Better quality is always the way to go.

That's an interesting choice to play at a competition...not too technical of a piece, but very musical. Which arrangement are you using?

 

If you can play it as Debussy would have played it, do that. As a classical saxophonist, you aim to emulate what the composer intended; if he wanted it done faster, play it faster, or slower if slower, regardless of recordings. Try to find the most accurate recording possible, and play it that way.

Of course, you don't want to sacrifice quality for speed. If you must slow down that section, do so. As a soloist, you do have some discretion, but classical music is meant to be played as it was when it was first composed.

 

Better quality is always the way to go.

That's an interesting choice to play at a competition...not too technical of a piece, but very musical. Which arrangement are you using?

im playing the debussy b/c its quite easy, i only hav/had 2 weeks to learn it, and i have too much work being 16 w/ school ending and some SAT's to take to spend too much time on anything challenging.

I wish i could tell u the arranger, but the whole damn thing is in french. The publisher is Durand though.

I love how in the music some stuff is written in french while other stuff is in italian. What can ya do though, they're french.

 

Rawring Liger:

Welcome to the Sax on the Web Newsgroup.

You wrote:

I wish i could tell u the arranger, but the whole damn thing is in french. The publisher is Durand though.

I love how in the music some stuff is written in french while other stuff is in italian. What can ya do though, they're french.

Be careful.

When you type "www.saxontheweb.net" into your browser, the first W stands for world. The people reading your thread might be from Japan, Germany, the UK and yes even France.

Bashing the French is so 2003. It was wrong then (and in retrospect very silly at the time because the French were right!) and it is wrong today.

If you are going to be a classical saxophonist, you should at a very minimum study a semester of French language. Very often, the instructions are in French sometimes a mixture of French and Italian. So what?? Many of these pieces are widely regarded as cornerstones of our literature. Not to mention some of the strongest classical players are French as well.

BTW, I noticed ion the Classical Saxophones set-up thread, you play a Selmer SA-80 Serie III alto. What country was that saxophone manufactured in?

Steve

 

Not so quick there. In my point of view the strongest classical players are American and it would make much more sense for ME to take a semester of German rather than French. These days I rarely play anything with French anywhere on it.

BTW, I don't think RawringLiger was bashing French at all. Based on what we know about certain connections through certain international organizations, I wonder how wrong it really was...

 

Let's not get political. We have enough problems with Rascher vs. French School, let's not have conservative vs. liberal too. There are great players all over the world, so I don't think anyone is underrepresented.

 

Very good point

 

Just in regards to the language issue: taking a language course, while certainly informative, is probably not the most direct way to deal with instructions in music. What I reccomend is a good book on musical terms in different languages: it should suffice for at least 95% of the time.
As a side note, sometimes instructions in English are more confusing, as they don't mean anything definite to most musicians. I've seen both "fast" and "quickly" in Britten's music: I find the Italian terminology easier to interpret!

 

Just in regards to the language issue: taking a language course, while certainly informative, is probably not the most direct way to deal with instructions in music. What I reccomend is a good book on musical terms in different languages: it should suffice for at least 95% of the time.
As a side note, sometimes instructions in English are more confusing, as they don't mean anything definite to most musicians. I've seen both "fast" and "quickly" in Britten's music: I find the Italian terminology easier to interpret!

I once played "Magic Flea" in a big band. It was marked "Mucho Fasto". Just thought that was funny...

 

Mucho fasto... I had forgotten that one- thanks that is hilarious.

A composer friend of mine once wrote the tempo marking of one of his pieces as "Fast as Schnell". :lol:

 

A friend of mine indicated the tempo in a tune as:

"half-fast ballad"

 

Rawring Liger:

Welcome to the Sax on the Web Newsgroup.

You wrote:

Be careful.

When you type "www.saxontheweb.net" into your browser, the first W stands for world. The people reading your thread might be from Japan, Germany, the UK and yes even France.

Bashing the French is so 2003. It was wrong then (and in retrospect very silly at the time because the French were right!) and it is wrong today.

If you are going to be a classical saxophonist, you should at a very minimum study a semester of French language. Very often, the instructions are in French sometimes a mixture of French and Italian. So what?? Many of these pieces are widely regarded as cornerstones of our literature. Not to mention some of the strongest classical players are French as well.

BTW, I noticed ion the Classical Saxophones set-up thread, you play a Selmer SA-80 Serie III alto. What country was that saxophone manufactured in?

Steve

Speaking of French, there is also a section on this forum dedicated to French speakers... The saxophone has a very strong foundation and background in the French language. I would also recommend taking at least a semester of French. I am currently finishing up my first year of French and I am considering a minor in it. As qwerty said, French literature is the cornerstone of our repertoire. We are very lucky to have a piece written for us by Debussy.

Kevin, believe it or not, most prominent American players have studied with French teachers and some are very fluent in French. Although knowing German might be good, I don't see how useful it would be unless I were playing Bach transcriptions. Additionally, more and more composers, especially American, have adopted Italian as their language of choice.

 

Rick,

I guess who I was referring to were people like John-Edward Kelly, Harry White, Larry Gwozdz, etc. As you can guess I play in a different tradition than you do and in my estimation French literature does not make the cornerstone of our rep. It may for many saxophonists, but not for me or a growing number of us who play music written mainly from American composers and Eastern European (and German...hence the German).

We all know the Italian so that is not a problem and the Ibert is about the only piece I play from a French composer. Regardless, whatever the language is I find a way to figure it out.

 

Kevin:

If all you are playing from French composers is the Ibert, you are missing out on a lot of fine French literature. And to be clear, I didn't say the French players were the strongest, just "some of the strongest".

Debussy
Desenclos
Dubois
Pascal
Koechlin
Maurice
Milhaud
Bozza
Pierne

are some of the French composers that have written fine and lesser works for the saxophone. Yes A cornerstone...not THE cornerstone.

I think a recital, a recording, a repertoire for that matter, is much more interesting if it includes a global perspective. Just my humble opinion.

Steve

 

Yes, I play music from all over the place, just not much French. France is not the only place music comes from and it doesn't have to be the anchor as well. I would surmise from your comments that you probably don't play much of the music I would and that makes me think you may be missing out on a lot of fine literature as well.

I need to add Koechlin to Ibert as another French piece that I love and play. The others you listed I am not musically stimulated enough to play them. Some composers that to me have written some of the finest works for our instrument:

Haba
Martin
Glaser
Kox
Lennon
Bassett
Macha
Kueris
Creston
Husa
...the list goes on

 

Yo Kevin:

As David Letterman used to say before introducing the "Stupid Pet Tricks" segment on his show, "This is not a competition, so please, no wagering"

I have enjoyed playing and performing works by many of the composers you list. I think a good repertoire is like a balanced diet. I am most interested in recitals and players that choose varied and wide ranging music from a global perspective... excellent transcriptions, avant garde, it's all good!!!

When I finalize my fall solo recital program, I will post the program. I can assure it will not just be French...or American...or Lower Slobovian.. you get my point!

Speaking of American: What do you think of the Muczynski??

I hope you don't think I am being inflammatory or contentious....just supportive of my point. (maybe my comment about French bashing being so 2003 in my original post was contentious as i tend to wear my liberal bleeding heart on my sleeve ):evil:

Back to the original point of this thread: Anybody care to weigh in on the significance of the title of the Debussy:

Rhapsodie for Orchestra et Saxophone. (Rhapsodie for Orchestra and Saxophone)

I am alluding to the fact that Orchestra comes first in the title.

Steve

 

Of course, you don't want to sacrifice quality for speed. If you must slow down that section, do so. As a soloist, you do have some discretion, but classical music is meant to be played as it was when it was first composed.[/QUOTE]

Oh boy! that really is a whole can of worms! If we take that view literally then we are in the realms of 'authentic' performance. For instance - should we play on period instuments? - eg. maybe the Ibert should only be played on Selmer modele 26s or Beuscher TTs. Should saxophonists play transcriptions of baroque or classical music at all? Often it is pretty difficult to be absolutely clear about what was intended. Even metronome markings cannot be relied upon too closely as the early ones were not as accurate as today's. Pieces like the Debussy are going to be more specific about the composers wishes regarding performance but there is plenty of evidence of even romantic era performers extemporising extensively. Chopin was well known for hardly ever playing a piece the same way twice and with many of his works there is a problem for the performer (not sax, thank heavens) in deciding whether there is a definative version at all.
You have to do your homework on a piece; era, style, composer, context, details of commission but you also have to communicate what the piece means to you otherwise music becomes a form of 'painting by numbers'
Just my 2p

 

Of course, you don't want to sacrifice quality for speed. If you must slow down that section, do so. As a soloist, you do have some discretion, but classical music is meant to be played as it was when it was first composed.

Oh boy! that really is a whole can of worms! If we take that view literally then we are in the realms of 'authentic' performance. For instance - should we play on period instuments? - eg. maybe the Ibert should only be played on Selmer modele 26s or Beuscher TTs. Should saxophonists play transcriptions of baroque or classical music at all? Often it is pretty difficult to be absolutely clear about what was intended. Even metronome markings cannot be relied upon too closely as the early ones were not as accurate as today's. Pieces like the Debussy are going to be more specific about the composers wishes regarding performance but there is plenty of evidence of even romantic era performers extemporising extensively. Chopin was well known for hardly ever playing a piece the same way twice and with many of his works there is a problem for the performer (not sax, thank heavens) in deciding whether there is a definative version at all.
You have to do your homework on a piece; era, style, composer, context, details of commission but you also have to communicate what the piece means to you otherwise music becomes a form of 'painting by numbers'
Just my 2p

I totally agree with this. It is impossible to truly know what the composer was "intending". The Debussy is a great example...Debussy never inteded for the this work to be seen, let alone played. Any performance of a classical piece is going to be 50% the composer and 50% from the performer.

Keep in mind that unless you're playing from an original manuscript, there are going to be printing errors, edits, etc.

Also, the composer probably heard their work on instruments of the period. If I'm trying to get to "the composer's original intentions" does that mean if I play the Ibert that I should play it on a Buescher, and then if I play, say, a Feld piece later in the recital that I should switch to a Yamaha?

The point is that classical pieces are meant to be interpreted by the performer, and you are not necessarily trying to get to any profound "intent" that is inherent in the music.

 

Rick,

I guess who I was referring to were people like John-Edward Kelly, Harry White, Larry Gwozdz, etc. As you can guess I play in a different tradition than you do and in my estimation French literature does not make the cornerstone of our rep. It may for many saxophonists, but not for me or a growing number of us who play music written mainly from American composers and Eastern European (and German...hence the German).

We all know the Italian so that is not a problem and the Ibert is about the only piece I play from a French composer. Regardless, whatever the language is I find a way to figure it out.

I am guessing that you are a Rascher school player. Gee, that was a tough one!

At some point, my guess is that you'll still end up playing French repertoire, especially since a lot of the stuff written for Rascher was written by composers who were in France anyway. (Glazunov is a good example). Much of the early tradition of our instrument is from France since both Rascher and Marcel Mule were there in the early part of the century.

As far as the significance of the title goes...keep in mind two things about this piece. First, Debussy didn't like the saxophone. He actually refunded Elise Hall's commission on this piece because he didn't like the end result. Second, he didn't REALLY write it. What he wrote was an orchestral sketch that wasn't found until after his death. It was then fleshed out by Roger-Ducasse into the form that we know today.

 

Qwerty,

What do I think of Muczynski? I like his music! His saxophone Sonata is a fun piece to listen to and play. His flute music is also good, despite the fact that he is very unkind to the inherent characteristics of the instrument.

J.Max,

Being in France does not make you French. Rascher was in France and he is a far cry from being French. Glazunov is Russian. That being said, there are many French composers who have written for Rascher, but I do not claim to enjoy music that was only written for Rascher or his students. I like music that I like and there are many pieces written for him that I do not like.

I'm not sure why I'll end up playing French rep anyhow??? I don't dislike all French music just because it is French. I like certain types of music and a good part of French compositional tradition just does not fit into my aesthetic. Some does, but as of now most does not.

 

Qwerty,

What do I think of Muczynski? I like his music! His saxophone Sonata is a fun piece to listen to and play. His flute music is also good, despite the fact that he is very unkind to the inherent characteristics of the instrument.

J.Max,

Being in France does not make you French. Rascher was in France and he is a far cry from being French. Glazunov is Russian. That being said, there are many French composers who have written for Rascher, but I do not claim to enjoy music that was only written for Rascher or his students. I like music that I like and there are many pieces written for him that I do not like.

