Untitled Document
     
Advertisement Click to advertise with us!
     

C Melody Makin' a comeback?

Full disclosure:

I have three (3) C melody saxophones, an early Martin and a later Conn (straight neck), and a Buescher. I like the Martin best, Buescher close second. I have completely overhauled all 3 horns. My personal opinion: They all suck...

If anyone, including Aquilasax, is copying American C melody saxophones from the 1920s, all I can say is, "Why?"

Perhaps it's a lack of caffeine in my system at the moment (haven't yet titrated up to my full morning dosage), but your comment had me ROLFLMAO...:emoji_smile: Your honest opinion is refreshing.

I too have wondered about the obsession with the C mel. I love vintage horns. I want to love the C mel. I just can't.

I have a straight neck Conn. I like it. I have a Martin that needs an overhaul that was given to me, so it's too early to say if I'll love it. I'm thinking not. I might like it.
 
This is the well known phenomenon of "vanity publishing", an instance where someone is so "invested" (in a non-economic sense) in a particular cause or belief as to lose sight of economic (and other) considerations. At that point, they are willing to bear the burden of bringing it forward, and the running economic counter is a secondary consideration.

There's nothing wrong with this as long as the vanity subject does not destroy the economic viability of the "publisher". A millionaire (or even a hundred-thousand-aire) can afford to throw some tin at a project like the C melody saxophone. The worst that's going to happen in that case is that some pin money is going to be thrown aside.

In the case of vanity publishing gone bad, the publisher throws everything that he has into the endeavor, only to find that he has a huge stock of Heckelphones or C melody saxophones piled up in the back room, a zero in the bank account, and no orders in the pipeline.

In the book world, you can get any book published, as long as you are willing to bankroll the entire effort. You can get someone to print anything (and there are any number of publishing firms willing to do so), and many otherwise marginal authors do so every year. Their books pile up (most never even make the remainder tables - the authors themselves hold the copies that they have already paid for), the publishing house that does the actual printing gets their expenses covered, and all of the economic damage lands on the poor (both in the figurative and in the literal sense) author.

Saxophones are a bit different. For one thing, they don't stack very well, and for another they are more "hand work intensive". As a result, it's unlikely that a run of something like C melody horns will exceed more than a couple of dozen or so, Chinese efficiencies in productive means not withstanding.

Look at some other, "semi-vanity" publishing efforts. iPhoto books produce a quality product from your (hopefully) quality photos, one that stands up with the best of professional produced photo books. However, the producer pays dearly for the privilege, with costs well up there. Only the massive cost-saving measures of the off-site software and hardware keep the price below $40.00 per unit.

Then too, bass saxophones clearly fall in this category. Selmer, Orsi, Mr. Eppelsheim and others make the things, but they don't make very many of them (witness the long wait time and low inventory of them worldwide). And, the few that they make are very, very expensive. High cost and low inventory, combined with a reasonably limited demand (despite the various "Wouldn't it be neat to own a bass sax?" postings, few people actually need to own one) keep everything balanced in that arena.

There are hopes that advances in computer modeling and "real time casting" with "printers" that construct a 3D model through intersecting laser beams, plastic solutions and endless swipes of the "printer head", will allow the construction of physical objects in the same way that computers have enabled the production of printed materials. That day is getting closer, but it's not yet here.

(A friend of mine has been looking for years to replace a rather complicated plastic foot on an instrument stand. The foot has a solid angled end combined with a cup-like sleeve that fits over the leg of the stand, and the others are made of a very hard (yet still flexible) plastic. The last that I heard, he had been advised by the industrial modeling folks at the very large oilfield equipment firm where he works that doing this with their 3D fabrication machinery was "doable". However, few of us have cheap and easy access to a $500,000 piece of equipment. And, making the jump between flexible thermoplastic and sheet and cast brass is a huge technical barrier.)

Still, who knows? Perhaps someone will discover a hidden cache of Selmer horns from the 1920's, and the whole point will become moot (to quote Jesse Jackson).
 
