What give a player his unique "sound"?

[K1969]

This is probably a stupid question but what the hell.

Putting technical style to one side for a moment, I've always wondered what it is that makes an individual musician's "sound" unique. To what extent is it determined by objective factors like the model of the saxophone, trumpet or the type of reed etc, and to what extend is it a consequence of the player's own innate "voice"? I guess the answer is a combination of both but I'd like to hear from others anyhow. Say for argument's sake you wanted to impersonate Joe Henderson , would you have to take his own sax, or could you recreate his sound on a different one? When a player changes his model, does he "lose" his old sound a bit (and gain a new one) ?

(PS if it's not already obvious I'm not a musician so I didn't post this in the musician's section)

Edited June 6, 2007 by K1969

[Free For All]

Not a stupid question at all!

Here's how I see it:

Sound comes from

-Equipment

-Influences

-Imagination/personal concept

-Physical attributes (chops, use of air, shape of oral cavity, teeth etc.)

I've always thought of it this way: a player's sound is the sum of their influences PLUS themself (their own input/concept). You can often tell who a player might have listened to (and been influenced by), and many don't escape "clone" status, but the players with the most memorable sounds add that extra personal ingredient that allows them to create an individual and identifiable sound.

This to me is the problem with much of jazz education these days- so many players fail to develop beyond the "clone" step. The study of technique is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The search for one's own sound is as important (if not more) than technical expertise. IMHO.

I still love Clark Terry's succinct explanation of development: "Imitate...Assimilate...Innovate".

[porcy62]

A question I always would have done since I joined the forum.

Why can I recognize Trane or Jackie Mac or Sonny after three notes without knowing nothing about music, technically speaking?

Edited June 6, 2007 by porcy62

[Free For All]

I would add that players' sounds obviously evolve over the years, too, sometimes because of a changing conception, or physical changes in the player.

I think a prime example is Sonny Rollins- while he is quite indentifiable in any era, many people have their "favorite Sonny" (like pre-Bridge vs. post-Bridge).

[Jim R]

Not a stupid question at all!

Here's how I see it:

Sound comes from

-Equipment

-Influences

-Imagination/personal concept

-Physical attributes (chops, use of air, shape of oral cavity, teeth etc.)

I've always thought of it this way: a player's sound is the sum of their influences PLUS themself (their own input/concept). You can often tell who a player might have listened to (and been influenced by), and many don't escape "clone" status, but the players with the most memorable sounds add that extra personal ingredient that allows them to create an individual and identifiable sound.

This to me is the problem with much of jazz education these days- so many players fail to develop beyond the "clone" step. The study of technique is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The search for one's own sound is as important (if not more) than technical expertise. IMHO.

I still love Clark Terry's succinct explanation of development: "Imitate...Assimilate...Innovate".

I was going to say... if anybody can answer this question, we can probably all just go home. So... maybe we're almost there.

Btw, I've tried adjusting my oral cavity while playing the guitar, but it never seems to help.

[K1969]

Not a stupid question at all!

Here's how I see it:

Sound comes from

-Equipment

-Influences

-Imagination/personal concept

-Physical attributes (chops, use of air, shape of oral cavity, teeth etc.)

I've always thought of it this way: a player's sound is the sum of their influences PLUS themself (their own input/concept). You can often tell who a player might have listened to (and been influenced by), and many don't escape "clone" status, but the players with the most memorable sounds add that extra personal ingredient that allows them to create an individual and identifiable sound.

This to me is the problem with much of jazz education these days- so many players fail to develop beyond the "clone" step. The study of technique is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The search for one's own sound is as important (if not more) than technical expertise. IMHO.

I still love Clark Terry's succinct explanation of development: "Imitate...Assimilate...Innovate".

Interesting comments, thanks. Let's just reflect on the narrower notion of "tone" - as in pure sonic colour, as opposed to the broader notion of a "sound" which includes stylistic and technical factors too. Taking Henderson again as an example, I've often heard his "tone' described as "woody" or "oaky" and I can relate to that in how I hear his "tone". I'm therefore fascinated to know whether this "oakiness" comes from his sax, or from, as you intimated, the more innate aspects like his "chops, use of air, shape of oral cavity, teeth etc." I know that this isn't necessarily answerable with respect to Henderson, but I'm still fascinated to know to what extent the "voice" of the musician as a mere talking human being, translates into the sound that exits from the end of the sax or trumpet?

[Free For All]

Why can I recognize Trane or Jackie Mac or Sonny after three notes without knowing nothing about music, technically speaking?

Because of the voice, not the words spoken.

[K1969]

Btw, I've tried adjusting my oral cavity while playing the guitar, but it never seems to help.

[Free For All]

Btw, I've tried adjusting my oral cavity while playing the guitar, but it never seems to help.

Isn't that what they call "guitar face"?

[porcy62]

Why can I recognize Trane or Jackie Mac or Sonny after three notes without knowing nothing about music, technically speaking?

Because of the voice, not the words spoken.

You're probably right. The sound at the end of the instruments is like the prolongation of the human voice, after a while you're aquainted to it.

The very same process every child came across: recognizing different human voices and stick them to the real person.

Very interesting, both from a pure psychological POV and a more cultural/estetic/technical one.

[AllenLowe]

equipment is important- but I also found that I was always able to get halfway to the sound I wanted on the saxophone by 'thinking' it - hard to explain, but it's not tangible from a technical standpoint. So many players sound alike because they can't think it but only finger it and blow it - not a scientific explanation but a true one - you gotta hear it in your head first -

[Free For All]

Agree, Allen....obviously equipment is a factor to a varying degree, but look at some famous recordings done on less-than-ideal instruments. It didn't seem to matter what axe Bird was playing, he had HIS sound which prevailed regardless of the instrument.

[Chuck Nessa]

Part of it is "attitude".

[rostasi]

The other part is the quality of the drugs.

[Larry Kart]

I think you can get it from Jamey Aebersold.

[Chuck Nessa]

I think you can get it from Jamey Aebersold.

The drugs?

[DukeCity]

equipment is important- but I also found that I was always able to get halfway to the sound I wanted on the saxophone by 'thinking' it - hard to explain, but it's not tangible from a technical standpoint. So many players sound alike because they can't think it but only finger it and blow it - not a scientific explanation but a true one - you gotta hear it in your head first -

Absolutely. I think the list in FreeForAll's first response is good:

Here's how I see it:

Sound comes from

-Equipment

-Influences

-Imagination/personal concept

-Physical attributes (chops, use of air, shape of oral cavity, teeth etc.)

but I would put "Imagination/personal concept" as the most important thing. When you hear beginners, they all sound pretty much the same, 'cause they're just honking away with not concept or sonic target that they're aiming for.

When a player starts to have a concept in his head about what he wants to sound like, there's a feedback loop that happens: as soon as you make a physical sound on your instrument, you start comparing it to the mental image you have. Then the body (oral cavity, breath support, touch {on piano or guitar or drums} articulation with the tongue) starts making adjustments, often subconsciously, to make the physical sound closer to the imagined model.

When I was a kid, I was at a clinic by a Cleveland are sax player named Howie Smith. He picked up 5 or 6 instruments from various students (including their mouthpieces and reeds) and played them all. After just a few seconds on each different set of equipment, he was able to find "his sound".

I think the whole equipment search thing is about finding the gear that allows you to get "your sound" with the least amount of contortions.

[7/4]

Woah...looks painful.

[.:.impossible]

he probably just needs to work on those calluses.

[7/4]

He hits that magic note and his hair goes woogie boogie woogie all over the place. Check it out...which came first, the note or the flying hair?

[JSngry]

A sound is a voice, somple as that. The same things that give you your speaking/singinging/cursing/cumming/etc voices are the same things that give you an instrumental voice. Only the mechanaical implements are different.

[7/4]

A sound is a voice, somple as that. The same things that give you your speaking/singinging/cursing/cumming/etc voices are the same things that give you an instrumental voice. Only the mechanaical implements are different.

and what kind of face you make.

[White Lightning]

A sound is a voice, somple as that. The same things that give you your speaking/singinging/cursing/cumming/etc voices are the same things that give you an instrumental voice. Only the mechanaical implements are different.

That's exactly what Billy Harper told me. That and the fact that he played with marching bands early on and had to have a huge sound while walking.

[John L]

I think that there are different types of traits that give players their individual voices. For example, certain players are recognizable after only a few notes by their tone and expressiveness: Pops, Pres, Ben, Jug, etc. Other players are recognizable after one or a few phrases by their ideas and approach: Bird, Trane, Bud, etc.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Interesting thread.

What's always occurred to me is that there's often or even usually a trade off between having a big sound and having great facility with an instrument. This seems particularly obvious to me with sax players. The guys with big sounds weren't generally all over their instruments. And vice versa. The archetype of this kind of idea is, of course, Jug and Sonny. But you get the same impression with Jaws and Griff.

Of course, there are musicians who had it all - Criss, George Benson - but I think they're quite rare.

Any of the musicians want to comment on this?

MG