My university saxophone students are anxious to tackle the altissimo register, and it’s not at all uncommon for them to show up to their first lessons clutching the Sigurd Raschèr Top-Tones for the Saxophone book and wearing a hopeful expression. I also see the Raschèr book frequently and glibly recommended on online forums. With the greatest respect for Raschèr, I think this is a mistake.
Don’t get me wrong: the Raschèr book is a classic and contains a great deal of wisdom. It is a must-have for the well-read saxophonist. But I think most saxophonists would do better to start with Eugene Rousseau’s Saxophone High Tones, and have the Raschèr on hand for supplementary exercises and instruction.
Get this one firstUse this one as a supplement
I’m going to make the following point first, not because I think it’s necessarily the most important, but because it’s the one that will click with those of you who are hoping to “learn altissimo” in an afternoon by looking at a fingering chart: Rousseau’s fingering charts are much better. They are better suited to “modern” (Mark VI and beyond) instruments and more complete (in the sense of providing many more options for each note, though Raschèr’s chart does go a little higher). Rousseau also provides separate fingering charts for soprano, alto, tenor, and baritone, while Raschèr provides only one chart, which he indicates in the first-edition foreword is intended for “E-flat saxophones”—altos, that is. (I do have a few issues with the visual layout of Rousseau’s charts, and Raschèr’s too, but that’s another rant.)
Rousseau also addresses the issue of selecting from among the provided fingerings for each note using his “mode” system to develop patterns of fingerings that are well-suited to certain sequences of notes. Raschèr’s approach is to provide one or two fingerings for each note, which by comparison is refreshingly simple. But most saxophonists who are prepared to successfully develop altissimo technique are comfortable with the idea of multiple fingerings for each note and will be able to use the additional possibilities to their advantage. And of course saxophonists are not required to use all of Rousseau’s fingerings—he walks saxophonists through the most useful ones, and the others are available for experimentation.
Perhaps more important than the fingering charts themselves are the pedagogical materials and exercises each author provides to help prepare saxophonists for success in the altissimo register. Both Raschèr and Rousseau stress the importance of proper altissimo tone production, developed largely using overtone exercises. Both are worth reading, but Rousseau’s approach is clearer and more focused. I don’t really recommend that young saxophonists attempt to teach themselves altissimo from a book—there’s no substitute for good in-person instruction—but Rousseau’s would be a much better choice for saxophonists taking that path. The Raschèr book leaves more gaps that really require a private teacher to fill in.
I can’t help but wonder if the Raschèr book has a bit of an edge sales-wise because of its lower price. The Raschèr is cheap, but the Rousseau is affordable—currently “only” about the cost of a box of reeds. Get the Rousseau first.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.
I’ve posted a few times previously about synthetic reeds, which I believe are the inevitable future of woodwind playing. Last June (2025) I published an article in The Clarinet surveying the clarinet reeds currently on the market.
Because The Clarinet doesn’t endorse specific products, I stuck to factual information about the reeds I sampled. Eight different makers sent samples, with the understanding that it wouldn’t be a “review” per se.
I personally found some of the reeds to be surprisingly playable, and others to be dismally bad. (To be fair, some other fine players tested them too, and their conclusions didn’t always match mine.) After the article was published, I reached out to a few of the makers to see if they would be amenable to me using the free samples they had sent for a genuine review here on my blog.
Luckily, the makers of my two favorites agreed to this, so here are some thoughts on those.
D’Addario Venn
D’Addario Woodwinds has sent me a number of products for review over the years, and I have been generally quite pleased with them; a number of their products are still my go-tos for clarinet and saxophone. But they are a relative newcomer to the synthetic reed market, and some first-generation samples I received a few years ago had (by a D’Addario rep’s admission) some quality concerns, so I wasn’t expecting to be wowed. But to my surprise and pleasure they turned out to be my favorites of the bunch (by a narrow margin).
For me, these were an easy transition from my cane reeds of choice (D’Addario Reserve and sometimes Reserve Evolution). A D’Addario representative tells me the Venn synthetics are not meant to be an exact reproduction of any of their cane reeds, but a new Venn-specific cut. Still, they were familiar enough in feel that I hardly noticed the difference, and came very, very close in sound.
In fact, after using the Venns exclusively in my studio for a few weeks, I felt confident enough to try them in an orchestral context. After playing part of a rehearsal on a Venn reed, I took advantage of a short break to switch back to a favorite cane reed for a quick comparison. To my dismay, another musician in the orchestra (a woodwind player but not a clarinetist) said, “now that’s a reed!”
The verdict: the Venn comes pretty close to replacing cane for me, and in terms of function (response, dynamic range, articulation, etc.) seems like an equal match. But tone, though quite good, doesn’t yet seem to fully measure up, at least not for me and my setup.
The Venn reeds look very much like real cane, in color and fibrous structure. In fact, they look so similar to cane reeds that I’ve had to be extra careful trying to keep them separate. I might welcome some distinctive marking to set them apart visually from cane.
The Venns are smoother and slicker than cane, which feels nice on my lip but does require a little extra care to make sure I get them properly aligned on the mouthpiece.
Légère French Cut
Légère reeds are what pop to mind for me, and I suspect a lot of others, when I think of synthetic reeds. They were the first really viable synthetics I tried, somewhere around 25 years ago, and I have always had some since. They have been a lifesaver especially for playing larger reeds in dry climates, or instruments I play less frequently, or for woodwind doubling situations. Their product line is mature and diverse, which is an advantage over D’Addario.
The French Cut is one of the newer models, and my favorite of the available offerings. Among the players who tested reeds with me, preferences were somewhat split between the French Cut and the also-newish European Cut.
I also spent a few weeks playing exclusively on the French Cut clarinet reed, and found it very pleasant and easy to play. Like the Venn, it checks all my boxes for function. I do find that with my setup the French Cut has a little different tone compared to Venn and my favorite cane reeds, but only a little, and not in an unpleasant way.
I did use the French Cut for performance in a musical theater setting, where I was playing only a small amount of clarinet and could get away with tone a little different from my usual. As expected for a synthetic reed, this was great for switching instruments without worrying about reeds drying out. (I used Légère bass clarinet and saxophone reeds on the same gig.)
For me, they run a very close second to the Venns in terms of function and tone, but it’s a narrow enough margin to probably chalk up to personal preference or the quirks of my mouthpiece.
Visually, they won’t be mistaken for cane—they are made in Légère’s characteristic clear synthetic material. I don’t mind the look, but if I’m careless about where I set one, it can be hard to spot from across the room. Their slightly textured surface gives them more of the grippy-ness of cane, which feels familiar on my lip and doesn’t require any special effort to place on the mouthpiece.
Both
The Venn and Légère synthetics, of course, both share the positive qualities of synthetic materials: longevity, consistency, and impervious-ness to climate. Both are instantly ready to play with no soaking. At the time of this writing, they seem to be selling for almost exactly the same price per reed, which is to say about the cost of a box of 10 cane reeds.
Both brands also make saxophone reeds, which I’ve dabbled with but haven’t had as much opportunity to test thoroughly.
Have I switched?
As I concluded in the article in The Clarinet, I do think that there are some quite viable options for switching fully to synthetic reeds for professional playing, and these two products are certainly among them. Some world-class players have already made the switch to using synthetics exclusively.
I personally haven’t. While I still believe synthetics are the future, I find myself in a transitional phase. I’ll keep both the Venns and the Légères on hand, and will likely continue to use both at least sporadically. But I’m not fully ready to give up my cane reeds yet.
I suspect both companies are continuing to refine and develop their product lines, and if their next rounds of offerings are even small improvements on the current products, that may be enough for me to switch over completely.
Or, if I decided the hassles of cane were too much, I might be able to switch to current synthetic products and adapt my playing to them. I live in a humid climate where I find cane reeds relatively easy to care for, but if I found myself performing in a drier atmosphere or higher altitude that might be enough to convince me to change. Even if I needed to change mouthpieces to get the best out of the synthetic reeds, it might well be worth it.
Should you switch?
I think it’s important to remember that someone else’s experiences with a product, including mine, are personal and based on a variety of factors, including what other equipment they use, the finer points of their playing technique, and many other musical and practical factors. The only good way to know if synthetics are right for you is to try them.
That’s also why I’m not including audio samples here. You will get much more useful information by trying them yourself. (And my experience in the orchestra rehearsal was a good reminder to me that it’s worth getting an unbiased opinion from someone with good ears.)
In any case, the high-quality synthetic reeds currently on the market are an exciting and promising development, and I look forward to what’s next.
