Sunday May 18, 2003

A CONVERSATION RECENTLY SEEN ON THE ONLINE TROMBONE JOURNAL FORUM...

quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Dave Wilken in the Intonation thread:
No matter how interesting the idea of interelationship of pitch and time is, and no matter how enthusiasticly presented they are, I still do not accept that they are indeed interelated, as some seem to feel.

Proofs and evidence for this idea seem to be at three different levels. There is a higher, philosophical level of the interelationship of all things. The Emerald Tablet, Sufi mysticism, cosmological theories, and personal philosophies have been cited. The trouble I have with these ideas include that for every quote or idea you present this way you can find another, perhaps even from the same spiritual or scientific tradition, that can contradict what you're trying to prove.

That is all very interesting, and worth while to discuss, but is perhaps better suited to the "Chit-Chat" section.
Dave, I think you've got it all wrong.

There is a good deal of music that can be described and conferred in empirical terms. But let's not forget that playing is an art, not a science. Sometimes, especially in the academic environment, we get so wrapped up in educational theory that we forget that the actual learning and playing of music happens in an internal place far from the empirical world.

I'm sure we all realize that no matter how one describes a playing concept or idea, where the rubber meets the road is when the student teaches themselves how to relate to playing on an experiential level.

All we can do as teachers is try to "tickle" the student into looking at and possibly open the doors that allow them to improve themselves as players.

Some of those "tickles" are playing concepts that come under the "roof" of standard trombone pedagogical method. But the improvements we hope to encourage take place far outside of pedagogy, and it is for that very reason that the great teachers occasionally try to take a "short cut" and use words that try to go straight to that irrational place where we relate ourselves with the music.

When this happens, the reaction of the music education establishment usually ranges from "looking the other way" from the occasional eccentricity of a venerable and/or beloved mainstay of the trombone teaching world, to complete evisceration of those seen as outsiders.

That is wrong, and is emblematic of all that is wrong with the teaching establishment. Every good new idea is originally espoused by the very few, and if every good new idea was successfully debunked by the establishment on the basis of a lack of corroboration, there would obviously be no good new ideas.

I understand that what Sam is saying doesn't reach everyone. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't think it says anything bad about a person as a teacher or player. But my question is, if what Sam is saying resonates with me or anyone else, why is it necessary to attempt to indict what he is saying by pretending it violates some sort of orthodoxy of trombone method?

Above, you express skepticism that time improves pitch. Fine. Then you seem to imply that this idea belongs in the world of the mystic*. I have a bit of an issue with having a need to pigeonhole his experiences as such, but so be it.

But then you state that therefore, the whole idea perhaps belongs in Chit Chat. Well, I certainly could not disagree with that more. This conversation happened in the Practice Room, not the Holy Court of the 5th Orthodoxy of Trombone Teaching. I see nothing to believe that Sam's ideas came from anywhere besides his practice room, and if there is a chance that any of the ideas expressed here can benefit the rest of us in our practice rooms, I conclude that I can't really make any sense of the idea that the conversation doesn't belong here.

In short:

1) If the ideas of a beginner, seasoned amateur or top pro as they relate to improving as a musician, no matter how much someone else disagrees with them, belong in Chit Chat, then the entire OTJ Forum belongs in Chit Chat. And:

2) I don't understand the reason for a need to "debunk" playing concepts espoused by a top professional just because those concepts don't "reach" us. I think the disagreement here has been noted; I suggest letting it be.

*You reference eastern philosophy/thought as a possible source of corroboration for these ideas. But corroboration is an empirical standard, and eastern thought is not subject to empiricism, nor is it necessarily subject to rationalism.

quote:

Dave's Response:
Whatever the physical relationship between light and sound, however, human beings perceive those two things differently.
Why would you say that? Many, many people associate certain sounds with colors and experience a direct correlation between light and sound.

My overall point here is that you talk as if we as humans have a full and deep understanding of perception and how we relate different perceptions of physical manifestations in our minds. We don't. In fact, we have next to no clue as to a deep understanding of how the psyche puts a perception of the world around us together.

I respect that there is a level of pure experiential knowledge that you have gained as an esteemed and accomplished player and educator that tells you that you perceive things a certain way.

But I also think that what we can observe and understand as to how we connect different sounds together in our minds is purely the tip of the iceberg. Why do I think this? Well because every single great, master artist/musician of all time spoke, every chance they got, about how the highest part of their artform was far beyond the rational understanding of how we think, and far beyond any ability to put it into words.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Joe:
I already stated that Sam's ideas work for me - why doesn't that count as replication?
Dave replies:
maybe it does.

Tell me more about this improvement, Joe.
I'm going to try to point to that doorway of the mind by utilizing vibrato, which is a pitch (of a pitch) that is slow enough that it might be easier to feel how tempo can improve it.

We would all agree that the vibrato that sounds the most pleasing to us is a certain tone, wideness, quality of the variation of tone color, etc., that determines the whole aesthetic nature of the vibrato.

One of those factors, a vital factor, is the speed of the vibrato, in other words the tempo of the tremolo. The speed and steadiness of the "tempo" of the vibrato important because:

1) a vibrato that has the right speed and steadiness of vibrato sounds right in a big-picture sense, as applied to a given stylistic situation, and

2) to a lesser extent because it has to match other instruments in an ensemble or correspond with differing vibratos of other instruments.

Now let's jump to another kind of vibration, the pitch. Strike a middle b on the piano and play a middle d on the trom. Feel how the tempo of the pitch is subdivided by the resultant beats between the two note. Our ability to judge the steadiness and tempo of that subdivision is key to tuning to other instruments.

Now, let go of the piano and play the second LL f on the trombone, in the purest manner you can imagine. Concentrate on making the most beautiful, pure note you can make. Then, very quickly while your brain is in that non-right-hemisphere aesthetic place, just pretend that you can hear and subdivide the actual vibrations of the note. Imagine a flywheel spinning with concentric gears inside it turning successively (and proportionally) slower.

Right there is the place where you might have peeked at it. If you got there, you understand how such a way of playing is so incredibly resonant and direct to being a pitch; a vibrator.

Now we've arrived at a place where perhaps one can intuitively get a feel for the idea that if good time improves vibrato (the concentric vibration of a vibrated air stream), then maybe thinking about the revolutionary idea that good time improves pitch (a vibrated air stream) can improve our ability to have a direct and innate connection with the speed of the vibration.

So even if it doesn't work for you, or even if one feels that they will simply have no truck with considering that idea, I have to come back to my number one question: Just because a method does not make sense to you, or just because it does not bequeath benefits to you claimed by others, what is the motivation to debunk the idea?

I personally have found that practicing pedal tones have no discernable positive effect on my high register. Given this, has anyone ever seen me try to force someone to prove how pedal tones improve high range in the forty-thousand times it has been suggested in this forum? No. Why? Because folks I respect say it works for them - 'nuff said.

In other words, I fail to see the danger or the downside in not attempting to debunk theories of improving our craft, suggested by and confirmed by arguably accomplished pros. But the potential dangers of attempting to obfuscate such ideas are clear: the few folks who, like me, derive benefit from the ideas might not ever try them.

I weigh the pros and cons of debunking and I'm still left wondering why the old battle axe is being swung around. [Do not know] [Hi]

-j

 

 

Back To Rants
 

©2003, Joe Jackson. All rights reserved.