TubeNet

Posted: **Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:15 pm**

I have Sibelius 2 in concert next week and have been considering if to put in the 'unwritten' F# the third beat after F (and so on) in the 2nd movement with the double basses, or not. I think it sounds better with the tuba playing the whole phrase, but am cautious about playing other than is written.

I will be dep. with the orchestra on the day, so no chance to gain the conductor's view (should I want to do so).

I have heard before that the leading notes were just left off the tuba part, due to the incompetence of the tubist at the première (drunk?). I would be interested to hear from orchestral professionals on what is the latest thinking on playing the additional notes. Do you, or not?

Thanks.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:15 am**

Easiest and safest answer: ask the conductor beforehand.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:52 am**

I've played it both ways, but I would agree that it's best to ask the conductor adding the extra notes.

There is a typo near the end. the circled note should be a G.

Sibelius2.jpg

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:17 am**

I don't know why you would add a note. First, Sibelius was a fine orchestrator. Second, he hated tuba (a documented fact) and wrote parts for it very sparingly. If he left out the first note, it was for a reason.

My logical reason for playing this part as written is: as scored, the orchestration gives an emphasis to the downbeat. This would be lost if the tubist "added" the pickup note. Even adding a breath accent would not make up for the heaviness of tuba on the pickup.

However, there's no accounting for what a conductor might tell you. Fine musicians find it tough to succeed in the conducting field.

Play the part as Sibelius wrote it.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:10 am**

Normally I would play the part as written, but --

I have added it, and would add it every time unless told otherwise, because it makes objective musical sense and leaving it out can make the tubist sound like (s)he was late for the entrance. And I don't think Maestro Jan will express any objections.

I would also coordinate with the conductor if and when possible. But as you said, in your current situation it won't be. Break a leg.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:20 am**

Alex C wrote:he hated tuba (a documented fact)

I have never seen that documented anywhere. What is your source for that assessment?

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:30 am**

Way back when was studying excerpts with Ev Gilmore

he advised me to add the notes throughout the movement.
Said it worked out well for him and later worked out well
for me. In fact, I just saw in my old Sear & Waldeck excerpt book
Ev's beautifully written additions to the part.
FYI: Ev was also a master music copyist.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:00 pm**

Neptune wrote:
Alex C wrote:he hated tuba (a documented fact)
I have never seen that documented anywhere. What is your source for that assessment?

The source is a biography I read in graduate school. There's no hope of squeezing the title or author out of me, it left when my memory banks starting filling up with computer related files. However, I think that the sparse use of tuba by Sibelius backs up the statement. After all, he used tuba in the first symphonies but in his later, more profound symphonies the tuba is absent.

Here's an online story I found,

The premiere of the Cantata for the Coronation of Nicholas II on 2 November was a complete flop. "It was a very sorry story," Sibelius later recalled. "The tuba player arrived quite drunk... He began inserting bits of his own in one of the fugue passages and completely ruined the overall effect."

If I remember correctly, the tubist in Helsinki was not a much better representative of the tuba, hence his disdain.

OK, it's not a solo phrase. The melodic line is doubled and doubled. The tuba is only part of the fabric. Do not follow the example of the tubist above and insert your own notes. Jean Sibelius shouts it from his grave.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:29 pm**

Here's an example in a less profound, albeit very frequently performed orchestral piece, where the tuba IS playing the solo line and the last note of the line is left off by the composer:

In Morton Gould's American Salute (as originally written for orchestra, not the later band version), the final G in the c minor statement of the "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" theme isn't in the ink.

Whattsup with that? Is it a question of orchestral balance in the following bar? If not, then why not play the G?

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:14 pm**

bubbacox wrote:
Alex C wrote:Play the part as Sibelius wrote it.
You don't know what Sibelius wrote (or intended to write) any more than anyone else. Copyists, editors, revisionists, publishers - though likely all well-meaning - may have inadvertently changed anything from missing notes to wrong pitches (see the post above yours for an example of that).

If your musical training tells you to add the note, do it. Mine does, and I do.

Singers have been doing this for years. I thought it was because reading was not a skill they worked on very much.

You are right, of course. All of that published music is bunk! Despite the fact that Sibelius lived until 1957 and had a sparkling conducting career conducting his own pieces, he probably never saw this piece or if he did, he wouldn't notice the fact that some dumb copyist, editor, revisionist or publisher changed the tuba part. Man, I am relieved to know that we are not tied down to the indicated pitches anymore. It gives you so much freedom to play what you feel is right.

This represents a breakthrough in symphonic performance. My only hope is that everyone who follows this advice has a truly advanced level of musical training and accuity, otherwise they might get the same effect Sibelius commented about a couple of posts earlier, ahem... also about a tuba player choosing his own notes.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:24 pm**

Using one's one ideas of what's "best" is a dangerous road to travel down. What if my musical training tells me that it's "best" to double the third trombone in the outer movements of New World, Dvorak's intention's notwithstanding? After all, he didn't understand what the tuba was capable of, right? The tuba adds a darker color and more depth to the dramatic statements of the theme in a minor, right? And Wagner didn't let the tuba continue on to the high G in the first statement of the Prelude to Act III of Lohengrin, so we should all just feel free to continue to double the horns there, too, right? After all, that makes "musical sense."

Question: Are there any instances where an instrument doubling another instrument (or instruments) on a melodic line shouldn't play exactly the same amount of notes with no omissions at all? If so, why is the second movement of Sibelius 2 an "exception"?

Really, is the symphony so much worse if the tuba player leaves out those two notes in the second movement? It would have been the easiest thing for the composer to simply double the bassoon, viola, cello, and bass parts in that particular passage. Leaving the tuba out on the first note in the first two statements (and then including it for the remainder of them) represents a conscious choice not to double the other instruments. How about honoring that choice and finding a way to make the tuba entrance on the second note make sense musically?

Of course, the bottom line in all this discussion is that it really won't matter a fig except to the tuba player performing the piece. Nearly all conductors won't notice, either...they'll be too busy giving the timpanist "the hand" at that point.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:53 pm**

As I'm composing more music, issues like this enter my mind when sometimes I perform. Is this what the composer wanted, even if it sounds weird to me? Honestly, the deal with editors / copyists / etc. really jumbles it up because it introduces a middle man that can (and has been proven to) muddy-up the composer-performer relationship.

Assuming that the print is just as the composer wanted it to be, I would definitely, DEFINITELY play the ink, no matter what my ears tell me. The musical message the composer tried to convey might not be clear or apparent to some, and a player taking their own liberties by substituting what the composer wrote for what they think is good, without consultation with the conductor or composer, would be pretty insulting if I were the work's composer.

In the end, I would much rather play it safe and nail the ink so that I am not at fault, especially during a rehearsal where the conductor or composer can give a ruling.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:34 pm**

bubbacox wrote:Composers were people, too. Everyone makes mistakes. In our attempts to correct things, maybe we make our own mistakes, but they're ours to make.

We're more than instrumentalists. We've all (presumably) been trained to some degree in composition and orchestration and when something is obviously wrong - like a wrong pitch in a part or an obvious missing note - then it's our responsibility to fix it. If we don't, who will?

So are you saying that the Sibelius example indicates that he made a mistake in not including the two notes in the tuba part? You presented an idea (completely valid, in my opinion) earlier that none of us really know what Sibelius wrote (due to the inevitable interference of editors, publishers, and copyists) so shouldn't one necessarily default to the score as presented? What makes the "mistake" of the omission of these two notes "obvious"?

Anybody can make generalizations and sound correct - what do you think about this particular case? What is it in your musical opinion that justifies adding the extra notes to the tuba part? How does that relate to other specific cases where the tuba part drops certain notes, and does your reasoning hold true in those cases as well?

Todd, enjoying the discussion

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:54 pm**

bloke wrote: If this hatred was so severe, why did he write that huge "the-too-buh...Play-the-too-buh...I-play-the-too-buh..." solo, then? He could have easily given that to the celli, bassoons, etc...and quite a few composers before, during, and after his tenure avoided the use of tubas completely in tens of thousands of orchestral works.

The tuba (at the time of Sibelius...along with tuba playing technique) was developed to about the equivalent of the level of electronic synthesizer instrument development and playing technique had developed by the mid-1970's. His tubas parts would naturally reflect those limitations.

When I execute things that are not written in orchestral works, I do so extremely sparingly. My experience, though, is when I'm playing a newly-composed orchestral work and introduce composers to issues that occur in their tuba parts, 99% of the time they are more than motivated to change the parts to address sonic or technical issues...and I'm not just referring to "student" composers...I'm mostly thinking back to premieres of works of high-profile composers.

I'm not a robot, but I'm also not a composer...and I'm a performer, but not (at least on stage) a jack-***. If extremely minor edits (omissions, mis-placed or mis-timed loudness markings/pitches omitted due to some composer assumptions of breathing requirements or range limitations/etc.) subtly improve performances while completely avoiding any "WHAT'S GOING ON BACK THERE ?!?!" issues, I'm for them. Music Directors do this with NEVER EVERY performance in which I'm involved. Have any of us NEVER been involved in a rehearsal where a music director has said, "Rather than fortissimo, please play that passage piano", or even, "Please circle that passage and don't play there...", not to mention, "I need the [articulation] in the strings changed from what is written to [articulation]"? One (high-profile) music in particular with whom I work seems more annoyed that complimented when I've (on rare occasion) consulted him about extremely minor "re-interpretations" within tuba parts...ie: "Just play, and I'll say something if I don't like it." He (properly so, imo) seems to view the tuba in the orchestra as nearly parenthetical...except when it is not.

I did not imply that Sibelius had a severe hatred of the tuba, you intentionally mis-represented my post to further your argument.

Additionally, I do not write posts on Tubenet as if they are research papers, I wite in a conversational style, as you do, which often uses hyperbole. It is true that I did not take into account those who do not understand hyperbole. For those people, I could have stated more declaritively that "Sibelius did not like to use tuba." He had less than than complimentary comments about tuba on more than one occassion (he was apparently a very conservative individual).

I did clearly state, without hyperbole, that his later symphonies do not use tuba and believe this supports my general argument. This should help you understand the context of my statement. (I didn't check this, someone may be able find a tuba part in the symphony 4,5,6, or 7 and prove something I said was wrong -- get looking.)

In reference to this particular excerpt, you know that the excerpt in question is not a "huge "the-too-buh...Play-the-too-buh...I-play-the-too-buh..." solo." I don't have the score but, as I remember, this particular melodic line is doubled in basses and celli; the bassoons may also be involved but it's been a while since I played it. It is not a solo and there are probably few professional tubist who would play it as if it were a solo. The tuba line is part of the orchestration fabric.

I am sorry that you take my remarks personally, they weren't directed at you and I had no clue that you were reading this thread or cared so deeply about Sibelius Second Symphony. I certainly support your goal of playing whatever you want to play and however you want to play. I'm certain the people you perform with also support that. However I think Sibelius' comment (which I posted earlier) does not support the tuba player adding notes in Sibelius' works.

---

I'm surprised at the rancor of those who want to play something other than the written part on the Sibelius Second Symphony... and the lack of reasoned justification. It's mostly just been "I want to do it so I'm gonna do it until somebody stops me." Very dissappointing from a musical standpoint.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:27 pm**

Here is a free look at the score in question (WARNING - large .pdf file). The passage in the tuba (at F in the second movement) is doubled by bassoons, violas, celli, and double basses.

Please notice in the score a few pages down the Poco largamente after H (same movement)...the tuba doubles the bassoon/double bass line, but Sibelius leaves out the two sixteenth notes before the D half note in the second bar. Is it "ok" to add those in as well, or is that "mistake" less "obvious" than the first? And darned if it doesn't happen again, two bars later, up a step!

Todd, hoping the slippery slope is being revealed

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:39 pm**

Searching the old TubeNet, I have just located interesting post on this subject;

I'm a Finnish tuba player (BTW I played the Sibelius' 2nd symphony 3 weeks ago with the Oulu symphony orchestra).
The reason why Sibelius stopped using the tuba in his symphoies that I heard is that the tuba player always was so drunk so he couldn't play the music.
That, I think, also is the reason for why for an example in the 2nd sympony, 2nd movement where the tuba has solo with the low strings the first eight in every phrase is missing in the tuba part. it's written e# a# but it should be f# e# a#. Today all tuba players (at least in Finland) play these phrases the same way as the strings. There are also more places where the tuba is not playing some notes that it should play in unison with the bassoon (also 2nd symphony, 2nd movement).

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/aug2000 ... 31113.html

Now that is from just ONE Finnish tuba player, so is not corroborated. However according to Wikipedia, Sibelius did conduct the Oulu symphony orchestra, so that practice may have just been passed down through the years?

However, I think it is probably not a good idea to play other than what's printed without the conductor's prior agreement. I will see if I can grab a quick chat with him at the afternoon rehearsal.

PS Thanks Todd for posting link to the score. That will be useful!

Posted: **Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:45 am**

bubbacox wrote:Yes, yes, this is what I meant, of course. Ignore all that is written and play as one feels.

Your use of hyperbole is misguided at best, and childishly ignorant at worst. Certainly no one would completely disregard the written music, nor should one be tied to the ink to such a point that would render our own knowledge and expertise meaningless.

Composers were people, too. Everyone makes mistakes. In our attempts to correct things, maybe we make our own mistakes, but they're ours to make.

We're more than instrumentalists. We've all (presumably) been trained to some degree in composition and orchestration and when something is obviously wrong - like a wrong pitch in a part or an obvious missing note - then it's our responsibility to fix it. If we don't, who will?

Then again, if you wish to be just a tuba monkey, that's up to you. (There, I can do hyperbole, too.)

Personal insults on Tubenet are low class. Citing hyperbole as childish is incorrect. Humor, irony, hyperbole and similar efforts require insight and intelligence. I do not lay claim to a high degree of either but certainly enough to know that your assertions are only meant to justify a position you take which has no intellectual validity which you cite.

I have stated opinions referenced to the score and an historical account. Those who disagree offer insults.

Really, "childish," "monkey," without cause is not worthy of anyone with the intelligence to learn to play tuba.

Posted: **Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:48 am**

Posted: **Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:46 pm**

bubbacox wrote:
Alex C wrote:
bubbacox wrote:Yes, yes, this is what I meant, of course. Ignore all that is written and play as one feels.

Your use of hyperbole is misguided at best, and childishly ignorant at worst. Certainly no one would completely disregard the written music, nor should one be tied to the ink to such a point that would render our own knowledge and expertise meaningless.

Composers were people, too. Everyone makes mistakes. In our attempts to correct things, maybe we make our own mistakes, but they're ours to make.

We're more than instrumentalists. We've all (presumably) been trained to some degree in composition and orchestration and when something is obviously wrong - like a wrong pitch in a part or an obvious missing note - then it's our responsibility to fix it. If we don't, who will?

Then again, if you wish to be just a tuba monkey, that's up to you. (There, I can do hyperbole, too.)
Personal insults on Tubenet are low class. Citing hyperbole as childish is incorrect. Humor, irony, hyperbole and similar efforts require insight and intelligence. I do not lay claim to a high degree of either but certainly enough to know that your assertions are only meant to justify a position you take which has no intellectual validity which you cite.

I have stated opinions referenced to the score and an historical account. Those who disagree offer insults.

Really, "childish," "monkey," without cause is not worthy of anyone with the intelligence to learn to play tuba.

The wonderful thing about tubas is that that tubas are wonderful things.

Posted: **Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:16 pm**

bubbacox wrote:

"Hats off gentlemen...."* Obviously.
.
.
.
.*Robert Schumann

TubeNet

Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?

Re: Sibelius 2 solo phrase full, or as written?