And is pedal b-flat out of the question?
ajr
> Weiner's work has barely been scratched here. One of his findings is
> that the use of "falset" notes ("faked" low notes) on tenor trombone was
> described in some sources and position charts (I won't try to recall
> where and when without the article in front of me) much earlier than
> many of us would have thought. These notes (Eb below the bass clef in
> fourth position, D in fifth, etc.) which are particularly easy to play
> on smaller-bore instruments, were commonly known in the late 19th
> century, but there is evidence that these notes were often used in the
> classical era to play "bass trombone" notes below low E on a Bb
> trombone. This is Weiner's theory, for example, for the wide-ranging
> bass trombone part to Haydn's _Creation_. This part would not be
> playable on an F bass trombone at any rate - ranging from to G above the
> staff to Bb and C below (the C could be played on a F bass trombone but
> not the Bb) but could be played on a Bb instrument using these falset
> notes (the Bb is the fundamental). The only other explanations for that
> range are composer ignorance (always a possibility, since Haydn had not
> written for trombone much) or his anticipation of the invention of the
> F-attachment by forty or fifty years! Again, Weiner's best assessment
> of the instruments played by the Germans brought to England for the
> premiere of the work is three Bb trombones, with different sized
> mouthpieces.
>
>
> Both Shifrin and Weiner have made huge strides in this area of
> scholarship. What is on the web is only a sample. Shifrin's work is
> aimed mostly at the orchestral symphonic player, trying to determine
> which instruments were written for, and which a modern player should
> use. (Another useful area of his work is to determine which 19th and
> early 20th century works were written for valve trombone, such as all of
> Dvorak, but not the early Rossini operas.) Weiner's work is more
> comprehensive and historical. Weiner criticizes Shifrin for sloppy
> scholarship, but I don't see it. Shifrin has combed through Europe,
> examining hundreds of autographs and parts - I'm sure he has been
> through the Vienna Symphony library in addition to many others.
>
>
> I would even venture to say that their work is so well-documented that
> anyone who wants to dispute would need, at this point, to come up with
> some examples. If anyone on this list is so certain of more common use
> of trombones pitched in higher or lower keys, one should show
> documentation of same.
>
>
> Raymond Horton
> Bass Trombonist,
> Louisville Orchestra
>
>
> David W. Fenton wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Finale mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
