Curiosity Dan, you mentioned not finding the sound you wanted, but that the Atelier was very close. But given the pain your Mk VI gives you finger, that you mentioned a while back you didn't get from the Yamaha, for longevity would you be tempted to make the change? After I saw your review my local actually got an Atelier in, and I would have to say it is by far the closest modern horn to a Mk VI - I actually prefer it to a vintage
Got my '57 from SaxQuest. Set up by TenorMadness. I had to import it. Ian Kirkham had a go on it and was so bowled over he went to the same place for his next Tenor. He told Chris DeMargaris to come and see my sax and called him over because it was an old sax but played just like a new one! Had to beat off the sax player from the Beach Boys to win it, 25 years ago nearly. Bloody expensive then. Yeah, got a few MK VI's and they're all a bit different. Took me 8 years to find my very first one in the UK, they were rare.
Personally I heard a difference straight away. I liked sax 1 better as it was a bit richer and slightly darker sounding than Sax 2, which to my ear was slightly brighter and a slightly airy sounding at times. I don't play tenor sax and don't plan to as I prefer alto and soprano sax, but from hearing different vintage tenor saxes and comparing them to MK IVs I have heard on recordings, I prefer the SML tenor saxes. They to my ear have a fuller, more richer sound overall than the MK IV.
Doing a blind test on the sound, via RUclips, is in most part missing the point. It's also the airflow, the response and how the horn reacts and feels. If you are going to get a mk6, however, most mk6's from the 50's, will be the best ones to get. Sonny Rollins plays a mk6 from 1967 a 140 xxx range.
Well, I must say that I hear a BIG difference between the two VIs. And for me, the SAX 1 is FAR better in terms of sound. It is richer and deeper. I hope SAX 1 is yours :)))
Both of the saxophones sounds great, I would prefer the Number One. But, I think, decide, only from record is very difficult. I own 2 Mark VI Tenor , one from 1954/55 One from 1965/66. Because I use the 65/66 for years its, for me, more familar. Sometimes I think the Older One sounds a little better, but if I get my 65/66er I feel like Home . Other. The 65/66 plays easier , what I mean, its like my usual reeds on usual mpc are easier to play than on 54/55. I decided almost always use the 65/66 and the old 55/56 only sometimes. Also I think, if playing using mic through a PA-System, can anyone really hear the difference?
I think a lot of it is just what people are comfortable with. It seems like every tenor voices differently than one another and people get used to the way their tenor plays. I have an 82Z and a “The Martin” tenor. If I play my Martin for months and get comfortable with how it voices and go back to my 82Z, the 82Z feels very focused and has a restrictive sound. If I play my 82Z and naturally get comfortable with how it voices and go back to my Martin, then I prefer the sound on my 82Z until I take the time to get used to my Martin again.
I've always wondered about how many of the greats, were they still alive, would still be playing Mk VIs. I think the reason so many played them, is they were the latest/best at the time they were alive
AJ Kirkcaldie I played a lot of new saxes and I must say that my friends mark 1957 mark vi is undoubtedly the greatest instrument I’ve played in my life.
I have to listen better than sticking iPhone speaker to my ear but what iPhone speaker is good at is revealing the air frequencies (8k and higher) so I noticed sax 1 had air every single sample clip and sax 2 was tight with a dense mid-range but not airy like sax 1. May be it was the leak that caused the air but I liked the tone of sax 1 a bit more. Felt as if yours had the lows and highs blended to make a nice thick sort of wide core and in 1958 one had edgy highs and some lows sorts of sitting beside each other rather than blending together so perceiving the core to be in the higher frequencies and because of air and low frequencies sitting a bit apart, perceiving a wide range of tone which highlights wide sound of Otto Link STM mouthpiece.
Sorry Dan I was though that #1 was better subtone. Easier to play. #2. Horn you we’re missing subtones and seemed you had trouble In mid range. My VI. Is a 87,000 what year is that? Tom
#1 !!!...listen to Zoe Abadia on a 1953 or 54 selmer silver alto with a hard rubber mouthpiece from a youtube Young Arts Foundation concert 2014 playing in a sextet : Ugetsu, Isotope and Tin Tin Deo.
I sold both my Mark VI alto and tenor and swapped them for a Conn 6M and 10M. Conns just give the sound I've always wanted. However, I digress. I did prefer the '58 Selmer to the '55. I just had a more present sound, and seemed fuller in all registers.
Fifty years ago I played a couple of gigs in Kathy Stobart's big band. She told me on a Conn the sound travels upwards. On a Selmer the sound travels upwards and outwards. On a Yamaha the sound travels straight outwards. Hence the Conn was popular with big band players who liked to hear themselves. Recently played with a lady who sold her Ref 64 (at a huge loss) to buy an old Conn. She said it was too perfect - I thought it sounded too dark and characterless.
Do you think Mark VI's vary by year or vary by each individual sax? Surely if you picked yours out of about 20 the some would have been made the same year, but would they have sounded the same or just more similar? I thought number 1 was 1958, maybe due to the lacquer creating more focus, as always thought the lack of lacquer makes the sound more open and softer.
Your #74xxx IS a 1958 (me too, BTW...). BUT! Your #67xxx is a 1957, not a 1955. At least according to the new chart (below). Don't feel bad, my #66xxx got a year younger too - 1956 to 1957... Like I said, virtually identical instruments you have there. BTW, what / where to get those stylish rubber gizmos on your pearl, spatula, etc.? I could use a pearl one. Nice playing, BTW! Ciao! ~ Jeff Newton, Detroit > NYC.
hmm. Mine is a 59.xxx and I read its 1954/55. Afaik Selmer serial numbers include all saxophone types so they may have build 8000 Saxophones in 2 years, not that much, or?
Mk 6... Schmark 6..I own a SA 80 series one that I play every day. I have a Mk 6 in the corner that just sits in its case and doesn't interest me that much. I think the tone on so many levels comes from the make up of the player and as we all know the horn is very much 'after the fact'. For me it's about how the horn feels under my fingers and I just prefer how the SA 80 feels, that said I wish it was a bit lighter. As for the pricing at 10 grand a pop for 5 digit tenors in the UK ? I'm not so sure..Maybe I'm a bit out of touch. I'm picking up a Chinese horn next week, we think possibly from the 60's, a copy of an SBA that's just been overhauled by Selmer, that I played last year and is fantastic. I finally convinced the owner to part with it for 700 euros. ( She paid for the overhaul /new pads) It might fall apart one day but it feels great, is light and I liked the sound I produced on it..Go figure..
The Mark VIs you are comparing are virtually identical in terms of design. Handmade instruments vary, of course. I own Mark VI alto #66xxx - 1957 (be sure to check your exact s/n against the new, more accurate chart: www.getasax.com/new-improved-selmer-saxophone-serial-numbers-list/ My #211xxx Mark VI tenor is supposedly "more open" than your vintage, but Selmer didn't use short, medium and long bows on tenor like they did on alto. I say the altos vary more (I owned Mark VI alto #130,162, stolen from me, Detroit, December 23, 1989), and it was / is more "open" than my #66xxx, having a medium bow instead of a short one.
I was listing to various Richie Cole tune’s on You Tube, I followed him since 71 and think he’s a fine of Alto player that ever played. On his videos he was playing his M6 he played for year’s. I watched another video and I think he was playing a Yamaha? Whatever it was it wasn’t his Mark 6 and his rich tone wasn’t there. If your lucky to find that magical Mark 6 nothing compares, I’ve played terrible M6’s so their not all alike
This topic is pointless because every Mk6 has unique qualities. I own two and they are very different. Introduce alternative necks and the game changes again. Now factor in the condition of each horn and, again differences emerge. Add the mouthpiece factor and everything changes. And on and on ...Each of us has to find the horn that meets our needs. My best tenor is a 71,000 Mk6 but it’s too valuable to take to gigs so I have another Asian horn that plays incredibly well and is only worth a fraction of the money my two Sixes are.
Personally, I Don't think it's worth the cost. Horns are tools ike pliers, nail guns, and other stuff. Unless one is playing at a really high level like concert halls, after two drinks your listener can't tell the difference or aquire any real increase in pleasure to what one delivers. I've never seen a analysis that proves owning any particular horn increases one's merchantability or increase in revenue. There's a lot to be said for the Praedo rule(80/20), so finding horns that have true value for the player is really what should analyzed and figured out. Old horns are made of old brass which has lead in it. Today's brass has none or very little. Of course its going to sound different. I now play an all cooper tube horn. I always get compliments about my tone. It's also way easier to play than my Mk7. Folks need to stop chasing the past. Go make your OWN sound. BTW, a good Taiwanese horn is under $2000USD. Best of luck to everyone in finding what floats their boat.
You are delusional. My $500 Taishan can out play any Mark vi. Better ergonomics and more expressive sound. Lots of advancements have been made in the last 60 years.
@@zippitydoodah8771 What tour are you on right now? Just want to get an idea of why a top professional touring artist would think a $500 dollar saxophone is a good instrument. I mean, Charley Parker played a plastic saxophone at one time, but doesnt mean it was better than his King Super 20.
![Six Hundred Strike [EPIC: The Musical] Full Animatic](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zov6NXIAuow/mqdefault.jpg)
'No better way to start an argument amongst saxophone players than saying Selmer Mark VI'...with the comments below, I rest my case :)
Curiosity Dan, you mentioned not finding the sound you wanted, but that the Atelier was very close.
But given the pain your Mk VI gives you finger, that you mentioned a while back you didn't get from the Yamaha, for longevity would you be tempted to make the change?
After I saw your review my local actually got an Atelier in, and I would have to say it is by far the closest modern horn to a Mk VI - I actually prefer it to a vintage
I really liked the sound of Sax No 1 it just seemed so smooth and velvety to me.
I thought number 1 sounded better.. Has an extra vibe that's hard to pin down to exactly what it is.. has more of a sultry sizzle
Got my '57 from SaxQuest. Set up by TenorMadness. I had to import it. Ian Kirkham had a go on it and was so bowled over he went to the same place for his next Tenor. He told Chris DeMargaris to come and see my sax and called him over because it was an old sax but played just like a new one! Had to beat off the sax player from the Beach Boys to win it, 25 years ago nearly. Bloody expensive then. Yeah, got a few MK VI's and they're all a bit different. Took me 8 years to find my very first one in the UK, they were rare.
Personally I heard a difference straight away. I liked sax 1 better as it was a bit richer and slightly darker sounding than Sax 2, which to my ear was slightly brighter and a slightly airy sounding at times. I don't play tenor sax and don't plan to as I prefer alto and soprano sax, but from hearing different vintage tenor saxes and comparing them to MK IVs I have heard on recordings, I prefer the SML tenor saxes. They to my ear have a fuller, more richer sound overall than the MK IV.
Doing a blind test on the sound, via RUclips, is in most part missing the point. It's also the airflow, the response and how the horn reacts and feels. If you are going to get a mk6, however, most mk6's from the 50's, will be the best ones to get. Sonny Rollins plays a mk6 from 1967 a 140 xxx range.
Surely there is something not right with Sax 2 for it to sound that stuffy? (Mark VI tenor owner here)
Both are greats but for my personal taste..I like more the number one than the second sax. Thank you for your vlog. Fantastic
Well, I must say that I hear a BIG difference between the two VIs. And for me, the SAX 1 is FAR better in terms of sound. It is richer and deeper. I hope SAX 1 is yours :)))
Marc Vanden Eynden - I agree sax 1 sounded much better to me. Nice focus and edge to it that sax 2 did not exhibit at all.
Oh! Just got to the reveal and thought there was a leak at the bottom on #2. Preferred #1 - sorry. Perhaps also need to compare to my 1957 Mark VI?
Both of the saxophones sounds great, I would prefer the Number One. But, I think, decide, only from record is very difficult.
I own 2 Mark VI Tenor , one from 1954/55 One from 1965/66.
Because I use the 65/66 for years its, for me, more familar.
Sometimes I think the Older One sounds a little better, but
if I get my 65/66er I feel like Home .
Other. The 65/66 plays easier , what I mean, its like my usual reeds on usual mpc are easier to play than on 54/55.
I decided almost always use the 65/66 and the old 55/56 only sometimes.
Also I think, if playing using mic through a PA-System, can anyone really hear the difference?
today is Number 2 for me
Do you like the new selmers? Reference 36 or other?
I think a lot of it is just what people are comfortable with. It seems like every tenor voices differently than one another and people get used to the way their tenor plays. I have an 82Z and a “The Martin” tenor. If I play my Martin for months and get comfortable with how it voices and go back to my 82Z, the 82Z feels very focused and has a restrictive sound. If I play my 82Z and naturally get comfortable with how it voices and go back to my Martin, then I prefer the sound on my 82Z until I take the time to get used to my Martin again.
Same horns...same story. Play my old YTS-61 last night.. landed in someplace in between.
Had a 208xxx that was warm and sonny-esque (sax1)
Just got a 139xxx that is buzzy/brighter (sax2)
I've always wondered about how many of the greats, were they still alive, would still be playing Mk VIs. I think the reason so many played them, is they were the latest/best at the time they were alive
AJ Kirkcaldie I played a lot of new saxes and I must say that my friends mark 1957 mark vi is undoubtedly the greatest instrument I’ve played in my life.
I though SAX#1 was your horn. You just sound a bit more 'you' on it. Shows you how little I know eh? :D
I have to listen better than sticking iPhone speaker to my ear but what iPhone speaker is good at is revealing the air frequencies (8k and higher) so I noticed sax 1 had air every single sample clip and sax 2 was tight with a dense mid-range but not airy like sax 1. May be it was the leak that caused the air but I liked the tone of sax 1 a bit more. Felt as if yours had the lows and highs blended to make a nice thick sort of wide core and in 1958 one had edgy highs and some lows sorts of sitting beside each other rather than blending together so perceiving the core to be in the higher frequencies and because of air and low frequencies sitting a bit apart, perceiving a wide range of tone which highlights wide sound of Otto Link STM mouthpiece.
I think sax 2 is yours, but I enjoyed the brightness in sax 1
Famous sax players played Mark VIs because... they couldn’t play SA 80 Series II & III !
Dan have you ever tried Regotti Gold reeds, if you like Select Jazz you’ll like these darker sound, if you do learn how to tell. Soft from hard.
The second sax sounds a little brighter. They both sound great in their own way.
I think coltrane did play a mark 6 in love supreme
I preferred number one. I agree the player will hear and feel greater differences than the listener....
WOW, I didn't know people had this choice
Sorry Dan I was though that #1 was better subtone. Easier to play. #2. Horn you we’re missing subtones and seemed you had trouble
In mid range. My VI. Is a 87,000 what year is that? Tom
There are various dste charts on the web. Keep digging.
Number 1 definitely
#1 !!!...listen to Zoe Abadia on a 1953 or 54 selmer silver alto with a hard rubber mouthpiece from a youtube Young Arts Foundation concert 2014 playing in a sextet : Ugetsu, Isotope and Tin Tin Deo.
I sold both my Mark VI alto and tenor and swapped them for a Conn 6M and 10M. Conns just give the sound I've always wanted. However, I digress. I did prefer the '58 Selmer to the '55. I just had a more present sound, and seemed fuller in all registers.
Fifty years ago I played a couple of gigs in Kathy Stobart's big band. She told me on a Conn the sound travels upwards. On a Selmer the sound travels upwards and outwards. On a Yamaha the sound travels straight outwards. Hence the Conn was popular with big band players who liked to hear themselves.
Recently played with a lady who sold her Ref 64 (at a huge loss) to buy an old Conn. She said it was too perfect - I thought it sounded too dark and characterless.
Surprised at result no1 sounded far better, I assumed this would've been yours... Ooooer🎷🤔👍
Do you think Mark VI's vary by year or vary by each individual sax? Surely if you picked yours out of about 20 the some would have been made the same year, but would they have sounded the same or just more similar? I thought number 1 was 1958, maybe due to the lacquer creating more focus, as always thought the lack of lacquer makes the sound more open and softer.
2
Great comparison. The horns play differently. I preferred the sound of Sax #1. You sounded good on both!
Your #74xxx IS a 1958 (me too, BTW...). BUT! Your #67xxx is a 1957, not a 1955. At least according to the new chart (below). Don't feel bad, my #66xxx got a year younger too - 1956 to 1957... Like I said, virtually identical instruments you have there. BTW, what / where to get those stylish rubber gizmos on your pearl, spatula, etc.? I could use a pearl one. Nice playing, BTW! Ciao! ~ Jeff Newton, Detroit > NYC.
Jeffrey - please watch this episode of the Vlog, my 67xxx IS a 1955 horn - Selmer showed me the paperwork! ruclips.net/video/RDsBedFVPl4/видео.html
hmm. Mine is a 59.xxx and I read its 1954/55. Afaik Selmer serial numbers include all saxophone types so they may have build 8000 Saxophones in 2 years, not that much, or?
Sax one is brighter your sax a bit more Smokey i knew which one was yours
Sax #2 sounded really uncomfortable...
Mk 6... Schmark 6..I own a SA 80 series one that I play every day. I have a Mk 6 in the corner that just sits in its case and doesn't interest me that much. I think the tone on so many levels comes from the make up of the player and as we all know the horn is very much 'after the fact'. For me it's about how the horn feels under my fingers and I just prefer how the SA 80 feels, that said I wish it was a bit lighter. As for the pricing at 10 grand a pop for 5 digit tenors in the UK ? I'm not so sure..Maybe I'm a bit out of touch. I'm picking up a Chinese horn next week, we think possibly from the 60's, a copy of an SBA that's just been overhauled by Selmer, that I played last year and is fantastic. I finally convinced the owner to part with it for 700 euros. ( She paid for the overhaul /new pads) It might fall apart one day but it feels great, is light and I liked the sound I produced on it..Go figure..
The Mark VIs you are comparing are virtually identical in terms of design. Handmade instruments vary, of course. I own Mark VI alto #66xxx - 1957 (be sure to check your exact s/n against the new, more accurate chart: www.getasax.com/new-improved-selmer-saxophone-serial-numbers-list/ My #211xxx Mark VI tenor is supposedly "more open" than your vintage, but Selmer didn't use short, medium and long bows on tenor like they did on alto. I say the altos vary more (I owned Mark VI alto #130,162, stolen from me, Detroit, December 23, 1989), and it was / is more "open" than my #66xxx, having a medium bow instead of a short one.
I was listing to various Richie Cole tune’s on You Tube, I followed him since 71 and think he’s a fine of Alto player that ever played. On his videos he was playing his M6 he played for year’s. I watched another video and I think he was playing a Yamaha? Whatever it was it wasn’t his Mark 6 and his rich tone wasn’t there. If your lucky to find that magical Mark 6 nothing compares, I’ve played terrible M6’s so their not all alike
This topic is pointless because every Mk6 has unique qualities. I own two and they are very different. Introduce alternative necks and the game changes again. Now factor in the condition of each horn and, again differences emerge. Add the mouthpiece factor and everything changes. And on and on ...Each of us has to find the horn that meets our needs. My best tenor is a 71,000 Mk6 but it’s too valuable to take to gigs so I have another Asian horn that plays incredibly well and is only worth a fraction of the money my two Sixes are.
Personally, I Don't think it's worth the cost. Horns are tools ike pliers, nail guns, and other stuff. Unless one is playing at a really high level like concert halls, after two drinks your listener can't tell the difference or aquire any real increase in pleasure to what one delivers. I've never seen a analysis that proves owning any particular horn increases one's merchantability or increase in revenue. There's a lot to be said for the Praedo rule(80/20), so finding horns that have true value for the player is really what should analyzed and figured out. Old horns are made of old brass which has lead in it. Today's brass has none or very little. Of course its going to sound different. I now play an all cooper tube horn. I always get compliments about my tone. It's also way easier to play than my Mk7. Folks need to stop chasing the past. Go make your OWN sound. BTW, a good Taiwanese horn is under $2000USD. Best of luck to everyone in finding what floats their boat.
You are delusional. My $500 Taishan can out play any Mark vi. Better ergonomics and more expressive sound. Lots of advancements have been made in the last 60 years.
@@zippitydoodah8771 What tour are you on right now? Just want to get an idea of why a top professional touring artist would think a $500 dollar saxophone is a good instrument. I mean, Charley Parker played a plastic saxophone at one time, but doesnt mean it was better than his King Super 20.
first