The modern saxophonist: The changing career climate of the concert saxophone artist

The neglected saxophone

Despite the saxophone’s widespread acceptance in jazz and popular music styles, its acknowledgment as a viable solo instrument in classical music has been slow. Few composers have included it in orchestral scores. Only in recent years have conservatories and university music departments begun to recognize the saxophone on a somewhat equal footing with, say, the flute, the piano, or the violin.

Perhaps this neglect was a lingering byproduct of the instrument’s chronology. After all, by the time of its invention by Adolphe Sax in the 1840’s, the instrumentation of the modern orchestra was already becoming somewhat standardized. Maybe the inattention had something to do with the saxophone’s longstanding reputation as a “jazzy horn” and association with burlesque1. Or maybe the upsurge in amateur interest since the 1920’s had spawned too many inferior saxophonists for anyone to take the instrument seriously2.

Whatever the reasons for the saxophone’s neglect in the realm of concert music and music education, it is experiencing a remarkable upturn. An increasing number of prominent composers are writing works for saxophone as soloist or orchestra member, as well as for saxophone quartets or mixed chamber groups3. The hiring of saxophone instructors by colleges has also increased dramatically during the last few decades4.

But what effect will these changes have on the 21st-century classical saxophonist and his or her career?

Solo repertoire

The saxophone, invented in the 1840’s, had a distinct disadvantage in terms of repertoire. Its chronology doomed it never to be written for by Monteverdi or Handel or Bach, nor by Mozart, Haydn, or Beethoven. This disadvantage continues to affect concert saxophone soloists, though composers’ increased interest in the saxophone has been a major factor in the saxophone’s growth in recent decades.

The rise of three virtuoso saxophone soloists—Frenchman Marcel Mule, German Sigurd Rascher, and American Cecil Leeson—led to exciting developments in saxophone repertoire by the 1940’s. Each inspired a number of new solo works by major twentieth-century composers. Henri Tomasi, Alfred Desenclos, Eugene Bozza, Pierre Dubois, Heitor Villa-Lobos, and a multitude of others wrote solo works for Mule. Alexander Glazunov and Jacques Ibert wrote for Rascher, and Paul Creston, Leon Stein, and Burnet Tuthill dedicated works to Cecil Leeson. All of these works have become part of the standard saxophone repertoire and are studied and performed extensively by saxophonists today.

But in a 1982 interview, Mule pointed out that the saxophone’s repertoire might continue to face challenges:

I would say that the one most evident element of discouragement was that composers of the time [the 1940’s] did not write enough for the saxophone. I believe that they really thought there were not enough good saxophonists available. What a pity!

Today there are many excellent saxophonists, but composers are not writing interesting music5.

If the repertoire lacks exciting new works, interest in the saxophone will die out. Saxophonists depend on great composers to breathe new life into concert programs.

The saxophone in orchestras

Due to the saxophone’s late addition to orchestras, none of the works of the great classical composers included saxophone parts. The composer Hector Berlioz, a champion of the saxophone and a friend of Adolphe Sax, was a likely candidate to include the saxophone family in a symphony or two. Unfortunately this never came to fruition.

Other composers of the time took interest in the saxophone, but lack of available saxophone education in the instrument’s early years made it difficult for orchestras to find skilled saxophonists. As a result, few saxophone parts were written. When they were written, they were most often doubled with other instruments, perhaps so they would not be missed as much if unavailable. Richard Strauss marked the saxophone parts “ad libitum”6 in his Sinfonia Domestica (1903) due to lack of satisfactory saxophonists to perform the parts7.

Gradually the saxophone began to make symphonic appearances, most often as a cameo soloist in programmatic works. The early 1870’s produced two examples of orchestral saxophone scoring by major composers: Bizet’s L’Arlisienne Suites (nos. 1 and 2, 1872) and Mussorgsky’s Pictures at an Exhibition (1874). The 1920’s and ’30’s brought another short burst of orchestral saxophone parts, including Milhaud’s La Creation du Monde (1923), Ravel’s Bolero (1928), Gershwin’s An American in Paris (1928), and Prokofiev’s Lt. Kije Suite (1934)8.

