SECRETS OF A GREAT PAD JOB

As most of you know, I do a fair amount of design consulting for saxophone manufacturers outside of our own brands. Last week, I had a lengthy discussion with a factory owner who viewed some very small cost savings as being more important than the ultimate performance of the horn he was planning to build. At issue was the type and installation system of the pads. Saxophone pads and the process of their installation is an area that is widely ignored by saxophone manufacturers and is generally done incorrectly by most repair technicians. A very small amount of additional expense for better or more appropriate materials for padding will yield very significant performance improvements, but unfortunately, this is an area of construction and/or repair where it is very easy to cut corners and leave the instrument in such a state that it cannot reach its full playing potential. The process that I will outline in this article is equally applicable to both the manufacturing of new saxophones and the repadding of existing horns. The processes described require absolutely no exotic or specialized equipment. All that is required is a commitment to doing the very best possible job.

FIRST, ALIGN THE KEYS AND CUPS This is an absolutely crucial aspect of a pad installation, and is the area that is often neglected by manufacturers and repair technicians. Obviously, the key cups must line up with the tone holes for the pads to have any chance at all of sealing. The better the initial alignment, the better the ultimate seal will be. If you take a saxophone that has been played a bit apart and examine the pads, you will almost certainly find that some of the impression rings left by the contact of the pad and the tone hole are off center. This not only detracts from the precise “feel†of the keywork as the saxophone is played, but it also can result in other significant problems.  Off Center Pad Most saxophone manufacturers today outsource their keywork to companies which specialize in making keys. As a result, it is very common to find that when the keywork is installed, it does not perfectly line up with the tone holes. Assuming that the key posts are aligned properly (a VERY necessary first step!), then the key cups themselves can usually be adjusted by slightly bending the ribs which attach the cups to the tubes. Since the same keywork is often used for many different brands, the length or alignment of the rib may be slightly off with regard to the true center of the tone hole, and this necessary adjustment is quick and easy. It is almost invariably ignored by manufacturers and technicians alike.  Bent Key Arms to Center Cup It is also essential that the key cup be absolutely parallel with the top of the tone hole. It goes without saying, of course, that the top of the tone hole chimney must be absolutely dead flat and level. Seriously, if you don’t know how to level the tops of the chimneys, you need to learn how to say “do you want fries with that? …

SELECTING THE PADS There is no shortage of readily available pads. There is considerable variation available in type of leather, type of felt, type of backing, and an almost infinite variety of resonators styles. The vast majority of saxophone pads are made from sheepskin installed over pressed felt supported by a cardboard back. This combination has proven to work very well, but there are some options available which, although a bit more expensive, can significantly increase performance. In addition to the commonly used sheepskin, goatskin and kangaroo leather pads are sometimes used. Goatskin is extremely durable, but the leather tends to be a little grainy, causing small leaks unless carefully ironed. Goatskin is also quite hard, and some players object to the increased noise which is generated when the pad is closed. Kangaroo leather is the softest and strongest leather used for saxophone pads. Since kangaroos are marsupials, the cell structure differs from other skins, and this structure (the cells are arranged in a lattice like pattern rather than being random as in sheep and goat skin) makes the leather incredibly strong and soft, and greatly reduce the tendency of the pads to stick. Kangaroo pads do not require a treatment to waterproof them. Unfortunately, kangaroo leather is rather expensive, although the significantly increased life makes it cheaper in the long run. The felt used under the leather is either pressed (the fibers are arranged in a random fashion) or woven like any other cloth. Woven felt, although more expensive, tends to be much more stable, shrinks less, and takes more precise cuts at the edges. There are quite a few other ways to improve pad performance, all directed at either increasing dimensional stability (pad shrinkage over time is a problem) or increasing air tightness. The felt can be made much more stable and shrink resistant by spraying it with epoxy (although too much epoxy makes it excessively hard) or a firmer back can be used to force the pad to hold it shape. Coating the backside of the leather with vinyl gives a flexible, air tight seal. Adding an additional layer of leather or other material such as brass foil or Mylar will also help pneumatically seal the pad. Of course, all of these techniques must be employed as the pad is being manufactured. The question often arises as to why synthetic pads have not seen any significant usage among manufacturers. To my knowledge, only the Selmer USA made Bundy and the German Codera are the only horns ever to offer synthetic pads to buyers, and both were significant failures. The Bundy, which had neoprene pads mounted on springs suffered from the combination of a really stupid design (I’m sorry, there’s just no other way to put it!) and extraordinarily poor build quality. The Codera was just too radical for most buyers.

FITTING THE PADS Getting a perfect fit between the pad and the key cup is absolutely essential. If the pad is too small for the cup, the edges will droop and fail to seal. If the pad is too large, the edges will bulge unevenly, causing leaks. If the pad selected is too thick for the key cup, it will hit on the back of the tone hole before the front seals completely. If the pad selected is too thin, the front will hit first and the back will not close tightly. Contrary to what most manufacturers will tell you, the key cups themselves are almost never stamped exactly to specification. A little variation can make a huge difference, and for this reason I always suggest that saxophone manufacturers provide the pad maker they select with an actual set of key cups so that the pads can be made to fit perfectly. Unfortunately, very few of them take this advice, and if you will examine the pad fit in most new saxophones, you will easily see it is generally less than perfect. If you’re having your present saxophone re-padded, you must insist that the technician “dry fit†the pads to be certain of a perfect fit. Should the technician insist that “I have a chart that gives all of the pad sizes for your hornâ€, merely smile, close your case, and run for the door as fast as you can. Individual horns vary during a production run, and the pads must fit YOUR horn! Any shop in the business of repadding saxophones should also stock any reasonably needed pads in half millimeter size increments. If you don’t keep all of the sizes on hand, you simply can’t do a proper job of dry fitting.

SELECTING AND INSTALLING THE RESONATORS You could spend the rest of your life getting opinions on resonators, and a lot of that discussion is beyond the scope of this article. Here are a few points on which I think there is probably close to universal agreement: (1) steel resonators usually rust out before the pad leather expires (2) aluminum resonators react with the hydrochloric acid in saliva and corrode (3) the screw or rivet used to install the resonator must be made from the same metal or the metals may react (4) if the resonator is installed with screws it can be reused when the horn is repadded. If it is installed with rivets, the resonator cannot be reused. Sizing the resonators is an area where most manufacturers and repair shops completely fail. Both groups tend to take “the easy way out†and use pads that have the resonators pre-attached. This makes it extremely difficult to size the resonators correctly for each tone hole! For maximum acoustic efficiency and dynamic range, the amount of resonating surface must be maximized and the amount of exposed pad leather (which acts as a sponge and absorbs the energy of the sound wave) minimized. Larger resonators do NOT add brightness: they merely allow the horn to operate a maximum efficiency.  “Too Much Is Always Better Than Not Enough†A few manufacturers, although not many, actually pay attention to these easy to verify principles, but most repair shops do not. If the shop you are considering for your repad used pads with pre-attached resonators, simply smile, close your case, and head for the door as quickly as possible. I’m not aware of any manufacturer that currently offers buys a choice of pad and resonator styles. Many years ago, Narita (owner of the Unison brand) did offer some choices, but found that this required stocking a larger variety of inventory in order to satisfy customer orders. This option simply failed to generate the expected additional sales and was discontinued. I was Chief Designer for the company at the time, and we were very disappointed that customers didn’t take advantage of the choices we offered.

INSTALLING THE PADS If the planets are all in proper alignment, then the pads (with properly sized resonators installed) should slip tightly into the key cups and should seal over the tone holes somewhat tightly with minimal adjustment. Most manufacturers have figured out that a very thin layer of adhesive (preferably genuine shellac) is best, provided that it coats the entire key cup, including the edges. A few makers of very low priced horns continue to use hot glue, which is impossible to distribute thinly and evenly. Many repair shops, unfortunately, use FAR too much adhesive, with the intent of “floating†the pad into it’s perfect position. Of course, if they had everything properly aligned, floating just wouldn’t be necessary, now would it? The amount of shellac should be just enough to completely cover the interior of the key cup with the thinnest possible but very even layer, and no more. The purpose of the adhesive is to hold the pad in place, not to compensate for failure to align the mechanism!  FAR too much shellac! Manufacturers have the great advantage of dealing with the instrument while it is (hopefully) at the original specification. The mechanism is most likely properly aligned and should need minimal adjustment. The adjustments that are necessary are almost always done by slight bending of the keys, either with the fingers of a technician or with very light taps of a small plastic headed hammer. Occasionally, wedges or special levers may be used to manipulate the keys  Key Adjusting Tools When repair shops replace saxophone pads, the final small adjustments are often made by allowing the pad to “float†on a layer of melted shellac until it finds equilibrium. This technique is almost never used by manufacturers. The adjustment made by floating should always be extremely small. If a large adjustment is necessary, the keywork is improperly aligned.

FINISHING THE JOB If the mechanism is correctly aligned, the pads should be pretty much leak free. Most of the top of the line factories adjust the compound mechanisms to seal “metal to metal†and add only a very thin layer of material (usually woven felt) to silence the mechanism. The thickness of the material should roughly equal the depth of the seating ring in the pad. The use of thick layers of material to quiet the keywork is asking for trouble over time, as the material will invariably compress with usage over time, resulting in leaks. Under no circumstances should the silencing material be used to regulate the compound keys. The final touch used by the better manufacturers is to seal all of the pads with wooden wedges and apply steam to “set†the seat in the pad. At this point, the horn should completely seal by gravity alone: if you disconnect the springs and allow the keys to naturally fall to the tops of the tone holes, they should seal. If they don’t., further adjustment is necessary. A good pad job is a thing of great beauty to a saxophonist. There’s really no excuse for anything short of perfection, and the cost differential between an average job and a great job is really quite low.

Could You Just Add Another Key To Make It Do…….? The Evolution of Saxophone Keywork

Nobody is exactly certain when Adolphe Sax produced the first example of the instrument which bears his name. The patents were granted in 1846, and an article written by Sax’s close friend, Hector Berlioz, in 1842 describes the instrument in great detail for “Journal Des Debatsâ€, a Paris magazine. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that Sax had working examples of the saxophone that he was showing to friends and potential customers as early as 1840, and this date is generally accepted as the official “birthday†of the saxophone. What we don’t know much about is the evolution of the keywork and mechanism.

In 1842, Sax moved to Paris, then considered the musical center of the world, in order to promote his new instrument. The saxophone apparently had achieved a degree of standardization by 1844, or at least enough for Hector Berlioz to include a dedicated saxophone part in his choral composition Chant Sacre. 1844 also marked the introduction of the instrument to the general public through its inclusion in the Paris Industrial Exhibition. By 1845, Sax was rewriting military band arrangements with the oboe, bassoon, and French horn parts all replaced by saxophones keyed in both Bb and Eb. Sax believed that by replacing these instruments with saxophones, the military bands would achieve a more “homogenous†sound. On February 14, 1847, a saxophone school was created in Paris. The school was set up at a military band school known as Gymnase Musical. The saxophone continued to gain acceptance, and in 1858, Adolphe Sax himself was appointed Professor of Saxophone at the Paris Conservatory. All of the instruments were, of course, constructed by Sax himself, and there was almost no variation in the keywork or mechanism. The horns were keyed from low B to high Eb, but very significantly, Sax taught his students that the saxophone had a four octave range! The instruments Sax (the only source) produced used double octave keys, and lacked many of the features commonly found on saxophones today, such as an articulated G#, a forked F#, the “one and one†Bb, the front F key, and other improvements that found their way onto later versions of the saxophone.

The first patent issued to Sax reached the end of its twenty year life in 1866, and almost immediately, other companies began producing saxophones and making improvements. One of the earliest improvements, which soon found universal acceptance on all saxophones, was the introduction by the Millereau Company of a “forked†F#, which greatly facilitated the production of that note while retaining the basic playing position for the three “main†fingers of the right hand. While not technically a keywork or mechanism improvement, in 1868, Gautrot, Pierre, Louis, and Company introduced a system that kept the surface of the pads flat in order to provide a better seal.

Prior to this time, saxophone pads were of “purse†style construction, with a leather bag of appropriate size for the key cup filled with sawdust and stitched shut. These early pads were far too soft and their pneumatic qualities were sorely lacking, and the new system of Gautrot, Pierre, Louis, and Company was a giant leap forward toward solving a serious problem. Pads would go through many evolutionary stages and false starts before we obtained the product in common use today. In 1881, Adolphe Sax filed another series of patent documents with improvements to the saxophone that he hoped would give him an edge over the rapidly expanding number of competitors.

In addition to renewing his original patents, Sax’s 1881 patent called for an extension of the saxophone bell to allow keywork down to written low Bb, and for the extension of keywork up the body tube to allow the production of high F# and high G. The extension of the range of the saxophone unfortunately required the addition of two more octave keys in order to produce these notes reliably, bringing the total of octave key touches to be operated by the left thumb to four! The Association Des Ouvriers brought us closer to the modern configuration of the saxophone in 1886 with the introduction of the right hand chromatic C key (up until then it was sorta hard to trill from B to C!) and the “one and one†Bb system for the first fingers of the right and left hands. In 1887, Des Ouvriers produced a somewhat functional articulated G# key, and their system was significantly improved by Evette and Schaeffer so that the G# key can be held down automatically while any finger of the left hand is used. In conjunction with this improvement, Evette and Schaeffer perfected the forked F# system to the form which is still in use today.

The multiple octave keys found on the early saxophones, although an acoustic necessity, was a great impediment to smooth execution. This situation was finally resolved in 1888 with the invention of the automatic octave key by Lecomte. This mechanism, which is basically the one most saxophones use today, uses two separate octave vents, one on the neck (for notes A2 – F3) and one on the body (for notes Db2 – Ab2) controlled by a single key touch.

Simultaneously, Lecomte also resolved another great technique issue with the introduction of the first ever rollers on the low Eb and low C keys. Through out the history of the saxophone, instrument designers have frequently offered changes in the mechanism in the hope of facilitating technically difficult passages. In addition to the improvements previously cited in this article, a variety of different solutions have been attempted, the vast majority of which ultimately fell from favor. These include the G# trill key; the “forked†Eb key; and the high C/D trill key.

In 1899, Paul Evette introduced a new key mechanism that was truly a “game changerâ€: the front F key. Not only did this mechanism allow the player to easily execute the two highest notes on the saxophones of that era, it greatly facilitated the players ability to execute arpeggios between high C and either high E or high F. This key would later become an integral part of the performance of the altissimo register, which was most uncommon at the time.

Throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s, saxophone manufacturers continued to offer instruments with a range which extended beyond the normal low Bb through high F. The extension of the range to low A found acceptance by baritone players but was rejected by tenor and alto players, who believed that the necessary extension of the bell added far too much additional weight which upset the balance of the instrument in its normal playing position. During the 1960’s, the Selmer company attempted to resurrect this concept by offering a low A version of their popular Mark VI alto saxophone. Production ceased after less than two hundred examples were built, in spite of the excellent playing characteristics of the instrument. The players of the day judged the instrument to be simply “too differentâ€.

Adolphe Sax himself had pioneered the extension of the saxophones range through his 1881 patent, which described keywork for high F# and high G. The high F# key became an option for several manufacturers during the 1930’s, and by the 1950’s it was commonly seen as an addition (at extra expense to the buyer) on Selmer saxophones. In 1977, Selmer made this key standard on Mark VII alto and tenor saxophones. It is now seen on virtually all saxophones manufactured today. It is worth noting that there is a mistaken belief among some players that the high F# key causes response problems, particularly on the notes low B and Bb. This myth has become so pervasive that some manufacturers now offer a “high F# key delete†option as a special order on their saxophones.

Acceptance of the high G key, which was also advocated by Adolphe Sax in his 1881 patent was slower, and until around 2005 was confined mainly to soprano saxophones. The lack of a high G option being offered by most manufacturers is easily explained by the fact that the required location of the high G tone hole required that the body tube be lengthened slightly and the neck being shortened proportionally, necessitating new and different tooling. I was involved in the design and manufacturing of saxophones with a high G key, and we made the decision to include the high G key as standard equipment, thus eliminating the need for different tooling for versions “with†and versions “withoutâ€.

Of course, not all the mechanism changes seen during the evolution of the saxophone were intended to resolve fingering issues. From the very beginning, it was recognized that the upper register of the saxophone was problematic with regard to both pitch and response. This is easily explained by the fact that the notes above C#2 are all overtones, which are produced by having the octave mechanism destroy the fundamental pitch and allow the first overtone to become dominant. The problem that has always existed is that there are twelve semitones in the chromatic scale and for optimum results, twelve independent vents would be required. Needless to say, this would be a mechanical nightmare, and twelve individual key touches would never be easily manipulated by mere mortals! The very first saxophones had two independent octave keys which were operated by the left thumb. Each key controlled a limited range of notes, and since only two vents were used where twelve would be required, the position of the vents had to be compromised. Adolphe Sax recognized this problem early on, and his patent of 1881 sought to resolve the problem through the addition of two additional octave keys, bringing the total to four. Keep in mind that each of these keys was independent, so the required finger technique became increasingly complex. With the adoption of the automatic octave key invented by Lecomte in 1888 with its very convenient single key touch, saxophone manufacturers reverted to two vents, and any increase in that number was very rarely seen until the late 1930’s, when the C. G. Conn company introduced the very radical model 28M “Constellation†alto, which was designed by Santy Runyon. The 28M broke a considerable amount of new ground in many areas, including keywork geometry, construction materials, and the first ever “mass produced†three vent octave system controlled by a single key touch. The octave mechanism was the key feature promoted in the advertising for this model, which promised an end to the notoriously stuffy fourth line D. There were two vents on the body tube which worked in conjunction with each other, and another vent located on the neck which opened when the body vents were closed. The system worked remarkably well, but the 28M was not a success simply because many features that it offered were simply too radical for the times. When I was a student of Santy Runyon in the 1990’s, we discussed the 28M in great detail. Santy told me that the lack of acceptance of the many innovations on this instrument was one of the very greatest disappointments of his long career. I was shocked to learn that Santy did not own an example of the 28M, and that he told me he had not seen one in almost fifty years. I was extremely pleased and honored to be able to present Santy with a 28M from my personal saxophone collection (I owned two) and to have him demonstrate the many capabilities of this unique design.Similar multi-vent systems were used in the 1930’s by Allen Loomis for the C. G Conn Company and by Edward Powell. Neither of these was commercially successful.

Since the tuning and voicing problems with the saxophone get worse as pitch increases, several similar systems have been employed with varying degrees of success in an attempt to tame the troublesome left hand upper register. Beginning in the 1920’s, a mechanical connection was made between the octave key mechanism and the C pad (the small one) of the upper stack. When the octave key was depressed, the mechanism would partially close the C pad, which would lower the pitch of the note. The use of this type of compensating mechanism allowed designers to change the location and increase the diameter of the palm keys (D3 – F3) and reduce some on the thin and shrill tone that had been associated with those notes, as well as to bring them more into tune. This system is commonly seen on soprano saxophones, and during the 1920’s was employed by Martin on some alto models. It later evolved into the “doughnut†pad commonly seen today, which is often used in conjunction with a pronounced “step†in the body tube diameter. As an alternative to lowering the C pad, some manufacturers (most notably Selmer on the Series III alto and Saxgourmet on the Voodoo Rex alto) employ an entirely different tone hole dedicated to providing the necessary pitch and voicing adjustments. This mechanism is of necessity much more complex, but is adjustable to a far greater degree. Yet another option for resolving this issue is the inclusion of a “speaker key†which is a part of the upper stack B key mechanism, and has its own unique and dedicated tone hole. This system has the advantage of requiring no additional springs or moving parts, and if properly designed allows greater venting for the upper notes, substantially improving voicing and pitch.

When Adolphe Sax was instructing his students at the Paris Conservatory, he taught that the saxophone had a four octave range, even though the instrument was only keyed to F above the staff. The higher tones were achieved through the use of cross vented fingerings and the manipulation of the players oral cavity. Then, as now, the study of the altissimo range was a lengthy, difficult, and often extremely frustrating. Until Sigurd Rascher published Top Tones for the Saxophone in 1941, there was virtually no teaching or study material available on the subject. The altissimo register was very rarely heard because very, very few players were capable of producing it. There were certainly no attempts to produce an “altissimo friendly†saxophone. In 1949, Earl Gillespie, then employed as a designer for the Martin Company, proposed a system in which a hollow tube was installed in the B key on the upper stack (a similar vent is found on the corresponding location on the bass clarinet) and used in conjunction with a very specific bore taper configuration. Gillespie’s patent application states that “Any saxophone completely embodying the principles of this invention will have a natural range of 41 consecutive chromatic semi-tones extending from B in the great octave to d in the four line octave inclusive†and provides a fingering chart for these notes. Gillespie contended that the vent tube produced sympathetic vibrations which eased the production of the upper tones. I can find no record that this instrument was ever actually produced. During the 1990’s, the Selmer Company began producing an optional mechanism for the Super Action 80 Series II alto which had a dedicated key operated by the left thumb which stabilized the note G3 when it was produced by opening the front F key only. This system worked quite well, but I always considered it to be quite an extravagance to have such an elaborate mechanism dedicated to the improvement of one note only. Beginning in 2005, my company designed and produced a saxophone with four octave vents, including a separate “dedicated altissimo†octave mechanism. This instrument is still in production, and we have continued our research in this area. In late 2014, we expect to introduce a popular priced saxophone with a dedicated altissimo mechanism. The quest for the perfect saxophone mechanism continues, and hopefully the future holds many improvements which will facilitate the enjoyment and usage of the instrument we all know and love!

The Manufacturing History of Conn and King

For the next couple of issues, I would like to divert the discussion of saxophone design to a review of the manufacturing history of a few prominent American makers. Tracing their evolution and contributions gives us a good perspective on how saxophones evolved, and I believe it is well worth noting some of their experiements and giving due consideration to revising and utilizing some of their ideas. We will begin our trip down saxophone Memory Lane with a look at two of the giants of the past, Conn and King, both of whom are sadly no longer making saxophones.
C. G. CONN For over one hundred years, the name Conn has meant the very finest in American-made saxophones.  The legendary models of the earlier part of the twentieth century are among the most prized and sought after among collectors and performers alike. As a tribute to the quality of construction and design, vintage Conn saxophones are often seen today in the hands of top professionals as the “instrument of choiceâ€, and many of the innovations first pioneered by the Conn company are found on instruments produced today by manufacturers around the world.

The very first saxophone built in the United States was built at the Conn plant in Elkhart, Indiana, in 1889 for E. A. Lefebre, a saxophone virtuoso who had risen to international fame as a soloist with the famous  Sousa and Gilmore bands of that era. Mr. Lefebre was also a personal friend of none other than Adolphe  Sax, the inventor of the saxophone, and had previously used instruments supplied to him by Sax himself. The original Conn saxophone was actually constructed by Ferdinand “Gus†Buescher, who was foreman at the Conn factory and who was employed by Conn from 1875 until 1895, at which time he established an instrument manufacturing company bearing his name.  The instrument that Buescher built for Lefebre was essentially a copy of an Adolphe Sax horn, and Lefebre was eventually persuaded to join the Conn company, where he was employed in the saxophone department from 1895 until 1906. Conn exhibited alto and tenor models at the 1893 World’s  Columbia Exhibition under the model name “Wonderâ€, and in 1894 advertised  a line of “Improved System†saxophones which included straight soprano, alto, tenor, and baritone models. These instruments were available in silver plate with gold plated keys; nickel plate; and polished brass. C. G. Conn, the founder and owner of the company, was elected to the United States Congress in 1892,  and introduced a bill which required that every United States Army regiment have its own band, and specified the instrumentation for the musical unit.  As a result, military orders for Conn instruments boomed, and in May, 1900, 150 Conn  “Wonder†saxophones were delivered to the Army, and were received at the Schuylkill Arsenal by Louis Seel.

During this era, Conn began trade-marking names that designated various models. These included Wonder (February 1, 1891); New Wonder (May 1, 1917); Pan American (January 29, 1918); American First (February 5, 1918); C. G. Conn (April 2, 1918); and Victor New Wonder (October 15, 1918). In 1911, Conn advertised a family of saxophones that included a curved soprano (which replaced the previous straight model);  a C Melody;  and a  bass, in addition to the standard alto, tenor, and baritone models. The ad mentioned an automatic octave key (actually introduced some time earlier) and a forked E flat mechanism. Only the alto and tenor models were keyed to high F, the rest of the line was limited to high E flat. A 1915 advertisement references an “improved†octave mechanism; a front F key;  a G sharp trill key;  a lengthened G sharp key, and a revised arrangement of the left hand pinky table. The 1915 horns were referred to as “New Invention†models, and were awarded the Medal of Honor; a gold medal; a silver medal; and a bronze medal at the Panama-Pacific Exhibition held in San Francisco. In an effort to increase international sales during this period, Conn offered saxophones in both Low Pitch (A=440), and in High Pitch (A=457). By 1916, Conn was advertising that “the saxophone department has been quadrupled in sizeâ€, and the 1918 catalog references the introduction of a straight soprano in E flat and a straight soprano in C. This catalog also makes mention of the Conn Microtuner and the Conn Resopad, both hailed as significant advances. These horns are referred to by Conn as “New Wonder†models, Conn saxophones of this era were seen with both soldered and drawn tone holes. The drawn tone holes are referenced by a patent engraved on the body tube (1,119,954  December  8, 1914) which was actually held by William S. Haynes, the flutemaker, and licensed  to Conn. Rolled tone holes were introduced around 1920, although straight tone holes were often found for a few more years. The 1922 catalog saw the re-introduction of the straight B flat soprano and the Conn Vacuum pad, which was designed to be installed without adhesives.  The straight neck C Melody also made its debut in this year.

During this period, Conn saxophones were often seen with spectacular engravings, and considerable experimentation was carried out in manufacturing techniques and design improvements. Conn was unique among American manufacturers in that a full time laboratory with a staff of six was maintained to pursue design improvements. The Conn design laboratory employed several designers, principally Allen Loomis; Hugh Loney; Paul Hardy; Russell Kerr; Edward Gulick; and Leland Greenleaf.  The legendary Santy Runyon also consulted with Conn on design matters. Loomis was known for his innovative, often bizzare, designs, many of which were never considered practical enough to enter production. Gulick might best be remembered for his design of the locking pivot screw, a device which has frustrated repairmen for years Conn saxophones in the late 1920’s were essentially an evolution of the earlier models.  There were, of course, improvements in keywork (the cross-hatched G sharp key of 1925, for example), and a redesigned straight soprano in 1928. The Conn instruments were considered the standard of excellence of the period, and a total redesign was not needed. Custom engraving and various finishes were offered, and these are among the most beautiful saxophones ever constructed. A surprising lapse of judgment was exhibited by Conn in 1928, with the introduction of the F Mezzo Soprano. Although the instrument had several unique features (left mounted bell keys, for example), there was simply no demand for a saxophone keyed in F, and the vast majority of these instruments went unsold. Many, in fact, were later used in the Conn Repair School to train technicians.  The F Mezzo was quickly followed by the Conn-O-Sax, also keyed in F, but with an extended range from written low A to high G. This strange instrument was quickly rejected in the marketplace, and both it and the F Mezzo were no longer offered by the factory after 1930. In 1931, a new alto was introduced which set the saxophone world on its ear! The totally new design carried over some of the great features of the past such as rolled tone holes; Resopads; Microtuners; and adjustable pivot screws; and added an entirely new mechanism which was far superior to anything seen before. The neck gained a tenon skirt to assist in sealing and aid in the elimination of the “buzzy Aâ€; the octave key was moved to the underside of the neck to protect it from damage; the low C sharp, B, and B flat keys now opened the G sharp pad; and the high E key gained a curve.  A swivel thumbrest was added and most keys were repositioned to give the most direct mechanical action.  Most, but not all, of these features soon found their way to the tenor.

The line continued to evolve, and the baritone and bass models were soon offered keyed to high F. Conn raised the bar again in 1938 with the introduction of the Connqueror seies alto and tenor.  These instruments used the wonderfully complex but efficient Permadjust action, developed by Hugh Loney. This system solved the age old problem of cork compression and key height adjustment. The left hand pinky table was moved to a more comfortable position, and the mechanism was much improved.  Key touches were inlaid with silver, and special engraving was added. These are perhaps the greatest of the Conn saxophones. Following World War II, Conn again established itself as the leader in innovation with the Santy Runyon designed Connstellation alto. This instrument used three octave pips to even intonation and voicing; a unique mechanism unsurpassed to this day for lightness and precision; ergonomic placement of the keywork; and an ill conceived plastic keyguard.  While not a success in the marketplace, the Connstellation is still highly regarded by saxophone designers and collectors. Conn put greater emphasis on student line instruments to take advantage of the post World War II baby boom market, and paid less attention to the professional market which was increasingly dominated by other makers from outside the United States. The saxophones lost their rolled tone holes in 1948; and their Microtuners in 1954. The professional models gained nickel plated keywork in 1955, along with clear lacquer. The tenor neck was changed significantly in the late 1950’s to an underslung design, but  by then it was too late.

In 1960, Conn acquired the Best Manufacturing Company of Nogales, Arizona, and moved most saxophone production there, although the “artist†models continued to be produced in Elkhart. The company has undergone several changes in ownership, and discontinued professional models in 1970. The Conn company was later merged with Selmer USA, forming Conn-Selmer, and has discontinued saxophone production.

H.N. WHITE “KING†I love King saxes. They are not without their quirks and faults, but there is just that indefinable something about the sound of a King at full song that gets my blood pressure up and my hair standing on end.  In recent years, these horns have developed a cult following, and I consider some of the models to be seriously undervalued. The King horns were produced by the H. N. White Company, which was founded by Henderson N. White in 1893. Mr. White had been a repairman in Detroit, Michigan and later moved to Cleveland, Ohio to head the repair department at McMillin’s Music Store.  He later former a partnership with C. H. Berg, and in 1893, bought Mr. Berg out and became the sole owner of the H. N. White Company. In 1903, he was joined by his brother, Hugh White, and in 1924, by his son, Richard White.  Following the death of Henderson White in 1940, his wife took over operation of the company and ran it successfully for many years.

The first saxophones  distributed by the company were Buffet horns which were imported from 1908 – 1910.  From 1910 until 1916, the company distributed Kohlert saxophones.  In 1915, work began on the design of a King saxophone, and this model (an alto) was introduced in 1916. King secured a government contract, and the entire saxophone production from 1916 –1918 was sold to the U. S. Army. In June, 1919, a tenor and a C melody were added to the line. All three of these horns had, in addition to the forked E flat mechanism and G sharp trill key in vogue at the time, the unique “open†G sharp pad. I’ve always considered this system to be a great idea, and have often wondered why it was not adopted by other makers.  This system involves using a double set of pads actuated by the G key, one corresponding to the note G, the other to the note G sharp.  This has two benefits: the player can leave the right hand keys depressed while using the left hand mechanism (think of a D arpeggio), and the intonation of the problematic note A is vastly improved. These horns were available in bare brass, silver plate, silver plate with gold keywork, and gold plate. In 1922, a curved soprano, a baritone, and a C soprano were added to the line. In 1924, King revamped their saxophone lines with the introduction of the New Series horns. These instruments continued many of the features of the previous King instruments, such as braised rather than drawn tone holes, and featured a front F key, a wider G sharp key, and an improved octave key. This mechanism, designed for King by Henry Dreves (US Patent 1549911, granted August 18, 1925) was an attempt to eliminate the hissing that often occurs  between high G and high A.  In this system, the tube of the neck octave pip was slanted, and the point of pad contact was rounded to better seal against a pad with a concave surface. Additional engraving, hand burnished gold finishes, and nickel plating also became available. Some of the engraving found on King horns of this era is spectacular!

The famous King Saxello was introduced in September, 1924, in an attempt to address problems associated with the straight and curved soprano horns of the time.  In his patent application (U.S. Patent 1549101, granted November 2, 1926), Henry Dreves describes the curved soprano as being problematic in the bow area and uncomfortable to play. He further states that the straight soprano is acoustically superior, but is also uncomfortable in its playing position.  His solution was a curved neck and a bell tipped at a right angle on a straight soprano. No tone holes were present on the bell, and only the upper octave pip was present on the neck.  The instrument could be played on a neckstrap, rested on the players leg, or with an optional (and very rare!) V shaped stand.

King revamped the line again in 1930, and claimed twenty-two improvements over its previous models.  These changes were mostly different tonehole locations on the lower stack, and the resizing of other toneholes and movement of the octave pip to accommodate the new King designed mouthpiece, which featured a larger tone chamber.  This model was called the Voll-True, and can be quite difficult to play with accurate intonation if a small chamber mouthpiece is used. In 1932, new alto and tenor models were introduced, known as Voll-True II horns.  These are very nice instruments, with right hand mounted bell keys, larger palm keys, adjusting screws for some key heights, the elimination of felt bumpers, a clothing guard, a floating octave key cup, and an ill-conceived mechanism which eliminated the high E key.  The alto made its debut in October, 1932, and was followed by the tenor in December. A baritone was  shown in July, 1933. In 1935, the Voll-True II was essentially renamed the Zephyr. These horns appear to be the same, and even had the same catalog number. Fortunately, King had the wisdom to abandon the high E mechanism of the Voll-True II  and use a conventional three key layout for the chromatic B flat, chromatic C, and high E.

Sometime around 1940, the Zephyr horns acquired the “socket neckâ€, which was intended to reduce leakage at the joint between the neck and body. These are really great horns, among the very finest of the era, with an unusually full voice. King took the Zephyr theme a step further in 1939 with the Zephyr Special. These horns had solid silver necks, engraving on some of the keywork, and a different bore. Mother of pearl touches were also added to the palm keys and side keys.  It is my understanding that they were also available with a sterling silver bell, although I have never seen one. After World War II, King introduced the legendary Super 20. The early examples were essentially Zephyr Specials with more elaborate engraving, but with a different neck. This neck, designed by Fred Meyer (U.S. Patent 2533389 granted December 12, 1950) was intended to provide more positive sealing and a lighter action, and became the trademark of the Super 20.

The initial run of Super 20’s had the three ring strap hook of the Zephyr Special, and mother of pearl key touches.  The left hand pinky cluster was changed around serial number 300,000 and the sterling silver neck became an option around serial number 340,000. The mother of pearl touches were discontinued, but a Super 20 baritone was made available. A silver neck was standard on the baritone, and I’ve seen one with a sterling silver bell. The socket neck was deleted around 390,000 and at 426,000 the production was moved from Cleveland to a new facility at Eastlake, Ohio. The underslung octave mechanism was discontinued, and these horns are generally considered to be of lesser quality and not as desirable. King was losing money on every Super 20 produced, and the line was discontinued in 1975. However, there are reliable reports of Super 20 horns with high serial numbers indicating later production dates. I can only assume that these instruments were produced from left over parts inventories.

From 1960 until the mid 1980’s, King imported the Marigaux line of saxophones from SML in France. These horns were SML Gold Medal models (no rolled tone holes) and were marketed to the classical community. They were engraved with the King logo, and later examples were fitted with a high F sharp key. They are SML’s in all but name, and there’s nothing wrong with that!

In 1995, King excited the saxophone world with the Super 21, which was exhibited at various trade shows. About a dozen of these horns were made (under the direction of Canadian repairman John Wier), and it was decided not proceed with further development or production. These horns were advertised as a natural evolution of the Super 20, but the economics just were not there. The fact of the matter is that these horns were in fact little more than standard altos manufactured by Kings sister company, Armstrong, with different cosmetic touches to make them appear as though they were new models. Several unsuspecting collectors have paid hefty premiums for what are in reality little more than student horns. Like the Conn company, the King brand was later acquired by Conn-Selmer and saxophone production was discontinued.

SAXOPHONE EVOLUTION: IT JUST GETS BETTER AS WE GO ALONG!

I often hear it said that the very first saxophones, the ones actually made by Adolphe Sax himself, are very similar to the ones we use today. Well, I think the word “similar†is very appropriate. The early saxophones are in many ways like modern instrument, but they are also quite different in many ways. If you can play a modern saxophone, you can certainly play an early one, but you will be surprised at the differences. Over my career, I’ve been fortunate enough to play a half dozen examples of instruments made by Adolphe Sax. They were in various states of repair and restoration (all being, of course, over a hundred and fifty years old), but the well maintained ones actually played quite well. They all showed an extremely pronounced favoritism for large chambered mouthpieces, and the scale was somewhat inconsistent. That being said, the biggest hurdle I found was the mechanism, and this is where much of the evolution has taken place over the years. It’a probably best that we take a brief look at the beginnings of the saxophone, as the origins certainly had a major influence on the direction the evolution of the instrument took over the years.

Nobody really knows when Adolphe Sax built the very first saxophone. We do have a reliable report from composer Hector Berlioz, who was a close friend of Sax, of a bass saxophone in the key of C which was demonstrated to him in 1840. Sax was still living in Brussels at the time, and moved to Paris and showed his new invention at the Paris Industrial Exhibition in 1844. Sax filed for a patent in 1846 for an entire family of saxophones, including a sopranino in Eb, a sopranino in F, a soprano in Bb, a soprano in C, an alto in Eb, an alto in F, a tenor in Bb, a tenor in C, an Eb baritone, a Bb bass, a C bass, an Eb contrabass, and contrabass in F. It is worth pointing out that just because a patent drawing was filed does not mean that the instrument was actually built! An important part of the early design concept was that instruments for orchestral use were to be keyed in C and F, while instruments for military bands (a very significant market at the time) were to be keyed in Bb and Eb. Another important part of the original design concept were that by using a conical bore rather than a cylindrical bore, the saxophone would overblow an octave rather than the twelfth produced by an overblown clarinet. This allows the same fingerings to be used in two octaves. The early saxophones had two, and later three, separate octave keys to facilitate going from the lower octave (the fundamental) to the second octave (the first overtone). Needless to say, a very significant amount of coordination and agility was required of the player’s left thumb! The early saxophones were keyed from low B to high F. The basic layout of the main stack keys was based on oboe and second octave clarinet keywork, and is essentially the same system that is in use today.

There were some significant differences from modern saxophones, and these differences created some fairly significant limitations. The note Bb required the use of a “side key†operated by the right hand (no “one and one†or bis), and the G# key could not be held down when playing notes using the lower stack. There were no chromatic keys for F# or C, and there were no rollers on any of the key touches. More than anything else, the keywork did not operate nearly as smoothly as that found on modern saxophones. It is important to keep in mind that several of the earliest saxophones were bass or baritone horns, so the larger keywork made the problems worse. It was felt by composers of the time that saxophones would be forever limited in their ability to execute technically difficult passages such as arpeggios, so the early examples were often relegated to the “bass section†where rapid technique was rarely required.

It is believed that this prejudice by composers of the day spurned Adolphe Sax to produce more altos, tenors, and sopranos, which would be easier to play due to their smaller size. In 1846, the first saxophone school opens, with bassoonist Jean-Francois-Barthelemy-Cokken as the instructor. At the same time, the French military decided to change the basic pitch of their instruments, requiring the replacement of much of the existing inventory, creating a substantial business opportunity for Adolphe Sax. The manufacturing techniques of Adolphe Sax at his facility at Rue St. George in Paris (actually little more than a shed at first) were unique for their day in that Adolphe Sax insisted on overseeing the workmen producing each component rather than having the parts produced by outside craftsmen and then assembled at his facility. This may have been a contributing factor to the first bankruptcy of Adolphe Sax in 1856.

In spite of this financial setback, Adolphe Sax continued to manufacture and promote the saxophone, and in 1858 he was appointed Professor of Saxophone at the Paris Conservatory, a most important position. Interestingly, he taught that the his saxophones had a four octave range, even though they were only keyed from low B up to high F. There are no known copies of the altissimo fingerings he employed in existence today. As the saxophone gained greater acceptance by the composers of the day, more instruments were demanded.

In 1866, the original patent granted to Adolphe Sax expired, and other companies quickly jumped into saxophone manufacturing, notably Buffet which had been previously producing Sax licensed saxophones, and the Millereau Company, which began producing a saxophone with a side key for producing a chromatic F#. In 1868, Pierre-Louis Gautrot patented a new system for saxophone pads which promised “leak proof†operation. Leaking pads had been a significant problem up to this point, and Gautrot’s system, while not perfect, was a great leap forward. Even though he was unquestionably a genius at instrument design and manufacturing, by his own admission he was a total failure at business matters and declared bankruptcy for the second time in 1873. The Goumas company introduced a new saxophone fingering system which was based upon the Bohem fingering system for clarinets in 1875. Goumas became a significant producer of saxophones.

In 1881, Adolphe Sax extended his original patent with some significant innovations. The new patent called for the extension of the saxophone bell in order to produce the notes Bb and A, as well as the addition of yet another octave key (now a total of four!) n2to allow the production of the notes F# and G as a part of the “normal range†of the saxophone. By 1885, the saxophone was becoming known in the United States, and the first American made saxophone was produced at the C. G. Conn factory in Elkhart, Indiana by none other than Gus Buescher, who was the foreman of the Conn plant. Buescher constructed his saxophone (an alto in Eb) using original Adolphe Sax patent drawings. Conn did not begin regular saxophone production until 1888. Gus Buescher left Conn to form his own company in 1890.

In 1886, L’Association Des Ouvriers invents a right hand trill key for the note C, and in 1887, Evette and Shaeffer began offering substantial improvements to the mechanism, including an articulated G# key which allowed the key touch to be held down while the right hand keys were operated, a low Bb key, an improved side F#, and a Bb “bis†key. The multiple octave keys used on the first saxophones were inconvenient to say the least. In 1888, Lecomte invents (drum roll, please!) the automatic octave key, which greatly reduced the technical difficulty of many passages. In addition to this wonderous advance, Lecomte also saw the wisdom of adding rollers to the Eb and C keys! With these improvements, the saxophone had finally reached a configuration that eliminated many of the technical hurdles, and with a few minor tweaks here and there, such as the forked Eb key and the G# trill key, it would remain in the same basic configuration through then 1930’s. There were a couple of interesting experiments which reached production, although they were commercial failures.

The Evette and Shaeffer company offered their wonderfully complex “Apogee†system in the very early 1900’s as an alternative way finger the lowest (low C, low B, and low Bb) notes using three levers mounted above the right hand stack keys. The Buffet-Powell saxophone added extra keys to the neck in hope of improving intonation, and for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, decided to hang the keys of the lower stack in a fashion that it reversed from the usual practice.

 1931 saw the introduction by the Leblanc company of a completely new way of looking at things. Here’s a quote from the Leblanc catalog which sums up the general idea: “The Leblanc saxophone — created by Messrs. Georges and Leon Leblanc and acoustician Charles Houvenaghel — is constructed according to the Boehm system, which is: ‘Any note being emitted, all the notes below it should have their holes of emission open when the instrument is at rest.’†These horns take everything a couple steps further, though.  Again, let me quote from that Leblanc article: “The heart of the Leblanc (Paris) System saxophone is a special coupling mechanism which enables the player to lower the pitch in the left hand key bank one semitone by depressing the first, second or third finger of the right hand.†These instruments are marvels of complexity, but no saxophone, before or since, can match their pitch, response, or even scale. Unfortunately, they were far too expensive to produce, and players were hesitant to learn new fingerings, in spite of the advantages.b Only a few of these magnificent instruments were made between 1931 and 1936.

 The Selmer company introduced the first really modern saxophone, the Balanced Action model, in 1936. All currently produced saxophones can trace their linage back to this model. The Balanced Action offered extremely significant improvements. Heres how Selmer explained it in their catalog: Notice the simplified low-tone key leverages. Now the Bb, B, C# and G# work straight up and down, just as they do on a clarinet. The usual saxophone has more than 15 leverages — “Balanced-Action” eliminates these differences. Now you can play just as fast in the extreme lower register as you can in any other part of the scale; note the extreme simplicity of the new mechanism. Fewer parts are used; action is more direct. Low tones speak more surely with “Balanced Action” because the shorter direct leverages make pads cover quickly and seal perfectly. Look at the back view of the new “Balanced-Action” Selmer. There are no moving parts next to your body. Nothing to catch in the clothing. No tone holes are muffled by the clothing. Long delicate low-tone key rods are completely protected from damage. Note the special shock-absorbing ring between the body of the sax and the bell. Permits freer vibration of bell and resists bell shocks without denting body of the instrument. These were pretty strong claims, but apparently Selmer was able to deliver what they promised and the Balanced Action, which was produced from 1935 – 1946), set new standards.  The next major advance came, once again, from Selmer with the introduction of the Mark Six model in 1954. Selmer specified nineteen improvements, and through this model, set the standard for saxophone design up through the present day. Although there have been improvements in saxophone acoustics, almost all modern mechanisms are essentially variations of the Mark Six. Their catalog says it best:  Since the Mark Six, there have been a few (but not many) innovations in keywork, such as altissimo octave keys, high G keys, and upper stack speaker keys. That being said, there is no question that saxophone keywork design has become quite standardized, and will most likely remain so for the forseeable future.

SOME REALITIES OF THE CURRENT SAXOPHONE MARKET

The manufacture of new saxophones is currently at an all time high, with new factories popping up all over Asia (where pretty much the entire industry has moved) almost every month. Since a saxophone can easily last a hundred years with only basic maintenance, and in consideration of the fact that there have been almost no innovations in design or improvements offered by any of the major manufacturers since the very early 1950’s, it’s pretty obvious that this manufacturing frenzy cannot be sustained. Now consider that the market is absolutely flooded with used instruments, and that eBay, Craigs List, and Reverb have greatly increased the ease with which used instruments can be marketed by individuals. Of course, we shouldn’t forget to factor in the online dealers, Amazon, and other cyber only vendors. The online competition has had a significant “reverse bidding†influence on holding down prices as consumers pit one dealer against another in the never ending quest for the lowest possible price. Life is not too easy for the brick and mortar traditional music stores in that rents, insurance, taxes, and employee costs have risen considerably in recent years, and margins have become almost non existent as they attempt to compete with cyber dealers and the booming used horn market. I would be extremely remiss if I failed to mention the changing demographics of the market. Generations X and Y, and the Millenials seem a little less interested in buying, much less collecting, fine saxophones than were the Baby Boomers. What does this all mean? Probably that a market shake up is coming due to excess manufacturing capacity, total lack of product innovation, excessive product available in the used market, and changing demographics. Food for thought if you’re in some aspect of the saxophone business!

Steve Goodson by Thomas Erdmann

Who are the real professional musicians? It’s getting harder and harder to find them…..they might even qualify for “endangered species†status these days……of course, there are still a few around, but the employment opportunities are becoming fewer and fewer. There’s lots of finger pointing and attempts at blame assignment for this situation, very little of it valid, IMHO……the fact of the matter is not that the buying public has lost their taste for music, but that the delivery systems today are very different, and in my opinion, live performance musicians forgot why the audience (used to) come out to see them. Today, music has become a part time job for the overwhelming majority of players, often qualifying for “hobby status†even though very few of them will admit it. This has caused a significant change in the structure for musician’s pay. Since they are rarely dependent on performance fees for their primary income, musicians are willing to play for less. In some cases, they may not be willing to play for less, but if they don’t accept the fee offered, some other part time hobby player surely will. As a result, musicians fees have taken a real downward spiral. The competition scene with other entertainment options has become a lot more complicated, with the number of options available to buyers increasing geometrically. It’s also easy to transfer music between consumers today because it’s all digitized. You can email a tune to your buddies so they don’t need to buy it. All of this creates quite a dilemma for anyone who wants to make a full time living playing music. This is where musicians have failed.They claim to be creative types, but have, in most cases, failed to create anything unique that customers want to turn off the HBO and go out and pay money to see. Some thought needs to be given to this aspect of the business, because if consumers want to see a few guys just standing around and playing, the best players in the world are generally available with just a click of their remote right in their living room. I don’t think there’s a real solution to the declining fee problem. There are too many people playing for cheap, so this has become the accepted “going rate ..for this, I think musicians have nobody to blame but themselves. Every time you accept a gig for $50, you have helped further the decline in fees. This situation is further compounded by players who drive down the price for those trying to make a living by playing for next to nothing because “it’s art …when you go play that club for $30 + “artistic considerationâ€, does the club sell whiskey for 50 cents a shot? I don’t think so….. I guess I would submit that the only solution is higher musical and creative standards. The world today enjoys a higher standard of living than ever, and I still believe that if your product is of high enough quality, people will buy it.

The Selmer Varitone: What Were They Thinking? by Steve “Saxgourmet†Goodson Put yourself in the shoes of a wind instrument manufacturer in the 1960’s: the “British Invasion†is in full swing, and every teenager everywhere is letting their hair grow and learning to play electric guitar. Interest in music has never been higher, but the interest is steadily moving away from the instruments you produce. A new, competitive product was needed, and many of the larger wind instrument companies accepted the challenge. Without question, the Selmer company made every reasonable effort to succeed in wooing musicians away from guitars and back to wind instruments. They produced a system which worked quite well, and spent a great deal of money promoting it, only to fail miserably. Conn, King, Buescher, Leblanc, and Vox all rushed to manufacture similar products, and although their efforts were not nearly on the scale of Selmer, they also failed miserably. All of these systems did basically the same thing: they allowed the saxophone (or other wind instruments) to utilize a pickup mounted on the horn and transmit the signal (with the wiring contained in a conduit down the side of the horn) to a control box, also mounted on the horn which enabled the player to choose from multiple effects, and then on to a pre-amplifier to boost the signal, and ultimately to a guitar type amplifier. The reasoning of the time was that guitar players had readily accepted the cords, heavy amplifiers, and other necessary accoutrements in order to be heard in the style of the day. The guitar players seemed to eagerly accept all of the additional equipment, and the fact that many keyboard players were now hauling around a Hammond B3 organ and its enormous Leslie speaker cabinet reinforced the idea that addition gear simply wasn’t a problem. As a matter of full disclosure, I must admit that during the early 1970’s I used a Conn Multivider extensively, along with a massive Ampeg amplifier. The Ampeg was a constant source of irritation to my roadies, who didn’t understand who a saxophone player needed a dual cabinet 200 watt rig, but hey, it was the 70’s! I also used a Morley wah wah and volume pedal, and an Electro Harmonix Flanger, Envelope Follower, and fuzz box. I had a separate mouthpiece with the pickup installed so I would not have to drill a hole in my neck and also so I could use various horns in my arsenal. Selmer, in conjunction with the Electo-Voice Corporation began development of the Varitone in 1965 introduced it to the public at the Summer NAMM Show in July of 1966. Selmer purchased ads in all the music magazines, and managed to secure a huge amount of publicity through very favorable articles in a wide variety of different publications, including Time magazine. The consensus of opinion within the musical instrument industry was that this was where things were headed. The initial research and development into the use of instrument mounted pickups was directed by Jean Selmer. The initial product concept was an instrument mounted microphone which would reduce the problem of feedback, but it soon evolved into much more, as musicians who were surveyed expressed significant interest in not only amplification, but also in potential tonal variation. Selmer had several stipulations about the nature of the proposed product: first, the unit should in no way require an alteration in established playing technique and must not alter the fundamental timbre and sound of the instrument. Secondly, the unit must be able to be turned off and allow the instrument to be played as and sound like a normal saxophone. Since the vision was for the primary user base to be professional musicians, durability and resistance to travel induced damage was paramount. It was also stipulated that the unit be easy to adjust , with uncomplicated controls, and that it be easily mounted on the saxophone itself. The first technical hurdle was the placement of the pickup. Since the series of standing waves and the resultant pressure nodes which are produced inside the saxophone when it is being played vary with the note being played and the playing technique, finding a single location for the pickup which could properly respond to the full range of the instrument was essential. Contrary to general assumption, the bell opening is far from the optimum location, and the perfect system of placing a pickup at every tone hole was impractical to say the least. Because all of the standing waves in a saxophone originate at the mouthpiece and neck, this is the logical location for pickup placement. Just as in designing saxophone necks, the dimensions are critical, and a thorough understanding of acoustics is essential. Incorrect placement of the pickup would result in very uneven response and tone quality. Once the correct location was calculated, the design of the pickup itself could proceed. The Electro-Voice company significantly improved the original Selmer design through the use of a ceramic pressure sensitive element. The stiffness of the ceramic element provided the necessary resistance to the extremely high sound pressure levels generated within the instrument as well as proving to be impervious to the acidic moisture produced by the player’s breath. The resultant pickup was of quite small size, being only about 3/4 of an inch in diameter and 1/2 an inch thick. The control box was designed to be mounted on the low B/Bb key guard where it could be easily reached by the players right hand. The controls included three rotating knobs (volume, echo, and intensity of the sub-octave) and four tab type switches. One tab switch turned the tremolo on and off, while the other three served to control tone quality, acting like a very basic equalizer. The circuitry necessary for tremolo, echo, and sub-octave effects was a part of the pre-amplifier, and the pre-amplifier, power supply, amplifier, and speaker were all contained in a separate speaker cabinet. The sound produced by the Varitone (in addition to the basic tone of the saxophone) could be adjusted to include varying degrees of echo, tremolo, and sub-octave. It was unique, if nothing else. Selmer offered Varitone systems for not only saxophone, but also clarinet, flute, and trumpet. The initial emphasis was placed on the sale of complete systems, including the required specialized neck, the control box, and a large amplifier. This equipment was sold with the Mk VI saxophone as a package. A Mk VI tenor with the top of the line Varitone “Auditorium†model amplifier was priced at $1,320, not an inconsiderable sum at the time. Not to be outdone, Conn offered the “Multivider†which was built by the Thomas Organ company. The Multivider was quite similar to the Varitone, but was sold as essentially an “add on†kit which could be adapted to any wind instrument. The Conn unit could be used with any amplifier and retailed for $244. A amplifier was available for an additional $399. Leblanc offered the Vitomatic system, which didn’t require drilling a hole in the instrument for $245; Arbiter offered a “bug†microphone pickup for only $49.50; the Gibson guitar company offered the Maestro system with a dedicated amplifier; and the Vox company (widely known at the time for their guitar amplifiers) offered a Beauginier made saxophone known as the Ampliphonic. Electrification fever swept the industry, and recording legends Henry Mancini and Herb Alpert both announced plans to equip new recording studios to utilize the technology. Piano maker Baldwin began construction of an electric harpsichord, and guitar maker Danelectro began producing an electric sitar. Selmer later introduced multiple variations of their Varitone system in an attempt to overcome the initial consumer resistance to the high price. Customers were able to purchase the neck and control box only, and Selmer began to offer the Varitone system with both Buescher 400 saxophones (Buescher was a wholly owned subsidiary) and on the intermediate Selmer USA saxophones. So why did it fail? The primary reason, in my opinion, was economic. The system required a massive (for the time) monetary investment. A Varitone was significantly more expensive than a high quality electric guitar, typically by a factor of three! Another contributing factor was that the Varitone simply never caught on with the professional musical community. True, Eddie Harris achieved a bit of notoriety with his 1968 release “Listen Hereâ€, and albums The Electrifying Eddie harris, Silver Cycles, and Plug Me In. Sonny Stitt and John Klemmer also dabbled with the Varitone, but on the whole, the professional saxophone community stayed away in droves. Players considered the system to be little more than “gadgetryâ€, and were often unwilling to make an irreparable modification to the neck of their instrument. In recording situations, the Varitone could not approach the quality of a conventional moicrophone, and began to be considered an uncomfortable and cumbersome annoyance. By the end of the 1970’s, the Varitone was all but forgotten. Will it return? Technology has advanced a great deal, and considerably smaller and lighter units could be easily manufactured. Will players request them? Only time will tell……

The Demise of the Powell Silver Eagle Saxophone

On September 23, 2010, Steven Wasser, the owner of Powell Flutes, announced that the company was going to be unveiling a new, saxophone. His statement to the press on that date promised “…the United States represents 50% of the world saxophone market, but none of the saxophones available for sale in the United States are made here. Wasser commented, “As far as we are concerned this represents a business opportunity. Our entire strategy is based on making great instruments in the United States. We think one of the positive effects of this recession will be that American consumers are going to pay much more attention to country of origin than they have in the past.â€

The designer of this saxophone was to be Mike Smith, a well known performer, long associated with Frank Sinatra Jr. Mike was to be assisted by Chris French and John Weir. The manufacturing was to be done at the old Blessing Band Instrument plant in Elkhart, Indiana, with some limited fabrication being done at the Powell flute factory. Mike promised that “The Silver Eagle Saxophone is a very high-end, very expensive saxophone. It is aimed at the select few players who have the means, and the desire, to own an American-made product with high QC standards.†In addition to the alto model with sterling silver neck, bell, and tone hole chimneys, there was to be an all brass model, and ultimately, a tenor. Cryogenic treatment was also to be offered as an option.

First things first: I have known Mike Smith, who was sorta the ramrod behind this project, for many years. He’s not only a world class musician, but also a really nice human being, who I am proud to call my friend. This project did not fail due to a lack of effort on Mike’s part. He truly put his heart and soul into it. Another point I want to make right up front: although these horns would have been competitors for my products, our company absolutely welcomes any competitor who wants to actually innovate and “improve the breed …this horn did have a few significant innovations, and it would have pleased me greatly for them to have succeeded. One last disclosure: I never saw or played an actual example of the Powell Silver Eagle, but got reviews from people that I completely trust who had played the horn. The reviews about the playability were 100% positive. I did talk to Mike extensively as the project was developing, and have also discussed it with other saxophone industry “insiders†who shared some information with me which I’ll take as accurate but have not verified myself.

THE CONCEPT As I understand it, the idea was to build a “Made In The USA†horn of super high quality. The basic design seemed to be an obvious tribute to the King Super 20 Silversonic, a horn that Mike Smith has used and admired for many years. Of course, Mike is not alone in his admiration of these horns, and he had some ideas that seem to take the initial design a little further down the Super 20 road. Even the color scheme of the cases provided with the Silver Eagle was identical to the Super 20. Look at the octave key on the neck, and the general engraving style: it all shouts “Super 20â€. The Silver Eagle, like the Super 20, also used post rather than ribbed construction, had the G key mounted on the left hand main stack, and even used pivot screws with locking nuts identical to those used by King on the Super 20. One of the design concepts was that in addition to a sterling silver neck and sterling silver bell, the horn was to have sterling silver tone hole chimneys braised onto the body tube. The neck and body tube were both promoted as being seamless, which would lead me to believe that they were extruded rather than braised. Assembly was to take place at the old Blessing Musical Instrument Company plant in Elkhart, Indiana, and all of the components were to be sourced in the USA. The Powell Company was rightfully world famous for their exquisite very high end flutes, and it was thought that since they were the corporate entity behind the project, this would add credibility. The pricing for the alto was set at a lofty $10,000 or so. I never thought the price was the problem for an instrument of this sort of obvious quality. A significant market exists at that price point. After all, my company has been successfully selling a $15,000 tenor saxophone, our Category Five model, for quite a few years. Multiple sources within the saxophone industry have told me that the break even point required the sale of 130 units in the first year, which I always thought was an extremely ambitious goal.

THE PROBLEMS Alas, there are several things that I believe may have well doomed this project from the outset. Individually they may not have dissuaded many buyers, but collectively, they made success very difficult, if not impossible. Rather than tool up for the entire horn, Powell elected to purchase existing tooling for the keywork and other components from Gerhardt Meinal, the owner of the B & S Company in Germany, who had left the saxophone business over five years ago. Tooling of this nature doesn’t really wear out, and is extremely expensive to construct. The B & S saxophone enjoyed an excellent reputation (although sales were poor), and several knowledgeable technicians and players have reported to me that the Silver Eagle felt “Just like a B & S Medusa .which is maybe not such a bad thing. It’s just not very original. Although Powell enjoyed the best possible reputation for their flutes, they had no reputation in the saxophone business. Speaking as someone who has been a party to starting several saxophone brands “from scratchâ€, I can absolutely promise you that “it ain’t easy ..Saxophone players and flautists are two entirely different species, and the status on a company in one field does not carry over to the other. After all, the H. Selmer (Paris) company had to leave the flute business a while back, in spite of an excellent product, a well known brand name, and a well established dealer network. The marketing of the Silver Eagle trumpeted the fact that it was “Made In the USAâ€, when in fact, the pads and resonators were sourced from the Pisoni company in Italy. This was done in spite of the fact that there are several pad manufacturers located in the United States who could easily have provided an equivalent, if not superior, pad. This is a pretty significant issue for the many saxophonists who consider the pads and resonators to be key components. The Silver Eagle used braised rather than drawn tone holes. I am unaware of any other modern saxophone maker using this technique. Braising the toneholes is supposed to prevent stressing the body tube metal, resulting in greater resonance. I don’t know whether this is true or not, and I am unaware of any studies by saxophone designers on this subject. I spoke with the designers for several major saxophone manufacturers, and none of them believed there was any advantage to braising. This technique, once used by several manufacturers, was completely abandoned by the industry by 1980. All the designers agreed completely on one point: braising on the tonehole chimneys was guaranteed to be a difficult and extremely expensive process as opposed to drawing the toneholes from the body in the conventional and accepted manner. In addition to the substantial cost of fabricating multiple tone hole sizes and then braising them to the body, there was one more tonehole issue: they were to be made of sterling silver. Insofar as I know, there have never been saxophones manufactured with brass bodies and sterling silver tonehole chimneys. Quite a few people expressed skepticism to me about the acoustic merit of this comment. I don’t know, as I have never tried it. Powell seemed to consider these silver tone hole chimneys to be a key selling point, but never provided any meaningful data to establish that this concept had acoustic merit. Probably the biggest thing (IMHO) that the Silver Eagle had going against it is the obvious linage as a “Super 20 Tribute Hornâ€. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea, in that the Super 20 has long had a following even though production ceased over thirty years ago due to poor sales. Many players would probably like to own a Super 20, and therein lies the rub: there are plenty of them on the market, and you can almost certainly purchase the very finest example available anywhere in the world for considerably less than the asking price for a Powell Silver Eagle. A problem that invariably plagues “reissues†is that it’s always yesterdays technology that is being offered. Nostalgia certainly might play a part in the purchase decision of some, but a nostalgic reissue will always be a tough sale against the original article, particularly if the reissue is priced significantly higher. Many players expect products at the upper end of the market to be the current state of the art. If you are going to try to win the Indianapolis 500, you probably won’t have a lot of success with a fifty year old race car. While it is true that the Powell Silver Eagle did offer the player a few ergonomic improvements over the Super 20, upon close examination it is obvious that these were the direct result of the use of the B & S saxophone tooling as opposed to any true innovation on the part of Powell. There were a couple of other minor controversies, or at least rumors surrounding the Silver Eagle. It was reported by numerous industry figures that the exact same horns with the exact same serial numbers were always the ones exhibited at trade shows, raising the question as to whether or not any more actually existed. It was said that padding and assembly had been moved out of the actual factory in Elkhart, Indiana to a small town repair shop, and that the assembly was actually being performed by subcontractors who lacked actual manufacturing experience rather than by Powell personnel. I don’t know if any of this is true or not, as I wasn’t there. I do know that outsourced assembly is unheard of in the world of high end saxophones, and that the rumor of assembly by a small repair shop was frequently discussed and questioned by saxophone industry “insidersâ€. When Powell pulled the plug, “the word†within the saxophone industry was that they had only actually delivered 20 horns to dealers instead of the 130 that were needed to “break evenâ€. Of course the delivery to dealers does not constitute actual sales to end users. It is also widely rumored that Powell was losing a significant amount of money on each horn, as there were enormous cost over runs. I don’t know if any of this is true or not, as I wasn’t there. Interestingly, although the official Silver Eagle website had a “placeholder†for a list of dealers, none were ever named or added to the website. I also have never spoken to anyone who professed to have seen 20 completed Silver Eagles in one place at one time. What I do know is this: It’s a damn shame that this didn’t work out as Mike Smith had envisioned. I for one would be happy to see the saxophone manufacturing industry return to the USA. Currently, no saxophones are built in the USA simply because you can’t get the work done here. It’s not about labor costs (labor rates are significantly higher in Europe and Japan), but a simple lack of the resources necessary to construct and market a quality horn in the United States. Here’s hoping that Mike Smith won’t become too discouraged and will try this again. He deserves success. Here’s Mike’s statement from February 22, 2014 “I want to personally thank everyone who has been so supportive of this project. To set the record straight. We had the orders, We had the quality and an incredible team of talented people making this horn. My problem was I wasn’t able to produce a $10,000.00 saxophone. The margin just wasn’t there. Production delays killed me. Outside US venders whose lead times were never met because my orders were so small. Over 20 Labor hours for making the tone holes as opposed to 4 minutes to pull them. The bottom line was everyone we made lost money. We built about 20 horns and had orders for 35 this year. The interest was there and everyone who played it gave me positive feedback. The sound was rich with color and had great intonation. It wasn’t just a†tribute horn.†I don’t think Sterling silver tone holes on a brass body had ever been done before. I tried to make a hybrid horn. Vintage /modern. American style acoustics, offset right hand, unique neck taper was tested with over 25 different mouthpieces. I could have built this offshore and It probably would have been profitable. There are many fine instruments built this way today. I just wanted to make a horn in the States. Unlike the totally fraudulent King Super 21, the Powell Silver Eagle actually existed. United Musical Instruments, which owned the King brand name produced six Armstrong (they also owned that brand name) Model 3000 alto saxophones in a different finish which were engraved King Super 21 and exhibited them at various trade shows claiming that they were an entirely new model, rather than the rebranded student model that they actually were. Nobody has ever questioned Mike Smith’s integrity or his total commitment to the Silver Eagle project. I personally hope that Mike will be able to resurrect this project and bring it to fruition. I am anxious to see how many of these horns will actually surface, and how much they will bring on the resale market. They may well be destined to become one of those saxophone rarities that are much discussed but rarely seen outside of the hands of a very few collectors.

SINCE THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED

I was given the opportunity to purchase the tooling and a substantial amount of keywork and parts. All of the tooling had originally been purchased from the B&S company in Germany, owned by my friend Gerhard Meinel. When I worked for Orpheus Music, we were the distributors for B&S saxophones, and I am extremely familiar with them. THE TOOLING WAS FOR THE B&S “MEDUSA” MODEL, and was absolutely not unique to the Powell Silver Eagle in any way, form, or fashion. Any claim to the contrary is simply a lie. The keywork and parts were all for the B&S Medusa.

