I am SICK and tired of all the emphasis on sound quality in music competitions. What is a beautiful tuba sound anyway? Put a damn paper clip into your mouthpiece to distort your sound, but play musically and you have won my heart. Play with the "worlds best" tuba sound but unmusically and you leave me cold. Unlike in an orchestral audition where you need a specific sound to blend with the orchestra the OPPOSITE is true in solo playing. As a soloist you need to stick out, to have a voice that is heard. You need to be able to change your sound constantly to serve the music. Sometimes beautiful and singing, sometimes ugly and harsh. Sometimes featherlight and delicate, sometimes solid as a rock. Rather than sound quality, we should be talking about sound control. To claim that one sound is better than another is as ignorant as saying that green is a better color than red. Good music requires an infinite variety of sound colors. About 0,0001% of the worlds population plays tuba and "knows" what a good tuba sound is. If you intend to play for these guys you might be able to impress a few with your perfect sound. If you intend to reach the other 99,9999 % they don't have a clue what a tuba should sound like, and they could not care less. What these people do care about, is not getting bored. And that happens really, really quickly with the "perfect tuba sound". Now, go and kick the next guy that uses the phrase "good sound" in his butt!
I once saw a program on public television that showed the pianist George Bolet giving a master class. One student was technically perfect and played a work very fast. But it was mechanical and unmusical. Mr. Bolet attempted to encourage better phrasing and shaping of the line just once, with no apparent effect. He thanked the student without further comment and moved on to the next student.
One of the later students overflowed with musicality, but played one section a bit more slowly than Mr. Bolet preferred. He asked the student to play that section faster, partly to avoid the accusation that he lacked sufficient technique, and the student played it again--still with beautiful musicality--but without speeding that section up at all.
Mr. Bolet considered it for a moment, and said, "You make a strong case for playing that part more slowly, and I thank you deeply."
It's easy to see where George Bolet's views on this topic fell.
Of course, sound is not nothing. Serving sound at the expense of music is.
Rick "finding that people without some command of sound usually lack a command of music as well" Denney
I think it is debatable whether sound quality and musicianship are as distant as the post says. I do completely agree that players are often judged too much on 'robotic' playing as opposed to how well they can connect with an audience or convey a message. What he said about 99.999% of the world not knowing what a good tuba sound is was completely spot on. As a tubist, your best bet to captivate someone unfamiliar with our instrument is with your musicality as opposed to tone.
Besides "THE MAIN THING" (which is the music), yes, retreating back to "mechanics" here... I've heard some tuba blowers make "nice sounds" that did not fit within western musical scales.
I attended a masterclass by Pokorny, who said everyone has a different sound because we all have different oral cavities.
When people talk about sound quality, I was told to think of it as good or bad. As long as the sound isnt airy or fuzzy, it really doesn't bother me.
Some of the world's best pianists miss notes, might not have the best tone, but are judged for their musicality.
I think the most important thing regarding tone is CONTROL! When I practice, I judge my tone based on how I want me to sound. If I don't have control, I work on it till I do. I won't ever have the same tone as jacobs, pokorny, Bobo, etc. so I don't even try. Maybe one day people can say they like my tone or not, but be established as my tone
Some excellent posts, here. I actually doubt that Oystein literally meant "sound is nothing." He was emphasizing the musical qualities. On this, I totally agree. Music performed with a POOR sound quality will not sound musical. Of course, there is much latitude as to what is a good sound. In my view, there are many pretty women around. They may look very different, but they are still quite easy on the eyes. That's as far as I wish to go with that analogy, but hopefully illustrates my point, somewhat.
TubaRay wrote:In my view, there are many pretty women around. They may look very different, but they are still quite easy on the eyes. That's as far as I wish to go with that analogy, but hopefully illustrates my point, somewhat.
TubaRay wrote:In my view, there are many pretty women around. They may look very different, but they are still quite easy on the eyes. That's as far as I wish to go with that analogy, but hopefully illustrates my point, somewhat.
I'm telling!
Rick " " Denney
Well...I'm just going on what I remember from when I was in high school. Of course, like ALL married men, I never notice this, anymore.
bloke wrote:Besides "THE MAIN THING" (which is the music), yes, retreating back to "mechanics" here... I've heard some tuba blowers make "nice sounds" that did not fit within western musical scales.
+1
A sound that is "nice" or "the right sound" is entirely based on context, style, culture, etc. Even in a fairly restricted, western situation: consider an opera singer's sound for a second - if you take her out of a lead role in Wagner and drop her into the choir and she'd surely be called out for not blending.