I get lots of emails and search traffic from people trying to find the answer to questions about woodwinds and “similar” fingerings: Do they use the same or similar fingerings? Which instruments are the most similar? Can I use fingerings from _____ instrument on _____ instrument?
I’ve addressed before why these questions might be coming from misconceptions about woodwind doubling, and why the answers might not be as useful as one might think. But beyond that, some of those questions are difficult to answer in a straightforward way.
Do any of the major modern Western woodwind instrument families use identical fingerings (such as saxophones using the same fingerings as oboes, or clarinets using the same fingerings as bassoons)? No.
Do instruments within those families use identical fingerings? Kind of. For example, the members of the concert flute family (piccolo, flute, alto and bass flutes, and others), use fingerings that are at least very similar. But some use slightly-varied fingerings to improve pitch, tone, or response of certain notes: for example, piccolo players often use a modified fingering for the third-octave A-flat, which they wouldn’t use on a lower-pitched flute. And the keys that appear on flutes aren’t set in stone—some might have a special C-sharp trill key, or a low B key, that other flutes lack. And clever flute makers can add anything else they dream up that customers will pay for.
Do any of the woodwind families have similar enough fingerings that you can play them without significant additional effort to learn how? No, not if you want to play them well.
But really, which ones are the most similar? It’s not as simple as counting up the number of “matching” fingerings between two instruments. You could argue that the written note D below the treble clef staff is “similar” for flute, oboe, and saxophone. D uses the three middle fingers of each hand on each of these instruments. But the flute also requires pressing a left-hand thumb key, while the others don’t. And the oboe has more than one key for the right ring finger, and I suppose it’s up to you whether the correct one for this note feels the “same” to you as the other two instruments. On clarinet, this written note uses a very different fingering, but the note written an octave higher has similarities to the flute/oboe/saxophone note. And the bassoon doesn’t have a D fingered in a closely similar way, but its low G uses a similar fingering that falls into roughly analogous scale fingering patterns.
(While brainstorming this post, I briefly considered trying to create some kind of chart showing which fingerings were the “same” or “similar” across the woodwind families. I quickly abandoned the idea because the necessary exceptions, explanations, and context would have complicated it beyond any usefulness.)
Like asking if two languages are similar, asking if two instruments’ fingerings are similar begs an answer that is incomplete, misleading, and ultimately not useful. If your intention is to apply that answer to playing or teaching woodwind instruments, your success will depend on instead approaching each instrument on its own terms.
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.
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 the recordings I’m requiring my university students to add to their collections this semester (depending on which instrument they play). All are available on CD or for download from Amazon or iTunes.
I recall as a beginning flutist (coming from background in saxophone) finding the third-octave fingerings to be a confusing, illogical jumble, but they do actually make some sense. There is an incorrect explanation for these fingerings that I hear every so often, and have seen published on a couple of flute-related blogs recently. It goes something like this: the flute’s third-octave fingerings are some kind of combination of two different first/second-octave fingerings. For example:
+
=
?
Or…
+
=
?
If I squint my eyes just right I can sort of see how this almost makes sense fingerings-wise and overtones-wise, but ultimately this system is unnecessarily confusing and also doesn’t reflect acoustical realities.
Here’s a better way to look at third-octave flute fingerings: they are the same as the first/second octave fingerings, with a vent opened. This is very similar to how upper registers are achieved on the reed instruments: by adding an octave or register key or releasing a whisper key to open a vent. Since the flute doesn’t have dedicated vent holes, toneholes are used.
For some of the third octave notes, additional keys must be added or subtracted to improve pitch, tone, or response; again this is analogous to the systems used for the reed instruments. But here are the simplest examples of opening single vents for the third octave:
→
open vent
→
→
open vent
→
→
open vent
→
→
open vent
→
It is probably worth pointing out that having any “system” for remembering fingerings is just a crutch; for a performing musician, the only practical “system” is to thoroughly habituate them to the point that no conscious thought is required. Practice carefully and be on the alert for dubious pedagogy.
I too am in favor of Rousseau’s book. Although I believe Rascher’s book to be very helpful (I really love his discussion of Tone Imagination), I very much like High Tone’s fingering chart, the modes you described, and how sequential the development of technical facility is. Donald Sinta’s Voicing book is my personal favorite, as the book goes over a lot of the physiological phenomena necessary to develop a consistent altissimo register. Mastering the “Front F Trick” was my breakthrough
I have used both of these and prefer Rousseau. My real break through book was the Rosemary Lang Book. Lots of simple melodies that make it more relevant to add into a real playing scenario and also easier to hear intonation and sound quality in relationship to the other notes.
I haven’t worked out of the Rousseau personally, but I have attempted to work from the Top Tones book with little to no success leading to great frustration. The book that actually helped me the most was Beginning Studies in the Altissimo Register by Rosemary Lang ( http://www.amazon.com/Saxophone-Beginning-studies-altissimo-register/dp/B00072ZF9C ). It uses melodic studies of common songs all students should know easing into the higher range. Since it is no longer in print, I actually don’t recall how I obtained a copy. This book has been the most helpful for me and I’d be interested to know your opinion of it as well.
I like the Lang, if you can find it, for supplementary exercises; it has virtually no explanatory material. Mostly the Lang seems like material from a beginning method (“Hot Cross Buns,” etc.), transposed up a couple of octaves.
I’m a big fan of Sinta’s “Voicing” book. It’s done wonders for my playing. I originally learned from the Rousseau book. Sinta’s book is so simple and thorough, much like Trevor Wye’s tone book for flute.
Hard to say for sure how well those Rascher fingerings would work for you—you would have to give them a try. In any case, I think you will find the Rousseau book to be more complete and methodical.
Any opinion on Robert A. Luckey’s Saxophone Altissimo? It is what taught me the basics. My choice was basically pre-structured by what I could find in the sheet-music store well before the Holy Internet was invented. It provides quite a variety of fingerings. It doesn’t provide an elaborate bibliography, but the foreword states that methods by Raschèr and Nash are not quite suitable for present-day instruments. Anyway, as I am brushing up old skills, I think I should simply buy both Raschèr and Rousseau. One never has too many books.
I too am in favor of Rousseau’s book. Although I believe Rascher’s book to be very helpful (I really love his discussion of Tone Imagination), I very much like High Tone’s fingering chart, the modes you described, and how sequential the development of technical facility is. Donald Sinta’s Voicing book is my personal favorite, as the book goes over a lot of the physiological phenomena necessary to develop a consistent altissimo register. Mastering the “Front F Trick” was my breakthrough
I have used both of these and prefer Rousseau. My real break through book was the Rosemary Lang Book. Lots of simple melodies that make it more relevant to add into a real playing scenario and also easier to hear intonation and sound quality in relationship to the other notes.
Totally agree, Bret. I just wish that their prospective price tags were switched ;-)
I haven’t worked out of the Rousseau personally, but I have attempted to work from the Top Tones book with little to no success leading to great frustration. The book that actually helped me the most was Beginning Studies in the Altissimo Register by Rosemary Lang ( http://www.amazon.com/Saxophone-Beginning-studies-altissimo-register/dp/B00072ZF9C ). It uses melodic studies of common songs all students should know easing into the higher range. Since it is no longer in print, I actually don’t recall how I obtained a copy. This book has been the most helpful for me and I’d be interested to know your opinion of it as well.
I like the Lang, if you can find it, for supplementary exercises; it has virtually no explanatory material. Mostly the Lang seems like material from a beginning method (“Hot Cross Buns,” etc.), transposed up a couple of octaves.
A second edition of Lang’s book was published a couple of years ago:
http://www.hickeys.com/products/078/sku78455.htm
It’s available at other places too.
I’m a big fan of Sinta’s “Voicing” book. It’s done wonders for my playing. I originally learned from the Rousseau book. Sinta’s book is so simple and thorough, much like Trevor Wye’s tone book for flute.
So, if I have one of those old saxes (I do, 1936), would you recommend the Rascher over the Rousseau?
Hard to say for sure how well those Rascher fingerings would work for you—you would have to give them a try. In any case, I think you will find the Rousseau book to be more complete and methodical.
Any opinion on Robert A. Luckey’s Saxophone Altissimo? It is what taught me the basics. My choice was basically pre-structured by what I could find in the sheet-music store well before the Holy Internet was invented. It provides quite a variety of fingerings. It doesn’t provide an elaborate bibliography, but the foreword states that methods by Raschèr and Nash are not quite suitable for present-day instruments. Anyway, as I am brushing up old skills, I think I should simply buy both Raschèr and Rousseau. One never has too many books.
I 100% agree with you on this post. I hadn’t looked at the Rascher book until recently, Rousseau took care of me in our BYU days. I love both books.