Author: Mike B.
Date: 1999-09-27 16:23
Some problems associated with these type of discussions:
1. The player makes an enormous difference on the tone quality produced, regardless of setup. A bright horn for player A can just as easily be a dark horn for player B, etc.
2. Statistical variance. A sample of one (or for that matter a few) isn't enough data to make a proper decision. Ideally, a large number of horns, mouthpieces, etc. should be sampled before making any sort of judgement.
3. Manufacturing variances and design changes guarantee that any one horn can be anywhere on that theoretical bell curve. Personal anecdote: I have a Selmer SBA alto, as does my friend, both made in the same year. They play very differently from each other.
4. Subjectivity. What exactly does bright and dark really mean? I'm not too sure I would agree that harmonic content is necessarily a good metric. (Maybe it is, but where's the data to support this)?
In general, anecdotal evidence is very unreliable and should be treated as such. That's why people are constantly being advised (and rightly so), to figure this stuff out for themselves. Just try the horn, mouthpiece, etc. and see if it works for you. Similarly, given the wide variance of clarinet tone considered acceptable, just strive for what you like, especially if your income isn't dependent on the result.
As to the previous post suggesting that proper jazz technique implies a move to a more classical sound, this sounds like pure hogwash. In the saxophone arena, there is a constant drive to produce an individual tone (quite the contrary of what is typically required of classical players). Vintage horns are very in, most (not all) players prefer the sound vintage horns make. If anything, over time the sound sax players produce has become brighter and edgier, not darker (classical). As to the comments concerning musical conformity, this also sounds like hogwash. The heart of jazz is improvisation, not rigid adherence to a previous body of work. Enough said.
|
|