Wood's bought his Mark VI at the Selmer Factory in Paris. The first day there he tried several VIs and narrowed it down to 3. The next day he came in to pick one out and it so happened that MARCEL MULE, the master of concert saxophone, was there who tested Wood's last 3 saxes and picked the best one out for him. He speaks about his in his NYU masterclass video which you watch at the artistshousemusic website. Lastly, the oboe player messed up his WRITTEN OUT solo....big time.
You don't have to tell me that story. I've met him in person and was fortunate enough to have studied with him for a few months. The Mark VI that you speak of is NOT the Mark VI Phil is playing in this video. The '58-'59 Mark VI that was blessed by Marcel Mule has a high F# key on it. The Mark VI in this video does not.
I recently heard that Cannonball Adderley's wife gave Phil Cannon's Mark VI (he played it in 1975 during the year he died) a long time ago.
@queekers He NEVER had Charlie Parker's horn. Yes Phil was married to Chan (Charlie's last wife) for a while, but he never played it. Chan had donated it to a museum.
@KlassyKamikaze Yes he did....wtf? One time he brought a Bird saxophone with him to practice with Charles Mingus and as soon as Mingus saw that he brought it he was really pissed off that he would do such a thing...
@queekers He does NOT own any of Bird's horns. In any Q and A session you go to for Phil Woods, he'll start it with "Meyer NY 5 with Vandoren V16 size 3 reeds and no I do not own Bird's horn."
Yes, he did play on Bird's King once (out of desperation) when he was married to Chan, but that was it. The Grafton was donated to a museum and the King was later sold at some auction.
@KlassyKamikaze lol backtrack much? You went from "He NEVER had Charlie Parker's horn" to "he did play on Bird's King once". I believe that when he did play on that horn that he had a Charlie Parker horn, thus making your argument invalid.
@queekers I made a typo the first time with regards to playing and having. My argument is still valid in that Phil NEVER owned or currently has any of Bird's horns as you had assumed in your very first statement. Chan Richardson owned two of Bird's horns. She donated the Grafton and kept the King even after she and Phil divorced till her death.
Yes, all young alto players on youtube with their shrill, piercing tones should listen to Phil, whose sound has always been so full. I don't think they teach how to blow the alto sax correctly anymore, judging from how few young players sound like this or Charlie Parker (and even after a 4-year degree in many cases). It's not like it's impossible. If Woods and Parker and Adderley did it, I think just about anyone if properly taught can get a full robust (i.e. not whiny) sound on the alto sax.
Good point. A lot of it's about how you breathe and then how you expel the air. You have to "barrel-breathe"- so you can feel your stomach and back expand instead of your chest, and give full air support to your sound. A lot of people don't realize that.
It's not the V16's, my friend, which are some of the brightest, liveliest reeds available. If only 'twere that easy. Plus Phil plays one of the so-called "brightest" altos made today--the 82Z. So how is it that he still sounds fuller and more robust throughout the range than X sax major working on a PhD? There are many reasons but much of it goes back to embouchure, breath support, etc.--things which judging from the nasally sound heard on most young altoists today are not being properly taught.
I just saw him live (from about 30 feet away)--and actually chatted with him a bit--two days ago, and he sounded AWESOME on the 82Z. Pretty much like he does here.
I think it's more his emphysema. That's why he doesn't do those really long phrases like he did during the late 50s-early 90s. I also miss the growls. He's not as aggressive like he used to be.
I studied with him this summer- made my life complete.
Soulconcern is completely right. This summer I sat two feet away from Phil at the Deer Head Inn in PA, i was totally in awe of how full and robust his sound was, these videos don't do the master justice
I think the Javas are brighter. Sanborn uses the Javas. I use the V16s and get a dark sound like Phil Woods. I don't think the 82z is the brightest horn either. I think the unlaquered is bright.
Javas are suppose to be brighter. But their tips are now as thick. Sanborn uses v16s. if youwant brighter thicker can be better. You have a richer tone in general.