Though most major orchestras still have yet to hire and regularly utilize saxophone sections, more opportunities for orchestral saxophone playing are becoming available. By 1983, an estimated 2,000 operas, ballets, and symphonies used saxophone parts (the vast majority written after 1900)9. During its 1999-2000 season, the New York Philharmonic performed a surprising 15 works using saxophones, including two new commissioned works. Phillip Glass’s Concerto for Saxophone Quartet and Orchestra (1995) put a full saxophone section in the spotlight and was one of the most-performed orchestral pieces of the 1990’s10.

The increasing popularity of orchestral works using the saxophone is good news for saxophonists, but saxophone chairs in symphony orchestras are still scarce compared to other woodwind instruments. One positive side effect of this scarcity is that competition for orchestra positions has raised the standards of orchestral saxophone playing to very high levels—which may prove to be a benefit as conductors and composers take note of the saxophone’s elite.

Education

The increasing acceptance of the saxophone in concert halls and conservatories has dramatically changed the face of saxophone education. The availability and quality of saxophone-specific musical training is of concern to the aspiring saxophonist, and demand for teachers impacts the career climate of the saxophone studio graduate. If more students seek qualified teachers, more teaching jobs are available. But if more students are taught, competition for jobs increases.

Examining past trends in saxophone education may be the best way to predict its future. The first formal saxophone instruction was by Adolphe Sax, inventor of the instrument and its first virtuoso performer. He organized the first saxophone class at the Paris Conservatory in 185711. Thirteen years later, Sax’s position was terminated after the Franco-Prussian War led to budget cuts at the school. Saxophone instruction would not be reinstated at the Conservatory until 1942, when Marcel Mule was hired as professor of saxophone12. In the interim, little formal education was available to prospective saxophonists. Most of the early prominent saxophonists were self-taught.

Mule’s father, a musical hobbyist, introduced him to the saxophone13. Mule later joined the French Garde Républicaine military band, receiving on-the-job training from the band’s saxophone section. His reputation began to grow, and he was eventually awarded Adolphe Sax’s long-empty position at the Paris Conservatory14. His tenure there began a new era of saxophone teaching. During his career, a staggering eighty-seven of his students won first-place prizes as soloists. He retired from the Conservatory in 196815.

Sigurd Rascher was also largely self-taught as a saxophonist, though he studied clarinet at the Academy of Music in Stuttgart16. Ridiculed by a flutist colleague for choosing an instrument with such a limited pitch range, Rascher used clarinet playing techniques to virtually double the instrument’s range-completely unaware that Adolphe Sax had taught the same method nearly a century earlier17.

Saxophone instruction in the United States was first offered in New York City in 1882, and spread slowly-the first West Coast school to offer saxophone classes was the University of Oregon in 191418. By 1940, only seven American universities had at any time taught saxophone19.

In the early 1920’s, Cecil Leeson sought out formal saxophone study at Dana’s Musical Institute of Warren, Ohio, the only school he could find that offered saxophone coursework leading to a degree20. His only previous saxophone study had been of sheet music and recordings by popular saxophonist Rudy Wiedoft21. Before his graduation in 1925, Leeson was assisting in teaching. He established a saxophone studio at Northwestern University in 1955, and one at Ball State University in 196122.

The high standards of saxophone playing and teaching set by Mule, Rascher, and Leeson, as well as increasing demand from students, made college music departments take notice. Membership in the College Music Society in 1967 included 88 saxophone teachers, which increased to 511 by 198623.

The proliferation of college saxophone studios has given thousands of aspiring saxophonists opportunities to study the saxophone at an advanced level. Unfortunately, the number of performing opportunities for classically-trained saxophonists, though increasing, does not provide enough jobs for the graduates. Thus far, the economic salvation of the classical saxophonist has been the instrument’s popularity in colleges, where the saxophone professor has become something of a self-perpetuating species.

Versatility

Saxophonists must have more and more diverse skills to survive. To be competitive in the professional saxophonist’s job market, a saxophonist must be skilled at playing any member of the saxophone family—soprano, alto, tenor, baritone, and sometimes bass. He or she may be called upon to play multiple saxophones during a performance, or even to “double” on other woodwinds. Jazz saxophonists are expected to play flute and clarinet parts in big band charts, and the expectation has spread to orchestras and recording studios.

Since the early days of the saxophone in orchestras, many composers wishing to use the saxophone have written it into other musicians’ parts. The attitude that the saxophone is a secondary instrument, played as an afterthought by performers of other woodwinds, is evident in at least one publication as late as 1978. A book of compiled orchestral saxophone excerpts mentions in its forward, “These excerpts are especially helpful to those seeking orchestral clarinet where the ability to play the saxophone is another asset.”24 George Kleinsinger’s Plymouth Rock (1949) assigns tenor saxophone duties to the oboist. John Cage’s Concert for Piano and Orchestra (1958) combines the bassoon part with baritone saxophone passages25. Saxophonists must be highly skilled doublers to be eligible for these parts.

A saxophonist must be skilled at playing in a wide range of styles. Chip Williams points out that orchestral saxophone parts range from Alban Berg’s atonal opera Lulu (1937) to Gershwin’s jazz-influenced An American in Paris26.

The saxophonist who can play a battery of instruments in an assortment of styles has a better chance of making a living by performing. The tendency of saxophonists to develop this versatility has advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that saxophonists may be more likely than other woodwind artists to get studio recording jobs, which are notorious for demanding wide adaptability. On the other hand, a saxophonist may find him- or herself being spread too thin, trying to maintain virtuosic levels in too many areas.

The future of the classical saxophonist

Though the saxophone is gaining ground in classical music, the modern concert saxophonist still faces many hurdles. The majority of works programmed by major orchestras still predate the saxophone. The saxophone quartet seems to attract little attention outside saxophone conventions and college music departments. Would-be solo performers have to compete with flutists, pianists, and violinists and their expansive repertoire libraries.

The demands placed upon saxophonists are also continuing to grow. Saxophonists must achieve high standards on their own instrument plus several others to qualify for recording sessions and commercial orchestras. They must be fluent in a wide variety of classical styles, not to mention jazz, rock and roll, and others. The dearth of steady performing jobs also requires saxophonists to become expert teachers in order to make a living.

The now-widely-available college-level study in saxophone performance will be important in the saxophone’s progress. As excellent classical saxophonists become easier to find, demand will increase. Composers will use the saxophone more often in their work and orchestras will hire saxophonists as soloists and ensemble members.

The saxophonist will find his or her niche in modern concert music.

Notes

1. Paul Lindemeyer, Celebrating the Saxophone (New York: Hearst Books, 1996), 15.

2. Ibid., 45.

3. Claude Delangle and Jean-Denis Michat, “In Praise of Saxophonists,” trans. Peter Nichols, in The Cambridge Companion to the Saxophone, ed. Richard Ingham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 161-171 passim.

4. Reported by Joseph Murphy, “Saxophone Instruction in American Music Schools after 1940,” NACWPI Journal (National Association of College Wind and Percussion Instructors) 46, no. 1 (fall 1997): 8.

5. Eugene Rousseau, Marcel Mule: his Life and the Saxophone (Shell Lake, Wisconsin: Etoile, 1982), 78-79.

6. Latin “As one wishes.” In this context, the phrase indicates that the parts may be omitted if desired.

7. Chip Williams, “Orchestral Saxophonist,” The Instrumentalist (April 1978): 129.

8. Chris Vadala, “Tips on Doubling: Saxophone Vs. Orchestra & Other Doubling Bits & Pieces,” Saxophone Journal 243 (Jan.-Feb. 2000): 7-9.

9. Stephen Trier, “The Saxophone in the Orchestra,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Saxophone, ed. Richard Ingham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 101.

10. Paul Cohen, “The Saxophone Redefined: Henry Brant-Composing for the Saxophone,” Saxophone Journal 244 (Mar.-Apr. 2000): 16-21.

11. Thomas Liley, “Invention and Development,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Saxophone, ed. Richard Ingham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 8.

12. Ibid., 9.

13. Dryer-Beers, 43.

14. Ibid., 44.

15. Rousseau, 30.

16. “Sigurd Rascher.”

