Choosing instructional materials for beginning saxophone students

Importance of appropriate materials

Choosing the right method books and materials—or choosing not to use them—can be a deciding factor in a beginning saxophone student’s success. A student assigned page after page of boring finger exercises will lose interest quickly, but a student given only “fun” assignments may fall behind in development of sound technique.

Different approaches

Russell Pizer, in a 1971 article in The Instrumentalist, compares different types of published methods. The first he terms the “whole note approach.” This apt classification refers to method books that start with several pages of whole notes and whole rests. Though a challenge to the motivation of even the most enthusiastic student, this scheme has several benefits. First, it builds a firm embouchure and breath support from the first lesson by encouraging the practicing of long tones. It also allows a more methodical approach to adding articulation and fingering changes.

The second approach described in Pizer’s article is the “melody approach,” in which fingerings are presented and explained. Melodies are provided that reinforce the new fingerings. This method allows students to quickly begin playing simple tunes, but may cause students to neglect basics of tone production.

A third style of published method is the “rote-to-note” approach that draws upon the Suzuki method. In methods of this type, students learn to play melodies or exercises without using traditional staff notation. Music reading skills are taught later. This approach encourages the development of ear training and intuitive playing. It may prove a disadvantage, however, to students who are involved with a school band program and find themselves lacking music reading skills.

Is a published method necessary?

Paul Berler, in a 1997 Saxophone Journal article, asks, “…but what happens when there isn’t a method book that suits the student? What happens then? Well, you do one thing saxophonists over the years have been able to do very well: improvise!” A bookless approach allows for more individualized instruction, but places a greater burden on the teacher to develop a cohesive, logical program of study. It also leaves the student without written material to use as a reference while practicing during the week.

Evaluating published methods

Pizer provides a detailed chart to use in rating published methods. He encourages teachers to decide how well each of several dozen topics is covered by a method book. Topics under the heading “Introductory Materials” include music theory, terminology, suggestions to players, instrument care, and a fingering chart with accompanying explanation. Pizer also suggests the teacher look for illustrations showing the instrument, proper playing position, hand position, and correct embouchure. It may also be appropriate to find out whether a piano accompaniment book is available.

With regard to topics like embouchure and playing position, Berler addresses the notion that these items are unnecessary in a printed method because they should be demonstrated by the teacher. In opposition to this view, he points out that many students have a saxophone and method book well before they have a private teacher. Though clearly a far from ideal situation, it is common enough that a good method should make provision for it. Students with private teachers may also find text and illustrations on these topics useful as a reminder during the week.

Pizer also suggests that a method book should include exercises covering scales (including chromatic), arpeggios, familiar and unfamiliar tunes, sufficient range of the instrument, and a variety of rhythmic figures. Under “Miscellaneous Fundamentals” he includes topics such as key signatures, accidentals, common meters, dynamic and articulation markings, tempo, repeats, first and second endings, and fermatas.

Marvin Blickenstaff, in a 1998 Keyboard Companion article, explores the elements that make a method book appealing to young students. (“Who would dare teach something the students do not like?” he asks.)

Is student appeal mostly visual layout and colorful illustrations?

Is student appeal mostly musical—familiar tunes or pieces which can be learned easily and feel good technically?

Does student appeal lie in the pacing of the book—having enough time to feel secure with one idea before moving on to the next?

Does student appeal result from the success they feel at each step of the learning process?

Does student appeal reflect the enthusiasm of the teacher for the materials at hand?

Recommended method books

In The Instrumentalist in 1989, Bill Perconti and Ronald Tyree suggest the Eugene Rousseau Saxophone Method (in two volumes) or the first two volumes of Arthur Hegvik’s Modern Course for Saxophone. They describe the Rousseau method as a “traditional approach” with a good balance between melodic excerpts and technical studies. Rousseau also receives favorable marks for his special exercises for awkward high- and low-note fingering exercises and his fundamental information on embouchure and breathing.

The Hegvik method gets a favorable review because of its flexibility in lesson planning. Perconti and Tyree also call attention to its use of familiar folk tunes and its unique approach to breath support. The first two pages are exercises with notes slurred, and tonguing is not introduced until page three.

The Rousseau and Hegvik methods are also the only books marked “highly recommended” by Larry Teal in The Art of Saxophone Playing. He does note, though, that the ubiquitous Hovey method published by Rubank is “excellent.” Teal suggests that different methods may be appropriate to different age groups, suggesting the Anzalone “Breeze-Easy Method” for very young students and Bichon’s Jouez du Saxophone for the high school beginner.

Conclusions

Although it may be impossible to write a beginning saxophone method that is universally appropriate for every student, several tried-and-true method books may serve as a starting point. The Rousseau and Hegvik methods are recommended highly by noted saxophonists and pedagogues. The Rubank method is also solidly assembled and more readily available than most competing books. Whichever method the saxophone teacher decides to use, he or she will find it necessary to adapt the material to the student’s specific requirements and provide supplements as needed.

Bibliography

Berler, Paul. “Young Teacher, Young Student,” Saxophone Journal 22, no. 1 (July/August 1997): 64-65.

——————. “Young Teacher, Young Student, Part II” Saxophone Journal 22, no. 2 (September/October 1997): 62-63.

Blickenstaff, Marvin. “When Choosing a Method for Your Beginning Students, What Role Does the Repertoire Play in Your Decision?” Keyboard Companion 9, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 42-44.

Perconti, Bill, and Ronald Tyree. “An Annotated Course for Traditional Saxophone Study,” The Instrumentalist 43, no. 10 (May 1989): 54-59.

Pizer, Russell A. “A Beginning Method Book Evaluation System,” The Instrumentalist 26, no. 1 (August 1971): 28-29.

Teal, Larry. The Art of Saxophone Playing. Miami: Summy-Birchard, 1963.

Similar Posts

  • More on the science/fiction of woodwind materials

    Photo, ~Bob~West~

    There’s an interesting woodwind-related post by blogger “MarkCC” at Good Math, Bad Math, entitled “My Newest Flute, made of… Plastic?!

    MarkCC recently acquired a new flute of the type used in Irish traditional music, the kind that are most often made of wood. But MarkCC’s is made of polymer, and it sounds like MarkCC has wrestled a little with the issue of whether a plastic flute can really measure up to a wooden one.

    But… Plastic?

    I’ve seen several acoustic studies that claim that the material the instrument is made of isn’t that important. In a wooden flute, the physics show that the head joint is the only part of the flute that really has a significant influence on its sound. But the head joint of a wooden flute is actually lined with metal. So the wood isn’t really having too much influence on the sound.

    As it turns out, MarkCC is something of a doubler, and also plays the clarinet.

    Most people (including me) play on mouthpieces made of hard rubber or plastic – so the primary sound-producing piece of the instrument is plastic. The barrel of a wooden clarinet is (obviously) wood, so according to the physics/acoustics, that’s the only piece of wood that actually has any measurable acoustic effect. And the physics of this isn’t sloppy stuff put together by an instrument company trying to sell their plastic clarinets: to the limits of my ability to understand it, it’s good, solid stuff.

    And yet, I’ve played a whole lot of clarinets, and by god, there’s nothing like a grenadilla wood clarinet. Even the best clarinet makers, even when I put my wooden barrel on a polymer body, it doesn’t sound the same. Of course, that’s subjective, and we humans are notorious for hearing what we want to hear in a subjective situation. And, by god, I’m a math geek. I’ve seen the math, and it’s correct.

    One of the most-linked articles on my blog makes the same point about our expectations about materials coloring our playing experience. It’s worth pointing out, too, that a different barrel made from the same material will also affect the instrument’s sound.

    I do think it’s a grey area to refer to a mouthpiece or barrel (or flute headjoint) as “sound-producing.” The instrument’s parts don’t produce any audible musical sound (unless you hit them with drumsticks)—it’s the column of air contained within them that vibrates in a musically useful way.

    But MarkCC goes on, I believe, to hit the nail on the head: Read More “More on the science/fiction of woodwind materials”

  • |

    Woodwind Doubler Census results, part 2: instruments

    In the previous installment of results from the Great Woodwind Doubler Census of 2011, I shared some basic demographic information about the 187 survey respondents. In this installment (and those to come), we’ll dig into some real doubling stuff.

    Instruments

    Q: Which woodwind instruments do you play, and at what levels?

    The top results are unsurprising: saxophone, clarinet, and flute being the most widely-played, with oboe in a distant fourth place. I was a little surprised to see folk/ethnic/period woodwinds edge out the bassoon.
    Read More “Woodwind Doubler Census results, part 2: instruments”

  • Stop teaching clarinet and saxophone embouchures like this

    As a ten-year-old beginning saxophonist, I was taught to form an embouchure like this:

    • Put your top teeth on the mouthpiece
    • Let your lower lip sort of roll or squish over your lower teeth
    • Close your mouth

    That’s how I played for years. As I advanced and started to practice more, I would sometimes hurt the inside of my lower lip, drawing blood or forming blisters or scar tissue. I considered this a badge of honor: I practiced until I bled.

    But I don’t play that way anymore, nor do I teach students that way. I made an important change to my embouchure that lets me play for extended periods pain- and blood-free, while sounding better and having more control.

    The problem with the lower-lip-over-the-teeth approach is that it sets the lower lip up to serve as a sacrificial cushion, to protect the reed from the lower teeth. Sure, you can just tell your students to “stop biting,” but if you’re teaching them an embouchure that’s based on biting, then good luck.

    It’s more useful to think of the embouchure this way:

    • Put your top teeth on the mouthpiece
    • Let your jaw hang open a bit, so your lower teeth stay clear of the reed
    • Keep your jaw open, and allow your lips to close around the mouthpiece and reed.

    This approach makes sure the lips are used to form the embouchure, not the jaw. It improves tone, response, dynamic range, and more, and virtually eliminates lower lip pain.

    Left: jaw-formed clarinet embouchure. Right: lip-formed clarinet embouchure.

    If you are used to a jaw-formed embouchure concept, you might find that switching to the lip-formed embouchure leaves you feeling like you’ve lost some control of pitch and tone. If so, double-check your breath support; with the jaw out of the way you will need to depend on those support muscles more for stability.

    Don’t play through pain—use a better approach.

  • How to do long tones (and why)

    Long tones are at the core of most woodwind warmup routines. The most simple and obvious version is this:

    Long tone whole note with a fermata.

    Simple sustained notes are good for developing consistent breath support, which is required to keep the long tone steady in pitch, volume, and tone color. (Some teachers also suggest them for developing “embouchure strength,” one of the harmful and pervasive myths of woodwind playing.)

    Many players and teachers recommend a version more like this:

    Long tone whole note with a fermata, and with a crescendo and decrescendo.

    This is a worthwhile improvement, as dynamic change requires a flexible and relatively relaxed embouchure on top of steady breath support. Exercises like the Herzberg long tones use this concept.

    But I like this even better:

    Long tone with three tied whole notes. The first crescendos from niente to fortississimo. The third decrescendos to niente. There is a tempo marking of quarter note = 60.

    The first thing to notice is the addition of extreme dynamic markings, from niente (“nothing,” essentially zero volume) to fff (which should be understood here as maximum controlled volume). Achieving a note that starts from 0%, crescendos smoothly and evenly to 100%, and then back to 0%, is much more specific and demanding than just a general “get louder, then softer.” It requires powerful breath support that starts before the note sounds and continues until after it ends, as well as a tuned-in voicing and well-functioning equipment. (And it can serve as a diagnostic to find issues in these areas.) Exercises like the David Weber chromatic exercises use this approach. (At the link, scroll down to “Longtone 1.”

