Sax Players - What do you think seperates a good saxophonist from a bad one?

I'm gonna try and audition for Sax in jazz band and I'm wondering about this. Basically, how can you guys tell between a saxophone player who's really good and someone who needs work or just plain sucks? I'd like to know this. Like is it the tone? The technique? The range? I'd really like to know.

The way I tell if someone is good and/or really puts "effort" into his music that he plays is if he pays attention to dynamics , slurs etc.

All the tiny things people don't pay attention to.

The second thing I notice right away is the tone.

If the tone is good- but you miss a few notes here and there.

I tell whether someone is good/bad/has potential by the amount of effort they put into their playing and how serious they are about it.

Same as ANY instrument...

Sound

Time

Tuning

Feel

Reading

Are a few basic things that would irk me if they were lacking.

A question for you, Robin (I like to ask this to people.) Would you prefer a technically great player lacking in musical expression, or someone who's clearly musical but has a flawed technique? Or would you dislike both equally?

In the violin world, I would apply the former to people like Akiko Suwanai, and the latter to post 1950 Yehudi Menuhin.

A question for you, Robin (I like to ask this to people.) Would you prefer a technically great player lacking in musical expression, or someone who's clearly musical but has a flawed technique? Or would you dislike both equally?

Without a doubt I would prefer the latter. Musicality is ALL that's important to me. If it's all technique and devoid of power/passion/spirit/energy, then I feel the music is worthless.

Without a doubt I would prefer the latter. Musicality is ALL that's important to me. If it's all technique and devoid of power/passion/spirit/energy, then I feel the music is worthless.

Thing is, I can feel Menuhin tries to be musical, but he scratches, hisses and is out of tune many times. Would you really tolerate things like those in favor of (attempted) musical expression?

If you want perfect technique, make a midi file :P

Thing is, I can feel Menuhin tries to be musical, but he scratches, hisses and is out of tune many times. Would you really tolerate things like those in favor of (attempted) musical expression?

Absolutely. I don't want to hear perfection. I don't want robots. I want real, emotional human beings performing music that will speak to me.

I LOVE hearing clicky sax keys, squeaky chairs, dropped mutes, pages turning, clammed notes...

If you want perfect technique, make a midi file :P

MIDI's are noise, not a real instrument. And you can have technique and expression.

YouTube - Szeryng - Sarasate Zapateado

that guy has near perfect technique, but it's still more than just notes.

Oh, I never said technique and expression can't go together. (Even though I absolutely hate the word "expression". Always makes me think of someone squeezing themselves like a lemon.)

A question for you, Robin (I like to ask this to people.) Would you prefer a technically great player lacking in musical expression, or someone who's clearly musical but has a flawed technique? Or would you dislike both equally?

You cannot separate the two. There are more than enough musicians out there who combine both facets, why bother with those who don't? (talking a paid performance here, of course... in your free time, do what you want with whomever you want!)

MIDI's are noise, not a real instrument. And you can have technique and expression.

YouTube - Szeryng - Sarasate Zapateado

that guy has near perfect technique, but it's still more than just notes.

True enough, musicality if often enabled by technical prowess...

You cannot separate the two. There are more than enough musicians out there who combine both facets, why bother with those who don't?

[jazz] Although...sometimes it's more about what you're saying than how you're saying it. [/jazz]

;)

You cannot separate the two. There are more than enough musicians out there who combine both facets, why bother with those who don't? (talking a paid performance here, of course... in your free time, do what you want with whomever you want!)

I was comparing the two. Obviously, I prefer having both as well.

That said, I don't know if I could prefer one over the other. Lack of either eventually will destroy any enjoyment of a performance. If the performer is very expressive, eventually my attention will be drawn to their lack of technique. If the performer is very technical, eventually my attention will be drawn to their lack of musicality.

It's a very complicated issue.

It's a very complicated issue.

;) It's interesting, eh! It will also differ depending on the situation...

Coming from an improvised background, I would only notice if the lack of technique was hindering their ability to express themselves musically ... in some styles it's more important than others ;)

1. TONE QUALITY

2. Ability to keep tempo

Since we"re woodwinds it's easier to change notes thus easier to loose the beat in your playing

3. Intonation

4. Sight reading abilities

5. Fingers

This is a good saxophone player:

These are bad saxophone players (especially that guy from 2:39):