Talk:Saxophone technique

Jazz embouchure
Whatever works - often unusual, non-classical embouchures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.92.132 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So spill the beans! What do you do that's different? -Egrabczewski 07:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewording the Article
Why is "on" better than "against"? I'm a sax player so maybe that biases me, or at least makes "against" not sound wrong to me, but to me at least "against" sounded better - though not enough better to revert the edit :-) RichAromas 22:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. It's nice to hear from someone! ;-) In an attempt to get the wording as clear as possible, I was thinking about the sentence: "Instead, support the lower lip against the teeth. Then rest the reed on the lower lip.". In the previous wording, I used the word "against" twice, once to mean a lateral movement, the other to mean a vertical movement. So I thought I'd emphasise that the reed goes on top of the lower lip, whereas the lower lip leans against the teeth. But you've got me a bit worried now! Rather than it becoming an issue of personal preference, does the rewording give clear and unambiguous instructions? :-) -Egrabczewski 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, and retract my concerns. I think the article is good as written. Thanks for your comments. RichAromas 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Slope"
I invented the term "slope" for this article because I can't find a name for this part of the mouthpiece anywhere in the literature. If you know the correct name then please let me know. -Egrabczewski 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct term is "baffle" -JTalcott 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Teal describes the baffle as "the portion of the mouthpiece directly back of the tip which receives the first shock of the vibrations as they leave the reed". This isn't the part I'm describing. I'm describing that part above the baffle. -Egrabczewski 07:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Egrabczewski, that's nice that you invented a term to describe a part of the saxophone mouthpiece, but Wikipedia is not the place for you to introduce your invented term. Wikipedia an encyclopedia and allows no original research. (See "What Wikipedia is not".) I have removed the reference to your term "slope" and the accompanying diagram - please remove any other terms or theories that you invented. —SaxTeacher (talk)  22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly aware it was an invented term - I said so in the talk page. Since there is no appropriate term, then I suppose I could have said "the part of the mouthpiece above the baffle". That would have met the criteria of "no original research", but instead I used the name for the sake of clarity. If that constitutes "original research" then so be it, but I think that is just nit-picking. By the way, your sarcasm does you no credit. We contributors should not have to put up with remarks like this, particuarly from an editor. Kindly remove your remarks. -Egrabczewski 14:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly; there was no sarcasm above. Please remember to always assume good faith among your fellow editors. Second, making up a name for something and then describing that thing by your made-up name in an encyclopedia article is original research. Finally, a "contributor" and an "editor" are the same thing. Everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is a "Wikipedia editor." Perhaps you read on my user page that "I am a Wikipedia editor" and assumed that term meant I had some sort of official standing. It doesn't. —SaxTeacher 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed some extraneous "<--" marks around the image but the image was visible before I did so. I didn't realise they were your attempt at commenting out the image - presumably you didn't check that the image was no longer visible. I did wonder at the time why you'd said you'll remove it but didn't. Putting all this aside, I've found another source (O'Neill) who desribes the "baffle" as being what I previously called the "slope". Therefore I have a reference to support an amendment to the diagram - which I have now done.
 * Regarding your second point, on Wikipedia there appear to be a special category of user who monitor the content of articles and give instructions and advice to contributors and who place impartial comments at the top of articles saying things like "This article needs cleaning up" or "This article may contain a biased viewpoint". Do these people have a name? Are you not one of these? (Egrabczewski 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC))
 * (answer moved to User Talk:Egrabczewski)
 * The fact that O'Neill uses the term "baffle" incorrectly (to refer to the top of the mouthpiece instead of to the ceiling of the interior chamber) does not change the meaning of "baffle" or mean that it can be used to refer to the top (bite plate) of the mouthpiece. It's important to realize that much wrong information has been written about the saxophone; when we come across information that is clearly incorrect, we need to recognize it and not include it in the article. —SaxTeacher (talk)  12:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be at odds with JTalcott, who calls it a "baffle". As "experts" then it would be helpful if you could agree on which is the right term? Without suggesting you are wrong, a discussussion before making the change would have been better, since you seem to be outnumbered 3 to 1. Either way, you need to reference your claim.(Egrabczewski 16:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

