Crossing the break (or not) on saxophone

Much has been made of “the break” on clarinet—the point at which the chalumeau register and throat tones cross over to the clarion register—but all modern woodwind instruments have at least one break in their “standard” ranges. The saxophone has exactly one (ignoring the altissimo range), between the second C-sharp and the second D.

From an acoustical perspective, that point is the division between the fundamental pitches and the first overtone. When playing a lower-register note, the air column’s vibration is at its simplest. The pitch is determined by the effective length of the saxophone, which depends on which toneholes the player opens or closes. In the upper register, the air column is manipulated into vibrating twice as fast (by changing the airstream and/or opening a register vent), and a sound an octave higher is produced.

This means that there is, technically, some overlap between the registers shown above, which really are based on one specific set of “standard” fingerings. The fingerings for low B-flat, B, C, and C-sharp can be used to produce sounds in the second overtone, and the fingerings for high D through F-sharp can likewise produce sounds at the fundamental. In theory, this should mean an overlap of over a fifth:

If you’ve experimented with those fingerings, you know that they don’t work quite as expected in practice. The low B-flat fingering with the octave key added, for example doesn’t sound great, and neither does the high F-sharp fingering with no octave key. But with some experimentation, a few usable alternative fingerings can be found within this range.

Here are a couple of examples from the saxophone movement of Sy Brandon’s Divertissement for multiple woodwinds and piano.

example 1

In example 1, the excerpted passage stays entirely in the lower register, with the exception of one note, D. The D is a “long-tube” note, meaning that most of the toneholes are closed and the effective length of the tube is long. It is immediately surrounded by the notes C-sharp and B, which are short-tube notes. The short-tube notes tend to be free-blowing, clear, and flexible, while the long-tube D tends to be more resistant and stuffy, especially if you are adding the low B key (and you should) to compensate for the D’s built-in sharpness. Here’s what it sounds like:

The D doesn’t sound the same as the notes around it. It’s duller and more muted. I can make the standard fingering work if necessary (good breath support and voicing are key), but I think the better part of valor is discretion, and it makes sense to me to avoid crossing the break here if possible. After a little experimenting, I picked an alternate fingering that keeps me in the fundamental register, and works reasonably well technically:

The tone produced with this fingering is a much better match for the surrounding notes, and contributes to a smoother line.

Your ears should of course be your guide, but I did find this visual comparison revealing. The D stands out significantly in the first waveform, and virtually disappears into the C-sharp in the second.

using standard D fingering
using alternate D fingering

In a second example from later in the movement, there is an occurrence of the opposite problem:

Here, there is only one note, C-sharp, that, using standard fingerings, belongs to the fundamental register. This free-blowing short-tube note is likely to blare out a little:

This alternate fingering works quite well, and, though it does not technically put the C-sharp in the upper register (despite the octave key), it does bring the C-sharp in line with the surrounding D’s tone-wise. Note that some saxophonists are initially put off by what they perceive as an airiness or fuzziness about this fingering; I find that effect to be significantly less perceptible from a few feet away, and less jarring than the blare of the “open” C-sharp. Eugene Rousseau considers this fingering essential enough that he includes it in his beginning saxophone method.

Here’s how it sounds:

In the recording, I am using the low B key for pitch correction on the D, and I hold it down through the C-sharp without detrimental effect.

I have a small handful of these alternate fingerings that I use on a fairly regular basis. I think that they are somewhat instrument-specific, though, and are best discovered through trial and error on your own horn. If you like, you can use the Fingering diagram builder to create charts of your favorites.

Similar Posts

  • From WindWorks Design: Wind controller in a pit orchestra

    Photo, mabel.sound

    “Gertjan” at the WindWorks Design blog posted some interesting comments about using a wind controller in a local production of Seussical the Musical. Gertjan (I wasn’t able to positively identify him from the WindWorks website, but maybe he will find his way here and let us know who he is) played saxophones in the show as well, and used the wind controller to cover a number of wind and non-wind instrument parts.

    Although it gives me a little indigestion to see a wind controller substituting for woodwinds that might otherwise have been played by a doubler, I do think there is application for wind controllers in orchestra pits. Keyboard-driven synthesizers are ubiquitous in recent shows (or are sometimes used to replace other instruments, especially a string section), and, in some cases, a wind synth might be even better suited to certain kinds of synthesizer parts. Gertjan mentions some synthy sounds like “vocal doo,” “scary voices,” and “ghostly shimmering breathy sound,” all of which strike me as likely to be very effective with a wind synthesizer’s breath control. Some others, like “harp” and “tinkle bell” seem like they might be more intuitively assigned to a keyboard. Read More “From WindWorks Design: Wind controller in a pit orchestra”

  • Woodwind dynamics and the embouchure

    There’s a lot of confusion about how different dynamic levels are produced on woodwind instruments. How do you think it’s done?

    If you said something like “use more or less air,” you are on the right track, kind of. But how do you put more or less air into the instrument?

    If you said something like “blow harder or softer,” you are asking for trouble. Adjusting volume by increasing and decreasing breath support causes all kinds of nasty problems, especially sluggish response, unfocused tone, and saggy pitch at softer dynamic levels.

    dynamics

    So what method is left to adjust the volume of air entering the instrument, and the corresponding loudness or softness (weirdly, also called “volume”)? Surprise, it’s your embouchure. Take a look in the mirror at your flute aperture, or look at the opening in your oboe or bassoon reed, or the opening between the tip of your clarinet or saxophone reed and the tip of the mouthpiece. By manipulating the size of this opening, you can control the volume of air passing into the instrument, while keeping your breath support powerful and steady.

    The opening isn’t large to begin with, so bear in mind that the adjustments needed are incredibly small. But your lip muscles are well-suited to very small, subtle, expressive movements—certainly more so than your larger breath support muscles.

    If you are an advanced player, you are probably doing this already, maybe without realizing it. But if you are struggling with dynamics-related problems, like unstable pitch during crescendos and diminuendos, or the inability to maintain tone at pianissimo, you might want to reexamine your technique.

    Try this: play a note in a comfortable range at an easy mezzo-forte, with powerful breath support. Without letting up on the breath support, apply just the slightest squeeze with your embouchure. (For me, the sensation is that my lips don’t really even move, they just firm up a little.) Gradually increase the squeeze—don’t forget to keep the support strong—and see what happens.

    Try it again, this time starting with the lips squeezing, and see what happens as you allow the embouchure to become more and more relaxed. This maxes out when the reed is almost completely free to vibrate at its widest amplitude, or when the flute aperture gets too large to maintain focus in the tone. (At this point you may be able to get more volume by straining harder with your breath support muscles, but notice what happens to your pitch and/or tone!)

    Like so much of woodwind playing, the real key here is breath support. If you remember to keep it steady, then creating dynamic changes from the embouchure is really quite intuitive and produces much better results.

    Incidentally, this is why recorders, pennywhistles, and other “fipple” flutes really have only one dynamic level; the opening can’t be manipulated effectively because it is rigid. Blowing harder or softer does change the volume but at unacceptable cost to intonation. (This is probably a major reason the transverse flute essentially replaced the recorder in Western music—it could play with dynamic contrast.)

  • 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 theĀ 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.

  • Woodwind technique and conservation of energy

    That people prefer to move in energetically optimal ways has been established for decades and now represents a central principle of movement science. … Energy optimization may also occur over the course of a lifetime, as years of experience could allow people to learn the optimal way to move in familiar situations and allow training to tune physiology to be more economical. An additional hypothesis—one that underpins many modern theories of motor control—is that people can adjust their movements to continuously optimize energetic cost.

    Selinger, Jessica C., Shawn M. O’Connor, Jeremy D. Wong, and J. Maxwell Donelan. “Humans can continuously optimize energetic cost during walking.” Current Biology 25, no. 18 (2015): 2452-2456.

    I certainly see this phenomenon in my own woodwind playing and teaching. How many times have you encountered these?

    • More resistant notes failing to respond because there’s just enough breath support for the less-resistant ones
    • Embouchures losing their shape, reverting to a neutral/normal mouth position
    • Voicing, such as the high, cold-air voicing needed for clarinet playing, or the low, warm-air one for flutes and double reeds, lapsing into a medium, luke-warm state that negatively affects tone, pitch, and response
    • Pitch sagging at ends of notes as breath support peters out

    These are often addressed by teachers as “habits,” which may be true, but they may also be fed by the brain’s capacity—and priority—to micro-optimize our muscle use to conserve energy. No wonder they are difficult to overcome! Patience and persistence are necessary to train our bodies to put the right amount of effort into playing our instruments.

    A factor in this is establishing a suitably high bar for success. For a beginner, the only question might be, “did a sound come out?” For a slightly more advanced student, it might become, “did the correct approximate pitch come out?” A more advanced player might examine the precision of the pitch, the quality of the tone, and the immediacy of the response, among many other factors. It takes a relatively low amount of energy to meet the beginner’s threshold of success, but potentially much more for the advanced player’s.

    Additionally, this intentional use of greater energy resources must be managed carefully to avoid its misapplication, which can result in excessive tension.

    I find that when I am playing at my best balance of efficiency and effort, an hour of playing a woodwind instrument leaves me feeling like I have done some light exercise; I’ll feel the mild and pleasant fatigue of having taken a walk or reorganized a bookshelf. Serious tiredness or soreness are warnings that I’m overusing my body. (Your results may vary depending on your physical capabilities.)

    Be in tune with your own body as you play, and teach your students to be in tune with theirs, so that you’re in the sweet spot of working hard enough but not harder.

  • Do it yourself: replace a tenon cork

    One of the most common woodwind repair needs is replacement of a clarinet or oboe tenon cork (or bassoon, if you have cork joints, or wooden piccolo, or recorder…). It’s an easy job, and doesn’t require much more than a piece of cork and a few minutes. Let’s do it.

    A few weeks ago, I replaced the bell tenon cork on this clarinet with a composite cork product, made from compressed cork bits. It’s cheaper than traditional solid cork, so I thought I would give it a try to see how well it compares. But the cork I used was too thin, and the bell was too loose. I’m going to try the experiment again with a thicker composite cork, but you can do this exactly the same way whether you’re using solid or composite. You can get either kind from MusicMedic.com.

    First peel off the old cork.

    Read More “Do it yourself: replace a tenon cork”

  • Synthetic reeds are probably the future

    I was pleased to receive recently some samples of D’Addario Woodwinds’s new “Venn” synthetic clarinet and saxophone reeds. In an upcoming post, I’ll share some thoughts about and demonstrations of the specific products. But here are a few thoughts to set the stage:

    • I’m thrilled to see a major cane reed manufacturer like D’Addario take on this challenge. My hunch is that other major reed makers are either close at their heels or betting on musicians’ provincial thinking about modern materials. Let’s hope it’s the former.
    • I am a strong believer that synthetic reeds are the future. Modern science has invented amazing materials for clothing and smartphone screens and space travel; we can invent something that works great for reeds. Natural cane isn’t sacred or magical—it’s a material with upsides and some very clear downsides.
    • It’s easy to fall into the trap of trying something like a synthetic reed and asking the question, “does this synthetic material sound as good as cane?” And, if the reed doesn’t play as well as one’s usual cane reeds, to answer the question with a no, and perhaps to further opine that nothing can ever sound as good as “real” cane. But that knee-jerk reaction fails to take into account all the other things we already know about reeds, such as that their geometry matters a great deal, and that their match to the mouthpiece is equally crucial. We’ve all found the reed-plus-mouthpiece combinations that work for us, and introducing any random new reed (cane or synthetic) isn’t especially likely to improve the situation. The better question to ask is, “Is this a viable reed?” In other words, does it function like a reed should, when paired with an appropriate mouthpiece: with appropriate response, stability, and characteristic tone, regardless of whether it is my new personal favorite?
    • Assuming there are viable synthetic reeds available, it may make sense to adopt them and claim all the potential benefits (consistency, longevity, resistance to warping, reduced waste, cost savings), and, if necessary, seek out new mouthpieces that are well suited to them. I have mouthpieces I like, but if I can replace them and never have to deal with the problems of cane again, that seems like an option well worth considering.

    Zealous loyalty to “traditional” materials isn’t a virtue. (If you’re a woodwind player like me, there’s a good chance your equipment already includes materials that are “new” since the instrument’s invention anyway.) Keep an open mind!

2 Comments

  1. The long C# fingering is also useful in both examples. I don’t use it that often, but I’m willing to bet that if you were to use it in the first case, the wavelength would probably be wider on the leading tone, than on the tonic. Since we want to stress the lower note while ascending from one half-step to the next, it would make sense musically.

    The most troubling aspect of the long C# fingering for most French school players is the fact that is plays too sharp on many modern instruments. Using LSK1 as your octave vent instead of the octave key fixes this pitch problem.

  2. This was very helpful, as I have found little help on the Web in terms of crossing the Split on Saxophone, and I am self-learning. Thank you very much for offering it out

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.