Quote:
Originally Posted by rowuk  I think there is a problem with generalities. Every single band is different. As a rule the studio productions are much different than what you get on stage.
As far as education goes, I think it is important to work with the section, achieving a balance and then telling the players what happened after they get there. Intellectualizing it before has never been a successful recipe for me. Get the students LISTENING first. get them used to hearing proper intonation and balance - give them theory later. Balance is not just achieved with absolute volume. If you have a classically trained 3rd trumpet, their sound may be too "thick" and not balance regardless of volume.
I was not aware that there was a lead requirement for double G (G above double C - octaves ALWAYS start with C) in the 70s. Considering the amount of monster players out there today, I think a double C is pretty common and would provide for a margin of security if you need high Gs all night!
A note to educators: if you have a real scream trumpet player fine, we do get posts here about over-ambitious directors basically requiring players to "force" their upper range. This really benefits no one. A jazz program should be based on form and groove, not testosterone! |
No offense, but I don't think you really got what I was talking about.
The problem today is that very few band directors are jazz players, and consequently, their bands show it. You have to teach jazz specific methods, and help the student differentiate between what they do in concert band or orchestra, and jazz. I find many university players nowadays who don't know the differences, say, in articulations between the disciplines. This always comes out in performance. As you say, the groove is it- but without proper grounding in the jazz idiom, the groove isn't there. Rob Mcconnell once remarked that dynamics and articulations in swing tunes should be unnecessary- you should just
know how to do it. For the most part, I agree. But finding 13 college horn players who
feel that is rare now, especially at regional colleges and universities. That's why I am building a band made up of educators and former pros to work with the better players in my area.
I feel that the current approach to concert/orchestra playing is to demand less of the principal players, especially in the winds, than in the past. Jazz ensemble playing is heavily dependent on lead playing, and today's typical section player does not listen as well as he/she should. In addition to the lack of experience in many instrumental educators, young players frequently do not listen to their rep in jazz. They are only familiar with what they are or have played. 20 years ago, when secondary music was alive and well, it was different. Sure, there are always exceptions- but I meet and hear very few musicians anymore who are coming out of high school with a strong grounding in jazz styles. Here in Colorado, jazz isn't even treated as a "serious" music discipline by the state. That's why the really strong university jazz programs are at private schools, like University of Denver's Lamont School.
Incidentally, if you talk to anyone who has been around for a while (25 years or more), F above high C is
high, and the G above it is
double. It is common to the jazz vernacular that G above high C is Double G. And yes, it used to be the standard- still is, mostly. Except for Goodwin's charts. It must be fun having had Wayne Bergeron to write for.
It's not my intent to begin an argument about details- there is still the ideal way to teach this, and the only thing missing in today's environment is exposure to it. My students listen to everything from Fletcher Henderson to Rob Parton, and I am currently developing a fake book for lead players that addresses the stylistic issues of playing a wide range of ensemble stuff.
And you're right, it is about form and groove, rather than testosterone. But if you go back and re-read my post, you'll see that the emphasis is not on range, but on leadership. Leadership is based upon a well-rounded knowledge of jazz styles- don't play like Stan Mark on a Gil Evans tune- don't play like Joe Garland on a John LaBarbera tune, etc. Back in "the day," lead trumpet players did stick out, but they also had that sensitivity for style. Today, I find more lead players who have some range, and want to use it everywhere, and will, unless they have a director who is willing to channel that ability appropriately. I know of a very gifted player here who has incredible ability, but he squanders it by playing his lead parts more like a soloist than a section leader, and his director allows it to happen. As a result, the band sounds sloppy. The greatest compliment I ever got for my lead playing was after I joined an above-average band, and after I "led with my horn," received comments on how "tight" the band sounded. To me, this is what a lead player should hope for: a stylistically consistent sound from top to bottom, and lead trumpet is where it starts. For more on this, read anything written on the subject by Al Porcino, Conrad Gozzo, or Buddy Childers.
I realize this strayed a bit from the original thread, but as an educator, I feel compelled to make myself understood.