Bob Green wrote:
Also, Simon's not the first to say he always ends up sounding like himself on different setups, so the chances of sounding like someone you admire would be remote, even if you wanted to.
I have to disagree there slightly. Although physiology, general talent and aptitude have a great deal to do with it, I think you can "zone in " on a general area of sax playing, or a general tonal and harmonic approach and work towards, and within, that.
Take Jim Tomlinson. He's worked very closely on the Stan Getz thing. Paul Quinichette got so close to Lester Young it was eerie sometimes.
Of course, you have to work towards being you at all times. To me the most heartening examples are those players who've started by closely aligning themselves with a chosen role model and then grown into distinct individuals themselves. On the UK scene you could name Tony Coe, who began his career under the spell of Paul Gonsalves, and Alan Skidmore, who has found his personilty through John Coltrane's music. I'd also add that both these players used many different mouthpieces through the years.
To add further to my point above, I now believe that, whilst remaining open to ALL great saxophonists (I adore everyone from Bud Freeman to Evan Parker) your development will be more effective if you concentrate on the specific area of jazz saxophone you wish to get inside.
It took me years to do that and I spent (wasted?) a lot of valuable time trying to go in this direction or that, getting in knots and being confused. Only after playing for about ten years did I really find what I wanted to do. I hasten to add that through all of that I played various mouthpieces.
As I wrote before I think players inhabit a general tonal area and that a mouthpiece/reed may or may make that easier but it certainly doesn't really alter the sound you have inside your head.
As Zoot Sims used to say in his beautifully unpretentious way "Why would you sound like something you didn't want to sound like?"
I also think that "saturation listening" (for want of a better phrase) will mean that things, primarily tone, will sink into your subconcious. If the sound you hear a lot from your favourite player on record is in your inner ear, it will be no surprise if you then go in that general direction.
This is where your sound, your signature let's face it, gets beyond the mere aspects of mouthpiece, reed and ligature and become about what you hear in your minds ear. Personally I have an "ideal" sound I want to hear from myself. Sometimes it is helped by the reed or lig, but even with a "bad" reed on, the core aspects of that tone remain. I've always equated having a bad reed as like losing your voice - it's certainly as frustrating.
That "ideal sound" is also most certainly based upon a role model in my case (guess who?!) but I've listened to that way of playing for so long now it's become second nature. I guess it's all a question of focus and of being able to say "I love player X but I don't want that sound, despite how great it is. I'd like to play with a player Y kind of sound".
The best example of would be Stan Getz. He played a bewildering array of mouthpieces in his career, and although his sound did alter as he matured, he was always recognisably him. I'm not sure if the story is apocryphal but he was supposed to have been at a music trade fair on the continent somewhere when he was asked to try the then latest Jupiter student tenor with its own mouthpiece and the reed which was on it. Getz blew it and sounded no different to how he might have sounded on his regular Selmer.
(bottom of page)