Big big fuck-up at 1:47 by the clarinetist, he/she came in late, and proceeded to play the whole section behind by about a bar(?) till the section finished at 2:00 with him/her playing the theme out of synch with the main horn section.. a bit horrible to hear if you are at all familiar with the version this is ripped completely off of - Charlie Parker with Strings.. Woods was quite good at least.
i shall correct myself slightly. listen to the high pitched instrument coming in at at 1:46ish, it kind of sounds like a soprano sax? it comes in late and stays late, and doesn't line up with the other horns at like 1:54-2:03, and it sounds real dumb. just a professional reading mistake was all it was. luckily the fabulous piano solo that came after it saved me ears from falling off! :P
Ok, I admit that I got the name of the instrument wrong, etc, but what i did NOT get wrong was identifying the big mistake that the oboe player made from about 1:46 into the piece. The oboe player came in late at that time, and i was just pointing that out. i thought, because of this and a few other things, that this performance was ordinary compared to the original recording.
The oboe player was NOT late. I've listened to the Bird with Strings probably more than you have and it was right on time.
What the hell was with the other comment "the high pitched instrument wasn't lining up with the rest of the horn section?" Anyone with eyes and ears can see and hear that the only wind players in this piece are saxophone and oboe-both in the original album and in this rendition.
OK so I was also wrong about what type of section it was, so let's just say what I was really meaning to say was "the high pitched instrument (the Oboe) wasn't lining up with the rest of the string section". I appologise for the incorrect naming of the section, but I am still right about the oboe coming in late and playing quite sloppily and out of synch with the rest of the band from about 1:45 - 2:03. The incorrect playing is particularly prevalent at around 1:57-2:03
You're still WRONG. The oboe did NOT come in late. And it's a SOLO so he's not playing in sync with any other instrument.
Around 1:57, he actually improvises rather than play the melody of April in Paris in unison with the strings like Mitch Miller (the original oboist) did and it works.
It's a transcribed oboe SOLO. There were no horns playing! Not even a horn section! You obviously haven't been listening to the original strings album well enough. The only wind instruments were sax and oboe. And yes the oboe solo was written out. Mitch Miller (the original oboe player) wasn't really a jazz musician so he didn't improvise.
it's a'ight. technique/intonation of band and Phil Woods not quite as good as the original Charlie Parker and his band on 'Charlie Parker with Strings'. still alright though i guess.
What a gorgeous version!
Prangie 2 months ago in playlist APRIL IN PARIS
R.I.P. Hank Jones
simonvandueren 9 months ago
Wonderful!
bcnjazzorquestra 10 months ago
amazing !!!
raffaelesax 1 year ago
that oboe solo still makes me laugh...haha..poor guy
scomdnz9 1 year ago
I just noticed on a close up that he's not playing his usual Mark VI. His main Mark VI had a high f# key. This one doesn't.
I heard that Phil was given Cannonball Adderley's Mark VI (which Cannonball played in his later years). This must be Cannon's Mark VI.
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
Wood's bought his Mark VI at the Selmer Factory in Paris. The first day there he tried several VIs and narrowed it down to 3. The next day he came in to pick one out and it so happened that MARCEL MULE, the master of concert saxophone, was there who tested Wood's last 3 saxes and picked the best one out for him. He speaks about his in his NYU masterclass video which you watch at the artistshousemusic website. Lastly, the oboe player messed up his WRITTEN OUT solo....big time.
scomdnz9 2 years ago
Comment removed
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You don't have to tell me that story. I've met him in person and was fortunate enough to have studied with him for a few months. The Mark VI that you speak of is NOT the Mark VI Phil is playing in this video. The '58-'59 Mark VI that was blessed by Marcel Mule has a high F# key on it. The Mark VI in this video does not.
I recently heard that Cannonball Adderley's wife gave Phil Cannon's Mark VI (he played it in 1975 during the year he died) a long time ago.
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
Oh, thanks for the info. I just recently saw/met Woods. What a great person and musician! Pretty awesome you could study with such a great performer.
scomdnz9 2 years ago
@scomdnz9 True and Phil bought that horn back then for $75 bucks
saviesax 1 year ago
@KlassyKamikaze so he's had Charlie Parker's horn and Cannonball's? wow what a lucky guy...
queekers 1 year ago
@queekers He NEVER had Charlie Parker's horn. Yes Phil was married to Chan (Charlie's last wife) for a while, but he never played it. Chan had donated it to a museum.
