Why are there baritone cues in Holst Suite in Eb

[dave]

Why does the Euphonium part in Holst's First Suite in Eb contain cues for the baritone solo in the second movement, section D?

Thinking that there might be separate baritone and euphonium parts, I checked the scoring for Symphonic Band and there is no baritone part listed.

This is the Boosey & Hawkes Q.M.B. Edition No. 120, Copyright 1921

When I play this solo, I play it on a B&H baritone, but I am wondering if there is a baritone part out there, that is just not included in this edition, which was orig. written by Holst, but scored for a different ensemble than symphonic band.

[Eupher6]

I'm guessing that B&H transcribed the piece for both British style brass band and wind ensemble/symphonic band with a bit of redundancy built in to both transcriptions.

However, the only arrangements I've seen for Brit-style brass bands were individual, i.e., either done privately or published through somebody other than B&H.

I think it's great you're playing the part on baritone! Gives a different color and texture and could well be exactly what Holst was looking for. I've played the part only on euph.

[windshieldbug]

The original Holst manuscript was lost until 1970, so B&H merely conformed to what they thought were standard configurations in both of the editions.

An analysis:

"Another important omission from the 1948 score was the
baritone part. This was substituted instead with two
flügelhorns. Although these instruments share the
mellow characteristics of the baritone, they lack the
depth of tone and projection of the baritone. It is
difficult to understand the omission of the baritone
from the 1948 score, as the instrument was just as
much part of the wind band of the time as the
flügelhorn. It is possible that the omission was an
error from the 1921 set of parts."

and much more can be found at http://www.aboda-vic.org.au/Publications/Holst2.pdf

[Eupher6]

The original Holst manuscript was lost until 1970, so B&H merely conformed to what they thought were standard configurations in both of the editions.

An analysis:

"Another important omission from the 1948 score was the
baritone part. This was substituted instead with two
flügelhorns. Although these instruments share the
mellow characteristics of the baritone, they lack the
depth of tone and projection of the baritone. It is
difficult to understand the omission of the baritone
from the 1948 score, as the instrument was just as
much part of the wind band of the time as the
flügelhorn. It is possible that the omission was an
error from the 1921 set of parts."

and much more can be found at http://www.aboda-vic.org.au/Publications/Holst2.pdf

Thanks for pulling that up - I learned a great deal about this piece of music.

[imperialbari]

When Holst wrote the suite, the baritone was part of the standard instrumentarium of the British military bands. In a reform from around 1928 it was replaced by the tenor saxophone.

Klaus

[imperialbari]

Holst did not write his suites for brass band, but for military band. Both suites have been arranged for brass band and in that version they both are in Eb.

Klaus

[dwerden]

When I was in the Coast Guard Band we played from the urtext edition of the First Suite. There were indeed completely unique baritone and euphonium parts. The cues you see in the published version represent the most important portions of the missing baritone part. Other sections were distributed to tenor sax and other instruments in the published version. Holst used the instruments very appropriately. There was one place I noticed in particular where the baritone and cornet have a melody soli line in unison. When I played it previously on euphonium it sounded like two solo instruments playing a line in octaves. But the cornet and baritone horn matched better and sounded more like one "dual instrument" playing in octaves. The urtext version was also lighter in many places, which I preferred.

[dave]

When I was in the Coast Guard Band we played from the urtext edition of the First Suite

Dave, is the urtext version available on interlibrary loan from the Coast Guard, or any other source?

[J.c. Sherman]

I have the original Baritone Part (Bb treble) if anyone wants it. I'll have to dredge it up, but it is a distinct part, and I have played it. It was insane for B&H to remove it. PM me

J.c.

[imperialbari]

I have the original Baritone Part (Bb treble) if anyone wants it. I'll have to dredge it up, but it is a distinct part, and I have plated it. It was insane for B&H to remove it. PM me

J.c.

Quite unusual to plate a part, but if the plating doesn’t cover the music, it might be possible to scan it. If copyright allows, I certainly would like a copy as would many of us. Maybe pages can be optimized within 256K and then attached a posting here?