My saxophone technician in the UK - who is also a performing saxophonist - tells me the name of this part of the saxophone is called the beak. The "bite plate" is the bit of plastic that rests upon the beak, and the baffle is inside the mouthpiece. (Egrabczewski 05:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Ghits(Google Hits) on 'beak saxophone' gets some weird stuff. So does 'slope saxophone'. 'Baffle saxophone' gets a nice flood of pages.

There doesn't always need to be specialist terminology; really, compared to the baffle, the top of the mouthpiece is quite uninteresting. 71.137.7.27 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Concern regarding contributions to the article
Dear Egrabczewski,

I am a retired music educator with 32 years of teaching experience both in classroom and private lesson settings. I have a bachelor's and master's degrees in Music Education with emphasis on saxophone performance and pedagogy. I have performed extensively on saxophone in both the classical and jazz idioms. I am listing my credentials first to give some weight to my comments in this communication.

I have found this article on the saxophone embouchure to be patently biased, full of misrepresentations, misleading terms, undocumented claims, questionable references, and outright false statements. My first impulse was to make all of my corrections anonymously, but then I decided that it would be better to open a dialog first rather than ambush this article you have apparently put a lot of time and effort into.

There are many errors of omission that I won't go into at this time, but I would like to call your attention to what I consider the main points of disagreement. My primary objection is calling the Ben Davis embouchure the "saxophone embouchure", this implies that the other two are not saxophone embouchures. Another objection is listing this embouchure first, noting that it is "taught by many teachers" and that it is the "preferred embouchure for beginners". This is simply not true. Another major objection is the claim that the "single" embouchure is a clarinet embouchure, that it can quickly fatigue the face and cause lower lip biting, that it is an uncommon embouchure for the saxophone, and that most teachers have moved to the "Ben Davis" embouchure. This is false, false, false, false, and false. Advising that the solution to lip biting and lip fatigue is to switch to embouchure 1 "Ben Davis" is not a valid solution. The advice on difficulty with low notes and high notes contain several instructions that are not consistent with sound teaching principles. This is all I have time to say in this communication. I am not sure where you got your information, but I assure you I can substantiate everything I have told you here with well known and accepted academic references. Thank you. -JTalcott 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear JTalcott
 * In my opinion this article is well researched with clear instructions and logical advice. You have made some general remarks which I cannot address until you substantiate them. I would encourage you to do so, since I have finished making my contribution to this article.
 * Best regards -Egrabczewski 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with JTalcott's assessment - much of the information currently in the article is mis-described or just plain wrong. While this could be deliberate, it is most likely (WP:AGF) just due to a misinformed writer. The article has not yet received a balanced number of edits from the community (at present it has had over 750 edits by one person, and less than a dozen total by anyone else). I have removed some of the "how-to" information and some that was wrong; hopefully others can improve the article by making additions and corrections. Be bold in correcting errors. —SaxTeacher (talk)  22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This collusion has gone quite far enough SaxTeacher. How dare you even suggest that my contribution could be a deliberate attempt to misiform. You are abusing your privilege as an editor on Wikipedia. Remove this insulting remark at once. (Egrabczewski 18:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Embouchure Description Concerns
copied over from Talk:Saxophone

Does anyone else with saxophone teaching experience share my concerns about the saxophone embouchure page? The author of the page seems to be promoting the so called "saxophone" embouchure that does not roll the lower lip over the teeth that the only reference to is an out of print book circa 1928 by a self-taught sax player named Ben Davis. The claim is made that this is the embouchure taught by many teachers and is the preferred embouchure for beginners. In the U.S. the overwhelming majority of saxophone performers and teachers use and teach the traditional "single lip" embouchure as described in the book "The Art of Saxophone Playing" by Larry Teal.

There are a few jazz players especially those who play tenor exclusively who have adopted the bottom lip out "Ben Davis" embouchure to get a bigger sound with more edge to it, but there are virtually no players in the classical style who use or teach this embouchure.

The writer shows his bias by misrepresenting the "single lip" traditional embouchure as having problems (which do not occur when used correctly), that switching to the lip out "Davis" embouchure is supposed to solve. He also advocates biting and changing the angle of the mouthpiece to "aid" the high notes and to loosen the embouchure to aid the low notes--something that is never considered a proper playing habit by experienced teachers and players. There are many other errors of omission that saxophonists who know the standard pedagogy of the instrument will also recognize as I did that are too numerous to mention here.

I am hoping there are others who share my concern so that together we can edit the saxophone embouchure article to contain unbiased, well referenced, and accurate information. -JTalcott 04:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your concerns. Egrabczewski's opinions on what is "normal" or "common" or "noteworthy" differ greatly from mine. The lower-lip-out embouchure is highly unusual, and does not merit mentioning in the article - I have changed it to reflect that.
 * While it is certainly a good idea to discuss the article with other editors, keep in mind that the person who added the most material is not its "author" and doesn't "own" the article, so you can go ahead and make edits/corrections to articles concurrent with your discussion on the talk pages. My suggestion is that you edit the article yourself to make it more factually correct. I will do the same. —SaxTeacher (talk)  22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Before becoming over-zealous about criticising my own contribution, I'd like to point out that SaxTeacher deleted 50% of the original article, what remains is still 90% my own work, yet neither of you have added anything. Well JTalcott, having instigated these changes, I think all eyes are on you to contribute something positive to it. -Egrabczewski 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please relax, be cordial, and assume good faith in your fellow editors. It is the responsibility of any Wikipedia editor to be bold in deleting material that is questionable or non-encyclopedic. Recall the sentence that appears at the bottom of every edit screen: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Please don't take it personally when people edit material you wrote; your contributions are appreciated. Best —SaxTeacher (talk)  20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * SaxTeacher: my comment was addressed to JTalcott who I can only describe as less than "coridal" - Egrabczewski 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me, but I am just learning my way around this site. If I post incorrectly or in the wrong area please correct and educate me in the proper procedure.

Mr. Egrabczewski, I see by your biography that your education is in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. You also list jazz music as one of your interests, but it is last on your list. I am therefore assuming that you have no formal training in saxophone performance or pedagogy in either the classical style or jazz at a university level. Am I correct in my assumptions so far? I am also assuming that you have little or no experience whatsoever in teaching saxophone either in private lessons or a public school setting. My third and final assumption is that your myopic view of the fundamentals of tone production on the saxophone comes primarily from the influence of Pete Thomas a popular jazz/rock saxophonist in the UK. Mr. Thomas views on the saxophone embouchure are certainly valid, but certainly do not merit the weight, importance, or degree of acceptance that your article either states or implies. These assumptions form the basis for the rest of my post to you.

Frankly, I am quite astonished at your presumption that being an amateur jazz saxophonist bestows upon you the necessary credentials to write an academic treatise on saxophone embouchures or anything else related to the saxophone for that matter. I have read your responses to the remarks made by SaxTeacher, and I find your feeble protests to lack any merit whatsoever. Please step aside here and let those of us who are skilled and educated in this area present a balanced and scholarly piece that will stand up to academic scrutiny (and represent the real world of saxophone pedagogy). There are certainly other subject areas that would benefit greatly from your areas of education and expertise.

As time permits, I will indeed be submitting my additions, corrections, and suggestions to this page. -JTalcott 06:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree with you - I think it's fine for amateurs, enthusiasts, or the general public to write articles and add to articles. This is encouraged on Wikipedia. Those with expert knowledge about a topic can correct articles as needed. Please don't discourage people from contributing. —SaxTeacher (talk)  17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr Talcott, since you are a novice here then you can be forgiven for not understanding how Wikipedia works. Instead of trying to discredit other contributors, we normally work in cooperation with them to arrive at a concensus. Your academic posturing and bullying doesn't apply here and knowledge is the only thing that should count. So, if it's okay with both you Mr Talcott and you SaxTeacher, I'd like us to start a rational discussion on the issues you've both raised. Since any possible article bias on my own part has now been removed, we can start with the article as it currently stands and progress from here. (Egrabczewski 10:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Guys, relax. SaxTeacher is correct in noting that you do not need "credentials" to contribute to Wikipedia. It's a trade-off I am willing to accept. At any rate, I am very sure Egrabczewski will not mind if you make your changes to the article. If he disagrees with the changes, then you will have to politely discuss those specific issues here instead of starting an edit war. Also remember that you must maintain a neutral POV at all times. Kareeser|Talk! 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for JTalcott and SaxTeacher to provide a rationale for their changes to my original contribution and to respond to my comments on the "Ben Davis" embouchure. They don't appear to have taken up the challenge. Without it then I can only accuse JTalcott and SaxTeacher of irrational bullying. (Egrabczewski 07:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

Ben Davis's "new saxophone" embouchure
For anyone trying to follow this debate, let me refer you to the original version of this article which you'll find here. Not long after I wrote it, a few teachers made some highly critial remarks about the content and removed large chunks of the text. Let me first summarise their concerns:

Point 1
 * The author of the page seems to be promoting the so called "saxophone" embouchure that does not roll the lower lip over the teeth that the only reference to is an out of print book circa 1928 by a self-taught sax player named Ben Davis. The claim is made that this is the embouchure taught by many teachers and is the preferred embouchure for beginners. In the U.S. the overwhelming majority of saxophone performers and teachers use and teach the traditional "single lip" embouchure as described in the book "The Art of Saxophone Playing" by Larry Teal (JTalcott)

Point 2
 * My primary objection is calling the Ben Davis embouchure the "saxophone embouchure"; this implies that the other two are not saxophone embouchures (JTalcott)

Point 3
 * Another objection is listing this embouchure first, noting that it is "taught by many teachers" and that it is the "preferred embouchure for beginners". This is simply not true (JTalcott)

Point 4
 * Another major objection is the claim that the "single" embouchure is a clarinet embouchure, that it can quickly fatigue the face and cause lower lip biting, that it is an uncommon embouchure for the saxophone, and that most teachers have moved to the "Ben Davis" embouchure. This is false, false, false... (JTalcott)

Point 5
 * The lower-lip-out embouchure is highly unusual, and does not merit mentioning in the article (SaxTeacher)

To answer these points I'm going to present the following argument: Larry Teal, in his book The Art of Saxophone Playing, never uses the term "single embouchure" but only describes those qualities that make a good embouchure. His chapter on "The Embouchure" describes the facial mask, teeth, muscle support and development, jaw and mouthpiece alignment, the cheeks and tongue postion. His diagrams on page 43 show a lower lip clearly supported by the teeth, with a caption stating that the muscles support the lower lip.

Now the clarinet was invented in 1690, the oboe around 1790 and the saxophone was patented in 1846. It's fair to infer that the single embouchure existed around 1690 or earlier, the double embouchure around 1790 or earlier and that these were adapted to the saxophone after 1846. I say "or earlier" because it's probable that the single and double embouchures existed long before those dates, with the advent of folk clarinets and shawms in the Middle and Far East.

