Question:
Do classical saxophonists mainly use Alto sax?
I'm not an expert, but it seems that Classical Musicians I have seen stick mainly with the Alto,8-) while most Jazz players tend towards the Tenor sax. Is this statement well founded or just an illusion?:?
JT

Answer:
Well founded.

Answer:
As I understand it, classical saxophonists play alto because most of the literature is written for alto, and most composers compose for alto because most people play alto.
In other words, it's a vicious circle.

Answer:
jabcool52 has it exactly.
I wouldn't say that most jazz players play tenor though. I think there's a pretty good mix there.

Answer:
Jazz alto players tend not to make so much noise as tenor players.
Classical non-alto players tend to know their "place" and stay there.

Answer:
Not really. The bulk of the literature is for alto, however, individuals do specialize. The current trend classically is to play all! That's what is flogged in Europe (Paris, Bordeaux) etc. However some people do restrict themselves

Answer:
Funny this thread should come up, since I've been thinking about this lately. We'll tackle the jazz statement first since that's a bit easier. What you quickly notice when looking at jazz history is that after the bop era (after Bird), most of the "big" names that came along were on tenor. This is because most of the Coltranes and Rollins's of the world heard Parker play and were put off the alto because they thought they had heard the alto explored to the fullest. My information from this comes from inferrences from history as well as Peter Niklas Wilson's very good bio on Rollins and an anecdote from Rollins, in which he says he heard Bird play for the first time and the next day took his alto to the pawn shop and started on tenor.
Now for the classical thing. There are a number of reasons why alto appears to be the "go-to" horn. First and most importantly, alto was the preferred size for the great masters Mule and Rascher. Considering as how 65-70% of the music we play has Rascher or Mule's name at the top (mostly Rascher) it makes sense that alto dominates the rep. However, Mule played a lot of soprano later in his career and Mr. Rascher played a fair amount of tenor, so this doesn't explain everything. The next consideration has to do with the saxophone programs in our universities. For decades, students played alto exclusively in lessons. This is changing as more studios in the US and Europe begin developing specialists on STB. In the near future, this will lead to tenor or bari specialists getting composers to write for them and grow the literature there. PaulWL said that non-alto classical players "know their place" and don't explore. Quite the contrary! Thanks to the tireless work of people like John Moore, James Houlik, Susan Fancher (sop.), Wildy Zumwalt (sop.) and Todd Oxford (and eventually their students) we are going to be seeing explosions of material written for non-alto saxophones.
In short, alto is the main classical instrument because of Rascher and Mule and that will slowly change as specialists on other instruments want new tunes written for them. Sorry for the long post!

Answer:
Originally Posted by DWoz5000 PaulWL said that non-alto classical players "know their place" and don't explore. Quite the contrary! I said they "tend to." The exceptions don't disprove the rule: for the most part, you still have to make your reputation as a soloist by playing alto and playing it well. That tends to (<- note) populate the tenor and bari chairs with people who major in other than saxophone and are less interested in being soloists.

Answer:
I'm no expert on (read, know nothing about) classical saxophone,
but I would have thought the obvious explanation as to why composers write more for alto is because it has a more natural "singing voice" and will cut through a full orchestra more easily than the tenor. (?)

Answer:
Originally Posted by Dan Molloy I'm no expert on (read, know nothing about) classical saxophone,
but I would have thought the obvious explanation as to why composers write more for alto is because it has a more natural "singing voice" and will cut through a full orchestra more easily than the tenor. (?)
Not really. Then they would have used soprano.
The reasons that the alto saxophone is the preeminent instrument in classical music are actually fairly complicated. The two biggest influences were the solo playing of Marcel Mule and Sigurd Rascher, and the need for an alternative alto voice in the military band.

Answer:
Originally Posted by Dan Molloy I'm no expert on (read, know nothing about) classical saxophone,
but I would have thought the obvious explanation as to why composers write more for alto is because it has a more natural "singing voice" and will cut through a full orchestra more easily than the tenor. (?)
While this is true in one sense (beautiful singing voice), there's no reason why the tenor can't cut through an orchestra - if you ever get a chance to hear Moore, Houlik, or Bruce Weinberger live you will quickly notice how LOUD they can can all play!!! :)

Answer:
Actually, the last thing a concert tenor soloist wants to do is "cut through" an orchestra playing at a full dynamic. Where I come from, cutting through is a combination of volume and making your sound bright enough so that it "cuts".
I've never heard John Moore play a concerto with orch, but he does have a beautiful big sound. The times I've heard Jim Houlik as a concerto soloist with band or orchestra, he doesn't "cut through" as much as he "projects over" the texture. Partially due to his humongous mouthpiece, partially his approach to the instrument, he keeps a full vocal rich sound at all times, even when the orchestral texture is dense or the dynamic is forte.
Angel

Answer:
Originally Posted by DWoz5000 Funny this thread should come up, since I've been thinking about this lately.
Cool answer, was fun to read your viewpoint on the matter.
I don't think I could say the underlying reasons any better. For a basic answer it's about the Literature.
Legit music is written for Soparno/Alto.
Jazz has has actuall music for Tenor plus Tenor in Jazz band isn't mind numbing like Legit concert band tenor. Which might be the stupidist part in the concert band, right above the Wood Block, oh wait most wood block parts are solos? Ok it's the stupidest part in Concert Band.

Answer:
Originally Posted by Angel I've never heard John Moore play a concerto with orch, but he does have a beautiful big sound. The times I've heard Jim Houlik as a concerto soloist with band or orchestra, he doesn't "cut through" as much as he "projects over" the texture.
Angel
I suppose this is what I really meant - thank you for clarifying my thoughts for me Angel. Consequently, I have heard a recording of John Moore playing the Hartley Concertino with band. It was a very enjoyable performance (live recording I got from Dr. Hartley), and Dr. Hartley's writting is perfect for Moore's big sound!

Answer:
Originally Posted by Radjammin Cool answer, was fun to read your viewpoint on the matter.
I don't think I could say the underlying reasons any better. For a basic answer it's about the Literature.
Legit music is written for Soparno/Alto.
Jazz has has actuall music for Tenor plus Tenor in Jazz band isn't mind numbing like Legit concert band tenor. Which might be the stupidist part in the concert band, right above the Wood Block, oh wait most wood block parts are solos? Ok it's the stupidest part in Concert Band.
And that's the reason I play bass clarinet in my school's band. :)

Answer:
Originally Posted by J.Max The two biggest influences were the solo playing of Marcel Mule and Sigurd Rascher Sigurd Rascher and Marcel Mule. ;) Originally Posted by Angel The times I've heard Jim Houlik as a concerto soloist with band or orchestra, he doesn't "cut through" as much as he "projects over" the texture. I've only heard him play in recordings. In the Ward and Ewazen concertos, Gould's Diversions, and Peck's The Upward Stream, he seems to be miked pretty closely. And even then, there are times like in the end of the third movement of The Upward Stream when he's still almost completely covered by the orchestra (which is certainly understandable, given the circumstances).

By the way, I friggin love The Upward Stream. Talk about a great orchestral part! Originally Posted by Radjammin Jazz has has actuall music for Tenor plus Tenor in Jazz band isn't mind numbing like Legit concert band tenor. Which might be the stupidist part in the concert band, right above the Wood Block, oh wait most wood block parts are solos? Ok it's the stupidest part in Concert Band. You're forgetting bari. Bari parts are usually more boring than tenor, in my experience.

Anyway, I simultaneously think that you're on to something but also that you've missed the point.

On the one hand, the starting point for classical and jazz musicians are usually the wind ensemble and jazz ensemble, respectively. The best players here are the ones more likely to continue on to chamber and solo work as classical musicians, or as combo players as jazz musicians. In wind ensemble, by far the most interesting/challenging/rewarding part is that of the lead alto, so that's what the best player will play. In jazz ensemble, the lead alto gets to play lead, but the first tenor's the one who gets the solos, and there are many times when his harmonized lines are more difficult to play than the alto's - so many times that's where the best player (or at least the best improviser) sits.