I'm not sure why I'll end up playing French rep anyhow??? I don't dislike all French music just because it is French. I like certain types of music and a good part of French compositional tradition just does not fit into my aesthetic. Some does, but as of now most does not.

Actually that's an interesting discussion in itself...what exactly is the French (compositional) aesthetic? My wife is writing a dissertation on the subject.

Here's the thing about it...in the period since WWII, there really is no such thing as a Nationalist compositional aesthetic. Look at some of the composers from France since 1945: Boulez (writes in the serial tradition), Xenakis (Greek-born, but worked from IRCAM...writes in his own style incorporating aleotoric music, computer-aided composition, and others),
Dutilleux (REALLY went his own way and composed in an extended form of diatonism), Messiaen (used his "natural method"), etc.

America has diluted the water even further. Is Paul Creston an "American" composer? He's of Italian descent, but wrote mostly dance type music in America. Is Stravinsky really a Russian composer? He lived most of his life in America, wrote for French ballet, and used Russian folktales.

Even someone like Ravel (the most French of all French composers) wrote Spanish-style music. (Bolero, Rapsodie Espagnole) So did Copland. (El Salon Mexico) John Corigliano has written music based on Russian themes. I could go on, but you get the point.

The Nationalist compositional aesthetic died with Schoenberg.

 

J. Max,
In my view that is true (and a very good point) in the larger scheme of music. But regarding classical saxophone music there seems to me to be a very distinct aesthetic for pieces that were written for players of different classical saxophone traditions.

 

J. Max,
In my view that is true (and a very good point) in the larger scheme of music. But regarding classical saxophone music there seems to me to be a very distinct aesthetic for pieces that were written for players of different classical saxophone traditions.

Actually, I'd go further than that.

I'd say that since most pieces are written to take advantage of a particular player's strengths, regardless of the tradition that they play in.

 

Actually, I'd go further than that.

I'd say that since most pieces are written to take advantage of a particular player's strengths, regardless of the tradition that they play in.

Kevin had mentioned earlier the French aesthetic not appealing to him. You countered that there is not a distinct French aesthetic at least during the last century. I'm presenting the position that there is a distinction in classical saxophone music. I'm completely with you about composers writting to the strengths of a particular player. And if that player plays with the style of a particular school of thought, that will show in the piece.

 

It is possible to generalize about nationalistic aesthetics, despite the fact that there always has been and always will be composers who cross boundaries in compositional style, though usually there still is a hint of nationalistic tradition.

When looking at more "traditional" music, and with that I mean the bulk of the standard rep (discounting serialism, computer aided music, and the like), French music, since the Romantic era at least, has tended to have a more flambouyant character than say, music from Eastern Europe. I don't think anyone would disagree about this generalization. This goes along with, and is connected to tonal concepts that have traditionally been associated with French and French style woodwinds...a fairly bright tonal color. Talk to orchestral woodwind players about this and they will confirm it. Interestingly, most American and a majority of European orchestras employ a more "Germanic" tonal concept within the woodwinds. In American orchestras it has evolved to a concept that is equally different from French woodwinds, but different enough from German that is has to be called American.

A look at musical interpretation between French style saxophonists and Rascher influenced saxophonists will also seem to support the notion that French music generally is more characterized by a virtuosity that is closely related to finger dexterity.

Obviously there are exceptions to everything, and as generalizations can be helpful in identifying trends and such, I think it is alright to make them here.

Even after WWII, I believe there still is nationalistic compositional styles, though to a much smaller degree than in the past. Our differing cultures almost dictate that there will be differences, just because of the music, art, dialogue, etc., that surrounds us in our country of origin.

Composers from America may write music with a Spanish flavor, or Russian composers for a French ballet, but they are doing so as a compositional tool. Copland is was trying to make El Salon Mexico sound latin, instead of just writing what he heard. Stravinsky probably didn't change any of his ballet music, but simply wrote it for a French ballet. My point is they write music from within. If a composer has emigrated and has spent enough time in a new country and has really been submerged in the new culture, then their music may reflect that. It's another one of those grey areas...Rascher lived most of his life in America, but he still had a German accent to his last days and German remained his most comfortable language.