Intonation How to play the saxophone in tune

[Pete Thomas]

If you search 'Joe Allard' on the site you will see he has been mentioned a few times.

I’ve seen/read a lot about Joe Allard and found I didn’t agree with much of what he said. Haven’t heard his playing though I must admit.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I think Joe was an orchestral player. He worked with both Brecker and Eddie Daniels, albeit when they could already “play a bit”. Both, and indeed all pupils it seems, absolutely gush about his influence.

My clarinet professor asked me what I thought of him back in the ‘80’s as he couldn’t make out what he was saying / meaning.

Again, I’m not calling into question Joe’s credibility, just that some “on the outside “ do / have.

 

[Shane - Saxology Canada]

That was my point really, and I’ve played / been around plenty of orchestral players. All we ever hear about is how difficult this or that instrument is to learn - which may be correct - but the truth is that everything is laid out and can be observed by both teacher and learner. In our world this isn’t the case - it’s maybe just that we don’t moan about it.

I think , maybe, you misunderstood my point! What i was trying to say is "visuals etc. are not what good teachers focus on.... The sound and teaching the student to listen and hopefully "hear" are the most important things to focus on. and as much as you may think violin is visually taught, that is only because you are not a violinist! You cannot "see" the right pressure of the bow, its appropriate speed etc. but you can hear when it's done right! That is not a visual cue. That is a musically taught skill , learned by listening ! Absolutely similarly... everything on Sax is and should be about listening. the example I gave of a Joe Allard clinic is all bout listening and hopefully someday hearing.

 

[Shane - Saxology Canada]

I’ve seen/read a lot about Joe Allard and found I didn’t agree with much of what he said. Haven’t heard his playing though I must admit.

Like every so called communication, much is lost in repetition. Often the messenger passes on his/her misconceptions, misunderstandings and misses the whole point.
That story about the Joe Allard clinic demonstrated that some , often esteemed teachers, are so deep into their own ways and ideas that they don't hea what is so obvious to others.

Listening is not only a musical necessity, but a skill that is so often missing in communication. So often the so called listener is just waiting to bring his/her ideas forward but not truly listening and working with the ideas of the speaker.
But that is what is afflicting America in every way these days!

P.S Joe Allard was a very influential and famous teacher, so you should expect his ideas etc. will be misrepresented by many who will use his name without any respectful and assidious investigation of his ideas, etc. But this is such a common practice you should not be surprised.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I think , maybe, you misunderstood my point! What i was trying to say is "visuals etc. are not what good teachers focus on....

I disagree very strongly.

When I used to teach I found that some students responded very well to visualising. I wrote an entire article on it:

Own and understand your sound: How to visualize your sound

Looking the way people describe their saxophone tone, we may all mean different things by bright & dark. Describe your sound as a color?

tamingthesaxophone.com

I don't think a good teacher should be so dogmatic and have rules about what they focus on with a student . The crucially most important thing is to

1. Understand the student and how they resound to different methods
2. Teach that individual based on what you have learned.

So some students really appreciated visual analogies, others didn't and part of the teacher's skill is to know which.

Another example: I found that some students responded well to being taught with discipline, not quite yelled at but being taught in a very strict way. Others didn't respond at all well and so needed what some might call a more sympathetic or kinder approach.

Like every so called communication, much is lost in repetition. Often the messenger passes on his/her misconceptions, misunderstandings and misses the whole point.....P.S Joe Allard was a very influential and famous teacher, so you should expect his ideas etc. will be misrepresented by many who will use his name without any respectful and assidious investigation of his ideas, etc. But this is such a common practice you should not be surprised.

But much of what I meant was based on an actual interview with Joe Allard. Also with teachers whom I have more respect for and would not have misrepresented anything.

When you can trust the source anecdotal evidence is fine. e.g. your story about the clinic is anecdotal, and so you could be misrepresenting but nobody is going to accuse you of that.

However even with that story I can tell from what was relayed about Joe Allard telling a student they were stifling the sound and playing flat because they need to take in more mouthpiece that I do not hold so much regard for that statement. It's a myth that you need to take in more mouthpiece in order to let the reed vibrate. It's one of those "stand to reason" statements that seems to make sense on the face of it but in practice it's not that simple. I believe the more mouthpiece you take in the less control you have and the less versatile you can be with the sound. That's my own experience, I'm aware there are differing experiences.

 

[Pete Effamy]

You cannot "see" the right pressure of the bow, its appropriate speed etc.

Vibrato is probably mostly learned through watching - it’s very visual, remarkably. Use all your senses where appropriate.

 

[Pete Thomas]

You cannot "see" the right pressure of the bow, its appropriate speed etc. but you can hear when it's done right!

No but you can feel it. And with vibrato you can see the rate of vibrato via finger movement. So it isn’t all about hearing, other senses are involved.

 

[Shane - Saxology Canada]

I disagree very strongly.

When I used to teach I found that some students responded very well to visualising. I wrote an entire article on it:

Own and understand your sound: How to visualize your sound

Looking the way people describe their saxophone tone, we may all mean different things by bright & dark. Describe your sound as a color?

tamingthesaxophone.com

I don't think a good teacher should be so dogmatic and have rules about what they focus on with a student . The crucially most important thing is to

1. Understand the student and how they resound to different methods
2. Teach that individual based on what you have learned.

So some students really appreciated visual analogies, others didn't and part of the teacher's skill is to know which.

Another example: I found that some students responded well to being taught with discipline, not quite yelled at but being taught in a very strict way. Others didn't respond at all well and so needed what some might call a more sympathetic or kinder approach.


But much of what I meant was based on an actual interview with Joe Allard. Also with teachers whom I have more respect for and would not have misrepresented anything.

When you can trust the source anecdotal evidence is fine. e.g. your story about the clinic is anecdotal, and so you could be misrepresenting but nobody is going to accuse you of that.

However even with that story I can tell from what was relayed about Joe Allard telling a student they were stifling the sound and playing flat because they need to take in more mouthpiece that I do not hold so much regard for that statement. It's a myth that you need to take in more mouthpiece in order to let the reed vibrate. It's one of those "stand to reason" statements that seems to make sense on the face of it but in practice it's not that simple. I believe the more mouthpiece you take in the less control you have and the less versatile you can be with the sound. That's my own experience, I'm aware there are differing experiences.

All good points but I reiterate something you cannot deny or dispute: Music is an aural art form. I'm just suggesting you and everyone keep that in mind... OR you could opt for students who look good. Personally I prefer students who sound great!

 

[Pete Effamy]

All good points but I reiterate something you cannot deny or dispute: Music is an aural art form. I'm just suggesting you and everyone keep that in mind... OR you could opt for students who look good. Personally I prefer students who sound great!

Yes, we’d all passed that by. Keep in mind that you never know who you’re talking to, what their experience is. Small country the UK, but a couple of people here have done some good things too.

 

[Dr G]

All good points but I reiterate something you cannot deny or dispute: Music is an aural art form. I'm just suggesting you and everyone keep that in mind... OR you could opt for students who look good. Personally I prefer students who sound great!

You apparently fail to grasp the concept of visualization. Hint: It is not about looking good.

 

[Pete Effamy]

You’re believing your own hype too. Personally, I couldn’t care if a student played out their ear if it sounded good. Most teachers change things only if they’re not working - and therein lies the clue - they’re listening.

 

[mrblackbat]

All good points but I reiterate something you cannot deny or dispute: Music is an aural art form. I'm just suggesting you and everyone keep that in mind... OR you could opt for students who look good. Personally I prefer students who sound great!

Perhaps if you had a point you wanted to make, rather than just preaching to folk you've only just met on a forum, you'd spend a little time getting to know the people here, seeing what their experience levels were, and what they already know, listen to their playing; rather than coming in and being continually abrasive.

Speaking of which, are you going to back up what you're saying with some examples of your playing?

 

[mrblackbat]

I’ve seen/read a lot about Joe Allard and found I didn’t agree with much of what he said. Haven’t heard his playing though I must admit.

