I once heard a panel of active early music wind players where "conductor" and "idiot" were synonomous. Norrington is quite notorious here as his "Beethoven" tempi are from scores B notated long after he was deaf. Too often composers "hear" works in their brain faster than acoustics allow;-(
Sent from my iPod On Nov 6, 2010, at 12:00, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Finale mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Finale digest..." > <Today's Topics (19 messages)> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Steven Larsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 4. Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss are the principal composers to >> promulgate the advancement of the horn (Brahms preferred the sound of the >> natural horn), > > > I asked a knowledgeable horn-playing friend about your later question (which > composers started writing for F horn all the time), and he promised me a > copy if an interesting article on Brahms horn writing, so I should have more > to add. I'll just say that I have been told that, even though Brahms wrote > parts that were playable on natural horn, he probably never heard tham > played on natural horn in his lifetime. He also wrote a book of etudes for > valved horn! > > > >> and it's interesting to track the changes in horn use and >> notation in their works. Strauss' ... >> > > >> Strauss began to almost always favor Horn in F, but often called for >> changes >> to other keys in the course of the work. The best summary of this confusing >> practice is in Strauss' own words (or at least as translated by Theodore >> Front for Strauss' revision of Berlioz' "Treatise on Instrumentation", >> written in 1904 and reprinted by Kalmus in 1948): >> >> "Although horn players now use almost exclusively the horns in D, F, high A >> and high B flat . . . it is nevertheless advisable to retain Richard >> Wagner's method of indicating the key of the horns according to the changes >> of key in the music. It is true that horn players do not observe these >> different keys any more; but they are accustomed to transpose any key >> instantly into the key of the horn they are using, and they much prefer >> this >> method to being forced to read all the time the horn in F, ..." (p. 279) >> >> At some point in the 20th century, most composers settled on the >> now-standard Horn in F and stopped the practice of "changing horns" in the >> parts. Exactly when that happened? I'm sure somebody out there has written >> a >> dissertation on it! >> >> Steve Larsen >> > > OK, here's mine: > > My horn-player friend said Mahler settled on F horn after writing for horns > in keys early, but a quick look through all the Mahler horn parts on > IMSLP.org found nothing but F horn, so I'm not sure what the early writing > would be. Bruckner wrote parts in different keys in some of the > symphonies, but some have F horn only. Early Schoenberg and Stravinsky both > were F horn only. Not Dvorak - he wrote in keys just as Brahms, [Dvorak > 6th = Horn 1, 2 (in D, F, E), 3, 4 (in E, Bb, D)] if more chromatically. > > I was curious about J. Strauss Jr., since he might have been more in the > public trenches - my friend didn't mention him but all the parts on IMSLP > (not that many) are F horn. Perhaps the waltz king gets the award for > helping establish the principle of writing for the F horn specifically, and > going against the (written later) advice of Richard Strauss? (Perhaps more > than ten minutes of research would be needed for this conclusion?) > > Raymond Horton > >> >> >> > > Ray - I'm really interested to see what your hornist friend has to share! > > Actually, Brahms DID prefer natural horn, and DID hear his works played on > valveless horns - repeatedly. Robert Pascall, (Vice-Chair of the New > Complete Brahms Edition) writes, "Brahms preferred the old valveless horn, > and could mark notes to be played stopped in case players were tempted to > take the easier way." And there's a wealth of performance history in > Brahms' presence to verify not only his preference but experience. > > I think I may have mentioned here in the past Brahms' preference for smaller > rather than larger orchestras; on the large-end of performance practice about > which we know some details, the Vienna Phil (Brahms' 'hometown' orch) had 78 > musicians in 1864, 100 by 1885 - and played each of Brahms' symphonies at > least four times during his lifetime. Brahms himself conducted a "festival" > performance of the second in Hamburg in 1878 with an orchestra of 113 but his > PREFERRED orchestral sound was a smaller one in which the winds wouldn't be > overwhelmed by the strings nor forced into doubling. A smaller group in > which the sound of his beloved natural horn could more easily dominate; > narrow-bore trombones wouldn't have to push to be declarative. And in all > cases in which he had an option, he chose small groups: for the premiere of > the 1st symphony in 1876, he went with the Karlsruhe: 49 players, natural > horns. And he also built a 'special' relationship with the Meiningen Court > Orchestra - 49 players, natural horns. There are occasions in which Brahms > was offered augmented string sections (in Meiningen, particularly) but > refused them, preferring the smaller configuration. > > Our lately departed Sir Charles Mackerras made a VERY compelling case for > adhering to Brahms' stated wishes in his wonderful recordings about a decade > ago 'in the style of the original Meiningen performances' with an > appropriately-sized Scottish Chamber Orchestra, natural horns included - as > well as scrupulous attention paid to interpretive details of performance > practice as Brahms noted throughout his lifetime, and in apparently > consistent fashion throughout his years. There's a wonderful audio > commentary Mackerras offers in interview form as a bonus disc in which he > explains the sourcing of his interpretation, and much more. Fascinatin' > stuff.... > > Les Marsden > (209) 966-6988 > Cell: (559) 708-6027 (Emergency only) > 7145 Snyder Creek Road > Mariposa, CA 95338-9641 > > Founding Music Director and Conductor, > The Mariposa Symphony Orchestra > Music and Mariposa? Ahhhhh, Paradise!!! > > Mariposa County Planning Commissioner, District 5 > First Vice-President, The Mariposa County Arts Council, Inc. > Board Director, The Economic Development Corporation of Mariposa County > > http://arts-mariposa.org/symphony.html > Marsden Marx Pages: http://tinyurl.com/ygpj7og > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Raymond Horton > To: [email protected] > Cc: Steven Larsen > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:46 AM > Subject: Re: [Finale] RE: OT: Historical Horn Notation Question (long!) > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Steven Larsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 4. Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss are the principal composers to >> promulgate the advancement of the horn (Brahms preferred the sound of the >> natural horn), > > > I asked a knowledgeable horn-playing friend about your later question (which > composers started writing for F horn all the time), and he promised me a > copy if an interesting article on Brahms horn writing, so I should have more > to add. I'll just say that I have been told that, even though Brahms wrote > parts that were playable on natural horn, he probably never heard tham > played on natural horn in his lifetime. He also wrote a book of etudes for > valved horn! > > > >> and it's interesting to track the changes in horn use and >> notation in their works. Strauss' ... >> > > >> Strauss began to almost always favor Horn in F, but often called for >> changes >> to other keys in the course of the work. The best summary of this confusing >> practice is in Strauss' own words (or at least as translated by Theodore >> Front for Strauss' revision of Berlioz' "Treatise on Instrumentation", >> written in 1904 and reprinted by Kalmus in 1948): >> >> "Although horn players now use almost exclusively the horns in D, F, high A >> and high B flat . . . it is nevertheless advisable to retain Richard >> Wagner's method of indicating the key of the horns according to the changes >> of key in the music. It is true that horn players do not observe these >> different keys any more; but they are accustomed to transpose any key >> instantly into the key of the horn they are using, and they much prefer >> this >> method to being forced to read all the time the horn in F, ..." (p. 279) >> >> At some point in the 20th century, most composers settled on the >> now-standard Horn in F and stopped the practice of "changing horns" in the >> parts. Exactly when that happened? I'm sure somebody out there has written >> a >> dissertation on it! >> >> Steve Larsen >> > > OK, here's mine: > > My horn-player friend said Mahler settled on F horn after writing for horns > in keys early, but a quick look through all the Mahler horn parts on > IMSLP.org found nothing but F horn, so I'm not sure what the early writing > would be. Bruckner wrote parts in different keys in some of the > symphonies, but some have F horn only. Early Schoenberg and Stravinsky both > were F horn only. Not Dvorak - he wrote in keys just as Brahms, [Dvorak > 6th = Horn 1, 2 (in D, F, E), 3, 4 (in E, Bb, D)] if more chromatically. > > I was curious about J. Strauss Jr., since he might have been more in the > public trenches - my friend didn't mention him but all the parts on IMSLP > (not that many) are F horn. Perhaps the waltz king gets the award for > helping establish the principle of writing for the F horn specifically, and > going against the (written later) advice of Richard Strauss? (Perhaps more > than ten minutes of research would be needed for this conclusion?) > > Raymond Horton > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > OK, I'll take your word and reference for that. My evidently incorrect > statement didn't come from my hornist friend, it actually came from another > horn player, one (now retired) who was somewhat less academic, about ten or > fifteen years ago. As I said, I am promised an article on Brahms and horn, > so we'll see what that says. > > > Ray > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Mariposa Symphony Orchestra > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Ray - I'm really interested to see what your hornist friend has to share! >> >> Actually, Brahms DID prefer natural horn, and DID hear his works played on >> valveless horns - repeatedly... > > > Guess we have to wait for Roger Norrington & Co to take up Brahms! > > ajr > > ---- Mariposa Symphony Orchestra <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ray - I'm really interested to see what your hornist friend has to share! >> >> Actually, Brahms DID prefer natural horn, and DID hear his works played on >> valveless horns - repeatedly. Robert Pascall, (Vice-Chair of the New >> Complete Brahms Edition) writes, "Brahms preferred the old valveless horn, >> and could mark notes to be played stopped in case players were tempted to >> take the easier way." And there's a wealth of performance history in >> Brahms' presence to verify not only his preference but experience. >> >> I think I may have mentioned here in the past Brahms' preference for smaller >> rather than larger orchestras; on the large-end of performance practice >> about which we know some details, the Vienna Phil (Brahms' 'hometown' orch) >> had 78 musicians in 1864, 100 by 1885 - and played each of Brahms' >> symphonies at least four times during his lifetime. Brahms himself >> conducted a "festival" performance of the second in Hamburg in 1878 with an >> orchestra of 113 but his PREFERRED orchestral sound was a smaller one in >> which the winds wouldn't be overwhelmed by the strings nor forced into >> doubling. A smaller group in which the sound of his beloved natural horn >> could more easily dominate; narrow-bore trombones wouldn't have to push to >> be declarative. And in all cases in which he had an option, he chose small >> groups: for the premiere of the 1st symphony in 1876, he went with the >> Karlsruhe: 49 players, natural horns. And he also built a 'special' >> relationship with the Meiningen Court Orc! > hestra - 49 players, natural horns. There are occasions in which Brahms was > offered augmented string sections (in Meiningen, particularly) but refused > them, preferring the smaller configuration. >> >> Our lately departed Sir Charles Mackerras made a VERY compelling case for >> adhering to Brahms' stated wishes in his wonderful recordings about a decade >> ago 'in the style of the original Meiningen performances' with an >> appropriately-sized Scottish Chamber Orchestra, natural horns included - as >> well as scrupulous attention paid to interpretive details of performance >> practice as Brahms noted throughout his lifetime, and in apparently >> consistent fashion throughout his years. There's a wonderful audio >> commentary Mackerras offers in interview form as a bonus disc in which he >> explains the sourcing of his interpretation, and much more. Fascinatin' >> stuff.... >> >> Les Marsden >> (209) 966-6988 >> Cell: (559) 708-6027 (Emergency only) >> 7145 Snyder Creek Road >> Mariposa, CA 95338-9641 >> >> Founding Music Director and Conductor, >> The Mariposa Symphony Orchestra >> Music and Mariposa? Ahhhhh, Paradise!!! >> >> Mariposa County Planning Commissioner, District 5 >> First Vice-President, The Mariposa County Arts Council, Inc. >> Board Director, The Economic Development Corporation of Mariposa County >> >> http://arts-mariposa.org/symphony.html >> Marsden Marx Pages: http://tinyurl.com/ygpj7og >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Raymond Horton >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: Steven Larsen >> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:46 AM >> Subject: Re: [Finale] RE: OT: Historical Horn Notation Question (long!) >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Steven Larsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 4. Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss are the principal composers to >>> promulgate the advancement of the horn (Brahms preferred the sound of the >>> natural horn), >> >> >> I asked a knowledgeable horn-playing friend about your later question (which >> composers started writing for F horn all the time), and he promised me a >> copy if an interesting article on Brahms horn writing, so I should have more >> to add. I'll just say that I have been told that, even though Brahms wrote >> parts that were playable on natural horn, he probably never heard tham >> played on natural horn in his lifetime. He also wrote a book of etudes for >> valved horn! >> >> >> >>> and it's interesting to track the changes in horn use and >>> notation in their works. Strauss' ... >>> >> >> >>> Strauss began to almost always favor Horn in F, but often called for >>> changes >>> to other keys in the course of the work. The best summary of this confusing >>> practice is in Strauss' own words (or at least as translated by Theodore >>> Front for Strauss' revision of Berlioz' "Treatise on Instrumentation", >>> written in 1904 and reprinted by Kalmus in 1948): >>> >>> "Although horn players now use almost exclusively the horns in D, F, high A >>> and high B flat . . . it is nevertheless advisable to retain Richard >>> Wagner's method of indicating the key of the horns according to the changes >>> of key in the music. It is true that horn players do not observe these >>> different keys any more; but they are accustomed to transpose any key >>> instantly into the key of the horn they are using, and they much prefer >>> this >>> method to being forced to read all the time the horn in F, ..." (p. 279) >>> >>> At some point in the 20th century, most composers settled on the >>> now-standard Horn in F and stopped the practice of "changing horns" in the >>> parts. Exactly when that happened? I'm sure somebody out there has written >>> a >>> dissertation on it! >>> >>> Steve Larsen >>> >> >> OK, here's mine: >> >> My horn-player friend said Mahler settled on F horn after writing for horns >> in keys early, but a quick look through all the Mahler horn parts on >> IMSLP.org found nothing but F horn, so I'm not sure what the early writing >> would be. Bruckner wrote parts in different keys in some of the >> symphonies, but some have F horn only. Early Schoenberg and Stravinsky both >> were F horn only. Not Dvorak - he wrote in keys just as Brahms, [Dvorak >> 6th = Horn 1, 2 (in D, F, E), 3, 4 (in E, Bb, D)] if more chromatically. >> >> I was curious about J. Strauss Jr., since he might have been more in the >> public trenches - my friend didn't mention him but all the parts on IMSLP >> (not that many) are F horn. Perhaps the waltz king gets the award for >> helping establish the principle of writing for the F horn specifically, and >> going against the (written later) advice of Richard Strauss? (Perhaps more >> than ten minutes of research would be needed for this conclusion?) >> >> Raymond Horton >> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Finale mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >> _______________________________________________ >> Finale mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > > > What's the best way to create a PDF file on a PC? Trying to help a friend, > but I'm a Mac user. Looks like he'll have to get a 3rd party program but I'm > hoping someone can recommend a good share- or freeware option. > Thanks! > Ryan > > On 5 Nov 2010 at 12:46, Raymond Horton wrote: > >> a quick look through all the Mahler horn parts on >> IMSLP.org found nothing but F horn > > This doesn't really mean anything about what Mahler originally wrote, > as it's not necessarily the case that the editions that are in the > public domain are going to be the best representations of the > composer's original scoring. > > In general, the public domain scores available on IMSLP that are not > newly edited from decent sources are not to be trusted. They are > useful for what they are, but certainly not for setting textual > questions like this one. > > -- > David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com > David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ > > > On 5 Nov 2010 at 14:03, Ryan wrote: > >> What's the best way to create a PDF file on a PC? Trying to help a >> friend, but I'm a Mac user. Looks like he'll have to get a 3rd party >> program but I'm hoping someone can recommend a good share- or freeware >> option. > > The answer depends on the source from which the PDF is going to be > created. > > For instance, if your friend has Office 2007 or 2010, PDF output is > included (though with early releases of 2007, you had to download it > and install it). > > I have used PDF995 for years, and also use PDFCreator (though the > latter I use because I can programatically control it from VBA in my > Access database applications -- it also works as a standard PDF > printer, though). > > I don't know if either of those options have any compatibility issues > with versions of Windows after WinXP, or if they run on 64-bit > Windows. > > -- > David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com > David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ > > > On 11/5/2010 5:41 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: >> On 5 Nov 2010 at 14:03, Ryan wrote: >> >>> What's the best way to create a PDF file on a PC? Trying to help a >>> friend, but I'm a Mac user. Looks like he'll have to get a 3rd party >>> program but I'm hoping someone can recommend a good share- or freeware >>> option. >> >> The answer depends on the source from which the PDF is going to be >> created. >> >> For instance, if your friend has Office 2007 or 2010, PDF output is >> included (though with early releases of 2007, you had to download it >> and install it). >> >> I have used PDF995 for years, and also use PDFCreator (though the >> latter I use because I can programatically control it from VBA in my >> Access database applications -- it also works as a standard PDF >> printer, though). >> >> I don't know if either of those options have any compatibility issues >> with versions of Windows after WinXP, or if they run on 64-bit >> Windows. >> > > On my 64-bit Win7 machine I use a program called "doPDF" which is > freeware and can be downloaded from http://www.dopdf.com/ -- on the PC, > with such a program, it installs as a printer-driver which Ryan's friend > would choose as the printer from whichever program he's trying to create > PDF output from. I realize most PC users would understand that, but I > thought I would include it for Ryan's sake, since he's on a Mac. > > doPDF allows you to select the folder to save the PDF file into. > > -- > David H. Bailey > [email protected] > > Sorry, should have clarified. He wants to create a PDF of a Finale 2011 > document. I don't have 2011, so I can't open the file and convert it for > him. > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:41 PM, David