oped over nearly 25 years, have a small following in the brass playing world and immediately betray a decidedly “Remingtonian” influence. While I use routines of varying length (depending on factors such as student ability, available practice time, etc.) and will vary the exercises somewhat to address immediate concerns, I find that returning each day to familiar patterns helps me to prepare not only physically but mentally for the demands of my profession. Incidentally, I find that this daily repetition (though not necessarily first thing each day) leaves me free to approach the “real work” of performing and teaching in a much more “Song and Wind” manner.
Although I have occasionally experimented with abandoning the daily routine approach, I’ve never lasted very long doing that. These “old paths,” this familiar way of approaching brass playing has a centering, almost catechetical effect, as I am each day reminded of the very basic elements of playing a brass instrument correctly before moving on to focus on “the music.”
And that deliberate word choice (“catechetical”) hints at the topic I’ll address in Part Two, Lord willing.
From an early age, many band students are drilled in the “Pyramid of Sound” model for achieving a properly balanced ensemble sound. This model was perhaps most prominently championed by the prominent band composer and conductor W. Francis McBeth (1933-2012) and is used by band conductors throughout the United States. When rightly applied, the Pyramid of Sound is an effective tool for balancing not just concert bands, but practically any type of ensemble. The concept is very simple: the lowest instruments and parts in the group should be loudest, forming a foundation upon which higher parts build, becoming progressively softer until the highest notes are played most softly. Because human beings tend to perceive high pitches more readily than low ones, ensembles that are balanced in this way tend to have pleasing sounds where all parts are easily heard.
So far, so good, but difficulties arise when students try to apply this concept in situations where it is not appropriate, such as in solo playing or even in soloistic passages in ensembles. Think about most melodies you know. The highest notes tend to be the climactic ones, so the best phrasing occurs when the lower notes at the beginning of the phrase are softer, then crescendo to the higher notes, and diminuendo again as the phrase concludes or resolves. Sometimes a slight increase in tempo is appropriate when moving higher, as well, and then a corresponding slight decrease in tempo to bring the phrase into balance metrically. While this might sound like common sense, low brass students that have had the Pyramid of Sound preached to them their entire musical lives will sometimes instinctively soften on the highest notes and then get louder on the lowest notes, even when good phrasing would dictate the opposite. Because of their supporting roles in most ensemble situations, low brass students just beginning applied study are often inexperienced at playing and interpreting melodies and simply bring the approach they have used in their bands to solo literature, phrasing studies, etc. The resulting interpretations are not just strange—they are exactly backwards!
Happily, through instruction, demonstration, and patient reassurance that it really is okay to forgo the Pyramid of Sound in the right situations, most students quickly figure out a better approach to shaping melodies. I will usually illustrate this to them by drawing the above Pyramid diagram and labeling it “for ensemble playing,” and then place another, much simpler diagram alongside it, labeled “for solo playing.” That diagram looks something like this. It is simple, but effective.
Many great bands and their directors are devotees of the Pyramid of Sound, and when rightly applied this approach leads to warm, beautiful, yet clear sounds. But accompanying material is one thing; melodic and soloistic lines are another. In those cases, the Pyramid must be abandoned in favor of the Line.
As a hi