Mark Quinn
Last evening I had a first rehearsal with a group I have started to play with on a weekly basis and was struck by the contrast between conventional concepts and Anatowind concepts of tone almost form the onset of rehearsal.
From taking our first tuning note and throughout the remainder of the rehearsal, it became clear that there were 5 different concepts of tone working within the section. This caused the section not to speak I a clear voice in terms of the ensemble. Within the section, the lead player is responsible for setting the brass line for the section and I was playing a 3rd part, it was my responsibility to follow the leader’s brass line along with the 2nd player’s line. Both players were not aware of how their sounds were working together. The lead player was producing a sound that was every weak in its fundamental composition and was emphasizing upper partials of the sound and the 2nd player was emphasizing upper partials also. This did not give me a solid line to match and lock onto so that all three parts would speak as a complete chord and create overtones as a result. This entire section was not speaking in a complete, coherent voice.
From an Anatowind perspective, the lack of lower partials would be of grave concern. Discussion of players approach from a physiological perspective to address the differences in the player’s concept of tone would have been appropriate. The conventional system does not have an agreed vocabulary to define the nature of such a conversation as the Anatowind system does, nor did I have a strobe to visually address the differences in a discussion with the players involved.
The discussion will have to be addressed in order to allow the section to progress and reach its potential for the upcoming concert. I did tape the rehearsal to try and begin this discussion with the players involved.
This is a post by contributing author, Mark Quinn - Music teacher in the Cleveland Metropolitan School district
