Mumford -- Art and Technics (ix)

"...this recognition of the human importance of technics was indeed one of the radical discoveries of modern times...[Bacon] proposed to honor inventors and scientists in the way that mankind had once honored statesmen, saints, philosophers, and religious prophets...[Marx] pointed out that the means by which a culture gained its living and mastered the physical and economic problems of existence altered profoundly its spiritual attitudes and purposes. ...The world had too long overlooked the significance of technical effort. To the old categories of the good, the true, and the [38] beautiful, modern man added an important factor that slave cultures had overlooked or degraded: the useful. That was a notable human advance." (37-38)

"Man's success in technics depended, however, upon two conditions. One of these was beneficial to the development of his personality, the other in some degree inimical to it. The great original contribution of technics was not merely to man's physical life, but to his sanity and general balance: it gave him a certain kind of respect for the nature of the materials and processes with which he worked, a sense of the painful fact that no amount of coaxing or cajoling, no repetition of spells or runes, no performance of sympathetic magic, could change a block of flint into an arrowhead or a knife. ...it was important for man's further development and maturity that he should [42] recognize that there are certain conditions of nature that can be mastered only if he approaches them with humility, indeed with self-effacement." (41-42)

[the second, "inimical" condition...] "Man's need for order and power turns him toward technics and the object, precisely as his need for playful activity, for autonomous creation, for significant expression, turns him to art and the symbol. But however important man's technical achievements are to his survival and development, we must not overlook the fact that they have, for the greater part of historic times, been achieved only at a painful sacrifice of his other functions. Except to meet pressing needs and interests, few men would devote themselves to a whole lifetime of mechanical work; indeed, those forms of work that are most effectively dehumanized--like mining--were for long treated as punishment, fit only for condemned criminals" (45-46)

So, the Technical in fact has a higher purpose beyond its material, earthly one. Albeit limited in scope, this purpose is nonetheless essential. For individuals and collectivities alike, Technics are an empirical pathway towards certain crucial developmental landmarks: towards "sanity and general balance;" towards "respect for the nature of the materials and processes" involved; towards the realization that "there are certain conditions of nature that can be mastered only if [the technician] approaches them with humility"; and, on the cosmic level, proof of "useful[ness]" as a universal value, not merely a contingent phenomenon. These are not the sentiments of a technophobe, but they do set rather narrow boundaries both for the role of Technics and for normative human development, ontogenetic and phylogenetic alike. Like any such narrow prescriptions they can be problematized on the grounds that they are not as universal as they purport to be. I confess that I for one would not be inclined to take that tack. This all describes quite well precisely what I feel I've learned from wrestling with various instruments, acoustic environments and bodily limitations. It doesn't (or it shouldn't) take a full-on natural disaster for us to learn to appreciate the power of nature; in fact colloquial reliance on disasters in their capacity as Lessons Learned points precisely to a loss of humility and understanding vis-a-vis nature, a devolution into primitive irrationality which is justified by the seeming irrationality of nature herself in bulldozing houses on one side of the street while leaving those on the other side untouched. No, if you're a wind or brass instrumentalist you can learn the same lesson less hazardously just by trying to play in tune in uncomfortably hot or cold climes. I will be thinking about this as I attempt to do so later today.

Mumford -- Art and Technics (vii)

"Order of any kind gives man a sense of security: it is the changeful, the unexpected, the capricious, in other words the unpredictable and uncontrollable, that fill him with anxiety and dread. Hence whenever man becomes unsure of himself, or whenever his creative powers seem inadequate, whenever his symbolisms breed confusion and conflict, his tendency is either to find a refuge in blind Fate, or to concentrate upon those processes in which his own subjective interests are not directly involved. Our psychiatrists have discovered, in recent years, the genuine healing value of mechanical processes like weaving; and weaving remained, down almost to modern times, the highest type of mechanical order..." (44)

Musical instruments and the attendant details in learning to play them fall all along this continuum from "the unpredictable and uncontrollable" at one extreme, to total "mechanical order" at the other. Temperature changes affect different instruments differently. Reeds and corks, springs and strings, sticks and heads are all consumable items, introducing different degrees and kinds of uncertainty into technique and performance practice. Wooden recorders become saturated with water after a certain amount of playing and have to be swapped out; brass players meanwhile can, in a pinch, empty quite a bit of residual condensation in a second or two. Water management is a wellspring (sorry) of in-group humor for musicians of all ages, orientations and abilities, yet it does profoundly shape what is possible for the instruments and for the people who play them. In other words, it is political, just like matters of instrumentation always are.

