Musicality by the Numbers

Chris Pasles, Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2008

Can it be taught? Yes, says a bassoonist who believes in a method for making music that’s movingly memorable.

Los Angeles and cities around the world have been dazzled by young conductor Gustavo Dudamel, who will take over the Los Angeles Philharmonic in 2009 and is leading it this weekend and next at Walt Disney Concert Hall. When Dudamel made his U.S. debut with the orchestra 2 1/2 years ago at the Hollywood Bowl, Times critic Mark Swed wrote that he couldn’t remember when a Bowl concert had been so focused from the start.

We’ve since learned that Dudamel, now 27, is the product of an innovative educational system in his native Venezuela that will teach any child who’s interested how to play an instrument. He studied violin before picking up the conductor’s baton that he wields with such authority. But that raises a question: Can musicality be taught, or is it a gift from the gods to a lucky few? And if it can be taught, how?

A recent book by Chicago Symphony principal bassoonist David McGill offers one answer: “Sound in Motion: A Performer’s Guide to Greater Musical Expression” says that a lot can be taught, even to players with considerable experience. Other musicians are not so sure.

McGill takes off from a method created in the first half of the 20th century by Marcel Tabuteau: 16080/publications/TWOboist/TWO.V2.1/TWO.V2.1.Tabuteau.html, a onetime principal oboist with the Philadelphia Orchestra and a teacher at the city’s Curtis Institute of Music. Tabuteau is widely credited with founding the American school of oboe playing, but his influence went far beyond that.

“I don’t believe there was any single music teacher on any instrument who had a greater impact on the American way of making music than Tabuteau,” McGill says. “Almost all the principal oboe players in America by the mid-’40s and certainly by the 1950s were Tabuteau students who had graduated from Curtis. And through a sort of osmosis, other musicians — clarinet, bassoon, horn players, even violinists — were influenced by hearing this more pure, more expressive, more nuanced way of playing which was certainly due to Tabuteau’s teaching.”

What Tabuteau did was develop a numbering system to help instrumentalists phrase — that is, divide and play the notes in a given score in meaningful segments — musically and expressively. Rather than vague, poetic imagery such as “Play it as if you’re looking at a sunset,” his system uses numbers to group notes, create forward motion and suggest approaches to dynamics and color.

“We tend to think that what we see on the page is music,” says McGill, whose teachers included oboist John de Lancie, a Tabuteau student and himself a former principal with the Philadelphia Orchestra and the Pittsburgh Symphony. “What it really is is a recipe for how to make music. You have to take that bare framework and turn it into living sound. This is where the Tabuteau number system and everything else he taught comes into play, because it helps you get from that point of looking at black notes on white paper to creating emotion in the mind of the listener.”

It’s not a matter of good technique or of playing “just the way you feel,” he says, but of dissecting a passage to understand the role each note plays.

Is there a danger in approaching the process too intellectually?

“Emotion and intellect do not have to be separated,” McGill says. “In fact, they are not separated. Greater involvement of the intellect yields a greater emotion within the listener and within the performer. But the emotion that occurs should primarily be in the mind of the listener.”

Tabuteau was born in France in 1887 and came to the United States in 1905 after winning a first prize at the Paris Conservatory. He played under Walter Damrosch at the New York Symphony (one of the predecessors of the New York Philharmonic), under Arturo Toscanini at the Metropolitan Opera and, from 1915 until he retired in 1954, at the Philadelphia Orchestra, initially under Leopold Stokowski. He taught at Curtis from its founding in 1924 until he retired from teaching in 1953 and eventually returned to France, where he died in 1966.

His legacy is preserved on a number of recordings, including a discussion of his ideas available on the Audio CD “Marcel Tabuteau’s Lessons” (formerly “The Art of the Oboe” on LP). (See accompanying discography.)

The system was by no means a paint-by-numbers approach, however.

“It’s not just dynamics in moving from point A to point B,” says Anne Marie Gabriele, a Los Angeles Philharmonic oboist who studied at the Juilliard School with two Tabuteau-influenced teachers and has also been coached privately by McGill. “It’s knowing the function of every note harmonically and melodically and making those things crystal clear. It’s emotional content and a way of looking at music and having it sound very flexible and fluid even though you’ve thought out every note. I use it all the time when I teach.”

Ronald Leonard, a former Los Angeles Philharmonic principal cellist and a teacher at the downtown Colburn Conservatory of Music, became familiar with the system by attending Tabuteau’s string and conducting classes at Curtis.

“It was always a mystery to me,” Leonard admits. “But he got fantastic results from the orchestra, and he was not a particularly good conductor — just a great musician.”

Still, Leonard doubts that musicality can be taught to people if they lack it entirely.

“But there are directions you can give people to greatly improve their musicality,” he says. “Mr. Tabuteau found a number system. Other people found other ways. We string players talk about changing bow pressure, bow speeds, things like that. These are not necessarily something people think of naturally. They have to be directed. I’ve seen many times people who seemed not particularly musical totally evolve into very fine-sounding musicians and not just technicians.”

‘A model for architecture’

Richard Beene is associate dean of students at the Colburn Conservatory and a bassoonist also taught by a Tabuteau student, Richard Lottridge, who would use the system when Beene was having trouble.

“He would write a few numbers in so I could understand his concept of what the intensity in the phrase was,” Beene says. “It was a model for architecture more than anything else. I don’t use this system, but I’m always talking about where notes lead and architecture and phrasing with my students. I’m not sure we’re saying something different.

“But this for me really is not what musicality is. Musicality is when a person walks onstage and plays and you’re immediately transported to a place that is not about a number system. You’re moved from their ability to communicate the emotion of the music combined with their own emotion about what they’re playing.”

Los Angeles Philharmonic concertmaster Martin Chalifour, a Curtis graduate and a former colleague of McGill, believes that musicality can be fostered but not taught.

“Musicality is something either you have or you don’t,” Chalifour says. “It’s a gift of expression, the ability to exteriorize your feelings and make them obvious to someone else. Most of it is innate. But there are ways to trigger and encourage it and bring it out of a person.”

Chalifour’s teacher in his native Montreal, Taras Gabora, had his own way of triggering it.

“He would do the unthinkable: at a very early age assign major pieces of repertoire without much indication of how to do it,” Chalifour says. “Then we would discuss things as I was learning it. There was just a healthy measure of guidance but not an imposition of technical and musical ideas. He very much believed in developing the personal style of the student.

“It’s very important for a person to become self-sufficient,” says Chalifour, who teaches at USC. “It should be a goal never lost track of. It’s like the saying ‘You feed someone for a day, but you don’t teach them how to fish.’ “

McGill would no doubt agree. He has developed his own ideas beyond the Tabuteau system but insists that the master himself felt the number system was just a starting point.

“Tabuteau even said that numbers are for lesser days, which means when inspiration doesn’t strike,” he says. “He would often say, ‘Numbers are for stupid people.’ But he was really referring to all of us — that we’re just stupid people who need to be taught. But he believed human beings could improve, which was kind of admirable.

“Tabuteau really got people to think about what they were doing rather than just feel what they were doing, because your feelings are hit and miss. It’s like a lightning strike. Sometimes lightning is going to strike in the right place, but most likely it’s not.”

Listen and learn how it’s done

In addition to “Marcel Tabuteau’s Lessons,” David McGill cites a number of recordings in his new book that exemplify superb musicianship. Maria Callas is at the top of his list, but he is no simple-minded swoony admirer. In her case and in many of his other recommendations, he analyzes specific passages to show exactly what impresses him.

“When I tell people about the recordings of the musical artists whom I most admire,” McGill writes, “I am often met with the question: ‘Yes, but who do you like who’s alive?’ It is disconcerting to hear this question because I believe that, through their recordings, the great performers of the past are as alive today as they ever were.”

Maria Callas, soprano

Bellini: “Norma.” La Scala Orchestra. Tullio Serafin, conductor (1960). EMI

Bellini: “La Sonnambula.” Orchestra of La Scala. Antonino Votto, conductor (1957). EMI

“Mad Scenes.” Philharmonia Orchestra. Nicola Rescigno, conductor (1958). EMI

John de Lancie, oboe

Strauss: Oboe Concerto. Members of the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra. Max Wilcox, conductor (1987). BMG

Marcel Tabuteau, oboe

Bach: Concerto for Violin and Oboe in C Minor. Isaac Stern, violin. Prades Festival Orchestra. Pablo Casals, conductor (1950). Sony

Handel: Oboe Concerto in G Minor. Philadelphia Orchestra. Eugene Ormandy, conductor (1952). Columbia Records LP

Mozart: Sinfonia Concertante in E Flat for Oboe, Clarinet, Horn and Bassoon. Philadelphia Orchestra. Leopold Stokowski, conductor (1940). Boston Records (without opening tutti); Cala (complete)

Leopold Stokowski, conductor

Bach/Stokowski: Orchestral Transcriptions. Philadelphia Orchestra (1927-40). Pearl

Debussy: “Prelude a l’apres-midi d’un faune.” His Symphony Orchestra (1957). EMI

Wagner/Stokowski: Love Music From “Tristan und Isolde.” Philadelphia Orchestra (1960). Philadelphia Orchestra Assn.

— C.P.

Sections

Much of the material on this website is being presented with kind permission of the copyright owners. Any use and/or duplication of certain materials must be approved by the copyright owners. Therefore, you must seek permission at msmostovoy@comcast.net before using or duplicating any material to ascertain whether it is presently under copyright. Certain excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given as per the instructions you will receive from your inquiry. If this website has inadvertently posted material without the proper attribution or authorization, to remedy, please contact msmostovoy@comcast.net.

What's New!

Marc Mostovoy Replies to the Facebook Posts Attacking Marcel Tabuteau

An audio interview with Joan Browne (Champie), a private Tabuteau student in the early 1950s.

A photograph of the music stand that was in Tabuteau’s private studio in Philadelphia.

An autographed photo of Marcel Tabuteau inscribed to Joan Browne Champie.

An autographed photo of Marcel Tabuteau inscribed to Vladimir Sokoloff.

Marc Mostovoy Replies to the Facebook Posts
Attacking Marcel Tabuteau

When she learned of Joan Champie’s death, and read the obituaries, Katherine Needleman, principal oboe of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra and one of two oboe professors at the Curtis Institute of Music, posted on her Facebook page and again via video a message of outrage. Needleman’s central paragraph, in which she addresses herself directly to Marcel Tabuteau, is as follows:

“I don’t care if it was 1952 or 1954. I don’t care what you did for oboe reeds, as if anyone cares that you sometimes scraped them longer with your knife than your predecessors—what an innovation! I don’t care what you did for phrasing, and I don’t care how many (mostly men) students you inspired with your abusive teaching, which lived on for generations because they were unable to self-assess and grow past it. I don’t care about your number system. If you did not admit Joan to Curtis because she was a woman, and if you “let” her sweep your floor as a reward, this is how I remember you. *** you, Marcel Tabuteau. You know what would’ve been a real innovation that would have provided us all some benefit? Being a Very Big Fancy Man who supported women in music.

Needleman’s outrage is the result of the mention, in Joan Champie’s obituary, that Tabuteau hesitated to accept women at the Curtis Institute because 1) the likelihood of their being able to pursue a successful career was limited; and 2) because, after a successful lesson, Tabuteau “allowed her to sweep the floor.” 

Point 1 is, very obviously, one of the sad facts of orchestral life in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s, and, alas, even beyond. Conductors at that time rarely hired women oboists. The increasing presence of women in symphony orchestras in the United States, and around the world, is one of the signs of the remarkable gains made by women since the mid-twentieth century, gains akin to those that have been made in this country by other groups long dismissed or long oppressed.

Point 2, apparently troubling–although possibly the result of Tabuteau’s well-known mischievous sense of humor, needs to be understood in context. Those of us who knew Tabuteau or who knew others who knew him well, acknowledge that he could be a difficult taskmaster and act cold in lessons—not only to his rare female students, but to all of those who came to his studio. And yet most of his students remained faithful and dedicated to him because of his demonstrative artistry and the richness of his teaching. As Joan Champie herself said, after explaining to me in an interview how trying it could be to withstand Tabuteau’s sometimes severe remarks, “each lesson was a gift.” Champie was a courageous young woman whose desire to learn from an artist obviously quieted the discomfort that she felt.

What is most distressing in Needleman’s tirade is the dismissal of Tabuteau’s reed-making, which was part of his effort to achieve a kind of sound that combined the best of the French and Viennese schools of oboe-playing (a kind of sonority that Katherine Needleman herself well produces) and the dismissal of Tabuteau’s concern with phrasing, which, as it gradually infiltrated the players who sat around him, became one of the elements that caused critics such as The New Yorker’s Winthrop Sargeant to call Eugene Ormandy’s band the “Rolls Royce” of American orchestras.

Needleman’s reference to Tabuteau’s “abusive teaching” goes too far. That teaching has lived on for generations not because Tabuteau’s students “were unable to self-assess and grow past it,” but because it incorporated logical and inspiring methods of making music come alive.

I take no pleasure in refuting Katherine Needleman’s profane tirade. Nor does anyone on our board think of the bad old days of male chauvinism as the good old days. The Marcel Tabuteau First-Hand website continues to remain dedicated to promoting the musical ideas of a man who in our view had a highly positive impact on the development of musical performance in the United States during his lifetime, and during the period since his death. I ask those reading this response and my initial reply below to forward it to others who might be aware of Needleman’s Facebook attacks, so that the facts may be known.

Marc Mostovoy
Website administrator

To Katherine Needleman: A Belated Reply to
Your August 15th, 2024, Facebook Post:
“𝐎𝐃𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐉𝐎𝐀𝐍 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐈𝐄.”

Katherine—your post on Joan Champie was just recently brought to my attention: https://www.facebook.com/profile/100058038401756/search/?q=joan%20champie. Having interviewed Joan last year, I thought it would be appropriate to respond. Kindly post this letter on your Facebook page and website. Thank you.

First I want to say that I wish you did have the opportunity to get to know Joan. She was a wonderful person and so inspiring. I felt privileged to have interacted with her even though it was only for a short period of time near the end of her life. Having gained insight into her relationship with Marcel Tabuteau through our conversations (including the live interview), I wanted to pass on to you what I learned from her.

As Joan pointed out to me, it’s important to understand that things were very different in her time. Viewed through the lens of today, Tabuteau’s treatment of her seems unjust. But she was a trooper and willing to accept the indignities because of the invaluable things he taught her. She felt it was well worth it as did all the other students who studied with him.

The reason Tabuteau did not like taking women students was because conductors of the major orchestras at that time wouldn’t think of hiring a woman oboist—even a Tabuteau student. Tabuteau felt putting all his time and effort into training a woman was futile because there was no career path for them, and he tried to dissuade women from taking up the instrument for their own sakes. But there were some women who wouldn’t take no for an answer, and he reluctantly taught them. They included Joan, Laila Storch, Thelma Neft, Marguerite Smith, Martha Scherer, and Marjorie Jackson. And may I point out that everyone cherished the time they spent with Tabuteau despite the rough time he gave them. He also dished out the same tough treatment to their male counterparts as you know.

Now you might ask why Tabuteau treated all his students as he did. It certainly would not be acceptable today. But that’s the way it was then. Gillet (his teacher) and many teachers of that generation practiced that method. Tabuteau continued it because that is what he knew and grew up with. The students who couldn’t take it dropped out, but those who persevered were grateful for what Tabuteau taught them. As a footnote, many of Tabuteau’s students said it was great training to go through because it prepared them for playing under the difficult conductors they encountered afterward such as Toscanini, Stokowski, Reiner, and Szell—all dictators in their own right. 

Laila Storch’s biography contains numerous tributes by his students: woodwind, string and brass players; pianists, vocalists – all attesting how important he was to their musical lives. Tabuteau gave them something special that their own teachers couldn’t. Those who learned from him can’t all be wrong in their praise. He was a giant to them.

Throughout your post, you chastise Tabuteau for his behavior, measuring it by today’s values. I ask you to please take a step back and try to see things as they were then. Also try to appreciate what Tabuteau did to advance oboe playing and for the musicianship he instilled in so many. Today (July 2nd) being his birthday, let’s grant him the credit he deserves. 

Finally, most oboists of the Tabuteau school wouldn’t agree with you in dismissing his importance in regard to reeds, phrasing, and so forth. Indeed, Tabuteau paved the way for you too, Katherine, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it. Surely, he was far from perfect, but does he really deserve the full treatment you give him? I think not. 

Marc Mostovoy

Click here to learn more. 

Please provide your name and email address, and I will send you the whole story.