Which instrument to “start” on

ByBret Pimentel

Every so often I am told by a band director or parent that a child wishes to play a certain woodwind instrument, and then I am asked which instrument the student should “start” on, instead of the one they have apparently already chosen.

I don’t see a good reason, at least within the woodwind group, for a beginner to start on a different instrument family than the one they ultimately wish to play. There may be wisdom in some cases in requiring a beginner to start with a “main” family member: a student who really wants to play the piccolo, for example, will find their opportunities limited if they do not have a strong foundation in the flute—they will be of less usefulness to a school band program, and, should they continue to more advanced studies, may find the piccolo’s repertoire and pedagogical resources comparatively limited. I also think the piccolo is inherently a bit more difficult to play, although that in itself is not sufficient reason to deter a strongly-motivated student; however, for some students a more difficult instrument might be frustrating enough to bring their musical pursuits to a premature end. I likewise generally recommend that oboists start with the oboe rather than the English horn, clarinetists start on the B-flat instrument rather than a “harmony” clarinet, bassoonists leave the contrabassoon until later, and saxophonists start on the alto, or maybe the tenor.

Photo, Herald Post
Photo, Herald Post

But I also sometimes run into an attitude that, for example, an aspiring saxophonist really should start on the clarinet. This, I believe, comes from an outdated school of thought that considers the saxophone a “color” instrument in the clarinet family, and concludes that you should start with the “main” instrument, the clarinet, in the same way that you would start with the flute and later add the piccolo. (It may even stem from a more outdated idea that the saxophone is vulgar or a novelty, while the clarinet is respectable.) But surely the saxophone has by now earned full membership in the wind band and has a sufficiently rich solo and chamber repertoire that it need not be seen merely as the clarinet’s half-sibling.

I encounter a similar approach to the double reeds, in which a beginner is made to start with something “easier” or cheaper or more common, like the clarinet, and is later permitted or required to switch to the oboe or the bassoon. If the cost of starting a beginner on a double-reeded instrument is prohibitive (and in some cases it may well be) then I suppose a less-costly instrument is better than nothing. And parents or band directors may have other reasons to delay putting an oboe or bassoon in a beginner’s hands: to make sure the student can be trusted with good instrument care before issuing them an expensive bassoon, for example. And I know that some band directors feel underqualified to teach the double reeds (join the club), and may wish to postpone for reasons rooted in that insecurity.

But as far as I am concerned there is no sound pedagogical reason to start a student on one instrument and then move them to another. If a student wants to be an oboist, the best hope for their success is to get an oboe into their hands as soon as possible (and, preferably, connect them with an excellent private teacher).

Still, some parents or educators, insisting that the “switch” is a foregone conclusion, press me on which instrument is the best pre-switch instrument for the student to learn. In my opinion, it makes no difference whatsoever. I think there is more harm than advantage in trying to choose a “similar” instrument; a flutist switching to saxophone can learn the embouchure from scratch, while a clarinetist switching to saxophone may find it more difficult to shed clarinet habits. Ditto for “similar” fingering systems.

Encourage your beginners to play, within reason, what interests them most.

Similar Posts

  • Focus on fundamentals, not localized fixes

    ByBret Pimentel

    As I’ve discussed here previously, when trying to solve woodwind-playing problems there’s a useful distinction between problem-specific solutions and simply shoring up fundamental technique.

    Here are some examples of problem-specific solutions:

    • Second-octave G-sharp tends to crack on saxophone, especially tenor? When you get to that note, blow warmer air (in other words, use a lower voicing).
    • Low notes on oboe respond sluggishly? Try dropping your jaw a bit as you descend into that register.
    • Flute pitch sagging at softer dynamics? Increase your breath support as you decrescendo.

    Notice that all of these suggestions give you a sort of localized task to perform—make some change to your tone-production technique whenever you play a certain note. This is an exhausting way to play: trying to remember and execute a handful of directives for each note that goes by; discovering that a constantly-changing tone-production technique makes tone, pitch, and response unstable; adding another layer of fixes to try to counteract the instability. It can quickly become too much to process, and higher-order things like musical expression get sacrificed.

    Sometimes these localized fixes are necessary, usually as a workaround to some flaw or compromise in the equipment’s design or manufacture. But much more often the “fix” should be an improvement to fundamental technique:

    • If lowering your voicing helps the cracking G-sharp on tenor, what would happen if you used that lower voicing on every note?
    • If taking some jaw pressure off the oboe reed helps the low notes speak, what would happen if you didn’t add that pressure back in the higher registers?
    • If increasing breath support helps buoy up softer notes, would it hurt the louder ones?

    My guess is that by making these fixes part of your fundamental technique, instead of applying them here and there like bandages, you would discover:

    • a richer, more in-tune tenor saxophone tone
    • clearer, more immediate oboe articulation, with less fatigue/pain
    • flute playing improved in virtually every aspect

    Examine your problem-specific fixes carefully, and try making them your default approaches rather than special-occasion ones.

    When dealing with problem spots in your music, it’s okay to remind yourself of relevant and helpful fundamental techniques, but the ultimate goal should be to remove as much as possible of the mental overhead and physical gymnastics from your playing. Develop good basic technique that lets the instrument more or less play itself, so you can focus on the creative aspects.

  • “More air”

    ByBret Pimentel

    When I use the term “breath support,” students and colleagues often echo back something like “oh, right, more air.” But is breath support the same thing as “more air?”

    Measuring quantities of air isn’t completely straightforward—when we say “more air,” we might rightfully wonder whether that means a greater volume filled with air, or a greater number of air molecules, or whether we’re really thinking of something like airflow or air velocity.

    For my purposes in teaching, I find a few different measures to be relevant:

    First, you must set up breath support with a good inhalation, and I think it’s generally helpful to inhale a large volume of air into the lungs.

    Then, you must pressurize the air by engaging the torso muscles, constricting the space in which the air is contained. (The diaphragm’s relaxation alone does create pressure, but not enough for good woodwind playing.)

    The increased pressure makes the air escape your embouchure at a higher velocity. You can adjust the size of your embouchure, allowing more or less air to pass through, which is the basic mechanism woodwind players use to change (sound) volume (or “dynamics”).

    I’m most directly concerned with air pressure when I talk about breath support, and in some ways in which that does translate to “more” air. But since “more” can be measured in multiple ways, I like to use a more exact term like “breath support.” That also has the concreteness of referring to something that the player actively does, rather than focusing the imagery on air, which is invisible.

    Be precise in your pedagogical vocabulary, and consistent in your breath support.

  • How to get 10 good reeds from a box

    ByBret Pimentel

    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!

  • Things you don’t need to cover in woodwind methods class

    ByBret Pimentel

    If you are teaching a woodwind methods course, you might be interested in my book.

    orchestral flutist
    Photo, KSMF Webmaster

    I’ve taught college-level woodwind methods courses for a few years now. This is a course primarily for instrumental music majors, who will go on to become school band or orchestra directors, and who need a crash course in the playing and pedagogy of each instrument that will be in their future ensembles. At the places I’ve taught, it means taking students from zero to playing a little bit of flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, and saxophone, all in one semester. It’s a semester-long sprint.

    There are a handful of textbooks available for these types of courses, most of which I own, and none of which I use in class. I’m continually surprised by the material that is and isn’t covered in these books.

    I try hard to keep my courses focused on core concepts, like position/posture, breath support, basic embouchure, voicing, and finger technique, and I try to keep those concepts as simple and clear as possible. I have students observe each other’s playing of these instruments, identify things that don’t look and/or sound right, and put their observations into terms of those basic concepts. (“So-and-so’s pitch sounds unstable, and his embouchure appears to be moving a lot. Perhaps keeping the embouchure still and increasing breath support will help to stabilize his intonation.”)

    I find discouragingly little discussion (or even understanding) of these concepts in many of the published texts. Instead, I find what appears to be a lot of filler—not bad information, necessarily, but information that’s far from mission-critical. The students in these classes will mostly end up teaching beginning or intermediate students in large-group settings. They need to understand the fundamentals in ways that will help them problem-solve efficiently.

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m certainly not opposed to knowledge for knowledge’s sake. I’m just saying that for an already too-short woodwind methods class, that 300-page book could perhaps be trimmed down to 100 or even 50 clear, concise pages, for significant savings of money, trees, class time, shelf space, and brain cells. Here are some examples of things that I’ve seen in actual classroom-intended woodwind methods textbooks, that just plain don’t need to be there: Read More “Things you don’t need to cover in woodwind methods class”

  • Telemann Canonic Sonata tutorial revisited: EWI with delay pedal

    ByBret Pimentel

    A few years back, I explained how to play a “round” using only the Akai EWI’s onboard synthesizer by editing a sound to include an echo. I mentioned some limitations of this technique, and hinted that an external device would be needed for better flexibility.

    The problems with my original technique are that you have to determine your precise tempo ahead of time, and you don’t have any flexibility to change it on the fly. You also can’t easily change your mind about the sound that you want—if you decide you really wanted something flutey instead of something brassy, you have to edit another sound. If you want to play several pieces or movements at different tempi, you need to dedicate a separate voice to each one. You also get a maximum of 1.27 seconds of echo. For my recent recital, I wanted the flexibility of playing multiple movements and changing my mind about sounds, and I needed a longer delay time for a slow movement.

    At the time of my original tutorial, I assumed that the external device needed would be some kind of looper, but upon further exploration I have actually found a digital delay pedal to be the best way of accomplishing the effect. I am using the ubiquitous Boss DD-7, used by many electric guitarists, but presumably these instructions can be adapted to other similar gadgets (you are on your own to work out the details). I also used an auxiliary pedal, the Boss FS-5U. This simplifies things slightly on stage if you want to be able to turn the echo on and off quickly, but it’s totally optional. I’ll tell you how to make this work with or without it.

    Here are the important settings:

  • Principles for teaching woodwind methods

    ByBret Pimentel

    If you are teaching a woodwind methods course, you might be interested in my book.

    I teach a woodwind methods course at my university. This class (sometimes known as “woodwind techniques” or “class woodwinds”) is for music education majors. It’s a kind of crash course in the woodwind instruments (flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, and saxophone) in preparation for careers in school band directing. Here are some things I try to keep in mind when teaching it.

    • It’s a pedagogy course, not a performance course. Since my background is in performance, not music education, it’s tempting to veer off into the finer points of playing. But while hands-on experience with the instruments is crucial, the real goal here is that they are able to effectively teach beginning and intermediate students, which is a (somewhat) separate skill. Give your students lots of chances to practice their teaching.

    • Keep it concept-based. While some time needs to be spent on the quirks of each instrument, it’s more efficient to teach underlying principles like breath support, voicing, embouchure, and finger movement, which vary from woodwind to woodwind less than many educators think. Help your students make connections between how the instruments are played, rather than walling the concepts off into a flute unit, an oboe unit, etc.

    • Keep it mission-critical. Mine is a one-semester course; some schools offer the luxury of spreading the woodwinds over several semesters. But even a semester for each instrument wouldn’t be nearly enough. Be disciplined about sticking to the most central, useful concepts. Knowing the early history and development of the oboe isn’t a bad thing, but it’s not critical to this course. Ditto for show-and-tell with the alto flute or sopranino saxophone, discussion of circular breathing and double-lip clarinet embouchure, and reedmaking. Be ruthless about cutting what are probably your favorite lectures—the more advanced, obscure ones.

    • Expect your students to forget everything. They can probably learn just enough clarinet fingerings to get through the test, but they will almost certainly forget them as soon as you hand them a bassoon. Gear your woodwind methods course activities toward broader skills like the ability to read a fingering chart, rather than short-term memorization of specifics.

    Give your students their best chance at becoming successful woodwind teachers!

8 Comments

  1. I started on saxophone. When I needed to add clarinet, it was a struggle to get enough embouchure strength, as I either have a naturally loose embouchure, or I learned it from playing saxophone.

    Most of the good doublers I know started on clarinet, no matter what instruments they ended up playing.

    I dislike Bb clarinet enough where I don’t regret starting on saxophone, but it seems to me that it is easier to learn saxophone embouchure after playing clarinet than vice-versa.

    Reply

  2. Amen!

    I started in 5th grade. I wanted to play tenor saxophone. (I wanted to be Boots Randolph, to be exact. :-) ) I was at least allowed to play saxophone, though I was instructed to start on alto. (Looking back, that’s probably a good idea. A tenor is huge for a kid that age.)

    At the music store, the salesman tried to talk me into starting on clarinet. His reasoning was that clarinetists can pick up saxophone easily but saxophonists struggle with clarinet.

    I stood my ground. I wanted to play saxophone! I wanted to be Boots Randolph!

    30 years later, as an adult, I did take up clarinet, and I certainly did find it to be challenging (much more so than flute or bassoon had been), but it was still the right choice to start on saxophone. I got there in the end. :-)

    Reply

  3. Looking at the issue from the point of view of a single student, the benefits of starting on a different instrument seem dubious at best. I suspect, however, that this mindset has more to do with insuring a reasonable band instrumentation and making the best use of limited band resources than anything else.

    When I was in beginning band they started kids on flute, clarinet or saxophone. By high school, the result was reasonable flute and clarinet sections and 14 alto saxes (only one of which actually practiced or cared). Not long after my class graduated they switched to only starting woodwind players on flute or clarinet and having them audition for saxophone, oboe and bassoon after proving their seriousness on flute or (most commonly) clarinet. Now, sax sections are leaner and “meaner” and the ever-present glut of non-caring, non-practicing kids get stuck on third clarinet (or even more questionably, bass clarinet) where they are thought to do less damage. I am not defending this; simply clarifying what I believe to ultimately be the true reason.

    For oboe and bassoon (not to mention lower saxes and clarinet), most schools in this area provide instruments. This makes it somewhat important to insure that the students who get these few instruments be serious and are likely to stick with the program. Otherwise, 4 valuable oboes may sit unused because the first four kids to sign up for oboe ended up flaking out.

    Lastly, for bassoon it is very often an issue of size. If we limited our future bassoonists to only those that had had early growth spurts I do believe we’d doing them a disservice. Now to convince middle school band programs to purchase some tenoroons!

    However, as a bassoon instructor I often get asked this question and this is my answer: “Any musician can become a bassoonist given the interest and practice. I started on trombone. One of my fastest learning beginning bassoonists started on trumpet. However, if you want to know which transition generally presents the fewest problems then my answer is flute. I’ve found that teaching a flute player (who has already developed a relaxed, open embouchure with a very slight overbite) to deal with a reed is faster and more natural than teaching a clarinet player to unlearn half of everything they’ve learned regarding embouchure.”

    Reply

  4. If as directors we let the kids play whatever we want we would have bands that not even parents would want to listen to. I once substitute taught a band that that had 12 flutes, 3 clarinets, 20 saxophones, 15 trumpets, 1 horn, 1 trombone and 20 drummers (not percussionists, most couldn’t play mallets). The band also had 2 dynamics loud and blast. Unfortunately I forgot my earplugs that day.

    Reply

  5. I agree that for bassoon, size of hand is the most important determining factor. As most kids do not have sufficient hand size until 7th or 8th grade, that’s when most programs start bassoonists. I think that’s reasonable, as all who play bassoon know that generally you want the smart kids who can function independently from their friends to be on bassoon. I began on flute, which I played for two years, switched to saxophone for one semester, then began bassoon. I also skipped a grade when going from flute to sax (entering marching band that fall —oops) but I loved bassoon and sax and continue to play each. I think beginning instruments should be chosen due to interest of the child so long as size is not a preventative factor. As stated above, with the desire to work hard on an alternative instrument, one can become good at anything, whether he/she starts on that instrument or not.

    Reply

  6. One thing I always tell my parents of students wanting to learn an instrument is whatever the student wants to play, try to allow them the chance to play that particular instrument, for they will be more inclined to stick with it in the long run. If a student gets discouraged from music AND they were on an instrument they didn’t want to play originally, they are pretty much a lost cause. If a student gets discouraged, but they are on an instrument they chose, they are more likely to stick with it a little longer because it’s an instrument they like.

    I’ve got a sax (now flute) student who’s band director tried to make him start on clarinet, but he really didn’t want to play the clarinet. He was told that he had to get lessons on sax before starting with the band. So I started him, and then he went a good 3/4 of the semester not playing more than 3 or 4 different notes. He was thoroughly frustrated, but he stuck with it because he liked the saxophone. If he’d been forced to play clarinet, he probably would have quit.

    Reply

  7. In my first long-term teaching assignment,the teacher whom I would be replacing advised me to start beginners on the clarinet, then switch them to the saxophone. She based this on poor pedagogy she had been taught, that “the saxophone is the easiest instrument to play poorly”. Having started on the sax myself, I knew this to be nonsense. (In reality, her decision seemed more to stem from availability: there were dozens of clarinets, compared to only eight saxes.
    The students I started on saxes did quite well, and quickly developed enough nuance to not overblow the sax.

    Reply

  8. I get the reasoning behind starting on other instruments. My secondary school didn’t have football, so there was no marching band per se. One was in “Band” which was the concert band that also marched in parades. Marching bassoons isn’t unheard of but I think it would be difficult as hell and probably not the best for our climate. Unfortunately we always ended up with more flutes we needed, and rarely an oboe, bassoon or French horn. Our director had always hoped there would be ambitious volunteers who would make a switch. It happened occasionally. There was probably little interest as anyone who took one of those instruments would be by themselves, no safety in numbers. Regardless, those instruments seem to be the least sexy out of most of the standard wind band.

    Reply

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.