Klarinet Archive - Posting 000912.txt from 1998/09

From: LeliaLoban@-----.com
Subj: [kl] aluminum Conn sax? (was The Best Clarinets)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:55:23 -0400

Duncan McRoberts <duncan@-----.com> wrote,
>You would not want an aluminium clarinet. I have a student in my Jazz Band
with an aluminium Tenor sax and it sounds horrible, almost like a toy, and
it's not him because I've heard him play on a real horn....

Chuck Trimble CPA" <trimble@-----.net> asked,
>>what is the brand of the tenor sax?>>

and Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com> asked,
>>>Really?!?!?! An aluminum saxophone? Please get the particulars -- maker,
etc. Ornette Coleman used to have a plastic one, probably one of the
reasons he sounded like Ornette Coleman.....>>>

Duncan McRoberts <duncan@-----.com> replied,
>>>>I believe it's a Conn>>>>

Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com> followed up,
>>>>>Are you SURE it isn't a satin finish silverplate and not aluminum? Conn
and others made many of these in the old days, and they can sound stuffy as
compared to most of today's models.>>>>>

After researching my three "vintage" silver-plated C. G. Conn saxes (1928
alto, 1926 tenor and 1926 bass), I'd be astonished if Conn or anyone else ever
made an aluminum sax. Therefore I'm inclined to think Bill Hausmann's theory
is right. It's easy enough to find out. Wipe the horn down with some silver
polish. If the cloth picks up black tarnish, then the sax is silver plated.
(Same goes for a metal clarinet. Black tarnish will come off of silver to
some extent even if the horn looks clean. Aluminum doesn't tarnish black.)
For a lot more information about Conn, see the articles by Margaret Downie
Banks on www.usd.edu/~mbanks. She's curator of a museum exhibit of vintage
Conns. C. G. Conn did market some strange, experimental instruments, such as
the Conn-O-Sax. Today, United Musical Instruments owns the Conn name and puts
it on student-quality horns, no longer made in Elkhart. However, no Conn
should sound like a toy, unless it's in serious need of an overhaul.

I agree with Bill Hausmann that old Conns *can* sound stuffy (old saxes are
more individualistic than new ones), but the best vintage saxes, including the
top models of Conn, Selmer, Martin, Buescher and White (King), sound mellower
and better balanced to me than new horns. I wonder if modern saxes are
constructed with more emphasis on the high partials, to compete with amplified
instruments. Guess it's a matter of taste, but to me, most of the saxes from
the mid-1960s to the present sound unpleasantly shrill. My Conns, restored as
closely as possible to original condition, sound far from "stuffy". They do
play out of tune with modern long mouthpieces, but with short, fat mouthpieces
of the same vintage as the horns, and reeds that fit properly, they sound
gorgeous, with a big, warm, dark tone. That reputation for "muffled" tone is
so pervasive that several people have told me they've heard that a bass sax
from the 1920s "can be felt more than heard." Not true! My 1926 Conn bass
booms out with so much power and resonance that after I finish practicing it,
people's voices sound like they're on helium, and any other instrument, live
or recorded, sounds tinny and weak for about 15 minutes. (I'm concerned
enough about that to look into the type of hearing protection organists use.)
Stuffy, indeed! Okay, I'll quit ranting now....

Another possibility: maybe that toy-like sax is literally a tin-horn. At yard
sales and flea markets near Washington, D. C., I sometimes see extra-flimsy
saxes made of tin or zinc, metal so thin it would dent if you looked at it
sharply, with badly worn brass plating. (I'm guessing tin or zinc because
brass doesn't bond to aluminum under average workshop conditions, but bonds
easily to tin, zinc and their alloys.) The name, on decal labels, is
"Majestic" (definitely not to be confused with the high-quality early 20th c.
Majestics), a bad joke, since these junkers weigh about half as much as a sax
ought to weigh and look about half a step up from toys. Since I've only seen
them in wrecked condition, I've never played one. These sax-shaped objects,
apparently from the 1960s and 1970s, come in thin plastic gig bags or molded
plastic cases with flocking inside as the only lining. They'd make dandy
accessories for lime green polyester leisure suits.

Those plastic saxes of the 1950s were Graftons. They sounded good as jazz
horns, but got discontinued because of poor durability. Today, a plastic
Grafton in playable condition is scarce and collectible, especially with good
provenance from a famous player. In crummy condition with no pedigree, an old
Grafton might be worth less than $100, but Paul Lindemeyer, in his 1996 book,
_Celebrating the Saxophone_ (good, useful book), reported that Charlie
Parker's plastic Grafton had recently sold for more than $200,000!

I'm not quite sure how to interpret Bill Hausmann's remark that the plastic
Grafton was "probably one of the reasons he sounded like Ornette Coleman..."
but although Coleman no longer plays a Grafton, he still does sound like
Ornette Coleman. He was a featured performer this year at a Lincoln Center
jazz festival. I think his 37-minute "Free Jazz," recorded in 1960 with the
Ornette Coleman Double Quartet, is one of the great landmarks of recorded
jazz. Eric Dolphy gives a fine performance on bass clarinet. Atlantic's 1981
remaster of the 1961 LP is available as a CD, along with a fascinating 17-
minute "First Take."

Lelia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: What's the range of a saxophone?
A: As far as you can kick it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-------------------------------------------------------------------------