As tuba players, are we honest with each other?

[timayer]

It's unclear (at least to me, which, frankly, isn't hard to accomplish) from your post whether you are talking about recordings of yourself or others or both.

With recordings of myself, I hear all the warts all the time. My issue is hearing myself while I'm playing. I.e., I won't hear intonation issues while playing. I'll record myself. And they're glaring. And then I can hear them while I'm playing. That, I can say from experience, is less from ego (because I'm less egotistical than you. I'm the MOST un-egotistical person) and more from some form of confirmation bias while I'm playing. I know what I'm intending to do, and so I hear what I'm intending to do rather than what I'm actually doing (as long as it's close). Once I hear the recording, I'm somewhat outside of my own head, and I hear more objectively. But I almost always record myself to be critical so I can improve, so that's how I approach the listening.

I've said it before - It's similar to my speech impediment when I was young - I have vivid recollections of *knowing* I was speaking clearly. (Narrator: He wasn't.) No one ever recorded 6-year-old me to show me, so it took some time, but once I could hear my impediment and worked to speak properly, I couldn't avoid hearing it when I slipped.

So, to me, it's more confirmation bias than ego.

With recordings of others, I tend to be positive about them - It's easy to criticize something, because it inherently puts you in a superior position to the person (I see your flaws...). It's harder to support something, because you adopt the risk of someone putting you in a lower position by explaining why your standards aren't up to theirs.

Even if I hear some flaws, I still try to focus on the positives - If the articulations aren't great, the sound is or the musicality is there, or something like that. Anything can be better. I've never heard a recording where I couldn't pick out some flaw, even if it's the articulation on a single note, but it doesn't mean that it's not already good. And if an art form is executed honestly by the artist, it should be celebrated. If the performer then asks you for an honest assessment of what they can improve, then absolutely offer your thoughts in a constructive manner. But if someone has been willing to, and worked to, put something out there and considers it a good example of their work, then I try to see the positive aspects of it and respect that work that went into it.

To make a long post longer and use a non-musical analogy. Picture a yard in the fall 100% covered in leaves. You go out, and you get 95% of them cleared. That yard looks great to you because you know how far it came, and your grass is going to get that much more sunlight going into winter. And you're proud of it. Someone who shows up who wasn't there the day before sees leaves on the yard, not all of the effort that went into getting so many more leaves cleared. Doesn't mean you can't be proud of the yard. And it doesn't mean that you need to be subject to their opinion that there are leaves on your yard. Absolutely. There are leaves. But that doesn't negate all of the work you did already.

Music is brutal - A "bad" performance has usually accomplished 95% of what it set out to accomplish. And the difference between "good" and "bad" is usually measured in fractions of millimeters over hundreds, if not thousands, of notes. We need to be sympathetic to that.

But, the caveat to all of that is honesty - Honest effort in the playing (and preparation) and honest effort in the listening. An honest performance that is the result of honest preparation is, to me, per se good, even if it can be improved. Honesty in the listening involves hearing both the good and the bad and accepting the context of the performance.

[Rick Denney]

Self-awareness and self-control are not the same thing. And it's true for awareness of others, too.

One thing I heard on Daellenbach's recent interview described Arnold Jacobs as more of a guru than a teacher. He said Mr. Jacobs was always positive. He never identified problems to be solved. Instead, he took what was there, and built on it.

So, when I listen to recordings, I'm looking for what is there, not what is not there. Great musicians cannot hide their greatness, even if they have an off night or an off performance. What's there will be worth listening to and will earn its appreciation.

When I listen to myself, I hear every mistake. Once in a while, I also hear something of what I felt at the time, and then I rejoice--something got through. If I only focused on the mistakes, I would never perform again, and I suspect that's true for most amateurs.

Now, when I listen to someone else, I am under no obligation to provide a critique. Not my gig. Even reviewers who focus on technical flaws are tiresome. But I do not think I'm dishonest when I refuse to point out flaws in someone else's playing.

Once my quintet was playing for a wedding--the wrong gig for us in any case and especially in this case. One of the bridal party was related to the man who founded the church, and that church had become a pastor-cult megachurch. Thus, I suppose he felt like critiquing everyone around him was his obligation, to sustain his high standards or whatever. He walked over to us and pointed to our trumpet players at the time, and suggested that we were not any good and there was the problem.