3D printers are uber-kewl and no longer that expensive. You're off by about a factor of 10.

http://www.dimensionprinting.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39VJP671LDY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyZtBYG0QOg
http://www.zcorp.com/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/08/desktop-factory-to-sell-5k-3d-printer/

Or, build your own for about $2400. Even out of Legos.

I think 3D printers are really, really kewl. A metal fab machine is a lot more specialized. And they sell 'em on eBay.

I am a member of the "vanity publishing" community, with the calendars that I have created. I do it "right", to an extent: all the orders for my stuff is "on-demand": you order it, THEN we print it -- actually, by "we" I mean the company that I use to print stuff. That increases the cost of the product by about 50 to 75%, but it also cuts my liability to near zero.

Aquilasax has made approximately 200 C melodies (they claim to make 100 a year). They probably take a deposit for each one (Jim, you can jump in on that). Mr. Eppelsheim has made at least 53 basses. I'm also pretty sure that Mr. E doesn't build it until you pay for it.

There had been a bunch of print and TV articles in the recent past regarding how EVERYTHING should go to the "vanity publishing" model. The best example would be something like iTunes: hey, build your own album of MP3s you actually like. (Hey, it was rare that I'd buy a CD where I liked all the tracks.)
 
pete said:
Aquilasax has made approximately 200 C melodies (they claim to make 100 a year). They probably take a deposit for each one (Jim, you can jump in on that).
Not when I purchased one.
pete said:
Mr. Eppelsheim has made at least 53 basses. I'm also pretty sure that Mr. E doesn't build it until you pay for it.
I didn't have to pay a deposit here either. Wonder if Benedikt is very careful about who he takes orders from.
 
Back to the topic.

Over the years I've had 3 very good C melodies. I sold a Martin stencil to a kid in N.O. who wanted one to play in church. (It was high and dry during the big storm.) I sold a gold plated Buescher with front F to a guy who still plays it in a R&R band. It was a great playing horn that played well with almost every tenor mouthpiece I tried on it, but I needed a car, fast, so it had to go. (The car was a gem and saved my brothers life.)

I've still got a pristine Silver Buescher in the closet which I never play, and a wall hanger/planter sax sitting in the basement or garage or ?...

I've never found a need for these horns in my life. They are plentiful and priced well. Short of a good C soprano, I don't see the need for a new C sax. I don't see the need for a C soprano for myself either, as it is such an easy transposition, but it might help out school and church ensembles lacking in oboe players.
 
Scum balls are always with us. To a great degree, the ability to detect them before they cause damage is a very desirable talent to have.

As for the pricing, I was going with the information that the friend was given by their internal folks. Keep in mind that they "model" for the purpose of making steel castings, so the machinery in question may be a bit more complicated and pricey.

In a recent issue of Make magazine, an eclectic publication that is sort of a do it yourself guide on steriods, they published plans for a 3D printer that worked with a sugar water medium. The three laser beams meeting in the sugar rich water produce a solid sugar crystal at the point of intersection. With enough scans of the medium, a three dimensional solid was the result.

All of this was done with parts running about $100 (for a used printer, the lasers and the containment). Of course, you can't do much with a block of sugar as the end product, but it's a step in the right direction.

When they get this "right" enough to produce output in something like Delrin with a $1,000 price point, then the technology will "take off". Ain't there yet, though...
 
Carl: I agree with your assessment of C-saxophones. To each his own, of course - if someone wants to buy and play C-saxophones, go for it.

But I find it easier to play a Bb soprano (a tune in Db is played in Eb on my Bb sop, etc., etc.) and I think the slightly bigger Bb model is more mellow and warmer. (Yes, I've owned a C-soprano).

As far as C-Mel goes, I make the same argument - easier to transpose up a step at least for me. Plus, the C-Mel feels awkward in my hands, is uncomfortable to hold, and is more stuffy then tenor or alto.

