TubeNet

Conductor wants to know why we wont use opheclides for fantastique. Any suggestions?

If you have one, play it for him/her. I have a feeling he/she will have a change of heart.

I suppose if you were trying to do a period accurate performance of the piece you could justify the ophicleide. I seem to recall that Berlioz would often rescore the piece as necessary to accommodate the instruments he had available for the performance, from one town to the next. So if you don't have one, play it on the tuba and rest assured that you are well within the composer's intentions!

Can someone point to an Ophicleide performance of the piece as a good reference?

Not to mention the period harps and the cor anglais.

Why????

Tell him that he doesn't have enough money to pay you to do it!

Never talk to conductors or even share an elevator ride with them.

-Matt

chronolith wrote:cor anglais.

You're aware what this is. Right?

That cor anglais literally means English Horn? Yes. From my understanding though there is a marked difference between the modern English Horn and its predecessor though.

I could be wrong though. Feel free to educate me.

chronolith wrote:That cor anglais literally means English Horn? Yes. From my understanding though there is a marked difference between the modern English Horn and its predecessor though.

I could be wrong though. Feel free to educate me.

There is a different angle to that translation................

As for the opheclide - tell him you'd love to play one IF the orchestra will buy one. Should do the job.......

Matt Good wrote:Why????

Tell him that he doesn't have enough money to pay you to do it!

Never talk to conductors or even share an elevator ride with them.

-Matt

Mark

http://www.ophicleide.com/articles/Weblinks.htm" target="_blank

No new 6/4 ophicleides yet? That might be something you "let's play old violins and tiny trombones,... then!!" yaps will like.

bloke wrote:four-key bassoons...??
four-key wood flutes...??
gut strings...??
keyed cornets...??
.450" bore trombones...??

that argument doesn't hold water. we play modernized versions of those instruments that retain the same character as the original, but just sound bigger, have better intonation, etc..

The ophicleide is a completely different instrument that doesn't sound like a tuba, at all.

That said, it doesn't work quite so well if you put it in a section with modern brasses. Is the conductor willing to ask the rest of the brass section to scale back to match the ophicleides?

bbocaner wrote:

bloke wrote:four-key bassoons...??
four-key wood flutes...??
gut strings...??
keyed cornets...??
.450" bore trombones...??

that argument doesn't hold water. we play modernized versions of those instruments that retain the same character as the original, but just sound bigger, have better intonation, etc..

The ophicleide is a completely different instrument that doesn't sound like a tuba, at all.

That said, it doesn't work quite so well if you put it in a section with modern brasses. Is the conductor willing to ask the rest of the brass section to scale back to match the ophicleides?

And the hall is not low frequency friendly. Don't think the other brass would be happy scaling back.

Jos Van Immerseel with Anima Eterna Brugge, Live

http://videos.arte.tv/fr/videos/berlioz ... 21294.html" target="_blank

If you don't play ophicleide, tell the conductor that the ophicleide mouthpieces are more akin to trombone size than tuba size... and then ask them if they're going to hire two extra trombone players who can play an obsolete key system and rent instruments for two movements.

I thought I heard that once Berlioz heard a tuba, he expressed a preference for that over the opheclide.

I think Roger Norrington did a period instruments performance of Fantastique.

mike

bbocaner wrote:that argument doesn't hold water. we play modernized versions of those instruments that retain the same character as the original, but just sound bigger, have better intonation, etc..

Hmmm. I've heard performances on ancient pea-shooter trombones with unflared bells, and they really don't sound much like modern orchestral trombones. And the difference isn't just loudness and intonation. It's timbre. That's in addition to the keyed and tone-hole bugles used by original-instruments ensembles, which also have a growl in the sound not present in modern valved brass instruments.

I think the different in character between an ophicleide and an F tuba (at least an appropriate F tuba for Berlioz, which may not be one of these current CC-wannabe 6/4 F tubas) is no greater than the difference between a modern valved trumpet and a keyed bugle, or a modern symphonic tenor trombone and an ancient pea-shooter alto-trombone, or a modern Bb double-trigger symphonic bass trombone and an ancient G bass trombone with a slide extension handle, or a modern valved double or triple french horn versus a natural horn tuned using hand stops.

And a stringed instrument with gut strings sound more like a modern instrument with the mute in place--quite a different timbre.

But even without the timbre difference, the loudness issue is not to be discounted. With all those brasses playing where modern brasses play on the loudness spectrum, an ophicleide is going to have to be at the ragged edge, producing a sound not at all like the restrained sound that might be possible when those other brasses are much less loud. But modern instruments held back to match the ophicleide will lack the intensity of ancient instruments being played loud.

Yes, Norrington recorded Symphony Fantastique using period instruments, including ophicleides. Frankly, I did not think that was his best effort, compared to his astonishing Beethoven recordings. But at least the tuba didn't utterly bury the bassoon sound in the Dies Irae.

Rick "what bassoon?" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: the keyed and tone-hole bugles used by original-instruments ensembles, which also have a growl in the sound not present in modern valved brass instruments.

Now, why would keyed bugles be used when Berlioz' parts are marked "trumpet" and "cornet"?

Rick Denney wrote: the loudness issue is not to be discounted. With all those brasses playing where modern brasses play on the loudness spectrum, an ophicleide is going to have to be at the ragged edge, producing a sound not at all like the restrained sound that might be possible when those other brasses are much less loud.

Utterly inconceivable from the perspective of the modern toooba playa: perhaps Berlioz didn't intend the ophicleides to "waste the orchestra" as modern tubaists are wont to do.

As mentioned, ask him/her if they're also considering stripping a bunch of keys off the bassoons, clarinets, oboes, and flutes.

I once had a conductor ask me if I'd consider trying ophecleide. I figured I would, as I hadn't tried it before. The school had a HUGE instrument collection, so I went and checked out the largest one they had that was in playable condition.

I explored several fingering charts I found online and then threw them away, as I would up finding fingerings for nearly every note that gave me something more in tune.

The general up shot of it is that I would recommend going to your local hardware store and purchase the following:

1) about 18" of 1/2" vinyl tubing for a leadpipe;
2) any length of PVC pipe, but let's say about 3' of 1", a 1"-2" coupler and about 4' of 2" pipe. Then drill any assortment of holes in a variety of diameters anywhere you'd like to put your fingers. Your fingers need not make an airtight seal.
3) gold spray paint.

Once assembled, go play your new awfulclyde for the conductor and ask if he'd like it in the performance. Fingering chart not required, but perhaps decide on a pattern with some consistency to as to afford an appearance of propriety.

The request will not be made again, and this will save you the effort of trying to track down an ophecleide in your area.

Enjoy.

russiantuba wrote:Luckily for us tubists, Berlioz was willing to change his parts in the innovation of instruments.

Berlioz continued to write specifically for the ophicleide until his death. Although he was aware of the various sizes of tubas, he still preferred the ophicleide.

Okay... I'll get flamed, but here goes.

1) Bloke's right that SF was scored (after the initial scoring for serpent and ophicleide) for ophicleides in two keys, C and Bb (though he had an affinity for Ab, which was nearly unheard of). It was NOT because they would be out of tune with one another on different pitches, but because they could reinforce one another on notes where one changed registers (the character of the instrument changes a great deal on the low octave). This strategy makes all note sound strong in the section. Take note; the keyed bugle does not use the lowest register as a general rule (some variants had additional keys to make this possible, but it was for virtuosic effect, not general use).

2) Berlioz recognized the tubas and ophicleides were different instruments, and never used tuba without the ophicleide in his scores. He had the option.

3) There are contemporary variants on 19th century brasses, but Berlioz's orchestra was considerably more modern than one could be led to believe by the text in this thread. The man pretty much invented and innovated the modern orchestra during a period of very significant mechanical changes in the instruments. Bassoons had more than 4 keys, and many experimental models were being churned out. And if you look at a modern instrument, the basic 8-hole/4 key instrument is still the basic design of the instrument... if you make all the keys accurate and acoustically placed, it stops sounding like a bassoon. That's important. And the cor anglais may have derived from an earlier form of the instrument in an angled form, later changing throughout Europe from an "angled" horn to English Horn. It has a modern variant. Flutes are significantly different in taper, but not so much the piccolos or clarinets. Trumpets were longer and Cornets had a more distinct tone. But Horns with (and without) valves were used, and trombones with a small bore are still manufactured in huge quantities. However, the ophicleide was in very, very common use for quite some time, and caught on with incredible speed throughout western music during this era. This was not because it sucked (illogical argument). It wasn't a substitute for something else (save for the military field). It was an attractive addition to the orchestra, still a relatively nascent concept. And, it is NOT replaceable. Sadly, very little effort has been made to modernize it, but not all the winds are massively upgraded either. And, frankly, the ophicleide doesn't really need it save for some requiring a more stable mechanism. Late instruments by Gautrot, Sudre, etc. were pretty substantial!

4) Berlioz was a business man. If his edition (German published) substituted tubas to sell better, he could say one thing in a treatise, and collect $$$$ from the publication. A man of his ego would have no qualms about that.

5) An ophicleide can work just wonderfully in a modern orchestra. But it takes a player who actually has made an extensive commitment to it. The serpent can make a fair fight too (just played Mendelssohn 5 on serpent). Several orchestras world-wide have proven this in performance and recordings (Sydney and Boston, to start). It's lacking for nothing, save that most people who "play" the ophicleide don't really play it, or force it into quazi-tubaness which is unfair to it. Might as well play bagpipes as a substitute, bari sax, or bass clarinet. Keys are not inferior to valves, neither are slides. But both were once thought to be.

6) Your answer to your conductor: Hire 'em. Or realize that (I assume) you haven't had extensive experience (or ownership) of the instrument, and so there will have to be some sort of replacement. Perhaps tenor tubas? At least those have a close sounding length.

J.c.S. (who shamelessly notes where you can acquire mouthpiece that mimics keyed brass a bit...)