I agree with DSP...even though at the moment I'm a more classically oriented sax player, I would expect it to be my job and duty as a future music/saxophone educator to be able to either teach both genres fluently to the level of student that I am able to teach, or to at that point refer a student to someone who is more qualified than I to teach them the material they are looking for. My professor was one of Hemke's students, the bias is going to be more towards a classical base. However, in many of our master-classes to date in the studio, we have sight read and sight transposed a lot of jazz stuff. The point? It's critical to be familiar with both areas of saxophone pedagogy, to have an appreciation for both and as a future educator to be able to teach both. There shouldn't be a bias towards one or the other when teaching a student saxophone (unless the student wants a bias, and even then who knows).
How deep is the animosity between legit and jazz sax teachers, really?
Hey folks,
this actually kept me up last night, so I hope it's an interesting topic and not just some strange projection of my own.
If you've been following the recent thread--started by Master.America--on the "mouthpiece trick," you may be wondering, like I am, just how deep the animosity between the legit and the jazz schools on key issues like intonation, tone production, etc. really is.
I have no training in either school, although I have a sense that there's a kind of historic division between jazz and classical. I do, however, have a good ear for the kind of spleen major "academic" rifts tend to produce. And, when I see (sorry fellas, no offense intended at all) John and Grumps go at it over this issue, I'm pretty sure I recognize something from my own field.
So how deep is it? What are the key issues? Who are the names to conjure with? What are the fighting words? It would seem that "proper" tone production technique is a key battlefield, but what does it mean to experts and other people "in the know" when, for example, somebody says Dave Liebman, or Santy Runyon, or, indeed, when an innocent naif mentions Rascher?
Rory
ps. If I'm way off base, feel free to kick my **s: I'm used to it
this actually kept me up last night, so I hope it's an interesting topic and not just some strange projection of my own.
If you've been following the recent thread--started by Master.America--on the "mouthpiece trick," you may be wondering, like I am, just how deep the animosity between the legit and the jazz schools on key issues like intonation, tone production, etc. really is.
I have no training in either school, although I have a sense that there's a kind of historic division between jazz and classical. I do, however, have a good ear for the kind of spleen major "academic" rifts tend to produce. And, when I see (sorry fellas, no offense intended at all) John and Grumps go at it over this issue, I'm pretty sure I recognize something from my own field.
So how deep is it? What are the key issues? Who are the names to conjure with? What are the fighting words? It would seem that "proper" tone production technique is a key battlefield, but what does it mean to experts and other people "in the know" when, for example, somebody says Dave Liebman, or Santy Runyon, or, indeed, when an innocent naif mentions Rascher?
Rory
ps. If I'm way off base, feel free to kick my **s: I'm used to it
1 - 1 of 6 Posts
1 - 1 of 6 Posts
