Individuality and Uniformity in Brass Players

Radio, discs, tape, television and periodicals (cf. BRASS BULLETIN) as well as increasing direct contact between musicians from other countries and other continents give us a flow of information which earlier generations could only dream of. But communication is also one of the reasons for a distinctive feature of our age: a tendency towards the greatest possible international standardisation. A tendency which is so beneficial in science, technology and other spheres is, unfortunately, quite negative in artistic life. I believe that we brass players have not been spared by this. Although I have only an individual view, rather than a general view, of the brass world, I would still like to try and express a few ideas on the subject.

You might assume that, the wider your view of the international brass scene, the greater the variety you would encounter. Unfortunately this is only partly true. We have many opportunities to observe that all the really great players have in common the musicality and virtuosity which are prerequisites for their high standard. Their individual musical style is ultimately determined by their personality and their national characteristics. It is therefore difficult to say which of them is best. This cannot be decided by evaluation for personal taste is the only judge. Personal taste cannot provide a single right answer, however, and this is a good thing since each of these players and masters has his own musical language. The wonderful thing about music is its amazing variety of personality and, especially, of tone colour in all its nuances.

In contrast to this, ensembles and soloists of average standard (i.e: the majority) are often as like as peas in a pod. Even when they are not, one cannot help feeling they would like to be. I feel that musical individuality is becoming a victim of international trends. One “world sound” occupies the mainstream of brass playing. Seizing on fashionable tendencies, imitating and simulating musical conceptions and cliches foreign to our own nature and environment will not improve us. Such adaptation, which is only imitation, has no independence and carries no conviction. In view of this it would be quite ridiculous to use an ephemeral taste as the basis or the criterion for evaluation.

Is this general standardisation — which works to the detriment of national and regional styles and is, in my view, proceeding apace — not one of the negative effects of communication? Can we regard this as a positive development? We are cutting the ground from under our own feet. We are abandoning something much too fast; any replacement will take a long time to bring forth new fruit, if indeed it ever does.

Of course it is important to have information from all over the world but that does not mean we must become slaves to that information and become dependent on it. On the contrary we must remember our national and regional traditions — without, of course, becoming hidebound by them. We must distinguish clearly between light and shade. I see our task as carefully separating the essential and the inessential in the habits that have been handed down and thoughtfully building on our heritage with meaningful new material.