Posted by Klaus on May 15, 2001 at 02:38:49:
In Reply to: Re: Bydlo: Musicianship vs. Masculinity ? posted by Benjamin Schardt on May 14, 2001 at 23:53:14:
After the latest twist on the Bydlo theme was started in a very intelligent way by Matt G, I am impressed, that you are able in the same posting to use the term "rationale" and clearly to demonstrate, that you have understood absolutely nothing of neither the most recent postings, nor of the thread down the board, of which a sample is linked to below.
You write: "ravel gave it to the tuba because he wanted to have the sound of the tuba in that register,
not the sound of a trombone".
Last thing first: None of the recent posters have propagated to give the Bydlo solo to the trombone as an instrument, but to let it be played on euph by a trombonist. Which gives a very different sonic result, than would your misreading hint towards.
And then: In Ravel's vocabulary the term "tuba" was exclusively designating the 6 valve French orchestral tuba in C pitched a major second above the instrument, which we call a euphonium.
The instrument, you refer to as the tuba, must have been known to Ravel. It was, and still is, widely employed in the French military bands. Only it is/was called Contrebasse en Mi bemol (Eb) or Contrebasse en Si bemol (BBb). As the master of instrumentation, that Ravel beyond any doubt was, he most certainly would have called for a military bandsmand to play the Pics part, if that was what he wanted. And he would have been very precise in the score about that.
Ravel's instrumentation is not undisputed in its aesthetic approach to Mussorgskijs piano score. But as long as it is placed on orchestra programmes, then one should approach it as closely as possible to Ravel's instrumental vocabulary. Which most certainly did not encompass any of the instruments associated with the Central European/North American term of "tuba" aside from the rare animal, the "tenor tuba".
Klaus