TubaForum.net

What is it that took you from being a guy who played the tuba (and practiced your butt off) to a professional level musician.
We all have these stories but they are all different. Practicing all the time is not going to land you anywhere specific nor studying at a specific school.

But one thing they (or we) have in common is without a specific experience, we would not have made it to the big show.
If you ever made it to the big show or any show, what or who was it besides pure talent that got you there?
If you care to share the delta between being a scrub and achieving your dream.

I never "made it." For lots of reasons, most of which centered on my own immaturity and shortcomings at that juncture in my life. But I did get Very Good. So, with that caveat:

I had always been taught that tone and musicality were primary. And I think to an extent they are. But it was at the expense of technique - I.e., the idea that as long as you can learn the music in front of you, the technique will develop. That's true to an extent, and I developed a very good tone and musicality very early on.

But you'll be surprised to know that I didn't develop great technique.

I was forced to confront that one summer at Domaine Forget, while taking a lesson with Roger Bobo.

What I realized, and have firmly held since then, is that being successful on an instrument must be broken down into two separate parts. First, you have to be a musician - you have to have the expressiveness, sensitivity, drive, and love of the art. Second, you need to develop a physical skill, no less so than someone learning to throw a curveball. And you need to treat it with the same seriousness and objectivity as an athlete. Spending 10 minutes a day increasing triple tongue speed and lip slur speed. Starting out with unmusical high range development. Playing pedal tones for the sake of the ability to play them. Once I was able to accept that, and accept that some of my time on tuba would be hacking out robotic exercises solely devoted to physical development, I made significant and lasting progress.

I will add that I think the order I developed - musicality first and technique second, was useful FOR ME. When I began working on technique in earnest, I had developed a good tone. So I practiced all of my technical exercises with a good tone, and I was building from a point point. If I had learned blazing technique first and tone second, I would have had to fully remake my playing, given how fundamental building a good tone is to everything else we do.

I once asked Lee Hipp which was more important, musicality or technique.

His answer: "Yes."

There are those who have the whatever-it-takes to develop into a pro (and thsoe who have it tend to discount it in favor of Just Hard Work, but we all know better). My observation of them is: there was a period of at least several years (and usually more) in their lives when they spent 8-10 hours every day developing their abilities with focus and direction. Once crosses bridges during such a period that are difficult to get back across the other way, even if they never practice in later life.

Rick "whose musicality is always constrained by poor technique, such that the claim of buried musicality can't be disproved" Denney

I have never been the greatest player, decent but not great. When I played a lot, I’m convinced I got gigs because I always showed up, and was in my chair, warmed up, with my music in order, horn lubed, and ready to go at the call time. And didn’t cause any drama.

For me, it was attitude.

I used to have this dumb idea that auditions were to simply find a person that could handle the gig, and not for the explicit purpose of finding the absolute best person for the job.

I made some stupid goals of "well, how good does the performance need to be to show them I can do the gig?" And let really dumb things, like chipped (or even simply imperfect) notes be considered acceptable. Then I'd get upset that I didn't get hired.

This translated into commercial music auditions, where I wasn't giving the music the respect needed to actually perform it at high capacity. Most of the time, you're even given the free reign to perform whatever you want. I'd just kinda walk in the room and noodle on a tune and expect to have shown them that I "am good enough to do the gig."

In a specific theme park, the union is a neutral observer at auditions to make sure they're all fair. The president took me off to the side once and explained that these auditions aren't the place for having any form of "acceptable" mistakes, and everything needs to be exactly right. And that matters even more so in this economic climate, when a hundred people on your instrument will come out and audition for a seasonal gig while nobody else is hiring.

Making sure every note is placed exactly where it belongs, making sure the articulation is perfect and purposeful, dynamics...all that stuff. I'd actually aim most of the time to play an exact bassline to take any element of improvisation out, so I can aim to have the same exact performance prepared. Sometimes, when improvising, my brain just decides a little too late in the game to throw a musical curve ball, which will translate as a flubbed note. So I take out that chance.

I'd also fix details of a "non-musical" nature, down to what shoes I think will help my cause. Of course, something as trivial as shoes won't win you the gig, but I now think of it like how we added performance parts to our cars as kids. A glass pack might add 10 horses if you're lucky, but if you combine it with other tweaks, every little bit helps. For theme park auditions, I would bring a resume, head shot, business card, a little "program" that lists my selections, and includes the time (I've noticed for commercial auditions where you get to select the music, it's better to only have less than half your audition time be music, and that "program" can ease any anxiety that you won't go over your time). I'd have enough copies that everyone in the room, even if they don't "need" one, has a copy, and feels like they're still important. If it's for a highly visual gig, I choose the most visually complimentary instrument, and a sheet of paper with pictures of other apropos instrument options. Every little, seemingly minuscule detail. I started being directly invited to these auditions, rather than having to find out through bulletins and audition boards. Of course, the visual stuff doesn't work on screened auditions...but given the fact that there are things you can do on even a screened audition that can disqualify you, there are things that can raise your chances, too.

So to me, the import is in the details, especially at the audition. Doesn't matter if it's auditioning for Chicago Symphony or Walt Disney.

While on the gig, I remember what Neil Slater reportedly said to the UNT 1 o'Clock band: "every day is an audition."

Now that that's written, time to get into the shed!

JESimmons wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:00 am I’m convinced I got gigs because I always showed up, and was in my chair, warmed up, with my music in order, horn lubed, and ready to go at the call time. And didn’t cause any drama.

This really sank in with me when I did polka gigs. It's not all that hard to do impressive runs and turns at the ends of phrases in polka music. Once you've taken 30 seconds to work them out, they're a neat parlor trick. BUT NO ONE WILL MISS THEM IF YOU LEAVE THEM OUT. Really, your job in a polka band, unless agreed upon with the bandleader ahead of time that a specific piece will be an exception, is to lay down your oom-pahs and not otherwise get in the way. The audience doesn't need to know you can play Carnival of Venice. They want to drink beer, relax, and maybe dance (I say "maybe" because I NEVER want to dance. So.) If you get to the end of the gig and the audience had a good time, and the music went off without a hitch, you will be considered a "solid" player. And that leads to more gigs. If the band members (and/or leader) was frequently looking down the row wondering what you just did, you may be considered "good," but not "solid," and they may go with someone who is "solid."

It's all context - Recitals, competitions, features, etc... Sure, show off. Many gigs, though, require you to ask what the audience expectations are, and you are "good" if you meet those expectations.

Ok Ill throw in mine. I think I was always a better musician in my head than I was on the horn.

When I was young I went through various phases, didnt really play the horn right. But at a certain point in my teenage years, I had some technique, and I played VERY LOUD. The loud part impressed people a little bit I think. But it was corny.

Studied with some greats, practiced my butt off, but it was when I studied with Jake it all changed. I was just working too hard,
and I didnt really have the sound I wanted. I could play most everything but it was difficult.

It wasnt easy. I at the time wasnt sure WHAT I had learned. I didnt study with him for that long either. But something changed.
I would say it took a few years to figure it out. But in that time I got an orchestra job, and I had time to figure it out.

Without getting into tuba pedagogy I think the difference was before I studied with Jake, Rochuts were still lesson material.
AFTER I studied with Jake, if I wanted to I could just sit down and play the whole book.

He helped me get the horn in my hands to be able to match the music in my head. But it was very confusing, and very disruptive for a couple years.

I never played with the intention of LOUD after that. But I could just play with a great sound and loud impact because I wasnt trying so darned hard.
But in the rare case I do play in an orchestra in a hall, people will somehow come up to me and say things like "holy whatever you sound amazing".
I dont really, but I have a decent sound and play the hall in front of me. I owe that to Mr Jacobs.