Sound is nothing. Music is everything.

[TubaRay]

There is an awesome discussion on his Facebook page for those interested.

I'm glad you agree. Although, I would have described it as a very good one, myself.

[TubaRay]

I must express my disagreement with some who have attempted to place valve oil at the top of this discussion. We all know that the most important aspect of playing tuba is..........silver or lacquer! Sound is indeed nothing.

Respectfully, sir, I beg to differ. The ultimate dilemma that looms in the minds of every tubist is "BBb vs. CC."

You may be right.

[tubaguy9]

4'33"

[Mojo workin']

I would only disagree with Oystein in so much as I prefer not to hear players who do not resonate their horn to a certain minimum level. In order for one's sound to project, it really needs a certain balance of fundamental and overtones.

Also, whatever sound it is that one has, it must have clarity for it to be a good sound in my opinion.

[sloan]

Balance...balance...balance...

"musicality" with terrible sound is unlistenable. "beautiful sound" without a musical idea is not worth listening to.

In the context of "competitions", we can assume a certain level of competence in both. The hard
questions are then all about tradeoffs. How much "beauty" are you willing to give up in the search for "truth"? Does "truth" sometimes require an "ugly" sound?

In the end, though - it all comes down to capability and intent. And thresholds. Once you achieve a certain level of quality in sound production, further improvement is meaningless without at least a comparable level of quality in musicality. And vice versa.

I think this is the core of Oystein's Outrage: at moderately high levels of competition, the quality of the sound production far exceeds the level of musicality. And (sadly) it is rewarded! If you grade both on a scale of 1-10, you may find the winners scoring 9 for sound production and 3 for musicality. What I hear Oystein asking for is scores of 8 and 8, or perhaps 7 and 9. Guys with scores of 3 and 10 never make it past the tape round. (and, I doubt that even Oystein would really want to listen to a 3,10 performance).

And then there's the question of WHICH perfect sound. The perfect sound for a pirate song is not the same as the perfect sound for a love song. The trouble, of course, is that some competitors don't know which is which.

Sound CONTROL means producing the sound you WANT to produce - the one most appropriate for the music. If you only have one sound...it doesn't matter how wonderful it is.

Art = Craft + Choice

If you have perfect craftsmanship, but make no choices...you are not an artist. But, notice that the opposite is true, too. If you make the most wonderful choices, but have no craft to actually
implement those choices, you are still no artist. In the first instance, there is a market for good craftsmanship; in the second instance...you could always go into politics.

[TubaRay]

Excellent post, Dr. Sloan! I agree completely.

[eupher61]

Ken, yes!

I love your equation. If it's original, I ask your permission to reuse. If you stole it, whodunit?

Yes, I think the unestimable [sic] Dr Sloan nailed it. My interpretation of Oystein's thoughts jive well with Ken's, but I'll go a step farther.

(and, I put this on Oystein's facebook page, with a positive response.) We've all heard the woes about the homogenization of orchestral sounds. Boston/Philadelphia/New York/Chicago/London/Berlin...they're all starting to sound the same, or at least the timbral differences are a lot less than in the past. Quite likely, the musical/interpretive differences are a lot less than the past, too. Oystein was speaking purely about soloists, but it's the same thing.

With arts money dwindling, support waning, and popular culture diminishing the importance of an orchestral live performance (because we MUST have that sound for movies) is this a good time to lose individualism?

Did Bell sound like Jacobs sound like Torchinksky sound like Roberts sound like Bobo sound like Schmitz sound like Novotny sound like Fletcher ad naseum? I hope you'll say no. Please, Supreme Power of the Universe, let them say no. How about Harvey/Toby/Oystein/Pat/Sam/anyotherbignamesoloistof10+yearsago? I'll even throw Chuck Dallenbach into that mix. The sounds are as unique as the personalities. Why is the apparent norm of teachers now to mold clones?

Heck, even in trad jazz...all on Martin Mammoths, I sound nothing like Don Franz like Willie Carroll(RIP) like Mike Wallbridge. Individualism.

Could this be why there are so many no-hire auditions?



Why, then, do we now want everyone to have one big, mellow, monotonous color?

[Uncle Buck]

Why, then, do we now want everyone to have one big, mellow, monotonous color?

Could a Roger Bobo (with his 1970's playing abilities and his signature tonal color) win a 21st Century audition?

Roger Bobo, with his 1970's playing abilities, could have done whatever he needed to do to his tone to win a 21st Century audition. If he wanted the job.

[doublebuzzing]

Why, then, do we now want everyone to have one big, mellow, monotonous color?

Could a Roger Bobo (with his 1970's playing abilities and his signature tonal color) win a 21st Century audition?

Roger Bobo, with his 1970's playing abilities, could have done whatever he needed to do to his tone to win a 21st Century audition. If he wanted the job.

Could he make a Miraphone 186 sound like a 6/4? Audition committees seem to be looking for the 6/4 sound now.

[toobagrowl]

I must express my disagreement with some who have attempted to place valve oil at the top of this discussion. We all know that the most important aspect of playing tuba is..........silver or lacquer! Sound is indeed nothing.

Respectfully, sir, I beg to differ. The ultimate dilemma that looms in the minds of every tubist is "BBb vs. CC."

With the latest posts over the last couple weeks, the new one to add to that list seems to be "tuba vs. cimbasso"

[toobagrowl]

The big symphony orchestras used to have their own great signature sounds. Now they are just bland McOrchestras - they are sounding more and more alike, which is sad. Eupher61 is right on with his comments. Hopefully, someday, orchestras and players will strive for more unique, individual sounds.

[sloan]

The big symphony orchestras used to have their own great signature sounds. Now they are just bland McOrchestras - they are sounding more and more alike, which is sad. Eupher61 is right on with his comments. Hopefully, someday, orchestras and players will strive for more unique, individual sounds.

Unique sounds are a bit like regional accents. They disappear as communication becomes better.
I suspect that some "unique sounds" from the past were the result of weaknesses and imbalances - that
the locals came to accept as normal and those from far away came to accept as "charming".

Is it really good for an orchestra to have a "unique sound"? Or, should each orchestra sound like Beethoven when playing Beethoven and Mahler when playing Mahler?

To the extent that an orchestra has "a unique sound", I submit that it is demonstrating a certain lack of control. Except, of course, for the ONE orchestra which has the one, true, correct sound....

"Bland" may simply mean that everyone (having heard lots and lots of everyone else) has converged on a concensus "best" sound. But again - do you want the sound of an orchestra (or a solo player) to depend MOSTLY on the identity of the orchestra (or soloist)...or do you want the sound to depend on the particular piece of music being played? Is the star "Berlin", or is the star Wagner?

Of course the worst possible world is the one where everyone sounds the same...on every piece.

[UDELBR]

I suspect that some "unique sounds" from the past were the result of weaknesses and imbalances - that
the locals came to accept as normal and those from far away came to accept as "charming".

Or regionally inbred 'quirks'. Lots of that in Europe still, if that's what you hanker for . . .

[Rick Denney]

My suspicion is that bland orchestras are not bland because they sound like other orchestras. They are bland because their musical interpretation is lacking character.

I doubt it's a matter of craft when comparing high-end orchestras, but rather a matter of choices, to use Ken's formula.

I've heard orchestras with a lush sound, and orchestras with a spare sound, and I've heard examples of each that were anything but bland.

One of Oystein's points was that the distinctions of sound that we blather on about are utterly unimportant to the vast majority of listeners. Indeed, they are indistinguishable to them.

Back in the deeps of time, I knew an oboist who played saxophone in a swing band in which we both played. His sound was anything but a textbook "pretty" saxophone sound (assuming such exists). But it was vibrant and full of life and evocative, descriptions which do not necessarily require "pretty" but that do require control and musical direction.

To put it another way, we could program a keyboard sound generator to produce the exact series of frequencies and overtones that we might characterize as a "good sound". But it would take far more to be musical in the way we should be musical.

I think Dr. Sloan's formula, by the way, is faulty. When Art = Craft + Choice, then Art can never be zero unless both craft and choices are zero. That doesn't fit with his words. It should be Art = Craft times Choices. That way, a zero for either will result in a zero for art.

And I suspect that Oystein's issue is that we add the two, giving equal weight to sound when the point of sound is to serve the music.

Dr. Sloan and I both run into that when we read the writings of students and researchers. When I review research, I'm usually asked to score writing clarity and the technical veracity of the conclusions separately, and the scores are often added. That is wrong. If the work's conclusions are fallacious, then it doesn't matter how beautifully it is described. And if it is unreadable, nobody will ever know if the conclusions are correct or not.

Craft always must be good enough to give the musical ideas a way to escape into the world unimpeded. But having good craft doesn't mean there are ideas at all, let alone those worthy of escape.

Rick "thinking this was the point George Bolet was subtly making" Denney

[toobagrowl]

I haven't been to any "bland orchestra" concerts. I've only been to "good orchestra" concerts and "mediocre orchestra" concerts and "bad orchestra" concerts.

One is, well, "good", and the other two are, well, annoying. I don't see how "bland" could shoehorn itself in amongst any of the three listed above.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bland

Really? You yourself have commented on how orchestras are sounding more and more alike. That's homogenization. Homogenization = bland.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig& ... 24&bih=475

I have heard soloists and various groups that were technically good, but very 'milquetoast' to listen to. The overall sound was either bland/simple/colorless/textureless and/or no excitement/no passion in the playing. Music is all about communication, and if you cant make something special/different/unique and GOOD out of notes, then frankly, I don't want to listen to you.