W. Fenton > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 5 Nov 2010 at 14:03, Ryan wrote: >> >>> What's the best way to create a PDF file on a PC? Trying to help a >>> friend, but I'm a Mac user. Looks like he'll have to get a 3rd party >>> program but I'm hoping someone can recommend a good share- or freeware >>> option. >> >> The answer depends on the source from which the PDF is going to be >> created. >> >> For instance, if your friend has Office 2007 or 2010, PDF output is >> included (though with early releases of 2007, you had to download it >> and install it). >> >> I have used PDF995 for years, and also use PDFCreator (though the >> latter I use because I can programatically control it from VBA in my >> Access database applications -- it also works as a standard PDF >> printer, though). >> >> I don't know if either of those options have any compatibility issues >> with versions of Windows after WinXP, or if they run on 64-bit >> Windows. >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > On 5 Nov 2010 at 14:54, Ryan wrote: > >> Sorry, should have clarified. He wants to create a PDF of a Finale >> 2011 document. I don't have 2011, so I can't open the file and convert >> it for him. > > I don't see why you think my answer doesn't apply. PDF995 and > PDFCreator are still options for Finale. I create all my Finale PDFs > with PDF995. I installs as a printer driver, and you print to that > (PDFCreator works the same way). > > -- > David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com > David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ > > > I like Bullzip a lot. > > http://www.bullzip.com/products/pdf/info.php > > Richard Yates > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan >> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:04 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [Finale] OT: Converting to PDF on a PC >> >> What's the best way to create a PDF file on a PC? Trying to >> help a friend, but I'm a Mac user. Looks like he'll have to >> get a 3rd party program but I'm hoping someone can recommend >> a good share- or freeware option. >> Thanks! >> Ryan >> _______________________________________________ >> Finale mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >> > > > Thanks for your help. He figured it out. > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Richard Yates <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I like Bullzip a lot. >> >> http://www.bullzip.com/products/pdf/info.php >> >> Richard Yates >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan >>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:04 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [Finale] OT: Converting to PDF on a PC >>> >>> What's the best way to create a PDF file on a PC? Trying to >>> help a friend, but I'm a Mac user. Looks like he'll have to >>> get a 3rd party program but I'm hoping someone can recommend >>> a good share- or freeware option. >>> Thanks! >>> Ryan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Finale mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Finale mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >> > > David Fenton wrote: > > "This doesn't really mean anything about what Mahler originally wrote, > as it's not necessarily the case that the editions that are in the > public domain are going to be the best representations of the > composer's original scoring." > > First off, I believe my original disclaimer concerning the amount of my > research - ten minutes - put into the answer of this question was adequate. > > > Second, I'll lay some bets that the horn transpositions in the symphonies > were not were not changed. If the publisher had been changing > Mahler's earlier horn parts in different keys into horn in F, then it would > be unlikely that Mahler's separate F and Bb trumpet parts, or the trumpet > parts that switch back and forth between F and Bb, would have been left > alone, since the long soprano F trumpet was rapidly becoming just as > obsolete as any writing in horn for other keys. > > Third, of _course_ the PD editions do not reflect the latest in research, > but to say that "This doesn't really mean anything about what Mahler > originally wrote" is really going off the deep end with this. Even the > worst, bowdlerized 19th century publications reflect _something_ about what > the composer wrote! Or, if you meant "This doesn't really mean anything > about what Mahler originally wrote [concerning horn keys]" I would still > have to say that, for our purposes on this list, this evidence stands until > other evidence is brought forward. > > I'll still nominate Mahler symphonies as an excellent example until of > consistent writing for F horn. > > Raymond Horton > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:25 PM, David W. Fenton > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 5 Nov 2010 at 12:46, Raymond Horton wrote: >> >>> a quick look through all the Mahler horn parts on >>> IMSLP.org found nothing but F horn >> >> This doesn't really mean anything about what Mahler originally wrote, >> as it's not necessarily the case that the editions that are in the >> public domain are going to be the best representations of the >> composer's original scoring. >> >> In general, the public domain scores available on IMSLP that are not >> newly edited from decent sources are not to be trusted. They are >> useful for what they are, but certainly not for setting textual >> questions like this one. >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > On 5 Nov 2010 at 23:57, Raymond Horton wrote: > >> Third, of _course_ the PD editions do not reflect the latest in >> research, but to say that "This doesn't really mean anything about >> what Mahler originally wrote" is really going off the deep end with >> this. Even the worst, bowdlerized 19th century publications reflect >> _something_ about what the composer wrote! Or, if you meant "This >> doesn't really mean anything about what Mahler originally wrote >> [concerning horn keys]" I would still have to say that, for our >> purposes on this list, this evidence stands until other evidence is >> brought forward. > > These are not (necessarily) authoritative editions, so you can't use > them as evidence for what Mahler originally wrote. You only know what > was published. I don't know the history of Mahler editions, so it > could very well be that the early editions accurately reflected his > intentions. > > But we certainly know that some composers like Bruckner had their > works drastically bowdlerized in their first publications. I'm not > implying the same kind of interference in Mahler's publications as > was the case from the brothers Schalk in Bruckner's case, but the > point is you can't use evidence about which you don't know the > origins or reliability in a case about what the composer would have > intended. > > All you can say is what the scores have in them. > > -- > David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com > David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ > > > At 12:46 PM -0400 11/5/10, Raymond Horton wrote: >> >> I asked a knowledgeable horn-playing friend about your later question (which >> composers started writing for F horn all the time), and he promised me a >> copy if an interesting article on Brahms horn writing, so I should have more >> to add. I'll just say that I have been told that, even though Brahms wrote >> parts that were playable on natural horn, he probably never heard tham >> played on natural horn in his lifetime. He also wrote a book of etudes for >> valved horn! > > And we've also had a dissenting opinion a little later in the day. > > My take (based on no research whatever!): > > The composers who wrote for natural horns were awfully clever in what > they could get out of their horn players. Especially Mozart, perhaps > because his buddies in Mannheim demonstrated what they could do with > their hands, but even in using just the normal open notes Mozart was > much more demanding than, say, Beethoven. > > And since both composers and players in the 'tween generation when > valve horns were beginning to appear were used to thinking that way, > I suspect that they BOTH might have thought of the valves as a way to > instantly change from a horn in one key to a horn in another without > taking the time to change crooks--which the valves actually DO do, if > you stop to think about it! Which could explain the reference to the > music of--was it Wagner?--where the key of the horn changes > continuously through the music. New technology, but an older way of > thinking about how the instrument can and should be used. > > There is ALWAYS an older generation that fails to see why they should > have to learn anything new. And there is ALWAYS a younger generation > that accepts the new as a given. > >> Not Dvorak - he wrote in keys just as Brahms, [Dvorak >> 6th = Horn 1, 2 (in D, F, E), 3, 4 (in E, Bb, D)] if more chromatically. > > Yes, AND his horn parts are all playable by natural (hand) horns in > those keys. Which would cause me to ask about the horn players in > Bohemia at that time, and what kind of instruments they were playing. > > John > > > -- > John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music > Virginia Tech Department of Music > College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences > Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 > Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 > (mailto:[email protected]) > http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html > > "We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition > of jazz musicians. > > I recently received the conductor's score of Gounod's Faust (Henschelverlag > Berlin, 1972). I was surprised to find C-clefs used for the voice parts in a > score this recent: all female voices are written in soprano clef and the > tenors in tenor clef. I thought this practice had died out in the 19th > century. Can anybody point me to detailed information about the history of > the use of C-clefs? And does anybody know of other 20th century editions that > use them for voice parts? > > Michael > > Raymond Horton > Composer, Arranger > Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra > Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC > VISIT US at rayhortonmusic.com > > > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:31 AM, David W. Fenton > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 5 Nov 2010 at 23:57, Raymond Horton wrote: >> >>> Third, of _course_ the PD editions do not reflect the latest in >>> research, but to say that "This doesn't really mean anything about >>> what Mahler originally wrote" is really going off the deep end with >>> this. Even the worst, bowdlerized 19th century publications reflect >>> _something_ about what the composer wrote! Or, if you meant "This >>> doesn't really mean anything about what Mahler originally wrote >>> [concerning horn keys]" I would still have to say that, for our >>> purposes on this list, this evidence stands until other evidence is >>> brought forward. >> >> These are not (necessarily) authoritative editions, so you can't use >> them as evidence for what Mahler originally wrote. You only know what >> was published. I don't know the history of Mahler editions, so it >> could very well be that the early editions accurately reflected his >> intentions. >> >> But we certainly know that some composers like Bruckner had their >> works drastically bowdlerized in their first publications. I'm not >> implying the same kind of interference in Mahler's publications as >> was the case from the brothers Schalk in Bruckner's case, but the >> point is you can't use evidence about which you don't know the >> origins or reliability in a case about what the composer would have >> intended. >> >> All you can say is what the scores have in them. >> >> If I don't have access to better editions or Mss, I can use knowledge and > logic, as I did earlier in my reply concerning trumpets in different keys in > the same edition. > > Are the PD scores the last word? Of course not. > > Can we say "This doesn't really mean anything about what Mahler originally > wrote"? Of course not, unless we think some editor is a genius. > > Florence + Michael wrote: > >> I recently received the conductor's score of Gounod's Faust (Henschelverlag >> Berlin, 1972). I was surprised to find C-clefs used for the voice parts in a >> score this recent > > I'm not surprised to see them in a conductors score, as I've run across > others, while examining conductors scores or other items, though I'm not > able at the moment to say which scores they were. I suspect, though, > that even though the conductor's score had C clefs for soprano and > tenor, the voice parts, whether in a choral score or a separate part, > used the G clefs for those voices. > > > na > > Raymond Horton > Composer, Arranger > Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra > Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC > VISIT US at rayhortonmusic.com > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Raymond Horton <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM > Subject: Re: [Finale] RE: OT: Historical Horn Notation Question (long!) > To: [email protected] > > > > Raymond Horton > Composer, Arranger > Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra > Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC > VISIT US at rayhortonmusic.com > > > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:31 AM, David W. Fenton > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 5 Nov 2010 at 23:57, Raymond Horton wrote: >> >>> Third, of _course_ the PD editions do not reflect the latest in >>> research, but to say that "This doesn't really mean anything about >>> what Mahler originally wrote" is really going off the deep end with >>> this. Even the worst, bowdlerized 19th century publications reflect >>> _something_ about what the composer wrote! Or, if you meant "This >>> doesn't really mean anything about what Mahler originally wrote >>> [concerning horn keys]" I would still have to say that, for our >>> purposes on this list, this evidence stands until other evidence is >>> brought forward. >> >> These are not (necessarily) authoritative editions, so you can't use >> them as evidence for what Mahler originally wrote. You only know what >> was published. I don't know the history of Mahler editions, so it >> could very well be that the early editions accurately reflected his >> intentions. >> >> But we certainly know that some composers like Bruckner had their >> works drastically bowdlerized in their first publications. I'm not >> implying the same kind of interference in Mahler's publications as >> was the case from the brothers Schalk in Bruckner's case, but the >> point is you can't use evidence about which you don't know the >> origins or reliability in a case about what the composer would have >> intended. >> >> All you can say is what the scores have in them. >> >> If I don't have access to better editions or Mss, I can apply knowledge and > logic, as I did earlier in my reply concerning trumpets in different keys in > the same edition. > > Are the PD scores the last word? Of course not. But they are certainly > useful, and you are correct that caution is particularly needed in regard to > the Bruckner PD scores. (I have no problem reporting, briefly, on > Bruckner's use of keys for horns from those sources, though, since it would > be even more unlikely for editors to add key changes in to an existing F > horn part.) > > But it is fairly absurd to say of these sources "This doesn't really mean > anything about what Mahler originally wrote." > > RBH > > <Digest Footer>
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
