TubeNet

Before I get to my question, yes, I know that there is not a tuba part for this work.

Is anyone aware of an online, serious discussion of why the script was changed so that the wolf is not killed?

I recently conducted a rehearsal of the Maryland Conservatory Orchestra preparing Peter and the Wolf. As I remember, the wolf swallows the duck. At the end, the wolf lives but the duck is never recovered. I may be wrong about this because I was working on the instrumental aspect of the piece and only paying peripheral attention to the story.

...isn't the first, nor will it be the last time that good music accompanies a naff story..

I've been doing some online research and every version I can find is the one where they haul the wolf off to the zoo with the duck alive, inside the wolf.

However, I have heard, and I have talked to people who also remember hearing, a version where the wolf is killed and they cut it open to save the duck.

Hey, I'm just a confused tuba player.

Mark wrote:Before I get to my question, yes, I know that there is not a tuba part for this work.

Is anyone aware of an online, serious discussion of why the script was changed so that the wolf is not killed?

Can't say why the script is different but I can make this comment: WTF? Seriously. The Wolf needs to DIE at the end. How about a version where the Wolf dies from heart failure after being startled by the hunters guns? or where the Wolf dies from high cholesterol from eating too much duck?

We are missing the point of the piece, it is a vehicle to introduce children to the sounds of instruments in a chamber orchestra. Whether the wolf lives or dies is irrelevant, there are no allegorical meanings to the story (by that I mean that sometimes a story is just a story). As to the instrumentation, who knows, it could just be that they were players available on the day and that no tuba player meant that there was no need for a tuba part.

peter birch wrote:Whether the wolf lives or dies is irrelevant

I believe I would agree with you, however there are many folks who would not. In my opinion, in America today, we have in many ways coddled our kids. They are all "above average" and talented, etc. They are not permitted to see the truth. That would cause them harm beyond comprehension. Imagine the trauma that knowing a fictitious wolf's passing might cause a young child. The kids who were around at the time Peter and the Wolf was written were caused such psychological harm that virtually all of today's problems can be blamed on such irresponsible story telling.

TubaRay wrote:

peter birch wrote:Whether the wolf lives or dies is irrelevant

I believe I would agree with you, however there are many folks who would not. In my opinion, in America today, we have in many ways coddled our kids. They are all "above average" and talented, etc. They are not permitted to see the truth. That would cause them harm beyond comprehension. Imagine the trauma that knowing a fictitious wolf's passing might cause a young child. The kids who were around at the time Peter and the Wolf was written were caused such psychological harm that virtually all of today's problems can be blamed on such irresponsible story telling.

An interesting view, but as you can see I don't live in the US. The wolf did not die in the story, nor for that matter did the duck. the piece was commissioned in 1936 in Moscow by one Natalia Satz, for a chidrens theatre to introduce children to the instruments of the orchestra. Beyond that, there is no other context, violent or otherwise. for us to worry about. I do think that we over-analyse things that children read or see and hear from a grown up perspective and not that of a child.

I agree that the point of the work is to introduce children to the instruments.

However, I have attended two performances of Peter and the Wolf in the last few years. Both of these performances used the script where the duck remains alive inside the wolf. On both occasions, the conductors were assailed by groups of older adults that wanted to know why the script was changed from the one the loved as children. Neither of the conductors knew.

Mark wrote:I agree that the point of the work is to introduce children to the instruments.

However, I have attended two performances of Peter and the Wolf in the last few years. Both of these performances used the script where the duck remains alive inside the wolf. On both occasions, the conductors were assailed by groups of older adults that wanted to know why the script was changed from the one the loved as children. Neither of the conductors knew.

the answer is no, the script has never been changed or bowdlerised, the point being for the audience to listen for a subtly hidden tune within the music.

(http://www.puppets.org/PeterWolf_Studyguide.pdf" target="_blank)

Early in 1936, Natalia Satz, who was then Director of the Moscow
Children's Theatre, discussed with Prokofiev the idea of creating
'symphonic fairy tales' which could introduce children to the
instruments of the orchestra. The result of this discussion was PETER
AND THE WOLF. Between them, they came to the conclusion that images
needed to be found which could be easily identified with the
individual instruments. Starting with the Flute, which they thought
should be represented by a little bird, they continued on and added an
oboe (duck), a clarinet (cat), three french horns (the wolf), kettle
drums (rifle shots), and a bassoon (the grandfather). During their
discussions, Prokofiev remarked that if they were going to cast one
instrument for the role of each animal or bird, then they would have
to have "something like a string quartet" to play the principal human
character, Peter. This was because, in Prokofiev's words, "there would
be more facets to his character". So it was that Peter became
associated with the string section of the orchestra.

Why is this a reputable version?

Because my sister-in-law says so. Why is that important? Because Natalia Satz was her great-grandmother. She says the version excerpted above is "more or less the same way I heard it from my great grandmother herself." I am awaiting a response to an inquiry as to any knowledge of any differences in the ending. She did say in one email that Natalia took credit for "finalizing the story," whatever that means. If any other pertinent information comes up, I'll post.