The saxophone

Post Reply New Topic

*sigh*
How come I can't think of the saxophone without thinking about
that guy Clarence from Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band?
Partly because of his sax solos on songs such as Cadillac Ranch.

I just did a quick search about the guy; the full name was Clarence Clemons,
and--alas--he died of natural causes in June of last year (i.e. 2011).

in every respect, the tenor sax is probably the perfect saxophone. it has a visual symmetry that is unparalleled, and it has a sultry breathy tone that can be both tender and taut, sexy and stentorian.

You are right, but most teens in high school band end up with an alto saxophone, the next smaller size. It is an F# instrument so the scale and the way you play it is different and in my opinion not as nice as a tenor sax. It's still good, and it's less expensive, though the one in our family cost $1000 dollars 20 years ago.

Probably because it does not sound so great. The material the instrument is made of matters, which also explains why certain super expensive violins have a distinct sound compared to "consumer' violins (not that the consumer ones are bad at all, just not the same). The brass of a saxophone helps attenuate the sound for a better sound.

Well, unless I am mistaken, normally the alto (as well as the baritone sax) is referred to as being keyed in E-flat, not F#, where as the tenor (and soprano) is keyed b-flat. IMHO the alto is a great horn and covers the most desirable range (to me) but there's no arguing with the tenor either. And the alto is generally the least expensive member of the sax family - it has the right combination of popularity to keep costs down and size to keep costs down too (less material than the other horns, not so small that the precision required to build a good one drives the cost way up, as with the smaller soprano sax). I think we payed about $675 for a Yamaha YAS-23 (which is a student model) alto over 20 years ago. I recall around that time that the corresponding student tenor from Yamaha (YTS-23) was in the $900 range. I'm sure with inflation they're much more expensive now. And of course pro horns much more so.

As for band, marching around with a tenor isn't too bad (this from someone who played baritone sax in the marching band, so I' may have a different perspective than most). But the alto is certainly smaller and easier to handle.

paul desmond could make his sing. i wonder how much his horn cost?

According to Wikipedia (for what its worth) "Desmond played a Selmer Super Balanced Action alto saxophone with an M. C. Gregory model 4A-18M mouthpiece — both circa 1951 — with Rico 3 ½ reeds"

I have no idea if he played that for his entire career or what such a horn would have cost at that time but Selmer was regarded as having the finest pro saxophones, at least from the time they introduced the Balanced Action model through the Mark VI which ended production in the 1970's. They're still one of the top 3 or 4 brands, maybe higher depending on who you ask. They've always been expensive.

I don't like saxaphone for jazz.

wow 3&1/2 reeds?! he had an embouchure of IRON almost as manly as woody allen who uses a 4 reed on his clarinet. no wonder his tone was so peerless.

what do you think of french horn or bassoon or oboe or pedal harp for jazz, then? there are examples of all 4 on CDs.

I don't like jazz.

Saxophone is great. The sexiest instrument. Kenny G has some great covers of classic songs.

Using Rico? That alone is a feat. There is no better lesson in misery than getting great tone out of crap reeds!

Interesting to know I have something in common with Woody Allen. I use 4's. Here are my specs:

LeBlanc Opus (1st gen, I believe) Bb clarinet
Pyne custom mouthpiece
Vandoren V12 reeds, #4
Bonade inverted ligature, silver plated

Despite playing on a reed slightly thinner than a roof shingle, I can circular breathe and bend notes down as low as a perfect 4th without any change in my embouchure.

The down side is I don't practice 8 hours a day like I used to, so I've lost a lot of the stamina I used to have. What I'll do sometimes if I'm playing in a section (no solos) I'll switch to a traditional-cut Vandoren #3. I do miss the tone quality and dynamic range of my V12's, though.

I should also mention that I play double-lipped and use higher-than-normal tension, which is probably where all the fatigue comes from. Before I played double-lipped full-time, I played on a Vandoren B45 mouthpiece that for years was my most prized possession. I ended up chewing through it. My teeth haven't come into contact with a clarinet mouthpiece since!

i couldn't handle anything thicker than a rico#2. barely any sound would come out.

It's sad that you rarely hear a sax solo in today's pop music.

There's a reason for that, though. Sax players of today know better and are trained to possess a sense of artistic integrity. The sax, especially the tenor sax, was ubiquitous in jazz quartets, so it was easier to find a sax player who could jam with a rock band. What happened was that guitars became more prominent and more dominant in rock/pop music. The Beatles made horny sections--er, 'scuse me, HORN sections--play a dominant role, and that inspired brass bands like BS&T and Chicago among others. There was a brief resurgence in the mid 1980's, and for all practical purposes few people even do that kind of thing anymore.

The thing is, NOBODY does solos in pop music anymore. What happened there was glam metal was replaced by grunge, and pretty much everything that could be done with a guitar had BEEN done between Eddie Van Halen and Zack Wylde. Woodwind players can't possibly compete with that. I mean, they CAN, but comparatively few players actually know how. If you have sax anymore, it's part of a supporting ensemble behind the lead vocals. Producers are there to sell lyrics and harmony, not good solo playing, and that is primarily what the masses are going for.

Something else to consider is the role that loops play in live performance. Often people want to hear the songs live EXACTLY the way it sounds on the radio. Rather than customizing the arrangement, along with click tracks, etc., to suit a live audience and really put on a show, it's easier to just stick with what you did in the studio. If you just track everything, what do you need a band for? If you throw a sax solo in there and there's not a sax player, that's going to be terribly distracting to a live audience. The audience is going to perceive that the whole thing is tracked, but they don't want the artist to break the illusion that it isn't. That's why the most successful touring BANDS out there are ensemble performers that have already been around for decades. The Eagles come to mind. Paul McCartney is another superb showman--not because he's a fabulous singer by himself, but because he features the strengths of seasoned touring musicians that he's been with for over 20 years. And that's something you're just not going to find with pop upstarts in the last 15-20 years.