Sam Newsome asks the question, “Can You Double And Still Be A Great Soprano Saxophonist?”
As I see it, if you play the soprano using a set-up that’s comparable to a much larger horn, you’re not dealing with the soprano on it’s own terms. It’s being treated as an extension of a much larger horn, and not as a separate entity.
As I’ve discussed here previously, when trying to solve woodwind-playing problems there’s a useful distinction between problem-specific solutions and simply shoring up fundamental technique.
Here are some examples of problem-specific solutions:
Notice that all of these suggestions give you a sort of localized task to perform—make some change to your tone-production technique whenever you play a certain note. This is an exhausting way to play: trying to remember and execute a handful of directives for each note that goes by; discovering that a constantly-changing tone-production technique makes tone, pitch, and response unstable; adding another layer of fixes to try to counteract the instability. It can quickly become too much to process, and higher-order things like musical expression get sacrificed.
Sometimes these localized fixes are necessary, usually as a workaround to some flaw or compromise in the equipment’s design or manufacture. But much more often the “fix” should be an improvement to fundamental technique:
My guess is that by making these fixes part of your fundamental technique, instead of applying them here and there like bandages, you would discover:
Examine your problem-specific fixes carefully, and try making them your default approaches rather than special-occasion ones.
When dealing with problem spots in your music, it’s okay to remind yourself of relevant and helpful fundamental techniques, but the ultimate goal should be to remove as much as possible of the mental overhead and physical gymnastics from your playing. Develop good basic technique that lets the instrument more or less play itself, so you can focus on the creative aspects.
We’re close to the end of the results from the Great Woodwind Doubler Census of 2011. I’m particularly excited to share your answers from one of the final questions:
Your answers covered a lot of ground, but a few main themes showed up in many of your responses:
A little explanation:
Here’s the full list of woodwind doubling tips. If you missed out on the survey, you’re welcome to add your own tips in the comments section.
Read More “Woodwind Doubler Census results, part 7: doubling tips”
Another question that I am frequently asked as a woodwind doubler is, “Which instrument is your favorite?”
My answer to this is simple.
If it’s a good day, then my favorite is the one I’m playing.
If it’s a bad day, then my favorite is any one but the one I’m playing.
Great video of Eddie Daniels talking about doubling—er, not doubling.
From Bruce Haynes’s The Eloquent Oboe: A History of the Hautboy
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a wind player was an hautboist who might by circumstance be led into a concentration on some other type of instrument. The modern idea of a musician who would limit himself to one instrument, and become a virtuoso on it, took hold at the Dresden court at about the beginning of the eighteenth century, perhaps as a result of the numerous Italian musicians who worked there, and who tended to specialize. But it remained unusual in Germany for some time.
More insight from the footnotes:
Based on archival evidence, Oleskiewicz (1998: 49) believes woodwind doubling ‘completely disappeared sometime between 1717 and 1719.’
And:
There is evidence that hautboy players in bands in the early 18th c. could not necessarily switch to bassoon.
Visit a music store or an instrument maker’s website and you will frequently see band instruments sorted into categories like “student,” “intermediate/step-up,” and “professional.” It’s important to understand that these distinctions are not bound to any specific criteria, and not policed by any governing body. The labels have a lot to do with target market, and not much to do with the instruments’ actual playing characteristics.
For example, I often have prospective college music majors proudly show me their “professional” clarinets, a specific model that a local retailer labels as such even though very few professional players would find the instrument to their liking. These students will, in most cases, have to purchase another, more expensive instrument to meet the demands of college-level playing.
On the other hand, some of my college students have instruments that are positioned by the maker as lesser than the maker’s more premium line, but which are popular and well-regarded among professional musicians.
“Student” instruments are rarely better for students, mostly just less expensive—made more cheaply or with fewer features. In most cases, if money were no object, I think it would be an advantage for a beginner to start on a high-quality (“professional”) instrument. Sometimes “student” instruments are designed to be more comfortable for smaller players, which of course doesn’t necessarily correspond to quality requirements.
Labeling instruments as “intermediate” or “step-up” is another exercise in creative writing. In my experience, these are rarely worth it—they tend to cost nearly as much as “professional” instruments but play only slightly better than “student” ones.
There are a very few other designations that have specific meanings. For example, the term “full conservatory” for oboes is widely accepted as meaning the instrument has certain required keys and mechanisms on it. However, an oboe maker or retailer can label any oboe as “full conservatory” without any formal consequence. (My nearest retailer does this exact thing.) Many makers sell “modified conservatory” oboes, which has no specific meaning—it’s just aimed at people who can’t afford “full conservatory” but like to believe they have gotten some version thereof.
If you are a student (including a college student) or are purchasing an instrument for one, you should ideally do so with significant input from your teacher. And if you are a professional, you should prioritize carefully which features and qualities are most important, regardless of labels.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
It all depends on your goals/opportunities. If you want to be among the top 5 in the world on any 1 of the saxes or clarinets or flutes, then you had better make that your #1 instrument ALMOST to the exclusion of any other.
In orchestras, you see piccolo specialists, bass clarinet specialists, english horn specialists. You do not see the principals doubling.
Coltrane was a tenor player. Oh sure, he played/recorded some soprano but it never came close to his tenor playing. Sonny Rollins plays tenor ALMOST exclusively.
Then there are those of us who enjoy the multi-woodwind experience and are “good enough” on all of them to get theatre and other gigs. Having said that there have been times that I have almost sold all of them except for 1 (and if I did that it would be my tenor) and focus strictly on it. But then I remember the opportunities I have had and that I would have missed and then it’s back to trying to find some practice time balance between 3 saxes, clarinet, flute and piccolo.
Thanks, Bret, for including links like this.
Great points. Doubling is a good path for some players, but it isn’t for everybody. There are very talented people who choose doubling, and very talented people that don’t.