Now what good would that do? If they fired us because we weren't good enough, then that's the way it goes. But the bride and groom had heard us in a church service and knew what they were getting. So, we dragged butt into the gig the next day feeling like dog-do. That bit of "honesty" was utterly counterproductive to the objectives of the event, and when discovered by the rest of the family, horrified them. "Hey, I'm just being honest!" Bull taco. It was a domination move and he knew it.

Rick "Honesty does not imply the absence of a courtesy filter, or a focus on the outcomes of the situation" Denney

[Three Valves]

A tuba is not a clarinet, trumpet or violin.

We are their to make them sound better.

Accept it.

Celebrate it!!

[Matt G]

As I alluded to in the other thread OP stopped by when he asked for recordings of someone else to compare tuba sizes for quintet use, recordings are not always honest representations of playing. You can hear large flaws, but subtle changes in timbre and ensemble balance are not always easy to ascertain.

Recording sessions is pretty good feedback for basics like tempo, articulation, and pitch. Beyond that, you’re at the will of the room and how much you spent on recording equipment.

[Doug Elliott]

As one progresses toward being a better player and a better musician (assuming one is actually progressing, which isn't always the case), you become more discerning, and a more critical listener of both yourself and others. It's completely normal to have a different opinion later when you're coming from a different place. Or playing with musicians who haven't progressed since the last time, when you have.

The question is also "are we honest with ourselves."

Of course I'm just a trombone player who owns some tubas now.

[toobagrowl]

^ We used sousaphones for marching and concert band back in my high school (21+ years ago), too. Honestly, I'd like to see more use of sousaphones in concert bands. And to teach more kids you don't always need to 'blatt' on them

As for Mr. Bobo, I agree about his excellent solo recordings. Not the biggest fan of his sound, but everything else was amazing.

Tubas and sousas still sound best for simply being the foundation of the ensemble and brass section

[Matt G]

It's weird.

It’s human nature. Maslow’s Hierarchy provides a framework here.

I’m sure audition committees have heard tapes that would elicit a broad spectrum of human emotion: joy, sadness, hilarity, despair, etc., but they usually do a fine job in the end finding the right person.

If we are talking about recordings of players in professional ensembles, enough examples exist to compare players at their primes, but again are limited to recording engineers intervening in the mix. A somewhat level playing ground is live recordings, but the acoustics of the halls are not constant.

With that being said, no player is beyond criticism. However, public criticism in a forum of third parties usually only leads to negative outcomes.

Years (like 20+) ago when a couple of dudes that were in audition prep mode (who won real full time jobs of note) asked to borrow my ears. While the criticism was minimal (again they both won serious jobs), I did have honest feedback.

If these guys were prepping now, would I advise them of putting their content up on YouTube and linking to forums or reddit for feedback? No. Emphatically, no. The Internet gives nearly equal bandwidth to all users. The feedback you receive comes with nearly zero qualifications and with anonymity.

I think the people who win jobs are in circles of trusted friends that do, in fact, provide honest feedback (usually live) on their abilities.

When it comes to solo albums, I’m pretty sure the market is working well enough there.

[Michael Grant]

Of course we are. I mean, for the most part, you know mostly, I mean I guess, I’m not really sure. Probably not. But yea, we are. Of course. Silly question. Or not. It depends on who you’re asking I guess. Honestly, I don’t know. I can only speak for myself and as you can see, I really don’t know. Will you respect me the morning if I tell you the truth? What answer do you want to hear?

[Michael Grant]

I’ve been thinking about my answer and I might want to change it. I mean, I’m just not sure. Let me reread my copy of “The Prince” and I’ll get back to you.

[Michael Grant]

Being in college when that first solo record of Bobo’s came out, it was what we gauged others buy. As I grew older and heard more recordings and players, etc., my concept of the tuba sound changed. Roger Bobo’s live sound is much closer to the sound that eventually settled In my mind/ear. His live sound is amazing. I heard him in recital at the University of Michigan a number of years ago and he just floored everyone there. He played his Yamaha F for the most part but used Fritz Keanzig’s Yorkbrunner for Theodore Antoniou’s ‘Six Likes for solo Tuba’. Absolutely amazing. He not only nailed it on a horn he had never played before, it was such a musical interpretation of that piece. Just lovely with a huge sound. The low register just shook the hall. It was impressive. I imagine any recordings of him with the LA Phil sound amazing as well.

[Rick Denney]

One thing I heard on Daellenbach's recent interview described Arnold Jacobs as more of a guru than a teacher. He said Mr. Jacobs was always positive. He never identified problems to be solved. Instead, he took what was there, and built on it.

Im glad you brought this up, because this is kind of the point. or at least a point. I studied with Jake and he was a friend to me for really no reason except he was a great man.
But since he is at the top of our metaphorical pyramid, besides ad hominem or personal attacks, is his work (or anyone's) beyond criticism?

We have a handful of idols whose musical output is incredibly instructive in many ways, one of those ways is by criticizing it. Is this off limits in our small tight-nit community?
I wonder. I also studied with teachers who would only in the back rooms say, "well Jake was wrong about X or Y", some of those people are playing in major symphonies in the US right now.

Can we move beyond this, or if you are a small time player are you just supposed to listen to everything to emulate without speaking openly about what you think about these things,
and just go along to get along and do your own thing. I dunno. I have gotten alot of non-specific answers from great players I think just because they were afraid of being critical to another musician. Or because they were attached to their heuristic of playing.

I think Jake would want us to move on. That's my honest opinion. I think Jake and the greats who are still alive playing professionally or not, are bigger than this and would rather have critical thinking students than not. Thats what made them great in the first place. If you cant say something sucks, you cant say anything.

Jacobs would want us to evaluate our own playing based on musical standards, and if we are unable to attain that, it will either be because some mechanical fault is preventing it, or because we lack the musical expressiveness in the first place. I recall one story where he suggested to a trombone player that he communicated much better in words than in music. That person switched to journalism with some success. That, to me, is an example of honesty playing out positively. But that trombone player also went to him with the stated problem that he couldn't break through the audition wall, so he was looking for that last bit of excellence, not fundamentals. But the problem was musical, not technical.

I have had the experience of listening to recorded music I love, thinking it simply amazing, and then playing it for others. When I play it to others, I hear it with their ears, and suddenly a whole range of alternative viewpoints present themselves.

Now, to honesty about Jacobs, Bell, Phillips, Bobo, and others. It's a good point--these great performers have fan clubs that brook no complaint. But nobody's perfect. Jacobs would certainly have liked another shot at the Vaughan Williams, for example. Bill Bell also recorded the Vaughan Williams when it was brand new, in 1954, sitting in for Phillips who had a military obligation. There were technical flaws in that performance, too. But in both cases, there was expression that overcame those flaws. We can focus on the flaws, but when we do, we have to ask whether we are doing so out of honesty, or because the absence of flaws like that are out only musical standard? Bell's performance had real humor--something absent in most other performances of the work. I think that was sensitive to Vaughan Williams the man and the composer, who was absolutely not above wit. We have to ask what we have to gain by focusing on the flaws--it's not like anyone at that level isn't already working to overcome flaws like those.

But we have to be careful that our honesty focused on what's important. Pokorny's orchestral excerpts do things most people's orchestral excerpts don't do as consistently as they think: The time is correct, every dynamic marking can be heard, Every attack is clean in the context of fitting in with an orchestra, and the tone carries the sound to the hall in a way that improves as it goes. But if those excerpts are flawed and not worthy of aspiration, then how do you suppose Gene got the gig? He put something out there that others didn't--it's really as simple as that, and maybe what we focus on is not what others focus on (see my comment above about what happens when I play recordings I love for others). And that is what we have to dig out of recordings and understand.

But there is also a lot of camaraderie among tuba players, and I think not jumping on the perceived flaws of others is one reason for that. We could pick apart every detail and rail on about those, but then people would think we were trumpet players.

Rick "opposed to sports commentary associated with expressive art" Denney

[Matt G]

lol @ the intent of this thread.

Looking for perfection is an endless pursuit. It is subjective and ultimately irrelevant.

If we wanted perfection in music, we’d sample and do everything digitally. But when humans do that, it sounds “off”.

While musicians and even tuba players are determined to reproduce ink blots at the highest fidelity possible, the random processes involved make these interactions and performances interesting.

The point of good criticism is to make a player the best that they can be, not emulate someone else’s vision of perfection.

The idea that one could go hear a top notch orchestra play the same pieces three times on a weekend and hear three subtly different renditions is an exciting concept. That means there is some “error” floating about wether it be intonation (consider that we actually have different tuning schema regardless), timing, balance, etc. and that is okay.

Back to the topic of this thread: tuba players are assumed to be a subset of human beings. Human beings are not always totally honest with each other at all times. The remaining deductions follow. With that, there are times that we offer useful and valuable feedback to each other in specific instances.

[bort]

The idea that one could go hear a top notch orchestra play the same pieces three times on a weekend and hear three subtly different renditions is an exciting concept. That means there is some “error” floating about wether it be intonation (consider that we actually have different tuning schema regardless), timing, balance, etc. and that is okay.

I think it depends on the orchestra. Lower level groups (more human error) are more likely to have more (or at least different) blips, cracks, etc. That's not to say anything against them (I'm one of them!), but it's just a fact that the performance level isn't that of a group of professionals. Otherwise, they'd all be professionals!

High level groups are going to sound the same on any given night. The players all know their stuff backwards and forwards, and aren't going to bring it on stage until they have it that way. And beyond that, the conductor is not going to pull some wild curveballs during the performance. It's going to be the same as it was in all rehearsals.

Someone once joked to me that if the conductor were to drop dead during a performance, the expectation is that you finish playing -- because he never cut off the ensemble or told you to stop playing.

Cue the jokes about ignoring the conductor and pretending he's not even there.

Someone also once joked to me that playing in a professional orchestra is a mix of artistry and automaticity -- the conductor supplies the artistry, and your job as a musician is to provide the automaticity. It's not your show, don't pretend like it is.

Back to the topic of this thread...

I didn't go back to re-read the question, but in general, I'm honest enough to make sure someone's not stinking up a tuba section (and has the ability to fix it -- not talking beginners or people who are doing all they can already), and I'm honest enough to compliment someone for some really nice playing.

Beyond that, no sense in getting too involved, or it's going to get awkward in a few hours after a few beers...

[Rick Denney]

...High level groups are going to sound the same on any given night...

Interesting observation. But I think it depends on how perceptive the listener is. I don't believe that a high degree of perceptiveness requires any particular musical training, but it does require considerable listening experience.

Variability abounds--the world is a stochastic place (thank goodness!). The question is whether the variability exceeds the tolerance threshold, or boundary beyond which lies the error domain. That's actually not that interesting to me. I've heard errors in stunningly good performances, and a lack of errors in mundane performances. Playing the right note, with the right pitch, the right articulation, and at the right dynamic is the starting point.

But the more interesting question is the boundary between musical performances and unmusical performances. Eventually, errors become distracting enough to make that boundary no longer interesting. But even struggling community bands can often explore musical expression with sufficient absence of errors to permit the perception of same. Sometimes, amateur groups actually do better in that regard, simply because they are especially enthusiastic.

Within the context of musical performances, variability does what? It humanizes the performance, which adds an element that can be felt. It's an insult to jazz musicians to say they play things the same way every time. Musicians may be their own worst enemy as listeners, being hyper-aware of technical issues at a level of perception beyond most others. If I listen for errors, I'm no longer listening to the music. If I listen for music, the definition of "error" becomes largely uninteresting.

Rick "the role of accuracy is not sameness (okay--let me tart that up by saying consistency), but transparency" Denney

[bort]

One of the WORST performances I've ever heard live was at a major music conservatory, with the local major orchestra's principal trombone player playing Blue Bells of Scotland with wind ensemble accompaniment. I think it was pretty clear he got the music a few minutes before he went on stage (or at least, it sure sounded that way -- ouch).

[Matt G]

Rick and bloke get it.

Having that variability is necessary for it to be an interesting art form. The bounds of that variability are where artistry lies.

Like Joe, I’ve heard excellent players just sound off. Who knows why? Bad nights sleep? Off day? Who knows. But it’s all part of the equation.

It’s the old “missing the forest for the trees” situation.