Talk:Saxophone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Saxophone is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Saxophone has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 11, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Musical Instruments articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
Saxophone's list of external links is being reviewed as part of WikiProject External links — a quality control effort aimed at keeping the number of links to a reasonable length, and in compliance with Wikipedia External links guidelines. Wikipedia is NOT a link repository. |
|---|---|
|
Comments:
|
|
|
WikiProject External links tasks you can do:
|
|
- A previous version of this article was considered for inclusion in the Wikipedia OmniMusica, but was not selected because of sourcing concerns.
 Archives |
|||
|
Contents |
[edit] Key System
I think the vandal bot deleted the key systems paragraph, any ideas? Thanks for hepling a novice user. PeteJames 13:25 29 November 2006
- I read this paragraph: "The most radical revision of saxophone keywork was made in the 1950s by M. Houvenaghel of Paris, who completely redeveloped the mechanics of the system to allow a number of notes (C♯, B, A, G, F and E♭) to be flattened by a semitone simply by lowering the right middle finger. This enables a chromatic scale to be played over two octaves simply by playing the diatonic scale combined with alternately raising and lowering this one digit."
- I've been playing the saxophone more or less every day the last 14 years, partially as a professional, and I can't imagine that this is remotely correct. Lowering the right middle finger while playing a F would give an E, while playing a C# doesn't change anything in the two higher octaves (altissimo is entirely another story), and is already closed in the lowest octave, as is the case for the E♭. The A will not be flattened by lowering the right middle finger, and to point out that the G becomes an F# by lowering the right middle finger is redundant, as this is by far the most common, and also most in tune, way of playing the F# sharp in the two lowest octaves. The B will, however, be flattened by lowering the right middle finger. Nevertheless, 1 out of 6 isn't much of a score, and there are also (at least) two other, more common fingerings.
- This is either quite simply wrong, vandalism or both. In either case it's not cited (nor correct). I'm removing it. 82.235.98.252 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- The material is from the New Grove, so its reliability is not in question. What should have been made clear in the article (and currently isn't) is that this different set of keywork did not become incorporated into later saxophones. You're quite right: on the saxophone you play, or I play, this doesn't work; but you can buy a saxophone with different keywork where it does. See [1] and [2]. I've readded the material with an inline source, but please feel free to reword it to note that the idea never really caught on. Happy‑melon 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I've updated the section. 82.235.98.252 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The material is from the New Grove, so its reliability is not in question. What should have been made clear in the article (and currently isn't) is that this different set of keywork did not become incorporated into later saxophones. You're quite right: on the saxophone you play, or I play, this doesn't work; but you can buy a saxophone with different keywork where it does. See [1] and [2]. I've readded the material with an inline source, but please feel free to reword it to note that the idea never really caught on. Happy‑melon 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Saxophonists
I play the saxophone! I have been for 5 years! IF ANYONE ELSE HER PLAYS THIS WONDERFUL INSTRUMENT, PLEASE COMMENT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer5525 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orchestral Employment
Not sure if it is worth a mention, but the text about the saxophone being largely relegated to marching bands in its earliest years brought it to my mind. The US composer William Henry Fry wrote Santa Claus, a Christmas Symphony in 1853, and a saxophone appears in the scoring! The liner notes of the CD that I have state: "It also seems that this is the first symphonic use anywhere of the newly invented saxophone." (Kile Smith. Naxos CD 8.559057) In any case, just thought I'd toss it out there for anyone who works on this article. May not be worth a sentence in the article itself, but I thought it interesting all the same. Smyslov (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good article on hold comments
- The information, judging from the reference list, is largely—perhaps primarily—based on the Grove Encyclopedia entry (with 27 citations). While this is a quality source, in my opinion it is important to have a more balanced body of citations. I was also curious as to why there was only one book footnoted directly, but multiple books listed in the references section. Generally, the article lacks consistent citation, most prominently in the "Writing for the saxophone", "Reed", and lead sections. In addition, general statements which are more likely to be challenged have not been cited, though details have. Take, for example, the first sentences of the "Materials", "Description", and "Uses of the saxophone" sections.
- There are opinionated and vague comments in the "Related instruments" and "Writing for the saxophone" sections, often including peacock terms. I have included a paragraph and annotated it as an example.
-
- Early on, most composers stayed away from composing for the saxophone due to their misunderstanding of the instrument [how did they misunderstand it?]. However, around the turn of the twentieth century, some people (many from the United States) began to commission compositions for the instrument. One prominent commissioner was Elise Hall, a wealthy New England socialite who took up playing the saxophone to aid in her battles with asthma (at the behest of her husband, a doctor). Though she did commission many pieces, the works didn't originally feature the saxophone very well [what is meant by this statement?] (probably because she decided to demonstrate herself the saxophone's ability - her skills were less than admirable by most accounts [is this needed?]). Subsequent versions, however, have been arranged to better feature the saxophone, such as the "Rhapsodie" by Claude Debussy. [how did he do this?]
- Peacock terms include: "While proving very popular in its intended niche of military band music, the saxophone is most commonly associated with popular music, big band music, blues, and particularly jazz."
- "Many say that lacquer or plating has no effect on the sound,[10] while some research shows that there are differences."
- "The saxophone first made its mark in the niche it was designed for..."
- Other examples can be found in the featured article review.
- The lead does not cover sections past "Uses of the saxophone" adequately.
- The article lacks a table of contents.
Kakofonous (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi and thankyou for your comments, which I would like to respond to. Your last one is of course the easiest - fixed, simple as that. I have removed a large section from "writing for the sax", which I do not think was either necessary or very well phrased. I have removed several instances of what you call 'peacock terms', but I disagree with you as to several of them. I unfortunatley fail to see how "many say... while some research" could be considered peackockery - perhaps you are confusing the issue with weasel words, which are of course just as much of a problem (the "many... while some" phrase has been removed). I fail to see how "most commonly associated" falls into either category - it is, as far as I can see, a statement of fact. While I agree that the lead section is too short, I don't feel that any of the material from "related instruments" or below is suitable for inclusion - I would be delighted to hear any suggestions you have here.
Finally to citations. There is no getting around the fact that the New Grove is quite simply the definitive source for any music-related articles. My justification for this edit is actually along this line: just about any unsourced statement in this article could fairly easily be ascribed to the new grove reference, with very good reason - it simply covers all the information in a top-quality format. However I resisted the temptation to add yet more instances to the newgrove ref, and just removed the tags, which were giving the impression that the New Grove didn't cover this. I'm almost tempted to remove all the ref tags for the New Grove and add it to the list of other printed works. It's important to remember, although it's usually forgotten, that WP:CITE does not compel editors to use inline citations for anything other than controversial BLP claims and direct quotes from source material. Our general determination to use them wherever possible makes it difficult for us to accept that, if a source such as the New Grove is so comprehensive, it just looks silly citing it inline at every possible moment. So I'm really not sure what to do - I know the article will get eaten alive at FAC if it isn't littered with inline citations, but this is not really a situation where inline is particularly appropriate. We're just not used to having one source which is capable of citing the entire article! Here, in fact, we have half a dozen. Now I can go through the article and throw in inline cites to the other books, each of which will eventually look as overutilised as the New Grove. But in fact I'd rather have any one of those sources than all of the webpages put together.
Any comments you have would be extremely welcome. Happy‑melon 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding citations: perhaps this is one of the instances where Wikipedia consensus (as you said, the idea of multiple inline citations) is not appropriate; I do not feel that it is necessary to go through modifying the entire article to conform to this practice. However, I am uncertain as to how prospective readers would understand the preferred citation method (that of simply citing the major sources). Perhaps a tag would be appropriate—to indicate that the article is composed of information that could be cited totally from one source. This idea of using only one source, though, even one of such quality; may simply not be something I am comfortable with personally, and why I brought it up.
- I did confuse weasel words and peacock terms...sorry for the mix-up. After looking the article over again, I did find one more statement that I thought qualified as a problematic sentence:
-
-
- By far the most well known, and iconic, implementation of the saxophone is in modern jazz music, usually in the form of a saxophone quartet or larger ensemble.
-
-
- If this is true, (because it is definitely challengeable) then all it needs is a citation (yes, even from the New Grove). If it is a speculation, than perhaps rephrasing would be appropriate.
- Regarding the lead section: after rereading it, I think the only new thing it requires is a brief summary of the "Writing for the saxophone" section (which you may have been reluctant to add, because of the problems you described).
I am going to put the article up for a second opinion; we could probably use another one, as this article is a special case in at least one major regard (the citations).
Kakofonous (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I may as well hop in here with the 2nd opinion. Citing large amounts of content from one major source is not unprecedented, and has been seen in numerous featured articles. I have no issue with the article on that front. While I'm here though, I have a few other minor qualms (and then I'll pass it if Kakofonous doesn't object).
- Ref 25 is simply a URL. That ref, and indeed all internet refs, need a consistent formatting ({{cite web}} is recommended)
- The commons/wikibooks templates at the bottom would look better using {{Seealsosection}} or similar
- The 2 current external links aren't necessary
- All the images are in the top half of the article - spreading them around would be nice.
That's about all I have at the moment - leave a note on my talk page when you're done. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
All H2O's comments acted on - I didn't move the images around, but I did add more!! Let me know here if there's anything else you think needs doing. Happy‑melon 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think passing the article now is in order. I will do so. Kakofonous (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Playing Range
You can't just play up to an F. You can also play an F#. Just play your highest F plus the fourth side key from the top. Note: this may take some effort! Phizzle 93 (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can go much higher than that, but we have to keep the normal range in mind. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I greatly feel that the range should include a low A in parenthasis, and also should include altissimo notes. This is a NORMAL range for ALL modern professionals. 67.172.128.64 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scale Images Not Correct
Is it just me, or is something about those "playable range when playing C diatonic scale" a little off. Or at least the alto one is. Regardless of whether the "C diatonic scale" is the sax's key, or concert the image is incorrect. There is a Db and an Eb depicted (the two lowest notes). If C refers to concert (so these are the notes on the saxophone when playing a concert C scale), these notes are E and F#. If it's supposed to be the concert notes displayed on the staff, and the C is referring to alto key (so concert Eb), these are also incorrect, as a Db would not be in the diatonic scale. Not to mention the sloppiness of the scale images. If we change a few of the accidentals in the image, it would make more sense, but there's still some sloppiness A better way would be to show a chromatic in concert key. If I have time, I'll make some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnman239 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.saxgourmet.com/rationale/rationale2.gif){kind=link}