artist models (Naked Lady) and 26M & 30M before USA went to war. I think all these saxes were high quality saxes?And they were also used by a large numbers of saxplayers that were heard on stages and recordings.
The music changed after WW II. Most of the big band era was over. New smaller groups made new music often with a one or two saxplayers in the bands. Louis Jordan, Jack McVea, Jimmy Liggins Orch, Tiny Grimes, Lion Hampton Orch … and the saxplayers also began to do recordings under thier own names: Jay McNeely, Red Prysock, Willis Jackson, Al Sears ….. . Most of these players were on American brands. I like these saxmen and I think they played pretty well on saxes with ”bad intonaton and ergonomics”?!?!? BTW, who established that??? It also became possible to record and play music louder. The radiostations and the DJ’s were important for the music. You listened to music outside your home. In the cars, on the cafés, arenas ….. . Loud and more uptempo was the thing!
I think there were nothing wrong with the saxes (top of the line models) and they were used by the stars of that time. The saxplayers had a big impact on the young Americans in the late 40’s and 50’s. The saxophone was the major instrumnet to early rock’n’ roll/R/B and also in the jazzfield.
After WWII life in America changed. USA and some other contries did pretty well during the war. They didn’t suffer so muched when it came to bombed out towns, lack of food …. Of course the lost of a huge number of people was bad, but they could start over again without so much work because the countries were more or less intact. America stood strong. They built cars and airplanes and they also established the American way of life; music, TV, fast food, travel around …. . The Americans became brandholders more than producers. They put in more efforts in selling thier products instead of manufactoring them. They had new manufactoring methods as well but not when it came to saxes. I’m sure the Americans were able to do a sax that could compete to Selmers but why should they? They could import Selmers (to the right price) and assemble them in Elkhart by Selmer USA. I think they earned more money this way comparing to construct and manufactory saxes. Saxophone manyfactoring is labour intensive and was (still is?) dirty work. The investors didn’t care if they were manufactoring or just selling saxes. They wanted to earn money. Beside, saxophone manufactoring was perhaps also exposed for damages caused by bad work enviroment? I think the situation is not unlike the todays outsourching to Tawain and China. In the late 40’s there were also a strike at Conn factory in Elkahart. I guess they were underpaid comparded to the car workers up in Flint, MI or airplanine buliders in Seattle or Los Angles?
The Americans did good saxes after WWII but Selmer sat the standard for how a sax should sound. And it should be easy to own as well. Selmer MKVI was better and more equal when it came to intonation and quality compared to the American saxes. The professioal saxplayers liked the Selmer MKVI beacause they fitted in most situations. The music industry had moved in to the studios and to be effecient in the studios was important to cut costs. It was expensive to be in the studios. No struggling with saxes!! The Selmer MkVI owner had a sax that cut hours at the techs as well. The were easy to work on comparing to Kings, Beuschers and Martins. It was also possible for the sessionmen to have Selmer saxes from soprano to baritone and they played in the same style. Selmer was also a company with lots innovations. Low a baritone, high F# keys …. was available. The Marchall Plan also made it possible to get good quailty saxes from Europe to the right price. Most of the Marschall plan was aid but it was also loans.
But we should keep in mind that the American saxes were good saxes even if they were in shadow of the Selmer Mk VI.
King Super 20 was/is a strong sax. The early Super 20’s was spectactular saxes. Big sound and interseting details. Even the King Super 20’s from the early 60’s to mid 70’s were very good. I think King had a collabration with SML during this era. In the 70’s the rumour says Yanagisawa did the body of the Super 20? And the late Super 20’s were ????
”The Martin” saxes, Elkhart kept on the the same construction and models to the bitter end c 67-68. Good saxes.
Beuschers also did good saxes in the 60’s.
Conn moved out from Elkhart in the early 60’s and became a big producer of student saxes.
Both Conn and Beusher kept a small production ”line” in Elkhart for special orders and they made high quality saxes there.
Now the rain and thunder is over. Back to bed.
Thomas