The art of "practising" extended techniques

So this post is to address a question I have had asked to me several times in the past weeks in regards to working on extended technique. I thought this would be a useful post to write since for me, it is not cut and dry. I think there is this idea out there that people who are involved in new music spend all our time in our dark dusty corners, surrounded by electronics, and bizarre contraptions always in search of new ways to make sounds. Obviously I can only answer for myself, but this is pretty far from the truth. What I have found with those who perform lots of new music, and myself would be included in this group, is that there tends to be a great deal of time spent on the fundamentals of sound production, articulation, flexibility... you know the meat an potatoes of playing. The more time I have spent with new music the more focused my basic work becomes.

Why?

I think that this is a necessary reality when we are dealing with lots of extended technique, we need to invest a great deal of time and energy to our simplest aspects of playing, since there is a good chance you may not make a conventional sound, in a conventional way in your two hours of rehearsal today. As well, having wicked technique and flexibility is a must for new music, or at least it is the pipe dream.

But all those sounds... how?

There it is, the elephant in the room, and that is we need to be able to meet the demands of the music when it comes to extended technique. There are two groups I lump things into.

1. "Normal" extended technique.

2. Unorthodox technique.

In group 1, this is where I put things like, flutter tongue, growling, multiphonics, stopped and echo horn, microtones, etc. Things you encounter all the time and are drawn on constantly. Some people may not include stopped horn in here, but one thing I have learned is that you need a killer right hand for new music, fast, nimble, and accurate.

So with all of the things listed in group 1, the only thing I routinely do in my practising is flutter tongue and stopped horn work. These are worked on for other reasons, flutter scales for air, stopped horn for.. well... being able to do it well.

Group 2 has techniques like, slap tonguing, hammer tonguing, different air sounds, multiphonics in contrary motion (this is, for me at least, an INSANELY hard thing to do, kind of works against how my brain works), combining flutter and growl together, and the list goes on. These are things that you encounter less often, or are unique to a singular work.

If you are still here we have arrived to the part about working on these techniques... so set phasers to fun! So the two groups we are important to this next part. When something falls into group 1, our "normal" group, these are things that are a byproduct of good base technique and mechanics. So if your nuts and bolts are in the right place they tend to just happen. For microtones, if you understand how they work, can hear them, and have a fingering for them they pop out since that is the harmonic series at play. Flutter tongue of course some of us have to learn to do it, I was one of those individuals that can't, and still can not, roll my R's. Had to learn to flutter, but now it works. So again group 1 is all about just being able to play horn in general.

Group 2, now here is the trickier part. There is always a trade off when learning these things, some people are unwilling to, complain it's "not idiomatic" and write it off. Others sit down and figure it out. That is what I'm going to talk about, my process of figuring it out. The best thing you can do is shop-talk with someone who knows the drill, assuming you don't have this luxury here is what I would do, even if you do have someone to shop-talk with, you still need to do the work... sorry?

First: Make a decision about what the technique is, what sound EXACTLY are you going to make. With no decision, you cant conceptualize how to make it work.

Second: Experiment, this is the big steps, start trying things, it could be vowel shapes for air sound, tongue positioning, anything. Leave no stone un-turned.

Third: Deconstruct it to it's elements and master them individually, then put them back together.

Fourth: Implement it back into the piece. Though, do so with no tempo, rhythm, dynamics, etc... The gaol is to place it around the other sounds and start to make sense of it sonically, and structurally. The same way we workout tricky licks in any kind of music, we are building relationships now.

Fifth: Add either the rhythm, or the dynamics, not both. I do this because I am trying to not overload the system. We are close to getting what we want, not just "something".

Sixth - infinity: Add the remaining elements one at a time. So depending on what we are dealing with it could be range, tempo, dynamics, etc. Keep this slow approach going, again we want to get what we conceptualized.

So the above method is slow... and can be tedious depending on who you are, and how you like to get your work done, but, it works. Remember we are not faking it. We need to figure these things out or what is the point. The take away here is that one needs to be really focused on their basic elements of playing to make things work, The more unorthodox a technique is, the more focused time we need to put into it to make it work, since in the end we don't want to get in the way of what we do naturally. I'm not a supporter of sitting down and working on my microscales daily, or anything like that, BUT when these techniques are called on I work them out AWAY from my "morning routine". Good habits, and a strong base will get anything to work.

Be sure to check out the download section for ideas and exercises

The importance of the phrase in complex music.

So I keep kicking the can down the street here holding off on a video post about the new piece I am working on. SO! On with another kick, on the plus this punt was in fact inspired by the new work.

So, imagine if you would getting a new shiny piece of music, something with no recording so there you are finding things outs from the beginning. This just happens to be one of my favorite situations, it's a rare treat to find, or get a piece that you have no preconceived idea of how it is going to go. This could be Mozart, Bach, or anything, face it, it's exciting and a chance to really flex those interpertational muscles. I think this is something I have written about before... maybe... if not here is my quick 101.