Certainly these politics loom large wherever "genuine healing value" is prioritized. There are many reasons why brass players generally are not in the healing business (and often in quite the opposite business). Brass technique is uniquely untransparent to beginners; the physical demands are severe; a big-picture resonance between student and instrument can be foreclosed by fixed factors of oral anatomy. Though there is, in another way, nothing less than a cosmic order governing the brass universe, callow tweens thrust into study of a brass instrument do tend to find its operation "capricious," and this is a very unfortunate part of our endeavor.

Activation

Today I listened, at his behest, to a very talented younger friend run down an upcoming classical trumpet audition. I have all but cut bait with the mainstream classical brass world at this point and found myself frequently prefacing/qualifying comments with, "What I'm about to say explains exactly why I don't do this anymore, but..." I am speaking specifically of questions of "expression," that ever-loaded, euphemistic catchall for everything that's not on the printed page. Everyone who has crawled under this particular rock for any period of time has spent countless hours in private lessons being told that a certain line needs more direction, that the speed, width, or amount of vibrato is not quite right, that all the notes and rhythms are there and all that is needed now is to "make music," as if that phrase means the same thing to everyone everywhere for all time. For my friend today, for me always, and I suspect for many, many other classical brass students, the challenge is simply caring, about what we are playing, about the people listening, and, highly problematically I would argue, about what kind of carrot is dangling at the end of the stick du jour. When the music is "our" music, and when the carrot is something real and personal and not simply career-driven grasping, it doesn't matter whether we're playing for thousands of people, one person, a microphone, or an empty room; but when the music is anything less than the very core of our identity, "expression" threatens to materialize only as a contrivance, if sometimes a convincing one, or perhaps not at all. This is a non-problem; it vanishes in "our" music as quickly as it appears elsewhere. But of course, even for the most uncompromising among us, the line between "our" music and the rest is not always so clear. For the moment Bach is my one lifeline to classical quasi-legitimacy, but I wouldn't refuse to play Hindemith, Kraft, or Galliard again, even though none of them are quite core identity material. I would be well-prepared technically simply because I would enjoy playing them, but in absence of an engaged audience I probably would need some prodding to "make music." And if this were all a teacher could think to offer me, I wouldn't be getting much out of my tuba lessons. Stylization is personal business, and it can scarcely be verbalized anyway.

Another can of worms, perhaps for another post: prescribed repertoire is essentially a means of controlling for personality. If competitors were allowed to choose their own rep, committees would have to judge on the aesthetics of the collective presentation instead of on (a) brute technique, and (b) the ability to play as if one cared deeply about (usually) awful music. We hear so much handwringing over (a), but I would insist that (b), being as it is highly destructive of sincerity, is actually the far greater evil.

Conditioning Best Practices for Tuba Player(s)

[Update 11/28/14: Wow. This entire post is garbage. Almost all of it, anyway. Sorry everyone. I really have been tied in quite the knot over this during the last several years. Things have brightened just a bit recently, and I will be publishing a brief corrective today, hopefully one which ages better than this one has as my investigations continue. I am leaving this up only for the sake of curiosity and historical accuracy.]

One of the most valuable aspects of returning to school has been the opportunity to begin a sort of empirical investigation of how to stay in tuba shape. The frenzy of my undergraduate years, which often included an inhumane amount of daily tuba playing (as often at my own behest as that of the institution) was tremendously productive in many ways, and yet because it was more or less impossible to get out of shape under those circumstances (and also because I was younger and more resilient), I left school with no reliable method or plan of attack for maintaining this level of conditioning, or even, as I realized just a few years ago, any real understanding of how conditioning works.

I hasten to clarify that I am not referring here to matters of embouchure, airstream or any other external "product" or the physical technique of producing it, but rather to the internal chemical and mechanical condition of the muscle and soft tissue surrounding the mouth which, to a greater or lesser degree depending on your level of Jacobsian mysticism, mediates one's physical ability to create those external results. I'm a long way from a thorough clinical understanding of this sort of thing, nor am I finished with my anecdotal investigation of the various factors through the more tractable lens of musical results. However, I thought it would be worth inventorying and sharing the strongest of my suspicions as they stand today. Consider this list subject to revision and highly personal.

-----

•Play for an absolute minimum of three 20 minute individual practice sessions every day. At least one should be longer and involve "feeling the burn" in your corners (i.e. where the muscles are; the center of the embouchure contains very little muscle and any pain or discomfort there is a major red flag). Two half-hour sessions at early and late hours have occasionally been sufficient, but usually not for an extended period of time, and especially not if what happens in between them is physically and/or mentally taxing.

•The most reliable way to "feel the burn" is to play music with no or very few breaks and lots of large intervals: Bach suites, jazz saxophone transcriptions, walking bass lines, running patterns and licks in all transpositions with a metronome, etc.

•"Feeling the burn" can range from working up to the point where you just begin to feel it and then stopping all the way to what I've heard weightlifters refer to as "total failure," when your muscles simply can't fire anymore. The happy zone on any given day is probably somewhere in between, so listen to what your face is telling you, not just that day but in terms of the larger patterns of how your chops have felt day by day for the preceding couple of weeks.

•Don't count rehearsal time as maintenance time unless it is so taxing that further playing that same day feels counterproductive or injurious. If this is the case, you've already given your muscles all they could handle that day.

•Space practice sessions evenly throughout the day. Don't play within an hour of your sleep: 1-2 hours after awaking is ideal; up to 4 hours before falling asleep seems tenable, though later seems to work just as well. Keep in mind that if you are a daily practicer, the longest you go without playing on a daily basis is between your evening session and the next morning; keep an eye on this time and don't let it get too terribly long one way or the other. Leave more time between your first and second practice sessions each day than between your second and third.

•At least 6 uninterrupted hours of sleep are absolutely required for a full recovery. Sleeping in shorter blocks for any amount of time is virtually useless to the muscles even if it is highly restful mentally.

•The most common interruptions are noise and nature calling. Therefore, I sleep with earplugs and limit food and drink to the extent possible after 8pm. Salt, alcohol and caffeine all will have you pissing your brains out a matter of hours later, so keep fairly dry, fatty, completely unsalted snacks handy in case you're really hungry late at night: unsalted sardines, extra firm tofu, dried fruit and nuts can be all consumed in satisfying quantities without precipitating a piss-fest. Two sips of wine a hour or two before bedtime can be relaxing; the alcohol will also dry you out a bit provided you leave enough time before sleeping for it to do its work, and it is also an appetite suppressant if you're feeling excessively snacky at an inconvenient time. Salt is just dangerous. Don't mess with it. Seriously. I cook primarily with Bragg's Liquid Aminos, which is (are?) miraculously low in sodium, and just a pinch of iodized salt here and there.

•Napping, while again often highly restful in every other way, is incredibly, gallingly destructive to the cycle of rest and recovery. My chops do not seem to differentiate between napping and sleeping: in other words, if I any more than doze off for a few minutes, it's as if I've "gone to bed" and my body hits the reset button. That is to say that if, for example, I have two practice sessions before 3pm, at which time I take a nap, awaking at 5pm, it is as if I have a new day on my hands, except (a) I had one too few practice sessions the previous day, (b) my body has not fully recovered from the previous day because I did not get at least 6 hours of uninterrupted sleep, and (c) I don't have enough time before I will be tired again to replicate a full practice day. Hence, I have essentially taken one potentially productive day and turned it into two unproductive days marked by the double-whammy of not enough sleep or practice, and two unproductive days in a row is generally four times worse than one. Further, this almost always leads to interrupted sleep for two or three more nights, which makes things even worse.

•Having said all of that, when the issue is fatigue and not underconditioning, it is likely that I will wake up from a long-ish nap with unusually loose, fresh feeling chops but very little endurance. I do this only in desperate circumstances because it tends to yield very good results in concert later that night; however, the long-term effect is similar to that described above, since you are still vastly undercooking your face and underrecovering two "days" in a row instead of one. I shudder to think how much of my life I've spent trying to get back into shape after doing this, so as miserable as it can be to be tired all day, I've started toughing it out until my normal bedtime almost no matter what.

•Eat a little bit of animal protein every day. It's clear to me now that my days as a strict vegetarian nearly ruined me. Perhaps it is possible to make this work, but I've found it much easier to simply reintroduce fish to my diet, which has lots of stuff besides protein that vegetarians don't get enough of. The rest of my current diet is very nearly strictly vegan across the board, so I'm not as concerned practically or philosophically with this single concession as I once would have been. While this was not the "magic bullet" I though it might be, it has in combination with the sleep guidelines made a significant difference in my conditioning. I began to suspect something was up years ago but couldn't confirm it. Rather, it was two separate incidents nearly a year apart which I couldn't explain, one at the tail end of a See Us Be Cute tour, the other when I moved to California last year. In both cases, the exigencies of travel meant that I (a) didn't practice much for several days, and (b) ate a ton of meat for being trapped at restaurants which didn't serve much else. In both cases, despite being completely exhausted and not in the best of spirits, I had indestructible chops two days later.

•Perhaps I simply have not mastered the craft of conditioning, but my final remark for now is that I have thus far found true consistency virtually unattainable, and in fact, even as an undergrad when conditioning per se was a non-issue and I maintained a near-fanatical devotion to routine, consistency was still a major problem. Some brass players insist that if you are consistent enough in the structure of your practice, it will translate directly to your conditioning; others maintain this is all in our heads and that if we so much as take note of how our chops physically feel, we have already lost the battle. I feel that both mindsets have let me down in a big way. My feeling has always been that there is a cycle of sorts at work; more recently, I've begun to suspect that one big piece to this puzzle which I have not yet mastered is ascertaining on a daily basis what my face needs. This probably sounds odd, but I have only recently learned to tell the difference between extreme fatigue and extreme underconditioning with a reasonable degree of accuracy: the physical sensations and musical results are remarkably similar. This is undoubtedly the source of some severe frustration in years past as it is then far too easy to mistake one for the other, which leads you to actually do the worst possible thing to your face that day. I will say that true days of rest are almost always conditioning setbacks, even if they are physically necessary to avoid injury; therefore, it becomes extremely important to avoid becoming this fatigued. Assuming this is attained, ideal conditioning seems to me to require a kind of scheduling flexibility that is almost impossible for most people, whether students, amateurs or professionals, since you have to react to subtle changes in your chops by adding or cutting practice sessions, or adjusting what you do during them and for how long. I know it's silly to get this detailed about it, but I've found the alternative terribly unsatisfying and counterproductive, and so I'm paying special attention these days to the Chop Cycle and trying different ways of gaming it to stay as strong and loose as possible. Did I mention that the parameters "strong/weak," "tight/loose," and "swollen/limber" all seem to operate independently of each other? It's quite a minefield, but I'm committed to figuring it out, hopefully sometime before my faculties start to erode from old age. To be continued...

Reinforcement

Consider this a mere prelude to a longer reflection on the topic of conditioning, but like most of us horn jocks, I'm continually fascinated/horrified at the relationship brass players have to our mistakes. It's a staple of music school lexicon that the best way to eliminate mistakes is not to practice them, but is it truly possible for a brass player not to practice their mistakes? Ever? Seems to me that no matter how hard we try, unless we are both independently wealthy and exceptionally, pathologically driven, we are going to have days where the ol' choppers simply won't cooperate, whether by virtue of over- or under-cooking the previous day(s). A day off to rest may or may not be in order depending on the particular sonic malaise, and even if it is, it may or may not result in a real live "good day" when we return. Most likely, we need to play some, if not a lot, and it's not going to sound good, i.e. it's going to be one big "mistake," or a series of them. And if we simply sit around waiting for a good day, we eliminate the very possibility, in addition to earning ourselves days or weeks of restorative maintenance filled with "mistakes." If there is a solution to be found here, it remains a mystery to me.

My grandmother, who never played professionally but had an acute musical sense, once said that what made brass entrances most exciting was the suspense surrounding the heightened potential for something to go wrong. I'm now imagining some orchestra outreach type in a sport coat and tennis shoes proffering this alongside his allegorical interpretation of sonata form as part of the hidden code of classical music listening. He might be half right.

Walling

I continue to meet classically-trained brass players who also play cooler music on cooler instruments quite well, but who have built a wall between the two endeavors. None of them are happy about it. What gives, y'all? You've done all the hard work! Crossing over should be easy.

I was a brass specialist by 8th grade and a tuba specialist by 11th. I kick myself harder and harder over it as the years go on and my piano chops remain flaccid. Yet this also meant that I had no choice but to pursue the music I was interested in on the only instrument I was able to play well enough to do so. And of course, it was never in question whether the tuba and I were right for each other, even if other pairings could conceivably have worked out just as well. (Anecdotal evidence suggests that strings were not in the cards, though. I don't know how anybody plays those cursed things.)

In any case, I suspect our pedagogy is at fault. Brass playing in every style needs to become an art again (if it ever was before) rather than a craft. When it does, we will own our complete musical personalities on any instrument on which we have attained sufficient technique to do so. Walling will be a thing of the past.

Equipment Odyssey

It seems like about once a year, I receive an e-mail from another tuba player wondering which instrument, mouthpiece, etc. I use, as well as my reasons for doing so. Rather than reinventing the wheel in a fresh series of e-mails every time I get these questions, as I've been doing, I'm going to attempt to answer them definitively in this space ahead of time so that I can simply refer future inquiries here. Obviously, that's somewhat impossible to do for all time, since I reserve the right to change my mind and/or my horn at any point. I'll try to remember to post any future updates at the end of the thread.

As the first order of business, I'll simply list my equipment, since that's the info most people are after. If for some reason you're interested in reading further about how I arrived at this point and how it has served me, I'm also including an exhaustive "FAQ" section that goes beyond the "what" to the "why" and "how." If you're a non-tubist who reads this blog more for the musico-philosophical ramblings, consider yourself warned: I speak fluent gearhead, even though it's not my native tongue. My feelings won't be hurt in the least if you decide to sit this one out and wait for the next post on the nature of perception or some other abstract shit. It won't be long, I promise.

Without further ado...

My Current Set-Up
tuba: Meinl-Weston 2141 E-flat Tuba
purchased: new, in August, 2006 from Woodwind and Brasswind
bore: .748 (.768 5th valve) valves: 4 pistons (non-compensating), 5th rotor
mouthpieces: Melton 18 (the one that came with the horn) and Kelly 18 (two spares...I'm forgetful, and so I hide mouthpieces like Easter eggs; good thing these actually kind of look like Easter eggs)
mute: Humes and Berg Stonelined Symphonic (purchased long before the horn, but works ok with it)
oil: Hetman Piston Lubricant #2
transport: Altieri custom gig bag (top loading)

FAQ

•Why do you play an E-flat tuba?
The short answer is that once I decided to choose a horn based on what I needed to use it for rather than what key it's in, I was left with only a few choices, and most of them were E-flats. In the months and years leading up to the purchase of my current instrument, I was guided by 3 primary concerns, discussed below:

(1) finding a medium-sized instrument (non-tuba players are surely having a laugh at that statement, but keep in mind I'm talking relatively here) that could serve as my only tuba (i.e. as opposed to playing 2 or 3 tubas of varying sizes and keys, which most professionals of various stripes currently do).
Tuba players will debate endlessly whether being a one-horn player is a good idea, even for those of us that perform almost exclusively with small groups. There are many reasons I decided to go this route. First and foremost, I have one sound concept, not two, and frankly, I got sick of trying to make my big horn and my small horn sound the same. That's not the point of having two horns anyway. Secondly, my decision not to pursue an orchestral career obviated the need to own a very large instrument capable of anchoring a very large ensemble, and along with it, the need to also own a very small instrument capable of doing what the very large one couldn't (namely, everything else). Finally, I'm not ashamed to admit that the convenience factor was indeed a consideration (and I'm not just talking about logistical convenience, but also the musical and technical convenience of investing 100% of one's practice time in a single horn).

As an ignorant college freshman who had just received my first tuba as an exceedingly generous high school graduation present from my family, finding out that owning two horns was de rigeur in my chosen field was a shock I wasn't prepared for. It seemed patently absurd on economic and logistical grounds alone, but also on musical ones, as I didn't know enough to think that I couldn't play anything and everything on the very large BB-flat tuba I had just acquired. Through a combination of knowledge gathering, general mellowing out, and many many fruitless practice sessions trying to scream out bebop solos on a big rotary valve horn, I now have a greater understanding of and respect for the reasons why a player would see fit to own two tubas. I have to admit, though, that the initial shock of that absurdity still hasn't worn off, mostly because the two-horn paradigm is so narrowly focused on the professional orchestral world. Once I got outside of that particular box, I couldn't think of a good reason to play two horns. I still can't.

If it sounds like I'm overreaching here, it's because I really like my horn and can't believe how well suited it is to damn near everything. I even got to play it in the back of a medium-sized orchestra once and got nothing but positive feedback. I also used it successfully on a major orchestra sub list audition which consisted mostly of big-horn rep. Yes, overall convenience was always in the back of my mind, but I do truly feel that I've found my voice on this horn, and I wouldn't play it were that not the case (more about that below).

(2) The best compromise in playability throughout all registers, including the extremes.
This is partly a function of #1, but not exclusively. I've played plenty of BBb and CC tubas that can't hold a candle to the low register on my horn. The greatest compromise with this horn is the high range, which I find to be somewhat stiff and lacking in response in comparison to some of the higher end F tubas that I've tried. I chose it anyway because high playing is my strength; I need more help on the low end, and this horn gives me exactly that.

Perhaps choosing a horn that compensates for your weaknesses over one that enhances your strengths isn't exactly doing things by the book; if you think about it, the latter is necessarily a two-horn paradigm and the former a one-horn paradigm. In any case, I'd say that owning a different horn for each one of your weaknesses most definitely is a cop out. At the earlier stages of development, it's also a good way to stunt one's musical growth. Conversely, I have no more excuses for not being able to play low, and no choice as to which horn is going to get me there. That has made it easier to focus and get things done. Meanwhile, the high range has solidified nicely now that I've spent some quality time with the instrument, and I now feel great about the 4 octaves from the lowest BBb on the piano on up, all inclusive chromatically. I can't say that about any of the other horns I've owned.

(3) My sound concept, which is irrevocably influenced by the older, American-made BBb tubas I grew up playing and hearing.
The Meinl-Weston E-flat isn't exactly a sonic clone of these horns, but it's at least a kindred spirit, capable of a clear, round tone, especially down low (and even with many or all of the valves down, which in my experience is exceptional for a tuba in any key). The character in the middle and upper range is more directly akin to what comes out of a big BBb in the same range, only it's many times easier to play up there on a smaller horn. The intonation is also above average, if a little quirky in a few peculiar places.

After one of my very first performances with this horn, my mother, who had become rather fond of the sound of the Yamaha 621 F tuba I had played previously, remarked that whereas before my sound had something dynamic, it now just sounded like a regular old tuba. One is always wary of disappointing one's parents, but in a strange way, I knew from this comment that I had chosen the right horn. The Yamaha certainly has something all its own, something dynamic and unattainable on any other tuba, but this certain something is inescapable on that horn, permeating every note one plays on it. As the cliche goes (it's a cliche in the tuba world, at least), on the Yamaha I sounded like I was playing a Yamaha, whereas on the Meinl-Weston I sound like myself. All horns put you in a box to some extent; that's another reason people often play more than one. My problem is that I never really wanted or needed two distinct sound concepts, but rather one horn with a more generic tuba sound which can then be subtly altered in many different ways. And now, that's what I've got.

My mother's comment also came after I had only been playing the horn for a matter of months; with time, I feel I've increasingly made it my own, though that process still ongoing. The most important thing, though, is that its happening at all, that the horn I'm playing is flexible enough to allow my sound to evolve into something personal rather than just my version of the Yamaha sound or the Meinl-Weston sound.

One of the things I do miss about the Yamaha is that it records well. By this, I mean that the sound right off the bell in a dead room, while far from ideal, is something that someone might actually want to listen to. I can't say the same for the Meinl-Weston; it needs a lot of help in such situations. However, get it into a medium-sized concert or recital hall and it absolutely sings. It's frustrating that in my line of work (i.e. playing mostly in less-than-ideal acoustical spaces, like bars and galleries), this defect is often readily apparent. Even so, I'm not willing to sacrifice everything else this horn allows me to do simply for that reason.

•Are you saying everyone should play E-flat?
Of course not. That's silly. Everyone should play the horn (or horns) that suit their needs and their concept. Having said that, I think it's undeniable that many American tuba players view the E-flat tuba as something of a novelty, and that they'd be wise to reconsider. There are many reasons this view persists; the dogmatism of many big-name orchestral tuba players and teachers towards playing CC and F tubas exclusively is a big one; then there's the simple fact that the key of Eb is the furthest from the key of C of any of the keys tubas are made in; finally, there's the dominance of the two-horn paradigm, which dictates that the two instruments be sufficiently different enough from each other to justify using both of them (the horn that I play is bigger than many doublers' "small" horns, although there are a few players who use it as such; there are of course, smaller E-flats available which fill the "small" horn role more capably).

One thing we don't lack are visible examples of successful E-flat tubists: Øystein Baadsvik, Patrick Sheridan, and Marty Erickson all come to mind. But these players are not primarily known as orchestral players, nor even necessarily just as "straight classical" players; to some extent, they all do a variety of other things that most tubists (sadly) don't or can't do. I think that partially explains their choice of instrument, though you'd have to ask them to be sure, but even if this is the case, if it is to have an influence on future generations of tuba players, it will likely have to be an indirect one. That's because neither the institutions of higher learning where "serious" music hides out nor the students who show up at their doors each fall seem to give a rodent's behind about anything but orchestral excerpts drawn from what is now not only a very narrow cross section of all extant music, but in fact a pretty darn narrow cross section of Western Music specifically as well. One day, university music schools in this country will cease to emphasize disproportionately over all other styles and forms of Western musical performance this single facet of its staggeringly diverse history. Until then, though, you're not likely to see too many students coming out of college playing one horn, and especially not playing Eb as their one horn, not if they want to graduate at least.

•Was it hard learning E-flat fingerings? What about jazz and improvising?
Tubas are made in 4 keys, and I had played all the others regularly at some point before I purchased my E-flat (my experience on CC was limited to high school band, but it still comes back to me on the rare occasion that I pick one up). After switching from euphonium to tuba in 9th grade, I played primarily BBb tuba all the way through my 4th year of college, picking up F tuba along the way in my 2nd year. It was like pulling teeth. Even when I sold the BBb after college and spent a year freelancing with the F tuba as the only horn I owned, my sight-reading never approached the level it had been at with the BBb. Improvising was also extremely difficult at first, but working through that process is unquestionably the most beneficial thing I've ever done for my jazz playing. It reduces everything a developing improvisor is wrestling with to its essence and attaches it to you like a ball and chain until you overcome it. After merely dabbling with it for the first couple of years I owned the F, I finally took the plunge my senior year and never looked back. Suddenly, keys mattered less than they ever did, and I was thinking about what I was doing in a way that I hadn't before.

Having been through the process once before definitely played a part in easing the transition from F to E-flat. However, I think that the more important difference was that I went cold turkey. I played my first public jazz gig on E-flat after only having owned it for a couple of weeks. That would have been impossible 5 years earlier when I first picked up my F, but then again, besides the fact that I was older and more experienced, it bears mentioning that when I bought the F, I continued to play BBb at least 70% of the time for a couple of years, and didn't play the F with a school ensemble until I'd had it for almost a year and a half. Conversely, when I bought my E-flat, I put the F in its case and didn't take it out for quite a long time. I relearned all the music for all the bands I was playing in, and started running Real Book tunes in all transpositions in whatever time was left over. I didn't miss a beat because I didn't have a choice. I was in the earliest stages of a freelance career and was earning quite meager living, but people were paying me nonetheless, even if it wasn't a lot, and so it had to be good right off the bat.

The issue of "fingerings" is a silly one in my mind. Some younger tuba players are envious of instruments where the music itself is transposed to make the fingerings the same for every instrument in the family; they may not realize that any saxophone or trumpet player worth their salt can read in at least a couple of different transpositions, including concert pitch. Similarly, other instrumentalists are often confused when I tell them I'm not transposing my part when I read it, as are some composers when I tell them I play an E-flat tuba but prefer a part in concert pitch. Frankly, the tuba family functions the way that most sensible people nowadays can only wish that saxophones and trumpets did, namely, that music is always written in concert pitch, regardless of which key the instrument playing it is pitched in. There's a tradition of writing transposed tuba parts in British-style brass bands, but internationally, that seems to be an anomaly (I'm thankful that I took a detour through the trumpet section as a middle schooler, since the ability to read Bb treble clef became indispensable later on; and of course, Eb treble clef and bass clef look almost the same, so nowadays, that takes care of itself).

My long winded point? Get the horn that plays with the sound, pitch, and response that you want. Then learn to deal with the key. In that order. Period.

•Why do you play pistons instead of rotors?
I'm not much of a scholar on this topic, but it's worth mentioning anyway. I had tuba teachers along the way who advocated strongly for both, and usually just as strongly against the other. To state the obvious, the first horn I played (a euphonium) was a piston horn. Though I cut my teeth on a rotary horn in college, in the end, I never really felt at home that way. When I went looking for a horn to take to college, I realized that if I was to be stubborn about (1) playing BBb, and (2) having 5 valves, I had very few choices...as in, like, 2 choices: a Miraphone 186, which is what I ended up with, and a VMI, the model number of which escapes me (unfortunately, the Miraphone 1291 did not yet exist in the year 2000).

I loved the 186, which just so happened to have rotors, and so I decided to put up with them. It wasn't something that ever particularly bothered me, and frankly, it even took a while to warm up to pistons once I added a piston F to my stable. Nonetheless, fast forward to 2009 and I can't imagine ever playing a rotary horn again. For one thing, rotors will work flawlessly for months or even years with little or no maintenance, but if something does go wrong, it's an instant crisis. Pistons, on the other hand, seem to present a different piddily annoyance each and every day, but these seldom coalesce into a repair emergency.

If you're wondering why I haven't mentioned jazz playing yet, you're onto something. Again, I came of age playing bebop on that Miraphone, and that training has served me extremely well ever since. However, pistons just feel better when it comes to bebop playing. I can't get any more specific than that, other than to point to one minor quibble with rotors, which is that half-valving is incredibly difficult to control. I'm not absolutely certain as I've never taken a rotary horn apart, but I suspect that the problem lies in the surface area in between the two holes in the valve (i.e. the hole that merely passes the air on to the next tube and the hole that diverts the air into that valve's slide, changing the pitch). With pistons, there's quite a bit of play there, sometimes enough to block the air column almost completely. With rotors, though, there's just barely enough to maybe get lucky if you put the valve in just the right position. If you don't (likely) you don't get the desired effect.

That's the only concrete reason I can think of to play pistons over rotors. I'll let others compare physics equations if they want, but for me, it comes down to a combination of this small practical matter with a broader conceptual intuition that is completely subjective.

Just Call Us "Other"

You can't make this stuff up...

From the Department of Poorly Written Program Notes, co-presented with the Department of Inadvertently Displayed Ignorance, and with promotional consideration provided by the Department of Midwestern Artsy-Fartsy Cuteness, I give you the blurb on George Benjamin's At First Light from the SPCO's "Program at a Glance," the condensed program notes that accompany the regular length program notes so that people who kind of care but kind of don't can learn something about the noise that is about to be foisted on them without taking too much time away from coughing and whispering to each other about how much they hate new music:


GEORGE BENJAMIN
At First Light

This piece, written when Benjamin was 22, was inspired by Turner's painting Norham Castle, Sunrise, an early precursor to impressionism. The music is itself a pastiche of gestures and abstractions. Fourteen musicians play more than 30 colorful instruments, including a bass trombone, whip, and a large newspaper.


Where to start? The appeal to age-based novelty is hardly uncommon, nor is the use of the term "gesture" as a backhanded compliment to a piece of new music, nor is the gratuitous use of an adjective such as "colorful" to distract listeners from the dissonance they're about to encounter. The crown jewel of this blurb, however, is the implication that the bass trombone is on par for novelty with a whip. A whip?!

It's true, I'm a low brass player myself, and hence a but biased, maybe even more than a bit insecure about our always tenuous status as "standard" members of the orchestra. That point aside, to categorize the bass trombone as novel is one thing, but to lump it in with whips and newspapers is completely absurd and ignorant. Not that I have anything against whips and newspapers (or rocks or sirens or bowed crotales...actually, I do have something against bowed crotales, but that story will have to wait for another time) being used as musical instruments, but I don't think its a stretch to say that the bass trombone has historically played a more significant role in the orchestra than they have.

In larger orchestras, the instrument is quite standardly used as the 3rd trombone, even if "bass" trombone was not specified by the composer. In case those of you who write program notes haven't ever actually been down to a concert since people got audacious enough to start sticking valves on trombones some several decades ago, this is because it sounds pretty damn close to a tenor trombone most of the time, and sounds even better in the lower registers by virtue of its larger bore, this despite being pitched in the same key as the tenor.

When one refers to a bass tuba, people are often curious as to how and why anyone would make a tuba that was even lower than normal, not realizing, of course, that the tubas they've seen and heard were, in most cases, contrabass tubas, and that bass tubas are actually smaller, not larger, than the instruments they're most familiar with. I suspect that, although the bass trombone is, in fact, larger than the the more commonly encountered tenor, the same dynamic is on display here, namely that the modifier is what catches people's attention first, along with the expectation that a bass version of an already low-pitched and heavily caricatured instrument must be something to behold. When this comes up in conversation with an avowed novice, I'm always happy to offer clarification, along with a good-natured, self-depricating low brass joke to help the medicine go down. When I read something like this in program notes supplied by a first-rate professional orchestra, the good-naturedness takes a hike. Writing program notes ought to consist of more than merely scanning the instrumentation for novelties, but when it must, a good handle on what exactly constitutes novelty in the first place is a must.

The poetic justice here? The trombonist played the entire part on his tenor (or, strictly speaking, "tenor-bass" trombone, a tenor trombone with one valve which lowers the pitch a perfect fourth, or less if the slide is out further at the time). Sorry, folks, you didn't get to hear bass trombone after all. If it's any consolation, at least you got to hear a nearly identical sound coming out of a nearly identical instrument, and at least the piece was actually written by a 22 year-old, albeit a 22 year-old who is now nearly 50. As for my consolation, I, probably alone, got to have a good chuckle at the status (or lack thereof) enjoyed by those of us who blow into big metal things that no one can name. It's not the first time, and I suspect it won't be the last.

Contradictions To Be Done Away With

(1) Louis Armstrong took his unconventional trumpet and vocal technique and figured out how to make great music with it, but Miles Davis just didn't know how to play the trumpet.

(2) Music that needs to be explained is too intellectual, but musicians that don't talk to their audience are arrogant.

(3) Jazz originated in the West, but it doesn't belong in a book or a course entitled "A History of Western Music."

(4) White jazz musicians who apply classical concepts to their jazz work are dishonoring jazz's African-American origins, but white jazz musicians who overtly imitate seminal African-American artists are just stealing from them for their own material gain, and/or because they have nothing original to say.

(5) No one wants to be labeled "avant-garde" by others (especially in person), but everyone labels themselves "avant-garde" given the chance (especially on their MySpace pages).

One Small Step...

Somehow, a brass ensemble selection has made it onto the muzak rotation at the MSP airport. On behalf of the brass community, I'd like to express our collective gratitude for being able to count ourselves as players of instruments that don't particularly offend anybody or particularly capture their attention, right up there with the harp and wooden flutes of all kinds. This has, needless to say, not always been the case, and will likely continue not be the case outside of the already deafening public spaces our muzak will be charged with further muddying.

Of course, it was a contrapuntal, baroque-ish type of selection that was heard. It seems that each member of the non-offensive instruments club has their role: clarinetists get classical concerti, flutists get flash-and-trash theme and variations, strings get neo-romantic quartet music, and the brass get the post-Bach continuum. We're happy with it, though, especially because some of us weren't even around back then.