professional musicans tell the difference

[Arny Krueger]

Can professional musicians tell the difference between cheap and expensive
instruments in a blind test. Can they tell the difference between a synth
and an acoustic instrument?

Here's the video - in Swedish (sorry).

http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=102147&lid=puff_1413321

I've read partial translations of this video and the answer is often no.
Much of the rest of the time the answer is "it is very hard".

"Even the electrical piano was mistaken for the Steinway."

"Among them was comparison of a cheap electric guitar to a Fender from
the 50?s valued at USD $65000 and a real Steinway grand to an
electrical one and a cheap USD $ 150 practice Violin to a Stradivarius
valued at
USD $1200000."

"The Violin player Linda Lampenius got the Stradivarius correct but
admitted that it was very difficult to hear any difference between the
cheap practice violin and the Stradivarius."

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Can professional musicians tell the difference between cheap and expensive
> instruments in a blind test. Can they tell the difference between a synth
> and an acoustic instrument?
>
> Here's the video - in Swedish (sorry).
>
> http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=102147&lid=puff_1413321
>
> I've read partial translations of this video and the answer is often no.
> Much of the rest of the time the answer is "it is very hard".
>
> "Even the electrical piano was mistaken for the Steinway."
>
> "Among them was comparison of a cheap electric guitar to a Fender from
> the 50?s valued at USD $65000 and a real Steinway grand to an
> electrical one and a cheap USD $ 150 practice Violin to a Stradivarius
> valued at
> USD $1200000."
>
> "The Violin player Linda Lampenius got the Stradivarius correct but
> admitted that it was very difficult to hear any difference between the
> cheap practice violin and the Stradivarius."

**I stand corrected.

Of course, one or two tests does not imply consensus, but it is interesting.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
: "The Violin player Linda Lampenius got the Stradivarius correct but
: admitted that it was very difficult to hear any difference between the
: cheap practice violin and the Stradivarius."

One of Charlie Parker's greatest recordings ("Live at Massey Hall") was
made with a plastic saxophone.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
> : "The Violin player Linda Lampenius got the Stradivarius correct but
> : admitted that it was very difficult to hear any difference between the
> : cheap practice violin and the Stradivarius."
>
> One of Charlie Parker's greatest recordings ("Live at Massey Hall") was
> made with a plastic saxophone.


The "plastic" alto has its own sound.
Who knows, Adolf Sax might have built his prototype
from plastic had it been available in 1846

Accept it for what it is. Acrylic soprano saxophones were
also quite the height of fashion at one stage.

It is interesting too to compare metal and wooden
flutes. In these cases, it's purely a matter of taste.

Iain

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 4, 2:25*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> Can professional musicians tell the difference between cheap and expensive
> instruments in a blind test. Can they tell the difference between a synth
> and an acoustic instrument?
>
> Here's the video - in Swedish (sorry).
>
> http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=102147&lid=puff_1413321
>
> I've read partial translations of this video and the answer is often no.
> Much of the rest of the time the answer is "it is very hard".
>
> "Even the electrical piano was mistaken for the Steinway."
>
> "Among them was comparison of a cheap electric guitar to a Fender from
> the 50?s valued at USD $65000 and a real Steinway grand to an
> *electrical one and a cheap USD $ 150 practice Violin to a Stradivarius
> valued at
> USD $1200000."
>
> "The Violin player Linda Lampenius got the Stradivarius correct but
> admitted that it was very difficult to hear any difference between the
> cheap practice violin and the Stradivarius."

The true test to a musician, of course, is in playing the instrument.

I'll make a wager with you, GOIA: I have $10,000 dollars that says I
can tell the difference, blind, between playing an original $65,000
1957 Strat and a current $99 one that was made in China or Taiwan. Or
how about a 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard and the current $400
Epiphone? We won't even have to plug them in.

Are you up for it, GOIA? I'll bet we could find a vintage guitar shop
who would let us do it there and use ther instruments.

No, you'd never put your money where your mouth is. How about if I
suceed to do it reliably, you leave RAO forever? That won't cost you a
thing!

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message


> I'll make a wager with you, GOIA: I have $10,000 dollars
> that says I can tell the difference, blind, between
> playing an original $65,000 1957 Strat and a current $99
> one that was made in China or Taiwan. Or how about a
> 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard and the current $400
> Epiphone? We won't even have to plug them in.

Show me the money.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:

>>> "The Violin player Linda Lampenius got the Stradivarius
>>> correct but admitted that it was very difficult to hear
>>> any difference between the cheap practice violin and
>>> the Stradivarius."

>> One of Charlie Parker's greatest recordings ("Live at
>> Massey Hall") was made with a plastic saxophone.

But it was documented as such.

> The "plastic" alto has its own sound.
> Who knows, Adolf Sax might have built his prototype
> from plastic had it been available in 1846.

> Accept it for what it is. Acrylic soprano saxophones were
> also quite the height of fashion at one stage.

> It is interesting too to compare metal and wooden
> flutes. In these cases, it's purely a matter of taste.

All things considered, Jenn is in good company for not being able to tell
the difference between a sampled piano and an acoustic piano.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 5, 6:49*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> > I'll make a wager with you, GOIA: I have $10,000 dollars
> > that says I can tell the difference, blind, between
> > playing an original $65,000 1957 Strat and a current $99
> > one that was made in China or Taiwan. *Or how about a
> > 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard and the current $400
> > Epiphone? We won't even have to plug them in.
>
> Show me the money.

Let me understand this: if I show you $10,000, you can show me your
$10,000 and we're on, winner takes all?

That's a "Yes" or "No" question.

[[email protected]]

Iain Churches > wrote:
: > wrote in message
: > One of Charlie Parker's greatest recordings ("Live at Massey Hall") was
: > made with a plastic saxophone.
: The "plastic" alto has its own sound.

Do you think that "having its own sound" is so true, that musicians or
other experts could actually identify it in a blind test? That's the
question that that this thread is about.

[Jenn[_3_]]

On Feb 4, 2:45*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Can professional musicians tell the difference between cheap and expensive
> > instruments in a blind test. Can they tell the difference between a synth
> > and an acoustic instrument?
>
> > Here's the video - in Swedish (sorry).
>
> >http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=102147&lid=puff_1413321
>
> > I've read partial translations of this video and the answer is often no..
> > Much of the rest of the time the answer is "it is very hard".
>
> > "Even the electrical piano was mistaken for the Steinway."
>
> > "Among them was comparison of a cheap electric guitar to a Fender from
> > the 50?s valued at USD $65000 and a real Steinway grand to an
> > electrical one and a cheap USD $ 150 practice Violin to a Stradivarius
> > valued at
> > USD $1200000."
>
> > "The Violin player Linda Lampenius got the Stradivarius correct but
> > admitted that it was very difficult to hear any difference between the
> > cheap practice violin and the Stradivarius."
>
> **I stand corrected.
>
> Of course, one or two tests does not imply consensus, but it is interesting.

I would like to read the translation, but just on the surface of this
there several things wrong with this "test". For example, the Les
Pauls are played with distortion. Steinway? There is none in sight,
and the test is made with recordings. For the violins, using music
that is performed with short, largely off the string notes is
suspect. How about a four octave long tone scale?

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Feb 5, 6:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in
>>
>>
>>> I'll make a wager with you, GOIA: I have $10,000 dollars
>>> that says I can tell the difference, blind, between
>>> playing an original $65,000 1957 Strat and a current $99
>>> one that was made in China or Taiwan. Or how about a
>>> 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard and the current $400
>>> Epiphone? We won't even have to plug them in.
>>
>> Show me the money.
>
> Let me understand this: if I show you $10,000, you can
> show me your
> $10,000 and we're on, winner takes all?

How are you going to show me the money in a way that is credible, nym?

After all, so far you don't even have a legal name - and therefore no
accountability.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > I'll make a wager with you, GOIA: I have $10,000 dollars
> > > that says I can tell the difference, blind, between
> > > playing an original $65,000 1957 Strat and a current $99
> > > one that was made in China or Taiwan. *Or how about a
> > > 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard and the current $400
> > > Epiphone? We won't even have to plug them in.
> >
> > Show me the money.
>
> Let me understand this: if I show you $10,000, you can show me your
> $10,000 and we're on, winner takes all?
>
> That's a "Yes" or "No" question.

So it is. Coincidentally, that's Krooger's cue to run and hide.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 5, 10:40*am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > I'll make a wager with you, GOIA: I have $10,000 dollars
> > > > that says I can tell the difference, blind, between
> > > > playing an original $65,000 1957 Strat and a current $99
> > > > one that was made in China or Taiwan. *Or how about a
> > > > 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard and the current $400
> > > > Epiphone? We won't even have to plug them in.
>
> > > Show me the money.
>
> > Let me understand this: if I show you $10,000, you can show me your
> > $10,000 and we're on, winner takes all?
>
> > That's a "Yes" or "No" question.
>
> So it is. Coincidentally, that's Krooger's cue to run and hide.

And he has, right on schedule.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 5, 10:12*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 6:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in
> >>
>
> >>> I'll make a wager with you, GOIA: I have $10,000 dollars
> >>> that says I can tell the difference, blind, between
> >>> playing an original $65,000 1957 Strat and a current $99
> >>> one that was made in China or Taiwan. Or how about a
> >>> 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard and the current $400
> >>> Epiphone? We won't even have to plug them in.
>
> >> Show me the money.
>
> > Let me understand this: if I show you $10,000, you can
> > show me your
> > $10,000 and we're on, winner takes all?
>
> How are you going to show me the money in a way that is credible, Master?

Wired to an escrow account in both of our names. You would, of course,
have to wire your money to the same account.

Don't worry about how to withdraw it. You won't have to, GOIA. That's
because you will lose. ;-)

> After all, so far you don't even have a legal name - and therefore no
> accountability.

And you don't have any balls. LOL!

Now run away and hide again, GOIA.

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Feb, 07:49, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> > I'll make a wager with you, GOIA: I have $10,000 dollars
> > that says I can tell the difference, blind, between
> > playing an original $65,000 1957 Strat and a current $99
> > one that was made in China or Taiwan. *Or how about a
> > 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard and the current $400
> > Epiphone? We won't even have to plug them in.
>
> Show me the money.

$10,000 equals ten asswipes.
that will kepp Krueger happy for one morning.

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Feb, 08:41, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 6:49*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote in
>
> > > I'll make a wager with you, GOIA: I have $10,000 dollars
> > > that says I can tell the difference, blind, between
> > > playing an original $65,000 1957 Strat and a current $99
> > > one that was made in China or Taiwan. *Or how about a
> > > 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard and the current $400
> > > Epiphone? We won't even have to plug them in.
>
> > Show me the money.
>
> Let me understand this: if I show you $10,000, you can show me your
> $10,000 and we're on, winner takes all?
>
> That's a "Yes" or "No" question.

Arny's currency of choice is $30,000 worth of obsolete
sound cards.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 5, 11:01*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 07:49, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote in
>
> > > I'll make a wager with you, GOIA: I have $10,000 dollars
> > > that says I can tell the difference, blind, between
> > > playing an original $65,000 1957 Strat and a current $99
> > > one that was made in China or Taiwan. *Or how about a
> > > 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard and the current $400
> > > Epiphone? We won't even have to plug them in.
>
> > Show me the money.
>
> $10,000 equals ten asswipes.
> that will kepp Krueger happy for one morning.

He's already run away. As a result he'll have dingleberries.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message


>> How are you going to show me the money in a way that is
>> credible, Master?

> Wired to an escrow account in both of our names. You
> would, of course, have to wire your money to the same account.

Which imaginary name will you use for this account, grasshopper? LOL!

> Don't worry about me withdrawing it. I won't have to,
> my master and commander. That's because I will lose.

The escrow account will no doubt be in a Nigerian bank. ;-)

>> After all, so far you don't even have a legal name - and
>> therefore no > accountability.

> And I don't have any balls.

Right grasshopper, that is you: no name, no manhood.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 5, 11:14*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> >> How are you going to show me the money in a way that is
> >> credible, Master?
> > Wired to an escrow account in both of our names. You
> > would, of course, *have to wire your money to the same account.
>
> Which imaginary name will you use for this account, Master? LOL!

Why not quit cowering and find out? LOL!

> > Don't worry about withdrawing *it. *You won't have to,
> > GOIA. That's *because you will lose.
>
> The funny thing is my dick will no doubt be in a Nigerian ass, or vice-versa. ;-)

I have no idea what you're insanely rambling about here, GOIA.

> >> After all, so far you don't even have a legal name - and
> >> therefore no accountability.
> > And you don't have any balls.
>
> Right Master, that is you: A personal God to me. I worship you.

Thank you. And quit kneeling. You look even crazier than usual when
you do that.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 4, 2:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Can professional musicians tell the difference between cheap and
> > expensive
> > instruments in a blind test. Can they tell the difference between a
> > synth
> > and an acoustic instrument?
>
> > Here's the video - in Swedish (sorry).
>
> >http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=102147&lid=puff_1413321
>
> > I've read partial translations of this video and the answer is often no.
> > Much of the rest of the time the answer is "it is very hard".
>
> > "Even the electrical piano was mistaken for the Steinway."
>
> > "Among them was comparison of a cheap electric guitar to a Fender from
> > the 50?s valued at USD $65000 and a real Steinway grand to an
> > electrical one and a cheap USD $ 150 practice Violin to a Stradivarius
> > valued at
> > USD $1200000."
>
> > "The Violin player Linda Lampenius got the Stradivarius correct but
> > admitted that it was very difficult to hear any difference between the
> > cheap practice violin and the Stradivarius."
>
> **I stand corrected.
>
> Of course, one or two tests does not imply consensus, but it is
> interesting.

I would like to read the translation, but just on the surface of this
there several things wrong with this "test". For example, the Les
Pauls are played with distortion. Steinway? There is none in sight,
and the test is made with recordings. For the violins, using music
that is performed with short, largely off the string notes is
suspect. How about a four octave long tone scale?

**All good points, but, IMO, a musician does not necessaily need to have a
finely tuned ear to perform his/her job. A musician usually needs to be able
to read music, have the necessary manual skills to interpret that music and
play their instrument/s. In many cases, a musician will have further, more
interpretative skills, allowing them to innovate. A musican may not
necessarily have the skills to evaluate the differences in sound
reproduction systems, nor even in the instruments themselves. IME, however,
most musicians can readily appreciate the differences in their own
specialty.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"Trevor Wilson" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Feb 4, 2:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Can professional musicians tell the difference between cheap and
> > > expensive
> > > instruments in a blind test. Can they tell the difference between a
> > > synth
> > > and an acoustic instrument?
> >
> > > Here's the video - in Swedish (sorry).
> >
> > >http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=102147&lid=puff_1413321
> >
> > > I've read partial translations of this video and the answer is often no.
> > > Much of the rest of the time the answer is "it is very hard".
> >
> > > "Even the electrical piano was mistaken for the Steinway."
> >
> > > "Among them was comparison of a cheap electric guitar to a Fender from
> > > the 50?s valued at USD $65000 and a real Steinway grand to an
> > > electrical one and a cheap USD $ 150 practice Violin to a Stradivarius
> > > valued at
> > > USD $1200000."
> >
> > > "The Violin player Linda Lampenius got the Stradivarius correct but
> > > admitted that it was very difficult to hear any difference between the
> > > cheap practice violin and the Stradivarius."
> >
> > **I stand corrected.
> >
> > Of course, one or two tests does not imply consensus, but it is
> > interesting.
>
> I would like to read the translation, but just on the surface of this
> there several things wrong with this "test". For example, the Les
> Pauls are played with distortion. Steinway? There is none in sight,
> and the test is made with recordings. For the violins, using music
> that is performed with short, largely off the string notes is
> suspect. How about a four octave long tone scale?
>
> **All good points, but, IMO, a musician does not necessaily need to have a
> finely tuned ear to perform his/her job. A musician usually needs to be able
> to read music, have the necessary manual skills to interpret that music and
> play their instrument/s. In many cases, a musician will have further, more
> interpretative skills, allowing them to innovate. A musican may not
> necessarily have the skills to evaluate the differences in sound
> reproduction systems, nor even in the instruments themselves. IME, however,
> most musicians can readily appreciate the differences in their own
> specialty.

You are correct in that a musician may not necessarily have evaluative
skills. Depends on the musician's training, what specialty of music
she/he is in, etc.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Iain Churches > wrote:
> : > wrote in message

> : > One of Charlie Parker's greatest recordings ("Live at Massey Hall")
> was
> : > made with a plastic saxophone.
> : The "plastic" alto has its own sound.
>
> Do you think that "having its own sound" is so true, that musicians or
> other experts could actually identify it in a blind test? That's the
> question that that this thread is about.

I have never, AFAICR heard a plastic alto, but an acrylic
soprano is definitely unique in its sound, and easily identifiable.

I doubt that any great level of expertise would be required
to differentiate between an acrylic and brass instument. It
is an experiment to carry out when the opportunity presents
itself.

Regards
Iain

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"Iain Churches" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Iain Churches > wrote:
> > : > wrote in message
>
> > : > One of Charlie Parker's greatest recordings ("Live at Massey Hall")
> > was
> > : > made with a plastic saxophone.
> > : The "plastic" alto has its own sound.
> >
> > Do you think that "having its own sound" is so true, that musicians or
> > other experts could actually identify it in a blind test? That's the
> > question that that this thread is about.
>
> I have never, AFAICR heard a plastic alto, but an acrylic
> soprano is definitely unique in its sound, and easily identifiable.
>
> I doubt that any great level of expertise would be required
> to differentiate between an acrylic and brass instument. It
> is an experiment to carry out when the opportunity presents
> itself.
>
> Regards
> Iain

I've heard a couple of them. Whether they are "bad" or "good" is a
matter of taste, but they don't sound like a metal sax, to be sure.

[[email protected]]

Jenn > wrote:
: In article >,
: "Iain Churches" > wrote:
: > wrote in message
: >> : > One of Charlie Parker's greatest recordings ("Live at Massey Hall") was
: >> : > made with a plastic saxophone.
: >> : The "plastic" alto has its own sound.
: >> Do you think that "having its own sound" is so true, that musicians or
: >> other experts could actually identify it in a blind test? That's the
: >> question that that this thread is about.
: > I doubt that any great level of expertise would be required
: > to differentiate between an acrylic and brass instument. It
: > is an experiment to carry out when the opportunity presents itself.
: I've heard a couple of them. Whether they are "bad" or "good" is a
: matter of taste, but they don't sound like a metal sax, to be sure.

After listening quite a bit to the Massey Hall recording, I was shocked to
learn that it was a plastic sax. I certainly never detected a difference.
Even knowing that it's plastic, in all honesty I can't discern a difference.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
wrote:

> Jenn > wrote:
> : In article >,
> : "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> : > wrote in message
> : >> : > One of Charlie Parker's greatest recordings ("Live at Massey Hall")
> : >> : > was
> : >> : > made with a plastic saxophone.
> : >> : The "plastic" alto has its own sound.
> : >> Do you think that "having its own sound" is so true, that musicians or
> : >> other experts could actually identify it in a blind test? That's the
> : >> question that that this thread is about.
> : > I doubt that any great level of expertise would be required
> : > to differentiate between an acrylic and brass instument. It
> : > is an experiment to carry out when the opportunity presents itself.
> : I've heard a couple of them. Whether they are "bad" or "good" is a
> : matter of taste, but they don't sound like a metal sax, to be sure.
>
> After listening quite a bit to the Massey Hall recording, I was shocked to
> learn that it was a plastic sax. I certainly never detected a difference.
> Even knowing that it's plastic, in all honesty I can't discern a difference.

I've not heard it. I'll seek it out.

[[email protected]]

Jenn > wrote:
: In article >,
: wrote:
: > Jenn > wrote:
: > : In article >,
: > : "Iain Churches" > wrote:
: > : > wrote in message
: > : >> : > One of Charlie Parker's greatest recordings ("Live at Massey Hall")was
: > : >> : > made with a plastic saxophone.
: > : >> : The "plastic" alto has its own sound.
: > : >> Do you think that "having its own sound" is so true, that musicians or
: > : >> other experts could actually identify it in a blind test? That's the
: > : >> question that that this thread is about.
: > : > I doubt that any great level of expertise would be required
: > : > to differentiate between an acrylic and brass instument. It
: > : > is an experiment to carry out when the opportunity presents itself.
: > : I've heard a couple of them. Whether they are "bad" or "good" is a
: > : matter of taste, but they don't sound like a metal sax, to be sure.
: > After listening quite a bit to the Massey Hall recording, I was shocked to
: > learn that it was a plastic sax. I certainly never detected a difference.
: > Even knowing that it's plastic, in all honesty I can't discern a difference.
: I've not heard it. I'll seek it out.

Here are some pictures in which you can see the white plastic sax:
http://www.birdlives.co.uk/content/view/30/46/

The picture at the bottom of the page is reversed, obviously.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Jenn > wrote:
> : In article >,
> : "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> : > wrote in message
> : >> : > One of Charlie Parker's greatest recordings ("Live at Massey
> Hall") was
> : >> : > made with a plastic saxophone.
> : >> : The "plastic" alto has its own sound.
> : >> Do you think that "having its own sound" is so true, that musicians
> or
> : >> other experts could actually identify it in a blind test? That's the
> : >> question that that this thread is about.
> : > I doubt that any great level of expertise would be required
> : > to differentiate between an acrylic and brass instument. It
> : > is an experiment to carry out when the opportunity presents itself.
> : I've heard a couple of them. Whether they are "bad" or "good" is a
> : matter of taste, but they don't sound like a metal sax, to be sure.
>
> After listening quite a bit to the Massey Hall recording, I was shocked to
> learn that it was a plastic sax. I certainly never detected a difference.
> Even knowing that it's plastic, in all honesty I can't discern a
> difference.

One would rwally need to AB between them to establish the
differences. I cannot say about the alto, but an acrylic soprano
saxophone is easily identified.


A lurker on this thread, a professional saxophone player
in the Swedish radio big band, contacted me yesterday
to say that as far as he knows Grafton was the only maker
to produce the acrylic saxophone in any quantity. There
are also wooden saxophones in various collections.
These are made from ebony or teak, and sound closer to
the clarinet and bss clarinet that a brass saxophone does.

The same chap tells me there is a live recording of
Wardell Gray and Dexter Gordon, both playing tenor
saxophones, where one of them (he cannot remember which)
plays an acrylic instrument. Even though the tone of these two
players is dissimilar, it would be interested to make a comparison
between them.

Nice to see rational discussion on this NG :-)

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...

> Here are some pictures in which you can see the white plastic sax:
> http://www.birdlives.co.uk/content/view/30/46/
>
> The picture at the bottom of the page is reversed, obviously.

Fascinating. Thanks for the link.

I wonder if the instrument might be a hybrid,
with a plastic bell and brass throat?

Iain

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"Iain Churches" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Here are some pictures in which you can see the white plastic sax:
> > http://www.birdlives.co.uk/content/view/30/46/
> >
> > The picture at the bottom of the page is reversed, obviously.
>
> Fascinating. Thanks for the link.
>
> I wonder if the instrument might be a hybrid,
> with a plastic bell and brass throat?
>
> Iain

The two (IIRC) that I've heard are quite odd sounding. Bird could make
anything sound good, of course, but the fact that they aren't made
anymore pretty much tells the tale.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Iain Churches" > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Here are some pictures in which you can see the white plastic sax:
>> > http://www.birdlives.co.uk/content/view/30/46/
>> >
>> > The picture at the bottom of the page is reversed, obviously.
>>
>> Fascinating. Thanks for the link.
>>
>> I wonder if the instrument might be a hybrid,
>> with a plastic bell and brass throat?
>>
>> Iain
>
> The two (IIRC) that I've heard are quite odd sounding. Bird could make
> anything sound good, of course, but the fact that they aren't made
> anymore pretty much tells the tale.

It seems that Grafton were the only firm to make these in
any number and stopped production circa 1960.

Presumably an acrylic alto is/was much cheaper than a brass
instrument. One would have thought that at entry (beginner's)
level the plastic instrument would have been an valid
proposition. But it seems there were considerable problems
with them. It would be interesting to know what Bird thought
of it, and how he came by it.

http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk/Reviews/Saxes/Alto/Grafton_alto.htm

Iain

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"Iain Churches" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Here are some pictures in which you can see the white plastic sax:
> >> > http://www.birdlives.co.uk/content/view/30/46/
> >> >
> >> > The picture at the bottom of the page is reversed, obviously.
> >>
> >> Fascinating. Thanks for the link.
> >>
> >> I wonder if the instrument might be a hybrid,
> >> with a plastic bell and brass throat?
> >>
> >> Iain
> >
> > The two (IIRC) that I've heard are quite odd sounding. Bird could make
> > anything sound good, of course, but the fact that they aren't made
> > anymore pretty much tells the tale.
>
> It seems that Grafton were the only firm to make these in
> any number and stopped production circa 1960.
>
> Presumably an acrylic alto is/was much cheaper than a brass
> instrument. One would have thought that at entry (beginner's)
> level the plastic instrument would have been an valid
> proposition. But it seems there were considerable problems
> with them. It would be interesting to know what Bird thought
> of it, and how he came by it.
>
> http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk/Reviews/Saxes/Alto/Grafton_alto.htm
>
> Iain

Yes, difficult to impossible to adjust, thereby making it frustrating
for a beginner and too unreliable for a pro. Even excellent saxes are
darned hard to keep in adjustment. Note that saxophonists "fiddle" with
their horns more than any other wind players, along with oboists and
bassoonists. I know of a couple of people in L.A. who make good livings
ONLY from sax adjustments.

[[email protected]]

Iain Churches > wrote:
: It would be interesting to know what Bird thought of it,
: and how he came by it.

Apparently his Selmer was in the pawnshop (as it often was), and he
borrowed this one at the last minute.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Iain Churches" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Iain Churches" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > Here are some pictures in which you can see the white plastic sax:
>> >> > http://www.birdlives.co.uk/content/view/30/46/
>> >> >
>> >> > The picture at the bottom of the page is reversed, obviously.
>> >>
>> >> Fascinating. Thanks for the link.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder if the instrument might be a hybrid,
>> >> with a plastic bell and brass throat?
>> >>
>> >> Iain
>> >
>> > The two (IIRC) that I've heard are quite odd sounding. Bird could make
>> > anything sound good, of course, but the fact that they aren't made
>> > anymore pretty much tells the tale.
>>
>> It seems that Grafton were the only firm to make these in
>> any number and stopped production circa 1960.
>>
>> Presumably an acrylic alto is/was much cheaper than a brass
>> instrument. One would have thought that at entry (beginner's)
>> level the plastic instrument would have been an valid
>> proposition. But it seems there were considerable problems
>> with them. It would be interesting to know what Bird thought
>> of it, and how he came by it.
>>
>> http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk/Reviews/Saxes/Alto/Grafton_alto.htm
>>
>> Iain
>
> Yes, difficult to impossible to adjust, thereby making it frustrating
> for a beginner and too unreliable for a pro. Even excellent saxes are
> darned hard to keep in adjustment. Note that saxophonists "fiddle" with
> their horns more than any other wind players, along with oboists and
> bassoonists. I know of a couple of people in L.A. who make good livings
> ONLY from sax adjustments.

Much to be said for the humble Dolmetsch treble recorder then:-)

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Iain Churches" > wrote:

>> Presumably an acrylic alto is/was much cheaper than a brass
>> instrument. One would have thought that at entry (beginner's)
>> level the plastic instrument would have been an valid
>> proposition. But it seems there were considerable problems
>> with them. It would be interesting to know what Bird thought
>> of it, and how he came by it.
>>
>> http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk/Reviews/Saxes/Alto/Grafton_alto.htm
>>

>
> Yes, difficult to impossible to adjust, thereby making it frustrating
> for a beginner and too unreliable for a pro. Even excellent saxes are
> darned hard to keep in adjustment. Note that saxophonists "fiddle" with
> their horns more than any other wind players, along with oboists and
> bassoonists. I know of a couple of people in L.A. who make good livings
> ONLY from sax adjustments.

On the subject of saxophones, I am reminded of the monologue
performed by Professor Stanley Unwin for the 30th Anniversary of
Ronnie Scott's Jazz Club, about Adolph Sax:

Read it out loud:

Iain



This is a saxophorial historical to celebrate the thirty years of Ronnie
Scott's speshlode in Frith Street or Sohothrall with gathery peoplode who
have that joy to listen for these wonderful instrumolds that he has so
manifepst. Ronnie Scott. Oh, yes!

Of course, it also celebrates the thorkus of the inventor of that
instrument: Adolph Sax. Now he was born in 1814 and he
deserves a speshlode mention consideration in that the merits
of his father which refleps Adolph's own genius in the invention
and development of the saxophone also refleps from the maternal
side about which we know so little. It's well known that sons,
more often than not so, inherit the characteristics of
their mothers down through consanguinity through father,
sorrell and son and revealed by genes and light brown hormones.

Now, having said all this, it is true that Adolph's father,
Charles Joseph Sax, was born in 1791 - by the way that's
the time that Mozart falolloped and died flat on the bokus
and a young Beethoven was playing the organ for the
elector and emulating Vogeler's work at that time - Beethoven being so
young-not so deaf and stuffin' of wax in his earoles at that time - he was
working on the Rizzaballet for Count Waldstein.

Adolph Sax invented the sax horn, or rather a whole range of
sax horns in 1842. The versatile quality that he sought from
the earlier hormones and the bass clarineppers made by
his father required him to experiment but the time
and finance for the dignit in the pockey was very
difficult to come by. His popularity was enhanced by
the thought of Berlioz, Halevy and others and he
soon developed this instrument of joy: the saxophone.

SAXOPHOBIA

Of course, he registered it in 1846 and the inventive power
producing such an unusual tone and quality aroused much
jealously and ill-feeling in some of his contemporaries. But
being a wise and deep thorkus in his mileode for attackfold
he found help from powerful friends like journalists who
trumpey-up his places in the newspaper and especially
General de Roumigny who was the aide-de-camp to
Louis-Philippe so that the French army bands has
all saxophobia included. They jettisoned their obones,
French hormones, bassooles - all gone! Oh, dear, never
since Sousa and clarineppers Jimmy Noone and Bechet
in the afterludy - oh, dear!

Now, the question is this - how did he manage to obtain
such a remarkable tonal quality from his invention?
I believe it was inspired by his love of the human singy
voice in the larynx of the human beal starting perhaps with
the soprano to emulate his own mother through the whole
range down to the bassy-profundo or bass sax. He took
the reed of the clarineppers but used a conical brass tube
with above twenty lateral orifips, all covered by keys,
three-fingered place for three fingold other hand huffalo-
dowd - now there's an ambidextrold trickly-how! And
of course there were two small holes or pippysqueakers
which provided the scaley-shifters huffalo for that.

The range is generally considered from B to F upper
toc-toc-toc - that's the high range-berr-tocker very
high huffalo-dowd, therefore the super-soprano
emulating the Jenny-Linders or the female voice
who reachy-huf in the heavenly bode with the lark
in the early maudie. But, of course, all the
members of the family are frequently made with
an extension of the bell for B-flabbers. After all, this
is the most popular key for the jazzmolde,
forpeople who twisty-ho, dance huffalo-dowder, break dance,
jumpit'n'through -all those want that B-flabber.

So, what have we got? The oristot fingold-pluggery.
This gives us the joy of the saxophobia as we have
it today - Johnny Coltrane, Ron Scottie, Stanny
Getzit. I think he does! Let's have it! Let's have it!
Oh, joy!

