Author: kdrew922
Date: 2008-05-29 20:35
I love the analogy to wine tasting, and I agree that musicians may base their opinions on a more detailed and compartmentalized analysis than non-musicians. I also agree that the more general analysis of the non-musician is not necessarily inferior. But what interests me most of all is comparing the opinions of oboists with the opinions of equally skilled musicians who happen to not be oboists. And while I sometimes get the impression that envy plays a role in some oboists' opinions, I certainly don't mean to imply that everyone who dislikes the sound of a particular oboist is really just envious!
I've had the chance the past few years to have "listening days" not only with my Oboe Methods classes (which consist of music majors who play every BUT the oboe), but also with OSU's oboe studio. So I've had the chance to compare the reactions of a group of undergraduate oboe majors to the reactions of a group of undergraduate music majors who are not oboists. The two groups are roughly equivalent in their levels of musical expertise (or lack thereof, as the case may be) and analytical and evaluative faculties. And as I write this I'm realizing I should've been recording these reactions the past three years, as some genuine statistics would be really interesting here!
Anyway, as this is a school in the midwestern region of the US, the oboe students have been mostly preconditioned to dislike the sounds of Heinz Holliger, Pierre Pierlot, Albrecht Mayer, Francois Leleux, etc., and to prefer the sounds of John Mack, Elaine Douvas, Joe Robinson, Eugene Izotov, etc. The non-oboist undergraduates here are not any more or less critical... they just haven't been taught what kind of oboe sound they are supposed to like and dislike.
So, I suppose the point of all this rambling is just to say that I agree musicians may listen more critically than non-musicians, but I also think that when we're evaluating our own instrument, our opinions are shaped by a lot of influences that wouldn't come into play with an equally critical musician who happens to not be an oboist. And I don't think that means we oboists are being more critical than our non-oboist counterparts. It could just as easily mean we're more inclined to let analysis get in the way of appreciation. Or perhaps that we wrongly apply this sort of qualitative analysis to tone, when it should be reserved for things like rhythm and intonation that can be more readily measured. I guess that's just a long-winded way of saying that I think every oboist should have their own voice, and that we are certainly entitled to our personal favorites, but that we can't really say that one oboist's voice is "better" than another's, at least not in the same way we can say that one's rhythm or intonation or technique is better than another's.
Cheers,
Drew
|
|
The Oboe BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
