Brass Band Logo

NJH Music Logo

Some of the contents of the pages on this site are Copyright © 2016 NJH Music
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Own choice contests

Thought I had better save my reply to David Lancaster until there was
time to properly think about his interesting comments.

I really don't think that Dave and I are as far apart as his comments
might seem however I must atke exception to some of his comments.
Certainly I think it is important to play at least 1 piece of music on a
program which challenges both the band and the audience and David's
knowledge of test pieces is clearly much more extensive than mine. But
even the more accessible pieces require a huge amount of work to play at
even a remotely acceptable level for most bands and the danger is that
the band will learn to play only that piece and nor progress musically.
I played for several years for a former Fairey's euph player from theie
championship days in the 50's and this was very apparent. Played at a
level where the band is over their heads is not IMHO very appealing to
the audience unless you have a very kind audience. I would rather spend
my band rehearsal time on simpler but still effective music in the hope
that they might reach the stage where they can do justice to harde
music, just as in my individual practice almost all my time is spent on
basics. David Lancaster wrote:
> 
> Yo
> 
> >  A. Dalton A9750388 wrote:
> > >
> > > Can anyone tell me why so few 'progressive' bands (i.e. ambitious
> > > 1st/Champ bands) do not use the wealth of new contest works
> > > written over the last 10 years.
> 
> David Buckley wrote:
> 
> > Surely the reasons are obvious? Almost all of the contest pieces are
> > totally unpalatable to any audience unless they are played at the
> > absolute top level of skill. Some of them are not palatable even then.
> > To suggest that anyone would try to build an audience for brass bands by
> > playing contest pieces is ludicrous. The top bands build their audiences
> > beyond the hard core brass lover by playing transcriptions of the
> > classics and by lollipops cleverly arranged to show their technical and
> > musical skills.
> 
> Absolute tosh!!!   When I have conducted test pieces in concerts, or
> attended band concerts where brass music is being played it is
> very often the 'serious' repertoire which draws the best response.
> Audiences do like to be challenged from time to time and the notion
> of a balanced programme (which I presume we all aspire to) implies
> that we mix familiar with unfamiliar repertoire.   One of my local
> fourth section bands recently commissioned a new piece - a ten minute
> test-piece type work -  and at the concert when it was first played
> it drew a tremendous response from a very non-specialist audience.  I
> think that many bands fall into the trap of underestimating their
> audiences and catering for the lowest common denominator.  (In any
> case, given the subject title, I guess that Adrian Dalton was asking
> why bands didn't contest with these pieces quite so often - a
> slightly different issue since for contest purposes conductors will
> select pieces that they feel best suit their band).
> 
> To describe Triumphant Rhapsody, or Paganini Variations, or even
> Cloudcatcher Fells as being "totally unpalatable to audiences" really
> doesn't convince me that you know the music you're condemning.

You are probably right but they don't do much for me.
> 
> > The brass band world seems to judge music by how difficult it is to play
> > not by how good it is. People keep getting me to listen to pieces that
> > they rave over but that to me offer little but a brief technical rush.
> 
> A good deal of orchestral or chamber music is also very technically
> difficult - simplify it and you take away much of it's excitement -
> that's the real reason why composers of all types write difficult
> music.  Still not many amateur orchestras round here play 'Le
> Sacre...' and the string quartet down the road won't touch late
> Beethoven...  Most band folk I know think the hardest music is slow
> and soft.
> 
> > No Beethovens, Mozarts or Tchaikovskis seem to have shown up in the
> > brass band world yet.
> 
> But compare like with like.  Would you say the same about Big Bands,
> for example: how would you compare Duke Ellington and Count Basie
> with Mozart and Beethoven...the comparison is silly.  We'll all
> have our own opinions about who the best composers are but the best
> works of the band repertoire by Ball, Vinter, Gregson, Sparke and
> Wilby et al are classics within this genre.

My mother always said "comparisons are odious" but here really is a
difference in complexity and depth between the top composers of the
world and any of the people you mentioned above. Yes they are classics
within their genre but it is a very limited genre. 
You still have not convinced me that brass composers of test pieces
aren't fixated on technical skills even though everyone says it is the
slow movements which win. Musicians should be able to play slow
chorale-like music if they are properly trained but the brass band
repertoire often encourages them to spend away too much time on
technique.
> 
> It's interesting too that you cite composers who were all dead by
> the time the brass band was really established.  Are there any
> composers this century who you would rank alongside Mozart or
> Beethoven?  (PS I find Tchaikovsky rather bombastic, over-sentimental
> and generally dull - my loss I'm sure!).

Maybe you might like Mozart better? or Stravinsky or Copland or, heaven
forbid, Glass???
> 
> > Sure I think Resurgam is a gem but still not in
> > the same league as The Pathetique Symphony.
> 
> What a ridiculous comparison.  Cheese is better than chocolate?

Come on David. Both pieces are music which explore deeply the emotional
experience of life. And both compete in the market place for an audience
so pleae don't suggest that they are not to be compared.
> 
> > As technical skills improve  - is there room for improvement at
>  > the top level - at levels below the
> > top, the quality music will be more frequently played. The Year of The
> > Dragon probably is an example. Maybe the Horowitz piece may come to
> > favour. It struck me at the RAH in 1994 that it was outstanding music
> > that might be rearranged for concert bands and possibly even orchestras.
> > To me that is a hint of musical acceptance.
> 
> Why?  The transcription of Resurgam for concert band makes nonsense
> of a lovely piece.  I prefer to hear music as the composer intended
> it.

Sure some pieces won't transcibe effectively but the most loved music in
the world has always been picked up by other genres and simplkified if
necessary. In the long run it makes the music more accessible and often
sends people to the original. This just does not happen with virtually
any brass music. 
> 
> > Lets set our tastes higher even as we enjoy the unique joys of playing
> > brass music.
> 
> Agreed!  So let's play some more brass music and fewer tacky
> arrangements of second-rate orchestral music which invariably sound
> better left where the composer put them!   Rant, rant, rant...

Hard to argue with that but still lets set the originallity bar way
higher. Half the newer brass music sounds like rehashed Eric Ball.
> 
> > Dave Buckley.
> >
> Cheers
> 
> David

Finally, lets spend a whole lot more time tuning our bands as a first
step.

Regards, Dave.


> 
> --
> unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help' to
> listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--
unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help' to
listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Services] [Contact Us] [Advertise with us] [About] [Tell a friend about us] [Copyright © 2016 NJH Music]