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

  • How to get 10 good reeds from a box

    1. If you are getting less than 80% playable clarinet or saxophone reeds from the boxes you are currently buying, buy different ones.
    2. Be realistic about strengths. If you are only getting 2-3 good reeds out of a box, you aren’t just being “choosy.” You are probably playing on reeds that are too resistant, and those 2-3 are the softer ones. Let go of the nonsensical old myth that better players play stiffer reeds. If you are getting less than 80% “good” reeds from a box, try moving down (or, in rarer cases, up) a half strength.
    3. Update your shopping list. There are many, many available reed options! Clarinet and saxophone players used to be stuck with the few brands available at nearby music stores. Now there are more brands, shipped anywhere in the world, probably for cheaper than buying at your local store. Don’t let a misplaced sense of brand loyalty or tradition keep you putting good money into bad reeds.
    4. Skip the sandpaper, mostly. If you are buying reeds that actually work for you, you won’t have to do more than a few minutes’ worth of adjustment over the reed’s useful lifetime. The available variety of cuts and profiles is staggering. And modern reed companies can shape reed vamps with very good consistency and accuracy.

    A brand that genuinely makes clarinet or saxophone reeds with less than 80% success doesn’t deserve your repeat business. But there’s a strong chance you have simply mismatched the reeds to your mouthpiece and playing requirements. Keep searching!

  • The bassoon’s special(?) staccato

    I have a vague memory from childhood, well before my bassoon-playing days, of learning that the bassoon had some special quality to its staccato notes. (From an educational tv show? a children’s book on musical instruments? I can’t recall.) My impression was that this sound was different in some way than staccato produced on other instruments.

    That idea stuck in my mind, but it occurred to me recently that in my subsequent years of bassoon study I had never heard a bassoonist actually address this. I turned to some published sources to see if I could locate any information.

    Several books on orchestration (geared toward composers, not bassoonists) refer to the bassoon’s supposedly unique or unusual staccato. A masters thesis by Melissa Pipe brings several of these together. (I should confess I pulled these quotes directly from Ms. Pipe’s paper, and haven’t verified them with the original sources.)

    The real state of the matter is that the Bassoon has a preternatural power of playing staccato, and, if it is forced to play passages of a humorous, grotesque, or macabre sort, it easily endows them with a dry spiccato quality that is almost toneless.

    —Cecil Forsyth, Orchestration. London: Macmillan and Co., 1948, 2nd edition, p. 235-236.

    Its reedy staccato is often invoked for prankish diversions…

    —Bernard Rogers, The Art of Orchestration: Principles of Tone Color in Modern Scoring. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1970, p. 36-39.

    For while certain passages (especially staccato passages) have a way of sounding comical on the instrument…

    —Kent W. Keenan, The Technique of Orchestration. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970, p. 89.

    Staccato passages are second nature to the bassoon.

    —Henry Mancini, Sounds and Scores: A Practical Guide to Professional Orchestration. New York: Northridge Music, 1986, p. 86.

    This passage from Adler is a little ambiguous, and may actually be saying that rather than being unique, the bassoon’s staccato is akin to the oboe’s:

    Like the oboe, the bassoon performs lyric melodies beautifully and produces attacks and staccato passages as incisively… Other composers have treated the bassoon as the “clown of the orchestra” and have written staccato passages for it that truly sound humorous.

    —Samuel Adler, The Study of Orchestration. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 3rd edition, 2002, p. 221-222.

    When playing staccato passages, on the other hand, it is an excellent instrument to portray humour…

    —Sammy Nestico, The Complete Arranger. Delevan, N.Y.: Fenwood Music Co., Inc., 1993, p. 57.

    But while orchestrators seem to find the bassoon’s staccato noteworthy, few bassoonists seem interested in addressing that aspect of it. (Many explain staccato technique, but do not point it out as remarkable or unusual.) I found only two counterexamples, but both are well-respected sources.

    Although each tone is started with the tongue, a tone may be stopped with either the the tongue (as in saying “tut”) or with the breath (as in saying “tuh”). Not all notes which are marked staccato should be played with the “tut” style of tonguing. It should only be used in passages in which the composer seeks to use the rather humorous, dry effect of the bassoon’s sharp staccato. Two quite typical examples are the bassoon solos in Beethoven’s Symphony No. 4, First movement, measure 64, and in Dukas’ Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

    All other notes which are marked staccato … should be stopped with the breath…

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

    Among all the woodwinds our instrument possesses a special capacity for the rendering of staccato. This important effect features in many of the solo passages written for the Classical Bassoon by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven; the 19th century French instrument possessed a quality of dry, crisp staccato which was also capitalized upon by many composers. My teacher Archie Camden declared: “a good reliable staccato is one of the brightest jewels in the bassoon player’s crown!” (Camden, 1961). However these days the German system bassoon has somewhat changed in character, being designed more for sonority and strength rather than the delivery of these effects. All too often today’s playing styles are better suited to powerful expressiveness rather than light staccato. Nonetheless we must strive to achieve these articulation effects by the judicious choice of equipment and deployment of technique…

    When stopping a note, there are occasions when we wish to terminate it precisely — chopping it off cleanly as if it were a slice of salami. At other times a more artistic effect will be called for — allowing the sound to die away like the tail of a comet. For the former we may use the tongue, for the latter the breath.

    —William Waterhouse, Bassoon. Yehudi Menuhin Music Guides. London: Kahn & Averill, 2003, p. 112.

    So, one possibility is that the bassoon’s supposedly special staccato is the effect of ending notes with the tongue. This technique is not unique to the bassoon, but is controversial. (Personally I use the technique on all woodwinds when I believe it to be musically appropriate. And I think most woodwind players do, too, even those who claim they don’t.) Perhaps the relatively open discussion of this technique by high-profile bassoonist-authors correlates to its being viewed as uniquely a bassoon effect.

    One other possibility I would like to explore is the possible relationship of bassoon staccato to another controversial technique: the bassoonist’s jaw moving during articulation.

    If you have thoughts or resources regarding the mystique of bassoon staccato, please join the discussion in the comments section!

  • |

    Doubling fees under fire in Denver

    oboe and English horn
    Photo, quack.a.duck

    The Colorado Symphony Orchestra, like so many others, is facing a financial crisis that threatens its ability to continue making music. An opinion piece in Sunday’s Denver Post criticizes the Denver Musicians’ Association (AFM Local 20-623) for its unwillingness to budge on certain elements of its agreement with the orchestra.

    The issues here are complex, and I hope that the DMA and the CSO will be able to come to a solution that is fair to all involved and that keeps the music alive. But this point in the authors’ list of complaints caught my eye:

    Musicians performing on more than one instrument receive “doubling pay.”

    I don’t have the full details of the doubling pay currently available to CSO members (though the amount doesn’t appear to be the issue here—it’s the fact that any doubling pay is offered that seems to offend). But a slightly-outdated agreement between the DMA and the Boulder Philharmonic, summarized below, shows a typical doubling pay structure, and it’s a reasonable guess that the CSO’s is identical or very similar:

    • 25% bonus for first double
    • 10% for each additional double
    • B-flat and A clarinets count as one instrument
    • Alto and tenor saxophones count as one instrument
    • Alto and bass clarinets count as one instrument
    • Piccolo, larger flutes, English horn, E-flat clarinet, contrabassoon, soprano saxophone, and saxophones larger than tenor each count as a double, even when used in common combinations (like flute plus piccolo)
    Though I am not currently a union member (due to a dearth of union gigs in my area), I frequently ask for doubling fees when negotiating my pay for gigs. Here’s why doubling fees make sense to me as a woodwind player: Read More “Doubling fees under fire in Denver”
  • Balancing voicing and breath support

    My oboe students frequently have this problem:

    These notes don’t respond well These notes are sharp and thin-sounding

    (Okay, sometimes I also have this problem.)

    The solution, in most cases, is quite simple.

    Step 1: Use the correct voicing. For oboe it should be low and open, like blowing very warm air. This is usually the result:

    These notes respond beautifully These notes are flat and tubby-sounding

    Step 2: Use powerful abdominal breath support. Voilà:

    These notes respond beautifully These notes are in tune and full-sounding

    I find that once voicing and breath support are balanced against each other, a good oboe with a good reed is one of the easiest woodwinds to play in tune, and responds easily in all registers.

    This is, generally speaking, true of all of the woodwinds: solid breath support plus a stable voicing appropriate to the instrument are the recipe for reliable, in-tune notes from low to high.

  • 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.)

  • Flexible EWI fingerings

    With traditional woodwind instruments, the fingers work together to change the effective length of the instrument’s body tube by opening and closing toneholes. Woodwind fingerings at their most basic use the fingers in sequence. For example, a certain note might be produced with an “open” fingering (all toneholes open). When the “first” finger (the one closest to the mouthpiece) closes a hole, the pitch drops, perhaps by a whole step. Adding the next farther finger drops the pitch again, and so on toward the bell end of the instrument.

    “Forked” fingerings, in which a lower tonehole is closed while one above it is open, often produce somewhat inferior results—notes that are mismatched in timbre and/or intonation. (Some modern woodwinds use special mechanisms to correct for this, such as the F resonance mechanism on a high-quality oboe.)

    An electronic woodwind-style instrument, such as the Akai EWI series, uses a fingering system that is designed to be similar to a traditional woodwind, so that a traditional woodwind player can easily adapt to it. But this is an arbitrary choice. Since the instrument’s tone production system uses electronic circuitry and software, rather than a vibrating air column, the fingering system don’t necessarily have to use the fingers in sequence, and forked fingerings don’t have any inherent problems. The fingerings can be invented completely from scratch, with no acoustical limitations.

    EWI fingerings are designed to draw upon the best of both worlds—the familiarity of traditional woodwind fingerings, and the flexibility of a non-acoustical fingering system.

    Note that the current-model EWI4000s, using version 2.4 of the operating system, includes several fingering modes. The mode I am considering here is the “EWI” mode, as the “flute,” “oboe,” and “saxophone” modes sacrifice some flexibility for the sake of increased familiarity to traditional woodwind players. You might consider this article to be subtitled, “Why you should be using the ‘EWI’ fingering mode.”

    The current manual (“revision D”) shows a mere 17 fingerings in its EWI mode fingering chart (11 chromatic pitches, with B-flat through D having fingerings in two octaves, and B-flat having one additional alternate fingering). But many, many more are possible.

    We can consider the individual EWI keys as having individual functions, rather than being inherently interdependent. For example, pressing none of the keys produces a C-sharp:

    C-sharp

    Adding any key will alter the C-sharp pitch by a given amount:

    key pitch change
    (in semitones)
    exceptions
    LH 1 -2
    LH bis -1 If both LH 1 and LH 2 are pressed, LH bis has no effect
    LH 2 -2 If LH 1 is not pressed, LH2 produces -1 (this makes LH middle finger C possible)
    LH 3 -2
    LH pinky 1 +1
    LH pinky 2 -1
    RH side +1 No effect when used in combination with LH pinky 1
    RH 1 -2 If LH 3 is not pressed, RH1 produces -1 (this makes 1 + 1 B-flat possible)
    RH 2 -1
    RH 3 -2
    RH pinky 1 +1
    RH pinky 2 -1
    RH pinky 3 -2

    If I press LH 1, LH 2, and LH 3, the pitch is lowered from C-sharp by a total of 6 semitones, producing the G fingering familiar to saxophonists, oboists, flutists, and clarinetists.

    But that is only one possible combination. I could also produce a G with, for example, LH 1, LH 2, and RH 3. Or LH 3, LH pinky 2, RH 1, and RH pinky 2. These fingerings would be extremely unlikely to work on a traditional woodwind, but with the EWI the possibilities are wide open. As long as the total pitch change adds up to -6 (and accounting for any of the listed exceptions), you get a G.

    Standard G fingering.(LH 1 + LH 2 + LH 3) = (-2 + -2 + -2) = -6 = G One alternative G fingering.(LH 1 + LH 2 + RH 3) = (-2 + -2 + -2) = -6 = G Another alternative G.(LH 3 + LH pinky 2 + RH 1 + RH pinky 2) = (-2 + -1 + -2 + -1) = -6 = G

    These examples are illustrative but likely have few real-world applications. For a more practical example, consider trills, which among traditional woodwind players are a subject of endless discussion and books upon books of awkward, complicated fingerings. An ideal trill fingering involves moving only one finger, preferably one that can be moved in a rapid, controlled, non-awkward way. Continue reading for a musical example and sound clip →

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.