Actually, my former teacher from St. Louis Symphony said he stuck with the tenor for Beethoven 5 since the part laid better on it than on the alto. He did use his alto for the "Oh Mensch, Gib Acht" movement in Mahler 3. Since no one would have noticed if he hadn't said anything the blends worked very effectively in both cases.
ajr > 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 > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