Klaus, who is himself fighting the closeness of T and Y

[imperialbari]

When I was in the Coast Guard Band we played from the urtext edition of the First Suite. There were indeed completely unique baritone and euphonium parts. The cues you see in the published version represent the most important portions of the missing baritone part. Other sections were distributed to tenor sax and other instruments in the published version. Holst used the instruments very appropriately. There was one place I noticed in particular where the baritone and cornet have a melody soli line in unison. When I played it previously on euphonium it sounded like two solo instruments playing a line in octaves. But the cornet and baritone horn matched better and sounded more like one "dual instrument" playing in octaves. The urtext version was also lighter in many places, which I preferred.

The texts around this piece suggest that Holst had foreseen a performance with down to 19 players, while he allowed for some more. The British regimental bands have around 33 or 35 players, which also was the size of the battalion bands no longer existing (the ceremonial bands have 48 players). The texts suggest that the commercial editions have added doubling parts to suit the larger US band formats, which still lack the multipl parts for baritones and euphoniums present in continental European concert bands.

I have heard one recording of the coast guard band, where the euphoniums split in a passage. Sounded very good. The composer was one of their percussionists.

I agree on the cornet/baritone observations. The baritone is kind of a tenor cornet, where the euph is a tenor tuba.

Klaus

[J.c. Sherman]

Quite unusual to plate a part, but if the plating doesn’t cover the music, it might be possible to scan it. If copyright allows, I certainly would like a copy as would many of us. Maybe pages can be optimized within 256K and then attached a posting here?

Klaus, who is himself fighting the closeness of T and Y

Oops - sorry for the typo...

The part is from manuscript, but as the manuscript is from a version never published in the last 75 years, I think copyright is free and clear. But as it's also several pages, having a 256K scan of it would be potentially unreadable. But I'll scan a pdf for those who would like it

J.c.S.

[imperialbari]

The 256K limit is per single scanned page, and then only 3 pages attached per post, so that more postings will be necessary. That is the way people handle photos, if they have no private server space available.

The format has to be .jpg, as .pdf cannot be attached here.

Klaus

[NC_amateur_euph]

This chestnut just appeared in our folders for the May concert. But our Music Director let the band know that we would have a different set of parts next week. And that the "new" parts would be without the errors in the B&H edition and without baritone cues.

My world is shaken. Mistakes in a B&H edition of Holst?

My guess is that the true answer on whether or not there should be a baritone part in the concert/wind band version can be found on in a letter from Holst stuck down the bell of the third CSO York.

[Chuck Jackson]

My guess is that the true answer on whether or not there should be a baritone part in the concert/wind band version can be found on in a letter from Holst stuck down the bell of the third CSO York.

The third CSO York, which has the original tuba parts to Beethovens Nine Symphonies, the Holst Baritone Part, and the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls shoved down the bell, is buried with Jimmy Hoffa in Par..........................

[J.c. Sherman]

This chestnut just appeared in our folders for the May concert. But our Music Director let the band know that we would have a different set of parts next week. And that the "new" parts would be without the errors in the B&H edition and without baritone cues.

My world is shaken. Mistakes in a B&H edition of Holst?

My guess is that the true answer on whether or not there should be a baritone part in the concert/wind band version can be found on in a letter from Holst stuck down the bell of the third CSO York.

Tell your director if he really wants to eliminate the errors, and you want to make sure that solo is included, you need the actual baritone part (PM me if you'd like it - gotta keep that solo in the Intermezzo!).

J.c.S.

[J.c. Sherman]

I agree on the cornet/baritone observations. The baritone is kind of a tenor cornet, where the euph is a tenor tuba.

Klaus

I meant to add a resounding "here here!" to this comment - That's exactly what it's like to play it, too. I've never played an easer playing instrument, and playing Arban on these is like buttering corn - too easy!

Timbre wise, it's a very close match as well, IMHO. My baritone, incidentally, is the YBH-301, which is really a magnificent instrument, like the YEP-321s. I own these both and they are older ones from the 80s, and oddly much better than their contemporary counterparts.

J.c.S.