How valuable or detrimental is having a discernable style?

[tbdana]

I've never really developed my own style, I'm just someone who can copy a lot of other styles. On one hand that allows me to be pretty versatile, but on the other I'm not a player where people can hear something I play and instantly know it's me. But I've been toying with the notion of throwing all that overboard, and taking command of my own individual style, for better or worse.

Sometimes it's worse. Frank Rosolino used to lament that he didn't get more studio work, but was only called for solos. Both of those were due to the fact that he was so instantly identifiable when he played. OTOH, many of the gigs he did get he got specifically because they wanted him.

I've always prided myself on being a chameleon: someone who can play a wide variety of styles, with a wide variety of approaches, and do them all with some authenticity. But these days I am starting to doubt that is an asset. Maybe it's even a detriment.

My thinking "back when" was that being versatile would give me more opportunities and open me up to doing a wider variety of gigs. But in the end, I'm nobody. Just a ghost. Not someone anyone can quantify. Not anyone about whom people say, "Wow, I really dig her interpretation." And when I die there will be nothing left of me.

So now I'm thinking being stylistically versatile just makes me fungible. And that's not good. Rice is fungible. No one cares which grain of rice they get. One grain of rice is as good as any other. There's nothing unique or special about a grain of rice. No one ever stood in line overnight to get into a grain of rice concert. (<-- Yeah, I know that's a stupid sentence, but it amused me, and after all, that's what's really important. ) There's not a single thread on this forum about how awesome some versatile player is who just blends with any situation. There are thousands of good trombonists we never talk about because they don't have their own identifiable sound.

What are your thoughts about developing an identifiable sound, one that makes you stand out rather than blend in? Good? Bad? Neither?

[AndrewMeronek]

It's pretty much inevitable that someone will eventually develop their own identifiable sound as they mature as a musician.

Except - where this individuality is drilled out of them. There are an awful lot of orchestra audition chasers who have ingrained the lesson that in order to win an audition they need to sound exactly like someone else who the audition committee expects. Not just trombonists.

[tbdana]

It's pretty much inevitable that someone will eventually develop their own identifiable sound as they mature as a musician.

Except - where this individuality is drilled out of them. There are an awful lot of orchestra audition chasers who have ingrained the lesson that in order to win an audition they need to sound exactly like someone else who the audition committee expects. Not just trombonists.

Yeah, that's rampant on the audition circuit.

But is it a bad thing? Or a good thing?

Symphony orchestras are not known as bastions of individual style. Especially with trombones, it's all about blending with the section.

[AndrewMeronek]

But is it a bad thing? Or a good thing?

Good or bad, that's the gig. Meaning, I think that valuation is individual.

[Doug Elliott]

The ability to do everything well and blend in as if you belong there (grain of rice, not a pebble) is a huge asset and exactly what I have always tried to do - orchestra, small group jazz, big band, society band, brass quintet, orthodox Jewish weddings, etc. The only things I don't really do or care much about are typical wedding bands and trad jazz.
At this point I think I do have my own style and that's also an asset.

[Burgerbob]

I don't think many people winning auditions have no personal style.

[brassmedic]

It's pretty much inevitable that someone will eventually develop their own identifiable sound as they mature as a musician.

Except - where this individuality is drilled out of them. There are an awful lot of orchestra audition chasers who have ingrained the lesson that in order to win an audition they need to sound exactly like someone else who the audition committee expects. Not just trombonists.

You're auditioning to be a part of a brass section. You can't have a sound that's completely different than the rest of the section; it won't blend. If you're playing a solo part, though, there is room to show your own interpretation. In fact, you are expected to. I have never heard of an applicant being rejected because s/he didn't imitate someone else's style in a solo part.

[Posaunus]

I've never really developed my own style, I'm just someone who can copy a lot of other styles.
...
So now I'm thinking being stylistically versatile just makes me fungible. And that's not good.
...
There are thousands of good trombonists we never talk about because they don't have their own identifiable sound.
...
What are your thoughts about developing an identifiable sound, one that makes you stand out rather than blend in?

Dana,

We all are (probably) capable of "developing an identifiable sound." That could be beneficial in some cases - e.g., Rosolino, George Roberts, ..., who got many gigs just because of their unique (at the time) persona. But many performing opportunities do not require - even discourage - an individually different sound (or style); think orchestra, brass band, most big band sections, etc.

Ask your friends who make a living in the Hollywood or New York studios - they survive (many of them handsomely) because they are chameleons; they can sublimate their own style and create whatever trombone sound that the arranger or producer desires.

Is your objective, at this point in your life, to get a few specialized gigs where they want "the one and only Dana" to perform - and be "talked about," or to find various ensembles here you can fit in with the group and enjoy making music?

[Fidbone]

Best way to develop an individual voice is to compose and play your own music.
Particularly in Jazz and as a jazz soloist. That way you can truly be you without boundaries.
Anything else you have to fall in and play the style of music as it’s meant to be played.

[johntarr]

What are your thoughts about developing an identifiable sound, one that makes you stand out rather than blend in? Good? Bad? Neither?

Good, bad, neither? The answer(s) is/are only relevant to you, what you want to express, and if it works financially. It seems, from your posts, as if you are a successful musician doing what you do. Maybe it’s time to change that because there are so many players who can be chameleons so the market is flooded. Maybe it’s time to change what you’re doing because humans need to grow and learn to stay happy and healthy, if they are fortunate enough to be able to do so.

What would be your motivation to change and more interestingly, how would you go about developing your own style/voice? What would you lose, what would you gain?

[OneTon]

What happened three days ago?

[Posaunus]

What happened three days ago?

What's this mean?

[Doug Elliott]

Juneteenth?

[OneTon]

What happened three days ago?

What's this mean?

My apologies again. I evidently saw something that wasn’t there in the original post. My close up vision isn’t great and i have copious amounts from a sinus infection coming iut if my eyes. The antibiotic has set it back but not stopped it. Sorry about that.

A grain of rice may be fungible, but it is still unique. Sometimes i get more out of the sidemen (side persons?) that open big name acts than i do the big name acts. You may have connected with someone without knowing it. As previously mentioned, posterity is easier to achieve by publishing. But Bach didn’t know he was going to be famous. He was just doing his job. Developing a unique sound does not guarantee fame or fortune. Al Grey had a unique sound and did some writing. He is not universally known, at least to the masses. I am sorry that you’re having these thoughts. You have had a diverse career. Perhaps you should put the pg-13 stories down in writing and publish that.

[LeTromboniste]

I don't think having a discernable personal style and being able to blend in have to be mutually exclusive, or that the discernable personal style had to only come out in solo passages. In fact I would say that the way you blend in can be part of your style. There are second trombonists whose work as seconds is discernable, for instance.

My goal for myself, and what I try to encourage my students to do, is to cultivate both. I think one should ideally develop a strong personal style and sense of expression, and then know how to adapt and fit into a section and sound good with others and while still remaining true to oneself. My favourite sections to hear, in any genre, are those where the personal styles of each player complement each other, rather than when personal styles are suppressed and erased.

[dukesboneman]

tbdana, Like you , I always felt t was/is a big asset to not stick out be a team/section player.
I never felt that I had an identifiable sound.
As I got older and kept on playing People would come up to me saying they heard a trombone and immediately
knew it was me. Well I figured they knew I played with Band A or Band B .
Musicians that I respected would say the same thing.
After a while I guess my "Sound" or "Style" came about

[Matt K]

I don't think you can help but have an identifiable sound as you get better at the horn. The closest corollary that I can think, which I think is what you're getting at, is being typecast --- e.g. it's hard not to see Ewan McGregor as anything other than Obi-Wan, or John Krasinski as Jim from the Office. If you are principal of an orchestra you probably aren't (nor are you likely to be seeking out) jazz gigs. That's different from being unable to do them for sure. I have little doubt that Frank could have gotten section playing gigs had he set his mind to it and tried to break the "typecasting", had he been around longer to try.

So I guess to me it's more a function of how much effort you're willing to network your way into other gigs rather than some kind of physiological barrier because of your uniqueness. Or maybe put another way, you are appropriately blending in during the section. I don't think it's necessary, or perhaps even desirable, to intentionally try to "stick out" with your sound in situations where it's good to blend. So if you want to "stick out" trying to go for opportunies that specifically emphasize that (situations where you're the only trombone player, albums that feature you, etc.) are probably something you want to seek out.

