Talk:Saxophone/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

The donut shaped mute described by Larry Teal in "The Art of Saxophone Playing" that Marcel Mule was a staunch advocate of is still used by many classical players and teachers to soften the tone and cut out some of the higher overtones to achieve the desired sound. I would not put them in the same category as lyres or swabs, especially when there is a historical signifcance to their use by one of the first and perhaps the finest saxophone virtuosos to have ever lived. I say a reference to the mute is warranted. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by JTalcott (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.206.41 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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 callus 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. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.116.2 (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been playing the saxophone and clarinet since 6th grade (I am now 44) and I never have noticed any thickening of my lips. I guess it is possible that the body could react to the pressure by forming a slight callus, but it is nothing to be concerned about. It is a small price to pay for playing those wonderful instruments. 72.145.250.157 02:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I found three sources that all cite Novermber 6 as National Saxophone Day. Their web address are: (1) http://library.thinkquest.org/2886/nov.htm; (2) http://www.holidayinsights.com/moreholidays/november.htm; and (3) http://www.brownielocks.com/november.html. So, yes, there is a National Saxophone Day. 72.145.250.157 02:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Julliard 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)

I had a saxophone teach once that used size 7 reeds. He was a concert saxophonist and from how he talked about it he didn't make it seem too rare that a professional would use something that thick. I believe he got one so thick so once it was worn out he could doctor it and use it for longer. -MSauce

A concert saxophonist is likely to use a "close lay" mouthpiece which would render a stiffer reed more easily playable.

As a more general comment is is somewhat meaningless to consider the "No" of the reed without reference to the particular mouthpiece used with it (as mentioned briefly above.) It is also less than helpful to give the "No" or strength reference of the reed without mentioning the manufacturer as there is no absolute standard for numbering. Obiskobilob 10:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up again but since I didn't see a continuation of the discussion on the reeds talk page I will. I agree with Obisklob, but I also believe that the statements about different skill levels and reed sizes have no factual value, no matter if they're sourced or not. I know saxophonists that have started on size three reeds and stayed on size threes. Also there is the process of buying a harder reed for the bark strength and filing the upper portion down to a completely differnt size (for example buying a size 4 and filing the tip down to a 2.5, resulting in a non-sized reed as the two parts are comletely inconsistent with each other. Let's consider this, shall we? Rynokey237 17:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Baritone with low G key?

Regarding the baritone saxophone, 69.179.47.201 added the information that there were "even some that have a key for a low G". Is it true? If so, please reference it, I'm genuinely curious, being a baritone player myself, and the only way I've ever heard of producing a lower G is by cup-extension (though the knee wont work very well here) or lip control (if you're amazing). So, please tell me which brands make horns with a lower G key. ---Sluzzelin 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone removed it. ---Sluzzelin 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question, my knowledge of Low G keys on Bari's is quite vague. My only knowlegde of its existence this; at a high school honors band performance, the first chair Bari player used a Beuscher baritone sax which had an additional left-pinky key (in addition to the other four) which when pressed with the BAGFDEC keys and Low A key (second octave key), produced a low G. (which one song that they performed required) ---69.179.47.201

1. If there were a sax that was going to go lower than A, it would have a low A-flat key, not a low G key.

2. If there were a sax that had an extra-low key (lower than A), it would be pictured on www.saxpics.com and mentioned on all sorts of other saxophone sites. Also, someone here would have heard of it.

3. I've never heard anyone mention this other than user:69.179.47.201 - but based on his description, he clearly was seeing a Buescher bari that had the standard "5-roller table" (found on some Conn instruments also) where the B-flat key appears both below and to the side of the low B key.

Since no one else has heard of, seen, or seen pictures of such a thing; since it would be a low A-flat, not a G; and since he seems to have mistaken a 1930s key configuration for an additional key; I think it's safe to discount this as just an "urban legend." —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of a bari with a low G, though I have heard of a bass that went down to low F#. http://www.jayeaston.com/galleries/sax_family/bass_page/bass_sax_p_frankenbass.html ChaosMaster 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Embouchure Description Concerns

Does anyone else with saxophone teaching experience share my concerns about saxophone embouchure? The author of the page seems to be promoting the so called "saxophone" embouchure that does not roll the lower lip over the teeth that the only reference to is an out of print book circa 1928 by a self taught sax player named Ben Davis. The claim is made that this is the embouchure taught by many teachers and is the preferred embouchure for beginners. In the U.S. the overwhelming majority of saxophone performers and teachers use and teach the traditional "single lip" embouchure as described in the book "The Art of Saxophone Playing" by Larry Teal.

There are a few jazz players especially those who play tenor exclusively who have adopted the bottom lip out "Ben Davis" embouchure to get a bigger sound with more edge to it, but there are virtually no players in the classical style who use or teach this embouchure.

The writer shows his bias by misrepresenting the "single lip" traditional embouchure as having problems (which do not occur when used correctly), that switching to the lip out "Davis" embouchure is supposed to solve. He also advocates biting and changing the angle of the mouthpiece to "aid" the high notes and to loosen the embouchure to aid the low notes--something that is never considered a proper playing habit by experienced teachers and players. There are many other errors of omission that saxophonists who know the standard pedagogy of the instrument will also recognize as I did that are too numerous to mention here.

I am hoping there are others who share my concern so that together we can edit saxophone embouchure to contain unbiased, well referenced, and accurate information. JTalcott 04:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I was unaware that the saxophone embouchure article existed until your comment. But there it is... apparently it was created in September 2005 and lay dormant until 3 February 2007 - since then user Egrabczewski has edited it over 750 times (first as Saxophone Embouchure and later after it was moved to Saxophone embouchure), adding a lot of POV and how-to type information.
2. I concur with your concerns. Egrabczewski's opinions on what is "common" or "noteworthy" differ greatly from mine. I would agree that a lower-lip-out embouchure is highly unusual, so much so that it does not merit mentioning in the article. My suggestion is that you edit the article yourself to make it more factually correct. I will see if I can help make corrections.
3. In any case, this discussion belongs on talk:Saxophone embouchure, not here. —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you saxteacher. I am new to this site and I am just learning my way around.JTalcott 05:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So much talk about rare saxophones

Do we really need all this discussion about the various types of saxophones in the article? A small, no-nonsense paragraph would really be enough. It's rather pointless to have all this talk about F mezzo this and C soprano this. I don't think someone who is learning about the saxophone really needs to know about the ultra-rare bamboo/uranium-alloy supermezzo subsubcontrabass sub-baritone uberbass saxophone in G-flat that was produced for three months in 1934 by the German instrument maker Bernard Doggydoo. We understand you play many instruments, Jay, but it's irrelevant to the needs of this article.

Cannonball27 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe we should just talk about the baritone, because that's the only one most people play or will want to know about anyway. Badagnani 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I really must beg to differ. Knowing the history of the instrument and the different variations really enriches the way that I understand the instrument and its capabilities. If you are genuinely interested in your instrument, I would think that you would want to know everything about it -- I know that I really enjoy knowing all those little variations that exist. 72.145.250.157 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I sent the article to four people I know and asked them if they thought the part about the rare and novelty saxes was needed or not. They all said that it was unnecessary. Cannonball27 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Talking about the C Melody tenor is somewhat important. They were extremely popular for a time, and so many instruments survive that they are quite commonly found. It is important that potential buyers not confuse them with a regular tenor.

In section "manufacturers" Jupiter is cited as a Roland brand. Some mistake? Roland Inc are an electronic musical instrument maker; Jupiter Band Instruments (Taiwan) has been making woodwinds since 1930's. Coincidentally Roland made a series of synths called Jupiter; have these been confused? More knowledgeable contributor- please correct this if necessary.

Merge Saxophone embouchure into Saxophone > Embouchure

I think a more concise and focused version of Saxophone embouchure should be merged into the Embouchure section of this article. As it currently stands, the article is too much of a how-to and there is still too much opinion. -RobbyPrather (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be right. The article on embouchure as it stands has very little information in it nowadays to be of much practical value. A much better idea is to ask for contributions to the article on the history of the embouchure, however this will be subject to the same criticisms of "opinion" that many of the articles on Wikipedia suffer from. However Wikipedia itself suffers from an idealist philosophy in which it believes it possible for a given person to write an article in a "unbiased" way. I note Raprat0 deleted the word "good" from the article recently. That's what I mean. Just about every saxophonist, teacher and technician resepects Teal's book. However Raprat0 doesn't know this it seems. He rejects the word "good" on philosophical grounds because he believes it to be biased. According to his editing philosophy then we must remove the words "good" and "bad" from the Wikipedia site. That's like saying that we, the human race, can't agree that being "good" to one another is a good thing. I beg to differ! (Egrabczewski 05:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

Use of saxophone in music/famous saxophonists?

This article sorely needs a section on the history of saxophones in music, their varied roles and usage through the decades and references to well-known saxophonists in jazz, rhythm & blues, soul and pop. King Curtis where art thou?Birdseed 08:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary Information

*  Surface Finish
*  Rare saxophones and novelty sizes
*  Related instruments (too much detailed!)
*  Bamboo saxophones
*  Percy Grainger (rename section)
*  External Links

I don't agree. All of this information is very valuable and helpful to our readers, and in fact I use it as a reference all the time. We have built an article that is better than most (or all) other articles about this instrument online, and these "tangential" issues really are part of the story of the saxophone. Badagnani 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Too detailed, ha. ¦ Reisio 06:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)