Talk:Saxophone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 6th, National Saxophone Day

This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

Saxophone is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Saxophone appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 11, 2004.

A previous version of this article was considered for inclusion in the Wikipedia OmniMusica, but was not selected because of sourcing concerns.

---

Contents 1 Saxophone mutes 2 Article needs some formatting 3 Effect on the lips 4 National Saxophone Day? 5 Key System 6 Question on saxophone registers 7 Discussion on Reeds section

[edit] Saxophone mutes

Saxophone mutes should be mentioned in the article. Can someone add a section? Badagnani 20:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, they are too meaningless to merit mentioning. Mutes are virtually never used, and are merely an obscure accessory. As we don't need a section about lyres or swabs, so we probably don't need one about mutes. —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They're certainly not that popular, but I see no reason to not cover them. ¦ Reisio 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs some formatting

Since it has been featured, the article has experienced some "suffering". I suggest reviewing it enterily. There are external links embedded into the article to replace wikilinks, others that should be converted in inline references, the external links section is just too big, there are plenty of red links, and since there are no inline references, it is hard to know which statements are backed up by the references and which aren't. -- ReyBrujo 05:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

About the picture of Klaus Doldinger, with all the respect I'm not too shure he should be allowed to represent saxophone playing.

[edit] Effect on the lips

Is it true that playing the saxophone causes one’s lips to thicken, or whatever? It’s some old belief I got from when I was a kid. —Lagalag 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it has no effect on the lips. Someone who plays a reed instrument (saxophone, clarinet, oboe, etc.) a lot will develop stronger facial (embouchure) muscles, but I have never heard any suggestion that the stronger muscles cause any change in the appearance. —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It undoubtedly does affect various things, but probably not usually noticeably. Just compare some photographs of some old sax players when they were young and old. ¦ Reisio 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From years of biting my lower lip against the reed I developed a bit of a callous there, which is still slightly present even after 10 years away from regular playing. But I don't know if that's common or even worth adding to the article.

[edit] National Saxophone Day?

I saw that some text was added to the top of this page identifying Nov 6th as National Saxophone Day. Does anyone have any source for this? Was there ever a congressional or presidential resolution declaring Nov 6th to be "national" saxophone day? I searched the web and was unable to find any substantiation. —SaxTeacher (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key System

I think the vandal bot deleted the key systems paragragh, any ideas? Thanks for hepling a novice user. PeteJames 13:25 29 November 2006

[edit] Question on saxophone registers

A question on the number and definition of saxophone registers was asked at the Humanities reference desk. The article on Evan Parker seems to require an answer.85.2.55.188 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Reeds section

I have a bee in my bonnet about encouraging players to use hard reeds that can cause muscle damage and lead to embouchures that don't work and aren't comfortable. Many well-known players use the manufacturers' 'standard' strength 2.5 reed (or even softer, like Joe Henderson) and I substantiated this with references to reputable US and UK jazz players who had either studied at or teach at either Juillard or the Royal Academy.

Surprisingly someone removed these updates. Can we discuss this matter here? Trismegister 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I only skimmed the changes as they were committed, but it looked accurate to me. If there are sources (linked), then I don't see a problem. ¦ Reisio 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are three different topics here which should be considered separately. They are

• 1. Whether the statement that "Beginners often start on a 2 or 2.5 reed, moving up to 3 as they gain ability and more muscle control" and the statement that "Advanced players typically use 3.5 to 5" are accurate statements, or should be changed.

My opinion: The first sentence given above is 100% accurate and the second sentence is pretty much accurate. (Well, I've never met anyone who uses a #5 reed but I imagine there are some out there.) However if more than one person feels that the "3.5 to 5" sentence is POV, then let's change it. By the way, I think I should mention to Trismegister that I didn't write those sentences - I believe they were already in the article when I came to Wikipedia.

• 2. Whether it is helpful or appropriate to include a list of players and what reed they use.

My opinion: The Saxophone article is already overly long. Including a list of players (many of whom the reader will never have heard of) and what brand or strength of reed they use (!) is a bad idea. Choosing which players to include, and arguing over which players are "good enough" or "famous enough" to be included, would be a nightmare in itself. (for instance, I have heard of less than half of the players who were named by Trismegister.) Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and no encyclopedia would ever list what reeds certain players use, any more than it is going to list what brand and length of skis are used by last year's Olympic champions. Would it be useful for a new skiier to know what brand and length of skis were used to win the Olympics? Or what size bicycle frame won the Tour De France? Perhaps - but it's information they will find on a blog, a skiing forum, or a bike fanatic's web page - not in the Wikipedia article on downhill skiing or cycling. I put the link to mouthpieceheaven's page of famous sax player's setups in the external links section - I think that is sufficient.

• 3. Whether it is appropriate to include a sentence giving one editor's POV about "hard reeds that can cause muscle damage and lead to embouchures that don't work". Is this a sentence that all the editors of this article agree on? Or is it a theory that is subscribed to by one person or a small group? Is it a theory that is widely enough held that it merits mentioning?

My opinion: I have never heard this theory before (and I tend to discount it, because among the limited number of professional (classical) saxophone and clarinet players who I personally know, they all play on reeds of strength 3, 3.5, or 4, and none have experienced "muscle damage".) As a teacher, I advise my students to try a few different strengths of reed, and I may steer them towards the number I think sounds best for them... but I would not presume to insert this into the article as a fact. Most important, I think, is the fact that the strength of reed a player prefers has more to do with the tip opening of their mouthpiece than anything else. I recently tried some different (classical) mouthpieces and found a remarkable similarity in feel between a large-tip-opening mpc with a 2.5 reed, a medium-tip-opening mpc with a 3 reed, and a narrow-tip-opening mpc with a 4 reed. Perhaps jazz players tend towards softer reeds because they use larger tip openings! —SaxTeacher (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Trismegister, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I'm sure you will add lots of great content to this and other articles! But if you have strong feelings about the "dangers of using harder reeds" I hope you recognize that these opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia article. If you want to get the word out about this, start a blog, make a web page, or post messages to a saxophone-related forum. Thanks —SaxTeacher (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Those statements may be accurate, but they're unsourced. I suspect they were added based on anecdotal and/or personal experience. I also suspect they're true, but I'd be a lot happier about keeping one or both if there were some hard data to cite in their support. By "hard data" I don't mean "So-And-So uses a 2.5, and Such-And-Such uses a 3"; I mean something with statistical significance.

2. Absolutely agree that if there's a place in Wikipedia for a summary of famous saxophonists' setups, it's not in the overall sax article.

3. If there's solid research that can be cited on deleterious effects of hard reeds, sure, go ahead and mention it and give the source. Otherwise it's out of place here.

Finally, I would echo SaxTeacher's comments about matching reed to mouthpiece, a point that cannot be overemphasized in any discussion on reed strengths; and I would add that the following paragraphs of the reeds section could stand to be edited and shortened too -- much of that looks like POV, original research, or unsourced claims. Also, much of what can be said about sax reeds applies also to clarinet reeds, and some of that applies to double reeds too, which suggests it should be said in the article on reeds, not in the article on saxes. -- Rsholmes 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved most of the reed paragraphs to the Reed (instrument) article. I think that readers of the Saxophone article will be better served by keeping the Saxophone#Reeds section short, and providing a link to the Reed article for those who want more information. The various topics of reed strengths, methods of reed care and adjustment, etc. can be expanded there. I'd suggest that this discussion be continued on that article's talk page instead of here. —SaxTeacher (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with as much information as possible, as long as it's sourced and well written. ¦ Reisio 10:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Imagine yourself in the position of a person who doesn't know much about saxophones, and to learn more, you turn to Wikipedia. You're not there to learn everything there is to know about the subject; you're there for a basic overview. Paragraphs after paragraph on what strength reed is used by whom and whether or not to store reeds wet and how to adjust reeds and so forth and so on will interfere with the usefulness of the article. Anyway, I am not suggesting the information must not be in Wikipedia, only that such details if present should be in a separate article, not the overall saxophone article. See also Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Article series.

Per SaxTeacher's request, I will participate further in this discussion only on the Reed article's talk page. -- Rsholmes 12:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Information on reeds for one instrument isn't necessarily relevant for other instruments. ¦ Reisio 14:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)