Ponderings on music philosophy
Jun. 28th, 2026 10:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shivverI got into an interesting discussion with another member of my Friday night band, so I'm gonna ponder about it here. If you have any experience performing with a group of musicians (any type - concert band, rock band, choral, whatever) I would love to hear any thoughts you might have on the subject.
So here's what happened. At Friday's rehearsal, we were playing a rather lyrical song ("Honey Pie" by the Beatles), and there's this one part in the clarinet line where we play a run of fast notes. (If you don't know what that means, listen to the opening of "Flight of the Bumblebee". That's a run - a bunch of notes in a line right after each other. Ours is not nearly as long or as fast, but you get the idea.)
The music on the page had no markings on it to tell us how to play the run, and for clarinet, if there are no markings, the default to tongue each note, which means to hit the reed with your tongue at the beginning of each note, which causes each note to have a hard start. When you play like this, it gives a lot of definition to the notes and almost feels military. It's like saying "da-da-da" -- each syllable has a hard start.
There are other ways to tongue notes with no markings. You could tongue them softly, like saying, "na-na-na", where the start is a lot softer. However, without markings, the default is harder, like "da-da-da".
Another way of playing the run would be to "slur" the notes, which means to not tongue at all, or, continuing with the syllables analogy, saying, "aaaaaaa" as you change notes. That makes it completely smooth. However, normally, if the composer/arranger wants it slurred, they'll mark it with a slur. But, as I said before, this run had no marks.
As we're playing this song and approaching this run, I'm listening to the music and noticing how lyrical it is and I decided that the run is going to fit a lot better if we slur it rather than tongue it as the music on the page implies. So, I slur it, but my friend Rose next to me tongues it, and ignoring the fact that we weren't playing it the same way so it sounded bad anyway, I thought that tonguing the run made it sound jerky and kind of stompy.
A little bit later, Rose commented that she was having problems with the run because it was difficult to tongue it and I said, "Well, it really should be slurred." She replied, "It doesn't say to slur it," and I said, "No, but that really doesn't matter. It doesn't sound good with the rest of the music if it's tongued." She said that we have to play it the way it's written on the page, but if I wanted to play it differently, I should ask the conductor (she refused to do so herself). Okay, that's fair, so I asked the conductor and he said, "Oh yes, absolutely, it has to be slurred."
Rose and I talked about this later, and she said that we, as musicians in a concert band, must play exactly what's written on the page, that that's always been her experience, in her many years in concert and symphonic bands. She believes that we have to follow exactly what the composer/arranger wrote, and the only exception to that is if the conductor tells us to do something different. She said that that's the only way that the musicians in a section can work together and blend.
Of course, you already can tell that I disagree with this philosophy. I've had years of experience in concert and symphonic bands, too, and I've never had anyone say that you have to stick doggedly to the music on the page. All of the conductors I've played under -- except one, who I'll mention later -- have always encouraged the musicians to constantly listen to the music that we're playing and adjust what you're doing to blend with the band and improve the musicality of the piece. 95% of the time, you're going to play what's on the written on the page, but sometimes, you're going to realize that no, that accent or this crescendo doesn't sound good, and you're going to want to change it.
As I think about it, I remember clearly instances in which my high school band director told us that we should be always thinking about the musicality and emotion of what we're hearing and playing. I remember him pointing at a whole note (a note played for four beats) without any markings and saying that it does mean to play it the same all the way through, but if we think that in context, during the piece as we're playing and listening, it's more emotive to get louder for two beats and then get softer for two beats, then do it.
Now, I agree with her that it isn't good if everyone is doing things differently, but that's what rehearsals are for -- playing together and trying things out with your section and your band, to set up how you're going to play the piece in the performance. Rose played that run with all tongues the first time, so try it out slurred the second time, and see which fits better.
On the converse side, if you're going to play to an audience a piece that the band has never played before, sure, stick to what's on the page. That is absolutely the only way the band is going to be cohesive in this situation. But there's nothing wrong with experimenting or playing something "wrong" in rehearsal.
I do agree with her that it's a good idea to ask the conductor which they prefer, but I don't think it's necessarily required. The section can work out what we want to do and play it that way, and if the conductor doesn't like, they'll tell us to change. I also believe (though I can't say for sure, as I'm not a conductor) that conductors rely on their musicians to interpret the music and make good decisions on their own, so that they (the conductor) can focus on the big picture rather than the small details.
But, as I noted earlier, there's one conductor I've worked with who agrees with Rose, and that's Sherry, one of the conductors of the Tuesday night band. She's a former middle school band teacher and was the principal clarinet with the city orchestra, and she always sticks to what's on the page. And you know what? It's not good. The music sounds mechanical. It lacks soul. And, occasionally there's a typo in the music, and she will continue to have us play it that way until someone can definitively prove to her that it's a mistake.
One piece we rehearsed this year was "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", which, if you listen to just the first bit of the video, you'll see is a rather fast sea shanty type of song. However, the music we had listed the tempo of the song as three times too slow (for you music types, the tempo was listed as 80 but omitted that it should be taken in 1, not in 3), so she was having us play it like a slow funeral dirge. (And let me tell you, this is one boring song when you're repeating the same slooooow thing over and over for five minutes.) Tim, our other conductor, pointed out to her many times that the song is supposed to be fast, and even played the original for her to show her how fast the song should be, but she still continued to point at the tempo marking and insist, "The music says to play it like this." Eventually, Tim had to change tactics and convince her to not include the piece in our concert.
But, that was a long segue to concede that yes, there are some people who agree with Rose, that the paper with the music is the source of truth.
So, I honestly don't know what to think. I see her point, that she really feels that the music should be played as the composter/arranger intended it with variations added by the conductor, and not as the musicians want to play it, and maybe that's a good attitude for concert band (and symphony orchestra)? But I really feel that band and orchestra musicians, while they must follow the conductor's lead, are not bound to the composer/arranger's vision and can interpret the music differently if the rest of the band/orchestra agrees with it. I'd love to hear if you have any thoughts about this.
So here's what happened. At Friday's rehearsal, we were playing a rather lyrical song ("Honey Pie" by the Beatles), and there's this one part in the clarinet line where we play a run of fast notes. (If you don't know what that means, listen to the opening of "Flight of the Bumblebee". That's a run - a bunch of notes in a line right after each other. Ours is not nearly as long or as fast, but you get the idea.)
The music on the page had no markings on it to tell us how to play the run, and for clarinet, if there are no markings, the default to tongue each note, which means to hit the reed with your tongue at the beginning of each note, which causes each note to have a hard start. When you play like this, it gives a lot of definition to the notes and almost feels military. It's like saying "da-da-da" -- each syllable has a hard start.
There are other ways to tongue notes with no markings. You could tongue them softly, like saying, "na-na-na", where the start is a lot softer. However, without markings, the default is harder, like "da-da-da".
Another way of playing the run would be to "slur" the notes, which means to not tongue at all, or, continuing with the syllables analogy, saying, "aaaaaaa" as you change notes. That makes it completely smooth. However, normally, if the composer/arranger wants it slurred, they'll mark it with a slur. But, as I said before, this run had no marks.
As we're playing this song and approaching this run, I'm listening to the music and noticing how lyrical it is and I decided that the run is going to fit a lot better if we slur it rather than tongue it as the music on the page implies. So, I slur it, but my friend Rose next to me tongues it, and ignoring the fact that we weren't playing it the same way so it sounded bad anyway, I thought that tonguing the run made it sound jerky and kind of stompy.
A little bit later, Rose commented that she was having problems with the run because it was difficult to tongue it and I said, "Well, it really should be slurred." She replied, "It doesn't say to slur it," and I said, "No, but that really doesn't matter. It doesn't sound good with the rest of the music if it's tongued." She said that we have to play it the way it's written on the page, but if I wanted to play it differently, I should ask the conductor (she refused to do so herself). Okay, that's fair, so I asked the conductor and he said, "Oh yes, absolutely, it has to be slurred."
Rose and I talked about this later, and she said that we, as musicians in a concert band, must play exactly what's written on the page, that that's always been her experience, in her many years in concert and symphonic bands. She believes that we have to follow exactly what the composer/arranger wrote, and the only exception to that is if the conductor tells us to do something different. She said that that's the only way that the musicians in a section can work together and blend.
Of course, you already can tell that I disagree with this philosophy. I've had years of experience in concert and symphonic bands, too, and I've never had anyone say that you have to stick doggedly to the music on the page. All of the conductors I've played under -- except one, who I'll mention later -- have always encouraged the musicians to constantly listen to the music that we're playing and adjust what you're doing to blend with the band and improve the musicality of the piece. 95% of the time, you're going to play what's on the written on the page, but sometimes, you're going to realize that no, that accent or this crescendo doesn't sound good, and you're going to want to change it.
As I think about it, I remember clearly instances in which my high school band director told us that we should be always thinking about the musicality and emotion of what we're hearing and playing. I remember him pointing at a whole note (a note played for four beats) without any markings and saying that it does mean to play it the same all the way through, but if we think that in context, during the piece as we're playing and listening, it's more emotive to get louder for two beats and then get softer for two beats, then do it.
Now, I agree with her that it isn't good if everyone is doing things differently, but that's what rehearsals are for -- playing together and trying things out with your section and your band, to set up how you're going to play the piece in the performance. Rose played that run with all tongues the first time, so try it out slurred the second time, and see which fits better.
On the converse side, if you're going to play to an audience a piece that the band has never played before, sure, stick to what's on the page. That is absolutely the only way the band is going to be cohesive in this situation. But there's nothing wrong with experimenting or playing something "wrong" in rehearsal.
I do agree with her that it's a good idea to ask the conductor which they prefer, but I don't think it's necessarily required. The section can work out what we want to do and play it that way, and if the conductor doesn't like, they'll tell us to change. I also believe (though I can't say for sure, as I'm not a conductor) that conductors rely on their musicians to interpret the music and make good decisions on their own, so that they (the conductor) can focus on the big picture rather than the small details.
But, as I noted earlier, there's one conductor I've worked with who agrees with Rose, and that's Sherry, one of the conductors of the Tuesday night band. She's a former middle school band teacher and was the principal clarinet with the city orchestra, and she always sticks to what's on the page. And you know what? It's not good. The music sounds mechanical. It lacks soul. And, occasionally there's a typo in the music, and she will continue to have us play it that way until someone can definitively prove to her that it's a mistake.
One piece we rehearsed this year was "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", which, if you listen to just the first bit of the video, you'll see is a rather fast sea shanty type of song. However, the music we had listed the tempo of the song as three times too slow (for you music types, the tempo was listed as 80 but omitted that it should be taken in 1, not in 3), so she was having us play it like a slow funeral dirge. (And let me tell you, this is one boring song when you're repeating the same slooooow thing over and over for five minutes.) Tim, our other conductor, pointed out to her many times that the song is supposed to be fast, and even played the original for her to show her how fast the song should be, but she still continued to point at the tempo marking and insist, "The music says to play it like this." Eventually, Tim had to change tactics and convince her to not include the piece in our concert.
But, that was a long segue to concede that yes, there are some people who agree with Rose, that the paper with the music is the source of truth.
So, I honestly don't know what to think. I see her point, that she really feels that the music should be played as the composter/arranger intended it with variations added by the conductor, and not as the musicians want to play it, and maybe that's a good attitude for concert band (and symphony orchestra)? But I really feel that band and orchestra musicians, while they must follow the conductor's lead, are not bound to the composer/arranger's vision and can interpret the music differently if the rest of the band/orchestra agrees with it. I'd love to hear if you have any thoughts about this.
no subject
Date: 2026-07-03 03:06 am (UTC)If it didn't, copyright on the performance of a public domain piece shouldn't exist.
And I can't see how she could argue with the writer's own performance.
I play some (not a ton) of classical piano. (My teacher from age 8 tried to train me as a classical pianist but, with my mom's support, I rebelled hard in my teens lmao.)
But even with big name classical pieces I have seen half a dozen + different notions of the pieces I know and some of them were written very, very stupidly. You'd think it would be a settled thing, but arrangers can do lots of weird things and some versions need to chucked IMO.
Just my 2 cents.
no subject
Date: 2026-07-03 04:25 pm (UTC)Interestingly, in a later conversation, Rose said that she plays music because she wants to be enveloped in a "wall of sound" (that was her phrase) and that she doesn't care to think about why she played a passage in the way she did. I didn't respond to that because I couldn't really fathom thinking like that. To me, the whole point of playing music, of doing any creative endeavor, is to think about what you're trying to express and whether or not what you chose to do succeeded.
As I read your comment, it occurred to me that Rose would have hated playing in the DWFO. I don't know about the vocal parts, but a lot of the clarinet part had no notations on it. Clarinet has a lot of melody in "Ruby in the TARDIS", but there are no slurs written in, so Rose would have assumed that all the notes should be tongued, and since she doesn't pay attention to how the rest of the music sounds, she would have tongued each note firmly, which doesn't fit with the song at all.