More than with the other instrumental families, the idea of a “school” of playing plays a very important role with the brass. The choice of the instrument and the way it is constructed are closely linked with this aesthetic phenomenon. Does this come from the fact that the Germans have cultivated the “Posaunenchöre”, that they have, above all, played Wagner and Bruckner? Or is it a result of the fact that the French have had an impressionist period quite recently and wished to treat the brass instrument as a solo instrument or that the Russians have above all, played a kind of music of an exaggerated, pathetic nature? And that these three peoples apply a corporal code of behaviour with regard to so specific an instrument?
How can the fact be explained that up to the last decade very narrow-bore instruments have been played in France? That the Austrian instruments were so big and wide? One often hears one theory discussed, which states that the playing of an instrument is connected with the language, that the inborn language moulds the vocal organs in a specific way and that each linguistic group hears certain areas of frequency more easily than others; therefore, the fact that the way of “hearing” or to portray to oneself the ideal sound of an instrument has a narrow connection with the sonority of the language one is speaking. Almost the same theory is used to explain why the Russian singers have especially developed the bass voice, whilst the Italians have developed the tenor. It is a possible explanation but it is certainly not the only reason.
We find a strong nationalistic tendency in the international competitions (one person wins the first prize in Munich; in Geneva he is eliminated in the first round although he personally had the impression of having played better the second time). On these occasions the quarrels and judgements passed are of the following kind: “The German brass play heavily”. Yes, this is perhaps true, but let us not forget that the teaching of brass instruments in German conservatories is almost solely based on the study of orchestral repertoire and that courses in sol-fa do not exist.
It is said: “The French brass do not play accurately in the orchestra and are not homogeneous”. It is certainly partially true, but this is explained by the fact that French teaching is predominantly based on the playing of concertos and competition test pieces and that brass chamber music as well as the study of orchestral excerpts in the section are practically non-existent. In France a great deal of importance is attached to individualism.
One also hears people say: “The Russian brass have an exaggerated vibrato and too powerful a sound”. If one thinks that the repertoire in Russia is based above all on the works of Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich and the composers who as a matter of fact use the brass in an exaggerated range of dynamics, to put over their optimism, then one begins to understand that the way of playing is an aesthetic problem which has its roots in the musical behaviour of the people, in the musical tradition of the country in question and that this hope of an international norm in the sphere of teaching and instrumental conception can only be a long procedure.
We are slowly succeeding in acquiring a historical view of music, which is not only based on aesthetics but also takes into account its sociological character. It is clear that under this aspect, instrumental nationalism can only be anachronistic. It is at the beginning of a very narrow approach to music, of an isolation in which no influence on or radical questioning of it is possible whatever. In addition it is the immediate reflection of the reactionary attitude of the official musical establishment, which never misses an opportunity of making a display of it, with the purpose of musical propaganda.
The influences in order to change this nationalistic attitude could come from a sphere which is not necessarily bound to tradition. The most glaring example of this is the enormous impact of jazz on the technical development of the trumpet and trombone during the last 50 years; a kind of music which has questioned radically the traditional concept of the range and agility of brass instruments.
It is clear that today the best results concerning the construction principles and the teaching of brass instruments (the relationship between the body and the instrument) have come to us from the United States. The fact that at the beginning of the century, a large number of American orchestras engaged brass players of various European countries (French, German, Czech), caused a kind of mixture of playing techniques and brought about a great spread of information amongst the instrument builders. In the last decades ever increasing international exchanges have taken place and I would say that most European brass players today (except perhaps the horns) play on American instruments.
II
One wonders to what extent instrumental teaching has made progress during the last decades. To begin with one should ask oneself if instrumental technique within its musical function should be considered above all or whether it should be treated as a subject on its own which one can then apply to any kind of music?
It is certainly correct to consider a technique with respect to its function in a particular kind of music. But in most cases, especially in Europe, either orchestral excerpts, which are cut off entirely from their musical context or modern concertos, highly questionable as to their worth as compositions in which the tendency is to play faster and faster, louder and louder, higher and higher and more and more “beautifully” are only worked on (the “beauty” being a kind of unique, ideal sound).
Practically speaking, one doesn’t turn one’s attention to the whys and wherefores of learning to play; people still always talk in such reactionary terms as: “having ability”, “being gifted”, “having a good lip” etc. without wishing to understand that in order to play an instrument, one must adapt the body to the instrument in the most rational way possible.
Today, and this comes above all from the United States, people are beginning to get an insight into instrumental technique, this physiological and psychological adaptation, therefore the beginnings of a science which would permit a more rational and flexible instrumental attitude towards any kind of music. For that it is obviously necessary to know what happens with our body, with our muscles, lungs, vocal organs, etc.
The different theories about the role of breathing and the way it functions can only be for the moment empirical assumptions. An example among many others: the role of the diaphragm — the support of the diaphragm has been talked about, even a vibrato using it, although the latest physiological discoveries prove that the diaphragm is a muscle which is practically uncontrollable —. What now?
At present, one can take X-rays of the position and function of the organs implicated in playing, but we cannot get precise data of this functioning while playing. Making an X-ray film of the function of the tongue, the pharynx, larynx and the vocal cords while playing produces on the one hand a very imprecise result, on the other hand it is a dangerous course, which doctors avoid using.
The function of the muscles is also talked a lot about. Myography whilst in action is again an extremely vague science, for in order to be able to understand the function of the labial muscles it would be necessary to introduce probes into the flesh, the muscles being often situated deep down. No instrumentalist would allow electrodes to be introduced into his cheeks or neck. Well then? One must remain again with one’s suppositions.
Recently the fibroscope has just been discovered. It is a shaft equipped with a photo-electric cell which is inserted through the nose to the level of the throat and which enables one to see on a screen what the vocal organs do while playing. One is able to see what happens at this level, but as playing involves the synchronisation of the respiratory, muscular and vocal systems, this information is of unilateral interest.
We could say the same for breathing. Pneumatology can measure exterior data but cannot measure the problems of intrapulmonary pressure at the moment before the air passes the larynx, which would obviously be useful to be able to control for the needs of education. We are not able to give proof of what happens in the throat, when for example one uses a technique consisting of “swallowing” the sounds to play in the high register (this is also called “playing backwards” or “playing with the resonance of the head”).
On the other hand it is clear that certain empirical experiences have contributed important results. One makes much more progress through comparison and reflection. The ideal way would be a conscious control of the organs of one’s body, a kind of instrumental yoga. Describing curves with one’s hand which indicate the different directions of body weight in order to interpret different melodic lines already clarifies the situation a lot. If a pupil is capable of making this descriptive gesture, then the teacher can feel pretty certain that he has understood the interior function and the synchronisation of the various organs in motion.
I repeat that finally we can only make assumptions. One of these is to believe that working on pedal notes strengthens the thickness of the lips and also facilitates the development of the high register. Methods are constantly appearing on the market based on personal theories such as: “Double high C in 26 lessons” or “The perfect instrumentalist in 86 lessons”. These speculative publications which are close to charlatanism, can be explained by the fact that (music) education has become commercial. Apparently there are here the excesses of a stream of thinking which is nevertheless basically positive.
Considering bodily and instrumental technique as a science is necessary, because nowadays the professional musician is most of the time called upon to play all kinds of music and to play all day. As for that, it is necessary for him to know what happens inside himself and to be able to discern the causes of an eventual crisis.
The division of brass teaching into “clinical teaching” and “musical teaching” seems to me to be necessary; obviously on the condition that the two aspects are always combined and that the clinical education is constantly put at the service of music. It seems to me that we have come to a decisive turning-point. The tendency among professionals to look for precise explanations for the phenomena of playing, explanations not only of an acoustic but also physiological and even psychological nature, proves to us that we are starting to think consciously about the problem.
It is a pedagogic problem. If a professional plays a little faster or higher it isn’t really that important. Much more important is the fact of knowing how to make amateurs, children, in the bands and elementary music schools aware of the fact that the brass instrument is not a “mongrel” but on the contrary, it can be an extremely complex instrument by means of which one can express oneself most deeply. The problem is not to be found in the instrument itself but in the music which is played on it.
III
Let us talk about the application of a technique to an explicit kind of music and therefore about aesthetic problems among brass players. We ascertain straight away that the brass do not have a very abundant solo literature in history (except for the four horn concertos by Mozart, the Haydn trumpet concerto, the two horn concertos by Strauss, no important composer has turned his attention to the brass).
To play as a soloist, therefore, one can resort to transcription. I would not like to discuss whether this procedure is legitimate or not, but it is obvious that transcription becomes indefensible when a soloist centres his activity on the side of athletics, that is to say on the side of performance when he plays an extremely wide range with foolproof velocity. Transcription presupposes a musicological respect of the inner values of a work.
It is especially the trumpeters who transcribe an unheard of number of second-rate compositions from the baroque era; all the same they do not dare to transcribe Beethoven’s violin concerto (luckily there are taboos). Why? Records have opened a new market. Some soloists under contract, through lack of literature, today feel obliged to invent something from old literature. The baroque era, more so than any other, lends itself easily to this sort of requirement because of the possibility of interchanging the instruments.
However this attitude becomes open to criticism when the character of the music in question becomes completely changed. It is what happens with the transcriptions for piccolo trumpet, where in addition to changing the register, all the music sounds “heroic” and “athletic”. The trombone being supposedly a “singing” instrument, people transcribe arias for it, in particular, a kind of music lending itself better to expressive playing. Here it is not the “athletic” element which predominates but mawkish sentiment. As a norm for interpretation purposes, the cello is used. The trombone being much less flexible and diversified than a string instrument, a musical result is reached which comes close to “kitsch”.
These isolated cases which have been mentioned wouldn’t be important if they didn’t serve as models for the young generation of brass players. Unfortunately the young brass players are infected with this ideology of “virtuosity” which is a typical product of commercialism, a product of the music market. It is, as it were, a general attitude — one thinks in instrumental, rarely musical, terms —; one buys a record because of the performances of this or that soloist, but not because of the music he plays.
We ascertain the same phenomenon amongst brass quintets, these being a new formation created in this century. It should therefore be interested in contemporary problems. However the repertoire of the majority of brass quintets consists of pieces emphasising the speed of the instruments, pieces which sound well or have the nature of salon music. We see this especially when it concerns the directions to the composer. In principle the individual chosen writes music in the style of “neo-something or other”, “neo-classical”, “neo-romantic”, “neobaroque”, and is asked to write something which at first sight sounds well, is virtuoso and makes a big impression, and which is marketable.
I have been able to ascertain several times that the musicians in an orchestra formed a brass quintet because they felt the need to play together. But the desire to get jobs became apparent very quickly, to give concerts like string quartets do. They do not realize that the repertoire is the main problem. A new formation like the brass quintet, without tradition, without repertoire can only adopt one single constructive attitude: to place itself in the context of its era, confront the problems which music presents today, i.e. to be a contemporary ensemble.
Such an attitude as this is most rare amongst brass players. They have on the whole an aversion towards new music. We find this in the orchestras, but what is more serious, this aversion towards new music is already cultivated in school, being transmitted from teacher to pupil. Why is this? Firstly let us enumerate the phrases most frequently heard:
IV
“This music sounds wrong, that’s the reason why it ruins the lips”. It is enough to reply to this: “One must be able to hear the notes before playing them in order to be capable of playing the most atonal music possible without any special effort”. The difficulty here is not instrumental in character but rather is a question of thorough aural training and use of the intellect.
The most widespread attitude in the conservatories, moreover not only amongst the brass, is to consider contemporary music as some sort of joke, as something which needn’t be taken seriously. So when it is played, it is something which one almost gives up, as it is not normal to take home the orchestral part of an experimental piece in order to practise it.
Often one hears people say that it is unplayable, that the composer doesn’t know a thing about the instrument; one even goes as far as maintaining that it falsifies the acoustical properties of the instrument. It is said that this kind of music doesn’t display the noble qualities of the brass instrument (implying heroic or brilliant characteristics). It is also maintained that it is impossible to play Brahms well if one plays contemporary music and people even go as far as saying that this music is harmful to health.
Why do people have such an attitude? It is obvious that it is not easy to play contemporary music. One rarely finds place in it for this superficial emotionalism, which can be felt when playing “well sounding” music in a group. Contemporary music in practice demands a great deal of assiduousness, thought, patience, intellectual commitment, an analytical mind and a certain taste for venture.
I am inclined to believe that the fetishistic love which is showered on the instrument as well as aberrant music (studies, exercises and scales etc.) which the pupil has to play during the period of apprenticeship kills off his inventiveness, alienates his mind more and more and causes him to think in a more and more hidebound fashion. It is in this study material and this pedagogic behaviour that one must look for the reactionary conduct of musicians and their almost unanimous allergy towards everything which is new in music.
Let us try and throw a little more light on the problem by first of all taking pedagogic examples: a pupil plays with his throat tight; the higher he plays the further he stretches his neck. A technique which is generally used in contemporary music, that of singing and playing simultaneously, is only feasible when the throat is completely relaxed. It is sufficient to make the pupil do exercises in playing and singing simultaneously over a period of time to notice that the fault of the tight throat disappears rapidly. In this case then, a contemporary technique can be a therapeutic means of correcting existing defects.
When a pupil has arrived at a certain level of playing, he is obliged to start varying types of articulation on the instrument and to attain a control of different kinds of sound. If one considers (this seems logical) that each musical style calls for an appropriate type of sound then there are only contemporary scores which deal with this problem of diversification consequentially and there alone is it possible to find material for this genre of study.
We spoke of bodily flexibility with respect to the instrument. In scores where the register changes constantly, where each sound has a different timbre and is articulated differently, gymnastics, without mentioning presence of mind, obviously play an important role. It is unthinkable to play music which is rich in various kinds of articulation and sounds with force and a stiff body.
In music of the present, as well as in contemporary education, improvisation plays an important role. In this way of expression one gets to consider one’s instrument as rather a means of making music, music which one invents oneself. Therefore the deeper one is involved in this sphere, the more the instrument is considered as an extension of the body, as a sort of amplifier of our musical thoughts through which the most varied vocal and instrumental types of articulation are radiated.
The brass instrument is obviously predestined for such a human attitude as this. As it is a direct instrument (without reeds, hammer or intermediary bow) with which (as in singing) the sound is produced directly at the first level with the air and the articulation of the organs of speech, it is obviously extremely easy to handle when playing as if speaking, singing or shouting or vice versa, to be able to speak or sing, shout or gossip as if one were playing.
In the situations where one does this with a group, where everyone in the group invents something (improvises) on the spur of the moment, it becomes clear that one must adapt oneself and react to the musical environment. So the notions of a “beautiful, unique sound”, “good high register”, and “good technique” etc. do not exist any more since one must produce a thousand different sounds with diverse feelings, with an attack and position of the respiratory and speech organs which are different every time. In these cases it is the musical needs which dictate the different ways the instrument is treated; there is therefore no longer a single way of doing this as is preached with such loving care.
It often happens that the instrument no longer corresponds with the requirement of the moment; so one must manipulate it by playing on different mouthpieces or perhaps employing electronic means as an extension of this. So we are far from “traditional” aesthetics and it is in such a case that we notice that a huge gap separates the people who only think in terms of brass and those who think first and foremost as musicians and use their instrument as an object with which they make music, being capable of choosing the context freely.
So one is confronted with the fact that there is no one single instrumental technique but that an adequate technique must be invented for each kind of music, with changeable types of sound and articulation. If we consider the teaching of brass instruments under this aspect, then we ascertain that we are far from such a realization.
I return once more to the question of sectarianism in schools: nowadays the brass instrument is called upon to do everything; specialisation in one style only can only be an exceptional situation. It is necessary to interest oneself in contemporary problems, for it is only through the study of contemporary music that one really succeeds in hemming in the problems of the past. Musicians, and especially brass players, like appealing to so-called tradition a great deal, for instance to what a certain brass teacher or other has said but G. Mahler has also said: “Tradition is slovenliness”. With this he meant that tradition is above all a convenience, a habit to which one refers in order that one doesn’t need to reflect too much and which one quotes to defend one’s laziness or interests.
Let us be on our guard, for the habit of reading pornographic magazines during rehearsals or playing chess in the opera pit in the rests is a tradition amongst the brass. But in order to demonstrate that one has a good high register, suddenly finishing the second Brandenburg concerto for the piccolo trumpet on the tonic, although the original indicates the fifth, has also become a habit.