Sax on the Web Forum banner

41 - 51 of 51 Posts

·
Moderator
Grafton alto | Martin Comm III tenor
Joined
·
29,528 Posts
I'd respect her wishes, but it's incredibly presumptuous to seek to admonish other women (or men) for addressing each other that way
Yes it is presumptuous. Reading it again just now I wonder if it has been edited since I first saw it. I think it is definitely a bit too superficial really, not great journalism.

But it’s all about context.

But as for the "guys" thing, I disagree with Jane Garvey. I can understand thinking it is often as a (sexist) assumption of maleness, but (IMO) can also be used without that, or without the assumption having any sexist connotations at all.

I think we all know that it’s OK to use certain language amongst people you know well. I might use some swear words at home in front of my wife or close friends, but not when I’m out shopping or on SOTW.

Many of us follow the guideline of if in doubt, don’t do it as you never know who might hear you.

And while I do think some people are over sensitive, there are also people who think nobody (whether they are a disadvantaged minority or not) has any right to be offended. Which is ironic as they themselves may seem to be offended by the curtailing of a perceived right to freedom of speech.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,205 Posts
Obviously it’s written for the women who wants to buy a $7000 sax for her man.
It‘s like an ad for the purchase of a unicorn.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
TENOR, soprano, alto, baritone
Joined
·
7,905 Posts
It's gotten a little bit out of hand. You are not supposed to say mankind anymore, an actress is now a "female actor" and gender attributes are "assigned" where they were never intended to be. I am just waiting for Neil Armstrong's words "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." to be censored as sexist
Right. Can't we even talk about saxes without having 'social justice warriors' chiming in about every kind of 'ism' that there is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
Right. Can't we even talk about saxes without having 'social justice warriors' chiming in about every kind of 'ism' that there is?
I don't think I'm a social justice warrior, but I do make an effort to learn and perhaps understand and even respect how individuals wish to be addressed, and then address them that way.
Enough BS to go around--ignore virtue signaling and twooter domination and "cancellation"--whatever that is, I don't want to be included among bogus YouTube done-nothing false celebrities, anyway--and simply be decent to other people (as I believe most people are when confronted with a physical human face instead of an online anonymous echo chamber or demigogic screeds from the idiot-screen).
Yes, I am vaccinated, and I wear a mask indoors without complaint out of consideration for others. Doesn't hurt me, might help them. I don't preach it, I just do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Or they could open the "best actor" category to all genders, & make it about raw acting talent, not gender identity. Of course, doing that would make more sense if casting were more equitable, decisionmakers were more representative of a diverse population, gendered roles were less stereotypical, & so forth.

The point of changing outmoded, overly restrictive terminology is to challenge ways of thinking that deny opportunity or equal status to talented, deserving folks.
Don’t you think the assignment of roles has more to do with the writer than the movie or play producer. Writers probably create more male protagonists than female on the whole therefor more men are cast in leading roles. I’m not sure how you could make it equitable without some “authority” enforcing how many of each gender character a writer must create.
 

·
Registered
YAS875-EX/Eastman ETS-640/YBS-52
Joined
·
221 Posts
Discussion Starter #46
The reason this post caught my eye is because there was controversy with the supreme's release as well. I might have been able to give them the benefit of the doubt, but upon initial release there were zero, count them, ZERO women interviewed by Selmer Paris about the supreme. I think this is indicative not just of Selmer Paris, but of classical music as a whole- women are often left behind or outright excluded from conversations. Here's a fantastic piece by Jazmin Ealden, a saxophonist from Australia, that she wrote after the supreme's highlighting the issues women face in classical music circles.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
This roughly-weekly podcast--hosted by Donna Schwartz, LA teacher and player--is one of my regular sources for saxophone content.
I don't count, but seems her guests are more often women than men.
Donna always asks, and guests discuss openly regarding any gender issues in their education, profession or mentoring.
Now Donna interviews people she has heard of, and they are kick-ass players, so the bottom line is that they were so good they could not be ignored. But there are still stories of bogus obstacles of cultural norms or boys' club exclusion, and various ways the interviewees overcame them (usually via mentor or network) are interesting to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,450 Posts
Here's a fantastic piece by Jazmin Ealden, a saxophonist from Australia, that she wrote after the supreme's highlighting the issues women face in classical music circles.
Well, first we need to dispose of this pretty specious argument from her:
The field of classical music has long been dominated by men. For classical saxophonists, this is amplified by the history of the instrument: designed by a man, developed in conjunction with male composers of the late-19th and early-20th centuries, advanced through the support of institutions led by male pedagogues, and sustained by a rigid circuit of male concert soloists.
The history of the saxophone doesn't "amplify" anything in this regard. The story of the instrument that she relates is essentially the same for every major instrument used in classical music. Which classical instrument wasn't "designed by a man" or "developed in conjunction with male composers"? How is, say, the violin any different with respect to its male-dominated evolution? And every classical instrument had a "rigid circuit of male concert soloists" until late in the 20th century, with just a few prominent exceptions here and there (e.g., du Pré, Argerich).

But that doesn't mean that female classical saxophonists don't have it worse right now than women who play some other instruments, as the author implies. I can think of two major reasons why this might be so:
  1. Opportunities for classical saxophone soloists are so scarce that they are guarded extra-jealously, and doled out through old-guard connections and network buddying even more so than with other instruments. For example, I would say, as a subscriber and frequent symphony goer, that about 90% of all concerts by a symphony orchestra include a concerto. About 80% of those concertos feature either the piano or the violin. The remaining 20% of the soloist slots cover all the other instruments, such as the cello, clarinet, flute, French horn, trumpet, oboe, bassoon, etc. The saxophone is way down this list, fighting for scraps. So if you are a piano or violin soloist, you'll be able to contend for a slot at more than 70% of all orchestral concerts. If you're a saxophone soloist ... not so much. There's so little to distribute in the first place that nothing gets redistributed. So in this respect, the "rigid circuit" that may have faded for other instruments recently is still in place for the sax, on a very small scale.
  2. Blind auditions have done wonders for women who play standard orchestral instruments. A lot of sexism disguised as refined taste ("Only men can play with the distinctive timbre and elan that our section demands!") has been exposed and eliminated through this process. But female saxophonists can't benefit because the sax is not a standard orchestral instrument. If you're battling for a "first call" job whenever Bolero or the like is played, or if you're looking for a permanent seat in a saxophone quartet or reed quintet, you probably still have to face a lot of who-you-know barriers.
Interestingly, one of the best-known, and presumably most successful, female classical saxophonists is the author's fellow Aussie, Amy Dickson. But she had to leave Australia for her career to really take off.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Interestingly, one of the best-known, and presumably most successful, female classical saxophonists is the author's fellow Aussie, Amy Dickson. But she had to leave Australia for her career to really take off.
This is a red herring. Despite it's size, Australia is a tiny little country with a relatively small population. There's only 6 full time symphony orchestras in all of Australia, and only 14 part time professional symphonies. ANYONE who wants to pursue a career as a classical saxophonist would have to leave Australia to have a successful career. Hell, even Percy Grainger and AC/DC had to leave in order to become truly successful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,450 Posts
This is a red herring. Despite it's size, Australia is a tiny little country with a relatively small population. There's only 6 full time symphony orchestras in all of Australia, and only 14 part time professional symphonies. ANYONE who wants to pursue a career as a classical saxophonist would have to leave Australia to have a successful career. Hell, even Percy Grainger and AC/DC had to leave in order to become truly successful.
Your argument demonstrates exactly why my observation is completely accurate, rather than a red herring. Beyond that, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Your argument demonstrates exactly why my observation is completely accurate, rather than a red herring. Beyond that, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
It's a red herring because you were trying to make it seem like there aren't any opportunities for women classical saxophone players to be successful because they are women and that they would have to leave Australia to do so. But the exact same thing is true for men also. There's not a big enough market for ANY classical saxophonists to be soloists with orchestras in Australia. Heck most classical players can't do that in the U.S. or Europe even today.

Being a soloist isn't the only path to success. And most orchestras still cringe whenever ANY one walks onto the stage carrying a saxophone case.

I happen to be recording a symphony this week which has a saxophone player for one of the parts. Not a solo part, just a section player. I can make some assumptions about the sounds that I am going to hear, not having heard or know who the player is yet, though. But the last time they had a saxophone section player it was pretty awful. I.e. that person was not a professional classical saxophone player. I think they were a clarinet player who had probably only studied saxophone for a semester or two in college, years earlier. (That person didn't even sound like a jazz saxophone player trying to sound like a classical player). I'm not a professional level player by any means, but I could have played the part and sounded at least 87 times better.
 
41 - 51 of 51 Posts
Top