TromboneChat

A recent post got me thinking: do certain schools of trombone playing focus more on one above the other (different regions, countries, etc.)? As I understand it, technical studies isolate technical aspects of playing, while etudes put the same technical aspects into a more musical form/in the context of music.

I really think you need both. Studies present issues in a pattern, or In a purely clinical way. Etudes help you apply variations of the issue to a range of real playing scenarios.

Etudes are technical studies:

Étude, (French: “study”) in music, originally a study or technical exercise, later a complete and musically intelligible composition exploring a particular technical problem in an esthetically satisfying manner.

So an Arbans "technical exercise" is an etude. A Rochut "etude" is designed to help a musician practice a technique (e.g., legato playing) in a musical context. Sometimes etudes are so well regarded that they are programmed on performances (e.g., Chopin piano etudes). Sometimes they are very basic so that the musician can fully concentrate on the technique and not have to worry about expressive playing.

I prefer to not approach my playing and teaching as belonging to a "school" of trombone playing or pedagogy. Instead I think of these things as different tools that you pull out as needed. Does the student need work on legato playing? Then you can pull out something like a Rochut. Multiple tonguing? Brush the dust off the Arbans. Clef work? Blazhevich. etc.

Dave

I use Arban and other technical and etude books in the same way. I'm just wondering if certain school of thought/playing emphasize one over the other.

I've run into High School kids who are only working on Rochut. I don't agree with this approach. You need to mix lyrical studies like Rochut/Bordogni with some technical studies.

"Une etude" in French litterally means a study. Of course some etudes will be more technical in nature than others, others will be more geared towards developing musicality.