Saxophone teachers who don't teach saxophone.

[Pete Thomas]

I have noticed a couple of posts (on some other forum) that I can paraphrase as:

"I'm a beginner and just got a saxophone teacher, he's got me working on 2 5 1s and triad cycle of 5ths/modes... blah blah..."

Er...no, that isn't a saxophone teacher - it's a jazz impro teacher.

OK so there are non-instrument specific things teachers have done for centuries, e.g. learning to read music, but I wonder now how many teachers gloss over the actual saxophone technique and just zoom straight to the (shortcut) jazz impro stuff, to the detriment of real saxophone technique.

To me in the beginner stages, saxophone technique involves:

• Tone (inc dynamics, pitch)
• Breathing
• Articulation
• Sound
• Fingering
• Dexterity (evenness not just speed and tricky fingerings over the break etc. - scales and patterns in all keys)

Then there is the non-instrument specific (general musicality) stuff:

• Sight reading
• Ear training
• Learning tunes
• Impro (depending on genre)
• Performaing technique

You don't actually need a saxophone teacher for any of that second category but obviously it may be more efficient if you have one person to do the lot. However I wonder just how many teachers do enough of the saxophone-specific stuff and instead prioritise the more popular aspect of impro possibly to the detriment of the technique.

I think the above rant apllies manily to beginners - advanced students may well have learned enough technique and not enough of the impro stuff so it makes sense to then concentrate on that, but for beginners it should be first bthings first (but always allow some time in the lesson for a bit of fun/interest.

 

[Colin the Bear]

That makes perfect sense.
The basics are the foundation of playing. How to blow the thing properly should be among first principles.
I speak as one who has never had a saxophone lesson and wouldn't know where to begin to teach it.

 

[Wade Cornell]

There is also the inherent attitude that a sax is strictly for playing jazz. Do most beginners say specifically they want to learn to play jazz or is this foisted on them? Is there any demand out there for more jazz sax players? When will this stop?

Much more demand for sax players who can play with a DJ. ...2 5 1 players not required. Melodic players with a good sense of rhythm (no jazz syncopation please) are required. No sheet music EVER and must be able to improvise in a "non-jazz" contemporary fashion.

 

[jbtsax]

I couldn't agree more with Pete's comments and observations. My career involved teaching the "fundamentals" of playing each instrument in the band to students at all levels. There is a fancy word used largely in academic circles that encompasses all aspects involved in teaching the skills involved in playing a musical instrument. That word is "pedagogy" which can be defined as the "art, science, or profession of teaching". The most comprehensive break down of the "pedagogy" involved in playing the saxophone can be found in the index of "The Art of Saxophone Playing" by Larry Teal.

There is a common misconception that just because someone can play the saxophone that they are qualified to teach others to play. There is an abundance of videos on YouTube that provide proof of this statement. How to play "Baker Street" on the saxophone by rote is one can comes to mind. To become an effective teacher one has to first be able to break down each fundamental skill involved into its component parts and be able to clearly communicate and demonstrate each in a way that the student understands and can put into practice. Learning to play the saxophone should, of course, be accompanied by learning to play music at the appropriate level, but mastering the instrument should always come first and take priority.

 

[Pete Thomas]

There is also the inherent attitude that a sax is strictly for playing jazz.

This is exactly what was lurking behind my original post. I think the actually real but stereotyped teacher I mentioned is a product of this. Intermediate saxophone player who may not yet yet be actually completely qualified as a master instructor of the instrument, but has a decent collection of all the jazz impro tropes (ie learn 251 licks and patterns etc.) but hasn't yet got a great sound or an all-round grip on the basic fingering techniques.

 

[John Setchell]

I have noticed a couple of posts (on some other forum) that I can paraphrase as:

"I'm a beginner and just got a saxophone teacher, he's got me working on 2 5 1s and triad cycle of 5ths/modes... blah blah..."

Er...no, that isn't a saxophone teacher - it's a jazz impro teacher.

OK so there are non-instrument specific things teachers have done for centuries, e.g. learning to read music, but I wonder now how many teachers gloss over the actual saxophone technique and just zoom straight to the (shortcut) jazz impro stuff, to the detriment of real saxophone technique.

To me in the beginner stages, saxophone technique involves:

• Tone (inc dynamics, pitch)
• Breathing
• Articulation
• Sound
• Fingering
• Dexterity (evenness not just speed and tricky fingerings over the break etc. - scales and patterns in all keys)

Then there is the non-instrument specific (general musicality) stuff:

• Sight reading
• Ear training
• Learning tunes
• Impro (depending on genre)
• Performaing technique

You don't actually need a saxophone teacher for any of that second category but obviously it may be more efficient if you have one person to do the lot. However I wonder just how many teachers do enough of the saxophone-specific stuff and instead prioritise the more popular aspect of impro possibly to the detriment of the technique.

