On 21 Jan 2009 at 21:55, Christopher Smith wrote: > On Jan 21, 2009, at 8:26 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 20 Jan 2009 at 23:53, Christopher Smith wrote: > > > >> Here's an article > >> > >> http://www.britishtrombonesociety.org/resources/shifrin/chapter-1- > >> from-beethoven-to-schumann.html > >> > >> He deals with the post-Beethoven symphonic writing for trombone. The > >> gist is: even though the score may be written in a certain clef and > >> the tessitura may suit one instrument or another, there is no firm > >> rule determining what instrument was written for, preferred, or > >> actually used (the three are completely independent of each other.) > > > > I'm sorry, Christopher, but I don't see anything in that article that > > supports your interpretation of it. Can you elucidate? > > > > Sorry, the site seems to have restructured itself since I posted the > link! 8-) > > In Chapter 1:1:3 he discusses the problems assembling a full trombone > section in cities other than Vienna, saying, "...the ideal number of > trombonists that made up a Beethoven trombone section may have been > any number that was available."
This is one of those logical fallacies -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have a hard time believing that Vienna, with a major Catholic cathedral in it (and any number of other churches with full-fledged musical establishments), would have lacked for trombonists. Maybe not great ones, but still. > Chap 1:3:1, Schubert puts all trombones on one staff in his scores in > one clef (tenor) though he probably intended it for ATB trio. Though > the range suits tenor trombone on the first part (AND the third, says > me, except for a rare low note!), a modern tenor is probably too > heavy. Because the parts were copied in tenor clef in an early > edition, it was often played on tenor trombone, against the probable > intent of the composer. > > Footnote 118, "as to the clefs used to notate these instruments, > great confusion reigns" A composer's autograph score in the period of Schubert is nothing but a guide to the copyist for creating parts. I see nothing at all there in what you quote that suggests anything in regard to evidence about which instruments Schubert intended -- the documentary evidence is itself contradictory. And even the interpretation offered does not support the 3-tenors hypothesis. [later examples omitted] > Anyway, it goes on and on like this. Jumping ahead to Part II, he > discusses Brahm, Dvorak and Bruckner, where it is not clear what was > written for. The use of the term "alto trombone" doesn't seem to mean > much in these scores, as most German orchestras were using three > tenor trombones of varying bores at the time. I didn't read the later parts of the article, but I found the evidence adduced to be pretty weak tea. The original parts used by the Vienna Philharmonic since its founding in 1842 still exist. Surely examining those would say something about what performance practices actually existed in that particular location throughout much of the 19th century. And, of course, different places had different traditions (Vienna still does with its special brass instruments, for instance; do they still use gut strings in the strings?). > It is a great resource for orchestral trombonists who are trying to > understand the role of their instrument in certain repertoire, and > shows how caution has to be applied when you rely too much on the > appearance in the score. Seems to me that boils down to nothing more than being sure you're using critical scores, rather than depending on some Eulenberg miniature score that's probably 10 or more generations away from the composer's original (with some exceptions, of course -- the Bruckner scores are actually taken almost directly from the original bowdlerized editions of Bruckner's symphonies). > Of course, if you are trying to play the way > it was back then, or what the composer really was aiming for, or what > he would have written if he had the players, well, then that opens a > huge can of worms. Er, isn't that what the intent of the article was? I found the whole thing pretty weak. It hardly ever deals with original sources, and when it does, the author really doesn't seem qualified to assess their meaning (as in the Schubert example, for instance). I wouldn't conclude anything at all from that article, except the truism that one should never trust conventional wisdom, or longstanding performance traditions. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
