(bottom of page)
Hi,
I have found an interesting dissertation:
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/613/
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/613/
Some excerpts (from interviews the author did) I am currently thinking about 🙂 :
What are the differences (if any) in your approach to timbre (tone) in each style?
I‘m a believer that by having the front and middle of the tongue reasonably high,
arched forward, and close to the reed (also making articulation easier), the sound is
centered and more focused. The smaller distance between the tongue and the reed creates
some constriction, resulting in what is called the Venturi effect in physics, in which the
air speed is increased as it is forced through a smaller opening. To a certain degree,
having this tongue position is desirable in both classical and jazz, but emphasizing the
position even more in jazz seems to give the tone a bit more zing. Simultaneously, the
back of my tongue is lower and the glottal opening is slightly more closed, thus bringing
the pitch down slightly, and adding brightness and penetrating power to the sound.
However, this is all relative. Some classical players modify their tongue or glottal
position in order to get the kind of volume they need to play a concerto or to assist with
altissimo notes. So, many of the supposed differences between the styles actually do
have a great deal of overlap.
Of course, none of this matters compared to the importance of developing the ear.
We can talk forever about these details of embouchure and oral cavity, but without
internalizing these sounds intuitively as if speaking a language, no saxophonist will ever
achieve great results.
When switching from jazz to
classical playing, this focused area of resonant turbulence in the oral cavity shifts
location. In jazz playing, the resonance focus surrounds the mouthpiece and reed and
also includes the area directly below the reed, behind the front bottom teeth. In classical
playing, the resonance focus shifts up to the roof of the mouth where the soft palate meets
the hard palate. It is this shift in the resonance focus that I am most conscious of now
when I switch styles, as compared to my tongue position, which is more subconscious.
Branford Marsalis, Michael Jacobson, Chris Vadala, and Rick VanMatre also use
similar embouchures for jazz and classical playing in terms of the portion of lip being
used and overall shape, and say that there is a bit firmer approach to the embouchure in
classical playing. Marsalis offers,
There are no embouchure differences. There is a change from a Selmer D to a
C* on the soprano, but that is for volume purposes. One of the hardest things to
get used to is keeping the lip pressure on the reed constant in classical playing,
even when playing low notes. In jazz, how the note arrives is not so important, so
you can cheat to get it there through slides, growls or subtone. One of the best
things I have learned in studying classical is constant lip pressure, often called
breath control (why I‘ll never know).
For the trained ear, it is often possible to identify a saxophonist as coming from
either a jazz or classical background in the span of one note. Even if both players used a
similar vibrato and timbre (which, coming from different backgrounds it is likely they
would not), one should be able to detect primary aural cues in the attack transients. Both
the attack and release of the note can speak volumes to the past experiences of the player.
In general, what one will hear when listening closely to an experiment of this nature
(using a single quarter note, for example) is that the jazz saxophonist will start the note
with a soft noise before the actual tone is sounded, and the note (and air that creates it)
will be stopped with their tongue re-touching the reed. Conversely, the classical
saxophonist will start the tone cleanly without any precursory sounds, and will end the
note by stopping the air only.
Now the other thing that is very important is if you ask a jazz player to start a
note [with a breath attack], 99 percent will play [sings] ?ffaaah.‘ A well-trained
classical player will play [sings] aaah.‘ They won‘t have the ff‘ part in front of
their sound. Many people view this as the jazz player lacking tone control, but
that is false because the tone happens when it is supposed to happen – on the beat.
Therefore he has tone control because he is doing what he intends. Now, if you
ask jazz players to play a note without the ?ff‘ in front of the note, they can‘t.
They don‘t know how to do that. We say, ?you‘re not controlling the sound
because you‘re not getting the tone when you start the air. Don‘t move the air
before the note.‘ It can‘t happen. You could ask a jazz player to do one hundred
attacks and you will get air before the attack every single time. So, then you can
say you‘re obviously making the tone when you want but you‘re preceding it with
the air. In fact, most jazz players won‘t even hear that air before the attack.
They‘ll say ?Wow, now that you point it out I do notice it. I‘ve never noticed that
before. That‘s interesting!‘ Then you can create a game by saying ?okay, start
your air on one beat and then start the note on the next beat.‘ Most jazz players
can do that easily. They can go [singing while snapping out a metronome pulse]
?ff-aaah.‘ The game continues with eighth notes [sings faster] ?ff-aaah.‘ Then
continue with sixteenth notes, and thirty-second notes, so that the ?ff‘ gets shorter
and shorter until finally, you ask them to play right on it and they play [sings]
?aaah.‘ Now within ten minutes, a major concept of classical music is learned.
What‘s happened then, is that conceptually and technically, they have put a
temporal shift on when the air starts and when the tone starts, and they can start
playing with that timing. In order for a jazz player to change their concept of an
attack (which is a major part of the problem) they must have this temporal shift to
focus on when their tone is produced in relation to when their air starts to
move.
Cheers,
Guenne
I have found an interesting dissertation:
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/613/
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/613/
Some excerpts (from interviews the author did) I am currently thinking about 🙂 :
What are the differences (if any) in your approach to timbre (tone) in each style?
I‘m a believer that by having the front and middle of the tongue reasonably high,
arched forward, and close to the reed (also making articulation easier), the sound is
centered and more focused. The smaller distance between the tongue and the reed creates
some constriction, resulting in what is called the Venturi effect in physics, in which the
air speed is increased as it is forced through a smaller opening. To a certain degree,
having this tongue position is desirable in both classical and jazz, but emphasizing the
position even more in jazz seems to give the tone a bit more zing. Simultaneously, the
back of my tongue is lower and the glottal opening is slightly more closed, thus bringing
the pitch down slightly, and adding brightness and penetrating power to the sound.
However, this is all relative. Some classical players modify their tongue or glottal
position in order to get the kind of volume they need to play a concerto or to assist with
altissimo notes. So, many of the supposed differences between the styles actually do
have a great deal of overlap.
Of course, none of this matters compared to the importance of developing the ear.
We can talk forever about these details of embouchure and oral cavity, but without
internalizing these sounds intuitively as if speaking a language, no saxophonist will ever
achieve great results.
When switching from jazz to
classical playing, this focused area of resonant turbulence in the oral cavity shifts
location. In jazz playing, the resonance focus surrounds the mouthpiece and reed and
also includes the area directly below the reed, behind the front bottom teeth. In classical
playing, the resonance focus shifts up to the roof of the mouth where the soft palate meets
the hard palate. It is this shift in the resonance focus that I am most conscious of now
when I switch styles, as compared to my tongue position, which is more subconscious.
Branford Marsalis, Michael Jacobson, Chris Vadala, and Rick VanMatre also use
similar embouchures for jazz and classical playing in terms of the portion of lip being
used and overall shape, and say that there is a bit firmer approach to the embouchure in
classical playing. Marsalis offers,
There are no embouchure differences. There is a change from a Selmer D to a
C* on the soprano, but that is for volume purposes. One of the hardest things to
get used to is keeping the lip pressure on the reed constant in classical playing,
even when playing low notes. In jazz, how the note arrives is not so important, so
you can cheat to get it there through slides, growls or subtone. One of the best
things I have learned in studying classical is constant lip pressure, often called
breath control (why I‘ll never know).
For the trained ear, it is often possible to identify a saxophonist as coming from
either a jazz or classical background in the span of one note. Even if both players used a
similar vibrato and timbre (which, coming from different backgrounds it is likely they
would not), one should be able to detect primary aural cues in the attack transients. Both
the attack and release of the note can speak volumes to the past experiences of the player.
In general, what one will hear when listening closely to an experiment of this nature
(using a single quarter note, for example) is that the jazz saxophonist will start the note
with a soft noise before the actual tone is sounded, and the note (and air that creates it)
will be stopped with their tongue re-touching the reed. Conversely, the classical
saxophonist will start the tone cleanly without any precursory sounds, and will end the
note by stopping the air only.
Now the other thing that is very important is if you ask a jazz player to start a
note [with a breath attack], 99 percent will play [sings] ?ffaaah.‘ A well-trained
classical player will play [sings] aaah.‘ They won‘t have the ff‘ part in front of
their sound. Many people view this as the jazz player lacking tone control, but
that is false because the tone happens when it is supposed to happen – on the beat.
Therefore he has tone control because he is doing what he intends. Now, if you
ask jazz players to play a note without the ?ff‘ in front of the note, they can‘t.
They don‘t know how to do that. We say, ?you‘re not controlling the sound
because you‘re not getting the tone when you start the air. Don‘t move the air
before the note.‘ It can‘t happen. You could ask a jazz player to do one hundred
attacks and you will get air before the attack every single time. So, then you can
say you‘re obviously making the tone when you want but you‘re preceding it with
the air. In fact, most jazz players won‘t even hear that air before the attack.
They‘ll say ?Wow, now that you point it out I do notice it. I‘ve never noticed that
before. That‘s interesting!‘ Then you can create a game by saying ?okay, start
your air on one beat and then start the note on the next beat.‘ Most jazz players
can do that easily. They can go [singing while snapping out a metronome pulse]
?ff-aaah.‘ The game continues with eighth notes [sings faster] ?ff-aaah.‘ Then
continue with sixteenth notes, and thirty-second notes, so that the ?ff‘ gets shorter
and shorter until finally, you ask them to play right on it and they play [sings]
?aaah.‘ Now within ten minutes, a major concept of classical music is learned.
What‘s happened then, is that conceptually and technically, they have put a
temporal shift on when the air starts and when the tone starts, and they can start
playing with that timing. In order for a jazz player to change their concept of an
attack (which is a major part of the problem) they must have this temporal shift to
focus on when their tone is produced in relation to when their air starts to
move.
Cheers,
Guenne
