Bariman
|
Vintage or modern mpc's on Vintage horns?I see a lot of people using modern mouthpieces on vintage horns these days, even when the horn comes with a vintage piece. Do you think modern mpc's have an 'edge' over older ones? Better response, useability? Too pricey to rework old pieces?
Bariman
|
Bariman
|
No opinions?
Bariman
|
JPSaxMan
|
No clue  
|
saxmaniac
|
Modern pieces probably sound better, because of today's more advanced mouthpiece technology.
|
saxismyaxe
|
I think the lack of posts on this is due to the fact that there really isn't an end all answer to this question. It is by no means an exact science as there are too many variables involved. Personal taste in: tone/edge/resistance/playing qualities, as well as the horn make/model/vintage, and the type of music involved are just some of the qualifiers to look at.
As a collector of Vintage horns myself, I can tell you that there are SOME vintage horns (I.e. Conns, Hullers, and Bueschers etc.) that will flat out not play or sound good with many modern (for the purpose of this discussion, I'm going to describe "modern" as a high baffle, medium to small bore piece) mouthpieces IMHO. The intonation and speaking qualities of some or all of the range of the instrument can be adversely effected, and/or the tone can many times be far less than was intended. Conversely, there are some vintage horns that are very mouthpiece friendly, such as the King Super 20, Martin Committee I, Selmer MKVIs, SMLs, Buffets, and others.
All this is subject to judicial testing by each horn player, as what is desirable or works is a matter of individual opinion, and my comments are indicitive of the general consensus, but by no means written in stone.
|
Bariman
|
Wow.
That was really, er.... well spoken.
Yes, that's it.
:smile:
Bariman
|
Doc Frazier
|
First, what is your definition of vintage? If you consider the basic shape of a sax to start with, it is an inverted cone. The mouthpiece is an extension of that cone.
Consider the horns of the 20's and 30's, the mouthpiece had huge chambers with scooped out sidewalls and no baffle. It made them very dark,velvety sounding. If you try a "modern" 'piece, which most have some sort of baffle, STRAIGHT sidewalls and small chambers on the old horns, the extension of the cone shape is now out of proper proportions to the original designs for that particular sax brand. Back then every one had their own ideas about the proper dimensions. That is why a Buescher neck won't work on a Conn, Martin used soldered on tone holes when Conn was rolling theirs, etc...
A perfect modern day example would be trying to use an alto or tenor 'piece on a C melody. It will get close but not as factory designed. I've heard of some actually having the original C 'pieces refaced and work great instead of being stuffy.
The old horns sure have a character of their own. If that is the sound you want, try 'pieces until your ears fall off. It is amazing how many variations there are, even in the same brand!
|
paulwl
|
I always like this topic, even tho I've been part of dozens of such discussions.
It often turns out that the people who argue for vintage-only mpcs are classically trained players who just happen not to mention that their preferences apply mostly to classical music. In other words, they're instinctively defending a principle similar to what Doc lays out. (A principle that has been the cause of a lot of backstabbing among academics over the years, BTW.)
If pressed, they'll usually say they didn't intend to imply that playing other music on vintage horns is unworkable, and that there's a good number of jazz setups that will work with them. Many of the most vocal critics admit that their nonclassical experience is either limited or nonexistent.
|
Bariman
|
I'm just the other way around, really. I kinda stayed away from classical music for most of the time. I guess that makes me biased when I think about it. Heh.
Bariman
|
jules
|
Well, I can only speak from the point of view of my own set up- but I've played around with a lot of different moutphieces on both my conn conqueror and my buescher 400 baritone. I've never found them to sound better than with a modern Dukoff/guardala or berg on- in the case of the former- and, absolute winner, A runyon (either smoothbore or Quantum) on the bari- the degree of control and precission of sound of the modern mouthpieces seems, in my opinion, to counter some of the more quirky features of old horns (this was illustrated very well with my old Conn T-bar bari- which was pretty useless- due to somewhat 'flexible' intonation- without a runyon and a very stiff reed on it).
|
Doc Frazier
|
Paul,
I agree about the back-stabbing.
I have noticed over the years that in dealing with the old saxes, even some of the factory 'pieces don't play right. I've been playing a Prestini Classic Pro alto for 2 years now and using a HR RIA #7 with a tenor Runyon spoiler insert and the intonation is dead on. I purchased a Runyon Jazz alto to try and I couldn't make the octaves in tune. I tried the Runyon on my backup 6m and it is dead on. Go figure!
The point is that back in the day, the 'pieces and the sound was ALL that they had. I don't advocate either side( though I do love jazz; have and do play both styles ). The desired sound (timbre) is a very individual thing. If you listen to some early recordings (prehistoric CD----records!), the old pro's didn't have a problem with intonation.  practice, practice, practice
I guess this why we have a never ending case of GAS! LOL
|
|
|
|