This is a horrendous comparison between two fields with entirely different metrics of success.bloke wrote:It is possible to win golf tournaments with ugly/spastic swings, as the only goal is to minimize the number of strokes.
It’s more difficult to coax smiles (as well as donations and ticket sales) from music patrons - when producing ugly sounds, just because someone producing those sounds feels certain that they are going about it technically and physiologically correctly, via research/analysis/statistics/etc.
Yet others seem more fascinated in posting debate rhetoric than in achieving the ability to produce a marketable and aesthetically pleasing product.
A golfer does not care about aesthetics and thus can win a tournament without much regard for them.
A tubist does, and because tuba playing is a physical activity, it follows that there are technical, physical, and anatomical factors that go into the creation of a decent sound. (This isn't to say that a beautiful sound leads to beautiful playing, as understanding of the music and the audience are also critical).
This is similar to a painter choosing just the right paints, and ensuring that the paints are empirically of a high quality. There is no subjectivity in the quality of paints and their ability to endure, which is largely the debate going on in this thread - technical knowledge which serves to expand the facility for musical expression. The painter still needs to have vision, and the tubist still needs to have musicality, but the technical aspects make the end product easier to achieve and more reliable.
Just because YOU personally do not approach tuba playing in a technical-before-musical way does mean that it is an invalid method of playing. I'd argue that patrons are more likely to notice a technical mistake than they are an artistic decision.
For players trying to develop their sound and technique, "technical talk" can make all the difference in the world as a means to clearly discuss differences in technique. Sure, there isn't a 1-1 correspondence of "I keep my teeth 3mm apart so you should too", but the ideas of teeth together/separate, more upper/lower lip, etc are all things that must be discussed, in order that they become something with which young students experiment.
If you try and suppress all technical discussion, you suppress the sharing of information that may lead young players to discover their own sound faster than blind experimentation.
That said, I agree that just because someone THINKS their technique is right does not mean they are creating their best sound. But without the ability to discuss technique clearly and objectively, there is little hope for correcting their technique.
), in-depth analysis is good, but NOT while we're actually playing. The focus while playing should be on the message. Sure, you are aware of how the message sounds (that's part of the deal), but over-analysis while playing is counter-productive. .
