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

Hi

> 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.

Sorry if my reply seemed poco agitato - bad day at the office, 
or something.  But I do feel molto appassionato about the 
manner in which bands sometimes neglect their own musical heritage 
in favour of 'lollipops' (your description).

> 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.

There are lots of Extended Serious Original Works (ESOWs - 
how's that Alec?)  that aren't fiendishly difficult.  At Harrogate 
Band recently we included Gregson's Laudate Dominum variations in 
concert programmes.  Having contested with it a couple of years 
previously, it took no more rehearsal than other pieces in the 
programme and never failed to make a positive impact on audiences.

> 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.

You've shifted the discussion now to 'bands playing music which is 
too hard for them' - I'm sure I didn't advocate that!

After replying to your earlier missive, David, I just began to think 
about the day we met up at Hardraw Scar contest and we heard all 
those bands playing their chosen test-pieces to all those (very 
non-specialist) people who had chosen to go and hear them...   

David

PS I've just seen your notes below.  See comments inserted for the 
seriously keen...


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.
> > 

DL:
> > 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.

DB: 
> You are probably right but they don't do much for me.

DL:
But you're still prepared to state on other people's behalf that 
music you don't know well is 'unpalatable to audiences'???

DB:
> > > 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.
> > 
DL:
> > 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.
> > 
DB:
> > > No Beethovens, Mozarts or Tchaikovskis seem to have shown up 
in the
> > > brass band world yet.
> > 
DL:
> > 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.
> 
DB:
> 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.

DL:
I don't understand.  Doesn't it require technique to play well 
softly and slowly?   Why do test pieces/ESOWs have slow movements and 
long notes?  You haven't really dealt with the part of my answer 
which discussed complexity in orchestral and chamber 
music.   Please accept that I enjoy listening to serious band 
repertoire and find the best pieces both exciting and moving 
experiences.  Don't try to take them away from me or discourage bands 
from playing them on the basis of your highly subjective opinions 
concerning music you don't really know or understand.  If I didn't 
think that this music was as valid and precious as that written by 
the 'top composers of the world' - whoever they might be - I wouldn't 
devote the better part of my free time conducting them and playing 
them, let alone listening to them.
> > 

DL:
> > 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!).
>
DB: 
> Maybe you might like Mozart better? or Stravinsky or Copland or, heaven
> forbid, Glass???

DL:
You didn't answer the question!!!  My own likes and dislikes aren't 
really relevant. (In fact I prefer John Adams to Philip Glass.  I 
believe that in the future Harrison Birtwistle will be ranked 
alongside Bach, Mozart and Stravinsky - seriously).

DB:
> > > Sure I think Resurgam is a gem but still not in
> > > the same league as The Pathetique Symphony.
> > 
DL:
> > What a ridiculous comparison.  Cheese is better than 
chocolate?
> 
DB:
> 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.

DL:
Tchaikovsky wrote for orchestra in the nineteenth century in a 
genre not far removed from the mainstream European tradition, 
influenced by Russian folkmusic; his Sixth Symphony is full of pathos 
and self pity.   Despite moments of triumph the mood at the close is 
tragic.  Eric Ball composed Resurgam for brass band in the second 
half of the 20th century influenced as much by Elgar and George 
Butterworth as by Brahms.  I'm sure he intended it to be a spiritual 
and uplifting piece.  What do we learn from this comparison?  
Certainly not that one piece is better than the other!!!  
> > 
DB:
> > > 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.
> > 
DL:
> > Why?  The transcription of Resurgam for concert band makes 
nonsense
> > of a lovely piece.  I prefer to hear music as the composer intended
> > it.
> 
DB:
> 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. 

DL:
Or string quartets.  Or piano trios.  Or wind quintets.   Or 
concert band music (on the whole).  Or organ music.  It's really only 
orchestral work, bits of opera and piano music (of the 'classical 
repertioire') which are heavily transcribed.  One could construct an 
argument to say that the former are so successful in their own right 
that they cannot be improved by transcription.  I can no more imagine 
a successful orchestral arrangement of  'Revelation' than I can a 
band version of Beethoven's quartet in A minor Op132.  Does that make 
these pieces any better or worse?
> > 
DB:
> > > Lets set our tastes higher even as we enjoy the unique joys 
of playing
> > > brass music.
> > 
DL:
> > 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...
> 
DB:
> Hard to argue with that but still lets set the originallity bar 
way
> higher. Half the newer brass music sounds like rehashed Eric Ball.

DL:
Wowee!  How well do you know Grimethorpe Aria, Dave???

ENOUGH!!!!


--
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]