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"Iain Churches" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Iain Churches" > wrote:
>
> >> Presumably an acrylic alto is/was much cheaper than a brass
> >> instrument. One would have thought that at entry (beginner's)
> >> level the plastic instrument would have been an valid
> >> proposition. But it seems there were considerable problems
> >> with them. It would be interesting to know what Bird thought
> >> of it, and how he came by it.
> >>
> >> http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk/Reviews/Saxes/Alto/Grafton_alto.htm
> >>
>
> >
> > Yes, difficult to impossible to adjust, thereby making it frustrating
> > for a beginner and too unreliable for a pro. Even excellent saxes are
> > darned hard to keep in adjustment. Note that saxophonists "fiddle" with
> > their horns more than any other wind players, along with oboists and
> > bassoonists. I know of a couple of people in L.A. who make good livings
> > ONLY from sax adjustments.
>
> On the subject of saxophones, I am reminded of the monologue
> performed by Professor Stanley Unwin for the 30th Anniversary of
> Ronnie Scott's Jazz Club, about Adolph Sax:
>
> Read it out loud:
>
> Iain
>
>
>
> This is a saxophorial historical to celebrate the thirty years of Ronnie
> Scott's speshlode in Frith Street or Sohothrall with gathery peoplode who
> have that joy to listen for these wonderful instrumolds that he has so
> manifepst. Ronnie Scott. Oh, yes!
>
> Of course, it also celebrates the thorkus of the inventor of that
> instrument: Adolph Sax. Now he was born in 1814 and he
> deserves a speshlode mention consideration in that the merits
> of his father which refleps Adolph's own genius in the invention
> and development of the saxophone also refleps from the maternal
> side about which we know so little. It's well known that sons,
> more often than not so, inherit the characteristics of
> their mothers down through consanguinity through father,
> sorrell and son and revealed by genes and light brown hormones.
>
> Now, having said all this, it is true that Adolph's father,
> Charles Joseph Sax, was born in 1791 - by the way that's
> the time that Mozart falolloped and died flat on the bokus
> and a young Beethoven was playing the organ for the
> elector and emulating Vogeler's work at that time - Beethoven being so
> young-not so deaf and stuffin' of wax in his earoles at that time - he was
> working on the Rizzaballet for Count Waldstein.
>
> Adolph Sax invented the sax horn, or rather a whole range of
> sax horns in 1842. The versatile quality that he sought from
> the earlier hormones and the bass clarineppers made by
> his father required him to experiment but the time
> and finance for the dignit in the pockey was very
> difficult to come by. His popularity was enhanced by
> the thought of Berlioz, Halevy and others and he
> soon developed this instrument of joy: the saxophone.
>
> SAXOPHOBIA
>
> Of course, he registered it in 1846 and the inventive power
> producing such an unusual tone and quality aroused much
> jealously and ill-feeling in some of his contemporaries. But
> being a wise and deep thorkus in his mileode for attackfold
> he found help from powerful friends like journalists who
> trumpey-up his places in the newspaper and especially
> General de Roumigny who was the aide-de-camp to
> Louis-Philippe so that the French army bands has
> all saxophobia included. They jettisoned their obones,
> French hormones, bassooles - all gone! Oh, dear, never
> since Sousa and clarineppers Jimmy Noone and Bechet
> in the afterludy - oh, dear!
>
> Now, the question is this - how did he manage to obtain
> such a remarkable tonal quality from his invention?
> I believe it was inspired by his love of the human singy
> voice in the larynx of the human beal starting perhaps with
> the soprano to emulate his own mother through the whole
> range down to the bassy-profundo or bass sax. He took
> the reed of the clarineppers but used a conical brass tube
> with above twenty lateral orifips, all covered by keys,
> three-fingered place for three fingold other hand huffalo-
> dowd - now there's an ambidextrold trickly-how! And
> of course there were two small holes or pippysqueakers
> which provided the scaley-shifters huffalo for that.
>
> The range is generally considered from B to F upper
> toc-toc-toc - that's the high range-berr-tocker very
> high huffalo-dowd, therefore the super-soprano
> emulating the Jenny-Linders or the female voice
> who reachy-huf in the heavenly bode with the lark
> in the early maudie. But, of course, all the
> members of the family are frequently made with
> an extension of the bell for B-flabbers. After all, this
> is the most popular key for the jazzmolde,
> forpeople who twisty-ho, dance huffalo-dowder, break dance,
> jumpit'n'through -all those want that B-flabber.
>
> So, what have we got? The oristot fingold-pluggery.
> This gives us the joy of the saxophobia as we have
> it today - Johnny Coltrane, Ron Scottie, Stanny
> Getzit. I think he does! Let's have it! Let's have it!
> Oh, joy!

lol