KlassyKamikaze 1 year ago
@KlassyKamikaze Yes he did....wtf? One time he brought a Bird saxophone with him to practice with Charles Mingus and as soon as Mingus saw that he brought it he was really pissed off that he would do such a thing...
queekers 1 year ago
@queekers He does NOT own any of Bird's horns. In any Q and A session you go to for Phil Woods, he'll start it with "Meyer NY 5 with Vandoren V16 size 3 reeds and no I do not own Bird's horn."
Yes, he did play on Bird's King once (out of desperation) when he was married to Chan, but that was it. The Grafton was donated to a museum and the King was later sold at some auction.
KlassyKamikaze 1 year ago
@KlassyKamikaze lol backtrack much? You went from "He NEVER had Charlie Parker's horn" to "he did play on Bird's King once". I believe that when he did play on that horn that he had a Charlie Parker horn, thus making your argument invalid.
queekers 1 year ago
@queekers I made a typo the first time with regards to playing and having. My argument is still valid in that Phil NEVER owned or currently has any of Bird's horns as you had assumed in your very first statement. Chan Richardson owned two of Bird's horns. She donated the Grafton and kept the King even after she and Phil divorced till her death.
KlassyKamikaze 1 year ago
Am I the only one who thinks this is just ordinary?
avril2 2 years ago
Yes.
Saxydude05 2 years ago
assolutan
mente eccezzionale
luigi19551 2 years ago
very very beautiful ... Rossano italy
roxylebon 2 years ago
no words to say !!!! great player !!!! flavio from brazil
flaviobalasax 2 years ago
that guy at the end....has HIlarious hair!!!
yalcos4 2 years ago
Great!! one of my ever
favorits
CARBAU57 2 years ago
his tone is so amazing!
musicmaniacs1113 3 years ago
it is!
sprayberrybog 3 years ago
Yes, all young alto players on youtube with their shrill, piercing tones should listen to Phil, whose sound has always been so full. I don't think they teach how to blow the alto sax correctly anymore, judging from how few young players sound like this or Charlie Parker (and even after a 4-year degree in many cases). It's not like it's impossible. If Woods and Parker and Adderley did it, I think just about anyone if properly taught can get a full robust (i.e. not whiny) sound on the alto sax.
soulconcern 2 years ago
Good point. A lot of it's about how you breathe and then how you expel the air. You have to "barrel-breathe"- so you can feel your stomach and back expand instead of your chest, and give full air support to your sound. A lot of people don't realize that.
kroovaijabe 2 years ago
i might just switch to v16s now
i've always been so amazed at his tone
sprayberrybog 3 years ago
It's not the V16's, my friend, which are some of the brightest, liveliest reeds available. If only 'twere that easy. Plus Phil plays one of the so-called "brightest" altos made today--the 82Z. So how is it that he still sounds fuller and more robust throughout the range than X sax major working on a PhD? There are many reasons but much of it goes back to embouchure, breath support, etc.--things which judging from the nasally sound heard on most young altoists today are not being properly taught.
soulconcern 2 years ago
he had his mark VI on this recording.
i personally think that the 82Z makes his sound not as great as the mark VI but it could be his emphysema
sprayberrybog 2 years ago 2
I just saw him live (from about 30 feet away)--and actually chatted with him a bit--two days ago, and he sounded AWESOME on the 82Z. Pretty much like he does here.
soulconcern 2 years ago
I think it's more his emphysema. That's why he doesn't do those really long phrases like he did during the late 50s-early 90s. I also miss the growls. He's not as aggressive like he used to be.
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
he plays on Vandoren ZZ's
I studied with him this summer- made my life complete.
Soulconcern is completely right. This summer I sat two feet away from Phil at the Deer Head Inn in PA, i was totally in awe of how full and robust his sound was, these videos don't do the master justice
nateo5 2 years ago
I think the Javas are brighter. Sanborn uses the Javas. I use the V16s and get a dark sound like Phil Woods. I don't think the 82z is the brightest horn either. I think the unlaquered is bright.
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
Javas are suppose to be brighter. But their tips are now as thick. Sanborn uses v16s. if youwant brighter thicker can be better. You have a richer tone in general.
quinsanity 2 years ago
Sanborn uses Javas (check his website). He used to use V16s but switched to Java back in 2005.
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
Right on, sir. Phil Woods could make a $200 sax sound incredible. A master of his craft.
deepkeel65 2 years ago
Excelente, muy buen tributo a Parker.
psicrobert 3 years ago
i thought that last quote was familiar. Its 52nd street theme!
sprayberrybog 3 years ago
Big big fuck-up at 1:47 by the clarinetist, he/she came in late, and proceeded to play the whole section behind by about a bar(?) till the section finished at 2:00 with him/her playing the theme out of synch with the main horn section.. a bit horrible to hear if you are at all familiar with the version this is ripped completely off of - Charlie Parker with Strings.. Woods was quite good at least.
joebandana 3 years ago
E' un OBOE!! non un Clarinetto!!
beautyfull56 3 years ago
listen again. the oboe is right on
vaineminaru 3 years ago 2
i shall correct myself slightly. listen to the high pitched instrument coming in at at 1:46ish, it kind of sounds like a soprano sax? it comes in late and stays late, and doesn't line up with the other horns at like 1:54-2:03, and it sounds real dumb. just a professional reading mistake was all it was. luckily the fabulous piano solo that came after it saved me ears from falling off! :P
joebandana 3 years ago
joebandana it sounded great... I'm not familiar with the piece though... but it sounded great to a stranger to the music so it wasnt a fatal mistake.
PrimeDefection 3 years ago 2
I guess the essence of the piece is still strong enough to be pleasurable to first time listeners, which is great!
joebandana 3 years ago
Definitely not a soprano... they even said oboe in the beginning of the vid...
007grog3 3 years ago
It's an oboe SOLO, like in the original Charlie Parker with String recording.
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
You DON'T know anything about music
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
Ok, I admit that I got the name of the instrument wrong, etc, but what i did NOT get wrong was identifying the big mistake that the oboe player made from about 1:46 into the piece. The oboe player came in late at that time, and i was just pointing that out. i thought, because of this and a few other things, that this performance was ordinary compared to the original recording.
joebandana 2 years ago
Comment removed
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
The oboe player was NOT late. I've listened to the Bird with Strings probably more than you have and it was right on time.
What the hell was with the other comment "the high pitched instrument wasn't lining up with the rest of the horn section?" Anyone with eyes and ears can see and hear that the only wind players in this piece are saxophone and oboe-both in the original album and in this rendition.
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
OK so I was also wrong about what type of section it was, so let's just say what I was really meaning to say was "the high pitched instrument (the Oboe) wasn't lining up with the rest of the string section". I appologise for the incorrect naming of the section, but I am still right about the oboe coming in late and playing quite sloppily and out of synch with the rest of the band from about 1:45 - 2:03. The incorrect playing is particularly prevalent at around 1:57-2:03
joebandana 2 years ago
You're still WRONG. The oboe did NOT come in late. And it's a SOLO so he's not playing in sync with any other instrument.
Around 1:57, he actually improvises rather than play the melody of April in Paris in unison with the strings like Mitch Miller (the original oboist) did and it works.
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
ok im sick of getting messages every day about this shit, it's just stupid and childish. let's just agree to disagree and get over it.
joebandana 2 years ago
It's a transcribed oboe SOLO. There were no horns playing! Not even a horn section! You obviously haven't been listening to the original strings album well enough. The only wind instruments were sax and oboe. And yes the oboe solo was written out. Mitch Miller (the original oboe player) wasn't really a jazz musician so he didn't improvise.
KlassyKamikaze 2 years ago
Made me cry!!
azabeezercaesar 3 years ago
bravo Woods, ma quella di Parker era un'altra cosa...
walllong 3 years ago
hmm at the beginning the violin was kind of strange...
LuggageCart 3 years ago
it's a'ight. technique/intonation of band and Phil Woods not quite as good as the original Charlie Parker and his band on 'Charlie Parker with Strings'. still alright though i guess.
joebandana 3 years ago
parker songs... Phil Woods the best
klebersaxophone 4 years ago
this song was great for the title, great song.
bravo Woods, bravo.
KeeslerAFB11 4 years ago
Phil is always great, with or whitouth strings !!
miomao69 4 years ago
Great!
monicabenati 5 years ago
Yes please. Lush, swinging, ssophisticated and with the uber-individualistic stylings of Mr. Woods and Mr. Jones.. Brilliant.
zajj79 5 years ago