If you were a judge, what would you look for in a player?

[Alonsotuba]

-

[TUBAD83]

Assuming that everyone is proficient enough to play all the correct notes and make something resembling phrases, I look for time, rhythm, pitch, tone, in that order (more or less) and then accuracy and musicality. Toss in the fact that many players at your level will show up underprepared and will NOT know all the notes nor be able to make phrases very well, and my personal experience tells me that many there that day will not have a hope of making me happy with the first four things.

A few years ago I was asked to be a low brass judge for area band tryouts. To say that it was not a pleasant experience would be an understatement. If the rules would have allowed, about 50% of the chairs in the low brass section would have been empty because of the lack of qualified and prepared players to fill them. With that in mind, I would look for the basics first (correct notes, tempo, pitch, rhythmic accuracy) and then overall tone quality, phrasing, overall musicality.

Totally agree with Wade: a metronome and a tuner is a MUST not an option!

JJ

[dwaskew]

I HAVE judged chair placement for such events.

The kid who came in room and played ALL of the correct rhythms and NONE of the correct pitches annoyed me FAR less than the kid who came in the room and played ALL of the correct pitches and NONE of the correct rhythms.

time, rhythm, pitch, tone, in that order (more or less) and then accuracy and musicality.

Use a metronome and a tuner very frequently as you prepare your material.

What they said. This is the bottom line, as far as I can tell.

[eupher61]

I look for squinty eyes, a general look of evil, and an expensive watch.

[sloan]

If you were (or are) a judge who has been called to be part of the All-State jury in your country, what would you particularly look for the most in a player? Would it be their sound? Their intonation? Their consistency? Or something else? These are all very important factors, but if each player only had one good quality to their playing, which one would you award the top place? I am interested in what everyone's opinion is. Thank you.

The player in "top place" will not have only one of these qualities.

[TUBAD83]

Would you, as the band director, prefer to have a kid in the "motor element" of your group who continually makes mistakes that do not cause you to have to stop the group (wrong notes) or would you prefer to have someone who nails all the pitches but who keeps trashing the time and rhythm of the group to the point that you have to STOP the entire band over and over? I would prefer the kid who kept things together rhythmically (an ensemble skill that is vital) over the one who got all the notes but who destroyed the ensemble.

My answer would be "it doesn't really make a difference--I can deal with both" A good competent director knows how to adjust and overcome. When I was in HS band, half the percussion section could not read music, the tuba section had serious tempo and rhythm problems, and the clarinet section had a big issue about playing in tune. We were NOT the best sight readers in the world either. Our new director fixed all that without cutting anyone--that year we won sweepstakes--including a "1" in sight reading. It can be done.

JJ

[jeopardymaster]

Wow. I must be completely wrong on this one.

I would expect anyone to have a pretty solid basis in time, rhythmic accuracy and playing the right notes once they have reached the level that they are auditioning for a select position. For that reason I would put tone quality first with intonation a close second. The other categories are not apt to differentiate the candidates very much in my opinion.

[Calinours89]

For me ITS all about SOUND

A good sound = good PLayer

A exellent Sound = A Exellent player

Thats it

[AsiagoCheezBagel]

I've judged State S&E before, and going into it, I thought that perhaps tone would come second to things like correct pitches, rhythms, etc. But the thing is, without good tone, none of the above is enjoyable to listen to. I am not saying I'd rather hear a player with a good sound miss a bunch of notes, but I'd say tone is AS important as correct rhythms, notes, and dynamics (please do dynamics!!!).

One thing that will make a student stick out to me is if they have a sense of style (in the music, not their wardrobe, haha). How do they interpret the markings (tempo, style, articulation) on the page? This is what makes the difference between just playing right notes, rhythms and dynamics and performing a piece of music. Sure, it might just be a short etude for some audition, but if you're not having fun with it and making music, what's in it for you? We should always practice making music, having fun, and making every note we play as beautiful as possible.

Really think about what YOU want the piece to sound like. Should it sound light and brisk? Should it sound sad? Ask your band director or lessons teacher for feedback... "Does this sound like I am playing something sad/happy/angry?" If there is a stylistic marking on the page like "cantabile" or "pesante," bring that out as much as possible. If you're not sure what a marking means, ask your music teacher or just Google it.

[Donn]

There are quite a few different types of eastern European, mid-eastern, and far eastern types of music that quite obviously put much more weight on rhythm than the beauty of the sonority.

They probably listen to our music and think the same. If we went over there to show them how it's done, they'd say "sorry, you lose, please work on your flabby tone for next year!"

I'm not saying tone is as important than rhythm or whatever. (Is water more important than food? etc., I guess that discussion helps us understand the importance of water, but after a while ... zzzz.) I'm just saying that the existence of a variety of standards for good tone, does not demonstrate that anyone doesn't care about good tone.

[Carroll]

I can understand the viewpoint of euphonium player; One must nearly go out of their way to make the instrument NOT make a "pretty" sound. "Prettiness" is so much a built-in characteristic of the sound of euphonium that - probably to many euphonium players - "pretty" = "music". If I daily played an instrument that - nearly exclusively - made "pretty" sounds, I might weigh that characteristic as most important.

Thanks!

But I do agree on the importance of rhythm. One demonstration I do for every beginning class is to play a song with all of the right notes, but none of the right rhythms. None of the students can identify the tune. When I play the same tune with NONE of the right notes, but with all of the right rhythms... they identify "Jingle Bells" after nine or so notes.

[cjk]

ok, maybe I'm dumb...

If the rhythms are not correct, the notes are also not correct.

The "right notes" played at the "wrong time" are wrong notes.

[ztuba]

if you are auditioning for anything and your rhythm is not 100% on it and your time is bad and you are missing notes ... Why even audition? You are obviously not taking your life seriously if you do audition and you are not taking it serious enough to put in the time to get these things in order first ... you are in effect telling yourself two conflicting statements. 1.) I want to be the best, and 2.) I don't have to be great at what I do. You want to win everything at the high school level? ... practice like you are going to audition for a job making 100k+ a year against professionals and you have to play everything perfectly with musical ideas being transfered from you to your audience. If you are serious about placement you will get a private instructor or beg borrow and steal your band directors time... you have to be accountable to someone for your progress and have someone who can objectively tell you what you suck at and if you are still sucking and how much.

[Matt G]

When judging it does tend to be a compromise. There have been cases where the student with the best sound will get selected while having rhythmic issues, he/she just won't be first chair. I will also say that someone nailing all the rhythms but with incorrect pitches and a thin sound *may* also place but will not be first chair.

Years ago I had two students take first and second chair in an "All-State" (Florida) concert band. The better overall musician took first, but his sound wasn't as full as the second chair player. The second chair player also was a year older, which does have some effect. The guy in first played all the right notes, with good pitch, and excellent time, but with a bit of a thinner sound (but still characteristic). The guy in second played with a fantastic sound, but probably let a few rhythms trip him up.

It really varies from year to year, region to region, and level to level. Overall, in regards to the function of the tuba role, I would say that sound, pitch, range, and dynamic abilities would be the primary choosing points. From most of the music that is played in these groups, I would think that the director is anticipating fixing rhythm problems. Those can normally be sorted out much quicker than trying to get a great sound from a tuba player (specifically from the podium).

[Rick Denney]

An old conductor of mine once told our group: "Professional musicians always play the right note at the right time. They do other things, too."

How many judges are tuba players who know really good tuba tone when they hear it?

Our current band played Ride of the Valkyries about three years ago. The trombone section, try as they might and with the conductor singing the correct rhythm to them on many occasions during rehearsals, could not play the rhythm at all, let alone with the intense clarity demanded by that music. We played it again this last year, and some key personnel changes meant that the trombone section nailed the rhythm. I think the sound improved, too, but maybe it didn't.

Which playing skill is more important? I once asked Lee Hipp one of those dumbass amateur-type questions, "Which is more important, technique or musicianship?"

His answer, "Yes."

In my experience, time and rhythm are most often lacking, followed by dynamics, then by articulation, intonation, and finally by notes and key signature accuracy. The conductor of my current group yells at us about time most often, followed by rhythm and then closely after that by dynamics (and often that because we don't keep time through dynamic changes). For notes, we get only the occasional comment. He tells us, "Rehearsal is when we work out the time and rhythm. You should be dealing with the notes at home."

Rick "not always impressed by the sound of professionals, but always impressed by their dependable rhythmic accuracy" Denney

[Karl H.]

I'm going to take a stab at this one...

I'm old and simple, but to answer the OP most directly, and assuming the "State" in question has a solid music education system (e.g., Texas) my priorities are also simple:

1. Sound: Without a good sound, nothing else matters. If you don't want to hear the sound, who cares if it's played with the correct rhythm and in tune? BTW, I have never heard someone with a bad sound who could play well in tune: flaws in basic tone production produce intonation difficulties that no amount of "listening" can correct.

2. Musicianship: Does this person have something to say? Can it hold my interest? Is there any emotional content to their playing? Someone with a good sound is pleasant to listen to for a short time, but if there is no musical inspiration, the audience/judge will be quickly bored.

Other important aspects (rhythm, accuracy, and intonation primarily, among others) are relative. How bad was their rhythm/accuracy/intonation: was the problem prevalent throughout the performance, or just occasional (just one cracked note, one bad pitch, one shaky rhythm, etc).

I am aware of (rare) bad judges who simply determine the winner by picking whoever plays the fastest while missing the fewest notes, but these are usually lazy piano-player types...

But all aspects being close to equal, as they will be in a top “State” audition (and certainly at the professional level), I choose the best-sounding musical performer as my winner.

Flame on.

Karl "to paraphrase: auditions do not build musical ability, they reveal it" H.

[Karl H.]

I would still offer the premise that an older player (who has been holding down a chair for decades) who shows up in the right clothes / at the right time / with a tuba / is polite and civil / does not (very often) play in rests (at least not in caesurae) / has deteriorated-over-the-years tone production...

...can STILL AVOID being dismissed IF he keeps his pitch WITHIN the range of 10 c. flat to 10 c. sharp MOST of the time.

bloke "particularly if this imagined player doesn't play particularly loudly."

Bloke, you old thread hijacker, how did the ambitious young high school player the OP asked about morph into an old fart who holds down his chair by being a nice guy?! I thought this thread was about what a judge would be looking (listening?) for in an All-State audition...

Karl "typed with much love and respect" H.

[ztuba]

Nice pie chart!!! I am stealing it as we speak

[WoodSheddin]

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/nov2000 ... 37436.html" target="_blank

[Rick Denney]

In the realm of hypotheticals, a person with great rhythm and no correct notes is possible.

But in the real world, the kids with great rhythm are probably going to get most of their notes correct. And those who have the rhythm and the notes completely under control will probably have a workable sound.

Why? Because it's the same process that leads to improvement in all of these categories, at least at this level.

In the end, the kids who have prepared well by practicing hard for years and not being at all lazy are the ones who will excel in all these traits. So, if I were a judge, I would look for the students who show the least evidence of having been lazy.

I think Sean's old post supports that concept.

Rick "thinking laziness will be apparent in a variety of ways" Denney