Jump to content

Talk:Saxophone/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Saxophone mutes

Saxophone mutes should be mentioned in the article. Can someone add a section? Badagnani 20:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, they are too meaningless to merit mentioning. Mutes are virtually never used, and are merely an obscure accessory. As we don't need a section about lyres or swabs, so we probably don't need one about mutes. —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
They're certainly not that popular, but I see no reason to not cover them. ¦ Reisio 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The donut shaped mute described by Larry Teal in "The Art of Saxophone Playing" that Marcel Mule was a staunch advocate of is still used by many classical players and teachers to soften the tone and cut out some of the higher overtones to achieve the desired sound. I would not put them in the same category as lyres or swabs, especially when there is a historical signifcance to their use by one of the first and perhaps the finest saxophone virtuosos to have ever lived. I say a reference to the mute is warranted. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by JTalcott (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Article needs some formatting

Since it has been featured, the article has experienced some "suffering". I suggest reviewing it enterily. There are external links embedded into the article to replace wikilinks, others that should be converted in inline references, the external links section is just too big, there are plenty of red links, and since there are no inline references, it is hard to know which statements are backed up by the references and which aren't. -- ReyBrujo 05:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

About the picture of Klaus Doldinger, with all the respect I'm not too shure he should be allowed to represent saxophone playing. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.206.41 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Effect on the lips

Is it true that playing the saxophone causes one’s lips to thicken, or whatever? It’s some old belief I got from when I was a kid. —Lagalag 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it has no effect on the lips. Someone who plays a reed instrument (saxophone, clarinet, oboe, etc.) a lot will develop stronger facial (embouchure) muscles, but I have never heard any suggestion that the stronger muscles cause any change in the appearance. —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It undoubtedly does affect various things, but probably not usually noticeably. Just compare some photographs of some old sax players when they were young and old. ¦ Reisio 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
From years of biting my lower lip against the reed I developed a bit of a callus there, which is still slightly present even after 10 years away from regular playing. But I don't know if that's common or even worth adding to the article. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.116.2 (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been playing the saxophone and clarinet since 6th grade (I am now 44) and I never have noticed any thickening of my lips. I guess it is possible that the body could react to the pressure by forming a slight callus, but it is nothing to be concerned about. It is a small price to pay for playing those wonderful instruments. 72.145.250.157 02:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

National Saxophone Day?

I saw that some text was added to the top of this page identifying Nov 6th as National Saxophone Day. Does anyone have any source for this? Was there ever a congressional or presidential resolution declaring Nov 6th to be "national" saxophone day? I searched the web and was unable to find any substantiation. —SaxTeacher (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I found three sources that all cite Novermber 6 as National Saxophone Day. Their web address are: (1) http://library.thinkquest.org/2886/nov.htm; (2) http://www.holidayinsights.com/moreholidays/november.htm; and (3) http://www.brownielocks.com/november.html. So, yes, there is a National Saxophone Day. 72.145.250.157 02:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question on saxophone registers

A question on the number and definition of saxophone registers was asked at the Humanities reference desk. The article on Evan Parker seems to require an answer.85.2.55.188 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Reeds section

I have a bee in my bonnet about encouraging players to use hard reeds that can cause muscle damage and lead to embouchures that don't work and aren't comfortable. Many well-known players use the manufacturers' 'standard' strength 2.5 reed (or even softer, like Joe Henderson) and I substantiated this with references to reputable US and UK jazz players who had either studied at or teach at either Julliard or the Royal Academy.

Surprisingly someone removed these updates. Can we discuss this matter here? Trismegister 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I only skimmed the changes as they were committed, but it looked accurate to me. If there are sources (linked), then I don't see a problem. ¦ Reisio 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There are three different topics here which should be considered separately. They are
  • 1. Whether the statement that "Beginners often start on a 2 or 2.5 reed, moving up to 3 as they gain ability and more muscle control" and the statement that "Advanced players typically use 3.5 to 5" are accurate statements, or should be changed.
My opinion: The first sentence given above is 100% accurate and the second sentence is pretty much accurate. (Well, I've never met anyone who uses a #5 reed but I imagine there are some out there.) However if more than one person feels that the "3.5 to 5" sentence is POV, then let's change it. By the way, I think I should mention to Trismegister that I didn't write those sentences - I believe they were already in the article when I came to Wikipedia.
  • 2. Whether it is helpful or appropriate to include a list of players and what reed they use.
My opinion: The Saxophone article is already overly long. Including a list of players (many of whom the reader will never have heard of) and what brand or strength of reed they use (!) is a bad idea. Choosing which players to include, and arguing over which players are "good enough" or "famous enough" to be included, would be a nightmare in itself. (for instance, I have heard of less than half of the players who were named by Trismegister.) Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and no encyclopedia would ever list what reeds certain players use, any more than it is going to list what brand and length of skis are used by last year's Olympic champions. Would it be useful for a new skiier to know what brand and length of skis were used to win the Olympics? Or what size bicycle frame won the Tour De France? Perhaps - but it's information they will find on a blog, a skiing forum, or a bike fanatic's web page - not in the Wikipedia article on downhill skiing or cycling. I put the link to mouthpieceheaven's page of famous sax player's setups in the external links section - I think that is sufficient.
  • 3. Whether it is appropriate to include a sentence giving one editor's POV about "hard reeds that can cause muscle damage and lead to embouchures that don't work". Is this a sentence that all the editors of this article agree on? Or is it a theory that is subscribed to by one person or a small group? Is it a theory that is widely enough held that it merits mentioning?
My opinion: I have never heard this theory before (and I tend to discount it, because among the limited number of professional (classical) saxophone and clarinet players who I personally know, they all play on reeds of strength 3, 3.5, or 4, and none have experienced "muscle damage".) As a teacher, I advise my students to try a few different strengths of reed, and I may steer them towards the number I think sounds best for them... but I would not presume to insert this into the article as a fact. Most important, I think, is the fact that the strength of reed a player prefers has more to do with the tip opening of their mouthpiece than anything else. I recently tried some different (classical) mouthpieces and found a remarkable similarity in feel between a large-tip-opening mpc with a 2.5 reed, a medium-tip-opening mpc with a 3 reed, and a narrow-tip-opening mpc with a 4 reed. Perhaps jazz players tend towards softer reeds because they use larger tip openings! —SaxTeacher (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Trismegister, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I'm sure you will add lots of great content to this and other articles! But if you have strong feelings about the "dangers of using harder reeds" I hope you recognize that these opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia article. If you want to get the word out about this, start a blog, make a web page, or post messages to a saxophone-related forum. Thanks —SaxTeacher (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Those statements may be accurate, but they're unsourced. I suspect they were added based on anecdotal and/or personal experience. I also suspect they're true, but I'd be a lot happier about keeping one or both if there were some hard data to cite in their support. By "hard data" I don't mean "So-And-So uses a 2.5, and Such-And-Such uses a 3"; I mean something with statistical significance.
2. Absolutely agree that if there's a place in Wikipedia for a summary of famous saxophonists' setups, it's not in the overall sax article.
3. If there's solid research that can be cited on deleterious effects of hard reeds, sure, go ahead and mention it and give the source. Otherwise it's out of place here.
Finally, I would echo SaxTeacher's comments about matching reed to mouthpiece, a point that cannot be overemphasized in any discussion on reed strengths; and I would add that the following paragraphs of the reeds section could stand to be edited and shortened too -- much of that looks like POV, original research, or unsourced claims. Also, much of what can be said about sax reeds applies also to clarinet reeds, and some of that applies to double reeds too, which suggests it should be said in the article on reeds, not in the article on saxes. -- Rsholmes 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved most of the reed paragraphs to the Reed (instrument) article. I think that readers of the Saxophone article will be better served by keeping the Saxophone#Reeds section short, and providing a link to the Reed article for those who want more information. The various topics of reed strengths, methods of reed care and adjustment, etc. can be expanded there. I'd suggest that this discussion be continued on that article's talk page instead of here. —SaxTeacher (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with as much information as possible, as long as it's sourced and well written. ¦ Reisio 10:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Imagine yourself in the position of a person who doesn't know much about saxophones, and to learn more, you turn to Wikipedia. You're not there to learn everything there is to know about the subject; you're there for a basic overview. Paragraphs after paragraph on what strength reed is used by whom and whether or not to store reeds wet and how to adjust reeds and so forth and so on will interfere with the usefulness of the article. Anyway, I am not suggesting the information must not be in Wikipedia, only that such details if present should be in a separate article, not the overall saxophone article. See also Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Article series.
Per SaxTeacher's request, I will participate further in this discussion only on the Reed article's talk page. -- Rsholmes 12:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Information on reeds for one instrument isn't necessarily relevant for other instruments. ¦ Reisio 14:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


I had a saxophone teach once that used size 7 reeds. He was a concert saxophonist and from how he talked about it he didn't make it seem too rare that a professional would use something that thick. I believe he got one so thick so once it was worn out he could doctor it and use it for longer. -MSauce

A concert saxophonist is likely to use a "close lay" mouthpiece which would render a stiffer reed more easily playable.
As a more general comment is is somewhat meaningless to consider the "No" of the reed without reference to the particular mouthpiece used with it (as mentioned briefly above.) It is also less than helpful to give the "No" or strength reference of the reed without mentioning the manufacturer as there is no absolute standard for numbering. Obiskobilob 10:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I hate to bring this up again but since I didn't see a continuation of the discussion on the reeds talk page I will. I agree with Obisklob, but I also believe that the statements about different skill levels and reed sizes have no factual value, no matter if they're sourced or not. I know saxophonists that have started on size three reeds and stayed on size threes. Also there is the process of buying a harder reed for the bark strength and filing the upper portion down to a completely differnt size (for example buying a size 4 and filing the tip down to a 2.5, resulting in a non-sized reed as the two parts are comletely inconsistent with each other. Let's consider this, shall we? Rynokey237 17:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Baritone with low G key?

