TubeNet

just throwin this out there...can anyone give me any examples of recordings of symphonie fantastique that uses ophecliede opposed to those that use tuba...thanks

Matt Stafford wrote:I'm pretty sure Roger Norrington has a recording out of this piece, although I don't quite remember if he uses the serpent or the ophicleide. Here's the cd information:

BERLIOZ
Symphonie fantastique
The London Classical Players
Roger Norrington
CDC 7 49541 2 DDD

Hope this helps.

MS

I believe the Norrington recording, being all period instruments, is done with 2 ophicleides. A funky, cool sound that lends some insight into the soudns of Berlioz's time.

Of course (to be thoroughly pedantic), if it was gonna be authentic, it'd be one serpent AND one ophicleide, as Berlioz wrote.

clarke wrote:just throwin this out there...can anyone give me any examples of recordings of symphonie fantastique that uses ophecliede opposed to those that use tuba...thanks

There's also this one

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 4P/tubenet

John Eliot Gardiner & the Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique. very cool opheclide/serpent sound. pretty strange if you're used to the modern orchestra sound, but it's definitely a great recording. the orchestra plays marvelously, great tempi, excellent sound, overall a very very good recording. huge bells used for the witches' sabbath. the period instruments produce a really spooky sound for the Dies Irae... very different mood from what is created with the modern instruments.

thanks for all the help folks...and thank you especially for the use of the word flatulence and beautiful in the same sentence

The John Eliot Gardiner recording is also available (or was, at least) on DVD.

manganaro wrote:...the base trombone player blew my mind with the flatulence of his sound in the fourth movement, its beautiful.

at present, the recording of Sym Fan I'm listening to most frequently is that of the Philadelphia Orchestra, Muti conducting (available on iTunes for $5.99, if you're interested). I have decided that the bass trombone playing on that is wonderful, though bordering on tasteless. another instance of beautiful flatulence, methinks.

UncleBeer wrote:Of course (to be thoroughly pedantic), if it was gonna be authentic, it'd be one serpent AND one ophicleide, as Berlioz wrote.

There are actually 4 different versions done by Berlioz. One calls for 2 ophicleides, the next for one serpent and one ophicleide, the next for 1 bass tuba and 1 ophicleide and the fourth edition (mentioned as such in a letter written to a friend named Hogarth) in which only 1 ophicleide is used (probably a result some bad performances in which the intonation was not great)

Jon

manganaro wrote:ya I recomend the Garnier recording as well, I also have to add that the base trombone player blew my mind with the flatulence of his sound in the fourth movement, its beautiful.

Is the bass trombone used in that recording one of the "historically correct" types in F with the handle on the slide?

Jonathan Fowler wrote:

UncleBeer wrote:Of course (to be thoroughly pedantic), if it was gonna be authentic, it'd be one serpent AND one ophicleide, as Berlioz wrote.

There are actually 4 different versions done by Berlioz. One calls for 2 ophicleides, the next for one serpent and one ophicleide, the next for 1 bass tuba and 1 ophicleide and the fourth edition (mentioned as such in a letter written to a friend named Hogarth) in which only 1 ophicleide is used (probably a result some bad performances in which the intonation was not great)

The original 1830 version was for one ophicleide in C, and one serpent in Bb. In 1832, Berlioz changed the serpent part to ophicleide in Bb. No other "versions" were authorized by Berlioz, except where dire circumstances dictated (no local ophicleide players). These were obviously emergencies, and Berlioz complained bitterly about having to make these substitutions.

The 1850 German 'version' was a slap-together tweak job that Berlioz grudgingly made, necessitated by the lack of adequate ophicleidists in Germany. While in Germany, Berlioz suffered through renditions using bombardons, bass trombones, and russian bassoons as well. These can hardly be said to be his preferences.

Berlioz was well aware of the sound and capabilities of the ophicleide and tuba as evident in his Treatise on Instrumentation. When he wrote for the ophicleide, it was because he desired the specific sonority of the ophicleide and not the tuba. It's true that Berlioz believed the tuba to be an excellent sustitution for the missing ophicleide, but the substitution was to be made only when the ophicleide was unavailable. Many occasions arose when Berlioz was forced to make substitutions in his scoring, but the substituting instruments were never preferred over the original instrumentation.

UncleBeer wrote:When he wrote for the ophicleide, it was because he desired the specific sonority of the ophicleide and not the tuba. It's true that Berlioz believed the tuba to be an excellent sustitution for the missing ophicleide, but the substitution was to be made only when the ophicleide was unavailable.

Since you have studied this in detail, perhaps you can answer some questions:

When did Berlioz compose Symphony Fantastique?

When did Berlioz first come into contact with a true tuba? (It certainly was not before the tuba was invented.)

When did Berlioz write his treatise on instrumentation?

Rick "who thinks the dates here are important when simple facts are used to justify cause and effect" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: Since you have studied this in detail, perhaps you can answer some questions:

When did Berlioz compose Symphony Fantastique?

When did Berlioz first come into contact with a true tuba? (It certainly was not before the tuba was invented.)

When did Berlioz write his treatise on instrumentation?

Rick "who thinks the dates here are important when simple facts are used to justify cause and effect" Denney

The question's not addressed to me, but the dates are pretty easy to find here (I'm in a music library )

1)1830

2)probably 1842 (his 1st trip to Germany)

3)published in 1844, so probably before that

Remember that we are not speaking of the contrabass tuba; a "French tuba" in C is a step above the modern baritone/euphonium in Bb. And the part, as written, is quite characteristic for two opicleides, one in C, and one in Bb.

windshieldbug wrote:Remember that we are not speaking of the contrabass tuba; a "French tuba" in C is a step above the modern baritone/euphonium in Bb. And the part, as written, is quite characteristic for two opicleides, one in C, and one in Bb.

But isn't that french C tuba a later invention? Berlioz in his treatise only mentions bass tubas, and clearly states that they are in F, and that Sax is building instruments in E flat. No mention is made of the C variety. (I have a 1850-ish edition at work)

corbasse wrote:The question's not addressed to me, but the dates are pretty easy to find here (I'm in a music library )

1)1830

2)probably 1842 (his 1st trip to Germany)

3)published in 1844, so probably before that

So, the fact that Berlioz wrote about ophicleides and tubas separately and understood those differences isn't relevant to the choices he made on Symphonie Fantastique, because when he composed that work, he only knew about ophicleides and serpents. Tubas hadn't been invented yet. Thus, what he wrote in his treatise on orchestration doesn't help much in determining his true intentions regarding Symphonie Fantastique.

In the end, it wouldn't matter much anyway. I have the Norrington recording, and I like it for a variety of reasons. But the ophicleide sound only makes sense in the context of the other instruments used in 1830. It seems to me an all-or-nothing proposition when deciding to use period instruments.

Rick "who knows that Berlioz's ideal orchestra had 400 instruments" Denney

corbasse wrote:But isn't that french C tuba a later invention? Berlioz in his treatise only mentions bass tubas, and clearly states that they are in F, and that Sax is building instruments in E flat. No mention is made of the C variety. (I have a 1850-ish edition at work)

Perhaps. I've never seen a facsimile of Berlioz. Nor do I know when the tuba in tenor C was introduced. I certainly do not know, then, whether he meant the bombardon (or valve-ophicleide) from 1831 or the bass tuba invented by Wieprecht and J. G. Moritz in 1835 in his treatise.

Principally, having performed these parts on ophecleide, I was speaking to how well they a written for that instrument.

Rick, the Dies Irae sounds good on ophecleides no matter what the other orchestration, as long as the orchestra isn't too too big (the "reedy" sound reminds one of the serpent... ). And the octave jumps and the rest of it practically just pop out...

Rick Denney wrote:

corbasse wrote:The question's not addressed to me, but the dates are pretty easy to find here (I'm in a music library )

1)1830

2)probably 1842 (his 1st trip to Germany)

3)published in 1844, so probably before that

So, the fact that Berlioz wrote about ophicleides and tubas separately and understood those differences isn't relevant to the choices he made on Symphonie Fantastique, because when he composed that work, he only knew about ophicleides and serpents. Tubas hadn't been invented yet.

Backwards logic if ever I saw it. He wrote for ophicleides because at that point, they were the most advanced bass winds available, and because tubas of any kind obviously weren't an option. Later in his career, he rescored several of his works for tuba only under duress (when his works were performed in locales where ophicleides and serpents weren't available; he was even known to tolerate Russian bassoons on these parts under dire circumstances).

To the end of his days, Berlioz preferred the sounds he'd originally scored.

windshieldbug wrote: I certainly do not know, then, whether he meant the bombardon (or valve-ophicleide) from 1831 or the bass tuba invented by Wieprecht and J. G. Moritz in 1835 in his treatise.

He mentions both in seperate sections.

UncleBeer wrote:Backwards logic if ever I saw it.

Yes, your logic was backwards, but I didn't want to say it just like that, nice guy that I am.

Your statement was that Berlioz knew what the tuba sounded like and knew the difference between it at the ophicleide, and therefore requested the ophicleide when he wanted the ophicleide. Given that the tuba didn't even exist in 1830 when he made the request for the ophicleide, this statement is false on the face of it. He could not have known what the tuba sounded like when he wrote the word "ophicleide" on the score.

Whether he later felt that the work should or should not be scored for tuba is a matter of conjecture. He provided the scores where the ophicleide parts were changed to tuba, and maybe he did so under duress. I've never seen anyone provide the smoking gun, one way or the other, where Berlioz wrote, "I changed SF to use the tuba because I prefer the tuba" or "I changed SF to use the tuba reluctantly because that's all those backwards German bands had available." Without that clear statement, it seems to me we are all just guessing.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people are willing to fall on their swords over this issue.

Rick "who has heard it and liked it both ways" Denney