TubeNet

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!

Best,
Øystein Baadsvik
http://Www.baadsvik.com" target="_blank
http://Www.lowbrassmusic.com" target="_blank

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.

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.

I'm telling!

Rick " " Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

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.

bloke wrote:We're all leaving out THE most important thing.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=50526

I'm with you Joe. A sticky valve can ruin both the sound and the musicality, not to mention my whole day! You weren't being sarcastic now, where you?

Must be some interesting concerts in Linz..

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.

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

drow2buh wrote: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.

Doc wrote:

TubaRay wrote: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.

4'33"

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.

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.

Excellent post, Dr. Sloan! I agree completely.

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?

bloke wrote:

eupher61 wrote: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.