The differences between brass players and especially between trombonists nowadays find their origin mainly in the players themselves and not in the instrument, because no matter where an instrument is made nor how costly it is, it is practically the same all over the world, so that basically the same technique is required. Being a wind instrument, it is the air that determines the sound, whence the importance of breathing.
The first problem therefore is how to breathe properly. The next ones are: how to «blow» into the instrument, and: how to train the lips and the tongue etc.
But it is not the aim of this report to discuss these problems. The main point is, however, that every musician should always be aware of these problems, in order to solve them in the course of the years through practice and experience – for his own benefit and that of his pupils. And we'll see that these personal solutions turn out to be very similar to each other, because they are logical and as ideal as possible.
The differences between players come solely from the character and the standard of the musician.
No doubt our conceptions of the trombone and of the way to play it have greatly changed in the course of the years, but these changes have been all for the best, as they have caused such rapprochement between different methods and conceptions, that now all of us will judge trombone playing by the same criteria. Hence it is f. i. quite impossible for us, members of the jury, to guess what a competitor's nationality is – and if we try, we are generally mistaken!
Let us now talk about the programme, a topic that will surely interest most of the readers. Each candidate had to choose a piece in each one of the 3 groups: an ancient piece (from 4 works) – a work with piano (8) – a concerto with orchestra (4).
Of our 44 candidates we find in the
1st group: Wagenseil (chosen 16 times), Handel (16), Marcello (6), Gaillard (6);
2nd group: Ropartz (11), Casterède and Dutilleux (8), Hess (7), Krol (4), Looser (3), Serocki concerto (2), Bozza chaconne (1);
3rd group: Martin (27), Milhaud (12), Schibler (3), Schiffmann (2).
Of the 12 competitors admitted to the recital the choice was:
1st group: Wagenseil (7), Handel (3), Marcello (2);
2nd group: Hess and Ropartz (3), Krol and Looser (2), Casterède and Dutilleux (1).
Letting these figures speak for themselves, we simply want to state that the Wagenseil and Handel concertos (though transcriptions) and Martin's Ballade still – deservedly – hold their place as favorites. Ropartz' musically and technically interesting Pièce in E flat no doubt remains one of the most important compositions of our repertoire.
Sight-reading is also part of the Geneva programme of examinations for all candidates. Although the score was read and played in many different ways, one can say that the results were all positive, so that no one was eliminated from the recitals on account of it. Since the trombonist is mainly, though not exclusively, an orchestra player, we attach great importance to this part of the examinations.
Another tradition at the Geneva competition is the contemporary work commissioned for the occasion, played in the second part of the examination. This year it was the Lausanne composer Jean Perrin who wrote a very interesting work for us. It will no doubt become one of the highlights of our repertoire, as are those previously composed by Ernst Hess (1966), Rolf Looser (1958) and Frank Martin (1940). The idea is an excellent and successful one, I think, and one cannot be grateful enough to our composers for their cooperation.
The general standard of the players was remarkably high, as was also mentioned by the press. A Geneva paper wrote that the trombone recital had been much more fascinating than the preceding one for the flute. This gives us hope that the trombone will rise from the dark, where it has stayed so much longer than any of the other brass instruments, and that the three competitions, in Geneva, Prague and Munich, will rouse the general interest and appreciation of the public.