Multiplicity
There is a prevailing thought that the larger the brass ensemble, the more the ultimate focus of technique is needed - making it the singular, ultimate focus - taking priority over musicality, phrase, even intonation.
I don't
necessarily agree. Be it one player, or multiple players, 1, 5, or 64, the overall goal is still and always should be RESULT based. The goal then becomes unifying and synchronizing that result.
The most successful instructors/situations I’ve studied or encountered are where the players all THINK alike, more importantly than just executing alike. Getting people to think alike is a matter of having them have the same "song" in their heads – and making that "song" unified and identical from player to player gives you the best chance to transpire boundaries and differences of experience, age etc.
We already do this with the idea of tempo – spending much time with a metronome piped through a PA system (some of you know what I am talking about!) We transpire experience with this method – we expect all players of the ensemble to internalize this and make it their own, regardless of experience or level.
Why not apply that philosophy to all aspects? (and the overall aspect?!)
A practical way to apply this is to SING. Get the music together before the horn. Pretty much any level of player can learn to sing the music (including correct articulations, dynamics, rhythms etc) even if they don’t yet have the chops to execute it. Going about it this way will give the ones with the least experience the best chance of coming up to the level of the stronger players – simply because they understand the MUSIC, rather than the other way around where technique is taught to the lowest common denominator.
The technique is incorporated into the music – but is only a singular facet of it (being just a manner of execution)
Technique in Multiplicity
Do we work on technique? Sure, you bet. And we do try to unify the basics, of course. It’s part of a healthy diet for all brass players. It’s a tool and it gives us strength. BUT, you have to keep technique in a musical context – ALWAYS.
Technique for technique’s sake does not create music, even if the arrangements are wonderful. Simply making things line up mathematically is not going to equal or magically create a meaningful musical moment. Musicality is not an afterthought or singular aspect (like technique) to be added on after the execution is mastered... rather the exact opposite is true – musicality is the overall foundation and the technique is simply a tool. It is imperative that technique be governed by the musicality, not the other way around!
In practical application:
A less successful (and perhaps more common) approach might be:
"Baritones, the D in that phrase is sharp. That is a sharp note on the horn, be sure to lip it down."
A more successful approach would be:
"Baritones, that D was sharp. We are in Bb major there, so the D is the third of the chord, which sometimes might be lower than you think if you are moving scalewise. Now, lets build that chord and put the third into it. [then take the ensemble play that part where the D is flat so they can hear it for themselves]
...and, maybe have them sing it (depending on rehearsal context)
In "certain" large brass ensemble contexts, execution becomes priority. Because of this many people think that the way to get to clean execution is through micro-defining technique and constant repitition of musicless drills.
You can only get so far with having technique be the main and overall priority. Overdefining and micromanaging technique as well as trying to create music singularly or primarily through definition and execution of technique will undoubtedly cause barriers, ceilings, and frustration.
Technique and execution are in no way synonymous.
It is impossible to completely control the human condition - it is too fluid; always in flux.
We can, however, come together working towards a single goal, as long as that single goal is... well.... the goal that governs our process.
There is and always will be a human aspect of music – which is what people identify with - and that’s what people pay to experience.
Human anomalies and differences need not be an obstacle to unified execution as long as all can visualize a unfied result.
Our goal in becoming a "clean" ensemble is not to eradicate the human condition, rather we want to unify it.
I don't
necessarily agree. Be it one player, or multiple players, 1, 5, or 64, the overall goal is still and always should be RESULT based. The goal then becomes unifying and synchronizing that result. The most successful instructors/situations I’ve studied or encountered are where the players all THINK alike, more importantly than just executing alike. Getting people to think alike is a matter of having them have the same "song" in their heads – and making that "song" unified and identical from player to player gives you the best chance to transpire boundaries and differences of experience, age etc.
We already do this with the idea of tempo – spending much time with a metronome piped through a PA system (some of you know what I am talking about!) We transpire experience with this method – we expect all players of the ensemble to internalize this and make it their own, regardless of experience or level.
Why not apply that philosophy to all aspects? (and the overall aspect?!)
A practical way to apply this is to SING. Get the music together before the horn. Pretty much any level of player can learn to sing the music (including correct articulations, dynamics, rhythms etc) even if they don’t yet have the chops to execute it. Going about it this way will give the ones with the least experience the best chance of coming up to the level of the stronger players – simply because they understand the MUSIC, rather than the other way around where technique is taught to the lowest common denominator.
The technique is incorporated into the music – but is only a singular facet of it (being just a manner of execution)
Technique in Multiplicity
Do we work on technique? Sure, you bet. And we do try to unify the basics, of course. It’s part of a healthy diet for all brass players. It’s a tool and it gives us strength. BUT, you have to keep technique in a musical context – ALWAYS.
Technique for technique’s sake does not create music, even if the arrangements are wonderful. Simply making things line up mathematically is not going to equal or magically create a meaningful musical moment. Musicality is not an afterthought or singular aspect (like technique) to be added on after the execution is mastered... rather the exact opposite is true – musicality is the overall foundation and the technique is simply a tool. It is imperative that technique be governed by the musicality, not the other way around!
In practical application:
A less successful (and perhaps more common) approach might be:
"Baritones, the D in that phrase is sharp. That is a sharp note on the horn, be sure to lip it down."
A more successful approach would be:
"Baritones, that D was sharp. We are in Bb major there, so the D is the third of the chord, which sometimes might be lower than you think if you are moving scalewise. Now, lets build that chord and put the third into it. [then take the ensemble play that part where the D is flat so they can hear it for themselves]
...and, maybe have them sing it (depending on rehearsal context)
In "certain" large brass ensemble contexts, execution becomes priority. Because of this many people think that the way to get to clean execution is through micro-defining technique and constant repitition of musicless drills.
You can only get so far with having technique be the main and overall priority. Overdefining and micromanaging technique as well as trying to create music singularly or primarily through definition and execution of technique will undoubtedly cause barriers, ceilings, and frustration.
Technique and execution are in no way synonymous.
It is impossible to completely control the human condition - it is too fluid; always in flux.
We can, however, come together working towards a single goal, as long as that single goal is... well.... the goal that governs our process.
There is and always will be a human aspect of music – which is what people identify with - and that’s what people pay to experience.
Human anomalies and differences need not be an obstacle to unified execution as long as all can visualize a unfied result.
Our goal in becoming a "clean" ensemble is not to eradicate the human condition, rather we want to unify it.
posted by TubaJoe at 6:03 PM
<< Home