Great Players The evolution of the saxophone sound

[jbtsax]

From Johnny Hodges to David Sanborn, or Lester Young to Michael Brecker the "concept" of sound of the saxophone in jazz has undergone a radical transformation. I would like to pose the question: What was the "driving force" behind that change? What pushed mouthpieces to become more loud and edgy and have more of a "buzz"? Was it to compete with the amplified sounds saxophone players had to compete with? Or was it just part of the change in music overall from mellow and sentimental to whatever one might call the sound of popular music today. Based upon my own experience, I suspect the generation the listening audience grew up in has a lot to do with their individual tastes and preferences of the sounds they enjoy listening to. Thank goodness we senior citizens still have recordings to take us back to the music we relate to and find enjoyable.

I should be noted Michael Brecker had such a command of the instrument, he could produce a whole pallet of sounds, but when "pushed" his sound became bright and edgy.

 

[ellinas]

It's the amps that pushed the mouthpieces to the new direction. Despite my age (40) I truly enjoy the older concept with the fatter sound.

I despise one directional setups. A player has to be free to express himself.

Sometimes I see people play testing a sax with those bright mouthpieces .... I don't understand how they evaluate the core of the horn..

But whatever suits anyone ...

 

[MaxTT]

Ah the subjective nature of music. Nothing is wrong if the music moves you. Personally, I don't care for the nanny goat vibrato of yesteryear, but that's only because my ear prefers something else. If I had been born in 1900 I would not have the frame of reference to make that judgement (having heard nothing else but that style in popular music).
I agree that part of the brighter sound is to cut through the freakin' arms race when the guitarist starts turning up and the drummer starts hitting harder (normally 3/4 of the way through the second song 🙂

 

[Jules]

I'm Sure I read an interview with David Sanborn once where he said his tone concept was from a fender strat not a saxophone...

 

[Wade Cornell]

As another "senior citizen" (but not of the same country), I'd like to give a different opinion.

It's all too natural for people to "imprint" on the things they hear and do in their prime. This is especially true for music. The music most people listen to between the ages of puberty until late 20s is the music they will continue to listen to throughout their life. Radio stations are more than aware of this and can pitch their ads to those specific demographics (music of the 80s, 90, etc.) . All good (especially for those stations and their advertisers).

However if you are a creative person in the arts (music, fashion, visual arts, etc.) then being stuck in a specific style and time isn't necessarily a good thing. All of the arts change and progress through time. It's subjective to judge whether the progression is positive or otherwise, especially if you have "imprinted" and closed your hearing/vision past your generation's cohort.

Look around and notice people who wear styles, haircuts, and use vocabulary typical of their prime. It may be cruel to judge them a fuddy-duddies, but I can guarantee you that those same people thought their grandparents were fuddy-duddies. It's our human condition. The people who need to be the exceptions are those in the arts, where we adapt to the changing times or relegate ourselves to being just another demographic typical of our generation with nothing to offer other than well worn statements and ideas.

 

[jbtsax]

We have discussed a similar topic before where it comes to playing "standards". Your point as always is well taken, however there must be a distinction made between those who "create" and those who "consume". In my view, "consumers" who make up the vast majority of the public should not be criticized or belittled for not being at the "cutting edge" of art, music, or fashion. Enjoying or having a preference for a particular genre or style other than the very latest does not make one "close minded", it just means we have our individual tastes and preferences. My hat's off to the creative types and their ilk who are forever forging a new path forward. I am not ashamed to say I am a life long musician who doesn't fit or belong in that group. 🙂

 

[Colin the Bear]

Something happens to people in old photographs. At first old photographs look to be of old people. Later in life they look like young people from a long time ago

I think recording tecniques may affect our perception of what things sounded like a long time ago. Apparently Sydney Bechet could drown out any trumpet player on sop. So maybe it only sounds gentle on those old recordings. Filling a dance hall pre electric must have been quite loud too and playing in a parade outside needs some umph.

Great clips by the way which illustrate maybe a different point of view. Hodges and Hawkins are playing for the masses on the radio and tv. Commercial media controlled to an extent by the sponsor for mass appeal and maximum take up. I'm not sure how some modern stuff would sound on an AM valve radio. Maybe electronics have a much wider input than we realise. Would we have had Hendrix without the transistor.
There are lyrical smooth players today. Few and far between admittedly.

 

[CliveMA]

I think the question is fundamentally flawed. There might be a perception of a concept but there is no such single concept for it to evolve.

Rather, there are ever broadening extremes of what is seen as possible. Today, electronic transformation, physical augmentation, world music fusion are some of the extremes.

And there are ever changing enablers and constricters that shape what is practical. Small ensembles to big bands to today's solo performer as wage costs and cost of living changed. Socially-distanced pandemic performers are solo acts with a creative array of electronic helpers to sound like whatever the audience prefers. And the media could be in person, youtube, spotify, twitch, etc.

To limit the discussion to a single perceived concept is to miss the point that such a concept can't be agreed on because it always was an artificial construct of marketeers, academics and other vested interests.

I would prefer to appreciate the breadth of music that is ever broadening.

 

[Wade Cornell]

We have discussed a similar topic before where it comes to playing "standards". Your point as always is well taken, however there must be a distinction made between those who "create" and those who "consume". In my view, "consumers" who make up the vast majority of the public should not be criticized or belittled for not being at the "cutting edge" of art, music, or fashion. Enjoying or having a preference for a particular genre or style other than the very latest does not make one "close minded", it just means we have our individual tastes and preferences. My hat's off to the creative types and their ilk who are forever forging a new path forward. I am not ashamed to say I am a life long musician who doesn't fit or belong in that group. 🙂

I think you need to re-read those comments. I have not in any way "belittled consumers" or anyone who has set their taste and standards with their demographic group. It's natural! The only comment that could be considered controversial is whether artists should resist that in order to be creating and relevant in the present. There are certainly artists/musicians who have made a good living out of staying locked into their hay-day times and catering to their own demographic.

My other "rants" were more specific in proposing that teaching students today to be playing music from the middle of the last century may not be giving them the tools they need to be relevant today. Doesn't mean that the music of previous time was bad, infarct much of it was very very good. It's just not relevant to the vast majority of today's audiences.

I've played (and sang) for old people in retirement homes. It's appropriate to play tunes they knew that mean something to them. Fact is I'm more than old enough to be there myself! When I play with DJs for dance venues then I need to be playing appropriately for that audience. It's pretty obvious where there is more demand, especially when the retirement homes generally pay nothing...it's done gratis.

As individuals we can play and listen to whatever we want. Students, and how we prepare them for the world they will be trying to entertain and make a living from, is a very different responsibility.

 

[Wonko]

There is probably some truth in the observation that there is an evolution in the sound concept of popular music. But from what I can see around me, today there are lots of styles of music around and lots of means of listening to the kind of music you like.
I remember that 25 or 30 years ago I had to go to a rather obscure shop in Bruges to find a decent assortment of blues recordings. This shop had lots of CD's that were produced by the artists themselves, he imported them himself. These days you can find most music in on-line stores or through streaming services, no need for obscure specialist shops.
And anyone can find his or her own kind of music and connect with like-minded people. This applies to other areas of interest too, going from collecting model airplanes to vegetarian cuisine.
Even this forum is something you could not find 25 years ago, a place where you could go and find like-minded people or a shared interest that you could chat about that common interest. Today we live in a world where all styles of music are "alive" for a certain (niche) public that likes that style of music.
My personal taste of music is rather eclectic, you can't pin it down to one particular genre. I think the streaming services have a hard time profiling me...... Although there is a large amount of music that I listened to in my twenties that is still prominently present in my music taste. But also music from before I was born (like the songs of Cole Porter) and new releases from various artists. I am still discovering new hidden gems all the time.....

 

[BigMartin]

Enjoying or having a preference for a particular genre or style other than the very latest does not make one "close minded", it just means we have our individual tastes and preferences.

Agreed. Most of my favourite music was made before I was born.

 

[rhysonsax]

Ah the subjective nature of music. Nothing is wrong if the music moves you. Personally, I don't care for the nanny goat vibrato of yesteryear, but that's only because my ear prefers something else.

When I hear the term "nanny goat vibrato" on the saxophone, that makes me think of fast and uncontrolled pitch wobbling as perpetrated by many amateurs. To my ears, while many of the giants of jazz saxophone had obvious (and sometimes continuous) vibrato, it wasn't uncontrolled or particularly fast - instead it was a vital part of their signature sound.

Even Sidney Bechet's deep and obvious vibrato is OK by me and I wouldn't term that as "nanny goat".


Rhys

 

[jbtsax]

My use of the term "nanny goat vibrato" has more to do with the "shape" of the vibrato than the speed. The illustration below shows an example. My experience has been that when students learning to use lip or jaw vibrato try to go too fast too soon, the result is more like the "nanny goat" than the "rolling" vibrato. There are different views on the degree of pitch alteration that is below the "center" of the pitch. There is also the "breath" or "diaphragm" vibrato in which the intensity changes more than the pitch when used on the saxophone. There are recordings that demonstrate that some early players used a vibrato that was either faster or wider than players today generally use.

I was fascinated to learn in a video interview of classical saxophonist Marcel Mule whose pronounced continuous vibrato was a integral part of his sound, that he adopted the use vibrato after hearing American players playing popular music of the time. It started with popular music and jazz and then went to classical saxophone playing rather than the other way around.

 

[rhysonsax]

My use of the term "nanny goat vibrato" has more to do with the "shape" of the vibrato than the speed. The illustration below shows an example. My experience has been that when students learning to use lip or jaw vibrato try to go too fast too soon, the result is more like the "nanny goat" than the "rolling" vibrato. There are different views on the degree of pitch alteration that is below the "center" of the pitch. There is also the "breath" or "diaphragm" vibrato in which the intensity changes more than the pitch when used on the saxophone. There are recordings that demonstrate that some early players used a vibrato that was either faster or wider than players today generally use.

@jbtsax - any recordings that demonstrate that demonstrate "nanny goat vibrato" of that sawtooth shape ?

And when you say breath or diaphragm vibrato affecting "intensity" would that be heard as pulsing volume changes or something else ?

Can you name any saxophone players (in any genre) who use diaphragm vibrato ?

Rhys

 

[jbtsax]

There is a lot of good information and examples here: Vibrato - a vitally important saxophone technique for any genre
I don't personally know the names of any saxophone players who use diaphragm vibrato. I would assume those who do through are classical players. Perhaps there are other members who can name some of them. The only time I use breath vibrato is when trying to make my soprano sound more like an English Horn (with varying degrees of success). 🙂

Breath or diaphragm vibrato is more commonly used by flute, oboe, and bassoon players than saxophone players. It is interesting that on the flute the pulses of air not only increase the intensity, but raise the pitch as well. You can scroll to the bottom of the page at this link: Famous player's flute vibratos to hear the vibrato first at normal speed and then greatly slowed down. I haven't tried this using breath vibrato on saxophone, but I suspect the pitch does not change as much as on flute.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I was fascinated to learn in a video interview of classical saxophonist Marcel Mule whose pronounced continuous vibrato was a integral part of his sound, that he adopted the use vibrato after hearing American players playing popular music of the time. It started with popular music and jazz and then went to classical saxophone playing rather than the other way around.

Wow, that's interesting indeed. Are we taking from this that all classical players using this sound hark back to Mule? I guess logic dictates that in the earliest days the sax would be played stylistically like a clarinet, and that clarinet players were the main players?

Initially then - talking classically - we presume straight tone only, or straight tone coloured by vibrato at the end of notes mainly? Is Mule one of the earliest recorded classical sax players? Born in 1901, the jazz movement was certainly well under way by the time he was 20. Incidentally Bechet was only 4 years older than Mule.

 

[jbtsax]

Here is an excerpt from the interview with Marcel Mule where he talks about vibrato. My understanding of the difference between jazz and classical vibrato is that in jazz on longer notes the tone starts straight and the vibrato is added at the end much like vocalists do. In classical saxophone the vibrato is continuous throughout notes of all values producing what has been called a "shimmering quality" to the sound. Although many classical saxophonists today have moved beyond the early French school and use a variety of styles of vibrato.

 

[Pete Effamy]

In classical saxophone the vibrato is continuous throughout notes

That was my understanding, but if this is derived only from Mule, then what was it before?
Vibrato in jazz isn’t a fixed technique, it can be any variation.
I presumed that the classical “always on” vibrato style went alongside an opera singer style.
A Belgian called Gilson wrote a concerto for sax in 1901 - I wonder what that sounded like and if anyone took him up on it.

 

[Wonko]

A couple of years ago I heard someone explaining on the radio that vibrato (they were talking about violins) was used to make the music sound better on those early recordings. The primitive recording techniques worked better on instruments with vibrato than without. It could be that it was as much due to the primitive playback techniques of course.
I find it strange that a technique that came to life as a response to technical limitations got associated with a "better" sound.
I find vibrato nothing special as a listener.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I find vibrato nothing special as a listener.

That's quite a shocking statement. Has something gone awry in translation? After all, vibrato is used overwhelmingly in all styles of music by more or less every instrument/voice.
I also can't believe that vibrato wasn't used prior to recorded music. With strings, vibrato makes the sound bigger, and more intense, as well as "prettier".