Re: Re: Re: tuba-euph quartet


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Not so Great Gate on April 02, 2001 at 08:15:14:

In Reply to: Re: Re: tuba-euph quartet posted by Mark Moore on April 02, 2001 at 07:04:50:

I suppose if I'm going to anonymously bash an arrangement for tuba/euph. ensemble, I should give some credibilty to my report by giving reasons instead of simply staying "Just not very good." So here goes:

Why I believe Golas's "Pictures" arr. for tuba/euph. ens. is "Just not very good."

1) Because the different movements involve 4 parts, then 6 parts, then 8 parts, then back to 4 parts, etc. it is an administrative nightmare to pass out the parts and to remember who's playing what when. It could have very simply been done for a consistant 8 part texture.

2) For some reason Ms. Golas thought keeping with the original keys was important. This makes no sense to me, as one of the most important parts of doing any arrangement for tuba/euph. ens. seems to be choosing a key that is most suitable to the range of the instruments AND the distance between the voices (making for a more lucid, less muddy texture). Sure, the Ravel's popular orchestration stays in the same keys as the piano, but Howarth's brass version doesn't nor do many transcriptions for band. Many orchestral works are transposed to new keys for band as well to make it sound better on wind instruments...this should be in the sole interest of the arranger: to make the music originally scored for one instrument sound just as good (if not better) on different instruments. Golas's tie to the orginal key and odd voicings give her arrangement a very think, almost incomprehensible texture...much like many arrangements by David Butler (Mars, Procession of Nobles, etc.).

3) Golas's attempt to give each of the members of the ensemble some valuble material leads to broken up motives and phrases between the voices. In her interest to giving everyone something to do (a noble idea), musical phrases are destroyed or lost and the tradeoff between the voices is somehow distracting.

4) the cost of the arrangement in its entirety is quite a bit more than most any other arrangment by Tuba/Euphonium Press. That would be alright since its such a long work, but the Finale work is simply unforgiveable. It totally looks unprofessional...esp. with the dynamics being written in by hand, while the notes are printed by computer. The engraving is simply not up to standard...especially having to pay such a dear price for it.

That, in sum, is why Golas's arrangement of "Pictures" is "just not very good" in my opinion.


Follow Ups: