jazz and legit share much of the same teachings,regarding basics,liebs studied with allard,a classical teacher, and so did many other sax players in the north east.the classical teachers have a more focused agenda,certain tone,certain interpretation,plain certain,jazz teachers,i can say ie. lee konitz would enjoy what the student developed on his own,within a wide boundary,jazz builds in a certain freedom that sets up a school of its own,i love the sound classical sax players get.so of course i can learn from this.i love the sound of other studied players,whatever bag,i think the divide,classical jazz is a lot less then it was in the 50s,jazz and classical are intersecting in a lot of the music being played in europe under the jazz title.improvisation is nothing new to classical music.
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