Regarding the baritone saxophone, 69.179.47.201 added the information that there were "even some that have a key for a low G". Is it true? If so, please reference it, I'm genuinely curious, being a baritone player myself, and the only way I've ever heard of producing a lower G is by cup-extension (though the knee wont work very well here) or lip control (if you're amazing). So, please tell me which brands make horns with a lower G key. ---Sluzzelin 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone removed it. ---Sluzzelin 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, to answer your question, my knowledge of Low G keys on Bari's is quite vague. My only knowlegde of its existence this; at a high school honors band performance, the first chair Bari player used a Beuscher baritone sax which had an additional left-pinky key (in addition to the other four) which when pressed with the BAGFDEC keys and Low A key (second octave key), produced a low G. (which one song that they performed required) ---69.179.47.201
1. If there were a sax that was going to go lower than A, it would have a low A-flat key, not a low G key.
2. If there were a sax that had an extra-low key (lower than A), it would be pictured on www.saxpics.com and mentioned on all sorts of other saxophone sites. Also, someone here would have heard of it.
3. I've never heard anyone mention this other than user:69.179.47.201 - but based on his description, he clearly was seeing a Buescher bari that had the standard "5-roller table" (found on some Conn instruments also) where the B-flat key appears both below and to the side of the low B key.
Since no one else has heard of, seen, or seen pictures of such a thing; since it would be a low A-flat, not a G; and since he seems to have mistaken a 1930s key configuration for an additional key; I think it's safe to discount this as just an "urban legend." —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of a bari with a low G, though I have heard of a bass that went down to low F#. http://www.jayeaston.com/galleries/sax_family/bass_page/bass_sax_p_frankenbass.html ChaosMaster 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Embouchure Description Concerns

Does anyone else with saxophone teaching experience share my concerns about saxophone embouchure? 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 saxophone embouchure to contain unbiased, well referenced, and accurate information. JTalcott 04:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. I was unaware that the saxophone embouchure article existed until your comment. But there it is... apparently it was created in September 2005 and lay dormant until 3 February 2007 - since then user Egrabczewski has edited it over 750 times (first as Saxophone Embouchure and later after it was moved to Saxophone embouchure), adding a lot of POV and how-to type information.
  2. I concur with your concerns. Egrabczewski's opinions on what is "common" or "noteworthy" differ greatly from mine. I would agree that a lower-lip-out embouchure is highly unusual, so much so that it does not merit mentioning in the article. My suggestion is that you edit the article yourself to make it more factually correct. I will see if I can help make corrections.
  3. In any case, this discussion belongs on talk:Saxophone embouchure, not here. —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you saxteacher. I am new to this site and I am just learning my way around.JTalcott 05:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So much talk about rare saxophones

Do we really need all this discussion about the various types of saxophones in the article? A small, no-nonsense paragraph would really be enough. It's rather pointless to have all this talk about F mezzo this and C soprano this. I don't think someone who is learning about the saxophone really needs to know about the ultra-rare bamboo/uranium-alloy supermezzo subsubcontrabass sub-baritone uberbass saxophone in G-flat that was produced for three months in 1934 by the German instrument maker Bernard Doggydoo. We understand you play many instruments, Jay, but it's irrelevant to the needs of this article.

Cannonball27 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe we should just talk about the baritone, because that's the only one most people play or will want to know about anyway. Badagnani 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I really must beg to differ. Knowing the history of the instrument and the different variations really enriches the way that I understand the instrument and its capabilities. If you are genuinely interested in your instrument, I would think that you would want to know everything about it -- I know that I really enjoy knowing all those little variations that exist. 72.145.250.157 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I sent the article to four people I know and asked them if they thought the part about the rare and novelty saxes was needed or not. They all said that it was unnecessary. Cannonball27 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Talking about the C Melody tenor is somewhat important. They were extremely popular for a time, and so many instruments survive that they are quite commonly found. It is important that potential buyers not confuse them with a regular tenor.

In section "manufacturers" Jupiter is cited as a Roland brand. Some mistake? Roland Inc are an electronic musical instrument maker; Jupiter Band Instruments (Taiwan) has been making woodwinds since 1930's. Coincidentally Roland made a series of synths called Jupiter; have these been confused? More knowledgeable contributor- please correct this if necessary.

Merge Saxophone embouchure into Saxophone > Embouchure

I think a more concise and focused version of Saxophone embouchure should be merged into the Embouchure section of this article. As it currently stands, the article is too much of a how-to and there is still too much opinion. -RobbyPrather (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


You may be right. The article on embouchure as it stands has very little information in it nowadays to be of much practical value. A much better idea is to ask for contributions to the article on the history of the embouchure, however this will be subject to the same criticisms of "opinion" that many of the articles on Wikipedia suffer from. However Wikipedia itself suffers from an idealist philosophy in which it believes it possible for a given person to write an article in a "unbiased" way. I note Raprat0 deleted the word "good" from the article recently. That's what I mean. Just about every saxophonist, teacher and technician resepects Teal's book. However Raprat0 doesn't know this it seems. He rejects the word "good" on philosophical grounds because he believes it to be biased. According to his editing philosophy then we must remove the words "good" and "bad" from the Wikipedia site. That's like saying that we, the human race, can't agree that being "good" to one another is a good thing. I beg to differ! (Egrabczewski 05:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

Use of saxophone in music/famous saxophonists?

