I think the "true American sound" would be that of Anton Horner. Think about this, he had a hand in the invention and propogated the use of the large belled nickel silver horn. He also worked for a conductor, Stokowski, who had unique and revolutionary ideas about sound. Horner's stule really only caught on in the US and what Leonard mentions is more or less correct as even Cleveland has a coast line, though fresh water. I think Szell was after a more Viennese sound, though. Problem is that this has evolved into something it is not in many instances these days as too many players stuff their big mitts too far up the bell. The "other American" sound the Leonard refers to is more, IMO, of the traditional European sound, if there is such a thing, with some variances. Hans mentions vowels and languages and this is to be considered. Vowel shape is one very important aspect of tone production and different languages make players hear things differently in music as well. I have had success playing and teaching a wide open throat syllable in order to get the player to produce the biggest, roundest sound that their aural cavity and sinuses allows them to create. In this way, you find your best individual sound. Then, you can play on any equipment you want to properly and really hear the difference between horns, mp's, alloys, etc. My system seems to work for most folks, though not everyone I have taught at one time or another uses it exactly. I will note, also, that I have never heard this syllable used in any language, not even Jerseyese. Bright/dark/centered/hollow are all kind of subjective terms, though. What Hans might write to describe a type of sound and what I would write after hearing the exact same player might be completely different. I came from the Horner school and still subscribe to that but Hans said I have a "bright" sound. Leonard calls it "dark" which is more of the corrupted (muffled) version. I think of my sound as "wide," "clear" and "centered." Good oxymoron? Another problem I encounter frequently now amongst players relates to my previous post about volume: I hear too many people equating a very loud and buzzy FF up close to being good. it's not any good if it doesn't sound good in the hall away from you and good up close as well. Of course, that buzz saw, or a**tone as I like to call it, doesn't project very well but it still annoys the hell out of most of the folks close to you. Of course, if they sound like that, then I guess you are ok with it unless you try to play somewhere else. Funny how many of the conductors running around these days want that type of sound. I guess that makes sense, though, that a**holes would want to hear a**tone! Hans is right about everyone sounding the same! God forbid that it ever happens! Personally, I miss the nationalistic sounds of the past as well as the diversity we use to have in the US. I can always pick out Vienna, though! And Hans, they are all sounding the same, very loud, and attendance is down! You are right about interpretation though. I don't hear a lot of fine interpretations these days but lots of clean technical performances. Who knows? Maybe the audiences really want lots of vibrato and clams! I know someone very well who can give them that! KB Mark Seuron wrote:
What is the difference in the American and the universal sound? Also is the American sound from Jones, chambers, etc. or Hollywood? What do major American orchestras play? Ron<<<<<<<< Leonard replied: Ron, I have lived in a true cultural backwater for too many years but the last time I checked there were 2 "American Sounds". In any area that is touched by salt water a darker 8D sound is very popular, inland a lighter, more centered sound, is considered correct. Again folks, I am a true isolate and the above may no longer be true. LLBrown Hans replied: The difference is the "vowel ouuh" in the sound in general which is a result of the language. Even that vowel is not clean, but distorted. Were it clear English, it would be better (See the British School). Dont attack me for that, but it is a fact. Italians would never play with a rather dark tone as their language is of the brighter part, so is it with the Japanese. Germany is divided, as some prefer to go after the language which has quite bright vowels, while others follow the rather dark (or hollow) sound concept, if it can be seen as a concept at all, even it sounds like a hollow oven pipe. The Hollywood players, Chikago school, St.Louis, Denver, Bill Capps students & Bill Vermeulens students or Kendall Betts can be seen different as they play much brighter (clear sound, shiny) than the mass of players in the USA. I do not see Phil Myers as belonging to the dark school. These are just a few samples. Most soloists anyway exhibit themselves from the masses. But the mass counts for a certain school. And there is NO universal sound & hopefully will NEVER be any. Who would attend concerts if all sound the same ? Just counting the missed notes, which even a macxhine could do. But music is universal as sound concept is. And all kind of taste must be satisfied. So there is a certain margin to the left & to the right. As long as the players move within these limitations, everything is o.k. This applies for tone concept & interpretation as well. Admire the diversity, if the things are well done. But ignore the mediocre, if the players try to exhibit themselves (or just their technique) in a penetrating (stinky !!) & antimusical way, - hopefully unsuccessful -, to make everybody believe, their tone concept & their way of interpretation would be the only possible. It is the same with all kind of religions. The exclusivity claim is wrong allways. _______________________________________________ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
