Controlling your sound concept

[cjR]

I've read/heard a lot of players talking about "only sounding like you" and the importance of having/developing a sound concept that guides "your sound".

I play a mix of classical (etudes, exercises etc) and jazz and on the same gear have 2 quite different sounds depending on what I'm playing. So I take this to mean I have some approximation of a sound concept for each (or within my sound concept there's 2 distinct notions), and when I think "ok, classical" some changes happen in my embouchure, throat etc. and I dial that in unconsciously ?

Or said another way, I have no idea what I'm doing to make those changes, is that normal ? As players become more experienced are they increasing their conceptual pallette and dialing in more nuanced changes just by thinking "that sound" or do they have more conscious control over the embouchure or a bit of both ?

Curious to read peoples thoughts

 

[Wade Cornell]

It's often said that sax is the closest instrument to the human voice. To me this is true in many ways. Without belaboring the point IMHO for an experienced player it's all subconscious. It's the same for singers who can sing in a Classical style and switch to a more pop style voice (same equipment!). However to continue the analogy it's also true that a Classical singer won't be able to produce a good pop style voice without having practiced it...and vice versa.

Having your own sound, regardless of the style, requires that you've practiced and developed that sound to a point where it's natural/effortless.

Thinking about "your own sound": IMHO that doesn't happen as quickly or possibly at all for those who have bought into the idea of trying to sound like some sax hero. Many students are encouraged to practice trying to sound exactly like other famous/popular players. The result is somewhat predictable since you become what you practice. No great player's sound is confused with another great player. Those who have only copied are at best "tribute players".

Many (most?) teachers seem to think it's a good idea to tell students to listen, copy, transcribe, etc. ...which is OK up to a point, but too often that point is passed as most teachers have no idea about how to inspire creativity or bring out the innate potential of players who have talent. Improvisation is taught as though it's engineering and melodic thinking completely ignored. Once again going back to the comparison with voice, one should try to use the sax as though you are singing. The sax is a voice that can be your own, or just be a copy of someone else.

 

[turf3]

At least for African-American improvised music, I think you should probably play and play and play, use good standard technique for embouchure and airstream development, and "your sound" will emerge.

I believe the main point of tone building exercises is to learn from personal experience how it feels in your body to make certain things happen, so when you need those things to happen you can make it happen. Most of the detailed instructions I've read (pull this down, lift that up, mimic this or that sound) are just ways to approach having the so-called muscle memory to do that.

At least for me I have zero idea what exactly I'm doing anatomically when I think "alto - Paul Desmond" or "alto - Arthur Blythe" or "baritone - Harry Carney" or "baritone - Cecil Payne" and so on.

 

[Colin the Bear]

I tried teaching once. It's hard to explain how you do something when you don't know how you do it.

 

[thomsax]

Your saxophone tone/sound is very much a "fresh produce". I sounded different for 20-30 years ago compared to the sound/tone I produce today. It's just to accept. The interesting question is what will I sound the 2-3 coming years? Is it still fun to play the saxophone and know that my best days as sax player are gone?

Thinking about "your own sound"

I use to read your posts and I often wonder how I would sound if you should lead me to "my own and unique" tone/sound out of my physical and mental conditions? Aren't we all talking out of our own settings and personal preferences? The sax teacher that I took two lessons from didn't like Rock & Roll Saxophone and I was paying him to help me to develop my sound/tone. The teacher was not even close to Rock.

It's hard to explain how you do something when you don't know how you do it.

It is, but it can be done. Forget traditional teaching. You better to think in terms of to explain a feeling. I've been teaching many persons that couldn't read and write and we were not even talking the same language. It took lots of time to follow the same plan as traditional teaching. The result was often better.

 

[Wade Cornell]

I use to read your posts and I often wonder how I would sound if you should lead me to "my own and unique" tone/sound out of my physical and mental conditions? Aren't we all talking out of our own settings and personal preferences? The sax teacher that I took two lessons from didn't like Rock & Roll Saxophone and I was paying him to help me to develop my sound/tone. The teacher was not even close to Rock.

I think we have a failure to communicate. I'd never be leading anybody to their own sound. That's for them to find. There's a point where someone teaching should either stop or just encourage whatever is in the student to come out. Teaching is good for technique, but shouldn't be defining what the student plays or even how they play. If you know what you want and can find someone who can help that's good. However too much talent has been (IMHO) destroyed by teachers who decide for their students what and how they should play, or have them just continually copy and never achieve their own sound or style.

 

[turf3]

And yet...

All those great musicians who formed African-American improvised music, if they had formal training, had traditional classical formal training, and often not even on the instrument they played to fame and fortune (well, fame at any rate). I don't think the formal training of Coleman Hawkins on cello, or Charles Mingus on cello and trombone, or Benny Goodman on clarinet, or Ben Webster on piano, just to list a few examples, "destroyed their individuality". Do you think the very different piano styles of Jelly Roll Morton, James P Johnson, Earl Hines, Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Willie the Lion Smith, and Teddy Wilson, all of whom were well versed and trained in the classics, emerged from "destroyed individuality"?

I always say the same thing, if your talent is such that it could be "destroyed" by proper instruction and training, it must have been an awful fragile evanescent thing in the first place, hardly worth bothering with.

Do you think Louis Armstrong's playing got worse after he learned how to read complex scores at sight? When Coltrane got out of the navy and went to music school, do you think his talent was "destroyed", or enhanced?

 

[Wade Cornell]

And yet...

All those great musicians who formed African-American improvised music, if they had formal training, had traditional classical formal training, and often not even on the instrument they played to fame and fortune (well, fame at any rate). I don't think the formal training of Coleman Hawkins on cello, or Charles Mingus on cello and trombone, or Benny Goodman on clarinet, or Ben Webster on piano, just to list a few examples, "destroyed their individuality". Do you think the very different piano styles of Jelly Roll Morton, James P Johnson, Earl Hines, Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Willie the Lion Smith, and Teddy Wilson, all of whom were well versed and trained in the classics, emerged from "destroyed individuality"?

I always say the same thing, if your talent is such that it could be "destroyed" by proper instruction and training, it must have been an awful fragile evanescent thing in the first place, hardly worth bothering with.

Do you think Louis Armstrong's playing got worse after he learned how to read complex scores at sight? When Coltrane got out of the navy and went to music school, do you think his talent was "destroyed", or enhanced?

These are good examples of training that was appropriate, or enough. I'm certainly not advocating that nobody should learn or be taught. It's teaching that is single minded where the instructor(s) program the students to be on a single trajectory that seems never ending that can be detrimental. Teaching, especially now, is a big business that includes online promoters who promise you that they can turn anyone into a great player. Universities certainly aren't cheap and try to maintain a profile that infers that the more advanced education one has the better. Unfortunately those advanced degrees seem to mostly = even more teachers who aren't able to make a living playing music.

The saddest fact is that of all the PhDs awarded in music performance or any of the "arts", there are no "greats". How many great artists, composers or musicians can be named who have graduated with a PhD and then went on to be famous? Did none of those aspiring people have talent? This is more than a coincidence. The more a student stays in a directed program towards a PhD the less chance that they will become anything other than a pedagogue advocating the same paradigm that has killed their individuality/creativity.

I work in science. We use previous knowledge to continue to advance, so study and specialization can be a cumulative good. The arts are about revolution and creativity that grows out of the past but doesn't continually repeat the same thing. In the arts it's necessary to learn/study and develop your skill set, but if that goes on for too long and means that the student spends years just imitating or boxing themselves into a well worn overpopulated genera, then creativity (your own voice) may be completely subsumed.

 

[mizmar]

How many great artists, composers or musicians can be named who have graduated with a PhD and then went on to be famous?

You asked that before...

Help on Ear Training - CafeSaxophone Forum

Hello, the context is that I am pretty new to the world of the sax and music in general.I'm wondering how folks here improve their ears (relative pitch, chord progression recognition, recognizing sharp/flat, etc). If you could point me to any of your favorite exercises or resources I would...

cafesaxophone.com

 

[mizmar]

I work in science. We use previous knowledge to continue to advance, so study and specialization can be a cumulative good

And yet in science, history is and research labs are full of; revolutions and creativity. Sure, working "grunt" scientists must use tried and true methods and Theory... Just as a concert violinist must...
... I'm not sure your dichotomy works... Based on the evidence.

 

[skeller047]

This thread took a turn…. I think the OP was asking if it’s OK or “proper” to change one’s sound for different music styles. Short answer - yes.

Long(er) answer - different musical styles, even in similar genres (thinking funk vs pop vs jazz) require different approaches. Part of this is down to characteristic phrasing: what rhythms to accent, how short or long notes are, straight vs swing time, etc. But there are certain tonal colors that are part of the style too - brighter tones for pop, darker ones for cool jazz, you get the picture.

Part of becoming a more accomplished musician is learning to control dynamics, and tonal color is certainly part of that picture. One’s concept can drive the choice of mouthpiece, reed and horn, but one’s physical characteristics also play a part. But having a mental picture of one’s desired tone is key. That picture will certainly become more focused over time, and may change as one’s tastes change.

Regarding the training vs. creativity discussion, there is good training and bad training. I have had some bad teachers over the years; I did my best to ignore them. I am sure that some of them were fine musicians, but we didn’t click. However, standard classical instruction is valuable for any musician, because it focuses on what we need to do to produce sound and perform difficult passages cleanly. I strongly dislike “classical saxophone” but that’s just my taste. STUDYING classical literature is beneficial to me for both technical and musical reasons.

Finally, about creativity - I am fond of the idea that constraints foster creativity instead of stifling it. My experience as a player and composer tells me that restricting what I do actually helps focus. Certainly some constraints are more confining, but some of my best work has come from limiting certain parts of my activity. Training is a constraint; creative people use it creatively.

 

[Targa]

You asked that before...

Help on Ear Training - CafeSaxophone Forum

Hello, the context is that I am pretty new to the world of the sax and music in general.I'm wondering how folks here improve their ears (relative pitch, chord progression recognition, recognizing sharp/flat, etc). If you could point me to any of your favorite exercises or resources I would...

cafesaxophone.com

At least three times!