In researching this article, I came across a book by Ben Davis called The Saxophone printed in 1932. It describes three embouchures: the "new" saxophone embouchure, the "old" saxophone embouchure, and the "clarinet" embouchure; these are what JTalcott describes as the "Ben Davis", the "single" and the "double" embouchures respectively. Davis gives his reasons for not selecting the "single" or "double" embouchures as ideal for the saxophone. Instead, he describes his "new" saxophone embouchure as comprising a distinct attempt at not consciously drawing the lower lip over the teeth. He says "only the thinnest part of the fleshy inside-lip is pushed over the teeth when the mouthpiece is in playing position. The rest of the lower lip will then form a sort of support for that part of the reed which is immediately outside the mouth". The book shows some "exaggerated" photographs, to help make the point.

Now, let us look at a popular modern saxophone method book called The Jazz Method for Saxophone (1992) by John O'Neill, a student of Don Rendell, Lee Konitz and Warne Marsh. On page 12 he describes how to form an embouchure: "The lower lip should be very slightly turned in, about as much as if you were shaping to say the consonants 'f' or 'v'. Finally, remember to bring the corners of the mouth in towards the centre".

In both the descriptions by Davis and O'Neill, the emphasis lies in forming a firm lower lip, with the lip only very slightly turned in. The "new" saxophone embouchure by Davis, the saxophone embouchure by O'Neill and the saxophone embouchure described by Teal do not to contradict one another. Since Teal never uses the term "single embouchure", and since his description fits both the "new" and "single" embouchures, then they are both valid interpretations, the main difference between them is the degree to which the lower lip overlaps the teeth - however in both cases there is little or no conscious effort to do so.

Now let us look at a description of a clarinet embouchure from The Jazz Method for Clarinet (1993) by John O'Neill, who writes: "The lower lip should be slightly turned in, about as much as if you were shaping the consonant 'f' or 'v'. The corners of the mouth should be drawn slightly up and back towards the corners of the eyes. The effect of this is to activate the muscles of the lower lip and to stretch the area of skin between the lower lip and chin". Although in this version of the clarinet embouchure the lower lip is not drawn over the teeth significantly enough to be described as a "single" embouchure, note that the manner in which the lower lip is supported is quite different to the saxophone embouchure he described earlier.

The adaptations of the original "single" clarinet embouchure and the "double" oboe embouchure to the saxophone resulted in a unique saxophone embouchure, which was not exactly the same as for the clarinet or oboe. The famous "oo" shape of the mouth and and the bringing-in of the mouth muscles are much more important in the saxophone emouchure. Ben Davis was the first author (to my knowledge) to recognise this in print and Teal was the first to describe it in detail in 1963. On the other hand, Jaap Kool, in his 1931 book, doesn't even mention mouth muscles when describing his double embouchure for the saxophone. Yet many saxophonists were playing using the "new" embouchure in which the bottom lip was barely turned in.

On YouTube you can see for yourself examples of Sidney Bechet (1897-1959), Charlie Parker (1920-1955) and John Coltrane (1926-1967) using this "new" saxophone embouchure: Bechet Parker Coltrane

Whilst looking for a good example of a clarinet embouchure on YouTube I found the following instruction video for the clarinet here in which the teacher describes an almost perfect "new" saxophone embouchure! This clearly demonstrates how the clarinet embouchure itself has developed over time from a "smiling" mouth position to the "oo" position of the "new" saxophone embouchure.

For these reasons, and also because I use the O'Neill embouchure myself, I felt the "new" saxophone embouchure should be included in this article together with the "single" and "double" embouchures. The fact that I included all three implies that they are all valid embouchures for playing the saxophone. How could I do otherwise when, according to Fordham, the likes of Rollins and Coltrane used them!

I have already accepted that we should remove all statements from this article about the popularity of each of the embouchures or which is preferred - the former can be substantiated from factual statistics when they become available, the latter are my own personal assessments. However, it's unfortunate that SaxTeacher and JTalcott decided to remove the "new" saxophone embouchure from the article given that it forms a distinct embouchure and is evidently in current use by many saxophone players.

Perhaps you can better appreciate why I called it the "saxophone" embouchure in my original contribution; it's no longer "new" and far from being "highly unusual", it is highly prevalent among saxophonists today.

Following the edits by SaxTeacher and JTalcott, this article now only covers USA usage of the saxophone embouchure. It needs to be widened to include at least a European perspective - something that I provided but has now been removed.

I suspect the whole argument above might have been avoided had the article a more historical perspective of the saxophone embouchure. Any reader who knows enough to provide such a contribution would be most welcome. Egrabczewski 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss the merging of this article into Saxophone > Embouchure
Discuss here. -RobbyPrather (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vibrato
"Saxophone vibrato is much like a vocal or string vibrato, except the vibrations are made using the jaw instead of the diaphragm or fingers."

I was under the impression that vibrato on the sax can be achieved using the diaphragm. I remember my music teacher telling me a jaw vibrato was "cheating". Can someone help me out here? Futuremyst (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"A vibrato can be produced also by controlling the air stream with the tongue, or by diaphragm control."

I just saw this... should the first sentence be corrected? Futuremyst (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence ought to be corrected. The placement implies that jaw vibrato is somehow preferred, and it usually is not. (For example, I personally find tongue vibrato most effective, even though I was "taught" that diaphragm vibrato is the only "correct" method.) A better sentence would generalize all vibrato-making methods. Suggestion: "...except the vibrations are made through variations to the air stream, either in the abdomen, throat, or mouth." (I'll leave it to a better writer to work that.) In the subsequent paragraph, an anatomical top-to-bottom/bottom-to-top ordering, or an approximate simplest-to-hardest hierarchy would not imply bias. Tryanmax (talk) 9:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tone effects
Not a critique, just a suggestion: I don't know if there is any existing literature out there devoted to tone effects and voicing for sax, but I know there are more techniques than those described. Of course, it's quite possible that the saxophonist's Alexandria lies only in the experience of fellow players. In any case, I don't know where to look for research, but I think it would be nice if this section could be expanded. Tryanmax (talk) 9:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Cleanup
So the article has multiple sections on embouchure which could be merged into one, as well as the opening paragraph of the article being irrelevant where it is. I'll not change anything for a few days to see what you guys have to say. Michael Hall (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've merged the embouchure sections and done a restructure. There's now a new intro paragraph as well. Storeye (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Different embouchure approaches
So this article used to have three different embouchure sections that appeared to be written by three different people. I've merged them into one section at the start of the article with subheadings for different parts. In particular I've created a subheading for "individual approaches" in an attempt to remove the risk of people arguing over the 'best' embouchure. I've also deleted or requested sources for things that claim to be the 'best' or 'most natural' approach. I think it is appropriate to say there is a widely accepted 'correct' saxophone embouchure and to back it up with sources from the most recognized saxophonists and pedagogues but much of this article previously claimed specific approaches to be 'best' or 'usually taught first.' I think such information would be better in subheadings by practitioner. On that note, there is only one approach there currently so any paragraphs people can contribute on specific saxophonists' methods would be appreciated. Storeye (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusing terminology on embouchure
"Single lip embouchure" seems to be conflated with the one style that has the lower lip tucked over the lower lip clarinet style. In fact virtually all saxophone embouchures are single lip embouchures with rare exceptions. Some big-name players have experimented with double-lip embouchures (notably John Coltrane, but that was when his teeth were hurting him) or other styles of no-teeth embouchures to achieve specific effects, but these are not taught. The "Teal school" and the "Allard School" are about approaches to the single-lip embouchure with differences that are as much philosophical as technical. Allard emphasized the jaw and lower teeth more, but neither advocates the clarinet-style embouchure or anything close to it. The clarinet-style embouchure tends to be taught to beginning students, usually with alto saxophones, as a shortcut to get a satisfactory short-term result, but unless students are taught to go beyond that and develop some proper embouchure they tend to hit a wall. If I had a dollar for every forum post from a student who was having trouble with the bottom end or developing good tone after being taught clarinet-style embouchure..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.11.42 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)