There’s a common idea with woodwind players and teachers that it’s important to keep your fingers close to the keys. Keeping the fingers within a certain reasonable distance does have benefits:
It’s easier to keep track of where the keys are and not “miss,” especially for beginners
Allowing the fingers to rise too far can introduce tension into the hands
But I think finger-closeness is a concept that gets over-taught and over-stressed. It seems to be motivated by a desire for finger speed (or some euphemism like “fluidity”).
Assuming the fingers are within a reasonable range, I think working toward extreme closeness probably doesn’t offer much if any speed increase, but does make tension more likely. It’s a micro-optimization only worth thinking about when you’ve solved every other problem with your technique, and even then your results may differ on whether it’s productive (or even counterproductive). Definitely don’t stress out your beginning students over it.
Try this if you like: bring a finger down onto a key from, say, 1-2mm above the key (about the thickness of a couple of credit or ID cards). Then try from ten times that distance, 1-2 cm (the width of a fingernail or two). What do you notice about speed? How about tension?
Keep the fingers close enough to stay in position and not bend backward, but don’t worry too much about dialing in extreme closeness.
Saxophones, more than many other instruments, have a tendency toward mechanical noise: clicks and clanks are a hazard of the relatively large keys and articulated mechanisms and of the relative popularity of “vintage” instruments. Much of the noisiness can be solved by a good technician, but it’s sometimes surprising how much key noise saxophonists tolerate on their otherwise pristine recording projects.
The oboe has a particularly sensitive mechanism involving the right index finger and a linkage between the upper and lower joints. It requires a great deal of finger precision to avoid unwanted “blips” (brief, unintended notes) when moving between, say, A and C. If you are listening for that sound, you will find that it is not uncommon, even on recordings that are technically impressive in other ways.
I think a lot of saxophonists would be scandalized by “blips” in each other’s playing, and oboists would be equally appalled by rattling, clanking keywork. But it is easy to become accustomed to hearing those sounds in our own playing, and to stop really noticing them. Read More “Getting an “outsider” opinion”
Crazy for You is a Broadway-style stage musical by Ken Ludwig. The show, which premiered in 1992, uses songs written by George and Ira Gershwin for musicals in the 1930’s. In January and February, 2003, the Brigham Young University Department of Theatre and Media Arts and School of Music produced the show.
Synthesis, BYU’s award-winning jazz ensemble directed by Dr. Ray Smith, filled the role of pit orchestra. The five-member Synthesis saxophone section became an orchestral woodwind section, with a combined arsenal of over twenty instruments. The practice of “doubling,” or playing more than one instrument, is common in theater orchestra woodwind sections. A woodwind doubler may be expected to play instruments from all five woodwind families (flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, and saxophone) in a single show!
The woodwind parts in Crazy for You provide an excellent case study for the challenges facing the woodwind doubler. The show requires five woodwind players. The first woodwind part calls for flute and piccolo, clarinet, and soprano and alto saxophones. The musician playing this part is the primary flute, piccolo, and soprano saxophone soloist, as well as the lead saxophonist in saxophone ensemble passages. Special considerations include extensive use of the extreme high ranges of the flute and piccolo, as well as trills in less-common keys and in the high register; and jazz inflections, including pitch bends, in the saxophone parts. Read More “Woodwind doubling in musical theater orchestras: Taking the insanity out of Crazy for You”
The most popular thing on my website is the Woodwind doubling in Broadway musicals page, which brings in visitors from around the world. I’ve even been lucky enough to hear occasionally from major woodwind doublers who are working on Broadway.
I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the most common combinations of instruments called for. I’m including a table at the end of this post that shows every combination that occurs 10 or more times on the current version of the list. The first column numbers the rows for convenience in referring to specific data; the second column indicates how many times that particular combination occur. Read More “Common doubling combinations from the Broadway doubling list”
The chin is much-discussed in clarinet pedagogy. Keith Stein suggests a “stretching” of the chin, making it feel “long and pointed” and “rather hard.” David Pino, a student of Stein’s, echoes this. Jane Ellsworth describes a chin that is “drawn downward” (while the jaw provides a “controlled” “upward pressure.” Michele Gingras advocates a “flat” chin. Bil Jackson indicates that the chin “flattens naturally” when the lip configuration and voicing are correct. Tom Ridenour explains that the chin should be “down and flat” and that this happens “virtually automatically” as a result of proper voicing.
The chin gets somewhat less attention in saxophone teaching, but some pedagogical examples can be found. Larry Teal indicates that the “chin muscles” should support the lower lip (as the jaw drops downward), and Timothy McAllister agrees. Tracy Heavner recommends that the chin muscles be “held flat against the chin” with a sensation of those muscles “pushing … down and away from the body.” Brian Utley advocates a “firm but relaxed [chin] position.”
Most of these sources seem to generally agree that the “chin” (or something) must be flattened or stretched or firmed in some way. Let’s look more closely at exactly what is being described, and how it does or doesn’t differ from the clarinet to the saxophone.
“Chin” is probably not a specific enough term for our purposes. Is it a bony structure? a muscular one? The pedagogical literature is rather unclear and contradictory about exactly how the “chin” moves, and even whether it is actively engaged or whether its movement is a result of some other thing moving.
Additionally, there is a common misconception in single-reed teaching that the lower lip forms a “cushion,” without which the teeth would contact the reed. This creates an embouchure that is formed by pressure from the jaw, with the lips serving passively as a gasket, and the lower lip taking quite a bit of abuse from the lower teeth.
A better way to form the embouchure is to bring the jaw (and teeth, and chin) down, away from the reed, and allow the muscles of the lips to form the embouchure. This moves the effort from the larger, stronger jaw muscles to the smaller but more supple muscles of the lips (of the citations above, Teal’s describes this the most clearly). For early beginners (or those who have played for many years with unnecessary jaw pressure and the resulting shredded lower lip) it may be necessary to gradually develop a little endurance in those muscles.
Taking this approach, it becomes clear that the pointing/stretching/whatever, which is actually mostly jaw movement, must be more extreme for the clarinet than for the saxophone, to accommodate the clarinet’s steeper angle.
Left: clarinet jaw position (more open). Right: saxophone jaw position (less open). Note that the lower teeth clear the reed; the lip will rise to meet the reed and form a muscle-based (rather than jaw/teeth-based) embouchure.
However, the chin area does have muscles, too, and these play an additional role. The lower lip has an acoustical damping effect on the reed, which plays a role in response, tone quality, and volume. Pulling the muscles around the chin downward around its bony structure (this is independent of jaw movement!) firms the lip slightly, reducing the damping. Allowing the muscles to relax softens the lip, increasing the damping. To take an oversimplified view of one aspect of this, we could say generally that the smaller clarinet requires a slightly firmer lip (and thus less damping) to accommodate its higher frequencies (pitches), while the larger saxophone needs less firmness (more damping) to accommodate its lower ones. Note that firmness of the lower lip should not be confused with overall embouchure “tightness.”
Understanding better the anatomical and acoustical aspects of the “chin” (and, of course, the skeletal and muscular systems that combine there) lead to clearer, more accurate teaching and better single reed playing.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.
If you’re going to be serious about playing the bassoon, reading tenor clef is a requirement.
If you’re unfamiliar with it, click through to Mike Spark’s website for a quick primer [update: link dead].
If you could use a little practice reading the notes, try eMusicTheory.com’s C-clef trainer. Click on “Settings…,” choose “Tenor clef,” and click “OK,” then click “Start Drill.”
Well, my dad was a jazzer and Zoot Sims died. And when Zoot Sims died, they had a benefit in San Francisco at Kimball’s or somewhere. …
So I take him and sit down … and then I get a tap on my shoulder. I turn around, and it’s Getz. It’s really amazing … he’s wearing his horn and taps me on the shoulder, and my dad turns around and Phil Elwood turns around. And my old man goes, “Holy s***!”
Getz says, “Why don’t you let me play on some of your s***? I can play that s*** too.” And I said, “Oh, why, yes sir, I’m sure you can.” And then he took a card and he wrote on it: “Stan Getz. Have sax, will travel.”
He played beautifully, and on the way home, my old man says, “If you don’t take him up on that offer, I will never, ever forgive you!”
Hi Bret, I could not agree more with you on this topic. As an Alexander Technique teacher (and saxophonist), this “micromanaging” tendency with the fingers often interferes with coordination. From a functional point of view, efficiency is not always found in “economy of movement” (i.e., limiting the movement of the fingers), so much as in “economy of effort” (allowing things to move in cooperation with our human design, with a mininum of misdirected effort/tension). Unfortunately, most of the woodwind players who have come to me for help with focal hand dystonia have spent a good deal of time in their practice trying to “hold the fingers close”. There are neurological reasons why this is counterproductive, and for some, potentially harmful. If you’re interested in the science of it, I recommend Gabriele Wulf’s (she’s a kinesiologist and researcher) groundbreaking book, “Attention and Motor Skill Learning”, where she explains (and supplies ample research data) why micromanaging fine motor skills is usually not the best approach. Thanks, as always for you thoughtful, very helpful posts.
As a former clarinet player, I remember that trying to keep the fingers too close to the keys (especially as a beginner in order to look more ‘professional’…) resulted in a possible quicker ‘winging’ of notes, but it resulted in a lack of precision and ‘impact timing’ especially when improvising.
However, having switched to an EWI 4000/5000 many years ago, I found something interesting: in the meantime I hardly lift my fingers more than a few mm, but have a very precise feel as for timing and accuracy, and at times can play at speeds unimaginable on the clarinet, like in Db or B over 3 or even 4 octaves (but still grooving/swinging!).
But: when playing more complex/multiple fingerings possible on the EWI, I still find my fingers lifting much higher and positioning themselves almost automatically into what feels like the ‘optimal’ height.
As the Romans used to say: Ne quid nimis (‘[do] nothing in excess’)…
If you’re going to be serious about playing the bassoon, reading tenor clef is a requirement.
Hi Bret, I could not agree more with you on this topic. As an Alexander Technique teacher (and saxophonist), this “micromanaging” tendency with the fingers often interferes with coordination. From a functional point of view, efficiency is not always found in “economy of movement” (i.e., limiting the movement of the fingers), so much as in “economy of effort” (allowing things to move in cooperation with our human design, with a mininum of misdirected effort/tension). Unfortunately, most of the woodwind players who have come to me for help with focal hand dystonia have spent a good deal of time in their practice trying to “hold the fingers close”. There are neurological reasons why this is counterproductive, and for some, potentially harmful. If you’re interested in the science of it, I recommend Gabriele Wulf’s (she’s a kinesiologist and researcher) groundbreaking book, “Attention and Motor Skill Learning”, where she explains (and supplies ample research data) why micromanaging fine motor skills is usually not the best approach. Thanks, as always for you thoughtful, very helpful posts.
As a former clarinet player, I remember that trying to keep the fingers too close to the keys (especially as a beginner in order to look more ‘professional’…) resulted in a possible quicker ‘winging’ of notes, but it resulted in a lack of precision and ‘impact timing’ especially when improvising.
However, having switched to an EWI 4000/5000 many years ago, I found something interesting: in the meantime I hardly lift my fingers more than a few mm, but have a very precise feel as for timing and accuracy, and at times can play at speeds unimaginable on the clarinet, like in Db or B over 3 or even 4 octaves (but still grooving/swinging!).
But: when playing more complex/multiple fingerings possible on the EWI, I still find my fingers lifting much higher and positioning themselves almost automatically into what feels like the ‘optimal’ height.
As the Romans used to say: Ne quid nimis (‘[do] nothing in excess’)…