On 22 Jan 2009 at 8:07, Christopher Smith wrote: > On Jan 21, 2009, at 10:13 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 21 Jan 2009 at 21:55, Christopher Smith wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > I think you misread. I said "cities other than Vienna."
Yes, but it depends on what you're looking at -- what Beethoven intended, and what people actually managed to do at the time. Since we today (in most decent-sized orchestras) have the luxury of choosing the instruments to be used, I don't see much reason to worry about how people in the past got by. When you have the resources to do it according to the way Beethoven conceived it, I see no reason to argue that in the past it *wasn't* always performed that way. Now, if you're a community orchestra and lack the instruments, you could definitely use the argument that Beethoven's contemporaries made do, and that's fine. I don't see much need for arguments like that, since even though I'm all for historically informed performance, I believe that if that becomes a barrier to groups wanting to play the work, then it's better to toss performance practice and make do with what you have -- no need for any justification from historical practice needed! > Vienna, which > he often wrote for, had the trombones. Other cities, mostly not (the > article mentions going tromboneless rather than using inferior > players in subsequent performances.) Beethoven was enough of a > pragmatist to know what was going to happen after the premier. > > There is stuff in the article that I didn't quote dealing with the > extremes asked of the alto trombonist, too. But my understanding is that the Wiener article is claiming Beethoven didn't call for alto trombone. I thought you were using the web article to support that position, when, in fact, it seems to me to be based entirely on the contrary assumption. > >> 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. > > No, not in what I quote, but he does bring up other evidence. I > couldn't quote the whole article here, David, cut me a bit of slack! But when the evidence is contradictory, that doesn't mean you can then use it to argue one side of the case. And that's what it seems to me the article's author is trying to do. > > And even the interpretation offered does not support the 3-tenors > > hypothesis. > > Nope, not here. That comes later in history. Sometimes later (but > still old) performances on 3 tenors are cited to support the use of a > tenor lead today, but that would be wrong, as Schubert undoubtedly > wrote for, and wanted, ATB sections (or at least alto on the first > part.) I quoted this part to show how simply looking at the score, > even an autograph score, might not give all the information a > trombonist or conductor needs. Also to show that tessitura alone is > not a basis for deciding which instrument to use in a modern situation. > > > > > > >> 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. > > Yes, he did examine them, among other documents. Is that mentioned in the article? As I said, I didn't read the whole thing... > The point here for > these composers was that the first parts were written in alto clef > (probably a result of tradition), reference is made to "alto > trombone", but the first part was most likely played on tenor. This > is where the "three tenor" section becomes more usual, historically, > though it isn't a slam dunk by any means. Well, that argument makes a hash of using any evidence from contemporary scores/parts for the argument. Has anyone looked at, say, the Vienna Phil's pay records? Do they document who played what pieces? > I know some major players who play Brahms symphonies on an alto, > while others shiver in disgust at the very concept. Modern practice is modern practice and doesn't really tell us anything about what Brahms might have wanted, or what his contemporaries would have done. > > And, of course, different places had different traditions (Vienna > > still does with its special brass instruments, > > Yup, he deals with that. So the question of what a modern trombonist > should use becomes foggier. > > > >> 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). > > No, even the autograph score won't give you all the information. Er, it gives you information, just not a definitive answer. > That > was one of the big points he made repeatedly through the article. You > have to go on a case-by-case basis, even if you are trying to > discover what was played in the first performance. As a guide to orchestral trombonists, the article is fine. As musicology, it doesn't seem very strong to me. > >> 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? > > Yes. But he doesn't say what WE should do. (He DOES say what HE does > sometimes, though.) He just provides the historical information. I found the parts of the article I read to be rather vague on the historical information, to be honest. That's one of the reasons I don't find the musicological argument compelling, however good his advice may be on a practical basis. -- 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
