Trumpets at the battle of Jericho
For as long as pretty much anyone can remember, music has been seen as a form of communication, a way to exchange some type of meaningful information from one individual to another. Historically (i.e., most of history until roughly the 19th century), music and sound was used as a way to better communicate certain tangible things. A way to send troops into battle, a way to signal the “hunt”, to help words of a church service carry in large echo-y cathedrals, etc.
Communicating through music as an individual, as a way to derive an emotion in a non-utilitarian way is a relatively new concept within the last couple of centuries. Personally, I’m glad I exist in a time where music is “in the eye of the beholder”. When your perception and experience (both of which adapt and change as we do) can dictate a completely different experience from one day to the next.
Well into the nineteenth century and increasingly so thereafter, the music-making public’s primary contact with music was through realized performances, thus gaining a more fluid vocabulary with performances that are perceived to be musical. Mentally and physically, it is within our perceptual abilities to inherently think in sound. Our specific responses to this stimuli is largely culturally conditioned to the experience we have with music. According to the great pedagogue, Marilyn Pflederer Zimmerman, this perception creates a hierarchy of importance that we all assign to different aspects of music when we perform (tone, phrase, articulation, etc ).
I’ve been reading some articles recently by Zimmerman and Michael Thaut (here and here) that has me thinking a lot about perception. My own musical perception and response to it, the audiences perception of a performance, and the differences that might lie in between, thus not efficiently translated. Seeing as music is a language (see video for a musical schooling by Victor Wooten…), and draws so many similarities to speech in the way that information is processed, its important for me as the performer to be as clear as possible in the way I communicate.
An example of this, I remember distinctly a time in my undergraduate degree when my own perception of my playing did not match the communication of the intended purpose.
I was working on a slow, lyrical section of the Ewazen Bass Trombone Concerto, and consistently got comments from teachers and peers that on long notes, pitch was a major concern. I took this advice, worked with drones and a tuner for weeks to the point where I could nail the intonation every time in the practice room and was trying to be super “musical”. However, when I got into a lesson or performance, I got the same comments from people about intonation in the same spots.
Super frustrating, Bro.
The best thing to do, is to listen back. Check your work to see where things are lost in translation.
After listening back to the recordings, it was pretty clear that other’s perception of intonation problems, was me TRYING to be musical with slow, unsteady, and generally flabby vibrato.
This was perceived as poor intonation because, 1) it was, and 2) in my brain, my perception did not match the communication. I thought I was being really emotive and adding nuance to the performance, when in fact, it was the exact opposite. I approached this section again with a more straight tone, and had much more success in communicating the intonation.
My advice is to check your perception vs. reality, and see how you’re actually communicating. This can become a powerful tool for performance because this is something you can control (recording devices, lessons, attention to detail, etc.). Don’t create your hierarchy of musicality based on what you think the audience wants to hear, this is fighting a losing battle. Go experience things (live music, lessons, etc.)! This will undoubtedly keep your musical perception and communication evolving and fresh.
Your music deserves authenticity.