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

  • Rediscovering the clarinet’s left-hand sliver key

    I think for many doublers the clarinet’s left-hand “sliver” key seems useless or problematic. For example, the sliver key is easy to press by mistake when intending to cover the middle and/or ring finger holes. And even when reaching for the sliver on purpose, it’s easy to accidentally cover part of the ring finger hole, producing an E-flat or B-flat that is flat and stuffy.

    The left-hand sliver also lacks any real analogue on any of the other common woodwinds, so its use is a technique that doesn’t transfer easily from another instrument. Flutes, saxophones, and standard bassoons don’t have any key in that spot. The oboe has a trill key there, but its usage isn’t similar. Among the standard band/orchestral woodwinds, only the contrabassoon has a key positioned here that is used in a similar way to the clarinet family. Especially for saxophonists, the right-side fingering is much more familiar.

    The Woodwind Fingering Guide (still the best fingering source on the web) lists three E-flat/B-flat fingerings in its standard clarinet fingering chart, with only the right-side-key fingering marked as “basic.” The left-hand-sliver fingering is described as a “Chromatic and trill fingering,” to “use in combination with D4 [D below the staff] and A5 [A above the staff].” (The “one and one” fingering using both index fingers is also listed, though it might perhaps be better relegated to the “alternate” fingering chart.)

    Occasionally I’ve run across the attitude that the sliver key could perhaps be removed or wedged shut to prevent accidental venting. I think this would be a waste, and all clarinetists of an intermediate level or higher should get used to using this key as an equal partner with the right hand key—not merely as an alternative for rare occasions.

    Here are a couple of examples from well-known solo repertoire where the left-hand sliver makes sense: Read More “Rediscovering the clarinet’s left-hand sliver key”

  • 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”

  • Hercules stand clip modification

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

    I made a small modification to my Hercules instrument stands so I could clip them onto my instrument cases for easier carrying.

    The stands all have this same yellow sort of teddy-bear-head piece on the bottom:

    Remove the nut from the center of the bear’s forehead:

    I bought a handful of these. They are almost the right thing for the job:

    …but they don’t quite fit: the holes are too small. The metal seemed fairly soft and not too thick, so I managed to open up the holes a bit with a handheld drill and a 1/4″ wood-drilling bit. It would probably be safer and more precise to use a drill press and a proper metal-drilling bit.

    Or, even better, can anyone recommend a premade part with two 1/4″ (65mm) holes about 1″ (3cm) apart, no thicker than about 1/16″ (1mm), preferably without sharp corners?

    Anyway, with the holes slightly enlarged, put the part in place and replace the nut.

    Add a small carabiner.

    Done:

    This worked well on all my Hercules stands, with a minor modification for the bassoon/bass clarinet stand. The “forehead” bolt was too short to get the nut back on with the extra piece in place, so I installed it off-center. It works fine.

    I’d be curious to hear about your favorite equipment modifications in the comments.

  • Review: New woodwind doubling duets from Gene Kaplan and Paul Saunders

    A couple of new books of duets for woodwind doublers hit my inbox recently. (I received complimentary copies without any promise of a review.) Gene Kaplan has published a second volume of his Duos for Doublers, following up the volume I reviewed previously. And Paul Saunders, whose other doubling publications I’ve reviewed, has written Six Duets for Woodwind Doublers.

    As I noted in previous reviews, (solo) etudes for woodwind doublers have an issue: it’s too easy to take extra time during instrument changes, a luxury that doesn’t exist in musical theater or many other doubling scenarios. Kaplan’s two volumes solve this by pairing the player with another doubler. Saunders’s previous works provided piano accompaniment (including downloadable backing tracks). Either solution keeps the woodwind doubler accountable to another musician (at least a virtual one) to execute the quick changes without disrupting the tempo.

    Saunders’s new publication expands on his previous offerings by introducing a duet format with piano or backing track. The backing tracks include versions with just accompaniment (piano plus a virtual rhythm section), or with accompaniment plus Saunders ably playing the first woodwind part, or with accompaniment plus the second part.

    Kaplan’s solution of course requires a duet partner with skills on three instruments, but also provides some flexibility in rehearsal with tempos or repeating problem sections. With two volumes available, each with a dozen 2-3 page duets, this would be a great resource for a sight reading session with a friend or student. (This new volume has well-placed page turns.)

    Saunders’s approach lends itself well to solo practice, and since you can play either part with Saunders covering the other, the six duets amount to twelve parts to work on. The included piano score also raises some possibilities for a polished public performance. (The introduction also indicates that the duets are composed to work without the accompaniment.)

    The books are similar in instrumentation, for flute/clarinet/saxophone doublers, with the first part using alto saxophone and the second using tenor. Saunders’s book has one duet with optional piccolos. I’ve been clear that I think the flute/clarinet/saxophone doubling paradigm is outdated in the 21st century, and while the market for such things is admittedly probably small, I’d like to see more resources available that incorporate double reeds.

    Both books publish the duets as separate parts, which is probably a closer match to the musical theater doubling experience, but I do prefer seeing both lines on the same page. With Saunders’s book, the additional piano score does show both parts, which could be helpful for perusal or rehearsal.

    I’ve updated my Music for woodwind doublers page to include these new publications. Keep me posted if you are aware of additional ones.

  • Woodwind doubling and flute problems

    Many doublers start out as clarinetists or saxophonists, and many doublers would say that the flute is particularly challenging as a double. These phenomena are related. Let’s look at some of the issues woodwind doublers have with the flute. I’ll offer a sort of glib, inadequate tip or two for each situation, but the real solution here is to learn the flute right, with lots of patience, years of dedicated practice, and a well-qualified and longsuffering flute teacher.

    photo, Peri Apex
    photo, Peri Apex

    Lightheadedness, inability to play long phrases, fuzzy tone, weak low register. These are products of a too-large aperture (the opening in your lips). Single-reed players tend to have a mental image of a relatively large clarinet or saxophone mouthpiece held in their embouchures. Think instead of the actual opening between the tip of the reed and the tip of the mouthpiece—this is much closer to the size of opening you need to create in your lips. (Think especially of a high-pitched instrument like a clarinet or soprano saxophone, and a mouthpiece with a narrow tip opening.) Or try this: close your lips and relax them as much as possible, then blow gently until a tiny “needle” of air pokes through the center of your lips. That’s how much smaller your aperture needs to be.

    Thin/shrill tone, weak low register. The saxophone uses a medium voicing, and the clarinet uses a high voicing, but the flute uses a very low voicing. (Flute doublers coming from a double reed instrument or even a brass instrument have an advantage here.) Keep your airstream very warm, even in the highest register, to give your tone depth.

    Uneven intonation and tone. If you are counting on similarities between flute fingerings and clarinet or saxophone fingerings, then you are likely committing a number of flute crimes. F-sharp uses the right third finger, not middle finger. And you must master the ballet between the left index finger and right pinky finger, especially in the transition from first to second octave. (If middle-finger F-sharp and a lazy right pinky sound fine to you, it’s because your tone production technique and tone concept aren’t well developed yet.)

    No dynamic control. The typical problem is loud third octave, medium-loud second octave, and very soft first octave. This is a sure sign that you are trying to change octaves by blowing harder or softer. Your “octave key” on the flute is your flexible, well-trained embouchure. Instead of cranking up to gale force for the higher octaves, try pushing gently forward with your lips. (As a side note, if you find in doubling situations that your embouchure is tense and swollen when switching from reeds to flute, that’s a sign that you are playing reeds with too much tension.)

    Sluggish technique. There are two main problems here that doublers bring to the table. The first is the habit of moving relatively large, heavy, stiffly-sprung keys. A flute’s keys are small, light, and move with a feather touch. The second issue is insecurity in holding the instrument. It can be hard for a beginner to get the instrument properly balanced (laziness about fingerings can contribute to this, too), and that will slow you down. If the flute keeps trying to roll out of your hands, rotate it a few degrees so the bulk of the keywork sits right on top of the instrument.

    Sight-reading disasters in the third octave. Flutists play way up in the ledger lines as a matter of course. If you want to hang in the flute section, it’s time to learn to read those notes fluently. Stumbling around above the staff is also a sign that you haven’t really payed your dues technique-wise yet: you’re getting by within the staff because the fingerings are similar enough to saxophone and clarinet, but above the staff is a different story. Practice your scales and arpeggios.

    Good flute playing doesn’t come from casual “dabbling.” Take the flute seriously, study it diligently with good instruction, and it will be a joy to play and a boon to your doubling career.

  • Review: Duos for Doublers by Gene Kaplan

    I was pleased to hear from woodwind player and composer Gene Kaplan, who sent me a copy of his new duets books, Duos for Doublers. These, as far as I know, are a one-of-a-kind set of duets for two woodwind doublers, with the first part including flute, clarinet, and alto saxophone, and the second part including flute, clarinet, and tenor saxophone. The instruments are used in various combinations, with each player playing at least two instruments on each duet (with one exception, where the second part is tenor-only on one of the duets).

    s402299382826402121_p2_i1_w640

    The style and the difficulty level of the duets varies. They are probably not suitable for those just starting out on their doubles (yet), as they do not shy away from bugaboos like the flute’s third octave, the clarinet break, and the saxophone’s below-the-staff notes.

    I think a real benefit of these is that they do require quick instrument switches in real time and without losing your place (something that’s much easier to “fudge” with, say, solo etudes), in the company of someone who presumably will be understanding if you need to back up and try again. These duets would be great for getting together with another woodwind doubler for a little friendly challenge.

    I’m on record as saying that saxophone-flute-clarinet-“only” doubling is a somewhat dated approach, and that modern doublers need to take the double reeds seriously, as well as auxiliary instruments in each woodwind family, plus probably some “world” woodwinds. These duets are still useful for working one commonly-used subset of those skills. (Gene is a double reed player himself, and acknowledges that he didn’t include them here in order to make these duets playable for more woodwind doublers.)

    The set costs $30 at the time of this review (shipped free in the continental US). They are self-published, with paper covers and a clear plastic sheet over the front. The plastic comb binding is exactly what is needed for a book of sheet music to lay flat and stay open (something that some large sheet music publishers get wrong).

    There are a couple of issues with layout that make these a little bit of a hassle to play, but which also probably provide just the kind of training that aspiring woodwind doublers need for real-life gig situations. The first is (some) impractical page turns, sometimes in places where the only option is to photocopy a page or to drop out for a couple of bars. Some happen during short rests, and some of those also coincide with an instrument change. The second issue is that each of the books includes only one part. My preference for duet playing is one book with both parts on the page, score-style. (This can also potentially mitigate the page turn problem, if you have four hands available instead of two.)

    Here’s a quick video demo of “Acapulco Nights” by me and my less-handsome twin brother.

    I’ve added these to my list of compositions for multiple-woodwind instrumentalists. Let me know if there’s anything else on your radar that should be included.

    Get Duos for Doublers from Gene Kaplan’s website.

     

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.