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.