[Rick Denney]

I haven't been to any "bland orchestra" concerts. I've only been to "good orchestra" concerts and "mediocre orchestra" concerts and "bad orchestra" concerts.

One is, well, "good", and the other two are, well, annoying. I don't see how "bland" could shoehorn itself in amongst any of the three listed above.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bland

I've been to orchestra concerts that were competently played but that did not interfere with my desire for a nap. The only thing about them that annoyed me was that I would have preferred to be kept awake.

But whether you call that bland--flavorless--or bad is a matter of semantics.

Rick "who has heard some abjectly flavorless performances delivered with technical excellence" Denney

[toobagrowl]

Unique sounds are a bit like regional accents. They disappear as communication becomes better.
I suspect that some "unique sounds" from the past were the result of weaknesses and imbalances - that
the locals came to accept as normal and those from far away came to accept as "charming".

Is it really good for an orchestra to have a "unique sound"? Or, should each orchestra sound like Beethoven when playing Beethoven and Mahler when playing Mahler?

Just getting back to this...

You are seeing this in a black/white point of view. Why can't orchestras have their own unique sounds AND "sound like Beethoven when playing Beethoven, etc..."?

To the extent that an orchestra has "a unique sound", I submit that it is demonstrating a certain lack of control. Except, of course, for the ONE orchestra which has the one, true, correct sound....

But again - do you want the sound of an orchestra (or a solo player) to depend MOSTLY on the identity of the orchestra (or soloist)...or do you want the sound to depend on the particular piece of music being played? Is the star "Berlin", or is the star Wagner?

How is having "a unique sound" demonstrating a certain lack of control? And which "ONE" orchestra has the "one, true, correct sound"? That's a very limited, narrow point of view, imo.

You seem to favor the simple, homogenized sounds. Yet you own quite a few different makes of tubas and mpcs. Interesting. Why do you own and play them? Most likely because they SOUND and play different from each other, right? If you own them for other reasons (to look at?), you are in the wrong hobby...(I use that term since you are a hobbyist).

It takes imagination, brains, and individualism to create something unique and good It takes little of that for homogenization...

Of course the worst possible world is the one where everyone sounds the same...on every piece.

Yet, you are more-or-less advocating just that with this statement:

"Bland" may simply mean that everyone (having heard lots and lots of everyone else) has converged on a concensus "best" sound.

There are some sounds I'm not particularly crazy about, but I appreciate them for being different. If everyone played with the same or similar super-round sound (and it's getting more and more like that), that would just suck. Period. Use your imagination and develop your OWN sound concept, PLEASE.

[sloan]

Rick-

It's a log scale.

Ken "who still owns a slide rule" Sloan

[Rick Denney]

Rick-

It's a log scale.

Ken "who still owns a slide rule" Sloan

Show me the regression analysis.

Rick "whose Keuffel + Esser slide rule is worth enough to almost be worth selling" Denney

[Rick Denney]

There are some sounds I'm not particularly crazy about, but I appreciate them for being different. If everyone played with the same or similar super-round sound (and it's getting more and more like that), that would just suck. Period. Use your imagination and develop your OWN sound concept, PLEASE.

I'm sure you are agreeing with Oystein, but your last statement seems to me to counter his advice.

I think the correct concept is that one develops good craft and uses that craft to create great music, with the objective always being great music. If that happens, the sound is the correct sound no matter whether it is unique or not. There are lots of tuba players I'd like to sound like, and I doubt that sounding like them would diminish my tuba playing in any way (quite the opposite).

It's the difference between cause and effect. I doubt the best players sought "their own sound", but rather sought "their own musical expression", and ended up with their own sound. Does Gene Pokorny sound like Gene because he set out to have a unique sound, or does Gene sound like Gene because he has optimized his craft and musicianship to the point where his physical and musical characteristics have now become apparent?

Stated another way--If you take a simple Bb, held for 10 seconds, played by Gene, would that sound appreciably different than the same Bb played by, say, Chester Schmitz? I'll bet that very few could tell the difference. But let them put those sounds into a musical performance, and the differences will come forth.

Dr. Sloan was not trying to advocate for the strategy of sounding like others--that goal might undermine the objective of making great music as much as the strategy of sounding unique. He was saying that orchestras start to sound like other orchestras because musicians now have broad listening experience during their development, and their tone concept is those more cosmopolitan than was the case 75 or 100 years ago. This is, to me, orthogonal to whether great music is being made.

Rick "whose imagination is aimed at musical choices--mood, articulation, dynamic, shape, direction--and whose sound is what it is" Denney