Recommendations for Sax History?

[giuliodido]

hi!
where can i find a good site in which there is the story of the sax, from adolphe sax, to first classical music, and then to jazz?

thanks! :)

[saxmanglen]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=history+of+the+saxophone

[Canadiain]

First place to start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxophone

[giuliodido]

perfect.. :) :) thanks!!

[sinkdraiN]

In addition to the internet, you would love the book, "Devil's Horn."

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0374159386&itm=1

[SOTSDO]

I dunno about that. I've just finished rereading The Devil's Horn, and again I found it less than satisfying.

To begin with, there's the author's casual attitude to his sax playing - it's almost as if he's taking it up on a whim. He wants to play sax, but he doesn't want to bother with reading music or any thing but what he wants to do. Not the best foundation for a serious examination of a relatively complicated topic. I know that, from what I read, I'd not have kept him on as a student for more than the first three lessons.

Then, there's the slapdash approach taken by the book as a whole. While claiming to be a "history of the instrument and its use", it's really nothing more than a brief, chatty overview of the early instrument and Sax's problems in getting it adopted, followed by a very abrupt segue to "jazz, unstructured, the worship of".

At some points, the worship of jazz reaches extremes. In effect, those portions of the book are more about how the various personalities evolved and their attitudes, than they are about saxophone playing.

And, even there you find some inconsistencies. Stan Getz merits a photograph, but only a few oblique mentions. Jerry Mulligan, just the mentions. Hard to maintain that you've produced a guide to the jazz saxophone when you omit most of the materials on those two.

Don't take me wrong: there's some coverage of early saxophone virtuosity, vaudeville, and some interesting detail (if somewhat under-sourced) on the development of the saxophone in music. However, there's precious little on such players as Jimmy Dorsey, Charlie Barnett, and Tex Bennecke, even though under them the instrument first really "flowered" into the public eye as something more than a Rudy W. 'novelty'.

And, to the author's credit, he does examine the French versus German conflict engendered by Mule and Rascher, even if quite late in the game (almost at the very end of the book). This is something that gets too little attention, in my opinion, although it may be too rarified for the tastes of most.

But, I found the book to be poorly done for the most part. A reader looking for an overview would do just as well to seek out Paul Lindemeyer's book. A little less text, but about the same content in a far smaller book. Paul's has neater photographs, as well.

[sinkdraiN]

A reader looking for an overview would do just as well to seek out Paul Lindemeyer's book. A little less text, but about the same content in a far smaller book. Paul's has neater photographs, as well.

Hmmm...I'll check it out.

[Off-kilter]

I'm just reading 'The Devils Horn' right now and I have to agree that it's a little thin on information if that's what you're after .But if you just want an entertaining read on one of your favourite subjects,it'll fit the bill. A much better book on the history of jazz saxophone and players is' Masters of Jazz Saxophone' by Dave Gelly.Found it in the discount bin and snapped it up. I can't recommend it enough.When Tim Price talks about getting to know the predecessors this is the book that will give you a generous leg up on the subject.Unfortunately for you ,Giuliodido, it doesn't have anything on A.Sax.

[J.Max]

I dunno about that. I've just finished rereading The Devil's Horn, and again I found it less than satisfying.

To begin with, there's the author's casual attitude to his sax playing - it's almost as if he's taking it up on a whim. He wants to play sax, but he doesn't want to bother with reading music or any thing but what he wants to do. Not the best foundation for a serious examination of a relatively complicated topic. I know that, from what I read, I'd not have kept him on as a student for more than the first three lessons.

Then, there's the slapdash approach taken by the book as a whole. While claiming to be a "history of the instrument and its use", it's really nothing more than a brief, chatty overview of the early instrument and Sax's problems in getting it adopted, followed by a very abrupt segue to "jazz, unstructured, the worship of".

At some points, the worship of jazz reaches extremes. In effect, those portions of the book are more about how the various personalities evolved and their attitudes, than they are about saxophone playing.

And, even there you find some inconsistencies. Stan Getz merits a photograph, but only a few oblique mentions. Jerry Mulligan, just the mentions. Hard to maintain that you've produced a guide to the jazz saxophone when you omit most of the materials on those two.

Don't take me wrong: there's some coverage of early saxophone virtuosity, vaudeville, and some interesting detail (if somewhat under-sourced) on the development of the saxophone in music. However, there's precious little on such players as Jimmy Dorsey, Charlie Barnett, and Tex Bennecke, even though under them the instrument first really "flowered" into the public eye as something more than a Rudy W. 'novelty'.

And, to the author's credit, he does examine the French versus German conflict engendered by Mule and Rascher, even if quite late in the game (almost at the very end of the book). This is something that gets too little attention, in my opinion, although it may be too rarified for the tastes of most.

But, I found the book to be poorly done for the most part. A reader looking for an overview would do just as well to seek out Paul Lindemeyer's book. A little less text, but about the same content in a far smaller book. Paul's has neater photographs, as well.

I'd agree with this, although the author of the book seems to be very biased against classical playing for some reason.

[Off-kilter]

I think one of the reasons he's so weak on some players ( and classical ) is because he's done the book based on interviews ( he interviewed Steve Lacey and Illinois Jacquet just before their deaths )as much as possibleand Bix, Getz etc. weren't around to have their say.

[Grumps]

I'd agree with this, although the author of the book seems to be very biased against classical playing for some reason.
Some do consider classical saxophone to be a contradiction in terms. And yeah, I know that's flip, but think on this... when the saxophone came about, classical music had already been firmly established. It was like the guys joining your unit after D-Day. Now with Jazz, not only were they on the beaches, and having been in Africa before that, they were in Franz Ferdinand's freakin' motorcade. That's why I'd figure the saxophone to have a more prominent face in jazz, rather than classical; mixed metaphors notwithstanding.

[vivace1]

Some do consider classical saxophone to be a contradiction in terms. And yeah, I know that's flip, but think on this... when the saxophone came about, classical music had already been firmly established. It was like the guys joining your unit after D-Day. Now with Jazz, not only were they on the beaches, and having been in Africa before that, they were in Franz Ferdinand's freakin' motorcade. That's why I'd figure the saxophone to have a more prominent face in jazz, rather than classical; mixed metaphors notwithstanding.

Hmmm...interesting analogy, but it doesn't work. This analogy assumes that like D-Day, there was a pivotal point in music history where everything which followed would pale in comparison. Unlike war, art constantly evolves and there are no clear end outcomes. My case:
Consider the clarinet...not in Bach, prominently in some Mozart, everywhere in the Romantic era. Evolution. The saxophone likewise is experiencing a classical evolution. (First, before I rant, jazz is its own form of "art music" and will one day occupy a role in music history like that of the Romantic era...enough said on that point). I agree that Mozart on a saxophone is silly, in that sense, the saxophone is not "Classical"(...obviously as it was invented in the 1840s). However, we had some interest in the Romantic era from Berlioz, Demersseman, Bizet, etc. In the early twentieth century we had Debussy, Strauss, Creston, Dahl, Ibert etc. Now we have Glass, Reich, Zwilich (forthcoming), Harbison, Richard Rodney Bennett, Torke, Stockhausen, Berio, etc. These are all very major composers known for their contributions to the contemporary classical scene composing for the saxophone. These are the people earning Pulitzers and genius grants, at the vanguard of classical music's evolution. "Saxophone isn't a classical instrument?"---that's just not what today's literature tells us.
Believe me, I'm with you one-percent that jazz is probably most responsible for the acceptance of the saxophone in modern music. Now, however, it is being welcomed with open arms to the contemporary classical world. Just because it is not in the orchestra, hardly means it is not "classical." In the modern era of eclecticism, the saxophone is extremely valued for its ability to reference traditions outside of "classical" in a classical context (John Williams' Escapades from "Catch Me if You Can." Come on!

[Grumps]

This analogy assumes that like D-Day, there was a pivotal point in music history where everything which followed would pale in comparison.
No it doesn't.

[saxman_aja]

Actually, it does. Classical music is not dead. Modern western art music is experiencing a creative onslaught the likes of which have never been seen. Tons of composers are writing new, great works for our instrument every day. To say that the saxophone isn't an effective instrument in traditional art music and new music is insane. It's perfect for the medium. There's even good evidence that more solo classical literature is currently being written for the saxophone than any other solo instrument...And please don't give me any crap about "the classical period ended in the 1820s..." We all know that. However, we also all know that when referring to "classical music," we are referring to the great whole of western classical music, from the first piece of chant to the latest work for electronics. Flippancy is not always the best policy...

Having supplied more than my two cents on that subject, I personally liked "The Devil's Horn." The amount of research done for the book is stagering. I would've bought it for the Sinta, Londeix, and Branford Marsalis interviews alone...Another great book is "Sax and His Saxophone" by Kochnitzky. It's available through the North American Saxophone Alliance...Some other great references that come to mind are Wally Harwoods "Adolphe Sax, 1814-1894: His Life and Legacy" and, while I've never seen a copy, I hear that Lawrence Gwodz's translation of Jaap Kool's "Das Saxophon" has a lot of wonderful stuff...There's Hemke's history...Just a ton of references. Happy hunting.

[Saxplayer67]

I like The Devil's Horn, it was like a good novel, a real page turner. But for solid info. on sax, check out The Cambridge Companion to the Saxophone, Saxophone by Paul Harvey and The Rough Guide to the Saxophone. Also the 2 CD set The History of the Saxophone on the Clarinet Classics label has a thick, detailed booklet and many historical recordings.

[Grumps]

Actually, it does.
Actually, it does what? We're talking about a claim that my analogy made a certain assumption; and it did not. vivace1 claimed that my analogy assumed that "like D-Day, there was a pivotal point in music history where everything which followed would pale in comparison." That totally misses the point I was trying to make. I was just pointing out that saxophones were at the forefront of the jazz movement when it began. That wasn't the case with classical music, where they were late arrivals. There is, and was, no distinction that can be drawn from my analogy that some sort of value judgment was made in regard to the inability of a musical format to improve upon itself, or that it had died. It was only to explain the prominence of the saxophone in jazz, rather than in classical music.

[SOTSDO]

Some of the with-it crowd refer to "classical music" (the term which really only applies to the stuff written around the 1800 turn-of-the-century period, during the so-called Classical period) as "art music", thus to include all periods (Baroque, Romantic, etc.) under one unifying label. Awkward, but it works for me.

However, just because someone doesn't agree with that classification doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't right. The breakdowns by period have been with us a lot longer than the last fifty years or so, and they seem to be good enough for the music community as a whole.

There was another book published about seven years ago by Paul Lindemeyer (I think) that did a far better job of covering the history of the horn than did The Devil's Horn, a book that I found to be poorly written and far too "chatty" for what it claimed to be accomplishing. Instrumental history (in my eyes, at least) should be more along the lines of Oskar Kroll's The Clarinet instead of a cool cat interview book.

Even though it is of casual format, Lindemeyer's book does a lot more towards telling about the saxophone, rather than the people who play it.

[Mark5047]

Classical music was already established for quite a while before the saxophone came on the scene - and the players who were interested in playing saxophone in that style typically had to mimic the parts that had been previously played by other instruments - french horn, other mid brass instruments, sometimes strings etc. whereas the saxophone was used to help create (read invent) the music style that would eventually be known as jazz. There is the difference I think. In other words, yeah, you can adopt a saxophone to play music principally written for other instruments while on the other hand, the sax has always had a voice in jazz.
I realize that there are more modern 'classical' styles of music written with a saxophone in mind but to my mind (and ear) it is always just a modification of an earlier thought.
Call me a jazz bigot if you will, but our beloved instrument helped define a whole style of music.

[gelliot2]

Cambridge Companion to the Saxophone:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Companion-Saxophone-Companions-Music/dp/0521596661/ref=sr_1_1/202-9597212-0504658?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174497706&sr=1-1

[vivace1]

I think we keep missing each other on the term "classical." Let's all get a term we can use. "Classical" for this discussion is not the era, but the style that spans from medieval to the present, yes?
Grumps said:"when the saxophone came about, classical music had already been firmly established. It was like the guys joining your unit after D-Day. Now with Jazz, not only were they on the beaches, and having been in Africa before that, they were in Franz Ferdinand's freakin' motorcade."

Your analogy here says that classical music was firmly established when the saxophone came about in 1840. I'd say "firmly established" in your analogy pretty much says that additions after this would be ill-fitting...or "like guys joining your unit after D-Day." D-Day was a pivotal moment in WWII, after which, the tide of the war shifted in favor of the allies...yes? Okay, to your analogy carried into the classical music world; this implies that you believe that ideas in classical music had peaked, or reached a pivot, after which everything else resulted from this grand moment. Where am I going wrong in reading your analogy?

To Mark--yes, the saxophone was huge for jazz, nobody denies that. I'm only arguing that there is such a thing as classical saxophone that exists beyond transcriptions. Read my earlier post...heard of any of those guys? How can that list say that the saxophone doesn't have a place in the classical world? The literature is being written...you just can't argue with the fact that our most major contemporary "art music" composers are writing original music for the saxophone. This isn't opinion. Of course any Handel, Bach or Mozart we play is a transcription, but there is also great original music written just for the sax. Tell Regina Carter and Stefan Grappelli the violin doesn't belong in jazz before you go on telling me the saxophone doesn't belong in classical!!
:evil:

[Grumps]

Okay, to your analogy carried into the classical music world; this implies that you believe that ideas in classical music had peaked, or reached a pivot, after which everything else resulted from this grand moment. Where am I going wrong in reading your analogy?
Your emphasis on pivotal moment; not mine. It's strictly a time line analogy.

[Mark5047]

Vivace

I am not saying the sax doesnt belong in classical music. Its not my personal preference, but I also play in a community band that plays a lot of classical style music. What I was trying to communicate was the musical style of jazz was created around instruments such as a saxophone while in other styles of music the music had to be adopted for the instrument.
You can split hairs all day regarding different 'styles' of classical music, just as you can talk about different 'styles' of jazz; hard bop, free form, cool jazz, etc but they are all JAZZ, correct? Same with classical. Its all classical music, and the sax was not there when it was first created. Thats all I am pointing out.

[martysax]

Your emphasis on pivotal moment; not mine. It's strictly a time line analogy.

If Ornithology is the study of Birds, what's Analogy?:?

[vivace1]

"You can split hairs all day regarding different 'styles' of classical music, just as you can talk about different 'styles' of jazz; hard bop, free form, cool jazz, etc but they are all JAZZ, correct? Same with classical. Its all classical music, and the sax was not there when it was first created. Thats all I am pointing out."

"when it was first created" Other instruments that also weren't there--hmm the violin, the piano, the clarinet, should I go on? Just as the saxophone also wasn't there when jazz was first "created" (believe it, dixieland used clarinet, dance bands used violins until saxophones started to double these parts) Evolution!
I'm really not splitting hairs at all. This is a very basic concept. Music evolves, in its current form, saxophone is playing a more prominent role in the important literature that is being composed and performed. The Baltimore Symphony just performed Glass' Symphony for Saxophone Quartet. Major symphony, major composer, major audience. What's left to say?

[Carl H.]

If Ornithology is the study of Birds, what's Analogy?:?
This thread.

[Mark5047]

Vivace

I am not saying the sax doesnt belong in classical music.

Seems like you missed that part......

[vivace1]

I get the drift guys, you want me to cool it. Fine. I just think a comment on a sax history thread that says classical saxophone is a contradiction should not go unchallenged. This is an uninformed position. Challenging an analogy doesn't make someone anal, especially when the analogy seeks to delegitimize half the users of SOTW.

[vivace1]

Mark--
Duly noted you did not say the saxophone doesn't have a place in classical music. The point I was trying to argue about your post was that few instruments we now see as standards were there when classical music was created. I'm not picking a fight with you. I just think that too many people (not saying you are one of them) believe that since Mozart didn't compose for the saxophone, therefore it is not a true classical instrument. That's all. You just got some of my steam from Grumps' remarks. Sorry:)

[Mark5047]

Vivace

No worries here! I think we are walking the same road. I made my statements more complex than what I intended, which can lead to confusion.
And by the way, don't let Grumps get ya steamed - I personally think he says things in such a way as to get a reaction from people.

[Grumps]

Challenging an analogy doesn't make someone anal, especially when the analogy seeks to delegitimize half the users of SOTW.
Just 'cause you weren't at D Day?