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


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

Posted by Carl on September 06, 2001 at 13:18:17:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seating Question posted by Rick Denney on September 06, 2001 at 12:19:44:

>has this discussion left out important historical information?

Apparently so. The source I find most enlightening is a Masters' thesis written by Brian Book at North Texas, and also published in the Spring '83 TUBA Journal. Sources cited, of course:

"[SF] score originally called for one ophicleide in C and one serpent in Bb. In 1831 or 1832, Berlioz changed the serpent part to an ophicleide in Bb." [source: New Edition of the Complete Works of Hector Berlioz, Vol. 16, edited by Nicholas Temperley]

Also emerging from the thesis:

-"Lelio" (Berlioz sequel to SF, written in 1831) was scored also for 2 ophicleides, although he made an ersatz version of both scores in 1850 for a German publisher, which he reluctantly marked as tuba parts. These are the ONLY parts Berlioz EVER sanctioned as being tuba parts. All other substitutions were made on an emergency basis. Actually, Berlioz greatly preferred the timbre of the bombardon over the sound of the tuba on the ophicleide parts. Other "acceptable" substitutes for the ophicleide part: Russian bassoon and bass trombone.

- according to a citation from Bevan, the French tuba in C wasn't invented until later in Berlioz' life, and not perfected 'til after his death. It's a common misconception amongst tubaists that this is the instrument he had in mind.


>I'm also a little troubled by how a tubist is,
> in practice, supposed to deal with realities.

First, by understanding what's come before; historical precedence. Almost everyone grows out of that "Low Brass Player's Creed" thing ("makes no difference if it's Mozart or Mahler; a sfortzado is a sfortzado"). Knowledge is enriching; not to be sneered at. If you've HEARD the Norrington recording, then you've got a place to start: an aural concept. You DON'T have to sound like an ophicleide, but simply realize that ophicleides put out maybe 1/10th the wattage of a modern tuba. With all the equipment around, our pallet has never been richer. There's no shame in tailoring your sound for a specific piece. Doesn't ALL have to be "balls to the wall"? Or does it?

Also, understand: to the end of his days (1869), Berlioz CONTINUED to score for the ophicleide. It was the bass-wind instrument of choice for him, even though he was fully aware of the German bass- and contra-bass tubas. Important when performing Berlioz to realize that a tuba is a poor substitute for what he really wanted.

Last, as musicians, we HAVE to be smart to do a creditable job. We have to put that intelligence to work every time we play. We can't simply rest as being "tuba operators", being content with merely blurping out successfully the squiggles on the page.




Follow Ups: