Posted by Klaus on September 06, 2001 at 02:09:09:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Seating Question posted by Zac on September 06, 2001 at 00:21:58:
Just re-read your original posting for reference.
You are somehow making your way through a stiff local competition, tubawise. Credits for that!
As I actually have worked in the field of developing the linguistic skills of younger persons, I also have developed for my self some training in analysing, whether a person is a dyslexic or just lacks in barely the most basic schooling. Even across barriers of differences in primary language I am quite sure, that my analysis will stand any pro scrutiny: You are not a dyslexic!
Opinions are the salt of life, or at least of entities like this board! You are most welcome to have yours, when it comes to opinions!
But have you ever considered, that qualified opinions tend to have more weight in qualified discussions?
The original version of SF does not have 2 tubas. Period. Even those contributors, who during this thread have referred to later Berlioz versions, have qualified their points of views by referring to the state of tuba developments during the days of Berlioz. Which does not, per se, point in the direction of present day orchestral tubas.
When it comes to Bydlo, a large bore, heavy walled euph played on a large mouthpiece is beyond discussion the best present day substitution for the original French C tuba, which Ravel demanded. When it comes to the rest of the Pictures’ part, balance considerations in larger modern symphs might point towards larger instruments. This has thoroughly been discussed in at least one previous thread.
When it comes to fence sitting, I have been enough of a union man to look through you even at that point: You are thinking in employment, even a temporary such one.
In my limited scope of thinking, I basically had the idea, that we were thinking in terms of music and its needs for proper reproduction. Even on a tuba board.
Klaus