Posted by Greg Crider on May 05, 2001 at 21:39:34:
In Reply to: Contra-Octave in band playing posted by Austin H. on May 03, 2001 at 17:31:29:
This is one of the oldest areas of disagreement in music. In college, I encountered faculty members who were adamant that the ONLY guides to legitemate interpretation of music were the composer's intent and traditional practice. Some others on the faculty were in favor of experimentation, rearrangement, adaptation, and so on as long as it served the spirit of the music. These opposing views led to heated debates and hearty disagreements, but they always managed to stay civil, although their students sometimes became too intensely involved.
I personally come down on the side of the second group for a number of reasons. First, composers often recycle, reorchestrate, and otherwise adapt their own music. Just because a composer sets music into a certain written form does not mean that it's his last word on that composition. Some composers are fanatical about never deviating from their notations, while some are glad for others to experiment, to try to explore or extend the spirit of their compositions. However, no player should ever blindside a conductor, or ESPECIALLY a conducting composer during a performance; if you want to try shifting octaves or whatever, check for permission, and NEVER try something new and funky in a performance that you've never done in rehearsal, except in jazz improv.
Second, some composers are brilliant conductors, understand their compositions every possibility, and know very well how to get the best possible sound from their compositions. John Williams, to me, is the epitome of this type. On the opposite end, there are some brilliant composers who do not seem to be able to draw the best from their own music. I know I'm setting myself up as a target with this, but I'll have to be specific: my favorite composer is Igor Stravinsky, but none of the recordings or broadcasts of him conducting his own compositions ever satisfied me. He was one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, and he was a brilliant orchestrator, but he was never able to draw as much spirit from his own works as, for example, William Steinberg or Pierre Boulez (also a brilliant composer). He obviously knew his own works better than anyone, and self-evidently knew the composer's intentions, but was not the best with his own stuff.
Third, a composer has a mental image of the sound of his compositions, but its sound in performance is at the mercy of the musicians performing it. Let's face it, there are a ton of different tuba tones that sound good, and there are plenty that sound less good in varying degrees. Saying that dropping notes an octave changes the timbre of the instrument and changes the characteristic sound of a composition is true, but so may simply having a different player playing the written part. If a player cannot produce a solid, properly tuned, correctly volumed note down an octave, then it is not musical and should not be played (guilty as charged, I have to admit). A player who can drop octaves musically, tastefully, and who doesn't do it when it damages tempo or other considerations will not harm the sound and may enhance it so long as it's not too loud and not overdone. Things lose their novelty and effectiveness when done too often.
Fourth, there has been a long tradition of conductors and musicians altering orchestrations to enhance the sound. Stokowski didn't just arrange other composers' music, he often reorchestrated well-known and respected works to suit his own tastes. Many people took offense at this, but it didn't stop him. And let's face it, nobody could draw pure beauty of tone and ensemble from an orchestra like he could. Along the same line, Ormandy got "that Philadelphia sound" from his strings (the lushest string sound imaginable) by doubling and crossing string parts between sections and having sections play other sections' parts during rests. This was also a controversial practice; purists castigated him for decades, but it's hard to beat that sound.
Fifth, tuba is in a different position from other instruments in the band. Doubling of octaves in upper and middle parts on any polyphonic instrument or any ensemble piece is more likely to have a deleterious effect on the sound of a composition, on its harmony, and its blend and balance than doubling bass parts. I don't know how many hundreds of times I've had my teeth set on edge by overuse of high octave doubling on trumpet where it didn't fit (even when done in tune and with good tone), but doubling bass octaves just doesn't have the same effect. When done right, it can deepen and fill a sound; the question is, when is it appropriate to fill and deepen a part, and when does it just not sound good?
Sixth, I am a believer in freedom of the musical spirit and despise slavish adherence to the past. That said, I also believe in the responsibility of a member of an ensemble to not embarass the group by calling inappropriate attention to himself or by detracting from the sound of a performance by making alterations that don't sound good, especially when it blindsides the conductor or other members of the group. Banning octave dropping is narrow-minded and musically hidebound, in my opinion. At the same time, it must be done musically, at appropriate times, and only to enhance the quality of sound, not to be funky, superbad, egotistical, or a showoff. If it doesn't fit a particular passage, if the conductor doesn't like it, if you can't keep proper tone, intonation, or balance, the DON'T DO IT!
This is all about personal philosophy, and literalism vs. free interpretation is a debate that will go on forever. At the same time, this is also a matter of every player's responsibility to the ensemble in which he is playing. There will never be a final answer to this, but let's have a little tolerance; none of us has the ultimate answer or perfect logic. Let's remember our own limitations and have some tolerance.