Also, fwiw, there are actually quite a few topics started or prominently featuring "blend":
viewtopic.php?t=32244
viewtopic.php?t=18379
viewtopic.php?t=11358

I don't have time to look up versatility but I know it's been brought up. If you squint hard enough the current thread about medium bores actually sort of illustrates how desirable that is for some people. I know personally I went to a graduate school to study with someone who really could fit in well in a wide variety of musical situations - Matt Niess, who at the time had recently won the Army Quintet spot while still being lead in the Army Blues, and occasionally doubled on euphonium with the Pershing's Own.

[imsevimse]

I never even think of this as a problem. I've always just tried to fit in and since we are talking about solo playing; when I started to improvise at the age of 15-16 I had no idea what to do. Just was told to stand up and play, as you were supposed to do. When I started I hadn't much technique either, which wasn't very good because I think that can still be heard when I'm soloing, even though I do not have the same limitations today. The technical limitations effected what I choose to play back then and I guess I developed my own style somewhat based on this, but I do think those things is today why people recognize it is me. Since I haven't studied all those licks and patterns I haven't evolved into such ideas and consequently I do not sound like any soloist who has done that type of study. Good or bad? I don't know and I do not care because I'm not depending on this for a living but my experience gets me thinking that the accademic approach where you learn jazz today is for better and worse. You polish of your individual flaws there and practice in a certain way and that is what makes all those highly skilled but rather anonymous soloists of today.

Sure, many soloists are very skilled and we hear they know their instruments and you could then think they could play anything. It is impressive, but if you listen many do play very alike because they all have studied the same licks and patterns. Isn't that what you are supposed to do? THEN a few probably evolves beyond that, but I do think the earlier you find your own path the better. That is if you want to be completely unique, but who knows what's best for you at that early stage in your career? I think you need to be born a rebel and you can not really become a rebel without starting as one.

/Tom

[baileyman]

In a comment on slide vibrato, Fontana says a bit about motivation, something like, "I hardly ever do slide vibrato. I tried it, and it just comes out, just like, slide vibrato. I can't personalize it, and so many people do it well."

Emphasize "personalize". If he couldn't do something that was uniquely him, he didn't do it.

On Rosolino, he could blend perfectly well. Check out Jazz Orbit by Bill Holman. Or maybe the 1953 Kenton band. Or hundreds of heads for the Lighthouse All-Stars. He played section great and followed the lead. I've been told he was preferred in the studios for jazz solo, but his section skill just got ignored. (Or perhaps the guys who had those gigs wouldn't sub him.)

It's funny, to tie these two guys together, find a big band with both in the section (Louis Bellson, Mancini, Dream Band (?), Holman) and Frank is tight with the lead but Carl is laying the funk on his second or third part.

[LetItSlide]

Best way to develop an individual voice is to compose and play your own music.
Particularly in Jazz and as a jazz soloist. That way you can truly be you without boundaries.
Anything else you have to fall in and play the style of music as it’s meant to be played.

Some day I'm going to come up with five semi-original licks, and be able to play them in three keys.

Please don't steal my licks.

[Cmillar]

THEN a few probably evolves beyond that, but I do think the earlier you find your own path the better. That is if you want to be completely unique, but who knows what's best for you at that early stage in your career? I think you need to be born a rebel and you can not really become a rebel without starting as one.

/Tom

There's a wonderful pretty current documentary film on Herb Albert, "Herb Alpert is..." (it's on streaming services)

When he was in his 20's, he was busy doing all kinds of gigs in LA. Then he decided to strike out and do something to satisfy himself.

He says he realized that any well-known trumpet player all had (...or had, back in the '60s) a very identifiable style that was instantly recognizable: ie: Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, Harry James, etc.)

Alpert says he wasn't going to be really happy unless he was just playing in 'his own style', and he got encouragement from his friend Jerry Moss.

The rest is history, of course. I didn't know that Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass sold more albums than the Beatles did in 1964-65! They were a hit around the world.....right thing at the right time!

And he can PLAY. Just listen closely to his playing on his recordings. Totally wonderful brass playing.

Anyways... great thing about the documentary about his life is his staying true to his own vision of what he wanted to do as an artist: stay current, always look ahead, and just play music that he believes in and what rings 'true' to him.

We should all be thankful to Alpert and Moss (A&M records). They believed in and encouraged 'The Police', 'Madonna', and many other artists who just made the music that they believed in as Alpert had done himself.