We’ve been blessed in recent years to see significant advances in saxophone design made possible by a much better understanding of acoustics (I think I can honestly say that we now ALMOST understand what is going on inside the horn) and the use of new metal alloys. One area of saxophone design that I predict will show significant advances in the future is in pads and resonators. There have been a few what I consider to be “false starts†in pad design in the last twenty year, most of which centered around trying to re-invent the wheel and utilizing systems which were not compatible with existing key cups (requiring all new horns, or at least the very expensive replacement of the existing cups) or a radical change in installation technique. None of these alternative systems have gained any significant acceptance from either manufacturers or repair technicians. I really don’t foresee this situation changing in the future, believing that the pad of the future must be compatible with existing horns and existing technicians skills and equipment. There has been a trend towards the acceptance of “super premium†pads (Saxgourmet, ‘Roo, and Lucien Deluxe), and just as has proven true in the automobile tire aftermarket , there are always customers who will pay a premium in order to have the very best. The only significant advances in pad technology in the last twenty years meeting the above stated requirements has been the use of other leathers such as kangarooskin and goatskin rather than sheepskin, and the application of silicone based waterproofing treatments. I have always considered the silicone based treatments to be a poor choice for pads because although they are effective at sealing and waterproofing the leather, they quite often introduce a stickiness which many players find to be quite problematic. Goatskin has the advantage of being an extremely durable leather, available at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, it tends to be somewhat grainy, and requires very vigorous ironing during installation to smooth out the surface flaws. Kangaroo leather is a wonderful material for pads. It is very strong and smooth due to the different cell structure of marsupials as opposed to mammals, and has excellent “drape†characteristics (the way the leather naturally hangs when relaxed), and does not stick to tone holes which are kept clean. Unfortunately, kangaroo leather is rather expensive, and there have been some very misguided efforts by animal activists to reduce its use, even though our friends “down under†without exception, consider their native ‘roos to be (1) a pest and (2) very good eating. We have used kangaroo leather pads exclusively in our shop for almost ten years now, and believe this leather is superior to all others in every regard. We take the additional step of ironing the pads during installation to tighten the leather, and apply our Teflon based Mojo’s Never Stick Pad Powder during the ironing process, which permanently imbeds the pad powder in the pores of the leather. Other than the leather covering the exterior of the pad, nothing has really changed in the design of saxophone pads in many, many years. Although better leathers have significantly increased pad life, there are other issues which I believe should be addressed: exterior size retention, felt stability, pneumatic leakage, and precise “feel†for the player. The quality of felt available today is such that there is no longer a significant difference (if you choose to avoid the cheaper grades and only buy “the good stuffâ€) between woven felt and pressed felt. Unfortunately, over time and with usage, all felt tends to shrink a bit and show some surface distortion. The key to achieving this stability is to prevent any long term changes in the shape of the felt disc which makes up the heart of the pad. We have had some success in achieving this stability through lightly spraying the felt (before pad assembly, of course) with epoxy. There is a fine line between not enough to achieve stability and an excess which significantly degrades the required flexibility, but the results can be quite good. Most saxophone pads in use today have a Rockwell hardness of around 40. Pre-treatment of the felt, used in conjunction with the naturally soft kangaroo leather, would allow pads of 55 – 60 in Rockwell hardness, which would contribute considerably to a very firm and precise feel for players. The issue which causes the greatest difficulty is felt shrinkage, and as longer lasting leathers such as kangaroo are used, it will be even more of an issue in the future. The solution to exterior stability has been around for many, many years, but unfortunately it fell from use due to high cost: a metal perimeter ring, beveled so the pad fits with absolute tightness to the rim of the key cup, and holding the leather taunt for the life of the pad. Of course, I’m talking about essentially bringing back a variation of the Conn “Reso-Padâ€. Needless to say, this would be an expensive undertaking for any pad manufacturer, as unique tooling would be required ring for each pad size. Since most manufacturers make saxophone pads in half millimeter increments in sizes from 6 up to around 80 millimeters, you’re talking about around 140 different size rings (the very smallest sizes won’t need a ring), and before long, you’re talking about spending some real money! Pneumatic leakage occurs when air passes through the pores of the leather pad covering. All natural leathers are, of course, porous, but his problem is very easily dealt with by spraying the back of the leather with a light coating of vinyl prior to pad assembly. We’ve had considerable experience with this technique and I assure you it works like a charm! In order to give the pad a firmer and more precise “feel†when the key is closed, there is one final are that must be addressed: the back. Almost all modern saxophone pads use cardboard as a foundation. Of course, this foundation is somewhat less than rigid, so the pad has a bit of flexibility in the vertical axis. If this cardboard back were to be replaced with another material, metal or synthetic, a degree of stability which has been previously unknown could be introduced, improving the precision of the “feelâ€. In order to improve the function of the saxophone resonator, it is first and foremost necessary to understand exactly what a resonator is supposed to do. A resonator might best be thought of as nothing more than a mirror which reflects the wave back into the body tube. Of course, the most desirable quality of any mirror is accurate reflection of the submitted image, and to that end, the resonator should be made of the same alloy as the body tube if absolutely accurate reflection of the wave is desired. Any variation will alter the reflection and “color†the sound. This coloration may be desired by the player (using plastic or wooden resonators, for example), but I believe this to be a very dangerous practice because once the sound is altered by resonators, it is difficult to bring it back to its original characteristics. In my opinion, a technician should never “paint a player into a corner†by changing this fundamental aspect of a saxophones sound when numerous other options such as necks and mouthpieces are available. The size of the resonator is absolutely critical to maximizing the performance. Basically, the greater the surface area of the resonator, the greater the degree of reflectivity. To this end, it is desirable to reduce the amount of exposed pad leather. Put another way, the optimum resonator will extend all the out to the edge of the tone hole chimney. Before proceed to the next aspect of resonator design, I must make a confession to my readers: I slept through most of high school geometry. That being said, I do recall that something was mentioned about a domed surface having a larger surface area than a perfectly flat surface if the diameter of both surfaces was the say. Armed with this knowledge, we have devised resonators of progressively larger surface area by constructing them with domes, cones, ridges, and other appendages. I believe that the optimum shape may be in the configuration of a conical nautilus, and hope to construct some resonators in this configuration soon in order to test this theory. Of course, it is essential to seal the resonators at the edge and around the hole through which the attachment device (screws are far more desirable than rivets, as this allows the costly resonators to be reused) passes. This is easily accomplished by having a lip around the perimeter of the resonator which “bites†into the leather and provides an air tight seal. Of course, all of these improvements would by necessity come at a monetary cost. This cost would probably be far higher than the average player would be willing to pay. However, remember that if we restrict advances in technology and design to the pocketbook of the average consumer, Rolls Royce would have gone out of business years ago! I would be most interested in your comments and thoughts on these matters, or anything else related to saxophone design. My email address for your comments and suggestions is saxgourmet@cox.net, and my office telephone number is 504-324-3850.

Could You Just Add Another Key To Make It Do…….? The Evolution of Saxophone Keywork Nobody is exactly certain when Adolphe Sax produced the first example of the instrument which bears his name. The patents were granted in 1846, and an article written by Sax’s close friend, Hector Berlioz, in 1842 describes the instrument in great detail for “Journal Des Debatsâ€, a Paris magazine. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that Sax had working examples of the saxophone that he was showing to friends and potential customers as early as 1840, and this date is generally accepted as the official “birthday†of the saxophone. What we don’t know much about is the evolution of the keywork and mechanism. In 1842, Sax moved to Paris, then considered the musical center of the world, in order to promote his new instrument. The saxophone apparently had achieved a degree of standardization by 1844, or at least enough for Hector Berlioz to include a dedicated saxophone part in his choral composition Chant Sacre. 1844 also marked the introduction of the instrument to the general public through its inclusion in the Paris Industrial Exhibition. By 1845, Sax was rewriting military band arrangements with the oboe, bassoon, and French horn parts all replaced by saxophones keyed in both Bb and Eb. Sax believed that by replacing these instruments with saxophones, the military bands would achieve a more “homogenous†sound. On February 14, 1847, a saxophone school was created in Paris. The school was set up at a military band school known as Gymnase Musical. The saxophone continued to gain acceptance, and in 1858, Adolphe Sax himself was appointed Professor of Saxophone at the Paris Conservatory. All of the instruments were, of course, constructed by Sax himself, and there was almost no variation in the keywork or mechanism. The horns were keyed from low B to high Eb, but very significantly, Sax taught his students that the saxophone had a four octave range! The instruments Sax (the only source) produced used double octave keys, and lacked many of the features commonly found on saxophones today, such as an articulated G#, a forked F#, the “one and one†Bb, the front F key, and other improvements that found their way onto later versions of the saxophone. The first patent issued to Sax reached the end of its twenty year life in 1866, and almost immediately, other companies began producing saxophones and making improvements. One of the earliest improvements, which soon found universal acceptance on all saxophones, was the introduction by the Millereau Company of a “forked†F#, which greatly facilitated the production of that note while retaining the basic playing position for the three “main†fingers of the right hand. While not technically a keywork or mechanism improvement, in 1868, Gautrot, Pierre, Louis, and Company introduced a system that kept the surface of the pads flat in order to provide a better seal. Prior to this time, saxophone pads were of “purse†style construction, with a leather bag of appropriate size for the key cup filled with sawdust and stitched shut. These early pads were far too soft and their pneumatic qualities were sorely lacking, and the new system of Gautrot, Pierre, Louis, and Company was a giant leap forward toward solving a serious problem. Pads would go through many evolutionary stages and false starts before we obtained the product in common use today. In 1881, Adolphe Sax filed another series of patent documents with improvements to the saxophone that he hoped would give him an edge over the rapidly expanding number of competitors. In addition to renewing his original patents, Sax’s 1881 patent called for an extension of the saxophone bell to allow keywork down to written low Bb, and for the extension of keywork up the body tube to allow the production of high F# and high G. The extension of the range of the saxophone unfortunately required the addition of two more octave keys in order to produce these notes reliably, bringing the total of octave key touches to be operated by the left thumb to four! The Association Des Ouvriers brought us closer to the modern configuration of the saxophone in 1886 with the introduction of the right hand chromatic C key (up until then it was sorta hard to trill from B to C!) and the “one and one†Bb system for the first fingers of the right and left hands. In 1887, Des Ouvriers produced a somewhat functional articulated G# key, and their system was significantly improved by Evette and Schaeffer so that the G# key can be held down automatically while any finger of the left hand is used. In conjunction with this improvement, Evette and Schaeffer perfected the forked F# system to the form which is still in use today. The multiple octave keys found on the early saxophones, although an acoustic necessity, was a great impediment to smooth execution. This situation was finally resolved in 1888 with the invention of the automatic octave key by Lecomte. This mechanism, which is basically the one most saxophones use today, uses two separate octave vents, one on the neck (for notes A2 – F3) and one on the body (for notes Db2 – Ab2) controlled by a single key touch. Simultaneously, Lecomte also resolved another great technique issue with the introduction of the first ever rollers on the low Eb and low C keys. Through out the history of the saxophone, instrument designers have frequently offered changes in the mechanism in the hope of facilitating technically difficult passages. In addition to the improvements previously cited in this article, a variety of different solutions have been attempted, the vast majority of which ultimately fell from favor. These include the G# trill key; the “forked†Eb key; and the high C/D trill key. In 1899, Paul Evette introduced a new key mechanism that was truly a “game changerâ€: the front F key. Not only did this mechanism allow the player to easily execute the two highest notes on the saxophones of that era, it greatly facilitated the players ability to execute arpeggios between high C and either high E or high F. This key would later become an integral part of the performance of the altissimo register, which was most uncommon at the time. Throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s, saxophone manufacturers continued to offer instruments with a range which extended beyond the normal low Bb through high F. The extension of the range to low A found acceptance by baritone players but was rejected by tenor and alto players, who believed that the necessary extension of the bell added far too much additional weight which upset the balance of the instrument in its normal playing position. During the 1960’s, the Selmer company attempted to resurrect this concept by offering a low A version of their popular Mark VI alto saxophone. Production ceased after less than two hundred examples were built, in spite of the excellent playing characteristics of the instrument. The players of the day judged the instrument to be simply “too differentâ€. Adolphe Sax himself had pioneered the extension of the saxophones range through his 1881 patent, which described keywork for high F# and high G. The high F# key became an option for several manufacturers during the 1930’s, and by the 1950’s it was commonly seen as an addition (at extra expense to the buyer) on Selmer saxophones. In 1977, Selmer made this key standard on Mark VII alto and tenor saxophones. It is now seen on virtually all saxophones manufactured today. It is worth noting that there is a mistaken belief among some players that the high F# key causes response problems, particularly on the notes low B and Bb. This myth has become so pervasive that some manufacturers now offer a “high F# key delete†option as a special order on their saxophones. Acceptance of the high G key, which was also advocated by Adolphe Sax in his 1881 patent was slower, and until around 2005 was confined mainly to soprano saxophones. The lack of a high G option being offered by most manufacturers is easily explained by the fact that the required location of the high G tone hole required that the body tube be lengthened slightly and the neck being shortened proportionally, necessitating new and different tooling. I was involved in the design and manufacturing of saxophones with a high G key, and we made the decision to include the high G key as standard equipment, thus eliminating the need for different tooling for versions “with†and versions “withoutâ€. Of course, not all the mechanism changes seen during the evolution of the saxophone were intended to resolve fingering issues. From the very beginning, it was recognized that the upper register of the saxophone was problematic with regard to both pitch and response. This is easily explained by the fact that the notes above C#2 are all overtones, which are produced by having the octave mechanism destroy the fundamental pitch and allow the first overtone to become dominant. The problem that has always existed is that there are twelve semitones in the chromatic scale and for optimum results, twelve independent vents would be required. Needless to say, this would be a mechanical nightmare, and twelve individual key touches would never be easily manipulated by mere mortals! The very first saxophones had two independent octave keys which were operated by the left thumb. Each key controlled a limited range of notes, and since only two vents were used where twelve would be required, the position of the vents had to be compromised. Adolphe Sax recognized this problem early on, and his patent of 1881 sought to resolve the problem through the addition of two additional octave keys, bringing the total to four. Keep in mind that each of these keys was independent, so the required finger technique became increasingly complex. With the adoption of the automatic octave key invented by Lecomte in 1888 with its very convenient single key touch, saxophone manufacturers reverted to two vents, and any increase in that number was very rarely seen until the late 1930’s, when the C. G. Conn company introduced the very radical model 28M “Constellation†alto, which was designed by Santy Runyon. The 28M broke a considerable amount of new ground in many areas, including keywork geometry, construction materials, and the first ever “mass produced†three vent octave system controlled by a single key touch. The octave mechanism was the key feature promoted in the advertising for this model, which promised an end to the notoriously stuffy fourth line D. There were two vents on the body tube which worked in conjunction with each other, and another vent located on the neck which opened when the body vents were closed. The system worked remarkably well, but the 28M was not a success simply because many features that it offered were simply too radical for the times. When I was a student of Santy Runyon in the 1990’s, we discussed the 28M in great detail. Santy told me that the lack of acceptance of the many innovations on this instrument was one of the very greatest disappointments of his long career. I was shocked to learn that Santy did not own an example of the 28M, and that he told me he had not seen one in almost fifty years. I was extremely pleased and honored to be able to present Santy with a 28M from my personal saxophone collection (I owned two) and to have him demonstrate the many capabilities of this unique design. Similar multi-vent systems were used in the 1930’s by Allen Loomis for the C. G Conn Company and by Edward Powell. Neither of these was commercially successful. Since the tuning and voicing problems with the saxophone get worse as pitch increases, several similar systems have been employed with varying degrees of success in an attempt to tame the troublesome left hand upper register. Beginning in the 1920’s, a mechanical connection was made between the octave key mechanism and the C pad (the small one) of the upper stack. When the octave key was depressed, the mechanism would partially close the C pad, which would lower the pitch of the note. The use of this type of compensating mechanism allowed designers to change the location and increase the diameter of the palm keys (D3 – F3) and reduce some on the thin and shrill tone that had been associated with those notes, as well as to bring them more into tune. This system is commonly seen on soprano saxophones, and during the 1920’s was employed by Martin on some alto models. It later evolved into the “doughnut†pad commonly seen today, which is often used in conjunction with a pronounced “step†in the body tube diameter. As an alternative to lowering the C pad, some manufacturers (most notably Selmer on the Series III alto and Saxgourmet on the Voodoo Rex alto) employ an entirely different tone hole dedicated to providing the necessary pitch and voicing adjustments. This mechanism is of necessity much more complex, but is adjustable to a far greater degree. Yet another option for resolving this issue is the inclusion of a “speaker key†which is a part of the upper stack B key mechanism, and has its own unique and dedicated tone hole. This system has the advantage of requiring no additional springs or moving parts, and if properly designed allows greater venting for the upper notes, substantially improving voicing and pitch. When Adolphe Sax was instructing his students at the Paris Conservatory, he taught that the saxophone had a four octave range, even though the instrument was only keyed to F above the staff. The higher tones were achieved through the use of cross vented fingerings and the manipulation of the players oral cavity. Then, as now, the study of the altissimo range was a lengthy, difficult, and often extremely frustrating. Until Sigurd Rascher published Top Tones for the Saxophone in 1941, there was virtually no teaching or study material available on the subject. The altissimo register was very rarely heard because very, very few players were capable of producing it. There were certainly no attempts to produce an “altissimo friendly†saxophone. In 1949, Earl Gillespie, then employed as a designer for the Martin Company, proposed a system in which a hollow tube was installed in the B key on the upper stack (a similar vent is found on the corresponding location on the bass clarinet) and used in conjunction with a very specific bore taper configuration. Gillespie’s patent application states that “Any saxophone completely embodying the principles of this invention will have a natural range of 41 consecutive chromatic semi-tones extending from B in the great octave to d in the four line octave inclusive†and provides a fingering chart for these notes. Gillespie contended that the vent tube produced sympathetic vibrations which eased the production of the upper tones. I can find no record that this instrument was ever actually produced. During the 1990’s, the Selmer Company began producing an optional mechanism for the Super Action 80 Series II alto which had a dedicated key operated by the left thumb which stabilized the note G3 when it was produced by opening the front F key only. This system worked quite well, but I always considered it to be quite an extravagance to have such an elaborate mechanism dedicated to the improvement of one note only. Beginning in 2005, my company designed and produced a saxophone with four octave vents, including a separate “dedicated altissimo†octave mechanism. This instrument is still in production, and we have continued our research in this area. In late 2014, we expect to introduce a popular priced saxophone with a dedicated altissimo mechanism. The quest for the perfect saxophone mechanism continues, and hopefully the future holds many improvements which will facilitate the enjoyment and usage of the instrument we all know and love!

‘Ya pays ‘ya money……’ya takes ‘ya chance A guide for the saxophone purchaser

Since 1972, when I went to work at Herbert Music in Auburn, Alabama, I’ve spent the better part of most business days assisting a customer with the purchase decision for a saxophone. I am forever amazed that consumers spend so much money based on so little information. I spent the better part of a day this week with a couple trying to decide on a professional quality horn for their daughter who was entering a top flight university saxophone program, and it became very obvious quite early in the transaction that despite good intentions, they honestly didn’t have a clue what they were doing. Hopefully, through this article, I’ll be able to convey some basic information to assist you with your purchase decision. I think that in the 40+ years I’ve been doing this I’ve been asked just about every possible question multiple times, and I’m going to try to present the information in a logical format, and I want you to know that I’m more than happy to answer any questions you might have if you will just call my office (504 – 324 – 3850) during business hours. I hope you will consider the points I raise in this article, and ask plenty of very specific questions of anyone trying to sell you a saxophone. If they can’t or won’t answer your questions, take your business elsewhere. There are plenty of people out there selling saxophones.

NEW VS. USED It is in no way unusual for a saxophone to last a hundred years with minimal care, and there is a great abundance of used horns available on the secondary market. To the casual observer, saxophones haven’t really changed all that much since the very first ones appeared in the 1840’s. Most retail music stores maintain a substantial inventory of used and reconditioned horns, often at a fraction of the price of new examples. If these instruments are still serviceable, what accounts for the significant price differential? I think a very valid analogy exists within the used automobile market. As in the car business, the initial buyer takes the “hit†of depreciation as soon as they walk out of the music store with a new horn. Although established saxophone manufacturers typically introduce new models every ten years or so, there is always a substantial portion of the buying public who desires nothing less than the “latest and greatestâ€, so less than current models, although quite serviceable, may suffer a further reduction in price. If the buyer is dealing with an established dealer, in all probability the horns offered will all have been serviced and brought up to playable condition and may actually offer a warranty. Alas, if you buy a saxophone from an individual seller or off an internet auction site, you are generally “on your own†insofar as condition and potentially needed repairs go. Of course, the dealers generally command a pricing premium for this service, since there is no such thing as “free lunch†in this world. Saxophone repairs can be VERY expensive: our shop bills at the rate of $100/hr, and some technicians charge even more. Of course, that hourly rate is far less than what my attorney, accountant, plumber, and electrician all charge me, but it’s still a lot of money, even for small repair jobs. If a used saxophone needs a complete overhaul, expect to pay a minimum of $1000 for the services of a technicIan who is experienced and competent. Another major consideration is the availability of repair parts for older horns. Pads and springs are pretty much generic items and readily available for most saxophones (except Buescher and Leblanc), but mechanical parts are an entirely different matter. Most manufacturers do offer repair parts, but only for models in current production. Some manufacturers (Selmer, Yamaha, Saxgourmet Jupiter, Unison, and others) offer parts for discontinued models for seven years after production ceases. Of course, if the saxophone in question is not actually manufactured by “the brand engraved on the bellâ€, you are generally out of luck with regard to replacement parts. The best rule to follow is to never, ever buy a horn that requires any parts. There are plenty of complete horns for sale out there.

