David W. Fenton wrote:
...
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.
Good point, certainly. But we should know when the assumptions of the
past, (that LVB wrote for ATB trombones and that's what they were played
on, period) are wrong. I think any pro that doesn't play the Fifth on
alto is asking for trouble, and I've heard some get the request answered.
One point that both Shifrin and Weiner make (I have the benifit of
having heard Shifrin give an energietic and informative lecture before
this article was published, so, at this point, I don't recall which
points came from which) is that several things could, and did happen:
(1) a composer writes for alto trombone, expecting or hoping for an Eb
alto; (2) a composer writes for a part labeled "alto trombone", fully
expecting it to be played on a Bb instrument which fills the role of
alto trombone; (3) a composer writes a part for trombone one, and the
publisher labeled the part alto out of tradition/function (this is
certainly the case with Bruckner, whose first trombone parts could not
be played on an alto trombone).
Shifrin seems to have mostly examined parts and scores, while Weiner has
done the more thorough search, looking for evidence of the instruments
and players Shifrin does not eliminate the alto from the past as much
as does Weiner. (I need to go make a xerox of the Weiner article so I
can refresh my memory of it.)
I'm not sure anyone can say with certainty which instrument LVB wrote
the first trombone part of the Fifth symphony for. If one accepts
Weiner's conclusions, the alto was not present in Vienna, but the part
was extreme even for Eb alto, quite extreme, indeed, for a "Bb alto."
One should note that the trombone writing in that symphony is regarded
as not the most effective, partly because of it's wide spacing - for
example, the long high F (top line treble clef) is 'accompanied' by the
tenor trombone down one octave and the bass trombone down _three_. ALSO,
one has to note that LVB never wrote that high for first trombone again
- conspicuously avoiding the high Ds in the Ninth Symphony fugue, for
example. There are high D's in the Sixth Symphony, but, IIRC, wasn't
that symphony actually premiered BEFORE the Fifth, on the same evening?
(Which makes the answer to the question of "In which symphony by a major
composer where trombones first heard?" a bit trickier.) (Also, the high
Ds in the sixth are approached in a much easier fashion, making it much
more playable on tenor.)
This whole area of research has been more interesting to me as a bass
trombonist, who has always assumed that the F bass trombone was
standard, until replaced by a Bb with F valve. With both men's research
we find that the F bass, throughout the classical and into the
romantics, was often desired but rare and considered difficult to play.
The modern large-bore tenor trombone with valve (Conn 88H, Bach 42B) got
it's start sometime in the area of the 1850-60's as a replacement for
the BASS trombone, being approximately the same bore size as the old F
bass. But this Bb instrument that could, with the flip of the thumb
(actually, that flip was not so easy, at first) become an F bass had new
possibilities of timbre and agility and immediately came popular with
several soloists and even the first and second players of some
symphonies, so that by the start of the 20th century Mahler could write
low valve notes for all three or four trombones in the section, and a
still-larger Bb/F instrument was made for the lowest part.
Raymond Horton
Bass Trombonist
Louisville Orchestra
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.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
