TubeNet

.

More or less (no, just less): "Approximate it."

Ungefähre Taktvorschrift, dem Metrum des anderen Instruments angepaßt =

Approximate timing...the time-signature of the other instrument (piano) adapted.

In other words, there's no exact representation in the tuba's meter for what the piano has. Just wait for the down beat of the next 6/4 bar and count along happily.

.

tubashaman2 wrote:I also like telling people the 2nd mvt is an early example of minimalism, which it honestly is if you look at the piano part.

I couldn't disagree more, but I would be interested in hearing what you think about the movement is minimalist. The most basic tenet of minimalist music is a profound lack of harmonic motion - the second movement moves around so much one could make a case it is "anti-minimalist." Much of the movement purposefully avoids a tonal center rather than establishing a monotonous one.

Check out Terry Riley's "In C" or just about any work by Philip Glass ("Glassworks" is a good start, or get a big bag of chips and rent the DVD of "Koyaanisqatsi") for truly minimalist works...you might change your mind about what you tell others about the second movement of the sonata.

Paul Hindemith wrote:Ungefähre Taktvorschrift, dem Metrum des anderen Instruments angepaßt

Rough meter (measure) indication adjusted to the metrum (pulse) of the other instrument.

If the second movement is minimalist (which it isn't, sorry James...), then that instruction (loosely, "fake it") makes the first movement jazz.

tubashaman2 wrote: I also like telling people the 2nd mvt is an early example of minimalism, which it honestly is if you look at the piano part.

I couldn't be any more confused after reading that. John Adams and Paul Hindemith are worlds apart, imho.

tubashaman2 wrote:
The more I play this piece with the solo instrument the more and more I like it.......

I have seen you mention this before and disagree with your assesment that the piano is the "solo" instrument for a few reasons:

1. The obvious is that it's a tuba sonata.

2. Just b/c the piano player usually plays more MUSICALLY than the tuba player doesn't mean they are the solo voice. Many tuba players play this sonata like an exercise rather than a solo....probably b/c they learned the piece at too young of an age.

3. Based on your conclusions, please explain why there is a cadenza for the accompanying instrument.

4. Through the study of large ensemble works by Hindemith it has become obvious to me that the instrument with the most notes does not necessarily have the melody. In fact, the instrument with the most notes is usually intended to be the "texture" instrument.
(There a common trap I've seen with many band directors....i.e. determine who's most important by seeing who has the most notes).

Compare to:
-the third movement of Mathis der Mahler (many occurences of moving notes in the accompaning higher voices but the melody is often times in the BASS voices)

-the middle of the 4th movement of Symphonic Metamorphosis (running triplet figures "accompanying" the melody.)

You get the point. I could go on and on with examples of Hindemith utilizing a technique very similar to the one he uses between the solo tuba voice and the accompanying piano part in his Tuba sonata.

tubashaman2 wrote: I also like telling people the 2nd mvt is an early example of minimalism, which it honestly is if you look at the piano part.

I have to disagree with this as well:

Minimilism basically implies there is either a)no melody; and/or b)little to no harmonic/chordal changes

1. There is an OBVIOUS meody. It's the first 16 or so bars of the tuba part. The melody is repeated by the piano part in the next 16 bars (another conclusion that the tuba is the solo voice). I have no idea how anyone could come to the conclusion that this is minimilistic. However, with the bland/no-dynamic way many players play this movement, I could see how you might be fooled into that conclusion. (See #2 above)

Look at this one again with an A-B-A1 (aka Ternary) form in mind.......

2. Just b/c the bass note remains constant for 32 bars (i.e. repeated Bb's) doesn't mean the movement is minimilistic. Using the same logic, one could come to the same conclusion about most music from the Classical era.



Conclusion.....you're not seeing the forest b/c of all the trees you're trying to plant. You're building a house without blueprints. etc

-James


*edit for spelling

Not one of Hindemith's 12 sonatas has a solo part more difficult than the piano part. Does this mean Hindemith actually wrote 12 piano showpieces?

While I understand that Hindemith said the above quote about his Tuba Sonata, I am still of the opinion that if the tuba player approaches the piece in an accompanying role he/she has fallen into the very trap that Hindemith was attemping to avoid....boring the audience.
There is plenty of melodic "material" in the tuba part and, when played by someone attempting to be musical it is a very interesting piece to listen to.

Last, note that Hindemith stated that his "writing" will offer interest to the listener......this was my point in comparing the sonata to two of his orchestral works. In those pieces he establishes a somewhat simple melody (similar to the opening statement of the 3rd movement of the tuba sonata), and then changes/complicates the TEXTURE behind that melody as it is passed around the orchestra.

I'm not arguing that the piano part is not more difficult/virtuosic than the tuba part, just that the tuba has a solo voice.

-james

*edit for spelling

bloke wrote: "In my series of sonatas for orchestral instruments, it is now time to write for this lumbering instrument with little variation in sonority and limited technical ability. I will compensate for this in the piano part, making the piece a pianist's showpiece while - in my writing - cloaking the limits of the tuba. Finally, I will give the tuba player an opportunity in the third movement to show that they can do 'something'. Whether or not a particular tuba player is particularly successful with their outing, hopefully - at least - the writing, the novelty of a tuba cadenza, and the chording in the piano will offer interest to the listener."