I think the above rant apllies manily to beginners - advanced students may well have learned enough technique and not enough of the impro stuff so it makes sense to then concentrate on that, but for beginners it should be first bthings first (but always allow some time in the lesson for a bit of fun/interest.

Interesting subject personally, as one year in I’m in the thick of it. Here are some of my observations -
I’m not new to playing music. I’ve played & gigged blues & rock for 5 decades on various instruments, so all I really wanted to do was translate that into saxophone-ese.
I rented an alto and within a few weeks could blow a few scales. I didn’t like the sound so swapped it for tenor and loved it.
I read a lot of internet stuff, watched YouTube, and had a couple of local lessons. I kid you not I was SHOCKED. I had naively fallen into a world of jazz! - whereas what I aspired to was Motown type horn chops and Springsteen-esque solos (Clarence Clemons - RIP). Where was I going to find someone to teach me the skills to pursue that?
A guy I found on YouTube who I admired and played the kind of music that interests me is Deke McGee, who gives lessons but lives hundreds of miles from me. I got in touch, liked him, and agreed fortnightly FaceTime lessons.
Apologies for the lengthy intro but now cutting to the chase he is, initially against my will making me learn to read music, so that I can learn the LANGUAGE of saxophone - be consciously aware of timing, articulation, breathing, volume etc. All of these things producing my tone or “voice” when playing a written piece, which for me is a stepping stone to improvisation and soloing.
We had a brief discussion on circle-of-5ths and modes, which I laughed at! I’m an engineer by profession and playing sax is recreation - I don’t want to turn it onto yet another mathematical exercise. I chose notes instinctively, but need help with all the other saxy stuff. My tutor “gets” this and is helping me acquire techniques I need to develop tone and phrasing, without getting too involved in music theory. Indeed all the things you list Pete (except scales & patterns in all keys)

• Tone (inc dynamics, pitch)
• Breathing
• Articulation
• Sound
• Fingering
• Dexterity (evenness not just speed and tricky fingerings over the break etc. - scales and patterns in all keys)

 

[eb424]

Interesting subject personally, as one year in I’m in the thick of it. Here are some of my observations -
I’m not new to playing music. I’ve played & gigged blues & rock for 5 decades on various instruments, so all I really wanted to do was translate that into saxophone-ese.
I rented an alto and within a few weeks could blow a few scales. I didn’t like the sound so swapped it for tenor and loved it.
I read a lot of internet stuff, watched YouTube, and had a couple of local lessons. I kid you not I was SHOCKED. I had naively fallen into a world of jazz! - whereas what I aspired to was Motown type horn chops and Springsteen-esque solos (Clarence Clemons - RIP). Where was I going to find someone to teach me the skills to pursue that?
A guy I found on YouTube who I admired and played the kind of music that interests me is Deke McGee, who gives lessons but lives hundreds of miles from me. I got in touch, liked him, and agreed fortnightly FaceTime lessons.
Apologies for the lengthy intro but now cutting to the chase he is, initially against my will making me learn to read music, so that I can learn the LANGUAGE of saxophone - be consciously aware of timing, articulation, breathing, volume etc. All of these things producing my tone or “voice” when playing a written piece, which for me is a stepping stone to improvisation and soloing.
We had a brief discussion on circle-of-5ths and modes, which I laughed at! I’m an engineer by profession and playing sax is recreation - I don’t want to turn it onto yet another mathematical exercise. I chose notes instinctively, but need help with all the other saxy stuff. My tutor “gets” this and is helping me acquire techniques I need to develop tone and phrasing, without getting too involved in music theory. Indeed all the things you list Pete (except scales & patterns in all keys)

• Tone (inc dynamics, pitch)
• Breathing
• Articulation
• Sound
• Fingering
• Dexterity (evenness not just speed and tricky fingerings over the break etc. - scales and patterns in all keys)

wow i am in the exact same boat...not sure what aspects of theory I need, only need to learn music to play with others as Ive been told writing notes on a score isn't right. It seems youd be better off turning up unable to play but being able to shout out the notes in tune with the correct rhythm and tempo. Good teachers are hard to find....

 

[John Setchell]

wow i am in the exact same boat...not sure what aspects of theory I need, only need to learn music to play with others as Ive been told writing notes on a score isn't right. It seems youd be better off turning up unable to play but being able to shout out the notes in tune with the correct rhythm and tempo. Good teachers are hard to find....

“Good teachers are hard to find....”
- Indeed they are. I’ve attended lessons on various instruments and the teachers were generally very institutionalised - Open Book One and follow it without question. For me as a mature student that’s the basic problem - they don’t listen.
Your comment about shouting out notes without being able to play astounded me! Was it singing lessons?… (joke)
I guess there’s a world of difference between Music Lessons and Saxophone Lessons.

 

[eb424]

“Good teachers are hard to find....”
- Indeed they are. I’ve attended lessons on various instruments and the teachers were generally very institutionalised - Open Book One and follow it without question. For me as a mature student that’s the basic problem - they don’t listen.
Your comment about shouting out notes without being able to play astounded me! Was it singing lessons?… (joke)
I guess there’s a world of difference between Music Lessons and Saxophone Lessons.

Think thats been my issue with lessons...I was spoilt with my first teacher Tony sadly passed away now...he used to sax with chas and dave...got there a cup of tea lesson, glass of wine and a ciggie after...He used to moan at me writting on the score but i'd say why keep reading something difficult when I can do it once..trouble is I can play faster than i can read if I had still been wih him who knows....I completely agree about listening think I need a pathway through it...hopefully new teacher will get me there...good luck with it all..

 

[CliveMA]

Posture?
Rhythm?
Practicalities (such as swabs, maintaining reeds and sax)
Practice sessions (Structure, review and progression)?
How to record and review feedback on own play?
Direction and ongoing review of sax music listening/studying tasks?

 

[CliveMA]

I’ve attended lessons on various instruments and the teachers were generally very institutionalised - Open Book One and follow it without question.

+1.
The music teaching industry does a poor job of teacher education and certification.

 

[eb424]

I personally feel it all starts at school...no fun rigid learning it really is enough to put you of....it should be fun.. I have only today realised that theory is different than playing from leadsheets....ive tried to ensure over 4 years that i am cofortable with the sax before starting lessons which is probably the wrong way round...the only clear pathway is the grades and the type of music doesn't suit everyone...now if they did a grading pathway with your choice of genre and the costs of lessons was more reasonable..i for one would be on the bandwagon....

 

[Pete Thomas]

I have only today realised that theory is different than playing from leadsheets..

Indeed. I think in the other thread you confused learning to read music with theory.

Theory is something you can know without being able to read music. For example I know of many country players who cannot read, and yet they understand how to harmonise a tune with chords.

Sometimes the theory is learned, other times some people just seem to have an innate intuitive feel for it.

For example composers often use counterpoint, which is when you have a melody and then have another melodic line going on in the background. There are plenty of theory rules that they learn about writing good counterpoint, e.g. (very basic ones)

• If the melody is lots of notes, the counterpoint should have few (but longer) notes.
• Contrary motion: if the melodyrises in pitch up the counterpoint falls and vice versa.
• A lot more to it than that of course...

There are composers who learn all this theory and apply, and there are some who don't know the theor but just do it intuitively.

 

[jbtsax]

+1.
The music teaching industry does a poor job of teacher education and certification.

Can you provide more detail about the "music teaching industry" in Australia? In the U.S. most of the training of "music educators" is done in the colleges and universities. I would agree that some of our music ed programs are better than others. Some university music departments I am familiar with focus more on "performance degrees" and music education is given less importance. The "staff" assigned to teach future music educators is often the determining factor of the "quality" of the program. In my experience the most qualified and effective university music ed teachers are those who have themselves spent time in the "trenches" and have built a stellar music program at the elementary and/or secondary level before moving up to the university level. It goes without saying that having acquired a high level of skill on one's primary instrument(s) is also an important qualification.

 

[eb424]

Indeed. I think in the other thread you confused learning to read music with theory.

Theory is something you can know without being able to read music. For example I know of many country players who cannot read, and yet they understand how to harmonise a tune with chords.

Sometimes the theory is learned, other times some people just seem to have an innate intuitive feel for it.

For example composers often use counterpoint, which is when you have a melody and then have another melodic line going on in the background. There are plenty of theory rules that they learn about writing good counterpoint, e.g. (very basic ones)

• If the melody is lots of notes, the counterpoint should have few (but longer) notes.
• Contrary motion: if the melodyrises in pitch up the counterpoint falls and vice versa.
• A lot more to it than that of course...

There are composers who learn all this theory and apply, and there are some who don't know the theor but just do it intuitively.

Thanks @Pete Thomas ...i am going to delve into the TTs book...

 

[Wonko]

I have noticed a couple of posts (on some other forum) that I can paraphrase as:

"I'm a beginner and just got a saxophone teacher, he's got me working on 2 5 1s and triad cycle of 5ths/modes... blah blah..."

Er...no, that isn't a saxophone teacher - it's a jazz impro teacher.

OK so there are non-instrument specific things teachers have done for centuries, e.g. learning to read music, but I wonder now how many teachers gloss over the actual saxophone technique and just zoom straight to the (shortcut) jazz impro stuff, to the detriment of real saxophone technique.

To me in the beginner stages, saxophone technique involves:

• Tone (inc dynamics, pitch)
• Breathing
• Articulation
• Sound
• Fingering
• Dexterity (evenness not just speed and tricky fingerings over the break etc. - scales and patterns in all keys)

Then there is the non-instrument specific (general musicality) stuff:

• Sight reading
• Ear training
• Learning tunes
• Impro (depending on genre)
• Performaing technique

You don't actually need a saxophone teacher for any of that second category but obviously it may be more efficient if you have one person to do the lot. However I wonder just how many teachers do enough of the saxophone-specific stuff and instead prioritise the more popular aspect of impro possibly to the detriment of the technique.

I think the above rant apllies manily to beginners - advanced students may well have learned enough technique and not enough of the impro stuff so it makes sense to then concentrate on that, but for beginners it should be first bthings first (but always allow some time in the lesson for a bit of fun/interest.

Lots of valid point here of course.

Speaking as a pupil, the most important things a teacher should do (IMHO) are these:

• See where the pupil is in his/her development and work from there
• Choose exercises that are feasible for the pupil in that stage of development. Not too difficult so one would get demotivated and not too easy to keep the pupil moving along.
  The teacher has to keep the pupil in the tip of his/her toes. The pupil has to be challenged, given challenges that are feasible but require some work.
• Keep the personal objectives of the pupil in mind and keep the focus on the skills and knowledge that are needed to achieve this. Of course, there will be moments that the teacher will cover some subjects that the pupil doesn't want to work on. These subjects may be needed in order to get the foundation for something the pupil wants to achieve or perhaps the institution where the teacher is working demands that certain subjects must be given.

I take lessons in our local music academy, it is also very institutionalised. We have to start with theory lessons (reading music and other basic stuff) for 3 years. The last few years one can start with the instrument classes alongside these theory lessons (before you had to wait one year before starting with the instrument). The first 3 years it's just these 2 lessons. After that we have another 3 years where the theory becomes more interesting (Jazz harmony and history of jazz-pop-rock music). And in this period we also start with combo, playing in a group with other musicians. And that is the fun part of course

The combo practice is guided by a music teacher, but often one that plays another instrument. Last year I had a guitar teacher for combo practice.

After that we just have instrument lessons and combo for another 3 years.

For me it is very good, I like the way they approach things. And it suits my needs.

 

[Pete Effamy]

+1.
The music teaching industry does a poor job of teacher education and certification.

Much of this is down to what skills are considered to have value and what constitutes good progression.

 

[eb424]

so what is more important the ability to play or read..? does it have to be both...maybe the markers of progression need to be up dated...you have to read music to pass a grade which seems to be the only clear indicator of where on the pathway you are...why?....also what constitutes theory i said above that I learnt today that theory is different than playing from a score...is that right or do the skills involved fall under theory...i.e notes, rhythm, cleffs, breaks, accidentals, or is this just the language of the theory...

 

[Pete Thomas]

so what is more important the ability to play or read..?

Getting close to a new topic

 

[CliveMA]

Can you provide more detail about the "music teaching industry" in Australia?

I can only provide my experience as a consumer. Few schools in Australia outside of large cities and elite private schools have more than a minimum music program. Once per week general music appreciation lesson only. Students wanting lessons have to find a private teacher, many of which will not be formally qualified beyond a limited level but instead have played in a group for decades as a part-time musician supporting themselves employed in a non-musical profession. My first teacher was a Barber and jazz band leader and sax/clarinet player, barely surviving in state-funded housing.

Private teacher exams are AMEB grade 1 through 8 (I think), similar to British approach.

Conservatory of Music in capital cities for formal university degrees. Only elite musicians attend. They would form a miniscule percentage of musicians.

Above is my personal observation and is probably typical of someone growing up outside a major city during the 1970s. I have no idea what young people might experience now.