Re: Re: Brass Quintet Dealings


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick Denney on November 08, 2001 at 15:22:41:

In Reply to: Re: Brass Quintet Dealings posted by defunct on November 08, 2001 at 13:52:19:

I could echo these sentiments with two of the three quintets I've played in. There's always one guy who consumes 80% of the problem-solving energy.

I also agree that it's best to have one person in charge of the business of the group, even though that person may delegate tasks to the others, and even that person remains open to input from the others. Remember that authority is granted by the governed, so the leader must earn that respect by working hard and always in the best interests of the group (as opposed to his own best interests).

And it's probably also best to have one person in charge of the musical presentation, though this person should probably exercise that authority by consesus methods. Of course, some groups comprise grown-ups mature enough to work together effectively, and in these cases, authority will not have to be exercised directly.

I put together a quintet of community orchestra colleagues for a friend's wedding. It was a pay gig. I thought they'd be appreciative (an selfish expectation on my part), but we had conflict in the rehearsals. I wasn't good enough musically to command musical leadership, but then neither was anyone else. None of us would yield. In retrospect, I should have taken the money and hired reliable pros. In one or two rehearsals, we could have gotten the gig put together and it would have required much less energy. The pros would have had to accept working with me, but that's why they would be paid.

The TubaMeisters is not a brass quintet, but it highlighted the same facts. Even though the members of that group were responsible and consistent, one person in the group seemed to have more troubles than the others. I was sort of the business guy when I was there, but Ray Grim was (and still is) the musical leader--they need not be the same person depending on whose talents lie where. He led by example, and used consensus as a tool, but he still led.

Groups that lack a clear leader usually implode. The reason is that you end up with a sort of passive war: Some don't feel qualified musically to lead, but others don't have the wisdom or courage to lead. The former resent the latter for not leading but also not yielding, and the latter resent the former for not being better. Everyone quietly (and self-righteously) resents everyone else. These groups don't last.

The Canadian Brass provides a great example of how to do it right. I don't know who provides the musical leadership in that group, but whoever it is is probably not the best musician in all cases. They are too equal for that. I'd bet that a key to the success of the group is that the other players choose to grant that authority. That was really apparent to me on the few occasions when I've chatted with them--when it was Daellenbach, O'Hanion, Watts, Mills, and Romm--they were all extremely humble and generous off stage. I think that's the foundation that supports their success.

Rick "who thinks that servants make good leaders" Denney


Follow Ups: