TrumpetMaster - View Single Post

dambly · 08-30-2007, 01:51 PM

It's interesting to see how this discussion has evolved from Ed's call for diversity in orchestral/solo trumpet sound to the discussion of new repertoire, and from his original scope of the "classical" genre to jazz and other genres.

If by diversity you mean the coexistence of different sounds, styles, and interpretations in or among orchestras, that's more of an institutional value, and less of an individual one. It would be up to the management to create an environment that fosters individuality, but that seems unlikely. (While audition committees might not be looking for Phil Smith clones, I doubt they're looking for mavericks either.) Is the orchestra really a place for innovation? And does new repertoire necessarily foster new and diverse sounds for the instrument, or just use the same sounds in a different context?

The homogeneity of orchestral sound and style has been blamed on increased intercontinental travel of music directors, the proliferation of recordings, the cookie-cutter methods of the conservatories, the severity of the audition process, and the lack of imagination on the part of the performers -- all of these are probably contributing factors. But I think the main reason is that it's simply the nature of the orchestra business today.

Orchestral music -- the master works (available in many versions), and the very sound of an orchestra (available in numerous sample libraries), is definitely a commodity in the 21st Century: interchangeable, transferable, portable. How many composers write music with a particular orchestra's sound in mind? (It's interesting to note that Salonen's "Wing On Wing," though written for and premiered by the LA Philharmonic for the opening of Disney Hall, was recorded for commercial release by the Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra.)

The other side of the diversity coin might be versatility, which is an individual value -- the performer can learn to create different sounds, to play a wider repertoire, and to work in several genres -- but I'd argue that a much wider net needs to be cast: as Ed has pointed out, a trumpet teacher who can also accompany students on piano is much more employable. By the same token, a trumpet player who can improvise backup parts in the studio, organize a music festival or write a film score adds more musical value to the equation.

So I'd argue, even if the possibilities seem limited in the world of orchestral music, the range of musical possibilities available to a performer today is greater than ever: now you don't have to choose between pre-composed music vs. real-time composed music, or between composer-based music vs. performer-based music, or between acoustic music vs. electronic music. All of these modalities are available simultaneously.

Enjoy them!

08-30-2007, 01:51 PM	#22 (permalink)
dambly Pianissimo User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 56	Re: Trumpeting Diversity! It's interesting to see how this discussion has evolved from Ed's call for diversity in orchestral/solo trumpet sound to the discussion of new repertoire, and from his original scope of the "classical" genre to jazz and other genres. If by diversity you mean the coexistence of different sounds, styles, and interpretations in or among orchestras, that's more of an institutional value, and less of an individual one. It would be up to the management to create an environment that fosters individuality, but that seems unlikely. (While audition committees might not be looking for Phil Smith clones, I doubt they're looking for mavericks either.) Is the orchestra really a place for innovation? And does new repertoire necessarily foster new and diverse sounds for the instrument, or just use the same sounds in a different context? The homogeneity of orchestral sound and style has been blamed on increased intercontinental travel of music directors, the proliferation of recordings, the cookie-cutter methods of the conservatories, the severity of the audition process, and the lack of imagination on the part of the performers -- all of these are probably contributing factors. But I think the main reason is that it's simply the nature of the orchestra business today. Orchestral music -- the master works (available in many versions), and the very sound of an orchestra (available in numerous sample libraries), is definitely a commodity in the 21st Century: interchangeable, transferable, portable. How many composers write music with a particular orchestra's sound in mind? (It's interesting to note that Salonen's "Wing On Wing," though written for and premiered by the LA Philharmonic for the opening of Disney Hall, was recorded for commercial release by the Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra.) The other side of the diversity coin might be versatility, which is an individual value -- the performer can learn to create different sounds, to play a wider repertoire, and to work in several genres -- but I'd argue that a much wider net needs to be cast: as Ed has pointed out, a trumpet teacher who can also accompany students on piano is much more employable. By the same token, a trumpet player who can improvise backup parts in the studio, organize a music festival or write a film score adds more musical value to the equation. So I'd argue, even if the possibilities seem limited in the world of orchestral music, the range of musical possibilities available to a performer today is greater than ever: now you don't have to choose between pre-composed music vs. real-time composed music, or between composer-based music vs. performer-based music, or between acoustic music vs. electronic music. All of these modalities are available simultaneously. Enjoy them!