Saxophone Forum


by cycles
(33 posts)
1 year ago

The Martin 1950s

I know THE MARTIN  Alto by many is a very sought after inst. In the Vintage sax world. But as with a lot of instruments they are being sold at a knock down price because the neck is missing. Is it poss to find a suitable replacement/ original Neck for a 1950s The Martin Alto. 
Thanks for any assistance in this Query.
Cycles 

Reply To Post [Report Abuse]

Report Abuse

Replies

  1. by birdlover
    (40 posts)

    1 year ago

    Re: The Martin 1950s

    Original necks for a horn like yours might well be impossible to find. There are after market necks like Oleg, they run around four or five hundred bucks.

    Reply To Post


    1. by saxgourmet
      (108 posts)

      1 year ago

      Re: The Martin 1950s

      My company makes and sells nas many aftermarket necks as anyone in the business. 
      we do NOT make a neck for Martins because the initial tooling costs do not justify potential sales. Necks designed for other brands of saxophone will not work on a Martin. Be very wary of anyone selling necks that tries to convince you that "one size fits all" and does not offer different necks for different brands. 

      STEVE GOODSON
      New Orleans
      www.nationofmusic.com

      Reply To Post


    2. by birdlover
      (40 posts)

      1 year ago

      Re: The Martin 1950s

      You can also look at Gloger necks, here is the link

      http://www.gloger-handkraft.com/saxneck.htm


      If you scroll down the page you will see that they make necks for the Martin with the original curve. Still, I don't see much point in purchasing a Martin without a neck when you can get one with a neck. If you are trying to save money you might look into a Buescher True Tone, they are still a very good deal and they play great. Don't beilieve what you read about the ergonomics on them, their ergos seem quite modern, in fact I like the ergos on Buescher True Tones. the only thing it might need is some risers on the left hand palm keys but you can do that yourself with some cork and contact cement, just put the cork on in layers until you have a comfy height and then sand the sides even, those Bueschers are great horns.   
        

      Reply To Post


      1. by GFC
        (357 posts)

        1 year ago

        Re: The Martin 1950s

        The keywork on the True Tones changed a lot during the mid '20s, around 200xxx.  Horns before the change had no front F key and the LH cluster was terrible.  There was a series of improvements to the keywork during the later part of the decade.  A serious player is likely to find the keywork on a sub-200xxx True Tone quite limiting.

        Reply To Post


        1. by birdlover
          (40 posts)

          1 year ago

          Re: The Martin 1950s

          Actually, I have a 1918 True Tone tenor and the LH cluster works just great, nice and light and easy to use. True it has no front F key but that has never been a problem. In fact I find the action on it quite liberating. The right hand pinky keys are also easy to use. I'm a serious player and I find nothing limiting about it. I have been playing for over thirty five years, played in many big bands and have studied with some great teachers in Los Angeles. That there is anything wrong with the True Tone action and ergos is BS.

          Reply To Post


        2. by GFC
          (357 posts)

          1 year ago

          Re: The Martin 1950s

          I'm glad you're enjoying your True Tone, but there's no reason to be so defensive over the fact that other players might find its keywork limitations unacceptable.

           http://www.everythingsaxophone.blogspot.com/2010/10/buescher-true-tone-tenor-sax-v16-metal.html

          Reply To Post


        3. by birdlover
          (40 posts)

          1 year ago

          Re: The Martin 1950s

          I just call them the way I see them. Have you actually tried one? If not then all you are doing is repeating what someone else wrote. I have already stated my own impressions and found the action and ergos comfortable and easy to play. Some things are just different and not neccessariy better or worse. But don't take my word for it, try one if you get the chance, you might be surprised regardless of what Mr. Britton says.

          Reply To Post


      2. by cycles
        (33 posts)

        1 year ago

        Re: The Martin 1950s

        I think it's a sad fact, that a lot of the great Vintage horns will become extinct, due to the cost and lack of custom parts, ie. necks.

        Reply To Post


        1. by saxgourmet
          (108 posts)

          1 year ago

          Re: The Martin 1950s

          The problem with vintage horn parts such as necks is that there is very little sales potential, so it is hard to justify the considerable front end tooling costs. Karsten Gloger makes his necks without tooling, so as a result a neck costs more than one of those horns is probably worth. There are lots of parts that oine or two people want (Buescher snaps, for example) but they don't want to pay for the tooling to have them made or to buy enough of them to make it worthwhile.

          STEVE GOODSON
          New Orleans
          www.nationofmusic.com

          Reply To Post


        2. by birdlover
          (40 posts)

          1 year ago

          Re: The Martin 1950s

          A new Gloger alto neck goes for 580 bucks in copper, more if you want silver though I don't buy into the material making any major difference in the way of affecting tone. I think it is more likely the shape and size of the bore that matters most. Here is an excerpt of an article I have read called Unsound Reasoning: Are wind musicians loving tropical woods to death?


          "At a recent conference on music and human adaptation at Virgina Tech, physicst John. W. Coltman demonstrated what he first described in the early 70's. After asking attendees to divert their eyes, he played the same tune twice on the flute. He then asked whether anyone heard any difference between the two performances. No one spoke up; the two were virtually indistinguisable.


