Posted by Jay Bertolet on February 21, 2000 at 16:56:22:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Prokofiev's Tubist?? posted by Cazz on February 21, 2000 at 02:26:55:
Or is thinking of the Prokofiev 5th as "a concerto for the tuba" a sad commentary on the lack of even a few mediocre orchestral pieces we can cut our teeth on?
Or, worse yet, is the solo repertoire so devoid of shining examples of musicality that even some of the busier orchestral parts get "concerto" status in the minds of players?
I'm not sure it is that bad, but it is something to think about. I wonder what early trumpeters thought about the Brandenburg 2 part and if they made the same types of comments 200 years ago. We are so early in our development as an orchestral instrument, that we're still playing parts that weren't even written for our instrument. I'm not sure there has been a solo piece written that exploits the tuba in that medium as well as the Prokofiev tuba parts exploit the tuba in the orchestral medium. So maybe people are reacting to the quality of the parts, not necessarily the busy nature of them? I can certainly list examples of orchestral tuba parts that are very busy but you never hear tubists crooning over those.
I sure hope that people aren't performing these parts like they would perform a concerto! That would be very foolish. But compared to some of the other repertoire, I can understand why players would prepare these pieces as if they were concertos. These parts are so unlike the vast majority of what we do in the orchestra.
So who's really wearing the diapers, us or the composers? My opinion for what its worth...