Hopefully the sax (which was designed as a Classical instrument) will become used more for that genre. For now EVERY major orchestra around the world has a clarinet section...that's a lot of clarinets. The sax is totally absent unless there is a part written for it (one out of a thousand classical pieces?) .
Good point about the sax taking the lead. If that lead captures people's imagination and communicates, then it gives a boost and has pushed the sax back forward as contemporary. This gets us back to the problem, which I don't see as a fault of the instrument...players are mostly stuck in the mid 20th century "vocabulary" and a style of playing technical variations that communicate little to an audience. Singers fall into the same "limited" category, but singers seem to have moved with the times and sing very differently to the way they did in the 1950s. If you're coming on to the music scene today singing like Perry Como, you're not likely to have much of a following. Simple truth is the 1950s jazz sax style isn't favored in contemporary music. Not the fault of the instrument, it's how it's played.
No problem copying old masters and playing standards and whatever you enjoy....just don't expect an audience or to make a living at it. And PLEASE DON'T TEACH IT AS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY. This thread is about originality, which pretty much means NOT sounding the same as a lot of other stuff. How can one be playing "standards" in a style that's formulated and consider it "original"? If you want to be original throw open the windows and let the mid 20th century jazz sax style air out for a while. There's a whole world of music out there that doesn't all sound like it's from 60 years ago.
Ok. We agree that solely teaching the language of Bebop these days is poor. You'd also agree that it should not be a teachers job to create a clone of themself.
I do not think that the sax is in danger of falling off the face of the earth in music though. And I don't see how you can knock the style of sax playing as being narrow when you do not knock classical music/musicians. Let's take clarinet player Michael Frost as one example of a contemporary exponent of classical clarinet playing. Despite all the new stuff, like everyone else, he records the Mozart Concerto. Why? Because people like it. People buy it. What's different from all the others? Well, the Rondo might be faster and really staccato. Great. Brymer did that in 1970 or whenever it was. Perhaps Stadler did it in 1790. It's the same for all instruments, the big, famous, loved works get (re)recorded. All the time.
So. Why is jazz different? In fact, much of the time it is different. But even if somebody records Kind Of Blue, it will be nowhere near as exacting as all the recordings of classical works are.
Guitarists seem to escape your critique too, but the amount of dashing up and down the fretboard wearing out a blues pentatonic is as widespread, probably more-so than the proliferation of Bebop Parker licks from sax players. Lots of the public love this, and to earn money as a musician this is what many pros have to play.
Let's not forget that the clarinet was dethroned by musicians themselves and economics. Dance crazes like the Jitterbug were not appreciated by many jazzers and they wanted to get back to a purer form of jazz. Post war austerity and the wish to make music, rather than entertainment put paid to the clarinet-led big bands of the '40's.
The purists started Bebop, others were there at the birth of Rock 'n' Roll.
The 1970's and '80's had the guitar, synth and sax solo. Then it stopped. Not the fault of guys playing too many Bebop licks in the studio, but merely the music biz being increasingly run by business people and accountants with no knowledge or appreciation of music.
Meanwhile, the sax is quite popular on Classic FM over here.
(bottom of page)
