61st Annual Downbeat Critics Poll

First of all, kudos to Wayne Shorter for winning in the Jazz Artist, Jazz Album, Jazz Group, and Soprano Sax categories.This was definitely the year of Wayne Shorter. I was also happy to see that I got a nice placement in the Soprano Saxophone category. The number four spot is not a bad place to be, especially when the top three spots are occupied by Wayne Shorter, Dave Liebman, and Branford Marsalis. This is especially exciting for me, since I didn't even place in the Soprano Sax category until three years ago. And of course, I was way at the bottom. But hey, I was happy just to be recognized. I played the soprano exclusively for almost five years before critics stop speaking of me as a tenor player who plays the soprano. I imagine at this point, they've realized that I'm never coming back--at least no time soon.

But I would like to thank all of the critics who voted for me. And I'd especially like to give a shout out to all the devotees of the straight-horn who are helping to give the soprano its long overdue presence as a primary instrument and not some secondary horn played by tenor and alto saxophonists on waltzes and straight-eighth ballads.

And I'm purposefully not mentioning the Rising Star category. I think it has become somewhat of a joke over the years. At times, I feel it's treated as a throwaway category. It doesn't seem like much thought goes into who they vote for. But hopefully, if we have enough soprano players putting out recordings and having a real presence, critics will start to vote more responsibly. 

On a more positive note, I'll be featuring the music of some of the aforementioned soprano players in the upcoming weeks. So please keep a look out for that. 

In the meantime, keep recording, keep performing, and keep the straighthorn-bell displayed high and proud!

The Fruition-Realization Formula

Being a jazz musician requires us to be somewhat of a visionary--on small and large scales. The improvisatory nature of the music forces us to envision far beyond what's there. And there are different levels of envisioning. There's envisioning how to navigate your way through a set of chord changes; envisioning how to compose a tune: and some take it as far as envisioning a new concept. And envisioning an idea is one thing; however, bringing it to fruition is another. 

Experience has taught me that in order to bring an idea or vision to fruition, three things must be in order: (1) a clear mind, (2) a clear vision, and (3) the skills to execute. 

In other words, a clear mind + clear vision + skills to execute = fruition.

And I don't mean to presume that having these three things guarantee success, but they do increase the likelihood of success.

(1) A clear mind:
If you think of the creative mind as a canvass, it would be very difficult to create anything new if your canvass is cluttered with other things. Simply put, junk. And these things could be anything from negative thoughts to past and future endeavors. Having a completely clear mind can take years of practice. I suggest aiming at having a less-cluttered mind. It's at least a good place to start. 
 
(2) A clear vision:
If you're not sure of where you want to go or how to get there, you're almost certain to be derailed off your path. Racecar drivers are taught that if their car goes into a tailspin, they should always keep their eyes on where they want to go. If their focus is on driving into a wall, then they probably will. 

(3) Skills to execute:
This may be one of the most important components of the fruition-realization equation. You might have a clear mind, a clear idea of what you want to do, but if you don't have the skills to execute it, bringing it to fruition is not very likely. Just imagine you're going a vacation and you know exactly where you want to go, you have a map explaining exactly how to get there, yet, you have no gas in the car. It might make things a tad bit difficult.

So the next time you set out to realize an idea or vision, make sure you run it through this checklist. It could mean the difference between hitting your mark and hitting a wall.

Remembering Mulgrew MIller

I first met Mulgrew back in the early nineties. I was 24 years old, wet behind the ears, and I had just signed a contract to do a couple of records with the Criss Cross label. Gerry Teekens, the label’s owner/producer was always very quick to remind me that I was a young-unknown and that I needed to surround myself with name players. This was during a time when recording companies, large and small, actually expected to see a profit. 

When we were trying to decide on the personnel for the bass, drums, and another horn, we went through a long list of people. However, when we were deciding on whom to get on piano, once Mulgrew’s name was mentioned, that was it--no other pianists ever came up.

  

When Mulgrew graciously accepted to do the date, I was very ecstatic. I was going to get a chance to play with the person whose playing I had grown to admire on classic albums such as Woody Shaw’s United, Art Blakey & the Jazz Messenger’s The New York Scene, and Kenny Garrett’s debut CD on Criss Cross, Introducing Kenny Garrett. These were all 1980s gems, back when you had to leave your home and go to a record store if you wanted to purchase someone’s music.