“VINTAGE†vs. NEW HORNS There’s always a lot of talk about the many benefits of playing “vintage hornsâ€. Now before I proceed with this discussion, I want to make a full disclosure that I have a collection of over 150 older horns, and that I love and enjoy each and every one of them. But here’s the simple facts: if you want to play your very best, use an instrument which represents the most advanced stage of the “state of the art …saxophones have evolved considerably over the years, particularly with regard to intonation and ergonomics. “But†you say, “Coltrane (or fill in the blank with the name of any long dead saxophone player) sounded great playing a SBAâ€. Sure he did…..that horn was the current state of saxophone development in its day, but horns have evolved considerably. Any serious player should only consider an instrument that is easiest to play. There is no point in making playing the saxophone more difficult than it has to be. There is absolutely nothing unique about horns of the past that modern horns don’t do better. The build quality today is better than ever, and there is no “super secret†brass alloy that cannot be easily duplicated or improved upon. Think of it this way: if you were going to enter the Indianapolis 500, would you try to win the race with a 70 year old race car? I didn’t think so…..

HOW DO I FIGURE OUT THE HONEST PRICE OF A USED HORN? It’s hard to do if you don’t actively track the market………here’s a value guide that you might find useful. Be sure to read the preface for necessary pricing adjustments! http://www.saxgourmet.com/vintage-saxophone-value-guide/

AREN’T A LOT OF THE DIFFERENT BRANDS MADE TODAY ACTUALLY THE SAME? Well, yes and no……if you buy a horn from one of the major brands, in all probability (although not always!) the company who engraved their name on the bell actually made the horn. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of those companies. The overwhelming majority of new saxophones sold worldwide are manufactured by companies you most likely never heard of. These companies make horns for many, many different marketers, and yes, very often, the horns are mechanically and acoustically identical, differing only in the cosmetics. The dirty little secret of the industry is that almost nobody knows who makes what for who, and those who do know (me, for example) are very much sworn to secrecy. Since the saxophone manufacturing industry moved to Asia about 20 years ago (over 90% of all new horns are made there), design diversity has become a somewhat rare commodity. The overwhelming majority of saxophones manufactured in Asia (and Europe, for that matter) are variations on the Selmer Super 80 theme…..not that the Super 80 series is a bad starting point. The differences are basically build quality and cosmetics. Take a look for yourself and you will easily see what I am talking about. The basic horns are, for the most part, the same.

WHAT ABOUT THE ADVERTISING CLAIMS? Almost every marketer of saxophones claims that their horns are superior to all others and that they are unique in their design and construction. Here’s a good rule to follow: if the horn is really different from the competition, then it should be very easy to see, touch, and feel the differences. If you can’t actually see and actually touch a feature that is clearly different, in all probability there is no difference. You simply shouldn’t be called upon to use your imagination.

DOES COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MAKE A DIFFERENCE? While it may have at one time, that’s not true today. Saxophone manufacturing technology has really advanced and spread in recent years. No one country now holds a monopoly on producing good (or bad) horns today. In the last few years, production costs have become more and more equal in the countries that manufacture saxophones, so price is no longer a clear indicator of quality. The mainland Chinese horns have probably seen the greatest improvement in quality, and no longer enjoy their massive price advantage of the past. In the for what it’s worth department, my very favorite factory worldwide is located in Viet Nam! At this point, I want to guide the prospective purchaser through some of the physical aspects of saxophone construction that may have an influence on their buying decision. It goes without saying that before you consider the physical attributes, you should be absolutely certain that the specific instrument in question plays perfectly in tune with an even timbre throughout the range and that the octave pitches match perfectly. If there are intonation problems or an uneven scale, simply reject the instrument. Those issues indicate a fundamental design flaw, which in all probability cannot be corrected at anything approaching reasonable expense.

THE NECK Many saxophones today come with multiple necks, with each neck providing a different tone quality. If the horn you’re considering only comes with one neck, you should consider adding one from the many aftermarket options available. You will be surprised at the versatility multiple necks offer. Be sure that any neck has a nice, thick ferrule at the “mouthpiece endâ€. That’s where the metal is thinnest, and a thick ferrule helps prevent splitting. The ferrule should have a taper so as not to present a vertical obstruction to the wave as it enters the neck. The neck should fit both tightly and evenly in the receiver. To test the fit, insert the neck in the receiver and with a light finger pressure, rotate the neck. The amount of resistance should be absolutely even. If it’s not, then either the tenon or the receiver (or both) is out of round, and if it’s out of round, it leaks. Several brands (Selmer, Saxgourmet, and others) thread the interior of the neck tenon in order to generate a boundary layer which stabilizes the lower notes. Different materials will give different sounds and responses: copper darkens the sound by adding more mid and low overtones; additional zinc in the brass alloy make the neck brighter and thinner sounding by favoring the upper partials; solid silver responds quicker than brass or other materials.

THE PADS A variety of materials are used for saxophone pads, including sheep skin (the most common); goat skin; and and kangaroo leather. Sheep and goats are mammals, so the cell structure of the skin is somewhat random. Kangaroo are marsupials, so the cell structure is in the form of a regular lattice. Sheep skin is smooth and inexpensive, goat skin is extremely strong and very durable (although it tends to be a little grainy and the hardness makes it noisy), and kangaroo, although extremely soft (and hence quiet) and strong is also extremely expensive. Kangaroo leather is much less likely to stick to the tone holes due to the structure of the cells, and as a result does not require a waterproofing treatment. Silicone based treatments are often used on sheep skin and goat skin pads to prevent them from absorbing moisture, but these treatments can often cause pad sticking and should be rejected. A simple test for silicone treatment is to close all of the pads, and then allow them to open using spring pressure alone. Listen for an audible “kissing†sound as the key releases. If this sound is present, the pads are probably silicone treated and should be rejected. The underlying felt used in pad construction is critical to good performance. Good quality felt should be quite firm and exhibit straight, well defined shoulders at the perimeter. Soft felt tends to shrink and distort with time, causing leaks.

THE RESONATORS A resonator is nothing more than a mirror, reflecting the wave back into the body tube. The reflection should as accurate as possible, with the wave remaining unaltered by the resonating process. In order to accomplish this, the resonator should be constructed of the exact same material as the body tube, and sized to minimize the amount of exposed pad leather, which acts much like a sponge absorbing and deadening the sound. It is also important to avoid metal resonators made from steel and aluminum, which invariable quickly corrode (remember, saliva contains hydrochloric acid!) and have to be replaced before the pads themselves have reached the end of their useful life. Unless your saxophone body is made from plastic, plastic resonators should always be avoided.

ROLLED TONE HOLES A number of modern brands now offer the option of rolled tone hole rims. These rims are made in two different ways: either the metal of the tone hole chimney is folded back after the chimney is pulled from the body, or a ring is hard soldered to the top of the chimney. There’s no real manufacturing advantage to one system over the other, and rolled tone holes change the feel of the key as it contacts the tone hole by significantly increasing the amount of contact surface. There is absolutely no acoustic difference between a rolled and an unrolled tone hole. It is significantly more difficult to repair or level rolled tone holes. and this should always be a consideration. Very, very few repair shops have the requisite skills to properly repair and adjust them.

THE SPRINGS It’s generally agreed that blued steel needle springs give the best service life and “feelâ€. Stainless steel springs generally lack a precise “feel†and quick response time. The needle point serves to focus the energy of the spring onto the key, adding efficiency. It is important to remember that springs which are long and thin are far preferable to springs which are short and fat as they give a much more even release of energy and better feel. Blued steel is often too brittle to serve well for flat springs, and phosphor copper will give much longer and more reliable service in this application.

THE PLATED FINISH OR LACQUER (OR LACK THEREOF) The industry wide specification for the thickness of plated or lacquered finishes is 3/10,000ths of an inch. This is FAR too thin to have any impact whatsoever on the sound or response of a saxophone. Today’s lacquers are epoxy based and are applied electrostatically, so they are extremely strong and thin. A wide variety of lacquer tints are in current usage, and they are just that: tints. The different platings in common use (silver, gold, anodized nickel) are all applied in the same fashion and typically have the same ultimate thickness. It’s important to keep in mind that the different platings offered are an extremely high mark up item for the manufacturer, and can significantly increase the cost of an instrument without adding any acoustic benefit. There’s been a trend in recent years of completely removing the lacquer or plating. There is absolutely no question about the fact that removal of the final finish dramatically alters the way a saxophone looks. That’s all it does.

THE UNDERLYING METAL This is really and truly the “Golden Age†of saxophone metallurgy. We have more options available now than at any other time in history. I’ll cover this subject in far greater detail in a future article in Saxophone Today, but for the time being, here’s the basics you need to know: Most saxophones are made from a brass alloy that is 70% copper and 30% zinc…….the greater the percentage of zinc in the alloy, the brighter and thinner the tone……â€rose brass†typically has a copper content of over 80%, and gives a much more complex sound due to the presence of more mid and lower partials…….silver and nickel silver tend to sound a bit brighter than brass and respond much more quickly…….Bronze is occasionally used, giving a little quicker response due to the addition of tin to the copper and zinc……various plastics have been tried since the Grafton saxophones of the 1940’s but they have never gained widespread acceptance due to thin tone and durability issues.

GIZMOS AND GEEGAWS There are a lot of “extra†features offered today that were unavailable in the past, and you should consider the potential effect some of them may have on the playability of your new horn. Among the options available today are double arms on the low C, B, and Bb (prevents leaks); screw adjustable keys (allows owner maintenance); G# anti-stick mechanism (a must have!); extended range keywork up to high G; additional “speaker†keys (improve intonation on cross vented notes); multiple octave vents (up to four, instead of the usual two for improved evenness of timbre and intonation); and many, many others. True, the availability of all of the modern options have made saxophone purchasing a bit more of a complex decision, but the good news is that saxophonists today have more choices than ever, and that in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, great saxophones are now actually cheaper to buy than ever. So, quit reading and go saxophone shopping, and let me know your questions!

Anybody who has ever visited my repair shop knows that I’m a sucker for tools…..if there’s a saxophone repair tool that exists on this planet that I don’t have, it’s most likely because I didn’t know it existed. Seriously, boys and girls….you can’t do a world class job of repairing saxophones if you don’t have the proper tools to work with. As I talk to technicians around the world, they often ask me for tool suggestions, so here are a few. If you don’t have ‘em, get ‘em! NOVA LEAK LIGHT This will change your life. It’s small, very light in weight, and it will singe your retinas at 30 paces. Throw away all your other leak lights. This is the most essential tool for a saxophone repair technician, and this version is simply the best available. Get the shorter length version so you can feed it into the top end of baritones and basses. From MusicMedic PAD IRONS WITH OPEN CENTERS What? You don’t iron pads and you call yourself a repair technician? If you’ll use these, which have the centers cut out to clear oversized resonators, you’ll get all the wrinkles out of the leather and leave it tight as a drum. Seriously, it’s a most important step in the process, and a lot of people ignore it. From Ferree Tool VORTEX AIR TORCH Get rid of all those burners. This is an adjustable hot air gun (up to 400 degrees F) that is great for padding. It’s light weight and you can put the hot air right where you want it. Won’t burn lacquer, either. From MusicMedic MAGNETIC DENT REMOVAL SYSTEM This makes most dent removal (not all, but most) so easy it’s like cheatin’…..I paid for mine in the first week. The technique is very easy to learn, and the results are excellent and quick. Buy all the different optional attachments and gizmos…..From MDRS (Eric Satterlee) THAT MASSIVE MANDREL It is much easier to handle this monster if two men do it……it looks like the lance of a medieval jouster……but when it comes to straightening a bent saxophone body, all the way up top a baritone, there is just no substitute………it is also most effective in getting body tube dents out…..from Ferree Tool DENT MACHINE As a matter of full disclosure, I have a custom made saxophone specific dent machine custom made for me (along with a wide variety of custom made attachments just for saxophones) which enables our shop to do some really amazing dent work. The frame even has the world famous Saxgourmet logo and is painted in a spectacular purple metalflake. I would tell you where to get one made, but I have not seen or heard from the guy who built it for me for years. The Ferree dent machine is quite good, and readily available, along with a wide assortment of accouterments….. KEY BENDING LEVERS Most people are surprised to learn that leaks are not removed during the initial manufacturing process by floating. The keys are carefully aligned with the tone holes, and then slightly bent as necessary. I think floating pads is a fool’s game for any but the smallest leaks. Ferree Tool makes some dandy little gizmos for de-leaking: brass wedges (with stick handles) in various shapes and configurations and levers which fit over the hinge tube and are slotted to allow moving the key cup by the rib. There’s a bit of a learning curve, but once you get the feel of the system you can make the horn very tight very easily. NECK TENON SHRINKER True, you rarely need to actually shrink a neck tenon unless you foolishly overexpanded it (now I’ve never done that, no not once…….well, maybe occasionally), BUT if you will carefully check the relationship of the tenon to the receiver, you will more often than not find that the tenon is out of round. Don’t waste your time, get a real tenon shrinker with an assortment of collets, and make sure every neck tenon is perfectly round before you lap it into the receiver. From Ferree Tool MOUTHPIECE TOOLS It never ceases to amaze me that the vast majority of technicians choose to ignore the mouthpiece as a potential source of problems. Are you kidding? You think the horn will play correctly with uneven rails and a table that is not? Grow up, learn the necessary skills, and get all the tools you need from MusicMedic. Obviously, this is an incomplete list……BUT it’s a start! I’ll cover more must-have saxophone tools in a future edition.

I’m old enough to remember the late 1960’s and early 1970’s and the fact that many of us who were making a living playing the saxophone during those days did something that would be absolutely unthinkable today: we had electronic pickups permanently installed on our saxophones, a procedure which almost always involved drilling a hole in the neck. As the rock music scene blossomed during this era, saxophonists found themselves unable to compete (on a decibel level, at least) with guitarists, and the microphones and sound reinforcement equipment generally available at the time simply wasn’t up to the job at hand. When Selmer gave their blessing to the concept of a permanently installed pickup on a saxophone through their introduction of the ill-conceived and notoriously unreliable Varitone system, the flood gates were opened and suddenly everybody was getting pickups put on their horns. The main problem (among many) was that the pickups were almost always installed by technicians schooled in band instrument repair, not electronics or acoustics, who didn’t have a clue as to the optimum location on the neck, so in addition to the limitations of the equipment available at that point in time, most of the pickups were simply put on the horn in the wrong location. As a result of the poor installation technique and generally bad quality of the pickups available, saxophone players began to realize that maybe this permanent pickup thing was not such a good idea. In addition to the previously stated problems, many players purchased the wrong type amplifier, and tried to utilize amps which were built to respond to the frequency range of an electric guitar rather than the range of the saxophone. After a few years, everyone had begun to understand that this was maybe not such a good idea, and the pickup holes were all plugged, the pickups removed, and everyone went back to using conventional microphones. The saxophone community was left with unsightly warts on their necks, which were difficult to remove in a cosmetically acceptable fashion. During the late 1980’s, wireless microphones became available, and as they evolved and decreased in size, saxophonists were freed from having to stand in one spot (at the microphone) and no longer had to carry an amplifier since they could just plug the receiver of the wireless unit into the sound system. Unfortunately, the wireless aspect of these systems was a little bit ahead of the sound quality aspect, so the result was not always musically acceptable. Fortunately for us, technology marches on, and now very small yet acoustically correct microphones are available. We are currently working to see if it is possible to adapt this modern technology to the saxophone at a reasonable cost. My current vision is to offer a system in which the microphone is correctly mounted to the neck and offer an entire package (neck + electronics) to the player. Of course, by necessity, you have to offer the correct neck for a given instrument (contrary to what some neck vendors would have you believe, necks are NOT “one size fits allâ€) but we already manufacture a large number of different necks which are instrument specific. We also envisage offering a “multiple†microphone system as is commonly used in recording studios. My thought is to have one microphone mounted on the neck, another on the bell, and perhaps one on the midsection of the body. I believe this would significantly improve the accuracy of the signal received and sent to the sound system. Of course, between the pickups on the horn and the connection to the sound system, a player can easily add a bank of effects processors. It’s really amazing what is available today! In the 1970’s, I was touring with a large wooden frame which held about 20 individual guitar effects pedals, from flangers to envelope followers, along with a voume pedal and a wah wah pedal….well, it was the 1970’s, and we all aspired to be every bit as hip and psychedelic as the guitar slingers. I also, to the great dismay of my roadies, carried an immense 200 watt Ampeg amp everywhere. We have today some amazing sounding keyboard amplifiers which are tuned to the right frequency range, which are much lighter, more reliable, and sound much better than the equipment of the past. Basically, I’m telling you that once again, everything old may be new again, and that we plan to investigate the possibility of electrifying the saxophone once again, hopefully with better results. I’ll keep you posted, and may even post some video sound samples of the prototypes when we have them available.

I Don’t Want to Bore You……An Explanation of Saxophone Bores and How They Work by STEVE “SAXGOURMET†GOODSON As I travel around teaching and discussing saxophone design, I become more and more convinced everyday that the least understood aspect of saxophone design is the configuration of the bore. I am also absolutely convinced that there is no aspect of saxophone design subject to more mythology, misunderstanding, and misinformation. Glutton for punishment that I am, I have taken it upon myself to give my faithful readers an overview of this most critical and complex issue, subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) there will be no higher math or mathematical formulas given or discussed in this article, as it has been my experience that this tends to make the students eyes glaze over immediately, and (2) there will be no complex diagrams illustrating wave forms, displacement anti-nodes, or similar points. For those of you, including second year students and course repeaters, who have questions, comments, or inquiries into the deeper and darker mysteries of this topic, be advised that I will be absolutely delighted to answer your every question if you will only address me at the email address given at the end of this article. Before we get to far along in our quest to understand the eternal mysteries of saxophone bores, it is essential that we take a moment to define a few terms that we will be using throughout the discussions: HERTZ: a unit which describes the complete cycle of a vibration FREQUENCY: the number of Hertz per second HARMONIC: an element whose frequency is a whole multiple of that of a given fundamental frequency. Harmonics are considered to be in tune. PARTIAL: an element whose frequency lies outside the harmonic series. These pitches are not considered to be in tune, but add color to the sound. It’s now appropriate that we carefully examine what is (and what is not) going on inside the bore of the saxophone as we produce a sound. It’s true that a saxophone is commonly known as a “wind†instrument, but maybe that’s not entirely correct. Yes, the air inside the horn is the medium through which the vibrations created by the reed are transferred, but the actual method of transfer is often misunderstood. What actually happens is that each molecule of air acts on the adjacent molecule, causing the circulation of the wave among the molecules. The pressure from the breath actually serves only to make the reed vibrate. Of course, when the air molecules rub against each other and interact, some of the energy is lost through friction. Of course, the famous law of conservation of energy prohibits the energy from being actually lost. In reality it is converted to heat. As the air molecules heat up, they become less resistant to the transfer of energy, so it’s not your imagination at all that your horn actually plays better after it “warms up†after a little playing. The waves with the lowest frequency have the most energy. They carry further, and tend to travel in concentric circles. High frquency waves behave in the opposite fashion: they tend to be very directional in their travel and transmit little energy. Now, let’s take a look at what happens when the wave travels down the length of the bore. In this simple example, we’re going to assume that our bore is an even cone with straight walls, open at the “large†end (the bell) and closed at the small end (the mouthpiece with the reed closed). When the wave is generated by the mouthpiece, it moves down the bore toward the bell in the form of a high pressure wave. When this high pressure wave encounters the still air at the end of the bell, suction is created within the bore, and the wave reverses direction and moves back to the closed (mouthpiece) end in the form of a low pressure wave. When the wave reaches the closed mouthpiece, it reverses direction again and moves toward the open bell, this time in the form of a low pressure wave. When it reaches the open bell, the wave makes one final reverse, and returns to the mouthpiece a final time, this time in the form of a high pressure wave. So, if we count on our fingers and toes, we now know that in order for the wave to make a complete cycle, it had to travel the length of the bore a total of four times, twice in one direction (toward the bell) and twice in the opposite direction (toward the mouthpiece). Armed with this valuable knowledge, we now know that the length of the instrument is exactly one quarter of the overall length of the frequency of the wave, or one hertz. The above example, of course, assumes no tone holes. The fact of the matter is that the first open tone hole acts pretty much the same as the opening of the bell, although the effect is less pronounced for smaller diameter tone holes closer to the mouthpiece. I know I promised no higher math, but the above information leads us to the following equations, which are really and truly the basis for all saxophone bore designs: The pitch (or frequency) of a note (F) will be equal to the speed of sound (S) divided by four times the length of the tube (L) F = S/4L and the length of tube necessary to produce that pitch can be expressed as L = S/4F These examples are applicable only to the perfect world, because the transmission of the wave is influenced by a wide variety of factors, including air temperature, humidity, bore diameter, instrument material, and most likely, to a lessor degree, by a variety of factors we may not fully understand, such as planetary alignment and phase of the moon! There’s a lot going on inside the bore, and a fair amount of it is still a complete mystery to us. Remember that we have multiple waves traveling in opposite directions in our bore. When two waves of equal strength coming from opposite directions collide, they cancel each other out and create what is known as a displacement node. Their pressures combine and a compression antinode is created at the same location of the displacement node. I have found it helpful to remember that an antinode always has pressure and movement, and a node is stationary or has very minimal movement. A phenomenon which occurs when the vibrations of the reed equal the the frequency of the bore is called a resonance, with both the bore frequency and the reed vibration acting on one another. There will always be a displacement antinode (compression node) at the open (bell) end of the bore, and there will always be a displacement node (compression antinode) at the tip of the mouthpiece. Enlarging the diameter of the bore at a displacement antinode makes the corresponding note sharp, and enlarging the diameter of the bore at a compression antinode makes the note flat. Reducing the diameter of the bore at a displacement antinode makes the corresponding note flat, and reducing the diameter of the bore at a compression antinode makes the note sharp. Now for the tricky part! If we’ve made a conical bore which has a hypothetical frequency (for the purposes of example only) of 50 Hz, and has a “perfect†uneven harmonic series of: 50Hz X 1 = 50Hz 50Hz X 3 = 150Hz 50Hz X 5 = 250Hz 50Hz X 7 = 350Hz etc. and next we enlarge the tube by the same 50Hz to get the even harmonics to complete the series, we get something like this: 50Hz + 50Hz = 100Hz 150Hz + 50Hz = 200Hz 250Hz + 50Hz = 300Hz 350Hz + 50Hz = 400Hz etc. This bore will play nicely in the fundamental register. If, however, we go too far, and expand our bore for a gain of 55Hz, our basic bore is now calculated on the basis of 50Hz + 55Hz = 105Hz, so the final column values are 105, 205, 305, 405 for the uneven harmonics, rather than the correct 105, 210, 315, 420 . The instrument won’t play in tune because the frequencies are not whole multiples of 105. The upper register will be significantly flat, because an instrument whose bore is too wide will always play flat in the upper register. If we were to reverse our adjustment, with a resulting smaller bore, the instrument would play sharp in the upper register. If you survived and understand the above example, let’s proceed with designing a bore which works well for multiple octaves. Keep in mind that the upper tones tend to be the most troublesome, and tend to sound flat. Also keep in mind that each and every tone hole chimney has the net effect of enlarging the bore at that point, and that every time a key is opened, the math going on inside the horn changes. We must also make significant adjustments for the curvature of the neck, bow, and bell. Now if we want to make a nice playing, very responsive body tube, we must first calculate the correct conical bore (without tone holes) to produce the note C#2 (third space on the staff), and then modify the curvature of the bore so that by merely increasing the pressure on the reed we can get a nice quality C#3 (an octave higher). Next, we must lengthen then bore so we get a D1 (below the staff), and then calculate the angle of the bore which will allow us to overblow to a D2 (fourth line). You’ll notice that the angle required for the D is different from the angle required to produce the C#. Once you begin adding the tone holes, the angle will vary further still. This, my friends, is where the art and experience come in. Trial and error is the name of the game at this point. I’ll defer discussion of the neck for the time being, and refer you to my article “A Saxophonist’s Guide to Necking†which preciously appeared in The Saxophone Journal and is available as a back issue from the publisher, Dorn Publications. Needless to say, the neck plays a very critical role in the tuning and the response of the saxophone. With the exception of the sopranino and some soprano saxophones, all saxophones have a curved bow at the large end of the body tube, and the bore or this section requires consideration of its curvature. Generally speaking, the diameter of the bore at the point of the bow should be less than the diameter of the body tube at the point where the bow and body tube join. Consideration must be given to the tone holes, not only their placement, but also their diameter and the height of the chimneys. Each tone hole has the effect of increasing the diameter of the bore at its location. There is also a significant difference in the effect of closed and open tone holes on the bore. Closed tone holes capture air and flatten the pitch when they are located at or near a compression antinode. The closer to the mouthpiece the closed tone hole, the more pronounced and significant this effect. They also tend to absorb the upper partials, deadening the sound. The spacing of the open tone holes is based on the D chromatic scale. The palm key notes (D3 and above) and the lower notes (C#1 and below) might best be considered “afterthoughtsâ€. The quick and dirty figure used to calculate the placement of the tone holes is 6% (the actual number is .0594631), but as is usual with design of the saxophone, there are some variables. It is important to recognize that the 6% number only applies if the tone hole is exactly the same diameter as the bore at that point. If if is smaller than the bore diameter, as is very often the case, it must be moved closer to the mouthpiece. The open and closed tone holes respond to the frequencies of the notes in very different ways. The open tone holes allow the fundamental and first overtone to be heard at full voice, with the other harmonics being heard from the following tone holes. The relationship between adjacent tone holes is particularly critical, and great care must be exercised to see that the critical relationship between the diameter of the tone hole and the diameter of the bore is considered. Since the typical saxophone has closed tone holes for the notes G#, D#, and C#, it should come as no surprise that the voice of these notes is often considerably improved through the opening of adjacent keys in order to compensate for the long expanses of dead area surrounding these closed tone holes. Surprisingly, the size and general shape of the saxophone bell has very little acoustic impact. The only note which actually comes out of the end of the bell is low Bb, although the upper partials of most other notes also emerge there. Truly, the function of the bell is mostly aesthetic. So now we’ve had an overview of the bore of the saxophone and some of the considerations necessary for proper design. I have very intentionally omitted some of the higher math and highly technical details. This is a highly complex topic, and I do not believe it is fully understood by anyone, living or dead, in the saxophone business. I will be happy to answer, to the best of my ability, any serious questions on this or any other saxophone design topic if you will email my office at saxgourmet@cox.net. Please, serious questions only!