Heh. The quote I always invented for Hindemith when I think about the tuba sonata is a little different:

"Dang it... I've gone and trashed Schoenberg my entire career, but there's something to this 12-tone thing he's doing. I'd love to play with it and see if I can't come up with something, but I'll become a laughing stock if I pull a Stravinsky this late in my career. I know! I'll just put it in the tuba sonata - that will NEVER be a major work and no one will take it seriously. Better make the piano part difficult, too, just to make sure this stays obscure."

I really like the piece. I think a lot of tuba players don't like it because it isn't the soaring-melody, post-Copland military band stuff that gets written and played far too often. It's just not tubistic. But dang it, that's an interesting series that makes for a strange but engaging melody. If you apply to it the same attention and care that you should be applying to any other piece of music, you can get a lot of interesting sounds out of the ten minutes it takes to play the thing. It's not a technical challenge, but then I don't listen to technical challenge, I listen to interesting music. And it's definitely a challenge to your musicianship, but I find it rewarding. The drag, of course, is finding a pianist that can get behind you in your work to make good music out of what has been written down.

(Meanwhile, the descriptions of minimalism in this thread are almost (not quite) as off-base as the description of the second movement as minimalist OP asserts. There's nothing at all harmonic about "It's Gonna Rain" or "I am Sitting in a Room" or any number of decidedly minimalist works by the big guys I could mention. And John Adams is NO minimalist, not no how - listening to a lot of Philip Glass records when you're younger doesn't make you a minimalist, it just makes you use a lot of arpeggios and simple harmonic motion. But the thread has meandered into other topics, so I'll stop now.)

The title of the work is "Sonata for Basstuba and Piano," not "Tuba Sonata," not "Piano Sonata." I've always considered it to be more of a duet with the two instruments playing equally important roles.

BTW, the Bobo/Grierson recording of this work is probably my very favorite recording featuring our big, lumbering, underappreciated instrument.

All good points and I think both arguments can be convincingly made. (hence why I don't hesitate to jump in when this piece is discussed....in a civilized manner).

I should clarify that my amount of disagreement with tubashaman2's post was as follows:

1. That the tuba largely plays an accompanying role.... 60% disagreement. I believe a valid argument can be made for this conclusion, I just disagree. I would be more in agreement (say, 80-20) with the theory that this is a duet.

2. That the 2nd movement is minimalistic.....100% disagreement. See previous posts for reasoning.

-James

.

.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the minimalistic aspect of the second movement, James (Green). I do respect your arguments and your enthusiasm to support your position, I just don't agree with the premise at all.

I wouldn't have even mentioned it had you not said you like to tell other people about your opinion. I would highly recommend that you not make that assertion to your professors...they might think you look a little silly calling this an "early example of minimalism." You are, of course, free to do as you choose, however.

Do me a favor...don't breathe between every note in the low Bb "offbeat" section of the second movement like 95% of the players I've heard play it do. Make it one big phrase with only one or two breaths, and give the line a shape (however you like...just not all the same).

tubashaman2 wrote:Minimalism does change, just slightly every once in a while, and the middle section, the piano part does change but keeps the overall motion, its not true minimalism but has roots in it in this section.

tubashaman2 wrote:I also like telling people the 2nd mvt is an early example of minimalism, which it honestly is if you look at the piano part.

tubashaman2 wrote: Every mention of the Hindemith Sonatas, INCLUDING on his site mention them as DUO Sonatas. Normally in a duet, the melody and some kind of accompaniment (rather fugal or down beats or long tones) are present and go back and forth, which is the case here, the melody and accompaniment are swapped.

I will stand on the fact it is a recitative. This could show evidence it is a tuba sonata...with tuba as the solo instrument, but it is a DUO SONATA.

tubashaman2 wrote:The more I play this piece with the solo instrument the more and more I like it, and I am a real big fan of Hindemith's music already.

???????????

Yes,the "cadenza" in the 3rd mvt is very similar to a recitative and makes a great amount of sense when approached in that manner. When I refer to it, I use the word cadenza b/c that is what Hindemith himself called it....

Hindemith wrote:Finally, I will give the tuba player an opportunity in the third movement to show that they can do 'something'. Whether or not a particular tuba player is particularly successful with their outing, hopefully - at least - the writing, the novelty of a tuba cadenza, and the chording in the piano will offer interest to the listener."

-James

james wrote:

Hindemith wrote:Finally, I will give the tuba player an opportunity in the third movement to show that they can do 'something'. Whether or not a particular tuba player is particularly successful with their outing, hopefully - at least - the writing, the novelty of a tuba cadenza, and the chording in the piano will offer interest to the listener."

James (not Green),

I think you need to be let in on the joke...Hindemith didn't write those words...bloke made it up.

james wrote:

tubashaman2 wrote:Minimalism does change, just slightly every once in a while, and the middle section, the piano part does change but keeps the overall motion, its not true minimalism but has roots in it in this section.

tubashaman2 wrote:I also like telling people the 2nd mvt is an early example of minimalism, which it honestly is if you look at the piano part.

tubashaman2 wrote: Every mention of the Hindemith Sonatas, INCLUDING on his site mention them as DUO Sonatas. Normally in a duet, the melody and some kind of accompaniment (rather fugal or down beats or long tones) are present and go back and forth, which is the case here, the melody and accompaniment are swapped.

I will stand on the fact it is a recitative. This could show evidence it is a tuba sonata...with tuba as the solo instrument, but it is a DUO SONATA.

tubashaman2 wrote:The more I play this piece with the solo instrument the more and more I like it, and I am a real big fan of Hindemith's music already.

???????????

My thoughts exactly.

I usually read these, uh, "sorts of posts," for the entertainment value and to see if I can follow the, umm..."logic" as it is offered up.