This article sorely needs a section on the history of saxophones in music, their varied roles and usage through the decades and references to well-known saxophonists in jazz, rhythm & blues, soul and pop. King Curtis where art thou?Birdseed 08:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary Information

 Unnecessary or too detailed information should be removed.

The following is a list of sections which may require a cleanup: 

*  Surface Finish
*  Rare saxophones and novelty sizes
*  Related instruments (too much detailed!)
*  Bamboo saxophones
*  Percy Grainger (rename section)
*  External Links
I don't agree. All of this information is very valuable and helpful to our readers, and in fact I use it as a reference all the time. We have built an article that is better than most (or all) other articles about this instrument online, and these "tangential" issues really are part of the story of the saxophone. Badagnani 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Too detailed, ha. ¦ Reisio 06:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Key System

I think the vandal bot deleted the key systems paragraph, any ideas? Thanks for hepling a novice user. PeteJames 13:25 29 November 2006

I read this paragraph: "The most radical revision of saxophone keywork was made in the 1950s by M. Houvenaghel of Paris, who completely redeveloped the mechanics of the system to allow a number of notes (C♯, B, A, G, F and E♭) to be flattened by a semitone simply by lowering the right middle finger. This enables a chromatic scale to be played over two octaves simply by playing the diatonic scale combined with alternately raising and lowering this one digit."
I've been playing the saxophone more or less every day the last 14 years, partially as a professional, and I can't imagine that this is remotely correct. Lowering the right middle finger while playing a F would give an E, while playing a C# doesn't change anything in the two higher octaves (altissimo is entirely another story), and is already closed in the lowest octave, as is the case for the E♭. The A will not be flattened by lowering the right middle finger, and to point out that the G becomes an F# by lowering the right middle finger is redundant, as this is by far the most common, and also most in tune, way of playing the F# sharp in the two lowest octaves. The B will, however, be flattened by lowering the right middle finger. Nevertheless, 1 out of 6 isn't much of a score, and there are also (at least) two other, more common fingerings.
This is either quite simply wrong, vandalism or both. In either case it's not cited (nor correct). I'm removing it. 82.235.98.252 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The material is from the New Grove, so its reliability is not in question. What should have been made clear in the article (and currently isn't) is that this different set of keywork did not become incorporated into later saxophones. You're quite right: on the saxophone you play, or I play, this doesn't work; but you can buy a saxophone with different keywork where it does. See [1] and [2]. I've readded the material with an inline source, but please feel free to reword it to note that the idea never really caught on. Happy‑melon 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've updated the section. 82.235.98.252 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Saxophonists

I play the saxophone! I have been for 5 years! IF ANYONE ELSE HER PLAYS THIS WONDERFUL INSTRUMENT, PLEASE COMMENT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer5525 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Orchestral Employment

Not sure if it is worth a mention, but the text about the saxophone being largely relegated to marching bands in its earliest years brought it to my mind. The US composer William Henry Fry wrote Santa Claus, a Christmas Symphony in 1853, and a saxophone appears in the scoring! The liner notes of the CD that I have state: "It also seems that this is the first symphonic use anywhere of the newly invented saxophone." (Kile Smith. Naxos CD 8.559057) In any case, just thought I'd toss it out there for anyone who works on this article. May not be worth a sentence in the article itself, but I thought it interesting all the same. Smyslov (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article on hold comments

  • The information, judging from the reference list, is largely—perhaps primarily—based on the Grove Encyclopedia entry (with 27 citations). While this is a quality source, in my opinion it is important to have a more balanced body of citations. I was also curious as to why there was only one book footnoted directly, but multiple books listed in the references section. Generally, the article lacks consistent citation, most prominently in the "Writing for the saxophone", "Reed", and lead sections. In addition, general statements which are more likely to be challenged have not been cited, though details have. Take, for example, the first sentences of the "Materials", "Description", and "Uses of the saxophone" sections.
  • There are opinionated and vague comments in the "Related instruments" and "Writing for the saxophone" sections, often including peacock terms. I have included a paragraph and annotated it as an example.
Early on, most composers stayed away from composing for the saxophone due to their misunderstanding of the instrument [how did they misunderstand it?]. However, around the turn of the twentieth century, some people (many from the United States) began to commission compositions for the instrument. One prominent commissioner was Elise Hall, a wealthy New England socialite who took up playing the saxophone to aid in her battles with asthma (at the behest of her husband, a doctor). Though she did commission many pieces, the works didn't originally feature the saxophone very well [what is meant by this statement?] (probably because she decided to demonstrate herself the saxophone's ability - her skills were less than admirable by most accounts [is this needed?]). Subsequent versions, however, have been arranged to better feature the saxophone, such as the "Rhapsodie" by Claude Debussy. [how did he do this?]
Peacock terms include: "While proving very popular in its intended niche of military band music, the saxophone is most commonly associated with popular music, big band music, blues, and particularly jazz."
"Many say that lacquer or plating has no effect on the sound,[10] while some research shows that there are differences."
"The saxophone first made its mark in the niche it was designed for..."
Other examples can be found in the featured article review.
  • The lead does not cover sections past "Uses of the saxophone" adequately.
  • The article lacks a table of contents.