17. Leland A. Lillehaug, “A Tribute to Sigurd Rascher,” Instrumentalist 51, no. 10 (May 1997): 56.

18. Joseph Murphy, “Saxophone Instruction in American Music Schools after 1940,” NACWPI Journal 45, no. 1 (fall 1996): 8.

19. Ibid., 7.

20. Gee, 121.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. Murphy, 8.

24. Bruce Ronkin and Robert Frascotti, The Orchestral Saxophonist (Cherry Hill, New Jersey: Roncorp, 1978). Quoted by Steven Mauk in “Instrumental Solo and Ensemble Music for Saxophone: ‘Orchestral Saxophonist,'” Notes (September 1983), 162.

25. Williams, 129.

26. Ibid.

Similar Posts

  • Bassoon jaw movement: survey of published opinions

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

    I mentioned in a previous post that I wanted to examine a “controversial” aspect of bassoon playing: the movement of the jaw during articulation.

    I was already aware of Terry Ewell’s well-reasoned article from The Double Reed journal, which concludes that jaw movement is unnecessary and inefficient. But I was also under the impression that there were advocates of jaw movement. A skimming of some pedagogical materials at hand seems to debunk this—I couldn’t find a single author strongly and clearly in favor of jaw movement.

    The Ewell article should be the go-to for anyone interested in the topic. In a different article, Ewell summarizes:

    Chewing motions with the jaw should not be used during the tonguing because the tongue should function independently of the jaw.

    Terry Ewell: “Basic Bassoon Articulations,” in Woodwind Anthology, Volume II, 1999 edition. Northfield, Illinois: The Instrumentalist, 1999, p. 951. Article originally printed in The Instrumentalist

    Here are the other anti-jaw-movement examples I could find:

    One of the worst possible habits is to tongue in a “chewing” fashion. The movement of the jaw and lips not only distorts the tone each time they move, but actually slows down the action of the tongue.

    William Spencer, rev. Frederick A Mueller: The Art of Bassoon Playing. Princeton, New Jersey: Summy-Birchard Music, 1958, p. 54.

    In staccato passages, the collapse of pressure can produce a ‘gobbling’ reaction in the jaw. As a result the quality of tone and attack may suffer. … As we tongue more rapidly, we must try to involve only the tongue and not allow the jaw and throat to become involved… The momentary opening and closing of our lower jaw may be in response to the change of pressure inside the mouth once the support is switched off; however it is more likely to betray and involuntary ‘gobbling’ with the jaw in sympathy with the activity of the tongue.

    William Waterhouse, Bassoon. Yehudi Menuhin Music Guides. London: Kahn & Averill, 2003, p. 116-123.

    Needless to say, there should be minimum outward movement of the lip or jaw, as this will hinder the tongue’s freedom of motion.

    Homer Pence, Teacher’s Guide to the Bassoon. Elkhart, Indiana: H. & A. Selmer, Inc., 1963, p. 2-3.

    The following refers to the woodwinds in general:

    Jaw should not move during articulation

    H. Gene Griswold: Teaching Woodwinds. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008, p. 31.

    Movement of the jaw in tonguing. This is the result of too large or too violent movement of the tongue, frequently accompanied by changes in pitch of the tone. … Jaw movements can occur with all methods of correct tongue placement, as well as with incorrect tongue placement, and these prevent the development of speed in articulation.

    Frederick W. Westphal, Guide to Teaching Woodwinds, Fifth Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill, 1990, p. 227.

    This may include the jaw:

    The goal on all wind instruments, and particularly the bassoon, is to maintain an open mouth and throat position while playing. The bassoon tone is very sensitive to this positioning.

    William Dietz: Teaching Woodwinds: A method and resource handbook for music educators. Belmont, California: Schirmer, 1998, p. 14.

    Here is the closest I could find to advocacy for jaw movement, though it’s not 100% clear that that is what the author intends:

    On both double reeds, embouchure pressure on the reed will vary to control the ends of notes. Increasing pressure on the reed will keep the pitch from dropping. For this reason, you will see embouchure movement while articulating, which will be more pronounced with bassoonists…

    Charles West: Woodwind Methods: An essential resource for educators, conductors, and students. Delray Beach, Florida: Meredith Music, 2015, p. 68.

    I also turned to Christopher Weait’s Bassoon Strategies for the Next Level and Arthur Weisberg’s The Art of Wind Playing, both of which seemed like likely sources on information, but could not locate passages in either that directly addressed the issue.

    In summary, there seems to be little support for the idea of jaw movement in bassoon articulation. If you are aware of sources that encourage this technique, I would be curious to hear about them.

  • Homemade EWI stand

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

    There are a few stands commercially available for the Akai EWI, and lots of folks have made their own or repurposed other items. I wanted one that was inexpensive and compatible with the Hercules stands I mostly use these days, and decided to try the DIY route. I came up with something workable but not perfect, so I’m sharing my finished project in case anyone is inspired to improve upon my design (please share!).

    I built mine mostly from 3″ (~7.5cm) plumbing pipe and fittings. (I’m including some product links in case they are helpful, but mostly I was able to buy these things locally for much cheaper.)

    I bought a 2′ (~.6m) length of pipe, but only ended up needing half of it.
    Cut mostly with a hacksaw, and refined a little with some files and sandpaper. Good enough.
    3″ end cap, with a hole drilled to fit the bolt. The bolt is 3/8-16 (imperial), which fits the peg sockets in my Hercules stands.
    Disk cut from EPS foam (“styrofoam”) and hot-glued into place. This is where the end of the EWI will rest. (The pipe piece is shown here inserted into the 22.5° elbow.) I picked foam because it is lightweight and easy to cut to shape.
    Bolt secured with 5-minute epoxy.
    This nut will help lock the stand in place on the Hercules base, sort of.
    I didn’t bother gluing the parts together, since they fit pretty tightly anyway and I’m considering this a prototype. Some paint…
    …and some craft foam, secured with spray adhesive.
    Works ok.

    It’s more stable than it looks, even on this small Hercules base, because its center of gravity is so low. The end cap and elbow are heavier PVC while the taller part is made of lighter foam core pipe. As always, don’t leave instruments on stands any farther than you can sprint to catch them falling over.

    Things I like about the stand:

    • It was cheap and not hard to make. The worst of it was cutting and shaping the foam core pipe, and someone with cooler tools than I have could probably make quick and accurate work of it.
    • Does work with the Hercules stands I already have. If you can figure out what bolt thread to use, you could easily adapt this to other commercial stand bases.
    • The instrument just rests in the stand, no clips or straps to unhook. Plus the whole upper key “stack” is exposed 360°, so the EWI is easy to grab even during a quick instrument switch.
    • No interference with any of the power/line/MIDI jacks.

    Things that I don’t especially like:

    • On the 3-peg Hercules base shown, the stand has to be oriented as shown to stand up properly, which puts the EWI a little bit in the way of using other pegs on the stand. It works better on one of the larger Hercules stands, like the saxophone or bass clarinet stands.
    • Since the stand isn’t symmetrical like a typical flute/clarinet peg (because it leans 22.5°), it doesn’t always work to just screw it all the way into the base—it may end up leaning in an inconvenient or unstable direction. The nut helps lock it in place when it’s leaning the right way, but it’s fussy and not as secure as I would like (the stand tends to rotate a little if I bump it wrong).
    • It’s pretty chunky. I made a previous attempt to build this from 2″ pipe, which would work okay except that the EWI’s side keys protrude too much. (I did consider sticking with the 2″ pipe and making little cutaways for the keys, which could still be a possibility.)
    • The plastic-specific spray paint I used didn’t turn out well. I had trouble getting an attractive finish, and the paint tends to scratch off without too much effort. I’m not sure if the paint just isn’t well suited to these specific plastics, or if maybe it’s because I applied it in the extreme humidity of a Mississippi summer.

    Anyway, this is a usable though imperfect design, and may be a jumping-off point for future versions by me or you.

  • |

    Not good

    I like to use a Socratic-ish method in my private lessons, and ask my students questions. It means that I have this conversation several times per day:

    [Student plays.]

    Me: How did that sound to you?

    Student: Not good.

    Me: What didn’t you like about it?

    Student: It didn’t sound good.

    Me: What aspect of it didn’t sound good to you? The tone? the pitch? the phrasing? the articulation?

    Student: Um, I guess the articulation?

    Me: What didn’t you like about the articulation?

    Student: It wasn’t good?

    It’s an ongoing battle to get my students to listen more deeply than that. Was the articulation “not good” because it started with air noise instead of tone? Because it was accompanied by an unwanted percussive sound? Was the articulation technique perfect but you failed to follow the composer’s markings? Or was it something else?

    Photo, David Bailey
    Photo, David Bailey

    Often the “not good” is a combination of factors, but if my students can identify even one of them, then they can immediately start working in a focused way to improve it. If it’s just “not good,” then they tend to just play it again from the beginning without any clear approach to making it sound better, and repeat until frustrated.

    Part of my job is to help them identify and verbalize the desirable and undesirable phenomena in their playing, and to teach them the techniques for manipulating the variables involved (breath support, voicing, embouchure, finger technique, and tongue technique, to name the most obvious ones). But it’s up to them to take that information and run with it. For my students to become independently-functional musicians, they need to learn to listen critically to themselves and troubleshoot.

    For yourself and for your students, don’t be satisfied with bland value judgments (it sounded “good” or “bad”). Be factual and descriptive about what you hear, and tackle problems in a methodical way. Practice smart!

  • Understanding woodwind key nomenclature systems

    bamboo flutes
    Photo, Allan Reyes

    Most woodwind instruments come in several sizes, and a naming system is required for describing the size and pitch of each. The most familiar for players of modern Western woodwinds is that used for (for example) the clarinet and saxophone families, with most of those instruments being described as “in B-flat” or “in E-flat.” However, there are several other systems in use in the larger woodwind family tree. This can be confounding for newcomers to folk, ethnic, and period woodwinds, but I’ll attempt to shed some light on things.

    Here are the four primary systems. The names are my own:

    • Modern. This system is used for modern Western orchestral/band woodwinds and brasses. In this system, each member of the instrument family (such as all of the clarinets) match a written pitch to a fingering, so that, for example, a written C can be fingered the same way on any of the clarinets, and the actual pitch produced depends on the instrument’s size. (Playing written C, incidentally, produces the sounding pitch for which an instrument is named: Playing “C” on a B-flat clarinet produces a sounding B-flat, “C” on an A clarinet produces a sounding A, and so forth.) This is convenient to the clarinetist, but awkward for composers, copyists, conductors, and others dealing with multiple transpositions. It also leads to oddities such as the lowest contrabass clarinets, like all their clarinet siblings, being notated in treble clef. Read More “Understanding woodwind key nomenclature systems”
  • Doubling up pinky fingers on the clarinet

    There are two basic fingerings a clarinetist can use for B4:

    option 1 option 2


    But there are some other possibilities, such as adding either of the pinky C keys. Doing this doesn’t open or close any additional toneholes, so the note isn’t affected at all:

    option 3 option 4

    While the extra pinky finger is technically unnecessary, it is sometimes convenient and conducive to smoother technique. For example, option 4 is frequently taught as a “standard” B fingering in beginning band method books. That is probably because it works well in a C major scale:

    When moving from A to B, this only adds one extra finger, the right hand pinky, to the B. Since there are already several fingers of the right hand moving in the same direction (down onto keys), this is only a minimal issue. And the movement from B to C is very simple: just release the left pinky.

    The same sequence can be played without the extra key:

    This is very slightly advantageous for A to B, since there is one fewer finger to move. But it introduces a more significant complication for B to C, since there is a “flip-flop:” the left pinky is lifting up as the right pinky is pressing down. A good clarinetist can execute this successfully, but it’s a little risky, since fingers on different hands are moving in different directions. There’s a possibility of finger mistiming that can result in an audible blip—a moment when both fingers are up together, producing a brief D5.

    So there are advantages to using “extra” pinky fingers in some cases, but it doesn’t make sense in others. Some of my students stumble over sequences like this:

    The right-hand pinky isn’t needed for the B, but some of my students use it out of habit whenever they see that note. Then they run into trouble when they have to slide the pinky to a different key for the E-flat. Advancing clarinetists should be aware of the fingerings they are using, and make each choice purposeful. Careful, consistent scale and arpeggio practice can help reinforce and habituate good fingering choices.

