Boston Magazine. The Audition.

New entry after almost two months without writing. I love managing Percusize Me! and tlike offering my readers articles or opinions of their interest but, if you are a follower, you may already know about my passion for the sea and navigation: this is what has kept me away from you for a while. Recently, I took my exam for becoming the Spanish equivalent of an Yachtmaster Ocean and, being the exams quite hard, the time devoted to study didn´t allow me to update Percusize Me! as often as I would have like. Everything is more calmed now (and my exams have been a total success!), so I can retake the blog with renovated energies.

Today I´m bringing an article which, in my opinion, is devastating. On it, Mike Tetreault (my mate at the Royal Academy of Music for two years) explains how he prepares an audtion, how a friend of him is sacked after three years with the Boston Symphony, how the hard preparation doesn´t even take to the second round, his wishes, his frustrations, the fairness or unfairness of a system looking for machines instead of musicians... I felt so identified with him, that thought I had to share it with you. Here´s the link where you can read it:

Boston Magazine: The Audition  

What is a fair system for auditions? Starting with the fact that percussion audtions are quite ridiculous due to percussionists been asked to play orchestral excerpts totally out of context and with no accompaniment, this is where I see the first mistake. I only played once with piano accompaniment ("Rosenkavalier" timpani part), and only once was I able to play with other musicians (all the percussion section plus piano accompaniment in a memorable Royal Opera House audition). If our job is to play, accompany and make music together with other instrumentalists, to play excerpts by themselves is, at least, bizarre. Having said this, I don´t mean I like the French way, a system which asks for pieces featuring 15 cowbells, 9 toms, 7 woodblocks, tambourine, snare drum and five timpani with piano accompaniment... I will never understand why this kind of solo works are asked for an orchestral audition. It is as if you were attending a job interview to gain a mechanic post and you were asked to cook some spaghetti...

     

Does a screen assure a fair audition? It depends on the case... I´m really suspicous about the last auditions I played behind a curtain; on the contrary, I have very nice memories of those I played in Rotterdam and Manchester. The one I won in Lisbon was behind screen, but that´s a loooooooooong story, and the one I won in Tallin was also behind screen, but that´s, again, another horror story... A behind the screen audition ensures no discrimination by reasons of race, sex or any other condition is taken (go and talk to the female trombonist under Celibidache in the Munich Philharmonic...!). I don´t dislike this option, but would never (in the case of being in the panel) ask for it in the finals: I would like to see the player, his attitude, commitment, style... In the same way, as a candidate, I want to show those qualities to the panel, so I prefer a final round with no screen. This system is not perfect, and it can be biased towards the candidate prefered by the panel. 

The trials method favoured by the British, in which various people "win" the audition and are tested trough a variable period of time, is a favourite of mine. A post in an orchestra, in my opinion, cannot be granted just by playing isolated excerpts: is for this reason that British orchestras "try" those who have played a good audition. Checking how they do in "real situation", they employ a good musican, not a mere "excerpt player".

Nowadays, with everybody using Facebook to advertise their success, I consider Mike Tetreault and Lee Vison to be two very brave musicians, as they had enough balls to say "I haven´t win". The "everything is fine", "I´m doing very well" attitude is easy, but the honest one, admitting "I didn´t get to the second round", or "I´m not giging very much", is the brave one. I really wish them all the best.

This auditions issue can be lengthy, but it´s something that will come out on this blog in the future. For now, I´d like to read your opinions about it.

I, for now, will quote a phrase in the article:  "Give me success or take this desire away from me. One of the two". 

…et in Arcadia ego.

© David Valdés

Technique vs. musicality.

One of the most stupid questions I am asked (and, sadly, it´s done by musicians) is the classic "What do you prefer: having a good technique, or being musical?" There´s only one other question as silly, often asked by a fat lady while pinching your cheek: "Who do you love the most: daddy, or mammy?" 

Obviously, this question is vitiated from start:

1. Why do I have to choose one of those two options? Is it not desirable to have BOTH a fantastic technique an a vivid musical imagination?

2. In 100% of the cases, the question comes from musicians with deficient technique.

3. For the previous reason, the question is oriented for the answer to be the one the technique lacking musician wants to hear: that the important thing is musicality.

Photo by Vintage drum, catalogues and accesories

There are myths and misunderstandings regarding technique and musicality we have to get rid of NOW.

For many people, musicality is something you are born with and, the same "quantity of musicality" you are born with, the same you die with. For those who think this way, he who is born "musical", doesn´t have to worry about how to make music, as that´s something he has "inside", and comes out with no effort. Of course, defenders of this theory (what a coincidence, all of them happen to consider themselves "musical" people!) don´t get to understand you can learn how to make music. Obviously, talent and natural predisposition is part of the equation but, if those gifts given by Nature at random are not perfected, they will stay as mere potencial and won´t blossom to make a magnifient musician.

There´s no doubt Carl Lewis had talent and natural predisposition, but wouldn´t he had work very hard, he wouldn´t have won 10 Olympic medals and 9 WC ones. Thus, he considering himself "musical" (I would like to see his "musicality"), will do well improving his gift, and not think he´s got a rough diamond into his chest which will come out everytime he wants to, and without working on it. Of course, the other posibility (no talent, but hard work) exists, but tends to be fruitless. We have, then, these possibilities:

a) No talent + no hard work. Obviously, this brings nothing good. From this combinaion we can only expect disastrous musicians.

b) No talent + hard work. We can expect few from this case. Sadly, good will and effort (fantastic virtues) are not enough if they are not accompanied by something more. This combination produces mediocre musicians.

c) Talent + no hard work. This is a peculiar case which drives nuts those in case b): we all know people who, almost doing nothing, get much better results than those expending much more hours on the instrument. Obviously, this produces better musicians than b), but they are incomplete, as their talent is not taken further through hard work.

d) Talent + hard work. Of course, this is the combination producing the true musician. I don´t think I have to explain what´s evident.

Photo Deborah Smith Music

Other nonsense we normally get to hear is of this kind: "He´s a musician with a very good technique, but he is very cold". That´s the kind of justification given by a musician who, obviously, has not the technique of the one he is criticizing. As in everything in life, there are musicians with great technique being more or less expresive, but linking "technique" to "coldness" is such an stupidity that I will employ no time trying to dismantle that relation.

Photo Dulcie Holland

The alleged musicality of those reviling technique is nothing more than oversized ritardandi, excessive phrasing, very slow (due to the lack of technical control) tempi, inflated long notes... Sadly, many people think their kitsch, affected and mannered interpretation is "musical", but no... It is KITSCH, AFFECTED and MANNERED. We have, thus, musicians who revile technique and promulgate "musicality", but their alleged musicality is nothing more than something kitsch and mannered (so, in reality, they have nothing at all).

The reason why I think the question that gives cause to this article is stupid is because, he who is asking it, thinks that one can exist without the other, and THAT´S NOT TRUE: musical expresion can never be more than commensurate with technique, and every student with a normal intelligence has no problem at all developing both at the same time.     

When musical imagination triggers those muscular reflexes we have been working on for so many years, it gets a response from our fingers, wrist, arm..., and all we want to express flows from brain to instrument with no impediment. What happens when those muscular reflexes (technique) do not exist? Our fingers, wrist, and arm cannot respond, due to the lack of conscious technical work, to the demands of our brain; so, in between brain and instrument there´s a bottle neck preventing musical expression.

Technique without musical expression is a possibility to be guarded against; having said this, we all know "circus players" which do not transmit much emotion, but there they are: earning a living (with much success in many cases!). I still don´t know a musician allegedly "musical" with scarce technique managing to pay his mortgage.  On the other hand, artistic musical expression (real one, no mannered stuff) without a substancial technique is an impossibility, as the finest shades of musical meaning require the finest shades of technical control. Thus, separating technique from musical expression (and viceversa) is a fallacy, as one cannot be understood without the other, one is commensurate to the other, and both can be taught. 

So, next time you are asked that damned little question, answer BOTH, and you will also get an idea of the horrendous mental mess that asking person has.

…et in Arcadia ego.

© David Valdés

To sit or not to sit? That is the question.

Today, I´ll write about something that may make no sense out of Spain, but I´ve been asked about it quite a few times: In the orchestra, should I stand up or sit down when playing?

In Spain, the usual procedure is to stand up for playing cymbals, bass drum, triangle, tambourine, xylo... In my particular case, I have never asked myself why, but as it was what I always have seen, I simply stood up for playing.

It was not until I moved to London that I started questioning this method. The first work I played with the orchestra at the Royal Academy of Music was Strauss´ "A Hero´s Life", and I was in charge of tam-tam, cymbals and triangle. When I stood up to play my first entrance, the whole section looked at me and made funny faces. As soon as I finished, the principal asked me: "Why are you standing up?" Very secure of myself, I told him all that stuff about the visual thing, the theatrical component, that a concert is also seen, apart from listened to... He smiled and told me to do whatever I fancied but, in the UK, that was quite extravagant.

Few days after I attended my first concerts, and I realized that the whole section was sitting down.

I asked my teacher, and his explanations convinced me.

There´s no other member of the orchestra (except for the conductor) standing up for playing. When a player stands up, is calling attention to himself, announcing in a very visual way to the audience that he is about to do something: "Hey, look at me, I´m standing up so you can see I´m about to hit something!"

Standing up, you are calling an unnecessary attention to yourself and to the entrance you are about to play, which shouldn´t have it: No other player makes such a pompous announcement. The important thing is Music, not your next entrance, so boldy announced when you stand up. When you do so, you also take the risk of making extraneous noises (cracking floors, noisy chairs...).

You can keep the visual aspect keeping your instrument high, showing it to the audience (the old saying "if you can´t see it, you can´t hear it" is still valid), but not taking the theatrical aspect so far that it gets over-important.

Since my London days, I play sitting down. There are very few occasions when I stand up. This way, I do not call attention to my next entrance, and give the importance to the Music, not to me, the chap who is standing up, distracting the audience, calling for attention, focussing the interest, and making the members of the audience say "look, look... He´s standing up, something´s about to happen!"

As you can see on the first video, I play cymbals (both clashed and suspended) sitting down on a high stool, right at hip height: This way, my height is almost the same standing and sitting, not calling attention to myself.

You already knnow the following video from the post "Tambourine Technique", but it illustrates very well my purpose: I´m playing sitting down, but maintain the visual aspect keeping the tambourine high.

Same thing with bass drum... There´s no need for standing up. I can play everything while sitting down, no extraneous moves...

I can assure you none of the section principals nor conductors I have played with, have ever complained about me sitting down while playing. Try it: Sit down, don´t call attention to yourself, keep things nice and easy, no complicated stuff... As they say, KISS! (keep it simple, stupid!).

Jesus told Lazarus to "stand up and walk!". I tell you to "sit down and play!"

…et in Arcadia ego.

© David Valdés

New things coming from old ones.

There´s nothing new under the sun and, whatever we think is something new, chances it has been invented and developed by someone else before we did are very possible. Today, I´d like to write about a percusive gadget that has deep roots into the past.

First is first, so let me introduce you the original concept:

Photo courtesy of Maciej Kazinsky

Have a look at the bottom of the bowl of this pair of baroque timpani.You can see a device shaped like a trumpet bell: it´s a "Schalltrichter" ("schall" means sound, and "trichter" means funnel).

This device was common in German timpani for a long period (between 1600 and 1800). Drums with this piece are very rare outside Germany, so we can think this constructive element is very characteristic from this country.

It was mentioned in old treatises: "Musicus autodidactos" (J.P. Eisel - 1738), "Die Pauken und Trommeln" (G. Fechner - 1862), and the older ones can be found in a pair of timpani kept at the Bayerische Nationalmuseum, dated in 1620. 

Its function was to create a saussenden Nachklang (resonant reverberance ) by means of the funnel moving back and forth, enriching a sound that, otherwise, would be quite anodyne (Fechner dixit)*.

As time passed, the "Schalltrichter" fell in disuse.

You can see more photos and read a very interesting article in The Well-Tempered Timpani.

Don´t you thik its desing is very similar to those found on subwoofers and loud speakers?

Three years ago (I don´t know if they even know what a "Schalltrichter" is), a company started selling a gadget coming form that organologic tradition, a device which gives rise to many opinions among drummers: the "Kickport".

© Kickport

As you can see, it´s kind of a funnel which goes on the resonant head of the bass drum:

© Kickport

Acording to the manufacturer, it gives "more lows, more tone, better definition and more punch", apart from slightly dampening the resonant head. Does it work? Opinions vary: there´s people that, after trying it, they hear a huge improvement, and there´s people who hears nothing at all. As always, we can find confronted opinions: some think it´s very useful and its creators have hit the jackpot, while others think it´s a bluff coming from someone with a very cunning commercial vision.

The thing is that it seems to have had some sucess, and their creators have milked the idea: Why just the bass drum when the set includes more drums? As bold as brass, they extended the concept to toms and snare drum:

© Kickport

I haven´t tried it, so I cannot give my opinion. If I ever have the chance to try it, I´ll write about it trying to explain my thoughts on it.

The very interesting thing, and what made me write about this new toy, is the similarity I´ve found between the "Kickport" and "Schalltrichter" present in German timpani. We tend to think we are very modern and cool, but this idea has been working since 1600.

As I said at the beginning, there´s nothing new under the sun... Very new looking ideas are 400 years old. The eternal return hits again, and the "Schallrichter" gets reincarnated in the "Kickport".  

* The information on the two paragraphs before the asterisk comes from an article by Ben Harms titled "The world of historical timpani", written for "Early Music America" for its summer 2008 edition.

…et in Arcadia ego.

© David Valdés

Stevens tecnique works with every instrument.

If aspirin cures everything, Tide cleans everything, and jeans combine with every piece of garment, we have to find  a percusive equivalent thats works with everything, and that´s Stevens technique.

Many of you already know that I use this technique on marimba, vibraphone, glockenspiel ("Pines of Rome", "Great Russian Eastern Overture"...), xylophone ("Appalachian Springs", "Oiseaux Exotiques"...), cymbals (one handed rolls), on set-up´s... Every time I need to hold two sticks in one hand, I use Stevens technique as, to me, it is the most versatile and complete one (apart form being fortunate enough to have studied it with Leigh Howard Stevens himself).

I have never felt the need to use four sticks on drumset. It´s not very common, but not new: Billy Cobham has been doing it for quite a long time (I also got some lessons from him while in London).

      

Mr. Cobham holds the sticks his way, but being myself a true fan of the Stevens technique, I was very pleasently surprised (and I could not help but give a hint of a smile) when I saw the following video. It features two great musicians: Tony Bennett and Clayton Cameron. This video proves this drummer knows what this technique is all about, as you can see him playing single alternate strokes on 2:03. Enjoy the music and, as a curiosity, add a new more utility to the Stevens technique.

Abandon technical dualities!, make room for this technique in your percusive life!

By the way... For those of you who like these kind of things, the mic on the snare drum is an Audio-Technica ATM25, those on hihat and overheads are Audio-Technica AT4050, and those on toms are Audio-Technica ATM350.

…et in Arcadia ego.

© David Valdés

Those wonderful 80´s.

Today I´m going to take a detour and write about something not directly connected with percussion. If you have a look at the subtitle in my blog, you´ll see that, apart from writing about percussive issues, my intention was to deal with "music, art and life". So, it´s about music and life what you are about to read in this post.

Obviously, in 1983, Spain was an innocent country, having left a dictatorship few years ago. I was innocent too, which is normal taking into account I was 7-8 years old at the moment. That innocence was perceptible in every aspect: society, politics, economy..., and obviously, music.

The other day I heard a song that triggered a ton of memories. As I said in the article "Radio memories", we have sounds, smells and feelings deeply kept in our "hard drive": so deeply kept, we cannot remember them until a sparkle  fires a tornado of memories. It is then when all those smells, sounds... come out to the surface. Remembering is living again, and thanks to the memories this song brought back, I could re-live an extremely happy (my childhood) period in my life (in fact, apart from my father passing away, I can say my life has been always blessed with happiness).

This is the song, and it represented Spain in the 1983 OTI Song Festival:

What´s up with the OTI Festival? As far as I remember, it was a very tacky and uncool contest (even more than Eurovision!), in which Spain used to look Iberoamerican countries over its shoulder. It was a very dated event.

I want you to pay attention to the "studio version", as we´ll compare it to the "live" one. If you have already heard it, here´s how the song sounded live on that 1983 OTI Song Contest:

It is now that we can write about the innocence that reigned in Spain at that time.

First thing: Iberoamerican countries had hundreds of channels, and we only had UHF and VHF, two channels in which we had everything, and we didn´t seem to need the plethora we "enjoy" nowadays.

Other thing: have you realized the telephonic sound by the Spanish presenter? I don´t thing that standard would be acceptable today.

Now, something very funny that I´ll translate for you: during the introduction, the presenter says that "the song won´t sound as on the album, as there are some electronic instruments that were not allowed in the orchestra". He speaks about electronic instruments not knowing very well what "those things" are, they seem to be something so new that he doesn´t know very well what to say... Do you know any band sounding the same live as on a CD? I don´t, as nowadays acts don´t sing, nor play: they shake their booty. 

80´s were the reverb era (reverb by the ton, I would say), and Lexicon units were the favorite toys at studios (I know a Spanish engineer which tells a story about a very famous flamenco singer which used to say "add me some more 50$ worth or reverb").

It was also the time of those now classical Simmoms electronics drums, with their hexagonal pads and characteristic "piuuuuuuuuuu" sound (without them, Italo-disco and Modern Talking wouldn´t have been the same).

© Simmons

It was the time for drum machines, and he had classics as the Linndrum and the Roland 808:

© LinnDrum

© Roland

80´s saw the growth of synthesizers, and the Yamaha DX7 is now a classic:

©Yamaha

What if our contestant is not allowed to use electronic instruments? An orchestra has to be used and... It has to play live! Yes, ladies and gentlemen..., there was a time when live music was the norm, with real musicians, and conductors as Augusto Algueró and Leiva leading good professionals. At that time, lipsync was considered a fraud. Today, the worst deception for the audience (no singing, no playing) is considered normal by our conformist society.

Other thing: this singer´s artistic name is Gonzalo. Is there anything more innocent than that? He is not named Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas or any other stupidity like that; he is Gonzalo (nothing less and nothing more).

In 1983 there was no need to use a head-worn mic and dance untill exhaustion while singing  (with all the implications for intonation). Gonzalo doesn´t move at all (he is quite statuesque), but he had success! His hair-style was uncool, but he had success! He dressed in a normal way (no latex, no meat dresses), but he had success!

There are no half-naked women dancing around and simulating sexual acts, there´s no raper halfway down the song "singing" stupid lyrics, there´s no "Auto-Tune"... How could we live whitout all that in 1983?

When he sings (specially at the beginning), all plosive consonants saturate his mic (see that, even singing off-axis, that cheap dynamic sounds quite good), trumpets are cracking their highs, he sings out of tune, he rushes... He even sings his own delay! Logic thing would have been to use some backing vocals to create the effect, but he sings his own delay... Innocence at its most pure state!

© Hispa Vox

Verses are not top notch (melody is quite repetitive and lyrics don´t fit very well), but the chorus is, to my opinion, very good (it is repeated several times at the end).

With all its defects, with all its innocence, this song and this performance kick ass compared with all the rubbish we are fed with nowadays: pretty non-singing faces, tit-showing acts, homogeneous all-the-same-looking rhythms, lyrics made by idiots for idiots, copycats thinking they are authentic, cocky attitudes, posers...

Don´t get me wrong... There´s no nostalgia in this post (well, maybe a little bit). It is said every past time was better, but I don´t think so: a past time is just a past time, worse or better depends on you.

What I think is undeniable is that, despite all technological developments, well prepared musicians, and the evolution of the show bussiness, I don´t think it´s better the popular mass-consuming music we hear today than that we heared in 1983. We were really innocent and, at the same time, much more valid and authentic.

Now, be honest and have a look at this video (a very recent one, coming from the Super Bowl half time). Almost 30 years later on, don´t you think this simply sucks?

Because of its simplicity, authenticity, innocence..., I prefer Gonzalo thousand times over many of the present pop stars. Black Eyed Peas and the rest of the musical rubbish can get lost in a black hole.

…et in Arcadia ego.

© David Valdés