    Less-advanced players should start and end as softly as possible and work toward a true niente. Players at all levels should take the opportunity to discover and then improve their loudest dynamic level.

    The second thing to notice is the addition of a tempo marking. This demands that the dynamic changes happen within a specific timeline, as of course they do in real-world music. Faster or slower tempos than the one marked here may be used; each presents its own challenges.

    A very thorough long tone warmup might involve playing these on every note within the instrument’s range. Each will have slightly (or severely!) different demands. For a more practical approach, consider a rotation: on day one, do these on the instrument’s lowest note, and the note a fifth above that (or some other interval), a fifth above that, and so forth. The next day, start on the second-lowest note, and the next day the note above that, and so forth.

    Happy practicing!

  • Using electronic harmonization with woodwinds

    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.

    In a recent recital I performed my own arrangement of Ravel’s Boléro for multiple woodwinds soloist using electronics, with piano and snare drum. I used electronics to try to approximate some of Ravel’s harmonies (and timbres), and used what in my mind are three different techniques, which I’ll try to outline here.

    In performance, I used the BOSS GT-1000CORE guitar multi-effects unit to do most of the heavy lifting. I did find that it had difficulty tracking my flute playing (though, surprisingly, it did better with piccolo), so I used an Electro-Harmonix Pitch Fork + to assist with that instrument in particular. I also used a BOSS SY-200 to try to create some non-woodwind tone colors. There are plenty of other equipment options that can achieve similar effects, but you’re on your own to read the manuals.

    All of this was done with a microphone rather than pickups, which was less complicated for quick instrument switches, but did make it difficult to get relatively isolated woodwind sounds into the electronics, which ultimately caused problems with the audibility of some of the electronic sounds.

    The warts-and-all live performance is available on my YouTube channel, but I’ll provide some clearer, isolated examples here. For rehearsal numbers in the orchestral score, I’m referring to the Durand Edition on IMSLP.

    Technique 1: parallel intervals

    At rehearsal mark 8 in the score, horn and celeste play the A theme in octaves, with two piccolos playing in parallel a perfect fifth and a major tenth above the celeste’s highest octave, perhaps in imitation of a pipe organ’s mixture stop.

    To achieve this harmony with electronics, I played the upper piccolo part “live,” and routed the piccolo’s sound into the GT-1000CORE where I split it into two separate signal paths. One got transposed down using a digital pitch shifter to create the second piccolo part. The other got transposed down to the melody pitch and split into octaves, then routed through the SY-200 to turn the sound into something vaguely celeste-like.

    Since the intervals are strictly parallel, this is a pretty straightforward use of pitch shifting: whatever note I play on the piccolo gets transposed to the specified intervals.

    Technique 2: smart harmonization

    At rehearsal mark 16, a thickly-orchestrated ensemble of woodwinds, brass, and strings plays the A theme in harmony. I opted to play this portion on soprano saxophone, thickened and harmonized with a synthesized string section.

    Since the harmony in this section is largely diatonic, I used the GT-1000CORE’s smart harmonizer. I added voices a diatonic fourth and diatonic sixth below in the key of G (like a first-inversion triad), which tracks with the notes in the first part of the theme. But there’s a moment in the first part that uses F-natural instead of F-sharp, and the second part of the melody uses F-naturals exclusively, so I used the unit’s footswitches to change to the key of C major as needed. I routed all of this through the SY-200 to change the three soprano saxophones into a string section sound, with the “live” soprano remaining audible in the room.

    For the key switching, I set one footswitch as a “momentary” switch, so it changes the key just while I’m pressing it, and another as a “toggle” switch, so I can press and release it and the key remains changed. This gives me some helpful options for live performance.

    Technique 3: smart harmonization with custom scales

    The smart harmonizer works well out of the box as long as you want to use notes of a major scale (or mode thereof), but at rehearsal mark 15 Ravel’s harmonization is more complicated than that. Luckily, the GT-1000CORE supports smart harmonization with custom “scales.” What this really means is that I can tell the unit that any time I play a certain pitch, it should add one or more pitches that I can specify arbitrarily. I can add whatever pitches I like to each note of the chromatic scale.

    I chose to play this section on clarinet, using the electronics to turn it into a 3-part clarinet section. During the first phrase, the melody pitches are harmonized in a consistent way: every time there’s a melody concert B-flat it’s harmonized with a G and an E, every time there’s a melody C it’s harmonized with an A and an F, every time there’s a melody E it’s harmonized with a C and a G, and so forth. I can just tell the effects unit which harmony notes to add to each melody note.

    But things change in the first half of the second phrase: melody B-flat is now harmonized with G and D, and C is now harmonized with A and E. To accommodate this I have to create a second custom “scale,” and use a footswitch to activate it at the right time. To finish the second phrase requires a third scale, engaged with another footswitch.

    Because of the flexibility of the custom scale system, I can recreate harmonies that use a variety of intervals. With a little analysis I can figure out where the scale changes need to be (basically anywhere a given melody pitch is harmonized in a new way).

    Additional thoughts

    There are some limitations to using pitch shifters and harmonizers, depending on your equipment. Each virtual pitch shifter and harmonizer in the GT-1000CORE can only add two voices, though by (virtually) splitting the audio signal into multiple paths and passing each through its own shifter/harmonizer I can build thicker chords.

    When trying to reproduce specific harmonies written by a composer, there may be some decisions to make to balance accuracy with practicality. Serendipitously, most of Ravel’s harmony translated fairly easily to the effects unit’s capabilities. But there were a few spots where I decided that certain chord voicings were close enough, and that I didn’t need to complicate things with one more custom scale plus the corresponding onstage footwork.

    As I’ve mentioned previously, I’m more interested in electronic effects that give my woodwinds new capabilities, like polyphony, than in just adding some distortion or echo (though those are also fun). Enjoy!

  • Creating “lightness”

    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.

    Composers (or a performer’s interpretation) often call for “lightness” in music. How do you play a wind instrument “lightly?”

    When I discuss this with my students, they often suggest that the way to play lightly is to be lighter with their tongue. When I turn that around on them—”is there a situation where you should use a heavier tongue?—they are quick to say no, the tongue should never be heavy. Sometimes instead they suggest using “lighter” air, but upon further interrogation they aren’t able to explain that without stumbling into no-nos like “less air” or “less powerful support.”

    Creating musical lightness is easy, if not completely intuitive. The key is to forget about trying to make the tone light, and focusing instead on making the texture light. That means creating some contrast.

    For example, consider the second movement of the Bernstein clarinet sonata. After an Andantino introduction, the musicians are instructed by the composer to play “Vivace e leggiero” (lively and lightly). Here are clarinetist Wonkak Kim and pianist Eunhye Grace Choi:

    Notice the subtle but important contrasts Dr. Kim creates in the clarinet line. Many of the notes have a small accent at their beginnings, then quickly taper to a softer volume. Some notes get more emphasis from higher volume or from sustaining the note with less taper. The lightness comes from stringing softer notes between the more emphasized ones, or even from individual notes having louder and softer moments within them.

    The volume in the Bernstein clip is soft, but this approach is very effective at louder dynamics, too. I stress this when rehearsing my university’s jazz big band, since things can easily get heavy- or angry-sounding at fortissimo. To bring some lightness back into a loud, thickly-orchestrated passage, I ask the band to look for the marked or implied accents and let those set the fortissimo ceiling. The in-between notes can be brought back down perhaps to a comfortable mezzo-forte, giving the musical line some texture and headroom without losing the excitement of the louder dynamic.

    Creating lightness in music means giving some notes some gravity, so the others can float weightlessly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments that take a negative or confrontational tone are subject to email and name verification before being approved. In other words: no anonymous trolls allowed—take responsibility for your words.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.