    By the way, for the sake of completeness, you can add the opposite-hand C/F key for any of these written notes on the clarinet:

    Adding pinky keys to any other pinky note will affect pitch.

    To make your own fingering and note images like the ones in this post, try the Fingering Diagram Builder and the Note Image Generator.

  • Trevor Wye’s “Flexibility I” flute exercise

    One of my favorite flute warmups is “Flexibility–I (after Sousseman)” from Trevor Wye’s Tone book. (Just buy the whole omnibus edition and thank me later.) This exercise is value-packed and meticulously thought out, and leads inevitably to some fundamental truths about flute playing.

    The exercise is slurred arpeggiated figures, like this:

    wye-1

    As you might expect, the figure gradually expands to larger intervals and notes in the third octave. It’s challenging to make the intervals smooth and accurate, but especially so if your approach to flute tone production is based on unclear or faulty pedagogical concepts. Wye provides some very crucial advice that is key to getting the most out of the etude, and to developing a solid approach to tone production.

    Wye suggests first playing the etude omitting the highest notes, and dynamically shaping the figures as follows:

    wye-2

    The forte dynamic on the lowest notes demands a low, open voicing and strong breath support, feeding into an aperture that is “focused” (small). The dynamic shape, stretched mostly across a single note (B-flat here), also requires the aperture to be agile and flexible, opening slightly for the loudest notes and closing slightly as the volume decreases.

    The next step is to “work up” to the high note, “so that it sounds softly, but not flat:”

    wye-3

    There is a lot going on here. The aperture has to continue to move flexibly in order to produce the dynamic effect. Voicing has to be low and open to make the low notes full and responsive. Breath support has to remain powerful and steady to keep the pitch buoyed up. And something has to happen to produce the register change.

    Many flute teachers suggest making the aperture smaller to achieve the higher registers, but this ties register to dynamics—the larger aperture makes the low notes loud, and the small aperture makes the high notes soft. Others suggest something like increasing air pressure or using “faster” air. This can be accomplished by increasing breath support and/or by using a higher voicing; changing these has a destabilizing and register-bound effect on pitch and tone. It also creates the opposite dynamic problem from aperture-based register changes: the higher notes are always loud, and the low notes are always soft.

    The most effective approach is to allow the embouchure to push forward for notes in the upper registers, and to relax back for lower registers. This allows breath support, voicing, and aperture to function separately, and intonation, tone, and dynamics to be manipulated independently. The Wye exercise demands all of this from the flutist.

    This is a great exercise to incorporate into a daily warmup. I especially like it for its coverage of several flute tone production concepts, since doubling on several instruments means I don’t have as much time to devote to the flute as I would like. Work on it slowly and deliberately—as Mr. Wye points out, “this may take time.”

7 Comments

  1. I believe Berlioz did use the saxophone in his Chant Sacre, just a few years after the bass saxophone’s creation.

  2. Mussorgsky’s Tableaux d’une exposition was indeed written in 1874, but orchestrated by Ravel in 1922; so the saxophone only appeared in that piece in 1922.

  3. Being a highschooler that loves the saxophone (especially alto), it’s hard to hear that I could be putting all of these practice hours (where I could be doing homework) to waste. It was inspiring to read this and know that the saxophone will become more prominent in the future. At least I know the practice hours aren’t going to complete waste…

    1. Making a living playing the saxophone, especially in classical music, is a tough road. I think professional performance standards will continue to get higher and higher.

      But if playing the saxophone is what you love to do, then I don’t think the practice hours are wasted!

      1. Thanks. I know that it’s a tough road ahead, but music is my passion. Since being committed is a big part of making it, I think I have a good shot at doing something someday. Then again, I’m only a 9th grader that is pretty good on the regional level. For now, I play for pure enjoyment.

  4. What we really need is a sax in F so woodwind quintets can be played with saxes instead of French horn. And with the paucity of horns, it would be great if sax could fill in.

    I listen to Q2 radio a lot, and it’s still very rare I hear saxophones. I hear loads of bass clarinet, but still not a whole lot of sax.

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.