Singularly, the most
frequent question I’ve received in my international travels and in my many
opportunities to know large numbers of diverse students, has been, “What is the difference between brass
players in various countries”? It’s a very good and interesting question;
in fact, it’s exactly the same question I asked myself 60 years ago while
attending the Eastman School of Music and playing in the Rochester Philharmonic
Orchestra. It’s the question that moved me to write twenty letters to various
European orchestras. Consequently, in 1961 I auditioned and was accepted for
both the Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam, Netherlands, and the Suisse
Romand Orchestra of Geneva, Switzerland. I choose the Concertgebouw.
The answer to that
question then was much different then than it is today; in that span of time
from then to the present, the brass world has seen a huge evolution in the way
of playing, the equipment played, and in the mentalities of the players.
Classical musicians
in the middle of the last century were hugely more nationalistic and
territorial than they are today. As the global community proceeds to emerge,
the musical communities are experiencing much more difficulty in maintaining
their isolationism. Although there still exists cells of a dogmatic ‘closed
shop’ territorialism, it’s visibly disappearing quickly. The premium example of
this trend is the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. Because their artistic
integrity has grown with the times, they now seek the best available players worldwide
and consequently enjoy the highest level of music making.
Part of the
nationalistic tendencies from the last century came from the type of
instruments that were played largely because of the simple fact that they were
available. Musicians then were quite resistant to change, especially on
something so personal as the type of instrument they played and the kind of
sound that they were used to. Instruments are essentially an extension of our
body. In the Concertgebouw Orchestra, for example, in the early 60s the
trombone section played on very small French instruments, which had a bore size
slightly smaller than the symphonic trumpets of today! Very quickly and
personally, I want to say that’s not necessarily a bad thing, when used on the
right repertoire, these, now nearly obsolete trombones sounded wonderful.
Similarly, in 1989 I had the opportunity to hear the Maggio Musicale Orchestra
(the Symphony orchestra of Florence, Italy,) while playing for conductor who
was 84 years old and who requested a section of valve trombones (the
traditional old Italian style) in a Donizetti opera; it was so right, it was so
beautiful.
This begs the
question: Should the modern symphony orchestra use the finest most
sophisticated instruments available to play the masterworks of past centuries
or should it play from the viewpoint of a ‘sonic museum’ and use the
instruments of the repertoire’s period?
There are rumors the
Vienna Philharmonic, a very traditional orchestra, is dealing with exactly that
question, there are those who want to keep the true Vienna sound at all costs,
and those who want to move one to the finest modern and most sophisticated instruments
available. It’s a difficult question; is it possible to have it both ways?
But that’s answering
the question, as it would have been perceived 60 years ago. There were huge
differences then in both nationalistic and individual performance development.
Today, wherever we go, we encounter great players and great ensembles. There
are highly developed individuals and ensembles everywhere and it is no longer
national tendencies that lead these high levels of performance, it is far more
the personal qualities and universal musical influences that have led this
development. Of course, as in all aspects of our lives now, we have the Internet showing us the best, (and worst) in our shrinking global community, particularly, the Internet
is reaching musicians.
Today there is
excellence everywhere and it’s becoming clearly evident that superb excellence
comes in many verities; just think of the variations that can appear in one
brass quintet. A brass quintet, for example, has 31 collective personalities;
each individual, each combination of 2, each of 3, of 4 and the complete 5,
that opens doors to a lot of stylistic ideas, and of course, there will be no
two brass quintets that will sound the same. A superb world-class quintet in
Hungary and another in Italy will certainly sound completely different yet
absolutely beautiful in their own way. The time of nationalistic characteristics
is passing and the time of unique collective and personal characteristics and
musicality has arrived.
Since the last tuba
symposium I attended I was struck by the change that has happened in the last
half century. Instead of perhaps one or two players out of twenty-five that may
have sounded musical 50 years ago, today the number might very well be the
whole twenty-five are musical players.
So back to the
question: “What is the difference between
brass players in various countries”? Today’s answer is that there is
excellence everywhere, the language will change, the mentality will be
different, the sense of humor will strikingly differ from place to place but
excellence in performance is a worldwide thing now and it’s spreading. Let’s
hope this evolution continues and let’s remember we are all a part of it.
Keep asking
questions.
June 29, 2015,
Xochimilco, Oaxaca, Mexico