If you're playing alto primarily in wind ensemble, it's most likely that you're going to wind up playing alto when it comes to classical music. (And of course there are more altos than tenors, due to orchestration reasons - so that doesn't hurt.) If it's the better players that play alto, then the people who get more attention in the classical world would more often be alto players even if the repertoire and history didn't already give the altoist the advantage. Similarly, if you're playing tenor in jazz ensemble, chances are you're going to wind up more comfortable on tenor, and when you're a combo player you're going to be inclined to stick with it.
With that said, though, there's a huge world outside of large ensembles, and outside of the large ensembles saxophonists have the perrogative to switch to other sizes if they choose.

Answer:
Sigurd Rascher and Marcel Mule.
LOL! Don't get me started!:D

Answer:
Rick, as far as the issue of projection goes, I don't trust recordings (live or studio) one bit. It's all in the mics and placement of the mics. I have to physically be in the audience in order to form an opinion on projection.
Houlik eats bands and orchestras for breakfast. Orchestra members have told him that they love backing him up because they never see "the hand" from the conductor. And speaking of the recordings, the American Saxophone and Ewazen were done a LONG time ago, I think two setups ago at least. He sounds totally different nowadays.
Side note, Over the past several years, I've traveled throughout the east coast and midwest to see saxo soloists with orchestras/bands and find that most of the time, the saxo soloist is drowned out when the orchestration reaches a thick spot (mostly band and full orchestral works, not Glaz or Villa-Lobos or Ibert so much). Not sure why this is. Kind of disturbing however, to watch a name-brand saxophonist making an all-out effort on stage, and none of it is heard in the audience. Kind of looks like a sick pantomime moment...
Angel

Answer:
This is where the conductor is supposed to come in. Saxophones can have a big sound, but it is nearly impossible for one saxophone to compete with a large orchestra (especially with lots of brass) or a full band in loud dynamics and thick texture. The most respected of orchestral solo instruments, the violin, will easily be covered up if the conductor is not doing his job. In fact, this is so problematic that the composer has to use creative orchestration to let the violin be heard and at the same time have a "big" sound from the orchestra.
I've only heard Houlik warming up for a concerto performance through a door, and he had a HUGE sound. Likewise, John Moore has a tremendously huge sound, especially impressive considering the mpc he plays. The also has an edge on the tenor in being able to carry above an orchestra, but only because of the tessitura. But like I said, that hasn't stopped the violin from being such force in that genre.

Answer:
Originally Posted by RickBusarow
Anyway, I simultaneously think that you're on to something but also that you've missed the point.

On the one hand, the starting point for classical and jazz musicians are usually the wind ensemble and jazz ensemble, respectively. The best players here are the ones more likely to continue on to chamber and solo work as classical musicians, or as combo players as jazz musicians. In wind ensemble, by far the most interesting/challenging/rewarding part is that of the lead alto, so that's what the best player will play. In jazz ensemble, the lead alto gets to play lead, but the first tenor's the one who gets the solos, and there are many times when his harmonized lines are more difficult to play than the alto's - so many times that's where the best player (or at least the best improviser) sits.

If you're playing alto primarily in wind ensemble, it's most likely that you're going to wind up playing alto when it comes to classical music. (And of course there are more altos than tenors, due to orchestration reasons - so that doesn't hurt.) If it's the better players that play alto, then the people who get more attention in the classical world would more often be alto players even if the repertoire and history didn't already give the altoist the advantage. Similarly, if you're playing tenor in jazz ensemble, chances are you're going to wind up more comfortable on tenor, and when you're a combo player you're going to be inclined to stick with it.
With that said, though, there's a huge world outside of large ensembles, and outside of the large ensembles saxophonists have the perrogative to switch to other sizes if they choose.
I simultaneously think you said the same thing I did, but with using more words..... j/k
If you didn't originally get what I said, to be blunt, Playing Venues drive saxophone choices.