I was incredibly disappointed by the article in that there were several historical inaccuracies and this quote by Mcallister:

“He didn’t do us any favors,” Timothy McAllister, Prism’s soprano saxophonist, said. “We are still sometimes paying for the sins of the father.”

That's a way to NOT sell your instrument.

 

I was incredibly disappointed by the article in that there were several historical inaccuracies and this quote by Mcallister:

"He didn't do us any favors," Timothy McAllister, Prism's soprano saxophonist, said. "We are still sometimes paying for the sins of the father."

That's a way to NOT sell your instrument.

Agreed. If Timothy is such a genius himself why doesnt he reinvent the wheel, and then bear the cross so we can all be free of the sins of our collective father. Timothy should try some post graduate study in media and communication.

 

I believe that someone of McAllister's caliber can say almost anything they want to about that saxophone. It seems obvious to me that Prof. McAllister is saying that the saxophone is one of the hardest instruments to keep in tune and was only joking about it being a sin of our father's.

Garrett

 

Garrett, the saxophone is NOT one of the hardest instruments to keep in tune. Try an oboe, english horn, or bassoon and then come back to us. And to answer the comment above that, his comment certainly does nothing to promote the instrument. Go read the article and find the historical inaccuracies; he paints it as though nearly nothing of worth was written before PRISM.

 

No, actually it says that Prism is pushing composers to create even more music for the saxophone.
I would expect you to be in complete support of that, what with your anti-transcription crusade around here.
Would you mind pointing out where in the article he suggests that nothing of worth was written before Prism?

 

It doesn't really matter what he says, his playing says it all.

 

That's a good attitude to have, let's just say whatever we want, regardless of whether it's true to a major newspaper, as a representative of one of the most successful saxophone quartets. Great.

 

And it does matter what we say. If we're to be ambassadors of our instrument, when we have a chance to speak with a major newspaper, lets make sure to get the facts right and not paint a false picture.

 

I don't see anywhere in the article where he just puts whatever he wanted.

 

"The group plunged into the core of the repertory, such as it was: mainly mid-20th-century works by French composers like Pierre Lantier, Jacques Ibert and Alfred Desenclos."

- Jacques Ibert didn't write a saxophone quartet.

"Though Sax promoted his creation as an orchestral instrument, unreliable intonation hindered its integration into the orchestra. Apart from such technical problems, Sax’s promotion of the instrument was often divisive."

- This is completely false, with many sources to prove it.

“He didn’t do us any favors,” Timothy McAllister, Prism’s soprano saxophonist, said. “We are still sometimes paying for the sins of the father.”

Again, where did this come from?

"Composers were inspired to write for classical saxophone quartet when Marcel Mule, a famed French performer, formed an ensemble in 1928. Transcriptions still nourish classical quartets hungry for more repertory, as they did Mule’s ensemble, but Prism rarely plays arrangements."

- Actually, there are quartets that date much earlier than Marcel Mule (think Lefebre). The second sentence makes it seem as if we don't have enough good pieces, so we have to play transcriptions to "flesh" out our programs.

 

"The group plunged into the core of the repertory, such as it was: mainly mid-20th-century works by French composers like Pierre Lantier, Jacques Ibert and Alfred Desenclos."

- Jacques Ibert didn't write a saxophone quartet.

"Though Sax promoted his creation as an orchestral instrument, unreliable intonation hindered its integration into the orchestra. Apart from such technical problems, Sax's promotion of the instrument was often divisive."

- This is completely false, with many sources to prove it.

"He didn't do us any favors," Timothy McAllister, Prism's soprano saxophonist, said. "We are still sometimes paying for the sins of the father."

Again, where did this come from?

"Composers were inspired to write for classical saxophone quartet when Marcel Mule, a famed French performer, formed an ensemble in 1928. Transcriptions still nourish classical quartets hungry for more repertory, as they did Mule's ensemble, but Prism rarely plays arrangements."

- Actually, there are quartets that date much earlier than Marcel Mule (think Lefebre). The second seconds makes it seem as if we don't have enough good pieces, so we have to play transcriptions to "flesh" out our programs.

So you call out Tim McAllister, and then list things written by the author of the article.
How was he at fault for errors by the author?
Secondly, the one quote you listed that was actually from Dr. McAllister was one that is controversial only by interpretation.
Personally I think it was a light-hearted jab at the stereotype that ours is an instrument of many flaws.

 

Most likely, the writer of the article was not an authoritarian on the saxophone, so the "facts" in the article were most likely given by the group. Also, when you're feature in a NY Times article and you have a chance to really promote your instrument, this seems likely strange thing to say and it's controversial because his comment really isn't based on a lot of fact.

 

So by saying this you're implying that the members of the Prism Quartet, Dr. Tim McAllister, Zach Shemon, Matthew Levy, and Taimur Sullivan don't know the history of the saxophone quartet.
Either that, or they willingly gave the author false information.
I think rather than to assume they don't know the history of their genre, of which they are one of the most successful groups EVER, it would make much more sense to assume the author researched the topic and printed errors because she was not, as you say, "an authoritarian on the saxophone."

 

If I want to hear a bagpipe, I'll listen to a bagpipe.

 

Exactly my point.

 

My comment was pointing out the inaccuracies again in the article, here concerning early saxophone repertoire. You commented on PRISM's desire to pursue new music. These two topics aren't related, which is what I meant by my last comment. (to altosaxguy)

 

My "Exactly my point" comment was referring to you wanting to hear bagpipes as bagpipes, not saxophones.

 

The news often misrepresents facts.

 

Please excuse my somewhat harsh sarcasm. I'm just saying that I don't think someone would purposefully misrepresent facts for a newspaper, but regardless of what is said it doesn't take away from what PRISM or any of it's members have done for the instrument. You may have your own opinions about expanding the rep or on the style that PRISM plays and that's all fine. We can't all have the same opinion, life would tend to get boring. In the end, I don't think a few misrepresented words are going to affect the popularity or the saxophone or any of it's music. I believe the way it's played will speak most to an audience, not simple words about it's history.

Garrett

 

I find it interesting that saxophone players both in jazz and classical music, are the first to criticise their fellow players. With friends like these...

 

authors tend to do whatever they want and spin material to fit their points. interviews are often, mostly, anecdotal, and the 'facts' by the author are based on only light research. this is done all the time. wouldn't read too much into it all.

i think the quotes were appropriate, and, yes, as someone said, light-hearted. let's be honest, the saxophone is a black sheep, and don't try to pretend it isn't. paving the way for greater appreciation and acceptance means changing minds and taking a hard look at the profession, no matter how unpleasant it can be. To not do so means one is living in a dream world. Major orchestra musicians will be happy to share their opinions about the saxophone anyday. Prism is trying to build a legacy of their own that benefits the entire profession, and in no way did it seem they were suggesting noone else has pursued the same goal. This article is about THEM and what THEY have accomplished, not a platform for them to highlight the pursuits and achievements of their counterparts here and abroad. Any other group would do the same.

this article made me proud to be a saxophonist, actually. too bad some of you took such offense.

congrats to Prism. may they be fruitful for another 25 years!

P

 

I did not like the article, it is not necessary to fight a battle that is already won. The saxophone is not a permanent member of the symphony orchestra because the orchestra was already defined before the saxophone became an important part of classical music.
My view is (based on living in the U.K.) that too often the classical saxophone was played by clarinet players as a double; the oboe is not played by fluatists doubling. Another thing that used to drive me wild was this sleazy tone and style classical saxophone players would sometimes use when they performed anything that distantly resembled jazz. I have worked in traditional jazz, modern jazz, rock, new wave and MOR and I have never heard a non-classical saxophonist use this sleazy tone. Somehow the saxophone can be associated with a salacious underworld, and considered slightly risque and I have no idea why.
The other thing is I have heard too many classical saxophone players play bad jazz which does not help. Fortunately in London I have many colleagues who play beautiful classical saxophone and the straight classical repertoire.

