And of course, he's right. I admitted that this schema was for the basics, and the handout I attached says that this is simply a default, and the conductor may ask for something different on a given piece.
But as I was helping to organize a music library a couple of weeks ago, I stumbled onto a jewel - W. Francis McBeth's "Effective Performance of Band Music". Published in 1972 by Southwestern Music Company, it contains some of the best and most straight forward information I have yet to find regarding techniques for improving the band.
It also has an entire section devoted to the interpretation of articulation markings. In it, McBeth surveyed the premier wind band composers and conductors of the day as to their understanding of the five most common articulation markings. If you can find this book, you need to buy it. It should be cheap, and the information from those conductors and composers is worth it alone (although the in depth discussion on achieving the pyramid of sound really seals it, considering this book was the source of that schema).
So for your pleasure and edification, here is a summary of their comments. The conductors and composers who responded include: John Barnes Chance, Frank Erickson, Howard Hanson, Martin Mailman, Vaclav Nelhybel, Vincent Persichetti, Richard Willis, Harold Arnoldi, Frederick Fennell, Joe Barry Mullins, James Neilson, John Paynter, William D. Revelli and Clarence Sawhill. Enjoy!
Actually, I should first note that several if not most noted that these are only generalizations, and that how you interpret these depends on the context. But generally speaking, this is what they believed. Also, McBeth didn't name these markings, he only asked, "What does this marking mean?" with a graphic, and then let them give their own definition. Most of them didn't name the symbols, either. So here we go!
1.
Strong attack, but not shortened: John Barnes Chance, Vincent Persichetti, John Paynter.
Strong attack (note length not specified): Frank Erickson, Richard Willis, Vaclav Nelhybel (who also says it sometimes will shorten the note), Harold Arnoldi (specifies it is a breath accent more than tongued accent), Frederick Fennell (who notes the length is influenced by speed and style), Joe Marry Mullins, Clarence Sawhill.
Strong attack, shortened note: Howard Hanson, Martin Mailman, William Revelli (specifies breath emphasis more than tongue).
2.
All agreed that this marking meant that notes should be connected with a soft articulation. The debate seemed to be over whether or not additional stress (or dynamic) was used.
Specified "with stress": Howard Hanson, Martin Mailman (notes that sometimes it indicates stress), Vincent Persichetti (used the words, "Gloved pulsation with slight separation."), Richard Willis.
Only addressed note length: Frank Erickson, Vaclav Nelhybel, Richard Willis, Frederick Fennell, Joe Barry Mullins, James Neilson, John Paynter, Clarence Sawhill.
Specified "without stress": John Barnes Chance, William Revelli.
Also interesting, Frederick Fennell discussed the below articulation...
He noted that he heard this misinterpreted all the time, and suggested that it confused students and conductors alike. I agree in that the first time I saw this in High School, my friend and I approached our teacher to ask about it. I'm sure he gave us an answer, but I can't remember off hand what it was, and it took some time before I attained a clear concept. Anyway, Fennell goes on to say that this articulation (a combination of slur and staccato) is covered by the tenuto. In other words, they do the same thing.
3.
This was the most ambiguous of all the articulations in this survey. Everyone had a slightly different idea. Only Frank Erickson suggested it shorten the note by "about half". All agreed that there were some separation, but a couple advocated very short notes (including Nelhybel), but not most. Only one mentioned using a light tongue strength (Revelli, who recommended tu or du). Because of the diversity, I will not list categories or specific view points, but here is one I'm sure everyone is interested in, from Fennell, who said, "Brevity and detachment are implied here, usually resulting in a dry but resonant quality of sound."
4.
Everyone basically agreed that this meant both full length (connected but with a soft articulation) and accent. In other words, a combination of the first two markings.
5.
Accented throughout the full value (not just the attack): John Barnes Chance, William Revelli.
Accented attack: Frank Erickson (except at fast tempos).
Heavier accent (attack) than the first symbol: Howard Hanson, Vincent Persichetti, Richard Willis, Harold Arnoldi (percussive attack), Frederick Fennell (who compares it to the previous symbol but with maximum attack emphasis), John Paynter, Clarence Sawhill.
Heavier accent (attack) with separation between notes: Marin Mailman ("bell like attack"), Vaclav Nelhybel (sometimes with separation), Joe Barry Mullins, James Neilson.
I should also give this disclaimer: I don't think we can safely assume that this was, always and forever, each person's stance on these markings. It was basically what the described in this survey, by W. Francis McBeth, in the early 70's. But I do think it's really interesting to compare and see who was in what school.
How do you define these articulations? I'd love to hear other people's thoughts in the comments below!
I hope you've found this as interesting as I did! Of course, I really geek out over stuff like this. If this wasn't your cup of tea, then I promise I have several interesting articles on the way regarding teaching things like advanced intonation, ensemble balance and blend, and musicality. I'm excited to finally get to some of these posts after having researched them for so long.
Thank you for reading! Until next time, take care!
Musically yours,
Mr. Cooper
No comments:
Post a Comment