What give a player his unique "sound"?

[Shawn]

Griffin has the tone...and he's DEFINITELY all over the sax!

[AllenLowe]

I once got a rash from Jamey Aebersold - but a little penicillin cleared it up -

Edited June 7, 2007 by AllenLowe

[Aggie87]

I once got a rash from Jamey Aebersold - but a little penicillin cleared it up -

Aw, c'mon and be serious - what has he Aeberdone to you??

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Griffin has the tone...and he's DEFINITELY all over the sax!

True, but it's not as big as sound as Jaws'.

MG

[AllenLowe]

well, he Aeber-sold me some things I didn't really need -

[Tom Storer]

Since I don't know the first thing about instrumental technique, I feel eminently qualified to contribute to this discussion. My mind is not clouded by actual experience.

Jim said the same things that go into the sound of your speaking voice also make up your instrumental sound. But what are those things?

Obviously they could be analyzed in purely mechanical terms. The length of your vocal cords, the size and shape of your instrument and embouchure; the size of your lungs; your musculature and state of relaxation or tension; your characteristic posture and rhythms of motion; the temperature of the air, maybe. All kinds of physical parameters like that.

Allen and DukeCity talked about the importance of "thinking it"--hearing in your head what you're looking for so you can recognize when you've got it. In other words, there's a great deal of trial and error, at first, and then instinctive or reflexive choices, that go into being able to reproduce "your" sound or someone else's. What that means is that all the objective physical factors, which could theoretically, at great cost and effort, be controlled by a computer to reproduce any characteristic tone and approach, are analyzed and manipulated by seasoned musicians in a very fast and intuitive way--which is why there's no easy and reliable way to define just how to do it. Everyone just has to develop that attentiveness, control and intuition on their own.

I guess it's kind of like doing imitations. If you're good at it, you can sound close enough to someone else's speaking voice and mannerisms that you can delight others and make them laugh. But could you define how you do it? No. It just happens right when you're in the right mood and can make it flow. Surely that's a similar situation.

[K1969]

Since I don't know the first thing about instrumental technique, I feel eminently qualified to contribute to this discussion. My mind is not clouded by actual experience.

Jim said the same things that go into the sound of your speaking voice also make up your instrumental sound. But what are those things?

Obviously they could be analyzed in purely mechanical terms. The length of your vocal cords, the size and shape of your instrument and embouchure; the size of your lungs; your musculature and state of relaxation or tension; your characteristic posture and rhythms of motion; the temperature of the air, maybe. All kinds of physical parameters like that.

Allen and DukeCity talked about the importance of "thinking it"--hearing in your head what you're looking for so you can recognize when you've got it. In other words, there's a great deal of trial and error, at first, and then instinctive or reflexive choices, that go into being able to reproduce "your" sound or someone else's. What that means is that all the objective physical factors, which could theoretically, at great cost and effort, be controlled by a computer to reproduce any characteristic tone and approach, are analyzed and manipulated by seasoned musicians in a very fast and intuitive way--which is why there's no easy and reliable way to define just how to do it. Everyone just has to develop that attentiveness, control and intuition on their own.

I guess it's kind of like doing imitations. If you're good at it, you can sound close enough to someone else's speaking voice and mannerisms that you can delight others and make them laugh. But could you define how you do it? No. It just happens right when you're in the right mood and can make it flow. Surely that's a similar situation.

That goes back to my first question. Could a technically brilliant saxophonist who can already imitate Joe Henderson's style also imitate his tone? ... or who he at least have to use Joe's sax to get even near? In other words, if you take all the "inherent factors" that you just noted above and compared them to the "objective factors" like saxophone model, reed etc, where's the trade off? Maybe it's impossible to answer even just figuratively, but I'm still curious.

[K1969]

Since I don't know the first thing about instrumental technique, I feel eminently qualified to contribute to this discussion. My mind is not clouded by actual experience.

Jim said the same things that go into the sound of your speaking voice also make up your instrumental sound. But what are those things?

Obviously they could be analyzed in purely mechanical terms. The length of your vocal cords, the size and shape of your instrument and embouchure; the size of your lungs; your musculature and state of relaxation or tension; your characteristic posture and rhythms of motion; the temperature of the air, maybe. All kinds of physical parameters like that.

Allen and DukeCity talked about the importance of "thinking it"--hearing in your head what you're looking for so you can recognize when you've got it. In other words, there's a great deal of trial and error, at first, and then instinctive or reflexive choices, that go into being able to reproduce "your" sound or someone else's. What that means is that all the objective physical factors, which could theoretically, at great cost and effort, be controlled by a computer to reproduce any characteristic tone and approach, are analyzed and manipulated by seasoned musicians in a very fast and intuitive way--which is why there's no easy and reliable way to define just how to do it. Everyone just has to develop that attentiveness, control and intuition on their own.

I guess it's kind of like doing imitations. If you're good at it, you can sound close enough to someone else's speaking voice and mannerisms that you can delight others and make them laugh. But could you define how you do it? No. It just happens right when you're in the right mood and can make it flow. Surely that's a similar situation.

That goes back to my first question. Could a technically brilliant saxophonist who can already imitate Joe Henderson's style also imitate his tone? ... or who he at least have to use Joe's sax to get even near? In other words, if you take all the "inherent factors" that you just noted above and compared them to the "objective factors" like saxophone model, reed etc, where's the trade off, if only roughly speaking?

Shit ! sorry for the double posting - that's what happens when you're supposed to be working!

Edited June 8, 2007 by K1969

[JSngry]

Jim said the same things that go into the sound of your speaking voice also make up your instrumental sound. But what are those things?

Obviously they could be analyzed in purely mechanical terms. The length of your vocal cords, the size and shape of your instrument and embouchure; the size of your lungs; your musculature and state of relaxation or tension; your characteristic posture and rhythms of motion; the temperature of the air, maybe. All kinds of physical parameters like that.

As well as intuitive/evironmental/etc factors like accent, dialect, enunciation, "coded" tones to express certain emotions, stressing of certain syllables, etc. There's a lot more that goes into a speaking voice than just the mechanics. There's the use to which it's put in any given situation, and that use can/does affect the sound of what is being spoken. It's here that environmental and personality bear on the physical parameters, perhaps even pushing them to their limits.

Rare is the person who speaks in one "tone" to convey all ideas, and rare (until relatively recent) is the jazz musician who does that with their instrument.