Clean. Musical. Tom & Jerry or Ben & Jerry Erik Lynch Verona High School elynch@veronaschools.org
P
ost-concert discussion among my colleagues in the band world tends to follow an eitheror framework. Have you ever heard something
like this? “Boy, they were super clean, but really boring! It felt more clinical then it did musical.” “Wow, that slow movement was really, really musical, but the percussion section was sloppy and ruined it for me!” Visual imagery takes me back to a classic Tom and Jerry cartoon, with each iconic character battling for some form of moral superiority. However, my heart really yearns for Ben and Jerry, in particular "Coffee Heath Bar Crunch," where those luscious ingredients work in decadent harmony. Have we been conditioned in the band world to think about performances in a somewhat dualistic way? Are technical considerations and those decisions that gravitate more towards the musical end (phrasing, climax points, tempi, etc.) separate or integrated entities? One would hope that professional musicians/practitioners would lean towards the latter. Additionally, I hope that we see technical precision as a vessel to great music making. But, sadly, this would be a clear case where there is a disconnect between theory and practice. With that said, the purpose of this article is to attempt to balance these tensions from two vantage points: 1. Why does the band world put such emphasis on technical precision, and what are the implications for our students? 2. How can we refine our conceptual paradigm of this delicate, yet pivotal balance point of technical and musical issues? Furthermore, how will this evolved philosophy translate to our students having heightened musical experiences? Competition in the band world can often push us towards safe and clean performances that prioritize technical precision over the intrinsic beauty of the art form.
This is especially apparent in the marching band world, as the idiom has been intensified with props, electronics, voice overs, etc. This can leave the actual music making as a small portion of the curricula. Furthermore, the remainder of time (often minimal) that goes into music centers around repetition and cleanliness, avoiding so many great parts of the literature: interpretation, theoretical/compositional techniques, and contextual elements, just to name a few. Many music educators would agree that the competitive nature of the marching band world bleeds over to other parts of our program. Whether it is perfecting three selections for the State Jazz Band Festival, or crafting the ideal program for the Concert Band Festival in hopes of making the Gala Concert, competition can breed a mindset that is not musical. Sadly, we as educators (including myself ) often succumb to pedantic and myopic rubrics (aka score sheets) crafted by those people and companies who simply want to make money off of us. It makes me sad that the hyper-competitive nature of the band world is so close to the pervasive testing culture in academia we often criticize, especially when we consider how liberating and emancipating music making can be. It is time that we, including myself, reflect upon these tensions. If we agree, or partially agree, that competition can lead us to prioritizing the “clean and together” over the more abstract elements of the art form, then what does that mean for our students? Some salient points: • We often avoid playing great literature, or play a finite amount of music for the sake of competition. • We often cultivate a learning environment that is more hierarchical then it is egalitarian. • We often reduce our discourse on the podium to a set of tricks (the third is always sharp, etc.) as opposed to teaching in more organic and contextual ways.
TEMPO 48
OCTOBER 2019