• Everything you know is contextual. That being said if you are looking at Beethoven 3 you should come at it from his earlier string and piano music, and his first two symphonies. This is something I believe, we have performance tradition, and performance practices and they are different things. The best performances capture the composer not the period, what I mean by that is when we look at Mozart we tend to do so as a figure in time that somehow transcends an era of music and not the actual linear output of his work. 

• Make decisions, and know why. For me saying well so and so does it this way so I am, is not a real answer, it's uninformed and parroting. If you like something someone does and you can dissect and understand why they made that decision and in turn you yourself agree with that, then power to you.

• Always think big picture, and try to figure out how everything relates, Find internal consistencies. Internal consistencies is a phrase I use a great deal, because I think it is a big thing, especially with music from the new complexity and things that are not as intuitive to the western ear of music. 

• If you don't understand it, the audience never will. This is another big things that I learned, it was focused on form for me. The lesson was if you play a Sonata, or a piece in any form. If you have not made the formal decisions and taken time to understand it there will be no way to convey it. 

I realize these are not "unique" to new music, and for all purposes for myself I found these strategies in music from the standard canon. The challenge that appears in more complex music, especially for music that falls further outside the standard canon is that we get can get in a highly technical mindset and need to actively step back and see the big picture beyond the technical demands.

A lesson learned from none standard notation.

Whenever I get a piece of new music there is always the initial "shock" of notation. Over the years I have become less phased by it but there is always a period where you have to sit down and really look over the part and digest what is going on. What are the techniques, what are the effects/affects, where are the internal consistencies, etc. At the same time there is this instant focus to what is the architecture of the piece, or my part with in the score (which I want to get ASAP, to see how I interact). With the score we are looking at pitch relationships (microtonal etc, should that be unison?) am I emulating other instrumental effects (remember that internal consistency I just mentioned) for example am I trying to create the illusion of over-pressured bowing on the horn, or should it sound different. With new music these are decisions we have to make really quick since if we don't we will never get past step one of the process.

This leads me back to my post title, a lesson learned. Is this kind of process something I undertake when I receive any other more "conventional" or "idiomatic" piece. Should I? Should I do it more? All of those are questions I am reevaluating, I have my process when I get a new work, get a score, get the part, etc. But maybe I have been missing an opportunity to dig deeper into it,

Meeting the demands

So some quick housekeeping. I have started working on Jordan's piece for horn, electronics and video and it is going to be a wild ride. So watch for posts, and video entries about that.

FIRST!

I was inspired to write this post in light of a conversation I saw on the facebook horn page about playing new music, and how it can be "damaging" to our chops. This is a multifaceted thing that I could pull apart but am really going to focus on one thing which was a great piece of advice I have had passed to me by two fantastic teachers, and that is about meeting the physical demands of music. This seems to be a topic that is always hammered (unfairly) onto new music but trust me it applies everywhere. So I want to break it down into a few parts, some new music specific, and the others just a nice warm blanket of good advice I received. We will start with that.

1) You need to adjust in the large scale to the playing demands you face.

Okay, sounds obvious but in practice it is overlooked a lot. Example, we get a piece maybe some wild new composition or a really delicate Mozart octet that hammers at your upper range leaving you to exist in a fourth for 30 minutes. You need to adapt your big picture to meet those demands. In this instance I would be spending more time daily addressing my low range and other playing that just isn't being met in the rest of the day. I like to think I have a pretty heavy morning of playing where I grind away at my fundamentals, knowing that there are days you just need to mix it up to allow yourself to make it to Sunday and a whole new week of challenges. 

2) Get past the technique and see the big picture

My teacher said a great thing to me (of many great things). "Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the blue sky". So in this context this idea applies to "getting stuck" technically. It could be a fluttertongue, some rapid hammertongue stuff, a complex string of timberal changes, microtonal melodies etc. Whatever it is the more you get on the phrase, or the big idea the more the positive physical and mental habits we build daily take over. If you get to "THE PAGE" and are like.. okay... only 36 high Ds left and a whole bunch of fluttered stopped pedal Es, You are about to have a really long day.

Also, at least this is something I always tell myself is that these challenges, things that seem illogical or dare I say unidiomatic (which I think is an synonym for awesome) are what keep audiences, and performers thinking. Also, I have never met a successful person who hates a challenge.

Looking back

So a little over a year ago I started this blog. My plans were to keep track of my ideas and kind of talk things out, but since it would be public I would have to hold myself to a high standard and justify my thoughts, as well. It as to help me highlight my process on working on modern works and leaving a paper trail to look back on. So I thought.. hey, I have been away, not from practising... no rest for the wicked over there. But haven't had time to keep my regular posting up so here is a look back at the most viewed posts, and my favorite ones as well.

So first up. The 5 most viewed

• Faking it 
• Dealing with BIG scores and parts
• Exercise
• Solfege and how it saved me
• The horn in the mix of the new world

Two posts I am proud of come from work I did in my masters degree.

The first is "The horn in the mix of the new world" (linked above)

Second is "That's irritating" a post on contact dermatitis and brass playing.

There is also the post in regards to a few surveys I conducted that I am turning into a full article. This link,

These are links to much longer articles but, they are interesting, in my opinion at least.

Finally here are my top 3 that didn't make the top 5 most viewed.

• The strange the weird and the wonderful - if you want to hear a reed on a horn just go there. Or a glass mute.
• The overlooked things make a big impact 
• The little things make all the difference - This is a microtone post, see it is punny.

So that's it, there could have been more. BUT! That's is for you to decide, I guess. I have some posts coming that are sitting around since I am trying to figure out my opinion still on them so, until then, go forth and harmonize.

Survey results and some interpretation and thoughts

So, I am back again. I thought I would take this chance to share the results from both the initial, and the follow up survey with everyone. It should be noted I won't share the actual comments people made since I don't have permission to do such, but I will give a brief summary of the results.

First here are the results to the initial survey,

It is noted below that the results do not "add up" this is explained and corrected below.

For those keeping track the second survey began to explore the topic a bit more in depth. It should be noted as all data was collected anonymously it is not possible to know if respondents were consistent between the two. In hind sight this may have been something to consider, but, at the time since no controllable database was used, and anonymity was sought after this was the route that I had to follow. Here are the results to the second survey:

.





































So where does this put us? First I would have liked to get a larger sample size, but that is not really in my control, that being said I will open up a form that will be linked below if you want to anonymously leave your thoughts on the subject matter. If you want to comment directly feel free to comment here, or e-mail me your thoughts. OR GUEST BLOG. These things are very important when developing an article in my opinion, since often in music we rely on the objective comments of the author to express an idea. I would like a great blend of objective and subjectivity towards the overall product.

Second, If we look at the totals there is an error in the initial survey, there were 55 logged respondents, but of that 55, 5 submitted a form with no data, so the adjusted percentages are as follows:

• Have performed: 40%
• Studied/would like to: 8%
• Interested: 32%
• No interest: 20%

Now an initial comparison of the data provides some points of interest. The first area, which could be very coincidental is that 20% of people have no interest in this style of music, and 18% have never seen a work like this. We can go one step further to consider that of the 14% of respondents (second survey) 80% of them (or 11% of overall) have no interest in exploring this kind, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened with a larger sample source. Though, there are some consistencies, though they are hard to infer from a small sample.

Looking again at the responses in the second survey we can observe that the OVERALL negative impression that would lead to not wanting to explore this music is a total of 25% (11% have not seen chart, 14% have seen). This is again close to the results (+5%) of the original survey. Both of these are positive as the initial survey had no inquiry in to exposure beyond personal performance.

Now a few key points of the written responses are as follows:

• The success of the music seen appears to rely heavily on a few key points,
• First, the actual composition itself, is it effective and is there an inherit purpose to the piece.
• Level of the performer, there seems, based on responses, a lot less room for "faking" as the inherent style of the music requires a very active performer. 
• Not full of melodies, something needs to be there.
• Is it cohesive (compositionally and as a performance) unless the goal is to be not. Clarity in architecture.
• How well are the electronics used. The multimedia, when well done is full of  virtuosity, not an afterthought, or perceived therein to be one.
• Equipment used NEEDS to be high quality, and all bugs sorted out.
• Audience involvement, not necessarily in a cheesy educational way, but tools are needed to engage the listeners, especially those who are new, and could feel overwhelmed.

These highlight reoccurring themes in the survey responses, there are many other ideas, and thoughts that are all appreciated and will have great use. What struck me the most is the complexity of reception of this music. This is something I myself am trying to figure out as much as I can so it is good to see it is an active element of the environment that surrounds the field.

So, more will come as I interpret data, if you want to add anything feel free as I said to do it in the comments, or e-mail. If you want it to be anonymous, follow the link below.

Link to form

Again, thank you to all those who took time to fill these out they are serving me greatly towards constructing an article that should hopefully apply to the interests of many and not be self serving ;)

Please take this quick survey, and a mute project

Hey everyone,

As readers know I am working on an article, part of it involves some kind of ground work research mainly to help with the focus of the article, I am on the second phase of the survey, If anyone can take this quick survey it would greatly help. Just follow the link.

Link to Survey

As well, I have started building my mute that will be used for live electronics, the first phase is really a proof of concept I will throw some photos out now and follow up a bit later. The idea here is to get a high quality audio signal for processing since the silent brass and ebrass mute sound far to 1940 phonograph for use live.

Cork and base removed. Tuning sleeve removed and trimmed for maximum internal space for condenser microphone.

 Cork drying on.

Hole cut for microphone. Again compared to the silent brass/ebrass microphone I will be using the same set up I would use for regular amplification. The goal is a high quality signal.

 Hole covered and access maintained, three different bonds in place to keep rubber wall in place. Thank to bike commuting in Chicago so I have lots of old tubes that are no longer road worthy.

You get the idea.