What I have heard of his playing I don't really care for, either.

There's an interview with him where he plays a bunch of "bad" techniques, but they're so caricatured that I can't really take it seriously. The 'ta' thing in particular; many people do it and don't sound remotely like Joe's impression which sounds like a first day sax player.

He must have been a good teacher and imparted a lot of great information based on the thoughts and comments of his students, but it's difficult for me to see how from the interviews and pieces of his method I have read.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I reiterate something you cannot deny or dispute: Music is an aural art form. I'm just suggesting you and everyone keep that in mind...

I think everyone knows that though. It comes across as a little condescending to imply everyone is not keeping it in mind.

OR you could opt for students who look good.

No I wouldn’t do that.

Personally I prefer students who sound great!

Do you think I/we would not think that?

But aside from what I’ve said above, if a student intends to be professional, in many circumstances music is also performance art in which the visual aspect of the performer is important. I also taught students about that, however it’s a very different thing to visualisation and it’s uses in learning playing technique, which is of course all about sound.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Personally I prefer students who sound great!

This really is based around snake oil. I just can’t imagine anyone tinkering with the technique of a student that sounds great already. Who does this?!

And when you need to modify tonguing, for example, you persuade the student that it’s necessary because the articulation isn’t clean or light - by sound.

What about teaching homogeny of registers; “resonance” fingerings? To improve the sound. Again, you persuade the student to learn a fair number of extra fingerings that are quite awkward based upon improved sonority. Sound.

Part of what I watched Joe Allard talk about was having a more open clarinet sound - one that I’ve always preferred - but this is commentating on two different accepted sounds, and preferences according to national schools of playing, and since the internet, merely preference.

American school of classical clarinet was always a tighter sound than the old English school, for example, of Brymer. Martin Frost has a tighter, less open sound. Choice. He plays great.

 

[Shane - Saxology Canada]

Yes, we’d all passed that by. Keep in mind that you never know who you’re talking to, what their experience is. Small country the UK, but a couple of people here have done some good things too.

Absolutely! and a lot of wonderful Sax Quartet concepts and arrangements and performers/performances that I've heard and witnessed. The world of Sax has many diverse and wonderful branches of creativity!

 

[Shane - Saxology Canada]

Pete Effamy said : "What about teaching homogeny of registers; “resonance” fingerings? To improve the sound." That is the 'forever goal' in my opinion. I'm not into 'fingerings' but totally think keeping a big warm, (not tighter and tighter) sound as you go up in the registers is an 'lifetime goal' I and many keep working on!

 

[turf3]

I think a lot of the things Famous Instructors say are more in the way of getting students to break bad habits by going to the extreme in the other way. The "roll the lip out" thing is an example. You can't really play the saxophone with the lower lip completely rolled out, but it serves as an exercise to break the student of the rolled-tightly-in-biting clarinet embouchure.

Similarly, saying "you must never change or adjust your embouchure in going from note to note" is something reasonable to say to a student who has no stability of embouchure, with tone and pitch going all over the place. But the reality of playing the saxophone is that you have to make constant minor adjustments in embouchure, airstream, and voicing. The trick is to PRACTICE till these constant adjustments are unconscious. Don't try to tell me that every aspect of the player's address to the instrument is identical between a pianissimo low Bb, a fortississimo low Bb, a pianissimo high altissimo G, and a fortississimo altissimo high C. They just aren't.

The real value of an instrumental instructor is to help the player discover how it FEELS to "do it right" so that they can internalize what it takes to reliably do whatever it is that needs to be done, without having to think about it. But that internalization doesn't take place an hour a week in the teacher's studio; it takes place five or ten or fifty hours a week in the practice room.

 

[Shane - Saxology Canada]

So absolutely true. I'd just add ...also help the student to recognize what it sounds like when it is working well!
turf3 is wise!

 

[PiccoloPirate]

I might have missed it, but I didn't read about Allard's most important advice, to his students, about playing the Saxophone. 🧐