BUILDING A BETTER BARI! As many of you know, I consider myself first and foremost a bari player. I’ve been to every continent except Antarctica with a baritone sax, and at one time or another have owned an example or two of all the major brands. I’ve also designed and overseen the production of several baritone saxes from the ground up, all of which have my name on the bell. I’ve always believed we could do better, and I’m currently working on a new bari design to accomplish just that! Unfortunately, the baritone sax has always been treated like the “red headed step child†of the saxophone family, primarily because it sells in very low numbers relative to the more popular alto, tenor, and soprano. Manufacturers just have not devoted the time and resources necessary to whip the bari into submission. That my friends, is a situation I plan to correct. First, I made a list of the most commonly heard complaints about the baritone sax. Of course, some of these complaints are heard about all the members of the saxophone family, and some are bari-specific. It is always important to recognize and identify the problems before you attempt to find a solution. In the last couple of bari designs bearing my name, we learned a great deal about the importance of getting the taper of the “upper pigtail†just right. I believe this is the single biggest failing of most bari manufacturers: they just don’t do the math, and even if they do, they don’t make proper allowances for the twists and turns on the upper portion of a baritone sax. This failure often leads to intonation problems (particularly in the upper octave) and some response issues. If you’ll carefully look at the pigtail of one of my recent designs, you will easily see that the tubing is of a different diameter and taper than you will find on other brands. You will also notice that the intonation is substantially better. That’s the reason. I’ve also noticed that the very highest notes of the baritone, from around B3 up, tend to lack a full voice and sound quite thin and constricted. We’re currently experimenting with speaker keys such as we use on our Super 400 alto and tenor saxophones to remedy this problem, and so far the results have been promising! We know from our previous experience that metallurgy is an important and often overlooked part of saxophone design. We have learned that the use of ultra high copper content alloys, AKA “Rose Brass†greatly enlarges the spectrum of harmonics the horn produces without making the tone excessively dark, and we will use this variety of brass to be sure our bari has a very full voice. In the past, we have utilized special air tight resonators made for us by MusicMedic, and once again, we will be mounting these very, very large solid copper resonators on extra firm black kangaroo leather Saxgourmet pads. Player comfort is a significant issue with a large horn like the baritone, so we will be including our extra large right hand thumb rest which supports the entire thumb, including the last digit. A three ring strap hook, offset from the centerline of the body, will be used to accommodate players of different physical size. The keywork geometry we have settled on is similar in feel to the Yamaha 62, which we find to be very smooth and comfortable. We’ll incorporate a few other features found on the Super 400 alto and tenor we currently build, including our never stick G# mechanism and F# helper bar. Alas, the mechanism necessary to add a high G key is too complex to be reliable on a bari, IMHO. Finally, we want to make this horn as beautiful as all the others in the Saxgourmet line of saxophones, so we will offer it only in our bright copper plate to give it that “new penny†look, and I promise that it will be hand engraved on the bell, bell flare, bow, body tube, neck, and all key cups, plus anywhere else I can find a blank space! We’ll also use deep water abalone pearls for the key touches. Now there are quite a few other secrets I’ve got up my sleeve to make the Saxgourmet Super 400 baritone sax the absolute greatest bari of all time, but just like Colonel Sanders wouldn’t tell you what the eleven herbs and spices were, I’m not going to let you know it all! We’re still experimenting and prototyping this new model, so if you have some suggestions let me know. Look for it sometime next year. No, I don’t know the price yet. I do promise to keep you posted though, and when we have a prototype that is not ugly, I may even post some pictures!

An Ounce of Prevention……. I am forever amazed by saxophonists who show little or no interest in being proactive about keeping their horn playing its best. Surprisingly little time or effort is required for a few basic maintenance routines that you can perform yourself with tools and materials that you most likely have on hand or can easily obtain. Within this article, I’m also going to share some very simple and inexpensive procedures that any competent technician can perform for you at a very low cost. Let’s start at the top of the horn and see what we can do to either improve things or make them better…… REEDS The first thing we need to do if you are using natural cane reeds is to get you to accept the fact that there is absolutely no such thing as a “museum quality†cane reed. It’s most unreasonable to believe that the reed whose playing abilities outshine all others will last forever. That being said, here’s a couple of tips to help you preserve your favorites: Seal the fibers! The fibers (that’s the dark streaks you see…..the white stuff binding the fibers together is pith and does not influence the sound in any way) aren actually hollow tubes. Since the fibers are hollow, saliva (a digestive juice!) can fill them and break them down over time. Before you do anything with the reed, polish the vamp until it’s smooth and shiny. You can use a spoon, your mouthpiece, or anything smooth and hard for this polishing. The vamp of the reed will be somewhat glossy nwhen sufficiently polished. Soak the reed overnight in water, then place on a piece of glass and allow it to dry completely. This will take about 24 hours for the reed to completely dry. Then repeat the process. This will acclimate your reed to accepting and releasing moisture (remember, the can was aged before the reed was manufactured) so it will be more stable once you begin to use it. Some people use hydrogen peroxide instead of water and say that this brings out certain desirable qualities in the reed, but I’m not a chemist so I don’t know. I have a good friend who uses small batch Bourbon whiskey instead of water or hydrogen peroxide, and I’m not too sure about that, either. Flatten the back of the reed by lightly sanding it with some 1500 grit (yes, 1500) emery paper glued to a piece of glass. We want the back of the reed to seal perfectly against the table of the mouthpiece, and this will not happen unless both the reed back and the mouthpiece table are perfectly flat. Close to flat is totally unacceptable. I think it goes without saying that you should remove and dry your reed (a paper towel or cocktail napkin works just fine) after every use. Remember that saliva is a digestive juice and that there is simply no point in leaving it on your reed. Of course, synthetic reeds (full disclosure: I personally use carbon fiber reeds, which are virtually indestructible) don’t require all of this care and feeding, but should also be removed and cleaned after every playing session. Good hygiene is, after all, condusive to good oral health. MOUTHPIECES From time to time I have to work on a horn with a mouthpiece that can only be described as disgusting. Not only is this unhealthy, but a dirty mouthpiece will invariably have some playing deficiencies. These problems are easy to understand, and easy to fix. Before we begin discussing your mouthpiece, please raise your right hand and repeat after me: “I know and understand that the design and manufacturing tolerances of my mouthpiece are expressed in thousandths of an inch and should only be modified by someone competent and experienced in mouthpiece workâ€. Put another way, be very careful, don’t experiment. and don’t do any more than clean your mouthpiece, as you can easily permanently damage it. Here’s a few things to do to keep your mouthpiece playing its best: Keep it clean! Unless you are using a wooden mouthpiece (which I do from time to time), wash your mouthpiece from time to time with lukewarm (not hot) water and ordinary dishwashing detergent, scrubbing as needed with a soft bristled toothbrush. Do this frequently enough so that deposits do not accumulate on the interior. From time to time, lap the table into perfect flatness. You will be absolutely amazed at how much better your mouthpiece plays. Take some 1500 grit emery paper and place it on a piece of glass. Now, with a very light pressure, pull your mouthpiece across the paper just once and then have a look. You should be able to easily detect any high spots. Now, pass the mouthpiece over the paper again using a very light pressure until all of the high spots are gone. Your mouthpiece will never seal air tight until the table and the back of the reed are both perfectly flat. Now, turn the paper over, so that the smooth, non-abrasive side is face up. Using a very light pressure, polish the side rails of your mouthpiece. Be sure to carefully inspect your mouthpiece rails, tip, and table for any chips, nicks, or significant scratches. If you find any dings, dips, or divots in the rails or table, then take your mouthpiece to someone who is a specialist in mouthpiece repair and have it fixed. This someone is in all probability not you and it is also probably not your regular repair technician. Mouthpiece repair requires special skills and equipment. NECKS The neck of your saxophone is where the tone and pitch are set and requires your complete attention. If it is out of round at any point or is dented, you must have it repaired immediately. You’ll be amazed at how much better your horn plays if the neck isn returned to its correct specifications. Of course, there are a few things you can do yourself to keep your neck doing its job to the best of its ability. Keep it clean and dry! After every playing session, swab out your neck completely. I’ve always thought that “string type†swabs that you pull through the neck do the best job. Don’t allow calcium or other (more disgusting!) deposits to form on the interior. I’m not a big fan of the fuzzy gizmo’s some people keep in their necks because they retain moisture. You wouldn’t leave a wet sponge inside your neck overnight, now would you? Always store your neck in a well padded bag to prevent damage when it is in your case. Use socks to cover your feet and Crown Royal bags to hold bottles of whiskey, not your neck. Get a neck bag designed specifically for the job at hand. If your neck cork becomes compressed but is still intact, soak it overnight in water and then dry it with a hair dryer. The water which was absorbed by the cork will turn to steam and expand the cork when it is released. It is crucial that you keep the tenon and the interior of the neck receiver scrupulously clean. Use 0000 steel wool to remove any corrosion. Never, ever apply any type of oil or lubricant, as this will attract and retain dirt and grit which will damage the tenon and receiver. It is most important to be certain that your neck tenon and receiver are both perfectly round and not leaking. This is very easy to check: place your neck in the receiver but don’t tighten the screw. Now, with a very light pressure, rotate the neck slowly in the receiver and feel for any difference in the resistance. If the amount of resistance is uneven, then either the neck tenon or the receiver (or possibly both) are out of round. To fix this, apply a bit of thick oil with just a tiny bit of ordinary tooth past evenly to the neck tenon, insert it into the receiver and rotate. This will lap down any slight high spots and allow the joint to be air tight. It is essential that after this joint is lapped into perfection, you thoroughly clean both the tenon and the receiver, leaving absolutely no trace of the oil/toothpaste abrasive. Whenever you have your horn serviced, be certain that the technician adjusts the fit of the neck. Before you leave your horn, ask to see the technician’s expander. It should look like an old, crank style can opener. Then ask to see the technician’s neck “shrinker†(actually usually used to make the neck perfectly round), which fits into the bench vise and has different sized collets. If your technician lacks either of these essential tools, quickly close your case and run for the door! PADS It’s easy to figure out how to care for your pads: just treat them like fine leather shoes. With very little effort, you can easily double the life of your pads, and considering the ever rising cost of repads, a little effort is time well spent. Here’s few things to do: Always dry your pads completely after every playing session. Remember that saliva is a digestive juice which will break down the leather if you fail to remove it. Simply blot every pad with a paper towel. You wouldn’t put your shoes in the closet if they were still wet, now would you? Over time, the leather (particularly if you are using sheepskin pads) will dry out and lose its flexibility. If you don’t let the condition progress too far, it is easily remedied with the application of a pad treatment which will restore the suppleness of the leather. Be careful in your treatment selection, and never use anything containing silicone or that is excessively oily, as this can cause the pads to stick and create embarrassing pad noise. Keep your pads clean using saddle soap. Never, ever, under any circumstances should use alcohol, naptha (lighter fluid), or any other solvent, as these all break down the leather. If your pads are sticking, or are noisy (that “kissing†sound), you must clean both the pads (use saddle soap) and the brims of the tone holes. It’s almost always the tone hole rims, and not the pads, that are the culprits, and cleaning them is very easy. Cut some 1500 grit emery paper into strips about one inch wide and four inches long. Place the strip with the abrasive side toward the tone hole between the pad and the tone hole rim, close the key with a light pressure, and pull then strip out. Repeat as necessary to clean the entire tone hole rim. If you will do this once a week, pad sticking will become a thing of the past for you. If the sticking persists, apply a pad powder which causes the pads to shed moisture. Never use a pad powder which absorbs moisture, as this will cause small lumps top form on the pads which will prevent them from sealing perfectly. I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but the principal ingredient of most pad powders on the market is either talcum or corn starch, both of which are absorbents. You have been warned. Always use key clamps when your horn is not being played. The felt underneath the leather absorbs moisture and distorts as it dries. This is why your horn plays a little differently every day (and you thought it was planetary alignment or phase of the moon) for no apparent reason. Clamps keep a perfect seat on your pads, as well as protecting the mechanism when the horn is being moved. KEYWORK AND MECHANISM Remember, this is basically just machinery, and with a little bit of care, you should have very few problems. Since most of the mechanism is metal, it tends to be pretty stable and trouble free. The springs are always under stress, so they have a different set of issues than the keywork. The main culprits are the silencers, bumpers, and adjusters. Oil the entire mechanism each and every month by applying a single drop of key oil to each and every gap and junction in the keywork, using a pin oiler. Only use high detergent key oil, which is self cleaning and eliminates the gummy deposits left after the volatile components of the oil have evaporated. These deposits can really slow the action down. Apply Lok-Tite or a similar product (or just use fingernail polish) to all adjusting screws so they are less likely to back out with useage. Keep all springs coated with oil. Apply a single drop monthly to each spring and allow it to run down and coat the entire length. Rusty springs break! Apply a small amount of thick, lithium grease to each spring cradle to keep the mechanism quiet. Your mechanism where metal to metal contacts among the components of compound keys should be sufficient to provide a seal. This is not something you have the tools or expertise to do yourself, so take it to somebody who does. Look at some of the work the technician has done. If thick corks or felts were used to regulate keys, close your case quickly and run for the door! The amount of material used between the components of compound keys should be extremely thin. Its only function is to serve as a silencer, not as an adjustor. Felt is OK, cork not so good, leather (preferably kangaroo or goatskin, which are both very durable and stable) is best. Take a look at all the key felts and bumpers, particularly the round adjustors for the low Eb, low C, low B, and low Bb, and be certain that they are angled to provide maximum contact with the curved surface of the body tube. If they aren’t, adjust them so they are, and the mechanism will be much more stable. Don’t forget to apply Lok-Tite to the adjustable felt holders for the lower keys. It’s pretty common for the lower stack keys to develop a “flutter†over time. Be proactive and replace the silencers on the key feet, which are usually cork, with Sorbothane, which is a miracle material which absorbs impact. You’ll thank me for years for this tip! Saxophones are expensive, and like any other major investment, need to be maintained. Hopefully, some of these tips will help you get the most out of your horn. Feel free to contact me with any questions via email at saxgourmet@cox.net

I was a paid writer for The Saxophone Journal magazine from 2008 – 2013. Here’s a list of my articles which were published there. They are all available as back issues from Dorn Publications. Of course, I have had articles published in quite a few other music magazines in the United States and Europe, but I am particularly proud of this long running series in The Saxophone Journal. I currently write a column about saxophone design in each issue of Saxophone Today magazine 

Sax Acoustics ‘101’                                                                 Nov/Dec 2008
Musings on the Mechanism                                                  Jan/Feb 2009
Musings on the Mouthpiece                                                  Mar/April 2009
A Saxophonists Guide to Necking                                       May/June 2009
My Pad or Yours                                                                     July/Aug 2009
The Greatest Controversy: Resonators                              Sept/Oct 2009
Saxophonists Prepare: Meet Thy Maker                           Nov/Dec 2009
The Rites of Springs                                                               Jan/Feb 2010
Designing a New Saxophone                                                Mar/Apr 2010
Improving the Saxophone Part II                                       May/June 2010
You Can’t Always Get What You Want                              July/Aug 2010
A Guide to Saxophone Finishes                                           Sept/Oct 2010
The Decline and Fall of the Vintage Sax Market              Nov/Dec 2010
Can I Get This Adjusted?                                                       Jan/Feb 2011
It’s a Material World                                                              Mar/April 2011
The Manufacturing History of C.G. Conn                          May/June 2011
The Manufacturing History of King Saxophones             July/Aug 2011
Master Saxophone Engraver Jason Dumars Pt 1             Sept/Oct 2011
Master Saxophone Engraver Jason Dumars Pt 2             Jan/Feb 2012
The Fabulous Leblanc System Saxophones                      May/June 2012
Saxophone Myths Exposed                                                   July/Aug 2012
I Don’t Want to Bore You                                                      Sept/Oct 2012
The Mark VI Mystique Pt 1                                                   Jan/Feb 2013
The Mark VI Mystique Pt 2                                                  Mar/Apr 2013
Why Don’t They?                                                                     May/June 2013
Evaluating a Saxophone for Purchase                               July/Aug 2013

 

I promise that this explanation of the physics of saxophone playing will be totally devoid of higher math, complex formulas, or scientific jargon. I further hope that your eyes will not glaze over, and that you will leave this article with a clear understanding of the physics of saxophone sound production and how these laws affect your playing. My goal here is to provide a clear and simple explanation of the key concepts. To attain this goal, I’ll use some generalized ideas and approximations. I don’t intend to delve into the realm of super scientific and precise explanation. This presentation is intended to provide you with basic concepts you can use to understand and improve your playing, and is not in any way to be construed as a scholarly work. I sincerely believe that if you understand the basics of the science that goes on inside your saxophone, you will be able to deal more effectively with your instrument, and that, of course, will make you a better player.

IT ALL STARTS WITH THE REED

The basic idea is really quite simple, the player raises the air pressure on the reed by blowing, which acts as an energy source that generates a continuous stream of vibrations to the instrument. The length and shape of the bore of the instrument determine the pitch and basic tone color. There’s really not a lot more to it than that, but the details can be quite maddening.

The reed is flexible, and responds to increases in air pressure from the player’s body. If the pressure provided by the player is too low, the air flows through the gap between the reed and the top of the mouthpiece. When the pressure is increased to the correct amount, the reed closes against the tip of the mouth- piece. If the pressure is too great, the reed stays closed against the mouthpiece.

As the wave travels down the length of the bore, the friction caused by contact with the bore results in a decrease in pressure which allows the reed to release from its closed position. Since the flow of air provided by the player is continuous, the cycle repeats. Changes in the amount of pressure on the reed can significantly affect the pitch and characteristics of the tone produced by the reed. As increasing air pressure is applied, the fundamental tone gains more and more harmonics, and loses mellowness. As more pressures are applied, the wave form produced changes from curved to square, and contains even more upper harmonics. These square wave forms are considered to be inappropriate for legitimate playing by many saxophonists, but are often favored by rock ‘n roll players. For this reason, a harder reed tends to maintain a mellow tone at higher volume levels. The addition of harmonics to the fundamental also gives the impression of increased loudness, because the human ear is sensitive to those harmonics.

Soft reeds are more flexible than hard reeds, and thus are more responsive to changes in pressure inside the mouthpiece. They push out from the facing when the pressure inside the mouthpiece increases.Conversely, they close more easily when the pressure is diminished. As a result of this pressure fluctuation, the frequency is reduced, with the effect being greater for high pitches than for lower ones. For this reason soft reeds tend to play flatter in pitch.

THE CONICAL CLOSED PIPE BORE

The saxophone bore is basically a cone, open at one end (the bell), and closed at the other. The closed mouthpiece end doesn’t come to a point, as in a true cone. That missing portion can be calculated, and the volume of the tone chamber of the mouthpiece should equal the volume of the missing portion. If there is a variation in the two volumes, intonation difficulties can be the result. This is why some mouthpieces just don’t work on some horns. The internal dimensions are too small to correctly complete the missing portion of the cone.

As the sound waves generated by the mouthpiece and reed travel down the horn toward the bell, the amplitude of the wave gets progressively smaller as the waves spread out. Upon reaching the end of the bell the waves enter an area of normal atmospheric pressure.

The further down the conical bore the waves travel, the lower the pressure. As the waves travel, they form secondary waves,known as harmonics. The sequence of these waves is predictable, and is as shown in Example 1.

Example 1

The note sequence in Example 1 is familiar to anyone who has studied the altissimo range of the saxophone. All of the pitches can be produced by fingering low Bb and altering the air stream pressure from the player’s body. Of course, the pitches deviate somewhat as they increase in frequency, with the upper pitches tending to become sharper. The mix of these harmonics, together with the fundamental frequency, deter- mines the tonal spectrum of the saxophone. As air pressure from the player increases, the harmonics become more prominent.

The embouchure serves to dampen the frequency of the reed, so the natural resonances of the bore begin to dominate the waves, which will always be of a lower frequency than the vibrational frequency of the reed itself.

Of course, most members of the saxophone family are curvedin shape, and allowance must always be made for the flow of the wave through this curvature. Realistically, the curved saxophones are built around four cones of different tapers, the neck, the body tube, the bow, and the bell. Some straight soprano saxophones have a noticeable “step†in the upper part of the bore to improve the intonation match between octaves. The true reason behind the curve is playing comfort and the limits of the players reach. A well designed curved saxophone should be indistinguishable in sound and playing characteristics from a straight one.It is also essential (and often overlooked by designers) to consider the fact that the tone hole chimney adds volume to the cone, and that the diameter of the bore is effectively increased at the point of each tone hole.

HOW THE REGISTER HOLES WORK

Most saxophones have two register holes, activated by the octave key. In a perfect world our saxophones would have twelve register holes, one for each semi-tone of the chromatic scale. However, this would be a mechanical nightmare, and although not a perfect compromise, the system of two vents found on most saxophones functions in an acceptable manner. The small register hole destroys enough pressure from the fundamental wave to enable the second harmonic (one octave higher than the fundamental) to become dominant. This miracle of science enables saxophonists to use the same fingerings for both octaves of the saxophones range. Much experimentation has been done with this aspect of saxophone design, and today saxophones with multiple register holes and specialized keys for the altissimo range are offered.

TONE HOLES AND PITCH

To raise the pitch of our saxophone we must make the conical tube shorter. Starting from the end of the bell, each open tone hole raises the pitch one semi-tone. The opening of each successive tone hole shortens the overall length of the conical tube by about 6%. The diameter of each tone hole is roughly correlated with the tube diameter at that point, with adjustments in size often necessary to facilitate temperament of the scale. The opening of the tone hole causes the wave to lose pressure as it moves down the bore, thus shortening its length and raising the pitch. It’s not an altogether perfect system because the waves have a tendency to exert pressure beyond the first open tone hole they encounter. The higher pitches exert more pressure than the lower ones, and this effect is more significant in the upper registers.

These factors are the most difficult obstacles to building a saxophone with perfect intonation, and the failure to properly understand them has been the downfall of many a saxophone designer. Matching the intonation between octaves is universally agreed to be the most difficult part of saxophone design. A very special problem area is the use of cross fingerings, such as C2/C3 and F#1/F#2. Here, another tone hole is closed “downstream†from the first open tone hole, and this effectively lengthens the tube. This effect is heightened in the higher pitches as the tone holes become smaller and the wave frequencies increase. Of course, the situation is even worse in the second register, where wave frequencies are even higher.

The wave has a certain amount of momentum and tends to travel beyond its intended point of escape. A careful designer must always be mindful of this phenomenon. Over the years, various solutions have been tried to overcome this problem,including the “double G†keys on the early Kings; the bow mounted speaker key on the Holton “Rudy Weidoft Model;†and the upper stack speaker key used on the later LA Sax horns.

HOW THE BELL AFFECTS SOUND

The bell of the saxophone serves to radiate the waves out into standing air. The more the waves are radiated out, the less the waves are reflected inside the bore, and the instrument projects more. The bell shape may also be selective in that it favors certain frequencies over others, resulting in improved response at certain points in the range. A properly designed bell can significantly aid in the production of the lowest tones. A good design will ease the production of the lower tones by reducing resistance in the final portion of the bore.

Care must be taken that the bell design does not adversely affect note (particularly cross fingered ones) in the extreme upper register. Some of the big bells offered today give good low note response at the expense of the upper end of the horn, so bigger is not always better. The larger bells often used have less effect on the upper pitches due to the intervention of open tone holes before the bell opening. In the absence of a bell, or if the bell is too small, the instrument will be very dull in sound and lack projection.

SUMMARY

There aren’t a lot of simple black and white solutions to good saxophone design. The factors which must be considered in designing an instrument which plays well in tune and is responsive in all registers are many. A solution for a problem in one place on the horn may very well result in a problem in another area. Good results are totally dependent on a complete understanding of the physics and mathematics involved, and the willingness of the designer to pursue seemingly endless experimentation in the quest for the optimum solution. Because many of the solutions are by definition compromises, multiple prototypes are generally produced before the design is finalized for production and sale to end users.

This article was intended to be the most basic of introductions to the topic. I am happy to answer any questions and love discussing this subject. You may contact me via email at saxgourmet@cox.net. 

It’s a testament to the genius of Adolphe Sax that our modern saxophones use a keywork system that is basically identical to what was used on the very first examples. It is true, of course, that the range of the instrument has been enlarged and that certain mechanisms have been improved. However, today’s saxophonist is still forced to use a system introduced over a hundred and fifty years ago. Numerous attempts have been made over the history of the saxophone to improve the mechanism for both acoustic and ergonomic reasons. Some improvements, such as the automatic octave key, have found universal acceptance. Others, such as the Leblanc “Rationale†system, were judged by players to be simply too complex to be used by mere mortals! A review of saxophone patents of the past will reveal hundreds of attempts to make the saxophone easier to play Unfortunately, many worthy improvements never saw the light of day due to the resistance of manufacturers to offer something a bit different. Many of these ideas are worth a second look. I can see no justification for making the saxophone difficult for the average player to use! Before you say it, I know that “Coltrane sounded great and he didn’t need any of that stuff!â€. Of course this is true. However, I would submit that we will never know the greater heights that the masters of the saxophone might have achieved had their equipment been a little easier to deal with. Let’s examine a few ideas for improvements, beginning at the “top†of the horn:

The Neck: On most horns, we’re doomed to trouble just trying to put it together! The ring which activates the neck octave key is inconveniently located exactly where most players hold the neck when inserting it into the body receiver. A much better solution is to use an underslung mechanism, such as is seen on the King Super 20 horns, which allows the neck to be gripped on the tube so the mechanism is not bent during assembly. The end ferrule of the neck should be thicker and tapered so its edges do not present a vertical obstruction inside the mouthpiece chamber, which causes turbulence and resistance. The neck and body octave pip should always be threaded to prevent the annoying “hiss†of escaping air when they are opened. The neck tenon and body receiver should be manufactured of a much harder metal than the rest of the keywork to resist the distortion which invariably occurs when the neck is inserted into the body in a “less than perfectly straight†fashion. The tenon and body receiver should also be heavily chrome plated to resist both wear and corrosion. We would be remiss to leave the neck without a word about the octave mechanism. Under the best of circumstances it’s a compromise. In the perfect world there should be twelve individual octave pips, one for every semi-tone of the chromatic scale. In this same perfect world, the placement of each of these pips should be halfway between the tip of the mouthpiece and the tone hole that produces the note in question. Of course, a twelve octave pip horn is a mechanical impossibility. Most modern saxophones have a system of two pips which control different ranges. The problem with this system is that since there are only two pips controlling twelve notes, the pips must be in a “compromise†position. The notes at the extreme range of the pips suffer. A good solution is to add additional pips controlled by the same mechanism. By using two pips on the neck and two on the body tube, and no additional mechanism, response can be considerably improved. This would reduce the amount of compromise necessary, and would decrease the number of notes each pip would control. A couple of variations of this system have been used in the past, notably on the Conn 28M, the Buffet-Powell, and a few offerings from Unison. I have never believed that this possibility has been fully explored.

The Upper Body Tube: There’s no reason for all saxophones not to have a high G key. They have been successfully used on sopranos for many years, and the note G3 has truly become a standard part of saxophone literature. The front F key has been a source of continual frustration for many saxophonists, as venting from the F tone hole alone often produces notes that are thin and somewhat sharp. A better solution is to have the front F key open both the F and Eb palm keys slightly, and requires only a lengthening of the actuator bar. This gives much better venting and superior intonation and response. The high C to D trill key, as used on Holtons, Hohners, and some Selmers, should be brought back. This is a very difficult trill, and the system used by these makers (the key touch is adjacent to the high E key touch) allows it to be executed easily. As is very well established, the upper range of the saxophone tends to be somewhat sharp in pitch. A look at virtually any modern soprano will reveal an additional mechanism which operates in conjunction with the octave key and serves to close the small C pad partially, through the use of an additional “doughnut†pad. The closure of the C pad serves to lower the pitch of the notes C#3 and above. A similar mechanism was used on some Martin altos, and in the 1990’s on a model from the Unison company. This mechanism works quite well, and allows the use of larger tone holes for the upper notes, giving a voice lacking the thinness usually associated with the palm key notes. There are two areas on the upper stack where the problems are acoustic rather than ergonomic: the “middle finger C†and the G. Let’s examine the C mechanism first. You may have noticed that the “chromatic†C fingering usually speaks with a better voice and intonation than the commonly used “middle finger†C. This is due to the Bb and A pads which are closed by the mechanism in order to actually close the necessary C pad. The open B pad simply lacks enough venting to produce a C with the required strength. The elegant solution, first used on a saxophone by Taiwanese maker Shen Foo Pin, is to add a “speaker†key to the B mechanism. This is a small (about 12mm) tone hole located approximately halfway between the B and Bb tone holes which is actuated by the B key. The extra opening provides the necessary venting, and brings the C up to pitch and vastly improves the voice, particularly on C3. Improving the G is a more difficult matter to resolve. Our saxophones are built with the pad operated by the G key touch open and the pad operated by the G# key touch closed. This normally closed pad is between two open pads (G and F#) and tends to devour the sound and cause significant response issues. A good solution would be to have two pads operated by the G key touch, and an entirely separate mechanism for a G# pad located outside the plane of the main stack keys. Since the body tube of the saxophone is circular, the tone hole for G# could be placed at any point that allows the production of the G#. This would have the added advantage of potentially allowing the re-introduction of the G# trill key. This trill key began to disappear from saxophones in the 1930’s, Anyone who has owned a saxophone so equipped will assure you that it is a very handy item to have on your horn!

The RH Side Keys and LH Pinky Table: All of these keys are problematic because our saxophones are manufactured “one size fits all†and there is a tremendous variation in human anatomy. The chromatic side keys for Bb and C which are operated by the right hand are almost invariably located in a fashion that requires the player to leave the optimum playing position. Generally the touches for these keys are mounted too high on the body tube, requiring the player to lift the right hand from the thumb rest. The key touches are typically too low, requiring excessive motion of the right hand to reach them. The key touches also lack stops, so that when depressed with any significant pressure, they tend to flex. Moving the key touches for chromatic Bb, C, and high E down and out would aid players considerably in executing these notes. The chromatic F# key would also benefit from similar treatment. Needless to say, the high F# key on all saxophones is very inconveniently located and is difficult to use. A much better solution for the high F# would be to place the key touch below the palm key cluster. This would result in the elimination of the long rods and articulated mechanism, and allow the F# to be produced without the use of both hands. The low Eb/low C key touches are often located on the saxophone in such a fashion that they require contortions or full extension of the little finger of the right hand to operate. Both of these key touches would benefit from a significant increase in height so that they are easier for the player to reach. This would improve leverage, and would greatly facilitate speedy execution of these notes. The left hand table, which contains the key touches for G#, C#, B, and Bb has benefited from significant evolution over the years, yet still proves troublesome for many players. They key touches provided are generally too small and too low for most players hands. The usual placement of the low Bb key touch requires the little finger of the left hand to be fully extended, an uncomfortable position which limits speed of execution. The Bb key touch should be higher on almost all saxophones so that it is easier for the player to reach. Any discussion of the left hand table would be incomplete it we didn’t offer a solution to the infernal sticking G# pad. The fix is really quite easy, if we take a moment to consider how this mechanism works. The G# key cup is actually sprung in an open position by a relatively weak spring. It is held closed by a strongly sprung G# key touch. The problem of sticking is caused by the natural adhesion of the pad to the tone hole top being greater than the strength of the relatively weak key cup spring. The simple solution is to add an additional flat spring to the arm extending from the G# key touch which serves to assist in pulling the G# key cup up. The flat spring used needs only a slight amount of tension to perform the task at hand. Too much tension will change the “feel†of the G# key touch and make it difficult to operate.

The Lower Stack and Bell Keys: Our lower stack keys suffer acoustically from the nemesis of the entire mechanism: closed tone holes. The Eb and C# tone holes are both closed, and these closed holes present considerable problems in both intonation and voicing. The low Eb tone hole is always located at the back of the saxophone, just before the curve of the bow. In years past, different systems have been employed to provide an alternate fingering for the note Eb, usually through the use of a small tone hole located on the back of the body tube between the D and E tone holes. This system was notorious for leaking, and although it did provide a viable alternative fingering, the tone hole was too small to provide an additional venting which may have assisted the intonation of the other notes produced by the lower stack.

There have been a great many pleasures and benefits that I have derived from my association with The Saxophone Journal over the years, and there is no question in my mind that first and foremost among them is the contact I get with my readers. It is an enormous source of encouragement to get the emails and telephone calls with questions and suggestions about saxophone design, and I thank publisher Ken Dorn and my ever patient editor, David Gibson, for affording me this opportunity. I have noticed over the years that I have been authoring this column about saxophone design that the same questions seem to pop up again and again, so in this issue, I’m going to discuss in a question and answer format, a few of the issues that come up again and again. I’m very interested in what my readers think and want to know, and encourage you to contact me at saxgourmet@cox.net with your comments and questions.

I HEAR A LOT ABOUT INEXPENSIVE SAXOPHONES WITH SOFT KEYWORK…..COULDN’T WE MAKE THE KEYS OUT OF TITANIUM? IT WOULD BE LIGHT AND WOULD NOT BEND…..

Well, there’s a lot to discuss on this issue……first, I’ll admit that titanium would significantly reduce the weight of the keywork, and that it would never bend in the course of ordinary usage. That being said, there are a few problems…..First, titanium is very expensive (they might as well call it “unobtainiumâ€), and notoriously difficult to form and machine, so manufacturing costs would skyrocket. It is impossible to shape and form with ordinary lathes and milling machines, so entirely new specialty machine tooling would be required. Even if you win the lottery and can form the parts, titanium is one of the most difficult metals to weld and requires highly specialized welding equipment to join it. So for a bit of weight saving and stability, you incur significantly more manufacturing expense. But wait, dear reader….there’s more! If you were to ask most saxophonists how the horns are made leak free during the manufacturing process, they will tell you that the pads are “floated†on a bed of shellac. This is not correct. The pads are installed in the key cups with a minimum of shellac (or other adhesive) and leveled with respect to the cup itself. The keys are than installed on the horn and are made leak free by slightly bending the key cups themselves. It is important to realize that the amount of key bending required is usually quite small, since at least in theory, the keys, cups, and posts have all been manufactured in accordance with the original design specification. After a saxophone has been in service for a while, these components are often found to be significantly different from where the designer intended them to be, so more adjustment is required. Therein lies the major problem with using titanium: in order to keep the horn in proper adjustment, you must be able to bend the keys! If you accept this premise, then you know that, to a degree at least, soft keywork can be a good thing! Of course, excessively soft keywork can be a source of considerable frustration, and a manufacturer has to find a happy medium. Almost all saxophone keywork currently being manufactured, including that used on even the most inexpensive brands, is stamped from brass stock under high pressure. This process actually makes the brass significantly harder (it’s called “work hardeningâ€), adds a bit of brittleness, and gives some manufacturers the opportunity to claim that their keywork is “power forgedâ€. It’s all in the words you use for the description, folks….. Keywork stability is most often a problem with larger key cups, such as those used on the low C, low B, and low Bb. The stability issue is easily corrected (while retaining the requisite flexibility needed for future adjustment) through the addition of an additional rib on these larger cups. This additional rib easily prevents them from moving.

COULD WE GET A SAXOPHONE MADE WITH A PARABOLIC BORE LIKE THE ORIGINAL ADOLPHE SAX HORNS AND EARLY BUESCHERS?

Sure, not a problem. The manufacturing of a horn with a parabolic bore is not rocket science in any way. All that is necessary is to make a mandrel of the desired shape rather than the cone currently used to form the body tube. But why? First, a little background history: the very first saxophone made in the United States was made by Gus Buescher in 1885. At the time, Gus was the manager of the C. G. Conn factory in Elkhart, Indiana and used Adolphe Sax alto number 36 to copy. This original Sax instrument was acquired by the Buescher Band Instrument Company when Gus Buescher left Conn, and was later presented to Sigurd Rascher, who was an enthusiastic endorser of Buescher saxophones. The instrument is currently owned by Sigurd Raschers daughter, Carina Rascher. This instrument absolutely and positively does not have a parabolic bore. No Buescher saxophones were ever manufactured with parabolic bores, and Buescher never claimed to do so in their advertising. Where did this parabolic bore stuff come from? From none other than Jaap Kool, who was not a saxophone player himself, who wrote a book, “Das Saxophon†in the 1930’s complete with diagrams of this imaginary bore configuration. His line of reasoning was that since the naturally occurring overtone series becomes progressively sharper as pitch increases in frequency, and that an increase in bore diameter reduces pitch, it would be theoretically possible to temper the scale of a saxophone by inserting a parabola into the upper portion of the cone which is normally used as the pattern for a saxophone bore. This is a nice idea on paper, but unfortunately it doesn’t work in practice. It never has, and it never will work, at least as long as we need our saxophones to play more than one note! If you tune the octaves of a conical tube to match with a parabola, which is possible, you do so at the expense of all other possible notes. A parabolic bore would actually limit the playing potential of a saxophone and result in significant intonation difficulties. Resolving pitch issues is fairly easy through the use of tone hole size and placement. True, our saxophones are still not absolutely perfect with regard to pitch, but modern instruments benefit from 150 years of experience in bore design, and are immensely improved over saxophones manufactured even 20 years ago. We simply learn as we go along, and we learn a little more every year!

WHY CAN’T WE HAVE SAXOPHONES WITH THE RANGE EXTENDED DOWN TO LOW A OR BELOW?

Well, you can. It’s not at all difficult to extend the range down to a written G, or even below if you so desire. The question is, of course, why would you want to do so? This is something that has been tried before, most notably by Selmer with their Low A Mark VI alto. This was a well built horn with an additional mechanism which functioned beautifully, yet it was was a clear commercial failure. Why, you might ask? The answer is quite simple: there was not any music written for an alto saxophone with a range extended to low A. The horn simply had no reason which justified the additional expense, and was soon dropped from the Selmer line after an extremely limited production run. On the other hand, standard saxophone literature now expects players to command pitches far above the high F# found on the vast majority of saxophones currently manufactured. Some manufacturers are now offering horns with high G keys (nothing new at all: I believe the first ones were made in the 1920’s) and a very few have additional mechanism to facilitate the altissimo (also nothing new….) because the music being played today requires it. Extending the range below low Bb requires using a different, longer bell. The expense of making such a bell, which is considerable, is just not justified.

WHY CAN’T WE JUST BUILD EXACT COPIES OF THE GREAT HORNS OF THE PAST?

You could, but why would you want to do so? If you were going to enter the Indianapolis 500, would you do so with a 60 year old car? I didn’t think so….. Actually, this copying business is fairly common in the industry. Recently, a great deal of publicity was given to the fact that Kenny G was having his beloved Mark VI soprano exactly copied by the Jinyin company in China. They did an amazing job, and produced an instrument dimensionally identical to Kenny’s horn. I’ll let you in on a little secret: several years ago when I was in charge of design and manufacturing for a very well known saxophone company, the bore and tone hole placement of our top line tenor was identical to a 224,000 Mark Vi. The keywork was a little different, but the things that control the playing characteristics were absolutely identical. The metal used also had the same “recipeâ€, and if you closed your eyes, you simply couldn’t hear the difference. We did a number of “blind†tests, and were able to fool everybody’s ears! There are currently quite a number of companies making excellent copies of various saxophones from the past. There is a Chinese company which makes a Mark VI copy that is faithful down to the style of engraving used on the lower stack clothing guard, and insofar as I can tell, is faithful in every other detail, no matter how small. It is quite a simple matter to have a metallurgist analyze the alloy used (I’ve had this done myself) and there is nothing magical about the assembly process. Yes, you can make an exact copy, and people are doing it every day. I think the honest answer as to why somebody is not making, say, a Conn 10M copy and marketing it as such is that although it is quite possible, I don’t think a retro-duplicate horn would stand a prayer in the marketplace against modern horns which play more in tune, are more responsive, and much more ergonomic. Conn even tried to “split the difference†in the 1990’s by duplicating the 10M body and tone hole configuration but fitting modern keywork (the ill fated 34M), and were forced to withdraw it due to poor market acceptance. The new horn buyer has proven time and time again that they want the “latest and greatest†while the vintage horn buyer maintains a nostalgia for the older designs, in spite of their obvious shortcomings. There has recently been introduced onto the market a line of mouthpieces which are exact duplicates of the original mouthpieces owned by famous players of the past, right down to the tooth marks on the bite plate! I believe they are making resin casts of the originals and then recasting in another material…..I don’t know how well this has been received.

WHAT ABOUT PLASTIC OR CARBON FIBER BODIES?

Of course, there was the well known Grafton acrylic saxophone which was produced in limited numbers in the mid twentieth century. The Grafton made use of the plastic technology of the day, which was quite primitive by modern standards, and proved to be extremely fragile and prone to cracking. The biggest problem, and one which faces modern manufacturers of plastic saxophones, is how to deal with mounting the springs so they are able to remain stable under torsion. The Grafton used coil type springs, a system which gave a “feel†which was quite foreign to most saxophonists. Another issue facing the makers of a plastic based saxophone is that the heat normally used in the padding process has a very adverse effect on the body! Carbon fiber is quite another matter. While it is exceptionally strong and light, it is also difficult to work with during the manufacturing phase. In order to shape carbon fiber, it must be “baked†in a high temperature oven under high atmospheric pressure, a most expensive process. I believe it may be quite a while before we see carbon fiber saxophones in any significant numbers! In future issues, I’ll explore some other “why don’t they?†ideas, including interchangeable bells, alternative synthetic materials, and other topics. If you have a suggestion, don’t hesitate to let me know!

A SAXOPHONISTS GUIDE TO NECKING

by Steve “Saxgourmet†Goodson

If you’re sitting at the bar talking to a group of saxophone designers, before long the topic is sure to turn to the neck, and it will be universally agreed that the neck is the most misunderstood and critical component in determining the saxophones sound and intonation. There’s more mythology and misunderstanding about what goes on inside the neck than on any other part of the horn, and hopefully by the end of this article you will have a bit more understanding of the theory and science involved in necks, and you will be able to make much more informed choices as to the proper neck which maximizes the potential of your horn. Of course, the function of the neck is far more than to provide a link between the mouthpiece and the body of the horn. The neck shapes the sound and sets the intonation, and significantly influences all the playing characteristics of the horn. An improper neck has impeded the performance of many a saxophone, and a horn that is not playing its best can very often be significantly improved through the fitting of a different neck. The saxophone is a series of four cones (neck, body tube, bow, and bell), each with a unique and different taper, and the neck is far and away the most crucial. I believe it is appropriate to begin our discussion of necks with an overview of the various processes used in their manufacture. A potential saxophone buyer should always inform themselves as to the methods used in the construction of an instrument being considered for purchase, as the method of manufacture to a large degree determine the ultimate performance potential of the horn. Most necks used on inexpensive instruments are manufactured through a process known as hydroforming. After a cone of the approximate thickness and taper is formed by braising (or preferably plasma welding) a triangle of metal, the end is temporarily sealed and a liquid (usually iced water) is introduced under extremely high pressure to force the cone against the walls of a mold in order to produce the desired shape. This method is quick and inexpensive , but tends to “work harden†the metal, making it brittle and less resonant. A much preferred method of manufacture, but of course far more expensive, is to form the neck cone over a mandrel by burnishing. This requires the services of a highly skilled and experienced master craftsman, but the difference in response is dramatic due to the lack of work hardening. Regardless of the method used to form the taper, the neck must be bent to achieve its final shape. This is accomplished by filling the tube with either pitch or melted lead (both of which are easily completely removed by heat) to support the interior and prevent kinking while the neck is bent over a form to achieve its final shape. The tenon, braces, pip, and other fittings and accoutrements are then soft soldered into place prior to final engraving, lacquering, or plating. Since the true acoustic function of the neck to shape the sound, the taper is the most crucial factor in its design. In order to produce a neck which gives good intonation and response, careful attention must be paid to the points within the neck where the nodes of the wave strike. A chart showing the approximate location of these points for alto and tenor saxophones is below:   Knowing the location of the nodal points is invaluable information for the saxophone designer or repair technician. Through changes in the neck taper, a given pitch can be raised or lowered. A skilled technician can adjust the intonation of a specific range of the saxophone by expanding or shrinking the neck, but it should be noted that although acoustical success can be achieved, the results are often cosmetically unappealing, leaving a neck that plays well but has a “stair case†appearance. Additional mass may be added at specific nodal points in order to alter the response characteristics (but not the pitch) of a given note, or may be used to dampen certain harmonics. Care should always be taken in the location of various braces and mechanisms so that unintended dampening does not occour. Substantial anecdotal evidence indicates that the performance of the saxophone, particularly with regard to the response of the very lowest tones, can be improved through “rifling†the initial two inches of the neck with a somewhat coarse thread. This procedure appears to significantly to reduce the “motorboating†and burbling which often plagues saxophones around low C and low B. All saxophone necks have a ring soldered on the mouthpiece end to prevent splitting of the seam due to the stress of installing the mouthpiece repeatedly. Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that benefit can be derived from increasing the mass and shape of this ring (tapering it to form a venturi), giving improved response time. Over the years, a number of variations have been tried on the system of attaching the neck to the body. Virtually all modern saxophones use a “male†tenon which is inserted into a “female†receiver on the body tube. This system works quite well. In years past, some manufacturers, notably Conn and King, have offered a system in which the “male†tenon was a part of the body tube and the “female†receiver was a part of the neck, surrounded by a skirt alleged to make the joint “leak proofâ€. Unfortunately, this design was far from leak proof and offered no real advantage in that regard. It proved almost impossible to adjust for the metal compression and loss of perfect roundness which invariably result from repeated saxophone assembly, and fell from favor. There have also been a few attempts to resolve the issue of the tenon being straight through the introduction of a tapered tenon. Unfortunately, the tapered tenon is almost impossible to adjust, although in theory it does possess acoustic merit. The variations in octave key mechanism have been numerous over the years, with the majority of makers selecting a ring at the base of the tenon to contact the vertical shaft of the octave mechanism located on the body tube. This mechanism has the distinct disadvantage of being quite easily damaged during horn assembly, and also tends to limit the number options available to player for placement of the neck. By necessity, the portion of the mechanism which extends from the contact ring up to the key itself is located almost exactly where most players place their hands when inserting the neck into the body tube. This has resulted in a bent mechanism and leaking octave key at one time or another for almost all saxophonists. A far better solution is to use an “underslung†mechanism such as was favored on the Buescher 400, the Conn 6m, the King Super 20, and more recently on the Yanigasawa instruments. This system allows the player to grip the neck by the tube without risking bending the mechanism. Needless to say, the material from which the tube of the neck is constructed will have a very significant impact on the ultimate sound produced. Conventional brass necks vary in the brightness of their tone as a direct function of the alloy of brass used. A brass alloy with a higher ratio of zinc in the alloy will usually sound significantly brighter. A “rose brass†neck (significantly higher copper content) will sound darker, and a pure copper neck will sound darker still. Solid silver necks are known for their quick response. Several attempts have been made over the years to manufacture wooden necks for saxophones, but these have proved unsatisfactory due to persistent cracking problems. Several manufacturers now offer multiple neck options for their saxophones, and a few include multiple necks with each new instrument. In all probability, the neck which came with your saxophone will give adequate results. Here are a few things that you can do to make sure it functions at its best: (1) Always keep the tenon and receiver clean. Remove any build up of corrosion regularly with #000000 steel wool. Never apply any lubricant or oil to the tenon as this will attract and retain dirt and grit which will cause uneven wear. (2) Keep the interior of your neck scrupulously clean, not only for hygienic reasons, but also to avoid obstruction. A flexible brush is best for this purpose as most swabs simply do not work very well and fail to scrub out stuck particles. Do not attempt to polish the interior of your neck, as a very slight roughness will generate a boundary layer which will reduce blowing resistance. (3) The fit of your neck is critical for best performance. It should not only fit tightly, but it is crucial that it fit evenly. You can easily check the fit by slowly rotating the neck in the receiver 360 degrees and feel for any difference in resistance. If the neck does not rotate absolutely evenly, it definitely leaks. Have the neck rounded by a qualified technician and then lapped into a perfect fit. You can lap your neck into a perfect fit by applying a small amount of oil (which must be removed completely after the procedure) and a tiny bit of abrasive tooth paste. Spread the mixture of oil and toothpaste until you get an ultra thin coat on the tenon and insert it into the receiver and rotate until the resistance is equal all the way around. This will remove any slight imperfections and high spots. A tenon with high spots will always leak. (4) Be certain that your chosen technician has the correct equipment to properly size and adjust your neck. Ask to see the tools that will be used before you allow work to begin.. Any competent shop should have both a “can opener†style roller expander and a collet type neck shrinker with multiple collets. If they don’t have both these critical tools (the shrinker is also used to properly round the tenon) or if they or if they show you a petal type expander, put your neck back in your case and run for the door! Many a neck has been ruined by an incompetent and poorly equipped technician. If they try to convince you that they can’t use a roller expander without creating a bulge in the tenon or leaving marks, they are simply admitting to you that they don’t know how to properly use the tools of the trade. As a final thought, be sure to protect your neck when it is not in use. Most cases have a specific form fitting compartment for the neck, and if your case lacks this feature, get a separate case specifically for your neck or store it in a thickly padded bag. An old sock or a Crown Royal bag is not adequate protection! Steve Goodson lives in New Orleans where he works as a saxophone designer for several major manufacturers. He welcomes your comments and questions via email to saxgourmet@cox.net

bores

I’ve recently had an internet discussion with another individual about why the USA saxophone companies failed. Make no mistake about it, they didn’t withdraw from the market voluntarily. They failed because saxophone buyers chose to buy other horns. It’s as simple as that. The USA companies, which had every advantage in the world (more about that in a minute) simply didn’t produce what people wanted to buy.

There is a great lie floating around that the reason tHe USA companies failed was because the foreign competitors had lower labor costs. While it IS true that the overseas labor rates were generally quite a bit lower than the USA union rates, the imported horns had costs associated with them than did not apply to the USA horns: significant transportation costs from the factory location to the marketplace, and tariffs added at the insistence of the United Auto Workers union (who represented the factory workers in the USA) which was very politically powerful. These tariffs were intended to and in reality did somewhat equalize the price differential between domestic and foreign produced saxophones.

The USA makers had everything going for them: established factories (mostly paid for) with an experienced work force; brand name recognition (who hasn’t heard of Conn, King, Buescher, Martin, and the others?), a huge distribution network was already in place with virtually every local music store representing at least one brand, often several brands; and a compliant Congress willing to step in and adjust prices whenever needed to protect trade unionists. In spite of all of this, the USA companies still managed to fail.

If there are a couple of factors which caused this demise, it’s got to be clear that the USA makers offered only very antiquated designs, many originating in the 1930’s and 1940’s up through the 1980’s with almost no design innovation. There were also very significant quality control issues in the USA.

The argument is often made that “the American workers were the best in the worldâ€. Well, let me ask you this: just how much skill do you need to build saxophones? All the parts are built on jigs. Almost no aspect of the manufacturing process requires a lengthy training period or considerable experience. It’s mostly just repetitive motion. It’s an obvious and well known fact that you can take a Chinese peasant farmers wife who has spent most of her life staring at the business end of an ox plowing the fields and in a couple of weeks train her how to make and assemble saxophone parts.Yet the trade unionists of Elkhart demanded big money for their so called “skillsâ€.

Consider the case of Yamaha. They came to the USA in 1972 with no dealer network, an unknown product, a lot of cultural bias against them, and no real price advantage. All they had was an innovative, well made saxophone. Apparently, that was all that was needed. Look where they are now!

There’s no need to grieve or feel sorry for the USA saxophone business. All their wounds are self inflicted. If they had been paying attention, we would all be playing 10M’s, Super 20’s, Aristocrats, and The Martin’s today. They didn’t and we’re not.

We have met the enemy, and he is us…….take a good look at the player sitting next to you on your next gig…..he (or she) may well be the reason gigs are scarce and pay is low.

I used to participate in a discussion group on Facebook until I realized that most (but not all, just most) of the members were just not the professional musicians they held themselves out to be. They believe, among other things that you should take gigs at below starvation wages for the sake of “the art†of jazz. Are you kidding me!?! A lot of people are out there trying to earn a living and feed themselves and their families, and these guys whore down the price. Seriously, folks, if you want to work for nothing or next to nothing, don’t go out and take work from people trying to earn a living….just play in your living room. The same goes for guys who go out and play at “open mic†nights……last time I looked, whiskey was usually being sold and the club owner was lucky enough to not have to pay for a band that night…..I suggest you make it a personal policy not to work with people who do this sort of thing, because they’re keeping the price musicians are paid down.

I got roundly criticized by this group of what I would consider to be mostly hobby players for suggesting that they inject a little show business into their act….it was pointed out to me in short order that jazz artists didn’t do that…..they didn’t tell me whether or not hobby players doing very low pay gigs did that, but I’ll assume not….I always thought that if what you were doing wasn’t working, you should try something different, but then that’s just me…….

One of the members pointed out that it is a problem to get hired since the club managers are usually young college graduates in their 20’s……uh, been to many night clubs lately? Who’s there in the audience?

I guess my main problem with this group is that they live in the past. If it happened after 1960, or was made after 1960, they’re just not too interested. Nostalgia is all well and good, of course, but there’s a lot of good music and products that have come on the scene in the last 60 years.

I guess my point is this: this type of thinking is hurting our business, and we need to shun individuals who look and think like this. There’s never been so much competition for the entertainment dollar, and working musicians need to stay on top of trends and audience desire or before long there just won’t be much work for musicians, and what there is won’t pay much.

I guess I fault these guys for being so negative and not changing with the times. They’ve got a little circle jerk going, and they pay homage to the players of the past, and they talk incessantly about “their art†and they bellyache and bellyache about how little work there is and how low the pay is. I would submit that if there was an audience for what they’re playing, people would be lining up to pay top dollar to hear it. They’re not, and when these guys go out and play a live music venue of any form or fashion for $30 or so, they’re telling employers what live music is and what it’s worth. I have a problem with that.

I had a fascinating and very enlightening conversation on the phone yesterday with a customer who was shopping for an alto. This guy (who is a regular poster on Sax On the Web, BTW) told me I needed to reduce the selling price of the Super 400 he was considering because “everybody knows you can buy those for $300 a piece in China and you’re really gouging us on the priceâ€â€¦â€¦in your dreams, fool……in your dreams….I wish I COULD get Super 400’s made to my specifications for that sort of cost, but unfortunately, $300 per unit cost is light years away from reality.

First, the Super 400 is NOT made in China…..not that there is anything wrong with making horns (or anything else, for that matter) in China……but the fact of the matter is that the Super 400 contains components made in seven different countries, and China is not one of them, and no assembly or manufacturing on this model is done in China.

Well, there are more than a few things that this customer needs to learn about the high end/low production volume saxophone manufacturing business, and I thought I would take this opportunity to share a few facts with you and try to get you back to reality. Before you get too excited, I’m not going to reveal proprietary business information to you or our competitors!

It takes a LONG time to develop one of our new models, since we don’t buy “off the shelf†horns. Unlike the vast majority of our competitors, we don’t go to manufacturers who are making a Selmer or Yamaha copy and just have them engrave our logo on it. Our horns are acoustically different, with unique tone hole placement, bores, and keywork. In order to develop these unique features for you, once we have completed the design process (which takes a while, and yes, I insist on being paid for my creative time and efforts), we have to construct prototypes (often multiple versions) by hand…..an extremely time consuming process. These prototypes have to be shipped to the factory (it’s a long ride, with the meter running the whole time) so tooling can be made. Tooling is stupid expensive. Big bucks. And you gotta have it.

After the factory is tooled up, they build a sample for us and send it over (the meter is running on this ride, too) so we can be sure that everything works the way we planned and that our instructions have been faithfully executed. If there are any changes, we make them (by hand) and return the prototype to the factory (the meter is running on this trip, too) to serve as a reference for production. Sometimes we have the same horn built in different alloys in order to evaluate the sound of each, and this significantly multiplies the cost of prototyping.

We provide the factory with quite a few of the components used to produce our horns, including Saxgourmet black kangaroo leather pads, solid copper custom made resonators, special blued needle springs, extra large Saxgourmet thumbrests, deep water abalone shell key touches,neck enhancers, and 3 ring strap hooks. All of these items have to be shipped to the factory (yes, that air freight meter is still running!), and an import duty paid when they arrive at the destination. Depending on the size of the shipment, there may be international freight brokers fees as well.

On the Super 400 series and the Category Five series, we license the design of the never stick G# mechanism (no, Keilwerth does not now and never did own the patent) and pay a fee for every one to the holder of the patent.

Once we’re ready to actually begin production, there is the small matter of paying for the horns. Sharon and I do not ask for credit from our factories, nor do we borrow money from banks or outside investors (we bought out all the outside investors five years ago), running the business strictly out of our back pocket. This may not be the most efficient way to run a business like ours, but we sleep a lot better knowing that our corporation doesn’t owe anybody a dime. In order to make payment, we use an international bank wire, and there are significant fees involved with doing this.

At this point, the factory gets to work. It’s well worth mentioning at this point in the discussion that we don’t “cheap out†when having saxophones built. Most of our horns come with multiple necks. We don’t do lacquer finishes on anything except the Bon Fils student model. Everything else is heavily copper plated to give our signature “new penny†look. And then there’s the engraving…..our horns have more HAND CUT engraving than any others on the market. We don’t machine engrave or laser engrave our horns: all of the work is done by a master craftsman totally by hand. We don’t make any of our horns except the Bon Fils series from “regular†brass. Every horn is made of either rose brass or solid copper. We also take the extra step of clear coating the plated finishes electrostatically.

Once you get the horns made (and understand that making just a few is not an option. You have to buy them in fairly significant numbers if you want them made to your original design and specifications), then you have to get them here. We ship by sea, and have to employ a freight broker to weave a path through all the customs regulations and fees. Our horns have to change ships when they get to the Port of Los Angeles, so they have to go through customs twice (yes, I even have to pay to get them X-rayed twice, among other fees), and then when they arrive in New Orleans, I have to pay a big import duty, as well as pay for a bonded warehouse until they clear customs. Then we have to pay a trucking company to pick them up at the bonded warehouse and deliver them to us. The trucking company and the bonded warehouse are not free. We also have to pay for insurance covering the shipment while it is in transit.

When the horns arrive at our warehouse, which Sharon owns (no, it wasn’t free….she had to pay for it, have racks and a lift built, pay utilities on it etc.), we then set them up. No matter how carefully they are packed. they always have to be adjusted and somebody has to do this, and I have yet to find anybody who can do this correctly who will do it for free….there’s also a huge amount of customs and other paperwork involved in each and every shipment, and somebody has to be paid to deal with that, and an office and supplies provided to them in order to enable them to do this work.

Of course, we have to provide a building for all of this to take place in, along with the necessary equipment, computers, metal fabricating gear, a showroom, shipping facilities and the like. Sharon owns this building, and rents it to the company.
We’ve got a fair number of support people working for us, all on a contract basis, including bookeepers, attorneys, CPA’s, set up technicians, and others. None of these people work for free. Of course, there’s a huge amount of expense involved in maintaining all our different websites and forums. This stuff doesn’t just happen on its own. We also have to budget significant amounts of money for advertising (I’ve yet to be able to persuade Karen, who does our print ads with such skill and humor that we’re a worthy charity) and the expenses related to our staff of endorsing artists. These artists are not just for promotional use. They are all involved in giving us invaluable feedback and helping us with product development. There’s plenty of expense involved in getting this sort of top flight professional advice, particularly when buying lunch for Paul Coats or Breeze Cayolle is involved! Seriously, the role of the endorsing artists is critical to us. They are out there using the product on tour every day, and they let us know what is working and what is not.

Yes, you can probably still buy a cheap saxophone from China for $300, but you have to spend far, far more than that in order to manufacture what we sell and actually get it to the customers.

In an effort to hold down costs, we dismissed our dealer network several years ago and now only sell direct to the end user. The internet reaches customers all over the world, and United Parcel Service delivers to any address on the planet. It works for us!

I’m often asked by my students and customers for some tips on how to get gigs, particularly the “right†gigs….I want to assure you that this skill is just as important as learning your scales. There are lots of guys out there who can play, but they don’t seem to work very often. Here are a few things to keep in mind if you want to get the big money gigs:

AVOID OPEN MIC NIGHTS/BLUES JAMS ETC. LIKE THE PLAGUE
Just so you know what I mean, go to one of these events and have a good look around. None of the participants are working? Why would that be, assuming they have the requisite musical skills? The answer, friends and neighbors, is that they obviously hang out with other players who aren’t working. Nobody can refer anybody to good gigs because it is most unlikely that anyone present has the slightest idea where the good gigs are.

KEEP YOUR WEBSITE UP TO DATE AND YOUR INTERNET PARTICIPATION HIGH
Seriously, think about it…..when you want to know about someone or something, you visit the website…..you should have a high quality personal website with PROFESSIONALLY SHOT pictures, videos, your calendar, a very brief bio (nobody really cares), and other pertinent information. Be extra careful about what you put up: just yesterday several of us were howling with laughter as one of the web’s most obnoxious self-appointed “experts†absolutely murdered “Mustang Sally†while leading a line dance…..remember, once something is up on the net, it’s there forever, so be extremely selective on what you put up and what you allow third parties to put up about you……budget at least an hour each and every day to participate in online discussion groups (always, always, always use your real name so they know where to find you) and social media like Facebook……I can’t tell you how many gigs I’ve gotten just because somebody knew about me from the internet.

WHEN YOU GO OUT TO THE CLUBS, LOOK AND ACT LIKE A ROCK STAR
I can’t begin to tell you how important this is….when you visit a venue you hope to be working soon, don’t “break characterâ€â€¦..and don’t wear blue jeans and a T shirt…..stop and ask yourself “What would Keith Richards wear?â€â€¦â€¦remember, English rock stars are the best rock stars……and don’t stand in front of the stage with your horn case in front of you giving the band the “dying calf look†so they will take pity on you and let you sit in……If you do sit in (and this a topic for a lengthy discussion on another day), make it one or two tunes, no more…..it’s not your show

BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER
You will not get top drawer gigs if you hang out with posers and wannabe’s…….get to know the guys who have the good gigs…..they’re people just like the rest of us……and before long they will be referring the better gigs to you……

Remember, your gigs are only as good as your address book. Practice and develop top flight musical skills, and then develop a plan to get you in front of the right people!