C Melody Saxophone Forum

Swirve.com Links: Swirve.com Free Email Games Fantasy Sports E-Cards Movies Horoscopes Freebies Web Search

NOTICE: Beginning July 10th, 2008, this message board service will no longer be active or available for use.

C Melody Saxophone Forum / C-Tenor (C-Melody) Saxophones / New Year's Funk recorded with a King

mossite
User ID: 8917553 Jan 3rd 1:24 AM
Got my fresh overhault King out of the case yesterday. This has realy a nice dark sound. Eventhough the palm keys are a pain. It is pretty diffcult to play. I can only play it, while i'm sitting.

Nevertheless I recorded a little funky tune yesterday.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=249939600

It'S the first song "New Year'S Funk"

Have fun and a Happy New Year everybody!

So long
mo

alan (uk) 2008
User ID: 1731514 Jan 3rd 11:10 AM
Lovely sounds, Mo - like the vocals. Still using the Steamer mouthpiece ?

Alles Gute zum neuen Jahr !

mossite
User ID: 1021194 Jan 3rd 1:23 PM
Yes, this recording was done with a Steamer. Like that sound very much.

Glad you liked the sound. Well, I'm working on the vocals. Just started a year ago, it's a long way to go, but lots of fun.

I published a video on Youtube, since someone in the German Forum said, that there are so few c-melody sound samples on You tube.

Will funny thing is. I didn't have pictures yet from the King. So I did it with pictures from my Selmer Cigar Cutter. Hahahah, but that freaks some people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo0wD_KI_iA

Alles gute zum neuen Jahr, too!

alan (uk) 2008
User ID: 1731514 Jan 3rd 3:16 PM
Looks good, but are you making fun of my little bits of Deutsch ? 8-))

I've collected a few backing tracks of tunes that I like (gentle jazz to gentle funk) to put up some sound samples of C-Mel and C-Sop on YouTube and MySpace in 2008. Maybe I'll do some multi-tracking as well, now I've a PC that can do more than one thing at a time...

I can now easily drop the C-Mel down an octave in the recording software, to make a C-bass - and turn a C-Sop into a C-Soprillo ! Yeah.

mossite
User ID: 0046004 Jan 3rd 3:24 PM
Alan, for nothing in the world I would make fun of you? Your German was perfect!

Oh, than I'm realy looking forward to your new Youtube clips.

Where did you find the tracks? I'm always looking for good and groovy free tracks.

alan (uk)
User ID: 1731514 Jan 3rd 4:34 PM
Mo, I'm getting a list together for the blog, and I'm actually buying a few (yes, paying money, echte geld...) that I could maybe share...sshhh...

Last time I tried anything like that, I got into trouble ! 8-))

Mal-2k8
User ID: 9335603 Feb 9th 10:18 PM
Alan, I have found that the pitch shifting is not quite as straightforward as you might think...

For example, even though a soprano sax is a fifth (7 semitones) above an alto, I have found the best simulation of the soprano sound is to shift an alto up a MAJOR THIRD (4 semitones). This of course causes havoc with keys, so a shift of a fourth (5 semitones) is a reasonable compromise. The fake "soprano" is then effectively in Ab.

I think the reason for this might be that the cone angle of saxophones necessarily gets a wee bit narrower as the horns get bigger, and the mouthpieces get relatively smaller. This means the formants rise a little in relation to the pitch of the instrument. It's not like a trombone being shifted up an octave to sound like a trumpet, as that really does work pretty well. Rather, the lower horns are relatively bright, so that they cut through an ensemble, while the smaller horns are relatively dark for better balance and listener comfort.

If you find that the octave shift just doesn't sound right, you might want to mess around with smaller shift intervals, and with horns that aren't an octave apart. If you can convince the shifter to use true "perfect" fourths and fifths, the 3:2 and 4:3 ratios should minimize nasty artifacts about as well as the 2:1 ratio of the octave.

Then again, maybe your horns are set up in such a manner that you really can just shift them octaves, and it's my collection that's weird.

alan (uk) '08
User ID: 1731514 Feb 10th 11:21 AM
Mal - it's easy on the software I use, just takes up a lot of processing, which can affect playback - so needs bouncing out to mp3 and then reading back, rather than always processing 'on the fly'.

I was merely talking about 'simulating' another ultra low/high instrument as part of a recording mix - close is good enough back 'in the mix' with real horn sounds to complement it.

I think we may be in parallel universes... 8-))

Mal-2
User ID: 9335603 Feb 10th 11:01 PM
Alan - OK, if you're doing a "sax choir" effect, the octaves are probably fine. I was using the "not-soprano" as a lead/solo voice.

For the recording in question, I used the four-semitone shift, but the song was in E minor to start with. After compensating for the shift, this puts it in the quite palatable key of C minor, or the alto's A minor. The only thing that worked out a bit weird was that I had to use altissimo A to simulate what would have been the soprano's high F#, and I missed on one of the three times I tried to use it. But if I was going to pitch shift, no reason not to just punch in one of the successful high A's in place of the missed one. :)

Also you shouldn't be bouncing out to a lossy format like mp3 -- the only thing that should be rolled up into an MP3 is what you need to distribute to other people. If you're collaborating online, you might even want to find ways to send them FLAC files instead of MP3s. They're still compressed, but in a completely reversible manner (like a ZIP file). Or you can just put the WAV or AIFF source files into ZIP files, doing pretty much the same thing.

Also I have had the same shortage of power doing multi-track recording, and pre-processing has often been necessary. It's a little bit less necessary on modern dual- and quad-core machines though, though older software may not know what to do with the extra cores. (It still means the recording software gets a whole core to itself though.)

jazzbug1 2008
User ID: 0735934 Feb 11th 8:27 AM
I shift by adjusting the speed on my Victrola. It's easy and uses no electricity.

alan (uk) '08
User ID: 1278884 Feb 11th 11:18 AM
Mal - I think we should revert back to Mo's original thread now, and maybe continue this elsewhere ?

(sorry Mo...)

mossite User ID: 8917553	Jan 3rd 1:24 AM Got my fresh overhault King out of the case yesterday. This has realy a nice dark sound. Eventhough the palm keys are a pain. It is pretty diffcult to play. I can only play it, while i'm sitting. Nevertheless I recorded a little funky tune yesterday. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=249939600 It'S the first song "New Year'S Funk" Have fun and a Happy New Year everybody! So long mo
alan (uk) 2008 User ID: 1731514	Jan 3rd 11:10 AM Lovely sounds, Mo - like the vocals. Still using the Steamer mouthpiece ? Alles Gute zum neuen Jahr !
mossite User ID: 1021194	Jan 3rd 1:23 PM Yes, this recording was done with a Steamer. Like that sound very much. Glad you liked the sound. Well, I'm working on the vocals. Just started a year ago, it's a long way to go, but lots of fun. I published a video on Youtube, since someone in the German Forum said, that there are so few c-melody sound samples on You tube. Will funny thing is. I didn't have pictures yet from the King. So I did it with pictures from my Selmer Cigar Cutter. Hahahah, but that freaks some people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo0wD_KI_iA Alles gute zum neuen Jahr, too!
alan (uk) 2008 User ID: 1731514	Jan 3rd 3:16 PM Looks good, but are you making fun of my little bits of Deutsch ? 8-)) I've collected a few backing tracks of tunes that I like (gentle jazz to gentle funk) to put up some sound samples of C-Mel and C-Sop on YouTube and MySpace in 2008. Maybe I'll do some multi-tracking as well, now I've a PC that can do more than one thing at a time... I can now easily drop the C-Mel down an octave in the recording software, to make a C-bass - and turn a C-Sop into a C-Soprillo ! Yeah.
mossite User ID: 0046004	Jan 3rd 3:24 PM Alan, for nothing in the world I would make fun of you? Your German was perfect! Oh, than I'm realy looking forward to your new Youtube clips. Where did you find the tracks? I'm always looking for good and groovy free tracks.
alan (uk) User ID: 1731514	Jan 3rd 4:34 PM Mo, I'm getting a list together for the blog, and I'm actually buying a few (yes, paying money, echte geld...) that I could maybe share...sshhh... Last time I tried anything like that, I got into trouble ! 8-))
Mal-2k8 User ID: 9335603	Feb 9th 10:18 PM Alan, I have found that the pitch shifting is not quite as straightforward as you might think... For example, even though a soprano sax is a fifth (7 semitones) above an alto, I have found the best simulation of the soprano sound is to shift an alto up a MAJOR THIRD (4 semitones). This of course causes havoc with keys, so a shift of a fourth (5 semitones) is a reasonable compromise. The fake "soprano" is then effectively in Ab. I think the reason for this might be that the cone angle of saxophones necessarily gets a wee bit narrower as the horns get bigger, and the mouthpieces get relatively smaller. This means the formants rise a little in relation to the pitch of the instrument. It's not like a trombone being shifted up an octave to sound like a trumpet, as that really does work pretty well. Rather, the lower horns are relatively bright, so that they cut through an ensemble, while the smaller horns are relatively dark for better balance and listener comfort. If you find that the octave shift just doesn't sound right, you might want to mess around with smaller shift intervals, and with horns that aren't an octave apart. If you can convince the shifter to use true "perfect" fourths and fifths, the 3:2 and 4:3 ratios should minimize nasty artifacts about as well as the 2:1 ratio of the octave. Then again, maybe your horns are set up in such a manner that you really can just shift them octaves, and it's my collection that's weird.
alan (uk) '08 User ID: 1731514	Feb 10th 11:21 AM Mal - it's easy on the software I use, just takes up a lot of processing, which can affect playback - so needs bouncing out to mp3 and then reading back, rather than always processing 'on the fly'. I was merely talking about 'simulating' another ultra low/high instrument as part of a recording mix - close is good enough back 'in the mix' with real horn sounds to complement it. I think we may be in parallel universes... 8-))
Mal-2 User ID: 9335603	Feb 10th 11:01 PM Alan - OK, if you're doing a "sax choir" effect, the octaves are probably fine. I was using the "not-soprano" as a lead/solo voice. For the recording in question, I used the four-semitone shift, but the song was in E minor to start with. After compensating for the shift, this puts it in the quite palatable key of C minor, or the alto's A minor. The only thing that worked out a bit weird was that I had to use altissimo A to simulate what would have been the soprano's high F#, and I missed on one of the three times I tried to use it. But if I was going to pitch shift, no reason not to just punch in one of the successful high A's in place of the missed one. :) Also you shouldn't be bouncing out to a lossy format like mp3 -- the only thing that should be rolled up into an MP3 is what you need to distribute to other people. If you're collaborating online, you might even want to find ways to send them FLAC files instead of MP3s. They're still compressed, but in a completely reversible manner (like a ZIP file). Or you can just put the WAV or AIFF source files into ZIP files, doing pretty much the same thing. Also I have had the same shortage of power doing multi-track recording, and pre-processing has often been necessary. It's a little bit less necessary on modern dual- and quad-core machines though, though older software may not know what to do with the extra cores. (It still means the recording software gets a whole core to itself though.)
jazzbug1 2008 User ID: 0735934	Feb 11th 8:27 AM I shift by adjusting the speed on my Victrola. It's easy and uses no electricity.
alan (uk) '08 User ID: 1278884	Feb 11th 11:18 AM Mal - I think we should revert back to Mo's original thread now, and maybe continue this elsewhere ? (sorry Mo...)