          Then Coltman revealed his trick. The first time he performed the tune, he played it on a simple side-blown flute made from lightweight cherry wood. The second time he used a flute of identical design, except for one detail: it was made of concrete"


          This makes sense to me because the sound of a wind instrument is produced by vibrating a column of air not the vibration of the insturment itself whether it be a flute, sax, or trumpet.        

          Reply To Post


        3. by GFC
          (357 posts)

          1 year ago

          Re: The Martin 1950s

          You might be interested to know that only about 10% of the energy of the air column in a saxophone is emitted as audible sound.  The other 90% is absorbed by the body of the horn.  So it does make sense that the resilience of the wall material (which can vary quite a bit even for brass) can affect its spectral response  and the timbre of the horn.  We should also be careful about extrapolating the results from flutes and clarinets to saxophones.  Saxophones have about two orders of magnitude more acoustic energy pounding inside them.

          Reply To Post


        4. by birdlover
          (40 posts)

          1 year ago

          Re: The Martin 1950s

          http://www.irishflutes.net/mef/SciAmFlutes.htm


           

          To anyone schooled in the physics of wind instruments, Coltman’s point is old news. Whether the air is set to vibrate by an edge tone as on the flute, by a reed as with the clarinet or by buzzing lips as with the French horn, the sound itself comes from the vibrating air column inside the instrument. This sound is produced through the end or through open tone holes, not by vibrations of the instrument’s body, as is true of string instruments.

           

          Dozens of published reports, some dating back 100 years, converge toward the same general conclusion: so long as the walls are thick enough to remain rigid—about 0.4 millimeter for metals, two millimeters for woods—and the inside walls are smooth, the kind of material is, for the most part, immaterial.But to many musicians, even a mountain of research remains unpersuasive.“We all know that wood flutes are much more dolce, much sweeter,” says flutist Paula Robison. In contrast, “a gold flute sounds like an instrument made of gold.The silver flutes are much more perky.”

           

          The variation in timbre of wood and metal instruments stems from differences in acoustic dimensions brought about by the manufacturing process, not by the materials per se, says Robin Jakeways, a physicist at the University of Leeds.For example, holes in wood flutes are simply drilled in, whereas metal flutes have holes enclosed in a short length of pipe. Brian Holmes, a physicist at San Jose State University and a professional horn player, cites a study that found that plastic and metal clarinets had tone holes with much sharper edges than their wood counterparts.When these holes were rounded off, these clarinets sounded much more like wood ones.






          Reply To Post


        5. by GFC
          (357 posts)

          1 year ago

          Re: The Martin 1950s

          The emitted energy of flutes and clarinets is on the order of hundredths of watts.  The emitted energy of a saxophone is several watts.  And that's only a small fraction of the energy within the horn.  Results from clarinets and flutes are only tangentially relevant to addressing the dynamic role of the saxophone bore in tone production for those reasons.

          Weights attached to a saxophone neck alter the resonance, affecting tone and response.  Large brass strap hooks are known to affect body resonance.  Tim Price, David Valdez, Charles McPherson, and Daviid Murray use them for that reason.  Those guys aaren't flakes.  Pro setups from MusicMedic and Tenor Madness involve resoldering bells and bell braces to de-stress bells and enhance bell resonance.  All of that indicates that the bore of a saxophone has a dynamic role in tone production.

           

          Reply To Post


        6. by birdlover
          (40 posts)

          1 year ago

          Re: The Martin 1950s

          I believe I already said the size and shape of the bore is more important than material. I'm not sure what your point is if you have one, but you are incorrect that the column of air in a flute is any different from a column of air in a trombone or saxophone or french horn. It's the same thing. If you want to believe that a silver sax is better than a brass sax, well, it's a free country. I had the opportunity a few months ago to play an old Haynes wooden flute my tech had just repadded and I found that it sounded just like a metal flute. I also have tried several King super 20 tenors with silver bells and I found that they didn't sound any different than my King super 20 which has a brass bell. So let us agree to disagree because you are not going to convince me of anything with your resoldered bells, and brass hooks. I prefer science to a lot of voodoo hoodoo, so take your arguments to the scientists who actually did the testing, I wish them luck.

          Reply To Post


        7. by GFC
          (357 posts)

          1 year ago

          Re: The Martin 1950s

          You're simply not grasping the significance of the two order of magnitude difference between the energy levels within saxophones and flutes, and how that affects the response of wall materials to the air column.  That's not voodoo, it's physics.  The difference renders flutes irrelevant to the discussion of that particular issue in saxophones.  If you think Rheuben Allen, Steve Goodson, Peter Ponzol, Kurt Altarac, Theo Wanne, and Randy Jones are frauds because of their various resonance tweaks, go tell them.  If you think that top-level players who are better than you or I will ever be are hallucinating, go tell them.  The opinions of internet "experts" are a dime a dozen.  Real world results are where the rubber hits the road.

          Reply To Post