Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seating Question


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

Posted by Rick Denney on September 06, 2001 at 12:19:44:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seating Question posted by Carl on September 06, 2001 at 11:05:00:

No offense intended! I thought your were poking a bit of fun (while making a serious point), and I was poking a bit of fun, too.

I'm a little troubled by what you say, however. As best as I can tell from documents available to the general public (and I have looked), Berlioz's actual instrumentation would be difficult to nail down, because of the changes he had to make as he travelled around. What we call a definitive edition may just reflect the instrumentation available at the location who happened to save the parts for posterity. There may be experts who know what happened where, but they don't seem to have written that information down in accessible ways. A practicing tubist must decide what to do based on the information that is available, and not everyone has access to primary documents or academic research into the subject. I used to have access to the excellent music library at the University of Texas, but now am deterred by distance and lack of credentials from gaining access to a good music library.

I'm also a little troubled by how a tubist is, in practice, supposed to deal with realities. One reality is that the other brass players may not choose appropriate instruments and the tubist may be powerless to persuade them to. So, instead of the alto, tenor, and G bass trombones of very narrow bore that would have been used in Berlioz's day, the tubist must now balance to large tenors (large enough to be bass trombones 25 years ago), and a huge bass trombone that is likely played with a tuba-sized mouthpiece and a straight-bored leadpipe. I've seen more interest on the parts of trumpet players in using rotary trumpets for German and Austrian literature, but not for the pea-shooter trumpets used in Berlioz's day. So, the tubist has a problem. An authentic instrument would be lost in the brass tutti, and an instrument with the appropriate volume of sound has the wrong sound.

Of course, the issue that modern listeners are dulled by routinely noisy environments and highly amplified music is another factor that warrants consideration.

You say that Steve's history is insufficient. So, has this discussion left out important historical information? Is there a source of information that hasn't been mentioned, perhaps because it is not generally available? If so, it seems to me that this must be made available before we can expect practicing tubists to make use of it.

What do you suggest as a course of action for a practicing tubist in the modern world? How do you respect the artistic integrity of the composer, when the composer rails against those who would change his parts but who did not provide clear direction of his intentions, at least not in a way that would survive.

Even for me, as an amateur, this is not merely an academic discussion. I considered working up the second part of the Symphonie Fantastique to play with the local mostly amateur orchestra (a forlorn hope that I fortunately soon abandoned). And we amateurs can often afford to be purists in ways a practicing professional cannot.

So far, you have said what Berlioz anathemized. But I'm asking for what he approved.

Rick "thinking the composer can't have it both ways" Denney


Follow Ups: