Re: Re: 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 15:17:46:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seating Question posted by RD on September 06, 2001 at 14:36:49:

>What was the citation for the statement that
>Berlioz was reluctant when he changed the
>ophicleide parts to tuba parts in 1850?

"The Creative Process in the Autograph Musical Documents of Hector Berlioz", by Kern & Holoman

>Who brought up the French C tuba?

Klaus: http://www.chisham.com/messages/69007.html

>everything you said seems to me to line up with
>what others have said

If you'll re-read the thread, you'll see that the obvious shot-across-the-bow of musical integrity was this statement: "I think if someone wants to experiment with alternate instrumentation, more power to 'em". This sounds like blind wandering through the band room, looking for ANYthing that'll work. Isn't it better to START with a sound concept? Then I provided Berlioz' quote (NOT "overplayed" by me; a simple quote. Words DO have meanings, Rick) which instantly tipped everyone's "Dies Irae in octaves" boat.

>you, as an orchestra professional, have had to solve
>this problem yourself in performance

There's a long tradition here of doing it with a euph on 1st and F tuba on 2nd. We do the Rite the same way. 'Course long ago when I'd play 2nd in NY Phil, it was always "biggest tuba possible". I didn't argue...




Follow Ups: