A Characteristic Band Sound?


Reprint from October 2012 TEMPO Magazine (New Jersey Music Educators Association)


So, What is a Characteristic Sound? The rich and long tradition of


the orchestra has helped to establish a characteristic sound for that type of ensemble. Although each specific orchestra does have its own unique sound, all groups have a generally similar characteristic tone. Even most musical novices can recognize orchestral timbre; they know that it is an orchestra of some type, a symphony, chamber, or string orchestra. The situation with bands is not


the same. This is due in large measure to the band’s vastly varying traditions. What kind of band should teachers emulate? What type of band represents a characteristic sound? Is it the professional band of the


Sousa era? Should it be the large symphonic bands from the Midwest from


the 20th century? Should it be the Eastman Wind Ensemble? What about the military bands in Washington? With the improvement of recording technology, some of the fine college bands like the University of Texas and the University of North Texas now present recording series of incredible quality; what about those groups? And if those variations are not enough, there are a great many superb ensembles in other parts of the world, especially the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Scandinavia, and Japan.


Other than function and


tradition, one of the primary causes for this diversity of sounds is instrumentation/size of ensemble. In several conversations with legendary teacher and conductor Frank Battisti, he related to me that he feels that one of Frederick Fennell’s primary contributions to the band world was his approach to the sound of a band—in his case the Eastman Wind Ensemble (EWE). Prior to the founding of the EWE, bands at such places as the University of Illinois (A. A. Harding and Mark Hindsley, directors) and the University of Michigan (William D. Revelli, director) represented the best


16


band sound; they were the models for a characteristic tone quality. They were large bands where parts were highly doubled and players were encouraged to blend their sound into the whole not projecting any kind of individual presence except in a solo setting. Also, these bands tended to play at lower dynamic levels than were marked. The result was a rich symphonic sound somewhat like the the string section of an orchestra; some equate it to the sound of a pipe organ. Fennell’s groups, in many ways, took the opposite approach. In most cases, there were only single players on each part. (The clarinets were later doubled.) The performers in the EWE were encouraged to play with an orchestral approach to wind playing where each player is a soloist. What resulted was an ensemble tone quality that was entirely different from what was the prevailing model of that time: the sound of the large symphonic band. The EWE of that day obviously had a wonderful balance, but the overall tone quality was very different from the large symphonic bands of that time. It was a blend of individuals like the wind section of an orchestra rather than the organ-like texture of the symphonic band.


Looking for a Sound Direction Certainly, listening is a vital step


for developing appropriate tonal practices. There are a great many recordings available. However, band conductors must realize that there is no single model; there are many. Teachers will also find many


books and articles written about how to teach ensemble balance and sound as well. In a number of articles that I have written for Tempo in the past about tone quality for bands, I spent most of my efforts describing the balance and tonal principles of W. Francis McBeth. His ideas are probably the most popular for developing band sound. In the simplest terms, he held


that low sounds need to take precedence over higher ones in terms of the general ensemble balance. This is to be the case with the band as a whole as well as within sections. I believe that this approach is exceedingly valuable and


William Berz


would encourage band conductors to investigate it fully. It is particularly useful for those conductors whose emphasis is on winning concert band contests as McBeth’s approach to balance helps to hide shortcomings in both sound and intonation. The overwhelming use of McBeth’s pyramid of sound is a primary reason why many band conductors see this as the only acceptable model for achieving the proper band sound. An issue is that many of the


leading bands, both in the United States and abroad, do not adhere to this model. Instead, they tend to play more in the style of Fennell’s Eastman Wind Ensemble with a greater emphasis on the treble range. There is still great blend and balance, but the individual players are encouraged to play in a soloistic style, much like being a wind player in an orchestra.


How Should a School Band Sound? The answer to that question is


easy: sound musically beautiful. To achieve results is much more difficult. And, there is no single answer. Many conductors, especially in


the secondary schools emulate the sound of a full orchestra, similar to Revelli’s University of Michigan Band of the 1930s-1970s. In this case, McBeth’s principles are very applicable. Treble sounds are held back and lower sounds are made stronger. This helps to solve a number of inherent problems in bands, including the shrillness of the clarinet in the upper register. As McBeth states, proper balance can help improve intonation as well. In many school bands, the better


players are assigned the first parts; they tend to play with greater confidence with the result that the inner parts can be lost. McBeth’s theories can help to address this. Some ideas on how to achieve this goal in a school group would be to have first-part players to play softer. Another would be to have fewer people on first with more on second and third. For example, with a clarinet section of 9 members: instead of splitting them into 3 first, 3 second, 3 third, assign parts as 2 first, 3 second, and 4 third. Yet another


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40