Talk:Saxophone/Archive 1

discussion
I just took this out: "Do we need saxophone lessons, buddy?" Minnie Bannister of the Goons.

It isn't even the most famous Goon use of saxophone, which is when Captain Neddy of the US Cavalry says, "Somebody has been smuggling saxophones to the Indians", whereupon the sax section of the band plays "Indian Love Call".

But none of it, amusing though it may be, belongs in an encyclopedia article on the saxophone. Ortolan88

Is there a reason Saxophonefingeringchart.jpeg is rotated 90 degrees? Luke 02:50, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does the musician playing the saxophone have to be there? Personally, I think it scares me more than helps me understand (I hate to think that I look like that when I play my tenor). Ilyanep 21:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know enough about saxophones to take a crack at the captions, though I'd like to see them improved. Perhaps a player could give it a try. (See Captions for some ideas.) Thanks! -- ke4roh 15:43, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

"distinctive loop bringing the bell upwards"?
Uh... What about soprano Saxophones? There are also "straight" altos, for that matter...


 * it mentions that, in the next sentence....Rick Boatright 21:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It also says "The loop at the bell, whilst now synonymous with the saxophone, has little effect on the sound". If you've ever heard a straight alto then you really notice the difference. It's perhaps not so obvious with the sopranos but when I asked Snake Davies (session player to the stars) where he stood on straight versus curved sopranos, he said "Put it this way, all three of my sopranos are curved" - Dom.

The Sax Company
The article mentions various manufacturers. When did saxophones cease to be manufactured by the Sax company? Does that company still exist? Adambisset 23:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adolphe's son, Adolphe Edouard, sold the family business to the Henri Selmer company in 1928. - Dom.

erorrs in discussion of b-flat fingerings
First, two of the B-flat fingerings are mislabeled. The "bis" fingering is the middle one pictured, not the right one. The right one should be called the "side" B-flat. (source: common knowledge, but since that's unlikely to persuade to the person who made the mistake, here's a url that indirectly confirms that the bis key is that little key underneath the left-hand first finger: http://www.runyonproducts.com/clar.bis.html )

Second, "the split Bb fingering is used in chromatic passages"? If by "chromatic" you mean a A-Bb-B or B-Bb-A passage, then most would consider the split fingering is a poor choice. (Use the side fingering.)

"The left-hand fingering is often used in passages that have no B-naturals"? Correct except (as per above) the left-hand fingering is called the bis fingering.

"while the bis fingering is useful for the A-Bb trill"? Both the bis fingering and the side fingering are good for A-Bb trill. (On the other hand, the Bb-C trill pretty much requires the side fingering, though in this case the side Bb key should remain held down even for the C so perhaps not the best example.)

Also, the "split" fingering is also frequently called the "one and one" fingering, and it should probably be noted that any one (or combination) of the three right-hand fingers may be used, not necessarily the top one.

Might also mention that with the bis fingering, the left index finger depresses both the B key and the bis key simultaneously. (Some novice players attemtp to depress the bis key with the second finger, which is either never done or is a rare/advanced technique, depending on who you ask.)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. Done! --Bcrowell 05:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link to my own free printer-friendly basic fingering chart. I realize this could be seen as bogus self-promotion, so please feel free to delete it if you think it's not worth linking to. --Bcrowell 23:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Materials (plastic mouthpieces)
Regarding the following sentence:
 * Plastic mouthpieces do not produce a good tone, and should not be used if at all possible.