I was so nervous about my record date that I didn’t sleep or eat the night before. Those who know me know that these are two areas that I don’t usually skimp on. I had Steve Nelson on vibes (instead of another horn)  Billy Drummond on drums, James Genus on bass, and of course, Mulgrew Miller on piano. That session was a particularly difficult one for me, emotionally--not only was I was a nervous wreck, but nobody seemed interested in my performance. That’s how I felt anyway. It seemed like all of the band members, the producer and the engineer were too busy in awe of Mulgrew.  

Every time we listened back to a take in the studio, all I heard was “Yeah, Mulgrew.” Mulgrew Miller, Damn!” “Mulgrew, you sound great.” “Grew!” After a while, I was starting to wonder whose date it was. I wouldn't have been surprised if I had been asked to sit out on a couple of tunes. And I did realize that all of the real time praise that he was receiving was well deserved. After all, he was ripping it up on every tune—thoroughly.

Eventually I did my put insecurities aside and rose to the occasion—the best that I could.  Trust me, it’s not a good feeling just trying to hold your own on your own record date. But it was what it was. When you decide to play with the big boys, getting slapped around a little bit comes with the territory.

After the dust had settled, I’m happy to say that I came away having made a nice record--and it made the New York Times 2005 Top Ten Albums List. So not a bad ending for what started off as not a pleasant day.

Unfortunately, I never got a chance to play with Mulgrew again after that date. We shared the same billing many times, but that’s as close as it got.

Here’s one of my favorite solos of his from Sam I Am. This is my arrangement of “Indiana.” On this take, you’ll definitely hear what I meant when I said that he was "ripping it up." Oh yeah, and Steve Nelson is bringing it pretty hard too.

 

Thanks, Mulgrew, for your beautiful music and your beautiful spirit. RIP.

The 10,000-Hour Soprano Rule

In Malcolm Gladwell’s 2010 best selling book, Outliers, he discusses what he calls the "10,000-hour rule."  He arrived at this number by surveying several classical musicians, discovering that in order for them to reach the level of musicianship where they could perform as a concert player, they needed at least 10,000 hours of practice--which comes out to roughly 3 hours a day for 10 years.  This rule, of course, extends far beyond music; it applies to tennis players, golfers, pool-players--you name it.

When I first read this, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a record producer who told me that I shouldn’t play the soprano exclusively because it was too limiting. But I explained to him that it wasn’t so much that the soprano is limiting as it is people don’t get a chance to hear the result of someone having spent several years, solely committed to developing a voice on the instrument. In other words, very few people have put in their 10,000 hours mastering its ins and outs and all of its idiosyncrasies.

I didn’t start playing the soprano exclusively until I was 30. And it really wasn’t until I was 40 that I started to feel like I had a good understanding of how to play it. Up until then, I was always at the mercy of my reed and mouthpiece. It was only after I put in my 10,000 hours that I started to develop the chops and a deep enough understanding of the instrument to even attempt something as difficult as playing solo—not to mention being able to play all of the extended techniques that have now become part of my sonic repertoire.

Another factor to consider regarding the 10,000-hour soprano rule is that one also needs to put in several hours of soprano-centric listening to gain a true understanding of how it should sound.  When I first started playing the soprano exclusively, my sound was a lot louder. I could hold my own with trumpet players. But I wasn’t producing a soprano sound. It was the tenor sax 8va, which is what I hear a lot nowadays--either that, or alto. 

I actually went through a transformation period of only listening exclusively to soprano players, as a way of erasing the sound of the tenor's lower range from my ears. I remember that I played a tenor saxophone a few years back and I was amazed at how high I was able to play. Mind you, when I only played the tenor, I could barely play a high G.  Even while playing in the altissimo of the tenor, it never felt high enough.  By that time, I was definitely hearing the higher range of the soprano.

 I could never say in good faith and with certainty that 10,000 hours plus practice equals a master soprano player (10,000 + p = msp).  But it does equal a better understanding of the instrument and all of its quirks.

Another thing I’ve noticed, too, is that, since players have already reach a certain level of proficiency on one of the other saxophones, they’re not striving as hard to develop the soprano to the next level. Typically what happens is once players have a pretty good handle on how to play it in tune and develop and certain level of instrumental dexterity, much of time is spent trying out the latest mouthpiece and horn--which I ultimately see as the beginning of the downward spiral. Many of the new horns give players a false sense of accomplishment. The instrument is easier to play in tune, but you don’t develop the skills necessary for real instrumental control. Newer model horns and mouthpieces don’t solve problems, they just enable players to mask them. And eventually they surface again.

You don’t have to use 10,000 soprano rule in the literal sense, but it is good use metaphorically to understand that in order to play the soprano well, it takes time, patience, and many, many hours of practice—sometimes 10,000 of them.

"Blue Swagger" - The Art of Solo Soprano Saxophone

The following piece is called "Blue Swagger, " from my 2009  release, Blue Soliloquy. It's probably one of the more jazzy and straight ahead pieces on the CD. It's seventeen bars in length and is comprised of all dominant 7th chords. You might say that this piece exemplifies my Thelonious Monk influence.

Like many of my solo pieces, I like to use call-in-response as a way creating a sense of dialogue, and what some might call self-interplay. This is very common amongst chordal instruments, but less common amongst wind instruments due to the fact that they're monophonic by nature.

As a matter of fact, this is one of the reasons I began my several-year study and practice of multi-phonics. Mastering them allowed me to expand my sound palette, enabling me to perform similar musical tasks as piano and guitar players. Many of the multi-phonics used on this piece function as upper extensions of the dominant 7th chords.

For example in the first two bars, I establish the harmony by playing a riff that outlines the G chord. Consequently, when I sound the multi-phonic with the Bb, G, and Eb, it's naturally heard as the #9, 8, and b13 of the chord. The rest of the piece follows a similar logic.

Just a quick note about multi-phonics. In the beginning, if they're difficult to play in the context of the piece,  I suggest practicing them in isolation. And as a general rule of thumb, the slower the airflow and the more relaxed the throat,  the more one can control the multi-phonic. For further explanation about controlling the speed of the airflow, please see my earlier post "Oral Cavity Manipulation."

In understanding the saxophone tablature, the 8va means that the octave is pressed. Everything else,  I believe is self-explanatory.

Lastly, as a musical reference, I've included a recorded example which demonstrates how I interpreted the piece.

Have fun!

Oral Cavity Manipulation

On the subject of oral cavity manipulation, there is often the misunderstanding that this process involves literally “opening” and “closing” the throat. When in fact, the position of the tongue is the contributing factor to obtaining oral cavity flexibility. Classical saxophonist Kyle Horch also agrees that it is essential to have an open throat, but argues that this may not be the most useful way to conceptualize the process.

He writes:

 Musicians often speak of the necessity of having an open throat.  For most of the course of the trachea this is no problem; our lives depend on an open trachea and it is actually quite impossible to close it.  The danger area is at the top of the throat, where the trachea opens into the back of the oral cavity.  Here, it is possible to have a sensation of ‘closing’ the throat.  To avoid this, some players try to imagine the throat as being as open as when yawning.  Personally, I try to have my throat feel as open and relaxed during blowing as it was during the inhalation of the previous breath.  In my experience, however, the real culprit in most internal bottlenecks is actually the tongue, which can easily arch either backwards out over the throat opening, or up toward the roof of the mouth. The syllable method is a useful tool in creating practice models.  The tongue position used in saying vowel sounds such as AH and OO allows an unobstructed airflow, as opposed to EE or IH, for example, which cause the tongue to rise, narrowing the flow and changing the character of the vocal tone from an open, relaxed quality to a more restricted, intense quality.  (Horch 1998, 78).

Using the “syllable method” as a tool for tongue placement memorization is an effective technique often utilized by many players. Jazz saxophonist Dave Liebman also talks about this process in great detail, discussing how using phonetic syllables are instrumental in regulating the air stream velocity. He writes:

Imagine that the mouth cavity is like a cave with air entering at one end (from the throat passage) and exiting at the other end into the mouthpiece.  The position of the hump portion of the tongue is crucial because of its effect upon air resistance, which in turn influences the final velocity of the air stream.  Much like any body of disturbance in the middle of our imagined cave, we have to consider what the best position would be for the desired result.  .  .  .  The optimum position for this “disturbing” body or tongue hump is somewhere in the middle of the oral cavity, allowing the air stream to go above, below and around it (Liebman 1994, 23)

It is apparent from the writings of Horce and Liebman that learning to control the various air stream velocities are significant in helping to gain control of the oral cavity process. The following table presents syllables devised by Horce (highlighted in yellow), and myself that may be used to achieve three (3) levels of air stream velocities. Each of the syllables when sounded creates frequent vibrations in the throat that range from relaxed to tense, also noted in the table. The appropriate air velocity needed all depends on what the performer is attempting to accomplished.  

Low Velocity (Very Relaxed)	Medium Velocity (Relax	High Velocity (Restricted)
Taw	Tah	Tee
Aw	Ah	Ee
Low	Lah	Lee

Table I: Syllables used to achieve varying levels of air stream velocities and tension in the throat

When attempting to incorporate the syllables in Table I, you must also take into consideration the different variables that may affect the effectiveness of the syllables: (1) the register in which they’re played, (2) the volume at which they’re played, and (3) the instrument, mouthpiece, and reed combination that’s used to play them.

The following oral cavity manipulation exercise in Figure 2:1 was designed to help with pitch flexibility and aural acuity. The D note, which is the first note in each measure, is the only pitch that is actually fingered. Incorporating the “syllable method, ”all notes, from Db down to G natural, are played by lowering the pitch using the “TAW “ sound. As noted in Figure 2:1, the ‘TAW” is used to lower the pitch down to the desired note, and the “EE” is used to raise the pitch back to the original note--which in this case is the D note.

Figure 2:1 Oral cavity exercise using the syllable method

Figure 2:1 may also be practiced, beginning and ending with the following pitches:

                      

(1)  F3– C3

(2)  E3 – B3

(3)  Eb3 – Bb3

(4)  D3 – A3

(5)  Db3 – Ab2

(6)  C3—G2

If after you become comfortable with the aforementioned exercises you decide to extend them, play to the lower register of the instrument, you may find it difficult to play the exercise in its entirety. However, in the extreme lower register of the instrument, such as D1 – Bb1, it is important to note that any noticeable differences in the pitch being lowered will still prove beneficial in utilizing the oral cavity manipulation process. Furthermore, it has been my experience that producing these syllables in any register will sharpen the player’s aural acuity, as well as their sense of tongue position memorization. It is suggested that the notes in the exercises in Figure 2:1 are check by against the same notes using conventional fingerings and/or a chromatic tuner.

Oral cavity manipulation is often the key focus of players when attempting to perform notes and sounds that go beyond the original scope of the instrument, also known as extended techniques. It is importnat to note that this should be the focus even when attempting to play notes that are “normal.” Saxophonist and educator Michael Hester also agrees with this assessment. In his article “Saxophone Altissimo” Yamaha Educator Series, he states:

It is unfortunate that saxophonists are not faced with oral cavity flexibility early in their musical development. Performers on brass instruments and the flute deal with this day one. Squeaks played by young saxophonist are simply valid notes that they did not have the control to avoid. It would be very easy for a teacher to place a wall between the student and future attempts at the highest notes by treating such an event as a terrible mistake…It is best to explain that a squeak is a real note, demonstrate it for him or her and then ask the student to try and produce that note again (Hester 2).

It is evident that oral cavity manipulation plays an important role in helping saxophonists understand the inner workings of sound control, particularly as it pertains to performing extended techniques such as multi-phonics, microtone production, and the altissimo register. However, these procedures only represent one half of the extended-technique puzzle. The other half is having an understanding of the fingerings used once air has been blown through the instruments to produce these sounds—which, by the way, is the topic of the next discussion.

References:

Horch, Kyle. The Cambridge Companion to the Saxophone

 (1998): 78.

Liebman, Dave. Developing a Personal Saxophone Sound

(1994): 23.

Hester, Michael. “Saxophone Altissimo.” Yamaha Educator Series: