Studies with Marcel Tabuteau

by Laila Storch, 1968

During the time I studied with Marcel Tabuteau from 1943 to 1946 at the Curtis Institute of Music, and for several years afterwards for briefer periods whenever possible, I often made a few notes after lessons.

The woodwind ensemble, the string classes and the small orchestra, all of which he conducted, were like extra lessons. In the woodwind class while under the pressure of trying to play one or two measures, (or even notes!!) to meet with his approval, it was naturally impossible to write anything. But sometimes listening to the string class, I would jot down some of his explanations and reflections. And so I find the following words, marked ‘March 1943′:

“After 30 years there is not a day that I don’t think fifty times of what my teacher told me. Only now I really profit from what he advised – to get a little rubber ball. Music to be phrased must respond to the fundamental laws of nature – it must be scaled and rebound, like the ball, less and less.”

“You must be open to everything – learn from everything. The more you take from the world, the more you can give to the world. Develop your personality and do more than ‘shroom’ and ‘scratch’ ten hours a day!”

In these few sentences we find clues to much of Marcel Tabuteau’s philosophy of music. Many times I heard him give full credit to his teacher Georges Gillet, for having initiated him into a way of thinking about music, which was to become the basis for all his own later ideas. He often spoke of Gillet ‘s comparison of a musical phrase to each ‘phalange,’ each joint of the finger being linked to the hand, in turn to the wrist and then the arm – the whole, one unit, but within that unit each individual section having its own importance.

Tabuteau often referred to the ‘laws of nature’ and constantly emphasized the fact that music should be in accord with the ‘laws of the universe.’ To elaborate on his conception of the ‘up and down impulses’ and the ‘life’ of the music, he used illustrations ranging from the movement involved in normal respiration to that of the motion of he earth around the sun.

The idea of the personality, or having ‘something to say,’ was another theme he repeatedly stressed. It is not the golden pen or the silver pencil that writes the novel – not the platinum flute or the diamond oboe that plays the melody. He never ceased to exhort:

Think before you play!”

Tabuteau’s use of numbers was a means to a musical end, not an end in itself. But in his various applications of the ‘number system,’ he was able to impart his ideas about rhythm, dynamic range, tone color, and the all-important shaping of a musical phrase, with an exactness and accuracy which I do not feel has been attained by any other artist or teacher.

None of his pupils are likely to forget their first introduction to ‘numbers,’ the 1 – 9 – 1 ‘drive’ on one note – the aim being that of range and the increase of intensity from the softest beginning, with the speed of the wind increasing to 9 and then back to 1, this done both on one continuous tone and with each degree or the ‘drive’ attacked separately.

Variations of this exercise included increasing it from 1 – 13 – 1, and changing notes, for example playing:

EXAMPLE 1

laila-example-1

Using the wind as one would the violin bow, he asked for changes of direction or impulse, so that taking + to indicate ‘down’ and 0 ‘up,’ 1 – 9 – 1 would be played as:

EXAMPLE 2

laila-example-2

Many more applications of this basic pattern formed a part of almost every lesson.

In using numbers to explain a continuity of rhythm, he started with the basic conception that as music must be ‘going somewhere,’ it should not remain in the static or pigeon-hole type condition brought about by thinking (taking 4/4 time as an example):

EXAMPLE 3

laila-example-3

Thinking in the following manner results in a linking of one measure to the next over the bar line, as if in a continuous circle.

EXAMPLE 4

laila-example-4

This same principle he often applied to smaller time units, so that we have the following patterns:

EXAMPLE 5

laila-example-5

One of his favorite ways to open the string class for the new school year was to establish a steady beat and have any violinist or cellist distribute evenly on command anything from two to six or seven notes to the beat. Rarely would more than one person in the class succeed on the initial attempt. From then on everyone was to practice, both mentally while walking down the street, or at home with the instrument:

EXAMPLE 6

laila-example-6

Then came different divisions within the larger groups of notes. Six notes to a beat could be thought of as:

EXAMPLE 7

laila-example-7

Similar divisions were made for groups of five or seven notes.

In the woodwind ensemble classes, the first session often consisted of everyone learning the pattern, (in this case numbers used for both rhythmic continuity and intensity or sound):

EXAMPLE 8

laila-example-8

This would have to be repeated verbally until quick and perfect, as a prelude to learning other more complicated number patterns which Tabuteau would apply to various phrases throughout the year.

“You must learn to scale your givings,“ he would often say. As one example, I remember him shaping the little flute phrase in the ‘Smuggler’s March’ from Carmen in the following form:

EXAMPLE 9

laila-example-9

Tabuteau spoke in numbers and inflections to explain the finest gradations and nuances in music, but in almost every class he also used fresh and colorful illustrations of a more general nature. Sometimes it would be the ‘Golf Player’:

“He can have the cap and the pants and better clubs and hit the ball. He looks like a golf player — but the real one — the professional, knows exactly where the ball is going. Every note must be placed like the ball in golf — in the hole. You must not miss — it is a game!”

“Perfection is like the point of a needle — it is easy to hit all around it.”

“Those notes you are playing — they are like salt water taffy — all different and beautiful colors, but when you bite into it, every piece tastes the same!”

If detailed analysis and spirited illustrations were part of all the classes and lessons, surely no smaller a part of our education was to hear Tabuteau playing in the Philadelphia Orchestra, week after week, performing and constantly producing in total accordance with his own precepts. In this regard he used to say that you must project to the farthermost balcony, and play for the little fellow who only has fifty cents to spend for a ticket. Speaking of the work involved in playing, he said:

“When you give 500% only about 70 or 80% comes out, so if you take it easy — you can imagine!”

Taking it easy was something that Tabuteau himself was in little danger of ever doing. When I saw him for the last time in Nice in 1963, it was ten years since he had to rush to a Friday afternoon concert at the Academy of Music after making reeds all morning, or to catch a train for Washington or New York — but he was still gouging cane, trying reeds, comparing instruments, thinking and talking about music, and playing the oboe with all zest and enthusiasm which characterized his whole life.

Next Section: Tabuteau System Extracts

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.