If I hadn't been enamored with Frankie Trumbauer's playing on C-Mel, I wouldn't even consider playing one - and I'd have sold mine. I like having one in the closet, though. Just don't ask me to expose it in public!! DAVE
 
The other day, someone e-mailed me to ask if I thought that a redesigned C soprano was a good idea. I said that I wouldn't mind one, but if I needed to play a C instrument, I'd probably buy a newish C clarinet as they're not that expensive and have a larger range -- hey, that C soprano sax might be able to play up into the stratosphere, but that C clarinet still has that range to low E or Eb.

I get the part about transpositions and I can do a lot of 'em in my head (or could), but the C makes things easier.

Again, the C soprano and tenor have a somewhat different tonal quality than the Bb soprano and tenor. I actually prefer the tone for some things.
 
After all this "talk" about C-Mels. i got mine out and spent the afternoon playing it. Mine is a Buescher serial 157XXX, silver-plate. I played it with my Beechler #7 C-Mel piece and my Kessler tenor piece, using a Java #2 tenor reed.

Alongside my tenor, it pales in comparison if full and fat tone is what is required. But the C-Mel does have a funky focused tone to it. I heard a distinct tonal difference, alright. Usually I don't hear that when I play my smaller saxophones, vintage and modern.

The killer for me is the position, though. The C-Mel's balance point (neck strap on the strap-ring) swings the mouthpiece to a point way below my chin unless I cinch up the neck strap to where I'm almost strangling myself. Plus, that little left-thumb button has a way of wearing on my thumb until it is painful. None of my other vintage Bueschers do this to me.

Back in the closet they go. DAVE
 
The Martins are tough to handle on a strap also, same issue. Some people
modify their C-Mels, but I don't want to do that . Others have mentioned
different straps to accomodate the C's, but I don't recall which ones they suggested.
 
C Melody might make sense for a rock guy who doesn't want to learn to transpose and is picking up sax as a second instrument.

I've thought about picking up a C once in a while but in the end I come back to the stance that it doesn't make any sense to own one when I have no place to play it.
 
... or you can buy me one. eBay is always interesting: Aquilasax is now selling them there, with either curved or straight neck, and they've updated ... well, the model name, at least.

Here's an ad. They're $950.
 
Modern approach to C-melody saxes

What use to respond to a year or more old threat? Just to inform you that there is more to C-mels than vintage and has been.

I did not play sax for over ten years, and a year or so ago decided to take jazz up again. I play C (wind synth, recorder) and Eflat instruments (alto, baritone) in a swing band and two jazz combo's. Left the Bflat clarinet in the closet. One of the combos only consists of C-instruments other than me (one a recorder professional who hates metal flutes). In order to reduce instrument and key changes, I recently added a C mel to my stable (Hawkes London, Boosey and Hawkes after 1930, possibly a Keilwerth stencil). Especially to play specific ballads in Realbook standard.

And you not what? I tried all kinds of vintage saxes, Conn, Buescher, Martin and recently bought a vintage King. Although it tunes only in the middle regions, and has an awkward key layout in the low regions, this C mel rocks, the sound is awesome, especially with its vintage metal mouthpiece. It stands out in the (private) recordings we made recently. However, I prefer to improvise certain keys on the alto, and others on the C mel.

Cheers!
 
While I occasionally use the old period correct mouthpieces (Conn/Bundy/Holton metal-bakelite/King) all sound.... well "period correct" about sums it up. Tuning is in the ball park and manageable but nothing to write home about.

For regular use I have a Selmer Jazz metal piece in a D facing and a Guardala Studio. I shortened the shank on both these so they are appropriate for the C Melodies (about 5/8 of the way from an alto to a tenor mouthpiece shank as I figured it) and both pieces play very well on every C Melody I've come across. The tuning is much improved across the board- up to what I'd consider acceptable on a modern horn. The occasional quirk but very very useable.

The Guardala is a bit bright- though not as much so as it was on tenor (where it simply didn't appeal to my personal tastes) but the Selmer really is a very very nice match to the horns- very similar to the Link STM NY 7* I've used forever on tenor in most regards.
 
Back
Top Bottom