On Jan 21, 2009, at 10:13 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 21 Jan 2009 at 21:55, Christopher Smith wrote:
In Chapter 1:1:3 he discusses the problems assembling a full trombone
section in cities other than Vienna, saying, "...the ideal number of
trombonists that made up a Beethoven trombone section may have been
any number that was available."
This is one of those logical fallacies -- absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence. I have a hard time believing that Vienna, with a
major Catholic cathedral in it (and any number of other churches with
full-fledged musical establishments), would have lacked for
trombonists. Maybe not great ones, but still.
I think you misread. I said "cities other than Vienna." Vienna, which
he often wrote for, had the trombones. Other cities, mostly not (the
article mentions going tromboneless rather than using inferior
players in subsequent performances.) Beethoven was enough of a
pragmatist to know what was going to happen after the premier.
There is stuff in the article that I didn't quote dealing with the
extremes asked of the alto trombonist, too.
Chap 1:3:1, Schubert puts all trombones on one staff in his scores in
one clef (tenor) though he probably intended it for ATB trio. Though
the range suits tenor trombone on the first part (AND the third, says
me, except for a rare low note!), a modern tenor is probably too
heavy. Because the parts were copied in tenor clef in an early
edition, it was often played on tenor trombone, against the probable
intent of the composer.
Footnote 118, "as to the clefs used to notate these instruments,
great confusion reigns"
A composer's autograph score in the period of Schubert is nothing but
a guide to the copyist for creating parts. I see nothing at all there
in what you quote that suggests anything in regard to evidence about
which instruments Schubert intended -- the documentary evidence is
itself contradictory.
No, not in what I quote, but he does bring up other evidence. I
couldn't quote the whole article here, David, cut me a bit of slack!
And even the interpretation offered does not support the 3-tenors
hypothesis.
Nope, not here. That comes later in history. Sometimes later (but
still old) performances on 3 tenors are cited to support the use of a
tenor lead today, but that would be wrong, as Schubert undoubtedly
wrote for, and wanted, ATB sections (or at least alto on the first
part.) I quoted this part to show how simply looking at the score,
even an autograph score, might not give all the information a
trombonist or conductor needs. Also to show that tessitura alone is
not a basis for deciding which instrument to use in a modern situation.
Anyway, it goes on and on like this. Jumping ahead to Part II, he
discusses Brahm, Dvorak and Bruckner, where it is not clear what was
written for. The use of the term "alto trombone" doesn't seem to mean
much in these scores, as most German orchestras were using three
tenor trombones of varying bores at the time.
I didn't read the later parts of the article, but I found the
evidence adduced to be pretty weak tea. The original parts used by
the Vienna Philharmonic since its founding in 1842 still exist.
Surely examining those would say something about what performance
practices actually existed in that particular location throughout
much of the 19th century.
Yes, he did examine them, among other documents. The point here for
these composers was that the first parts were written in alto clef
(probably a result of tradition), reference is made to "alto
trombone", but the first part was most likely played on tenor. This
is where the "three tenor" section becomes more usual, historically,
though it isn't a slam dunk by any means.
I know some major players who play Brahms symphonies on an alto,
while others shiver in disgust at the very concept.
And, of course, different places had different traditions (Vienna
still does with its special brass instruments,
Yup, he deals with that. So the question of what a modern trombonist
should use becomes foggier.
It is a great resource for orchestral trombonists who are trying to
understand the role of their instrument in certain repertoire, and
shows how caution has to be applied when you rely too much on the
appearance in the score.
Seems to me that boils down to nothing more than being sure you're
using critical scores, rather than depending on some Eulenberg
miniature score that's probably 10 or more generations away from the
composer's original (with some exceptions, of course -- the Bruckner
scores are actually taken almost directly from the original
bowdlerized editions of Bruckner's symphonies).
No, even the autograph score won't give you all the information. That
was one of the big points he made repeatedly through the article. You
have to go on a case-by-case basis, even if you are trying to
discover what was played in the first performance.
Of course, if you are trying to play the way
it was back then, or what the composer really was aiming for, or what
he would have written if he had the players, well, then that opens a
huge can of worms.
Er, isn't that what the intent of the article was?
Yes. But he doesn't say what WE should do. (He DOES say what HE does
sometimes, though.) He just provides the historical information.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