This assertion has been made before. I'm certain that thousands of saxophonists would disagree. I've changed the statement to reflect a previous edit which I thought was more NPOV. (Previous edits along these same lines equated plastic mouthpieces with student mouthpieces, and vice versa. I would suggest instead that cheap mouthpieces are inferior because of the finish, regardless of the material.  (And there are exceptions even among the cheapest mouthpieces, e.g. many players would agree that Rico Royal mouthpieces are a good value.)  A mouthpiece technician could re-face the mouthpiece and it would sound great, yet still be made of plastic.)  I've also removed the external link to classicsax.com, as mentioning a mouthpiece vendor in a description of mouthpieces seems like spam (though this may not have been the intent). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The same anonymous editor has posted the same content, and based on my above comments I have reverted the edit, again. If the editor happens to read this, can we please discuss this here?  Your edit is highly POV. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * For future reference (in the event of relevant future edits), as well as to respond to Taxman's request for references (see below), I wish to direct interested parties to page 17 of The Art of Saxophone Playing by Larry Teal:
 * A preference as to material used is up to the individual, and the advantages of each are a matter of controversy. Mouthpieces of various materials which have exactly the same dimensions, including the chamber and outside measurements as well as the facing, play very nearly the same. . . . Plastic has proved to be a good material and is in wide use . . . and is popular in student mouthpieces, where ruggedness and precision are required at low cost.
 * I will add this reference to the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've added one, anyway: Larry Teal's The Art of Saxophone Playing. Actually I'm surprised this wasn't already mentioned. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. Got more? :) - Taxman 20:25, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The embouchure
After several year playing Bari and Alto I must note that it is just as important to have the open "yawning" embouchure in the higher register as well. Closing the embouchure for the higher register gives the notes a weak sound that most people would prefer not to hear. Control of the pitch and register is done more so in the upper embouchure (the lips and chin) than in the lower embouchure (the throat.) Keeping the throat open on the higher pitch produces a richer, fuller sound than tightening, improving the listening experience, while adding to control of the instrument for the player. (This is from personal experience, I have no other source for this than myself and my instructors)

The throat "yawn": It requires a certain kind of embouchure if you use the "yawn". With other kinds of embouchures the "yawn is bad bad bad.

The classic way of playing is you keep your lips and chin in one place in all the registers, also altissimo. Pitch is controlled in the throat/tongue department. This allows for an even and beautiful sound in all the registers. Also no "opening of the throat" is required. This produces a fuller, more focused sound, than if you try to artificially open the throat. Also no closing is required. This kind of playing produces the person's own sound.

Vibrato?
Vibrato is an integral part of saxophone playing. It isn't mentioned once in this article! I think it needs to be included. And why is this nominated as one of the best Wikipedia articles? I think it lacks a lot of information. --Berserk798 17:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This was a featured article. Then, due to a lack of references, the article was basically whiped and is in the process of being redone. --Asamwithasax


 * Vibrato is not an integral part of saxophone playing - not even in classical playing in which I often hear the most evil of vibratos that could shake the world into pieces. Mention vibrato you like, but it is nowhere near integral.  What's integral to saxophone playing is the instrument, the player, the ability to play and nothing more. &brvbar; Reisio 18:13, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

That's crap. Vibrato is not an integral part of playing but it is to some extent very important. If one was to merely just play without adding any techniques such as growling and vibrato, the sound would be very bland. Parker, cannonball, davis all use vibrato, so vibrato isn't important? It is. It is imperative to the very breath of saxophone playing.


 * "Vibrato is not an integral part of playing" &mdash; Glad you agree. :) &brvbar; Reisio 02:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The importance of vibrato should not be diminished. I would challenge someone to include names of prominent saxophone players who do not use vibrato. During the 20's and 30's Rudy Wiedoeft brought the saxophone into the homes of Americans and popularized the instrument, using a very wide and fast vibrato. Vibrato distinguishes the instrument from the clarinet and helps it imitate the lyrical qualities of the human voice. Jmeeks 22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Growling
I would suggest a slight change to the growling section. I learned that a proper growl is done by singing the note one fifth below the note being played. I have found this technique to work best in using a growl, as it produces the desired sound, and is likely more musically correct than just singing anything you want to sing. I would challenge any player to test their growl technique to this standard and prove whether the sound of their growl improves.

Restore gutted content
A whole lot of content was deleted from this article, including three entire sections (namely Mouthpieces, Reeds, and Writing for the saxophone). This is pretty drastic and probably should have been discussed here first. I also found this note embedded in the article (though commented out):


 * I am going to skip parts of technique to leave for others. Right now, writing from the technique books I have on hand and m own personal experience, I am going to write Embourchure now and Altissimo tomorrow when I can find my Sigurd Rashear [sic] book.

I get the impression that an editor has been treating this as a work-in-progress. Please remember that the article is still viewable in the meantime. May I suggest that you not work on the article piecemeal? Instead, until you're ready to finsh, leave the rest of the article intact. (Also I've taken the above comment out of the article, it really belongs here.) To be frank, given the anonymous edits and disappearing content, I thought someone had been vandalizing the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * More restoration: all the material following (what was left of) the "Technique" section was deleted, including references, external links, categories and interwikis. Whatever else you think doesn't belong in an article about saxophones, you really should leave that stuff in. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Clinton/Yeltsin photo
I don't feel that this photo is appropriate in this article, since Bill Clinton is not really a saxophonist. Perhaps a photo of Marcel Mule or Charlie Parker would be more appropriate.


 * I agree that another photo would be more appropriate. The trick, perhaps, is finding a photo whose copyright doesn't prevent it from being included in Wikipedia. Another great picture would be the one of Sigurd Rascher posing with all the members of the saxophone family (or Rahsaan Roland Kirk playing multiple saxes at once). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well someone's added an image of some German guy I've never heard of, but it's not Clinton. There's got to be a photo out there that someone took of Rahsaan at some live show somewhere... &brvbar; Reisio 17:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * That would be me - excuse me a moment, whilst I slap my wrist for editing without reading the talk page first. In any case, I periodically work through various sources of good images and try and find them homes. I hadn't heard of Klaus Doldinger either, but the wider version of this image just missed being made a featured picture on the Commons (voters largely didn't like the other members of the band). If he is playing in Jazz festivals in Germany he must be reasonably good. I just figured this page could use a picture of someone playing a sax with gusto. -- Solipsist 19:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I meant no disrespect or disapproval. :) &brvbar; Reisio 19:48, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Family Members, Stritch/manzello/saxello etc.
Any specific reason for the deletion of the "manzello/stritch" references, or was this part of the "clean-up/content gutting"? Significantly more likely that readers will encounter these "mutts"than thatthey'll ever run across the true sopranino instrument. --Silverlake Bodhisattva 4 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)
 * What references? Could you link the diff?  I seriously doubt people are more likely to encounter a stritch or manzello more than a sopranino, but it's no matter - add references back in if you like. &brvbar; Reisio 2005 July 4 23:27 (UTC)

BTW if, per the above discussion re; the pictures, someone puts up a picture of Roland Kirk playing, there's almost certainly going to be either a stritch or a manzello in the pic. I also suspect that his recordings (which would be the overwhleming majority of stritch/manzello recordings out there) may have sold more copies, at this point, than the aggregate sales of all recordings on which sopranino plays any significant role (and I say this as someone who actually owns at least one recording with a sopranino on it, and has heard one played live.)--Silverlake Bodhisattva 6 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

Will somebody please add in the references again, already? All varieties of saxophone are absolutely relevant in this article.
 * Why don't you? &brvbar; Reisio 2005 July 6 21:52 (UTC)

Now, I'm trying to hew closely to the new verifiability/authentication standards, and having dug around some more, I'm less clear as to what different horns are actually out there, as contrasted with what different people call the same horn. There are now commercially available, contemporary-manufactured straight altos, at least one straight tenor, and a number "half-straight" sopranos, which seem to be equivalent to the King Co. saxello or Kirk's manzello. I believe that there's at least one contemporary stritch manufacturer/builder, though I haven't located it yet.

Reed players/collectors: anyone got a saxello and a manzello, and how do they differ? Anyone got a stritch and a "straight alto"? How do they differ? --Silverlake Bodhisattva 6 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)


 * I would have to double-check, but I thought "manzello" is the name Kirk made up for the saxello or similar instrument. He may have even cobbled some of these together from the parts of different horns. I've got a Kirk biography on the shelf that I've been meaning to get into, anyway.  (Uh, the biography, not the shelf.) -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 6 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

Per multi-reed player Vinny Golia, who apparently patronized Kirk's instrument supplier at one time, and had met R.K., this analysis appears to be correct; "stritch" and "manzello" appear to be Kirk's names for altered straight alto and semi-straight soprano/saxello respectively.--Silverlake Bodhisattva 21:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Content restored
I have restored the saxello/manzello/stritch paragraph from, what I can tell, was its last appearance on 11 April. For whatever reason, the article was seriously gutted of content on that date (I had restored several sections in May but apparently it didn't include these other edits before 11 April.) Why did someone decide all that information wasn't relevant? (Rhetorical question. See "Restored gutted content" above. What particularly frustrates me was that someone deleted the content, said s/he would be back to make revisions, and then never followed up, leaving a fragment of an article.)

So anyway... yes, some sources to verify the information would be great, but in the meantime I'd personally rather see that at least the old information was still available. FWIW there may be more gutted content in those pre-11 April revisions. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 7 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)


 * P.S. This discussion was split into three sections. It seemed since it was all about the same subject, one section would suffice.  We could always break it into sub-sections (like this one). Probably people were just clicking on "Post a comment" which adds a new section by default.  -- Gyrofrog  (talk)

List of saxophonists
Just FYI for those that don't really keep tabs - a few of us have been working on this big list. We could use more classical (or even just non-jazz) saxophonists listed (not that more jazzers wouldn't be good, too). Do participate. :)

I didn't know Marcel Mule & Sigurd Rascher both lived so long and died in the same year. Far out. &brvbar; Reisio 15:44, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

Photo of entire family?
Shouldn't this page have a photo showing all the instruments in the (regular) sax family? There is one at the bottom of this website: http://www.abimusic.com/cbsax.htm Or at the top of this page: http://www.jayeaston.com/galleries/sax_family/sax_p_sax_family.html If we have permission from the photographer, could we add one of these to the site? There is also a photo (linked above, I believe) of Rascher with all 7 instruments. Badagnani 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Between the two, I would prefer the Easton picture; the one at abimusic doesn't include the sopranino, whereas Easton's has everything in the family except the sub-contrabass and soprillo (piccolo), both of which are rather extreme and quite rare. BobGreenwade 16:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

As I can't find the Rascher "sax family" photo, should I seek permission from Easton to put his photo in the article? I'm not sure how this is done; would permission from him via email be enough? Badagnani 16:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest asking him, and checking with the local PTB. That's usually the best first step.  (Who knows? He may even be willing to upload the photo himself.) BobGreenwade 17:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Rascher's http://barrysacks3.com/images/si005_sax_pics.jpg - I have a better copy, too, but Easton's is more complete. &brvbar; Reisio 19:57, 2005 August 2 (UTC)
 * No offense to intended Mr. Rascher... but the Easton photo is still much, much better. BobGreenwade 23:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I just emailed him to tell him we like his photo and to ask if we have his permission to upload it. The caption (or tag) could list the name of the photographer, as well as describe what is shown. Badagnani 19:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just got this from Jay C. Easton. How should we proceed? Can someone copy and upload the photo from his site? Note: the photographer is Adrienne Easton--can this be added as a meta-tag? Badagnani


 * Email received from Jay C. Easton:


 * From: "Jay and Adrienne Easton" 
 * To: "David Badagnani" 
 * Subject: Re: Saxophone family photo
 * Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:16:28 -0700


 * Greetings,


 * I will happily give permission for that photo to be posted. And congratulations on the nice work you've done on the article!  Thanks for the kind words about my site.


 * All the best,
 * Jay Easton


 * Ps- I've attatched for your enjoyment a photo of me with a straight tenor saxophone and Grant Green (contrabass.com) with a Heckelphone.

Just taught myself how to upload photos. If anyone thinks this should be formatted any differently, or turned into a thumb that can become larger, or whatever, please do that. I'm new at this. Badagnani 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Prevalence of alto saxophone
Today (4 October) I added text to the effect that (1) the vast majority of saxophonists start their studies on alto saxophone, and (2) most of them end up staying on alto.

I base (1) on my knowledge of school bands in America and Japan (typical distribution, between 4 and 10 alto players for every tenor player) and (2) on knowledge of the saxophone studios at several U.S. universities that have major saxophone programs (typical distribution, 8 to 15 alto players per tenor player). I think anyone who has judged a solo-ensemble contest or an audition for an all-state band can attest to these ratios.

However my edits have been reverted by User Badagnani, who pointed out to me that the List of saxophone players has more tenor players on it than alto. This is, of course, because it was built largely by someone with a great knowledge of jazz and rock sax players. The number of people in the world who start on alto (as opposed to tenor or bari) is clearly a large majority. I would like to hear thoughts of the others who have worked on this page as to whether I can restore my edits. - SaxTeacher (talk)  01:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not just clarify by saying "nearly all" (instead of an unverifiable percentage of) players start on alto (particularly those who begin playing in primary or secondary educational institutions, which not every player does). As far as "staying" on alto, the question is, staying for how long?  It's true that there are more altos than other sizes in high school and university bands but I don't know how many high school or university saxophone players keep playing the instrument as a profession.  It seems that the most prominent professional saxophonists are in the fields of jazz, R&B, or other popular music styles.  This could be clarified by stating that most classical players remain on alto, while many R&B players move to soprano or tenor; more jazz players move to tenor or other sizes, etc.  Badagnani 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for pictures
I'd like to see a picture of a reed in the Reeds section, not bill clinton. I'd like to see someone famous in a picture, not some obscure german player. I think the main picture should be a player, and the picture of the bari could go under construction. In other words, learn to place the pictures in the right places. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  23:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And I know someone can do better than this &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This has been previously discussed. The problem is finding a picture of a famous person that is licensed in a way that we can use it in Wikipedia. Most or all such pictures are copyrighted, so the picture's owner has to specifically release it into the public domain (or license it under Creative Commons etc.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the licensing template is one of our best bets at getting good jazz pictures on Wikipedia.  Basically any film footage is fair game; and there's plenty to choose from. &brvbar; Reisio 13:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * IANAL, but as I understand fair use, a film screenshot may be used in a Wikipedia article about the film itself (or in another context, in a critical review about the film). Any other use is not "fair use". (I've been inolved in a similar discussion regarding album covers.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The template says:
 * the use of &hellip; screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents &hellip; qualifies as fair use
 * That's enough for me, but for the record as I understand fair use, it is much more flexible than Wikipedia's stance on it may suggest. Particularly in the case of old & famous jazz performers, who are so important to the history of music, but are pretty much all deceased (and therefore cannot be photographed anymore), I think fair use becomes even more lenient. &brvbar; Reisio 02:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, a user has uploaded some jazz-related photos under a Creative Commons license: The first picture would probably need to be cropped to feature the saxophonist (allowable with this license), but in either case, I'm not sure the saxophones themselves would show up very clearly. Perhaps the uploader has a more suitable photo, I'll leave him a note. BTW the Image:Saxman.JPG that was removed from the article was probably a vanity posting, IMHO. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Davebrubeckquartet1967a.jpg (is that Paul Desmond on the right?)
 * Image:Johnnyhodges06021965a.jpg

Glissando
Are there any prominent saxophone glissandos in Rhapsody in Blue? The spectacular glissando in the opening bars is a clarinet, not a saxophone. Tom Duff 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

More types of saxes
Not included in the types of saxophones were the sopranino, bass and contra-bass saxophones. They are quite rare, but they are worth mentioning. AmbExThErMaL 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not included where? All of these are mentioned in the article.  Badagnani 22:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
Reverts by me done as edits to a FA should be done with more care. --Bhadani 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Effects of lacquer
The controversial text about the acoustical effects of lacquer is improved by the recent updates, but still needs work. In particular, http://www.acoustics.org/press/133rd/2amu4.html should not be used in support of the contention that different lacquers produce different tonal qualities in saxophones, for at least three reasons: (1) this research was done with a French horn, not a saxophone (2) it did not compare the effects of different lacquers, only lacquered versus unlacquered (3) it did not address tone quality, only sound pressure level. Four reasons, if you believe as I do that the research or at least its presentation was lacking in experimental rigor; there is, for example, no discussion of random or systematic errors in the results. -- Rsholmes 03:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize it wasn't the best source, but I was just finding something quickly... there are many discussions that could be useful at the alt.music.saxophone newsgroup. I didn't have much time before, but I wanted to do _something_ in, as that part was being deleted as "original research" and a "made-up fact," which it clearly is not... I'll work on finding better sources, hopefully within the next day. --Varco 04:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It would also help to differentiate between lacquer and plating, e.g., silver plating. Pedantically yours, Gyrofrog (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Saxophone Reeds
It may be of interest that, while an alto saxophone reed is larger than a clarinet reed, I think it is the same size as an alto clarinet reed and a clarinet reed is the same size as a soprano sax reed. I know for a fact that in an emergency, one can play a bass clarinet with a tenor sax reed and a contrabass or contralto clarinet with a bari sax reed--sizes are the same, but there are minor differences in shape.--Todd 21:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, alto sax reeds are wider than alto clarinet reeds, and clarinet reeds are both narrower and longer than soprano sax reeds. Just ask any doubler, or stop by a music store that sells reeds one at a time, and have a look at them.  You are correct about bass clarinet reeds and tenor sax reeds - they are are pretty much indistinguishable. SaxTeacher  (talk)  06:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alto Clarinet reeds are the same width as C-Melody Tenor sax reeds, but slightly longer.--Saxophobia 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused... On the reed page it states that the reeds are graded on a scale of 1 to 5, but on the sax page it states that the reeds are graded on a scale of 1 to 6.That's weird.


 * I don't think it's all that standardized (and some companies just use "soft", "medium", "hard", etc.). I've never seen more than "5", myself, but don't doubt 6s exist somewhere.--Todd 18:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Biting Embrochures
I've just added a paragraph on the effect of an embrochure created by biting the lower lip, based on information on Larry Teal's "The Art of Saxophone Playing," and my own experience. Thoughts?

Also, I haven't cited this information, because I'm new to this and don't actually know how to yet. I understand the importance of citing information in an encyclopedia like this one, and if anyone would be kind enough to cite this for me, I would be very appreciative. --Mixolydian 5.25.06

Date of Sax's patent
I have changed the date that Sax was awarded his patent to June 28, 1846 - this is the date given in Kotchnitsky's book 'Sax and his Saxophone.' I will add this book to the references at the bottom of the article as well. SaxTeacher (talk)  19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tone effects
I wanted to add three techniques to the list of tone effects: 1) subtone (or sotto voce); 2) tongue slapping; 3) fluttertongue (or Flatterzunge). But this section of the text is cut off on my edit page. Will try again, once I've become a more experienced Wikipedian. Meanwhile if anyone cares to add these entries, please do. They are part of the sax vocabulary in jazz, funk and even contemporary classical music. Sluzzelin 18:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
To avoid a revert war, please discuss proposed non-minor edits here before making them. -- Rsholmes 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

bad joke
someone changed first sentence under history header "The saxophone was developed circa 1840 by Al Gore, a Belgian-born instrument-maker, flautist, and clarinetist working in Paris."

i changed the line to "The saxophone was developed circa 1840 by Adolphe Sax, a Belgian-born instrument-maker, flautist, and clarinetist working in Paris."

this is my first time to change smthn in article so... :) --L 0 0 P 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Masterfully done. :) &brvbar; Reisio 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)