 

What exactly is your point?
I could just as easily say I've heard too many jazz saxophonists play bad classical.
Each has their place, and neither genre of player is any "worse" for our instrument as a whole.
Plus this article is in no way arguing that our instrument should become a permanent member of a symphony orchestra.

 

I applaud Prism's efforts to present our instrument, and great new repertoire, to new and expanding audiences. What's most important is that a saxophone quartet was featured in the NY Times at all. Earlier that same afternoon, one could also have heard the Rascher Quartet in NYC. It was a great and positive day for the classical saxophone!

 

I completely agree with you Jim. And I was present for both concerts yesterday. Truly an amazing day! Hearing the Rascher Quartet perform with the NY Virtuoso Singers some music that they've pioneered, and then to hear Prism play at Le Poisson Rouge in the Village music that they've pioneered was an amazing experience. I'm tired of these conflicts. The fact of the matter is, the saxophone is becoming a well-respected instrument. If it wasn't, would so many composers have written for the instrument?

 

I think it's fair to hold the author responsible for the inaccuracies and distortions in the article as it's very unlikely she submitted it to Prism for review. As for Tim's comment, you don't know what context he said it in nor what inflection he used. It's a short article, and I bet the players were interviewed at substantial length. In that situation, the author can cut and paste to make them seem say pretty much anything she wants.

Now if you really want to complain about something, how about that fact that Rascher wasn't mentioned in the article? Seriously, I'm not a "Rascherite" but given his primacy in the development of the classical saxophone I'd say that's the biggest distortion in the article, especially given that the Rascher Quartet was performing that same day in New York. I'd call that journalistic malpractice.

 

I'm a little confused. First, and in my opinion most importantly, this is press for our instrument. We have seen more coverage this year than ever before and much of it is thanks to PRISM.

Second, where in this article does it say that Ibert composed an original piece for sax quartet? I think you are reading WAY too far into this and looking for things to get upset about. It only says that they played repertoire by Ibert, Lantier and Desenclos (as many college quartets do). I hope you are aware that there ARE quartet arrangements out there of Ibert's music.

There is so much negativity on this forum. In my opinion, anyone who can find fault with the things that PRISM has accomplished needs to seriously re-evaluate their concept of music and progress.

As far as repertoire, we have countless new works for quartet thanks to the efforts of PRISM. If the only thing PRISM ever accomplished was to have Bolcom, a pulitzer prize winning composer, write a concerto for sax quartet, they would still be worthy of praise.

Personally, I thank PRISM for all they have done to further our repertoire and our reputation. Let's try supporting the leaders of our field instead of bashing them...

 

I do support them in their musical endeavors and for the many pieces they have had commissioned and written for us. I'm not going to sit here and be demonized for pointing out facts in an article that are simply untrue. Of course I'm aware of the quartet arrangements/transcriptions of Ibert's music and others as well.

Notice that I have not found fault with the things PRISM has accomplished, Please read my posts! Nor have I commented on their playing or anything else. I merely commented on my disappointment in the article which has several untrue statements, half-truths, and comments which seem to demean the very instrument they play! I found this disconcerting from a quartet which has done so much.

 

You weren't demonized for calling out the article.
You were demonized for calling out Tim McAllister for an innocuous comment, and second for trying to pin the errors of the author on him.
Simple as that.

 

Another thread that started positive and was broken down to pathetic, depressing bickering. For someone so quick to judge when someone misrepresents saxophone/saxophonists, that same someone is doing a great job making us look arrogant, immature and disrespectful. It's always the same "someone" too it seems.... Can't there ever be a thread where that someone doesn't **** everyone off?

 

I think this article should inspire other classical saxophone players to approach the press. For instance local magazines and papers are often looking for new things to write about. Even if your local paper starts with something like "hey all off you think the saxophone is a jazz instrument but this player is showing it is also excellent for classical music ..." It may be obvious to us but it is still exposure.
I think most of us who are musicians are not that good at promoting ourselves to the media.

Regarding the article that started this thread, one author said that you judge reviews by their length, not their content. So a long article and photograph in a paper with that reputation is good publicity. No article is going to please everyone.