[ErikJon]

Dear friends,

I am sure that the question must have been asked in different ways, over the years, but at least I took the precaution of searching YouTube first, and then searching this corner of SOTW before starting this thread, as I still could not find an answer to my question. Even so, rather than repeat what may have been said already elsewhere, I wonder if you could just share some links to that juicy information.

The question is essentially how to get a mature tone, of the type common in professional pop and rock saxophone playing, and smooth jazz, as opposed to classical, or bluesy jazz.

In other words, I'm not interested in scooping, bending, growling, vibrato, and other techniques common to professional jazz, but more along the line of getting each note to sound mature and consistent, without regard for the "tricks." In fact, I have been playing jazz tunes for years, old standards, ballads, etc., and that is probably part of my problem, since I got accustomed to concentrating more on the improvisation and the laid-back style, than on the tone, if that makes sense. (My set-up did not help either, but I have since improved on that area).

Of course, I guess each person has his own definition of what good tone is, so if you really think that I should find more sample recordings to upload first, before developing this thread, feel free to suggest that, and I will spend a few weeks searching for better examples, so that you will know what my goal is more precisely. For the moment I am uploading only one sample of something I heard, where just the first few notes of the sax solo immediately told me that this player was a professional. I think he is a studio musician anyway, so there are surely even better musicians out there with an even better tone than his. Feel free to share links to any videos that you are aware of, that demonstrate excellent tone timbre, but, of course, without regard to improvisation, expression, or other factors. That way I will have an even better model to imitate from now on.

In fact, in my amateur opinion, Charlie Parker seems to have been a technical expert and improvisational genius, but his tone, itself, was not quite as special as that of many who play today. I may be wrong.

I would say that the David Sanborn tone is probably a good example of what I am looking for. Kirk Whalum, Dave Koz, Eric Marienthal, are names that come to mind, albeit none of them are of the pop/rock genre.

So, if you would be so kind as to direct me to very advanced tips online, or on SOTW, I would be grateful. If you can direct me to video links of the same sort of tips, I would be even more grateful, as the written explanations are usually hard to understand without a video or audio demonstration (by the way, video explanations, but without demonstrations, are almost as hard to follow as written explanations).

On YouTube there are technically-excellent saxophonists, but honestly, some of them try to teach tone without first having excellent tone themselves. That was surprising to see.

Other videos on tone and embouchure are geared toward beginners who can hardly produce a note yet. I would like more advanced advice for intermediates who are looking to sound like seasoned professionals.

Other videos discuss the differences in mouthpieces, as it relates to tone, but do not come right out and tell me clearly what it is about the embochure itself, that sets a professional apart from an intermediate, in their opinion.

Yes, I know that the reed and the mouthpiece are factors not to be neglected, but I sense that what I am looking for is formed mainly with the embouchure, regardless of the mouthpiece. I may be wrong.

Now, there may not be a real difference between the "Classical" sound and mature pop/rock/smooth jazz tone that I am looking for, but I sense that there is. It may have to do with how the individual notes are "shaped", once they are played. Perhaps they have subtle qualities of "attack" or "swelling" that I have yet to detect, to know what sets them apart from classical tones. I have really never heard an analysis of what this mature tone consists of graphically. Maybe there is a slight "bend" or slight "scoop" there, that is added to each long note, that is not used when playing Classical notes. I would definitely say that the type of tone that I am looking for seems to be much more common in contemporary playing (1970s to present).

Please listen to the attached sample for a rough idea of what I am looking for. Then, please be so kind as to recommend links to:

1. Best online written tips on this subject
2. Best videos that offer tips on this subject
3. Other videos that simply illustrate mature pop/rock/smooth jazz tone played by another musician

Again, that may be a question of how we all define "good tone," so my apologies for not offering a better explanation.

You are very kind to offer whatever leads you have for me.

 

[lydian]

You're making this way more complicated than it is. You're never going to get the sound you want watching youtube videos about embouchure. There are too many variables. Use your ears, not your eyes. What does work is actually listening to artists you want to sound like and trying to copy their sound. This is the only way you can develop all the subtleties of embouchure, air direction, air pressure, oral cavity size/shape, tongue position and throat cavity size/shape. Listen, play along, experiment and you'll eventually be able to match any sax sound you hear from Desmond to Sanborn, within the limits of your mouthpiece/reed/horn of course.

I listened to Sanborn for hundreds of hours in the late 70's / early 80's. I didn't have any videos or teachers, just vinyl. I learned his songs, solos, style, attack, tone, etc. all by listening and playing along. Start simple with just one note, maybe a ballad like Tear For Crystal. Vary your attack, tongue position, air stream direction, mouth/throat shape, embouchure pressure, etc. Repeat until you can nail that one note with Sanborn's tone, then try another note in another register. Eventually you'll get it.

 

[Admitone]

Take a look at Dr. Smith's jazz sax class. In sum, push the mouthpiece in (sharp), and voice low (flat):

 

[JL]

In fact, in my amateur opinion, Charlie Parker seems to have been a technical expert and improvisational genius, but his tone, itself, was not quite as special as that of many who play today. I may be wrong.

Just a quick comment on this statement. Of course it's all a matter of opinion and subjective, but one thing to keep in mind is the quality of recordings of Parker. Most of them are rather poor quality recording especially compared to what came even just a few years after Bird died. But even given that fact, I absolutely love Bird's alto tone, and by all reports hearing him live he had a huge, fat, incredible tone. Strong and beautiful. Quite a few alto players had as good a tone, although different, but imo no one had/has a better tone on alto than Bird. Certainly not the saccharine, over-processed, tones of many (not all) 'smooth jazz' players.

 

[GCinCT]

In fact, in my amateur opinion, Charlie Parker seems to have been a technical expert and improvisational genius, but his tone, itself, was not quite as special as that of many who play today. I may be wrong.

Just a quick comment on this statement. Of course it's all a matter of opinion and subjective, but one thing to keep in mind is the quality of recordings of Parker. Most of them are rather poor quality recording especially compared to what came even just a few years after Bird died. But even given that fact, I absolutely love Bird's alto tone, and by all reports hearing him live he had a huge, fat, incredible tone. Strong and beautiful. Quite a few alto players had as good a tone, although different, but imo no one had/has a better tone on alto than Bird. Certainly not the saccharine, over-processed, tones of many (not all) 'smooth jazz' players.

+1

 

[ErikJon]

Thank you, MDaveJ. That sounds encouraging.

Admitone,
I will watch the video.
Curiously, after 17 years of playing, I just finally started compensating some of my intonation problems by doing exactly what you said, pushing in and voicing low. What a coincidence, that you should suggest that. It does seem to be helping. Thank you.

 

[ErikJon]

JL, GC in CT,

Yes, Charlie Parker had a nice, clean, "acoustic" tone, for sure, but I think you would agree that it is still very different from that of the contemporary musicians that I mentioned above. Not to say that one is better than the other, but just that the tone that I am shooting for (as I make a transition from playing exclusively old standards to learning modern pop/rock/smooth jazz songs) is more along the lines of these other musicians that I mentioned.

And, yes, I am very curious to know just how much of that contemporary sound that I hear is truly from the horn, and how much comes from the mixing in the studio.

Although I would say that the mixing affects the "timbre" of the sound, more than the "tone," so perhaps I did not explain myself clearly when describing what aspect of the sound I was trying to focus on.

In other words, whatever the musician does to control the attack, the scoop, the swell, the release, can all be "colored" in the mixing, but not really added or removed, as far as I can tell. From my own mixing experience, I feel that the mixing can affect the volume, equalization, reverb, special effects, and lots of things, but there is still an essential core to the tone itself, rather than the timbre, that the musican seems to be able to shape with his own mouth, throat, etc. This is the part that I would like to learn more about.

To be honest, I have not done much experimentation with my throat, air direction, oral cavity size and shape, or even tongue position, at least, not concsciously. I have just concentrated on my embouchure, so maybe this is what I need to look into as I try to imitate others.

 

[JL]

..I feel that the mixing can affect the volume, equalization, reverb, special effects, and lots of things, but there is still an essential core to the tone itself, rather than the timbre, that the musican seems to be able to shape with his own mouth, throat, etc. This is the part that I would like to learn more about.

Yes, I would agree with that. No amount of processing can 'fix' or cover up a really poor tone ("garbage in, garbage out"). But that's partly my point. In spite of poor recording conditions (just listen to how bad the drums sound in some of those CP recordings), I think Bird's sound comes through with intense beauty and brilliance. Just imagine how great it would sound if recorded really well. And some recordings were a lot better than others. For ex, the live recordings (where he arguably did his best playing) are just terrible, while some of the studio recordings aren't too bad. My point is his sound and tone quality was so magnificent, it still comes through in spite of how he was recorded.

Listen to him swoop in playing the blues here at 2:05:

On this one the strings are kind of hokey, but you can get a pretty good idea of his tone quality on this recording:

I realize this isn't the pop or 'smooth jazz' you're talking about, but I'm just pointing to tone quality.

 

[John Laughter]

On this one the strings are kind of hokey, but you can get a pretty good idea of his tone quality on this recording:

Excellent arrangement!

 

[whaler]

I think Charlie Parker had an incredible sound. Ballsy.
I think the best way to get a good sound is put on a recording of someone you like and sit and try to emulate it. I used to try to do that with Coltrane’s Ballads record. Just pick any player playing a ballad and play along. It works.

 

[Reet McVouty]

Yes, I would agree with that. No amount of processing can 'fix' or cover up a really poor tone ("garbage in, garbage out"). But that's partly my point. In spite of poor recording conditions (just listen to how bad the drums sound in some of those CP recordings), I think Bird's sound comes through with intense beauty and brilliance. Just imagine how great it would sound if recorded really well. And some recordings were a lot better than others. For ex, the live recordings (where he arguably did his best playing) are just terrible, while some of the studio recordings aren't too bad. My point is his sound and tone quality was so magnificent, it still comes through in spite of how he was recorded.

Listen to him swoop in playing the blues here at 2:05:

On this one the strings are kind of hokey, but you can get a pretty good idea of his tone quality on this recording:

I realize this isn't the pop or 'smooth jazz' you're talking about, but I'm just pointing to tone quality.

JL, First off, I'm in complete agreement with you on Charlie Parker's sound, second to none, and yes, if we could have heard him recorded with today's technology his sound would be more appreciated. Also that is a great choice is selecting "Funky Blues" as demonstration of Bird's sound. Along with two of Bird's early inspirations Johnny Hodges and Benny Carter on alto this was an alto players dream to hear these three together. The recording quality is good on this album and Bird is in top form as he has to "compete" with those two masters of the alto sound.

I've always been a Johnny Hodges man myself. I used to play along with his records back in the day to try and sound like him as best I could. Eventually I moved on to other people along the way and tried to cop their sound as well. And now I just sound like me, an amalgam of all the players I listened to. That's what I suggest to the OP. Just play along with your favorite players and eventually you will get to where you want to be.

 

[ErikJon]

O.K. Thanks, guys. The bottom line is, make it simple, listen to a recording of my target tone from different musicians, imitate them as best as I can, and then, in the course of time, I should expect to hear a difference in my own playing. That sounds fair.

I appreciate all the tips, and the links.

 

[JL]

Yeah Reet, Johnny Hodges for sure! The master at bending notes as well as having a great tone quality.

I think Charlie Parker had an incredible sound. Ballsy.
I think the best way to get a good sound is put on a recording of someone you like and sit and try to emulate it. I used to try to do that with Coltrane's Ballads record. Just pick any player playing a ballad and play along. It works.

+1. I've been working on 'Lonnie's Lament' lately (pretty good alliteration there!). Great melody and fun to try and match Coltrane's fantastic tone...

 

[SaxJazz12]

What does work is actually listening to artists you want to sound like and trying to copy their sound. This is the only way you can develop all the subtleties of embouchure, air direction, air pressure, oral cavity size/shape, tongue position and throat cavity size/shape. Listen, play along, experiment and you'll eventually be able to match any sax sound you hear from Desmond to Sanborn, within the limits of your mouthpiece/reed/horn of course.

This. Your ear, combined with understanding the fundamentals of embouchure and air support are the most important part of developing your overall concept of sound. Listening to the players your favorite players listened to is also a worthy study.

 

[jd]

Yes

I think Charlie Parker had an incredible sound. Ballsy.
I think the best way to get a good sound is put on a recording of someone you like and sit and try to emulate it. I used to try to do that with Coltrane's Ballads record. Just pick any player playing a ballad and play along. It works.

 

[1saxman]

'In fact, in my amateur opinion, Charlie Parker seems to have been a technical expert and improvisational genius, but his tone, itself, was not quite as special as that of many who play today. I may be wrong.'

You're not alone on that. He was a genius musician but only a good sax player. In the old days, we listened to records of players that we liked and we tried to emulate their styles. Over time, you will see the need for different mouthpieces, etc., as well as developing a good tone similar to what you aspire to.

 

[GCinCT]

'In fact, in my amateur opinion, Charlie Parker seems to have been a technical expert and improvisational genius, but his tone, itself, was not quite as special as that of many who play today. I may be wrong.'

You're not alone on that. He was a genius musician but only a good sax player. In the old days, we listened to records of players that we liked and we tried to emulate their styles. Over time, you will see the need for different mouthpieces, etc., as well as developing a good tone similar to what you aspire to.

I respectfully and completely disagree. How could a genius musician express his genius if he was merely "good" on his instrument? You may not like his tone. That's fair. Matter of opinion, but he was a brilliant saxophone player.

 

[jman1977]

'In fact, in my amateur opinion, Charlie Parker seems to have been a technical expert and improvisational genius, but his tone, itself, was not quite as special as that of many who play today. I may be wrong.'

You're not alone on that. He was a genius musician but only a good sax player. In the old days, we listened to records of players that we liked and we tried to emulate their styles. Over time, you will see the need for different mouthpieces, etc., as well as developing a good tone similar to what you aspire to.

I respectfully and completely disagree. How could a genius musician express his genius if he was merely "good" on his instrument? You may not like his tone. That';s fair. Matter of opinion, but he was a brilliant saxophone player.

Phil Jackson, Greg Popovich: genius basketball minds, but not great basketball players. Not saying Charlie Parker is in the same category, just saying it's possible. In almost any field there are people who are brilliant at developing concepts and ideas but not so great at implementation (we usually call them "Professor").

 

[ErikJon]

Thank you for the tips, guys!

 

[GCinCT]

Phil Jackson, Greg Popovich: genius basketball minds, but not great basketball players. Not saying Charlie Parker is in the same category, just saying it's possible. In almost any field there are people who are brilliant at developing concepts and ideas but not so great at implementation (we usually call them "Professor").

Coaching a team is not the same as playing an instrument. You can be great with strategy and motivating players without being a great player, but to express complex ideas on a musical instrument, you have to be able to play it. It's like saying Michael Jordan was a great basketball mind but only a so-so player. If Bird was just a composer or arranger, I could see it. But he was a phenomenal player. If his tone is not to your liking, that's fine. It doesn't make him an ordinary player. To take it from another angle, I am not a fan of Paul Desmond's tone. Just my opinion, I don't really like it. But I agree that he was a great jazz musician and saxophonist.