Re: Re: Re: Re: Seating Question


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

Posted by Rick Denney on September 05, 2001 at 15:28:53:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Seating Question posted by BP on September 05, 2001 at 14:45:56:

Whether Berlioz changed the notation on his parts himself or whether it was done by an editor has never been answered in any historically satisfying way. Bevan mentioned that Berlioz made these changes himself, but he didn't quote a source, and therefore his information is historical hearsay. I have searched for a primary source on this forum and with other experts, so far to no avail. If you have a primary source, please share it with us.

It is true that Berlioz loved the sound of the basstuba. But what was the basstuba whose sound he loved? Certainly it was not a 6/4 York or a 5/4 Kaiserbass. It was either a Wieprecht and Moritz F (or, possibly, Eb) basstuba, which I contend is similar to a euphonium with the fourth valve locked down, or it was a Saxhorn basse in Eb, which is probably even more narrowly bored and tapared except perhaps for the bell flare. I have played instruments in both these categories, and I would not hesitate to use a euphonium, and not a great big one, either, in lieu of them. The euphonium would still produce a much bigger sound that would compensate for the greater loudness of today's professional orchestras.

Of course, I've heard it done well with all sorts of instruments. The point is not that it must be done a certain way, but that no one way has claim to unassailable truth. Within the gray area established by that uncertainty, a conductor and tubist has room to work.
And we were not considering a professional orchestra, where the tubist must balance a world-class brass section that is trying to remove the back wall of the hall. From the perspective of the college student who started this thread, the approach being taken by the orchestra conductor is at least reasonable, which would make the student unreasonable for going to battle over it.

Saying that it should be played with two tubas just because we don't have ophicleides available is a practical solution that most would tolerate, even those who strongly defend the use of the composer's intended tools. I would agree with that assessment, and I have no problem listening to is on two F tubas, when it's done in a way that is sensitive to the character of the music. Whether we attain that quality by using the original equipment, or by how we use modern equipment is to me secondary. The primary importance is trying to understand the music rather than just seeing how deeply we can bury the bassoonist.

My reaction was to the categorical statement that it should be played on tubas just because that's what a relatively modern printed edition happens to say in the upper corner of the part. Certainly we can be a little more informed than that.

Rick "who thinks we ought to know the truth whether we attack it or defend it" Denney


Follow Ups: