Donald Hefner

Donald Hefner (1932?2007) first attended the University of Illinois but won an audition to study oboe with Marcel Tabuteau at the Curtis Institute of Music in 1952, working with him for two years. He graduated from Catholic University, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, then spent five years, until 1959, in the U.S. Marine Band as a solo oboist. He received a master’s degree in music in 1960 and a doctorate in music history in 1984 from Catholic University where he became an associate professor and taught there until he retired in 1991. His 1984 Ph. D. dissertation: The Tradition of the Paris Conservatoire School of Oboe Playing with Special Attention to the Influence of Marcel Tabuteau offers valuable information about the Tabuteau System:

Tabuteau’s Use of Imagery

Tabuteau’s teaching was rich in imaginative comparisons to occurrences in the physical world. He said, “You must be open to everything learn from everything. The more you take from the world, the more you can give to the world.”

A few well remembered examples follow: to illustrate the proper resolution of [a well-known] florid clarinet passage, he compared the line with the downward swoop of a seagull which then, about to land, brakes upward momentarily in the air with its wings, then settles gently.

In the same movement, the clarinet arpeggio at the end of the passage was to dissolve in the air while rising, like a disappearing plume of smoke. The then student clarinetist, now for many years in the Philadelphia Orchestra, was able to make both images clearly perceptible

For a deceptive or false cadence, the following picture was evoked: a dying leaf, falling from a tree limb in autumn, floats downward toward the forest floor, but just as it is about to settle there, an unexpected breeze freshens and carries it whirling away for a moment of new life.

An apologetic down inflection following an energetic upbeat was graphically compared to a boxer who puts all his energy into the backward preparation of a punch, and very little into the punch itself. “He won’t win many fights,” observed the master.

For an abrupt change in the character of the music intensified by the unresolved upbeat , Tabuteau would say, “You must reverse the machine.”

Regarding Phrasing in General

The musicians of the [18th] century who wrote on this subject were concerned primarily with one thing: the perception of cohesive musical units and the marking of them by pauses in the groups of notes. There were, to be sure, observations made with regard to the treatment of dissonances of specific figures like appoggiaturas, and of chromatic alterations. Mozart wrote again and again of “expression,” “taste,” and “feeling,” but made no attempt to be more specific. The expression of the overall shaping of a melodic line did not appear until the 19th century.

This is an ephemeral subject, very difficult to reduce to prose, but the attempt will be made to convey an idea of Tabuteau’s general approach to it.

Tabuteau’s description of an arc drawn on a plane of silence on one note was a vivid picture of such a curve, as were the drives, which began “next to zero,” rose in an arc of increasing intensity to a peak and gradually returned to a resolution.

And so the perception of the phrase and of its general shape is the first problem that the player must solve, consciously or instinctively. Tabuteau said once, “It is best done by inspiration; but if the inspiration is not there on a certain day, you had better know what you are doing.” By what increments a phrase rises from its incipit to its peak is a more complex question.

The Grouping of Figures

The confusion between articulation marks and phrasing is only one of the pitfalls into which an unwary musician may be drawn. It seems that everything in our notation system conspires to mislead a young musician.

Not only do the bowing marks [in an example at hand] appear to bind the figures into one-bar units, but the heavy beam that binds the eighth notes adds to the illusion. And each bar line appears to be a dam or obstruction. The actual grouping of the figures in the sense of the phrase is, of course, in direct contradiction to the appearance of the notation. Occasional attempts have been made to revise the notation of the music so that it more clearly shows the relationship of the notes, but the old system has prevailed. Students must be taught to feel the real relationships within the music. This was Tabuteau’s supreme gift to his students.

Regarding Inflection

Nearly every beginning music student is taught that duple time consists of a strong beat followed by a weak beat, while triple time involves that same strong beat followed by two weak ones. This describes metric groupings in terms of weight or accent. Tabuteau would describe them instead in terms of the urgent movement of the upbeat to the downbeat. To take an obvious example, in 2/4 time the fundamental groupings results from the tension generated from the active upbeat resolving to the stable downbeat. This relationship was the heartbeat of Tabuteau’s philosophy of interpretation.

At the beginning of his third recorded lesson in 1965, he said: “We will have today a lesson on distribution of inflection.” And after several examples he added, “You will excuse me with my Up and Down but to me, it is very important!”

This principle is hardly novel; as a matter of fact the words commonly used to describe it in scholarly writing, “arsis” and “thesis,” refer to the raising and dropping of the foot which was the chorus leader’s way to keep time in classical antiquity. Tabuteau used the words “up inflection” and “down inflection” so they will be preserved here. It was his imaginative expansion of this simple principle that gave his phrasing so much life and made his ideas so clear to students.

And so, in duple meter, the fundamental relationship exists between beat “two” and beat “one,” commonly compared to an iambic foot in poetry. A second relationship can exist between metric beats, that comparable to a “trochaic foot.” Tabuteau described this relationship as “down, rebound.” In ternary meter, this is the added element.

In triple meter as well as in smaller triple groupings there are: “up” (tension), “down” (resolution), and “rebound” (reaction).

Tabuteau often explained this in terms of that rubber ball when thrown against a wall. The cocking of the arm produces tension, the release against the wall is resolution, and the ball’s rebound is reaction. Like the ball, the rebound note must have a moment to react to the impact of striking the wall before it springs back and, like the ball, it rebounds with a little less energy than it had on impact.

Tabuteau often related musical “syllables” to prose. A phrase that begins with a “down inflection,” like the beginning of Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4, was compared to a sentence which begins with “Now! ” or “Well! “

How Tabuteau Prepared his Students to use his Numbering System: The Drives

John de Lancie made the observation that undertrained players manifest their deficiencies most clearly “in the area of pianissimo.” It was to this area that Tabuteau addressed so much of his training in the form of “drives,” of scales, and of the level of control demanded in his now legendary ensemble classes. As he said in 1965, “In my opinion, the quality that carries is the amplification of a dolce tone. The dolce tone is the nearest to zero!”

Georges Gillet’s admonition, “Care should be taken to play piano in the low register, mezzo forte in the middle range, and forte in the high range in order to acquire homogeneity of tone,” was reflected in the way the scales were done [by Tabuteau]; they were to be scaled from the level of 1 at the bottom to 9 at the top, exactly opposite to the acoustical tendency of the oboe. They were usually played in articulated eighth notes at a moderate tempo.

The “drives” began each lesson. They consisted of patterns of articulated (or sometimes unarticulated) notes of increasing, then decreasing, intensity. They addressed at once so many of the problems of “tone emission” that are at the core of the difficulty of oboe playing: wind control, articulation, reed placement, tone coloring, and even phrasing. They were very difficult to do.

After the “drives” and scales came etudes, at first from Barret and later from Ferling, carrying on the established tradition of the Conservatoire. There would always be a transposed study, invariably a semitone higher or lower than the original, most commonly from Barret , and then a difficult technical study to conclude.

Tabuteau’s Numbering System

Tabuteau’s Number System, the subject of so much discussion, was a way to more precisely chart the rise in intensity of a phrase and to indicate the smallest elements (he called them “syllables”) toward the peak and away again. This system was, in Tabuteau’s own words, subjective and applied inconsistently. This writer’s impression was that it would be applied only to phrases where the groupings were relatively clear and simple.

To quote an example, remembered exactly from an ensemble class [Hefner presents a well-known melody here]: Note that the rise in intensity is not necessarily synonymous with a rise in pitch. This phrase derives its increasing tension from the sequential repetition of a two “syllable” motive. When the numbers progress, that signifies an “up-down” inflection. When the number repeats, it means that these adjacent notes are unrelated. When the phrase is progressing toward its climax, the “down” inflection has more weight than the ” up . “

Tabuteau would illustrate this point by pretending to hold a carpenter’s hammer. He would make a violent upstroke and a soft downstroke and say, “You can’t drive nails in like that!” In the course of resolution, however, as the decreasing numbers indicate, the opposite is true.

There are, of course, other means of increasing tension than simple repetition. Rising pitch can be a contributing factor, as can harmonic movement, the introduction of active rhythmic figures, and above all, dissonance.

Regarding Color and Speed of the Wind

The comparison of the placement of the reed to the placement of the bow of the violin is very telling. To play near the tip of the reed produces a result exactly comparable to the bowing of the violin near the fingerboard: mellow, deep, and emphasizing the lower partials in the sound. As the bow moves toward the bridge, the sound becomes increasingly more strident and metallic. The same is true of the oboe.

As the player’s lips move toward the “string” of the reed, the sound approximates more and more the sound of the shawm, the ancestor of the oboe, in which the reed was either encapsulated or thrust untouched into the mouth of the player against whose lips the “pirouette” (like the handguard of a fencer) rested.

Needless to say, the fundamental reed placement of the oboist is near (Tabuteau said “on”) the tip of the reed, but for the high register or for a more strident quality the player must move toward the “string.” Tabuteau’s admonition: “Very important; avoid the crocodile bite with an immobile embouchure,” is to be taken very seriously.

“A real oboe vibrato is produced by the intensity of the speed of the player’s wind. But as you increase the speed, you should release the embouchure. Perhaps I can make this clear by comparing the process to the starting of a train. In the station, the locomotive grips the rails tightly as it slowly begins to move, but as it gains momentum it moves along more lightly and the grip slackens.”

This does not mean a loss of control, but simply that control is more lightly exercised at high speed. If the player does not loosen his lips as the speed of vibrations increases, he will produce that thin, acid tone, with its pinched quality, which is the mark of a bad oboist.

He often said that the player must “spin the tone” at moments of intensity. Krell’s comparison to a light ball suspended (and spinning) in the player’s wind is the perfect image to illustrate Tabuteau’s concept of tone support, coupled with a flexible embouchure and movable reed placement intended not only for the fundamental purpose of adjusting o the various registers of the instrument, but also for producing a variety of tone colors.

Tabuteau’s reeds were very light, as were Gillet’s, though in a much different way. The great depth and color in his sound came from the intensity and control of the wind and not fundamentally from the resistance of the reed. This was a point which he made somewhat unsuccessfully, even to some of his most successful and admired students.

Tabuteau on the Organ

Most performers have two powerful means of expression at their disposal: the distribution of time and weight. The organist has but one; he cannot make a inflection, but must give the illusion of doing so by shortening and lengthening notes. Tabuteau once said of the organ, “If it could breathe, we would all be out of a job.” And on another occasion, “It is like the steam from a radiator: pshhhh! “

Most of the great composers, the most conspicuous being J. S. Bach, of course, did not have any such prejudice. When similar sentiments to those above were expressed to Mozart by “Herr Stein,” the renowned clavier-maker and organ builder, he [Mozart] responded as follows:

When I told Herr Stein that I should like to play his organ, since the organ was my passion, he was greatly surprised and said:

“What! can such a man as you, such a great pianist, wish to play on an instrument devoid of douceur, of expression, of piano and forte, one which is always the same?”

[Said I] “Oh, there is nothing in that. The organ is still, to my eyes and ears, the king of instruments.”

[And Herr Stein] “Well, just as you like.”

And so we set off together.

The above is an extract from Donald Hefner’s 1984 dissertation: The Tradition of the Paris Conservatoire School of Oboe Playing with Special Attention to the Influence of Marcel Tabuteau; Ph. D. Catholic University of America.

Donald Hefner gave additional information regarding Tabuteau’s Number System in a 1996 interview with Sarah Maude Wetherbee:

The above is an excerpt from Sarah Maude Wetherbee’s 2002 dissertation: Marcel Tabuteau’s Influence on String Playing at the Curtis Institute of Music: a Philosophy of Twentieth-Century Performance Practice.

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.