Saxophone Forum


by saxophone pig
(3 posts)
10 years ago

Good Sax for Legit?

Hey! I've recently gotten back into playing the sax as actively as I did years ago. I've gotten up to the skill level I was when I stopped and now I'm considering a new sax set up. I think I'm going for the Larry Teal mouthpiece and I already like Vandoren reeds, but what's a good sax for legit playing? Thanks.

Reply To Post [Report Abuse]

Report Abuse

Replies

  1. by SaxMan
    (559 posts)

    10 years ago

    Re: Good Sax for Legit?

    Series II, series III, true-tone, buffets, mark VI's, yanagisawa 900 series - I would limit it down to the true-tone, the III and the VI.

    Reply To Post


    1. by johnsonfromwisconsin
      (767 posts)

      10 years ago

      Re: Good Sax for Legit?

      SaxMan listed a lot of good legit horns. I assume you mean alto. Here are some of my additions for legit: Selmer Reference Yamaha Z I've heard these mostly revered as jazz oriented horns, but I wouldn't hesitate their use in classical circles. they both have excellent keywork, good intonation, wonderful response, and a flexible color palette to work with. Here's some more good vintage instruments: Buescher: Aristocrat (before 1962 or so), 400 (before 1970, preferably 1962) Dolnet

      Reply To Post


      1. by saxophone pig
        (3 posts)

        10 years ago

        Re: Good Sax for Legit?

        Thanks you guys for the help. Right now I'm playing on a Bundy II from Selmer. What's your take on this sax?

        Reply To Post


        1. by johnsonfromwisconsin
          (767 posts)

          10 years ago

          Re: Good Sax for Legit?

          the Bundy 2 is a decent student horn that plays well in tune when in proper adjustment, resists damage well, but has slow and stiff keywork. You can do much worse than a Bundy but not a whole lot better as far as student horns go.

          Reply To Post


        2. by saxophone pig
          (3 posts)

          10 years ago

          Re: Good Sax for Legit?

          awesome. Thanks for that great info johnson.... Much appreciated. I'm planning on getting a decent saxophone within the next year. Haven't decided what to upgrade to yet, but I'm sure I'll figure it out when the time comes. I'll count on yall for good suggestions when the time comes. pig

          Reply To Post


        3. by selmer 4evr
          (309 posts)

          9 years ago

          Re: Good Sax for Legit?

          OK I am going to disagree with everyone. We in north america are very conservative . If you speak to the rest of the world especially in Europe they will all tell us that if you find a good Mk VII ( that's right) buy it and keep it . The mkVI hype is only that- a hype , Would you prefer driving across the US in a 56 chevy as opposed to a 2005 Toyota Camry or even an Accura ,,of course not. Why would you then want to play a 56 horn. Machinery is better today,,, tolerances are tighter manufacturing is more precise . Proof of this is that the older horns were less consistent across the board. Let's get with it ,,,the only reason there is resistance to newer horns is because we resist change . People say that Selmer is guilty of marketing,,,popycock!!! In the eras of SBL.MkVI..MkVII,,SA80...Ser II... did not Selmer only produce one horn ??? This is not marketing ,,,marketing would produce three horns at once and market the hell out of them as Good,,,Better ,,,,Best ,This is Yamaha talk ,,should I buy a Z or a 875 or so on and so on . Selmer produced the MkVII because it believed that it was a better horn than the VI Hemke and the likes agreed . Only when conservative US and yes my Canada bucked the trend they were forced to salvage the factory. And since then there has been confusion with this instrument. Now we don't know where to turn with formus such as this to prove the point.

          Reply To Post


        4. by johnsonfromwisconsin
          (767 posts)

          9 years ago

          Re: Good Sax for Legit?

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Machinery is better today,,, tolerances are tighter manufacturing is more precise . Proof of this is that the older horns were less consistent across the board --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- on today's top horns, I agree. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Selmer produced the MkVII because it believed that it was a better horn than the VI Hemke and the likes agreed . Only when conservative US and yes my Canada bucked the trend they were forced to salvage the factory. And since then there has been confusion with this instrument. Now we don't know where to turn with formus such as this to prove the point. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've played a Mk VII or two and i agree, they were both good horns. However, this might be a good time for connsax_jim to give his input on where Selmer went wrong with the VII. From what I understand: * the VII was built for less resistance, better projection, and a stronger tone in the bottom end compared to the VI. Hemke did have a lot of say in it's design * It's ergonomics were far different from the VI to fit hands that were large like Hemke's * The VII was simpler in bore design to bring production costs down. This probably was a corporate imperitive due to the fact that Selmer had little competition at this point and was very interested in a more lucrative product. For Marketing, you don't have to have several product lines at the same time to be an effective market entity. Dont' know where you get that, actually. Selmer was effective at marketing because they made some great horns and got them in the hands of the great players.

          Reply To Post


        5. by selmer 4evr
          (309 posts)

          9 years ago

          Re: Good Sax for Legit?

          OF COURSE YOU DO !!!!!!where I get this from ? I am a marketer ,, my music was and still is a passion not a job. The first rule of marketing is multiple offerings this means that the sales guy can trade you up on the floor and entice you to spend more, look at the auto industry. Confusion is marketing's best ally. A good line-up requires at least three offerings ( see Sears- good- better-best ). Does this sound like what we have today in saxophones ? Now for more - Selmer US has always been a marketer but Selmer Paris just became one recently. Yamaha has always been one ( the orient is a good US imitator ). As for profit margin . Nothing is more profitable than to use the same tooling ,,,same labour know-how etc etc . Everyone knows that the initial costs of bringing a new product to market are exhorbitant tooling, training quality control issues all contribute. Actually johnsonfromwisconsin does make a good point about lack of competition . That is why Selmer produced the Mark VI for so long . They got lazy during the Mark VI production. What is unfortunate is that we sax nuts are going to get bombarded in future with more offerings than we can handle.

          Reply To Post


        6. by johnsonfromwisconsin
          (767 posts)

          9 years ago

          Re: Good Sax for Legit?

          --------------------------------------------------- A good line-up requires at least three offerings ( see Sears- good- better-best ). ---------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure it applies in this case necessarily, in fact this sounds more like a question of economics rather than of marketing. It has been said that one of the things that did Buescher competed with itself by having both the Aristocrat and 400 lines. By offering two or three completely different lines, you might be tripling your capital overhead, but you aren't necessarily tripling your unit sales. -------------------------------------------------------------- As for profit margin . Nothing is more profitable than to use the same tooling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Some contend that one of the reasons Selmer discontinues the Mark VI was that it's tooling was worn out. I don't buy that reason. The Mark VI was produced for 20 years and in that time you would expect to have a lot of machines replaced or overhauled, so I really doubt that was the main reason. One thing I do recall being said about the Mark VI was that it's production required a lot of work by human artisans, as opposed to automated machines, giving the VII a huge cost advantage.

          Reply To Post


        7. by selmer 4evr
          (309 posts)

          9 years ago

          Re: Good Sax for Legit?

          "Different brands" is competing against yourself in order to avoid competition to come in and erode price. Different models within the same brand is not competing it is marketing . Brand awareness is expensive that is why you see different products under one brand. Marketing and advertising are not the same thing. Multiple offerings under one brand is marketing. As for the old worn out tooling - if it were true what does that say of the latter years of the MarkVI?

          Reply To Post