TubeNet

Listen to every good tubist you can. Listen to as much music of every genre as possible(focusing on classical and jazz if your interests lie there).When you like a performance,start figuring out what you like about it. Try to incorporate that quality into your own playing,especially sound.you should own at least 40-50 tuba related recordings.When you've done all that ,post again and we'll talk more(in 5-10 yrs). Seriously though,this is an excellent question and one i'm sure many of us are daily persuing.This is the best question you have asked to date in my opinion and shows some maturity.stay with this line of though and you're on your way.

TUBACHRIS85 wrote: its hard for me not to play it with MY style.

It sounds like you're on the right track.
You may want to work a little on your sentence style as well.

I've always held that style is something your EARS pick up first and your brain naturally develops; likes and dislikes. Sort of like hitting the correct note, but a lot subtler... listen, listen, listen. Listen to yourself. Listen to others. You will develop likes and dislikes once you get past the accuracy thing, and those, combined with your physical application of them, will be YOUR style

VoiceofReason wrote:
If you do, "style" will mean something completely different from an ego-driven "MY style," "MY playing," and "MY sound." It will mean giving the work at hand the proper attention. You won't have to wonder about coming up with a style because it will be entirely self-evident from looking at the page. If you really achieve a level of musical literacy, you will have the answers. In fact, you'd probably be finding yourself noting all the compositionally weak points in a piece. You won't need to come up with a "story" to interpret a piece of music. That whole "story" thing is a crutch for people unable or simply unprepared to process the music at a structural level, and it's entirely ineffective. If you disagree, consider the number of recitals, studio classes, and master classes you've attended during which you couldn't have been any more bored out of your skull because of performers whose "stories" completely failed to match the composition they slaughtered.

Learn MUSIC. Really. The tuba has nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry but I think the tuba has everything to do with it. This is our median to get the message across. I like the idea of studying music and composers but as far as "stories" not matching the composition is just silly. Everyone's interpretation is different. It would be sooooooo boring if everyone did EXACTLY what the composer intended. You can analyze a piece to death but if you don't have emotion or direction in it it's just ink, it just becomes notes played in succesion. The "story" that the musician is trying to convey is what makes a solo come to life. I can analyze a solo or ensemble piece to death but if it doesn't have any emotion than it isn't worth crap. End incoherent rant...

Ralph

Tubachris,

In my opinion, you're asking exactly the right questions you should be asking yourself and others. Unfortunately, as you can tell from the responses so far, there is no quick and easy answer.

A few thoughts though . . .

1. The repeated suggestions to listen, listen, listen are excellent. If you develop a personal style without having listened to lots of others, your style is less likely to be appreciated by others.

2. Along with listening, you should analyze, analyze, analyze. Understand everything about the music you can. Of course, no one expects you at your age to be an expert on music theory or form and analysis. Learning a few basics of those issues, though, can go a long way. For example, if you are playing a band piece, and you understand the form and structure of the piece, you will have a better idea of what your tuba part needs to communicate and contribute to the piece. The same goes for solos - learn the "big picture", how the piece is structured, to better understand the role of each individual part.

I remember my first private lesson on the third movement of the Hindemith tuba sonata. I was a senior in high school, and had listened ad naseum to the Roger Bobo recording of that piece. I hadn't listened to any other recordings, though. More importantly, I hadn't taken the time to analyze the complicated rhythms in the cadenza. I just tried to imitate Bobo, without really understanding what I was doing. That was the first (and only) time my private teacher just looked at me with that "what the hell was that" look. It was obvious I didn't really have any idea what the cadenza was all about. I thought I sounded "cool" because I was imitating Bobo, but I didn't understand what I was doing.

I realize that was a very long rant.

3. Understand that different circumstances and different types of music call for different sounds and styles. Don't try to develop every possible different style at once. Start with listening to good band recordings for a band tuba sound (Eastman, military bands, etc.), and classical solo tuba recordings. After you feel fairly grounded in those, I would suggest adding jazz and, at the other spectrum, orchestral literature. Orchestral tuba is a different animal than band tuba. (And as a side note, I HATE the trend to call a band a wind ensemble, wind symphony, or anything BUT a "band." What's wrong with being a band???)

By the way, all this listening doesn't have to be expensive. Do you have access to a university library?? Also, lots of military band recordings are available free, if you know where to get them (I don't).

4. Subtlety is a key. In your efforts to express emotions in your music, don't throw your emotions in the audience's face. Subtle changes in dynamics, tempo, expression, etc. can be much more effective than obvious ones. Less really can be more.

I guess my post is long enough now, so I should stop. You are on the right track - just don't get discouraged about how much work this may all seem like. Developing your style and sound is a project that will take years and decades, not weeks and months.

TexTuba wrote:It would be sooooooo boring if everyone did EXACTLY what the composer intended.

How can we know exactly what the composer intended?

There is so much that goes into the expression of music: Phrasing, articulation, connectedness, flow, direction, subtle dynamic changes, vibrato, tone. Very little of that can be notated, and even when it can it usually isn't. We get the pitch, the time value, sometimes an indication of special articulation, a dynamic, and a tempo. We might get a one-word statement of character (e.g. "maestoso" or "dolce"). That leaves huge room to work without expressly violating any of the composer's instructions.

Let's say our charge is to recite a poem. We start with what? We have only words and a few puntuation markings. We have to determine the tempo and rhythm of our speech, the emphasis of the words, the modulation of our voice, and the emotional content of our expression. Very little of that is explicit in the words, and in some poetry it's nearly unfathomable what the writer could have intended. But in our recitation, despite all the latitude, we would be doing the writer and the poem a disservice if we actually changed a word.

So, if we are boring because we followed the composer's instructions exactly, it's because we think all of music is contained within those sparse and paltry instructions. The music starts where following instructions leaves off.

Rick "no fan of changing compositions for the sake of personal style" Denney

TexTuba wrote:It would be sooooooo boring if everyone did EXACTLY what the composer intended.

Let's see count 172 measures of rest then play an A. Count 183 measures of rest and then play an A really loud. Yeah. that is boring. I think at the next orchestra rehearsal, I'll improvise a walking bass line...

Ok this has been taken WAY out of context. So let me say that I used a poor choice of words. Let me clarify because I'm a moron who many times shouldn't be let in front of a computer. What I mean is many times people play solos JUST as they're written(at least the ones I've heard). Yes, you should respect what the composer wrote but a soloist should also put their mark on it. Band music you don't have that kind of freedom because you just can't and shouldn't do it unless it says improv. But a soloist, because that IS what I was referring to, should have that option. For example, I can't stand the cadenza in the 3rd mvmt. of the Gregson Tuba Cto. So I changed it. When I would work on the Rimsky-Korsakov Tbone Cto. I didn't like the cadenza so I changed that as well. Many people change the VW cadenza and it sounds quite good. If you ever hear Christian Lindberg recordings he changes solos quite often. I'm not saying he's right for doing it but he does it because I suppose he likes them that way. I'm NOT saying change the entire damn solo. "Hmm, Plog wrote measure 1-100 wrong, so Ima fix it." All I'm saying is that a soloist has the creative freedom to change what he/she sees fit, no matter on how small or large a scale. And as far as making a walking bass line out of two notes, well you'd look like a complete jackass for doing it.


Ralph

Put the tuba down and just sing your music. Don't be shy - sing it with as much "feeling" as you can. Then imitate that on the tuba.

How you develop "style" or "musicality" or "feeling" is another issue. Yes, like others have said, listen to great musicians.

Stefan

TexTuba wrote:Ok this has been taken WAY out of context.

Yes, that sometimes happens. But readers will do it even if they don't ask about it. That is what makes writing hard, heh, heh.

A cadenza is marked as such and permission to make changes is expressly granted by the composer, depending I suppose on the period of the music.

An example: I once heard a well-known tuba player perform the Vaughan Williams (no, nobody you've ever heard me talk about by name). The closing notes of the first movement go from a low F to a low Eb to a low F. He changed that to match the line of the opening of the movement. It didn't sound bad, but my first reaction was--why did he do that? What artistic purpose was served? I was distracted through half the second movement mulling over his apparent need to out-compose the good Dr. Vaughan Williams. I still can't find any reason to justify his choice.

But on the recently provided recording of Bill Bell playing the Vaughan Williams, he purposely left off the high bits of the first-movement cadenza, which I though was a good decision on his part and it was musically appropriate in addition to being practical. Again, it was a cadenza, which is designed to allow the soloist to show off his technical ability.

Now, if my first exemplar had played the entire work with so much mastery that he could really see a next step, then it would be easier to justify. But he did not demonstrate such mastery, and that made the choice seem rather presumptuous to me. If it had made the work sound worse, then the audience would think it Vaughan Williams's fault, and not the performer's. I don't think the performer has that right.

Bell, on the other hand, remained true to what Vaughan Williams wrote, and in some ways truer than subsequent recordings that show more technical polish.

I was once in a quintet that had a trumpet player who thought a lot of himself (that should identities safely anonymous, heh, heh). I suggested that we end a particular work (it was a Canadian Brass arrangement) in the way written and performed by the CB. He said, "We should seek our own style and not just copy what others have done." My response was that when we were playing all the notes, phrasings, articulations, dynamics, and other written instructions correctly, then we had earned the right to "seek our own style." Until then, application of some schmaltzy stylistic trick would just highlight what we were not doing. Again, the musical expression, which is the basis of style, starts where the instructions leave off.

I once played under a super conductor who told our group: "Professional musicians play the right note at the right time, with the right articulation and the right dynamic. They must do a lot more to be any good, but they nearly always do that much." He was warning a bunch of amateurs not to take too many artistic liberties before establishing mastery over the music.

Rick "who has never mastered anything that well" Denney

Changing things in a piece of written music is a tricky matter. On the one hand, every writer of music would like to change a few things they've written. On the other hand, people who make alterations often want to take credit and even share in the royalties for making very small alterations, often without permission. I've seen a couple of my arrangements with minor rhythm changes and someone else's name at the top. It is ok to do whatever you want with repeats, articulations, dynamics, and even instrumentation, but leave the notes and rhythms alone. If you want to change notes and rhythms, you should be able to write your own piece of music.

-Eric

Shockwave wrote: If you want to change notes and rhythms, you should be able to write your own piece of music.
-Eric

That's like saying if you can change some cylinder heads on a car you should be able to build one from scratch.





Ralph

TexTuba wrote:

Shockwave wrote: If you want to change notes and rhythms, you should be able to write your own piece of music.
-Eric

That's like saying if you can change some cylinder heads on a car you should be able to build one from scratch.

Ralph

No, but you should have a thorough understanding of how the engine is constructed. The ability to change a gasket does not equal the necessity to change a gasket, and the same holds true with music.

Remember this:

There are NOT any rules.

If you think there are rules, seek and you will find all sorts of people who have created new ground and/or new understanding by breaking them.

Do your thing and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

tubajoe wrote:Remember this:

There are NOT any rules.

If you think there are rules, seek and you will find all sorts of people who have created new ground and/or new understanding by breaking them.

Do your thing and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

Fine, but be honest about it. If you are going to change a composer's music, tell people up front so that if it sucks the composer won't get the blame.

Rick "Do not break the rules before learning them" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

tubajoe wrote:Remember this:

There are NOT any rules.

If you think there are rules, seek and you will find all sorts of people who have created new ground and/or new understanding by breaking them.

Do your thing and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

Fine, but be honest about it. If you are going to change a composer's music, tell people up front so that if it sucks the composer won't get the blame.

Rick "Do not break the rules before learning them" Denney

Of course.

I never said change the composer's music. If you change it, you are making a decision -- it either becomes your own arrangment of the original composition, or it just becomes irrisponsible interpretation.

joe "spending too much time these days dancing about archetecture" shmoe

VoiceofReason wrote: End of rant.

WOW!!! A rather long rant, but some quite good thoughts to be contemplated. I would certainly agree that we should always focus on making music. Indeed, this is often the problem with the(shall we say) "ordinary" tuba players.

I will quickly add that I understand a highly scientific study was done of TubeNet tuba players which found that 99.99412% of those on this list are not one of those "ordinary" tuba players. However, we must understand that the majority of the world's tuba players are ordinary. Those guys(and gals) are the reason the rest of us "never get no respect."

VoiceofReason wrote:Once again, the current posts have wandered away from the topic at hand.

Oh, sorry. Conversations do that, though. One idea leads to another and the topic drifts. Lots of good stuff comes out of that, as well as lots that is just chatter. But that's the way it works.

I went back and read your other post to remind myself of the context of this. I don't disagree with your general point of being a musician first and a tuba player second (I do not accept your distinction between tuba players and tubists--neither gets at the point of musicians who happen to play tuba). Nor would anyone else. But as I review the answers in this thread, listening and understanding seemed to be at the heart of most of them, rather than anything one might do to manipulate the instrument. So, I think you are preaching to the choir.

I wonder if Arnold Jacobs, who was that most musical of tuba players, took extra classes in theory and studied all the different versions of Palleas et Millisande from Schoenberg to Debussey. And I wonder if he spent a lot of time studying why Palestrina was different than Purcell. I do think he spend a lot of time listening to great musicians make great music, and he made sure to incorporate what they were doing musically into his own playing. It is probably true that he spent more time doing that than many today, but then I suspect that was true then, too.

But at some point you have to put the book down and pick up the instrument. There may well be too much emphasis on "my" in current practice, though I don't really think so. I'm just a second-rate amateur, but I not that infrequently get lost during rehearsal because I was distracted by the music. I don't think I'm all that unusual. What I lack is the ability to make those musical choices in real time, and bring them forth on the instrument. The problem is the disconnect between what we like when we hear it and what we produce when we play it. That's a matter of skill as much as anything.

So, I think there is a balance between listening, understanding, and doing. It takes all three to get to the point where a musician can make a clear musical statement.

Rick "who has listened to plenty of both Palestrina and Purcell and who...just...listens" Denney

[quote="VoiceofReason"]Aiming for “styleâ€

I want to find my style.... I desperately want to find my style. I think, through playing with an ensemble of brass players, I have found my style with that sort of group. That being in the scenario where I am in charge. I have been the big fish for soooooo long I dont remember what its like to play "second fiddle" (enough cliches for you yet?)

I have just begun to play with a superb community band, and have been playing dead last chair. Not necessarily because of my ability, but because thats how it ended up, and I am really enjoying it. my style has changed. I now listen up to the principle for my cues.

My whole point being that in an ensemble you should always put the needs of the music first, the balance your section leader puts forward second, and your idea of the interpretation third. Always blend. I guess that was kinda already said, but I wanted to uphold that thinking.

Solo playing, go for it. Who cares what people think. Give it all youve got and make that tuba sing for you. When youre in an ensemble youre a team player, but when its just you on that stage, youre the gladiator, the last man standing. Make the audience remember you. That is what will make our instrument what it deserves to be.