Kakofonous (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thankyou for your comments, which I would like to respond to. Your last one is of course the easiest - fixed, simple as that. I have removed a large section from "writing for the sax", which I do not think was either necessary or very well phrased. I have removed several instances of what you call 'peacock terms', but I disagree with you as to several of them. I unfortunatley fail to see how "many say... while some research" could be considered peackockery - perhaps you are confusing the issue with weasel words, which are of course just as much of a problem (the "many... while some" phrase has been removed). I fail to see how "most commonly associated" falls into either category - it is, as far as I can see, a statement of fact. While I agree that the lead section is too short, I don't feel that any of the material from "related instruments" or below is suitable for inclusion - I would be delighted to hear any suggestions you have here.

Finally to citations. There is no getting around the fact that the New Grove is quite simply the definitive source for any music-related articles. My justification for this edit is actually along this line: just about any unsourced statement in this article could fairly easily be ascribed to the new grove reference, with very good reason - it simply covers all the information in a top-quality format. However I resisted the temptation to add yet more instances to the newgrove ref, and just removed the tags, which were giving the impression that the New Grove didn't cover this. I'm almost tempted to remove all the ref tags for the New Grove and add it to the list of other printed works. It's important to remember, although it's usually forgotten, that WP:CITE does not compel editors to use inline citations for anything other than controversial BLP claims and direct quotes from source material. Our general determination to use them wherever possible makes it difficult for us to accept that, if a source such as the New Grove is so comprehensive, it just looks silly citing it inline at every possible moment. So I'm really not sure what to do - I know the article will get eaten alive at FAC if it isn't littered with inline citations, but this is not really a situation where inline is particularly appropriate. We're just not used to having one source which is capable of citing the entire article! Here, in fact, we have half a dozen. Now I can go through the article and throw in inline cites to the other books, each of which will eventually look as overutilised as the New Grove. But in fact I'd rather have any one of those sources than all of the webpages put together.

Any comments you have would be extremely welcome. Happy‑melon 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Regarding citations: perhaps this is one of the instances where Wikipedia consensus (as you said, the idea of multiple inline citations) is not appropriate; I do not feel that it is necessary to go through modifying the entire article to conform to this practice. However, I am uncertain as to how prospective readers would understand the preferred citation method (that of simply citing the major sources). Perhaps a tag would be appropriate—to indicate that the article is composed of information that could be cited totally from one source. This idea of using only one source, though, even one of such quality; may simply not be something I am comfortable with personally, and why I brought it up.
  • I did confuse weasel words and peacock terms...sorry for the mix-up. After looking the article over again, I did find one more statement that I thought qualified as a problematic sentence:
By far the most well known, and iconic, implementation of the saxophone is in modern jazz music, usually in the form of a saxophone quartet or larger ensemble.
If this is true, (because it is definitely challengeable) then all it needs is a citation (yes, even from the New Grove). If it is a speculation, than perhaps rephrasing would be appropriate.
  • Regarding the lead section: after rereading it, I think the only new thing it requires is a brief summary of the "Writing for the saxophone" section (which you may have been reluctant to add, because of the problems you described).

I am going to put the article up for a second opinion; we could probably use another one, as this article is a special case in at least one major regard (the citations).

Kakofonous (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I may as well hop in here with the 2nd opinion. Citing large amounts of content from one major source is not unprecedented, and has been seen in numerous featured articles. I have no issue with the article on that front. While I'm here though, I have a few other minor qualms (and then I'll pass it if Kakofonous doesn't object).
  • Ref 25 is simply a URL. That ref, and indeed all internet refs, need a consistent formatting ({{cite web}} is recommended)
  • The commons/wikibooks templates at the bottom would look better using {{Seealsosection}} or similar
  • The 2 current external links aren't necessary
  • All the images are in the top half of the article - spreading them around would be nice.

That's about all I have at the moment - leave a note on my talk page when you're done. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All H2O's comments acted on - I didn't move the images around, but I did add more!! Let me know here if there's anything else you think needs doing. Happy‑melon 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think passing the article now is in order. I will do so. Kakofonous (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Playing Range

We might want to expand the saxophone standard range, as Phizzle_93 suggested, to include a high F#, as most modern saxophones have high F# keys, and probably isn't considered part of the altissimo register anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.106 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't just play up to an F. You can also play an F#. Just play your highest F plus the fourth side key from the top. Note: this may take some effort! Phizzle 93 (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You can go much higher than that, but we have to keep the normal range in mind. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I greatly feel that the range should include a low A in parenthasis, and also should include altissimo notes. This is a NORMAL range for ALL modern professionals. 67.172.128.64 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the range image should be altered to include a low A as well as altissimo. It is inconsistent with all other woodwind pages which do include their altissimo ranges (i.e. the clarinet and oboe). It is very outmoded to suggest that the range of a modern day player would stop at high F, but that's what the image suggests. (Jzer21 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Most if not all modern saxes come with an F# key. Low A is present on at least most baris. You can extend the range down by a semitone using the knee trick, and the altissimo has no theoretical upper limit. In keeping with the "normal range" idea, perhaps add the low A and the high F#, both in parentheses? Swedishsax (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Scale Images Not Correct

Is it just me, or is something about those "playable range when playing C diatonic scale" a little off. Or at least the alto one is. Regardless of whether the "C diatonic scale" is the sax's key, or concert the image is incorrect. There is a Db and an Eb depicted (the two lowest notes). If C refers to concert (so these are the notes on the saxophone when playing a concert C scale), these notes are E and F#. If it's supposed to be the concert notes displayed on the staff, and the C is referring to alto key (so concert Eb), these are also incorrect, as a Db would not be in the diatonic scale. Not to mention the sloppiness of the scale images. If we change a few of the accidentals in the image, it would make more sense, but there's still some sloppiness A better way would be to show a chromatic in concert key. If I have time, I'll make some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnman239 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


You are correct...these scale images are completely wrong. 96.32.177.143 (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Materials

This section has a few errors I want to sort out so we can successfully repair this section. Of note, lacquers should be mentioned including Selmer's Black and White and leading into LA Sax's all sorts of color patterns. Additionally in the past when silver plated ones were too expensive nickel plating was also used. So plating wise there was Gold, Silver, and Nickel. Later many companies besides Cannonball used anodized nickel, notably Keilwerth. The biggest material advances to come out recently were Yanigasawa with their sterling silver saxophones, and Keilwerth with a saxophone made out of nkckel-silver like what flutes are made of. Additionally there are saxes out now that don't have a lacquer at all. BTW I'm a Materials Engineer, saxophones were actually an influence in my career choice.-- Saxophonemn (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It feels like more work needs to be done to organize this section in a more logical flowing manner. For example I'm not sure if all finishers are lacquered per se.----Saxophonemn (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

It seems like every other other day the saxophone article gets vandalised. The cycle of vandalism and reversion seems to go round and round ad infinitum. Is there no way that the article can be protected in some way? If so, I think it should be done. Nabokov (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to protect pages, but I wouldn't recommend it for this article. I don't see that this article gets vandalized significantly more than any of the other musical instrument articles. The vandalism here is pretty tame in comparison to what happens on more controversial articles. Protection is against the open spirit of Wikipedia, so it's generally reserved for the most severe cases of vandalism. However, if you feel that the vandalism here warrants protection, then follow the link I provided to read about the different levels possible and submit a request. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed: as often as the vandalism occurs, this article probably has it better than many others. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that the article has finally been protected. Thanks go to "Happy-Melon". It's a major relief! The situation had become completely ridiculous, with far too many school-kids vandalising the article with abusive and/or puerile edits. - Nabokov (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

redirected from Neck Strap - why?

The article Saxophone is redirected from "Neck Strap", but there's no mention of "Neck Strap" within the article itself - indeed nothing to explain why/whether a Saxophone is also known as a "Neck Strap". 81.154.178.151 (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

range in box on the right

The "playing range" of the saxophone is illustrated with musical notation, but this is wrong. In concert pitch the combined range of the different types of saxophones is much greater. Whilst the usual playing range of each individual saxophone in transposition is as per the illustration, this is not useful information, and certainly not as interesting as having the range of various saxophones shown in concert pitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.166.166 (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Composite Reeds Alternative

I noticed this today: "17:15, 2 December 2010 Gyrofrog (talk | contribs) (40,120 bytes) (Revert ; synthetic reed info needs sourcing in any case: see WP:SELFCITING. One might just as easily claim that they sound fine, but response is an issue.)" I reverted that. The entirety of composite reeds content was deleted rather than only the material that was objected to. Additionally, deletion wasn't called for. Please see WP:PRESERVE. If you complain that the article contains a subjective evaluation, then state that here, and let's fix it. Most of this article is not cited, so I find it strange that your other complaint was that it wasn't cited. If you want citations, please place the citation needed tags, but don't just delete a bunch of good material. Thanks!AustinBrister (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement "...but generally produce a brighter tone with a timbre that is noticeably different from reeds made from cane, and are, therefore, generally considered to produce tone that is less desirable than the tone produced from a cane reed" is an opinion. It might be a notable opinion, but if so, it needs a citation. Also, the sentence "According to Larry Teal, the mouthpiece material has little, if any, effect on the sound, and the physical dimensions give a mouthpiece its tone colour," is partially cited, but the remaining fragment – "however this view is controversial" – lacks citation. (The entire point of the Teal reference, which I added 4 or 5 years ago, was replace unreferenced opinions such as "metal mouthpieces are better for rock" or "plastic mouthpieces are inferior" etc.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge Reed Sections?

Reed_(music)#Materials and Clarinet#Reed also discuss reeds, and even (slightly) get into synthetic/composite materials. These should merge, or link, or a new page should be created for them. There is a lot of repeated information. Also, information from one, may be useful in the other, and vice versa, but they are not currently linked. Personally, I would prefer an article that focuses solely on reed material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBrister (talk • contribs) 07:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Conn-O-Sax

Why isn't there anything mentioned about the Conn-O-Sax ? Snowconeboy789 07:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Paraschos Wooden Saxophone Neck

I just recently stumbled across an article about wooden saxophone necks created by Paraschos. It would be interesting to incorporate this into the article. The article can be found at the following link: http://jazztimes.com/articles/14270-paraschos-wooden-saxophone-necks --ChocolateStrawberries (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

where can I find the history of yakety sax?

where can I find the history of yakety sax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.195.161 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There's not much at Yakety Sax, but check its References section - that might lead you somewhere. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

used on circuses

the biggest circuses in norway use them a lot so then there could be others as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Works of the repertoire.

This list needs to stay to a minimum and only include the most widely-known standards of the repertoire. We can not have people just add their favorite random pieces, as the list would get far too long. Saxophilist (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

this is a wiki page not your own article that you keep control over (you can certainly do such and link to your own web site). It looks like this needs to go to arbitration. I have no idea why you are not letting me add important works that should be listed on a page dedicated to the saxophone. The list is certianly not too long. Look at others pages in the classical literature.Hstokar (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hstokar (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate that you are trying to add to the saxophone page. However, some of the pieces you tried to add are simply not standards in the repertoire. This is not a page where every saxophonist can just add their favorite pieces. I have an idea. I think a new page called "Saxophone repertoire" should be created. Similar to how other instruments have their own page listing their repertoire, like List of compositions for violin and orchestra, etc. On that new sax repertoire page, we can add every piece of the repertoire. Saxophilist (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe that Hstokar was attempting to refer you to WP:OWN. I'm 100% certain you're acting in good faith by trying to curate the list but being overprotective doesn't encourage contribution. What constitutes a standard for any instrument is a subjective matter which depends a lot on the background of the musician. IMHO the list is already way too long, especially being in the middle of the article as it is. It disrupts the flow for those who want to read about the instrument itself. A small number of examples in prose would be more natural, with a link to a repertoire page as you suggest. Perhaps you can work together to get that page up? Moving the existing lists from here and tidying them up (e.g. organising by composer, sorting by title etc.) would be an excellent starting point. JRYon (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hstokar, I notice you've changed the title of the lists to "selected" again. While your position is a reasonable one, I don't think edit warring is going to resolve the issue. As this discussion thread exists surely it's better to reach consensus before continuing? JRYon (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you JRYon for your input. I agree that the lists should stay to a minimum. Probably around 25 for the first one and 10 for the quartet list. Then, the new page could include all pieces from the repertoire and anyone could add any piece they could think of. Also, there seems to be a lot of vandalism by User:Le Saxophone. If he keeps it up, he will be banned. I also suspect that User:Eliotgattegno is a sock-puppet. Saxophilist (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

74.73.161.77 (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Not sure what you refer to in Sock puppet. I have only commented under my own name. I wish you would stop removing my additions. I understand that lists on this page should be kept to a minimum, but lets stay away from using a term such as STANDARD which is subjective.

Hello, the first list is going to be reduced to 25 pieces. What do you suggest should be removed? I suggest removing "Sequenza IXb for Alto Saxophone (1981)—Luciano Berio", "Whirled Series—Milton Babbitt, San Antonio Sonata (1994)—John Harbison", and "Concerto for Alto Saxophone (1967)—Karel Husa". The quartet list is going to be reduced to 10 pieces. "Fractal (1991)—Cristóbal Halffter", "Saxophone Quartet (1992)—Charles Wuorinen", and "Music for Saxophones (1986)—Tristan Keuris" are going to be removed. Saxophilist (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:Source list. A suggestion: split these sections to a separate List of works for saxophone (or similar). Then we don't need to limit the lists to 10, 15, 25 items. However, the criteria for inclusion in this list is that other notable people/publications consider each work to be important, notable, or historically significant (again, WP:Source list). To that end, each item (i.e. the title of each work) in the list should consist of a blue link (itself linking to a properly referenced article), or an inline citation for a reliable source that corroborates the work's importance, notability, and/or historical significance. Even if the list remains on this page, these should be the criteria for inclusion. It doesn't matter whether you or I think these works are important (or have never heard of them etc.), but rather, whether a reliable source vouches for it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Physics of operation

IL IDKAWENDHBD PENUTBUTTERsed? For example what is the size and shape of the standing wave for various registers? Thanks. --Lbeaumont (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Double bass" ambiguity

From the Uses section of the article:

  • "In the 1920s the bass saxophone was used often in classic jazz recordings, since at that time it was easier to record than a tuba or double bass".

Is this supposed to refer to a contrabassoon, string bass, or a bass guitar? Contrabassoon would seem to make the most sense in context, but the term "double bass" usually refers to the string bass.

I'm also unsure what the whole (unreferenced) sentence means - why might a bass sax have been "easier to record" in the 1920s than an alternative instrument? The string bass was certainly used in many 1920s jazz recordings, and the tuba was occasionally used. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Some issues with the materials discussion

The Keilwerth SX-90R Shadow saxophone is constructed of "nickel silver" which is composed of 60% copper, 20% nickel, and 20% zinc. Professional concert flutes are usually constructed of solid silver, with fancy ones sometimes of gold or platinum alloys, but never nickel silver. It is a factual error to refer nickel silver as the same material used for flutes.

Bauhaus Walstein is the brand of a distribution and marketing company, not a manufacturer. They market dimensional copies of Yanagisawa saxophones manufactured in China. I do not think it is appropriate to refer to BW as having "made" saxophones.

There are some saxophones manufactured using high copper alloys such as "rose brass" or "red brass" in east Asia for designers/sellers such as Chateau[[3]], Kessler[[4]]and Saxgourmet[[5]] although, as in the case of BW, the brands are not from the actual manufacturer.

Maybe the best solution would be to refer to Yanagisawa as a manufacturer of phosphor bronze saxophones and refer to other high copper horns from east Asia sold under the BW, Chateau, Kessler, and Saxgourmet brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.20.66 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)75.111.20.66 (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

History

"The saxophone family was invented by the Belgian instrument maker Adolphe Sax in 1840."

"The saxophone was developed in 1880, by Adolphe Sax, a Belgian car maker, flautist, and clarinetist working in Paris."

These sentences look contradictory to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.193.3.231 (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The 1880 date and the reference to Sax being a "car maker" are completely out of left field.75.111.20.66 (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate mention of current products and retailers

Note #39 links to a retailer's site that advertises the product in the picture. Its presence appears to be gratuitous, inconsistent with the educational purpose of this site, and smells of backdoor marketing, not just for the product but for the retailer. The other notes associated with the picture, #37 and #38, appear to be OK if they are truly independent from parties with a commercial interest in the product.

Looking into this situation a little further, my conclusion is that the product photograph and links are part of an inappropriate backdoor marketing effort. Note #37 links to a repair technician's review of the product that appears legitimate (if not really germane to the article), however, it turns out after a search that the reviewer has a business relationship with the marketer/distributor of the product that is not disclosed in the review. The reviewer also has a product (book) that is featured very prominently on the retailer's site linked in note #39. In any event, while there may be arguments for linking to promotional materials for a product, linking to one specific retailer for a product is definitely backdoor marketing not just for the product but for the retailer.

Current Yanagisawa products are mentioned heavily in the discussion of materials. There is a thin line between mention of specific products and promotion, which I hope is not crossed, because their mention does illustrate an educational point. There is one link to an archived snapshot of a Yanagisawa dealer's site, used as an example of a claim about a product. The article has been edited to present the claim as a claim, not fact. IMHO that keeps the link to the dealer's claim kosher. Contextual information regarding the use of high copper metals, along with mention of other products manufactured using them, should make the intent of mentioning Yanagisawa products clear.75.111.20.66 (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Distinguish tag

I added a distinguish tag for Daxophone since D and S are next to each other on the QWERTY keyboard. MDaxo (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Tárogató

Hi there, the modern version of the hungarian folk-instrument Tárogató is also a variant of saxophone> its conical and has one reed, but is made from wood. I dont' want to mess around in the article, just think its worth mentioning. greetings Uwaga budowa (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Saxophone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Saxophone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2018

Change text 'A tenor sax mouthpiece.' under picture in Mouthpiece and reed section to 'Baritone saxophone mouthpieces.' The picture contains two mouthpieces not one, and they are too large to be tenor sax mouthpieces. LemonSplash52 (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The expanded caption states that the picture shows 2 mouthpieces for tenor saxophone: A Selmer S90 190 made of rubber and a Bobby Dukoff Super Power Chamber M8 made of metal.  spintendo  22:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong range

it says f natural, but isn't f sharp the saxophones highest note?

It seems amply clear in the article that the keyed range has traditionally been to high F but has been extended to F♯ on most modern instruments.

Leapinleopardstar (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Order of list not quite highest to lowest

In the list of instruments with relatively widespread use and acceptance, just above the contents list, the order of instruments goes from sopranissimo (highest) -> lower -> lower -> lower -> lower -> higher (C melody) -> lower -> lower -> lower -> subcontrabass (lowest). This strikes me as unnecessary and confusing. Is there any reason for putting the instruments in this order, or has the order been arrived at by accident? Unless there is a historical or other reasoning for this order, I would suggest one of (a) changing the order, putting the C melody above the C tenor (b) Changing the order, and adding the C soprano to the list (above the soprano), or (c) removing the C melody from the list. 121.200.4.91 (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the C-melody from the list. There could be other ways to clarify that chart, but I think the simplest is to stick to the Bb & Eb horns. - Special-T (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Fingering

It would be nice to have a chart of basic fingerings, or a link to a page with such a chart. In fact, a basic fingering chart should be provided every wind instrument; after all, tunings and alternate tunings are usually given with string instruments. These needn't take up a lot of space -- most orchestration texts fit a woodwind fingering chart on a single page or half-page.

Just a thought.

74.95.43.253 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It's probably not there because the policy (per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) says that this isn't a "how-to" manual or instructional book. A simple google search will turn up scores of fingering charts. - Special-T (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saxophone/Archive_2&oldid=1189784317"