TubeNet

Tonight I was invited to read the country-buffoon part to the Richard Strauss Serenade, op. 7. It's a very pleasant piece of music, but I'd like to nominate it for a wierd notation prize. Take a look at the top four lines of page 2:
http://www.box.net/shared/vkt5v0get6i3n7z88nxm

No publisher or arranger is mentioned on the part. I hastily penciled in some note names, and may have got some of them right. Can any of you highly-educated types think of a reason for spelling notes like Ab, F, C and Bb that way when the piece is in the key of Eb?

I would venture to suggest that the accidentals were made in reference to proper spelling of substitutions chords as discerned by music theorists of the 19th century. This does help explain Wozzeck though.

I particularly love the flat-sharp A on the middle line. Perhaps this is easier to read on contrabassoon.

I'm more practical myself and hardly every use sharps in an arrangement or composition. This is, perhaps, one of the minor differences between me and Richard Strauss.

This passage apparently is in anything but Eb.

Most of the first-under-the-slur notes look like leading note appoggiaturas, which makes this notation very relevant. Especially for somebody thinking like a keyboard or a string player. One of the samples where thinking in CC tuba terms is easier than thinking in BBb tuba terms.

Klaus

the flat-sharp A on the middle line

Take a closer look. It's natural-sharp. Look at the descenders on the sharp and you'll see another vertical line to their left.

LJV wrote:String player... Breathed too much rosin dust...

+1

Bad music editing by the pubisher that was never fixed in later editions. It happens.

No decent copyist today would notate this part the same way.

Kind of like the old GM way of sending known faults "down the line" and letting the dealers fix it.

Mark Heter

Art Hovey wrote:Tonight I was invited to read the country-buffoon part to the Richard Strauss Serenade, op. 7. It's a very pleasant piece of music, but I'd like to nominate it for a wierd notation prize. Take a look at the top four lines of page 2:
http://www.box.net/shared/vkt5v0get6i3n7z88nxm

No publisher or arranger is mentioned on the part.

A quick visit on IMSLP will allow you to realize that the parts you are playing are most certainly from the Kalmus edition. However the score, from Universal Edition, is written in a more conventional manner.

http://imslp.org/wiki/Serenade_for_Wind ... Richard%29
The part you posted is page 23 in the parts. The corresponding sections in the score starts at the bottom of page 11.

On a side note, Kalmus is especially notorious for their reprints dubious editions. More often than not, the printed music, is different than that noted. This is usually the result of using prints that were published by less meticulous companies.

OTOH, Universal most certainly has a set of parts that you could order (for $), or you could just copy out from the score on Imslp.

Edited for more accuracy...

Being on my iPad right now comparative reading isn't really possible, but the main difference looks like being the part having naturals to cancel the flats of the key signature. We may discuss the correctness and the efficiency of that style, but at least it looks like carried out consistently.

There is a much more interesting aspect to this part, which only struck me when reading the score. It is alternatively for contrabassoon or for bass tuba, two instruments which do not in the same octave.

Klaus

imperialbari wrote: There is a much more interesting aspect to this part, which only struck me when reading the score. It is alternatively for contrabassoon or for bass tuba, two instruments which do not in the same octave.

Klaus

I would assume that a tubaist would be playing it an octave down on the same octave that the contrabasoon would be . Otherwise, there would be no real reason for the tuba and the overall harmony would be out of place as the bassoon is sometimes "lower" than the contrabassoon. (Not in sounding pitches, but in written pitches)

This wouldn't be much different than a tuba playing off of a Double-Bass part.

PMeuph wrote:

imperialbari wrote: There is a much more interesting aspect to this part, which only struck me when reading the score. It is alternatively for contrabassoon or for bass tuba, two instruments which do not in the same octave.

Klaus

I would assume that a tubaist would be playing it an octave down on the same octave that the contrabasoon would be . Otherwise, there would be no real reason for the tuba and the overall harmony would be out of place as the bassoon is sometimes "lower" than the contrabassoon. (Not in sounding pitches, but in written pitches)

This wouldn't be much different than a tuba playing off of a Double-Bass part.

The score has no indication of such reading. And the indication is for Bass Tuba, not for Kontrabass Tuba.

Klaus

imperialbari wrote:
The score has no indication of such reading. And the indication is for Bass Tuba, not for Kontrabass Tuba.

Klaus

Indeed there is no indication, one has to assume that the original conception of the piece was for contrabassoon and that they were not too common in the 1880's. Strauss surely suggested the tuba because it can play in the same register as the contra and that tubas where more common than contrabassons at the time.

Topic is also covered here.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19208" target="_blank

To me, the writing between the 2nd bassoon and the contrabasson/tuba part really reminds me of doubling in classical symphonies between celli and bassi.

The free score available at the IMSLP site

http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/c ... score_.pdf" target="_blank" target="_blank

does not have the confusing double notation. The two or three lines I checked just omit the first natural or flat sign. It does, though, show the sharp enharmonics instead of the flat ones.

At some point earlier in the score, were there any double sharps or double flats? If so, one convention of notation when going from a double sharp or double flat back to a single sharp or single flat, or even to a natural or otherwise, was to do these types of accidental markings.

[quote="PMeuph"] On a side note, Kalmus is especially notorious for their dubious editions. More often than not, the printed music is different than that noted. [quote]

The rumor noted above is not true:
Kalmus reprints what the original publisher made available. In this case Kalmus A2123, is a reprint of the Joseph Abil/Universal 1882 edition. Kalmus does not change notation in any reprint unless they publish a corrected edition of the original. That corrected edition would have the name of an editor listed.

The engraving practice shown is standard for that period. A natural cancels the flat in the key signature and then the sharp shows the pitch to be played. In modern engraving only the sharp would be engraved.

The Kalmus part scanned is the same engraving as the Abil/UE scanned on IMSLP:
http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/b ... parts_.pdf" target="_blank" target="_blank

Notice the last two measures which are in octaves - The top marked C. Bass [Contra Bass?] and the lower marked C. Fag.

Kalmus A2123 Large score $15.00; A2123 set of part $30.00
Universal Edition PH00245 miniature score $17.95; UE14326 set of parts $26.95

musikfind1 wrote:

PMeuph wrote: On a side note, Kalmus is especially notorious for their dubious editions. More often than not, the printed music is different than that noted.

The rumour noted above is not true:
Kalmus reprints what the original publisher made available. In this case Kalmus A2123, is a reprint of the Joseph Abil/Universal 1882 edition. Kalmus does not change notation in any reprint unless they publish a corrected edition of the original. That corrected edition would have the name of an editor listed.

Maybe my communication skills are off.... I meant Kalmus editions are sometimes inaccurate when compared to other editions. Certain Kalmus editions are pirated versions of other works. What you said is correct, that they published a reprint. But, as far as I am concerned, since the reprint is innacurate when compared to the universal edition, then I think Kalmus is also to be blaimed for publishing an innacurate version....

Also, my comments pertained to other works, hence the disclaimer : "on a side note"
These sites refer to other works that Kalmus published that are of less accurate value than the Urtext.
http://www.jsbchorales.net/notes.shtml

http://books.google.com/books?id=jBOJxd ... us&f=false

musikfind1 wrote:The engraving practice shown is standard for that period. A natural cancels the flat in the key signature and then the sharp shows the pitch to be played.

This thread has me mystified, as I've seen plenty of parts just like this.

Wow. Suitable for study purposes, perhaps. Done by some pointy-headed academic who couldn't play "Come to Me Jesus" in whole notes, most likely.

jeopardymaster wrote:Wow. Suitable for study purposes, perhaps. Done by some pointy-headed academic who couldn't play "Come to Me Jesus" in whole notes, most likely.

(sigh...)

Sorry - sometimes my facetiousness doesn't translate into the written page.