TubeNet

Based on a pretty small sampling of recordings I've heard, it seems like American orchestras tend to drop it, and European/Russian orchestras play it as written.

I kind of like it as written... the jump makes the tuba makes it blend more with the rest of the ensemble, and leaves the menacing parts to the bass trombone and string basses. I like the effect of being forceful but not quite so heavy. Or something like that.

No disrespect to this great composer, but I hear it down the octave. Like several of the parts in Russian Easter, as done on the Stokowski/Chicago recording. I have just played these parts this way and only gotten smiles from the conductors.(mabye they were laughing), Ed

Since I have the same lick and octave higher, I really appreciate the tuba player that follows me down.

I have only played this once, and played as written.

Hi.
I'd rather be wrong and close to Rimsky Korsakov,
than "right" and close to you guys.

bloke wrote:' fairly difficult to play in the lower octave on an old 3-valve or 4-valve F tuba.

I haven't voted and won't, because what do I know about it?

But in the band music I play, when I see this kind of octave switch, I always figure the composer is either trying to accommodate limited instruments or limited players, and keep going down.

Since the tuba is the only voice to make that jump, I write it off to copyist error, and charge a penalty of one dynamic level.

actually it's quite effective as written, and when the sound of the trombone tuba section is well blended it's easy to get a massive sound in the register as written. Also I sometimes feel that the bass bone and tuba sometimes can more barbaric in unison than in octaves. I'm not saying it won't taking it on down an octave below the bass trombone, but you should know your conductor. Taking such liberties will have some conductors questioning your judgement.

No disrespect to better and more experienced players than me intended but........

We get the same questions quite a lot in brass bands. BBb bass/tuba players enjoy putting notes down the octave (known as pedaling) because they can, in places where it isn't written. Often the argument is given
1. "well, if so-and-so composers had known what we can do he'd have written it" or
2. "but in those days the BBbs only had three valves and..." then use 1 as above.

Sometimes in accompanying passages I encourage them to go for it (tactfully) as it can make an amazing difference to a given chord. Sometimes we decide that the colour of the chord doesn't need the heavy, extra octave. Where 'tunes' or 'motifs' are concerned we rarely if ever mess about. Lots of bands do but I think they sound the worse for it.

I have limited orchestral experience but when I do play with them I play the part as written, never having the confidence/audacity to re-score the part. In the banding world I think nothing of re-arranging parts.

Therefore, perhaps, I'm sure you'll have heard the saying, "familiarity breeds contempt"? Through familiarity with the music/genre one believes that they can 'improve' the composers score but re-arranging their own part?

Thoughts along the lines of "I can therefore I will", apart from making a great Latin phrase to quote, were what started each world war remember. So be careful when you make that decision to re-score a part, who knows where it will lead.

ps. It's good to see that players as experienced as Bloke still ask a forum for their thoughts before re-scoring a musical masterpiece - it's somewhat disappointing (to me at any rate) that so many other eminent players do a Nike (Just do it) without a second thought (please see the very first line of this post)

Likely written before the BBb became the standard Russian orchestral tuba.

Looking at the score, if the octave jump were purely to accommodate the range of the tubas of the time, it could have been delayed by a measure. I believe a case can be made for having the sub-bass emphasis only on the first three notes.

That having been said, what I voted for was extension of the line, not the octave jump.

<shrug>

imperialbari wrote:

Skærmbillede 2012-11-16 kl. 10.40.23.png

Likely written before the BBb became the standard Russian orchestral tuba.

I suspect you are correct sir. If he had also put the jump into the Contrabass part we would have an argument that the jump was for purely musical effect. The jump only appears in the tuba part.

Like bass trombone and tuba always being in octaves?

russiantuba wrote:...Rimsky-Korsakov was a master of orchestration and wrote for the current instruments available, which would have most likely been a 3 valve E-flat tuba.

True. The whole part would sit nicely in the range of a 3-valve EEb tuba.

However, Rimsky's orchestration treaty does mention a (presumably 4 valve) CC tuba. It's also worth noting (pun intented) that Rimsky did not consider the full range of the CC tuba to be usable. He marks that everything below F is "little used." To add even more confusion, he states that the tuba is "eminently useful for doubling, an octave below, the bass group to which it belongs." Following R-K's written word would lead one to believe that you should follow the line down the octave to the F#. (It sits nicely in the range that he labels "frequently used" and follows his comment about doubling the brass section down the octave.)

As you inquired earlier, the sketches would be more than helpful... Maybe the collected edition would have more commentary on the tuba part, maybe not...

PMeuph wrote:However, Rimsky's orchestration treaty does mention a (presumably 4 valve) CC tuba. It's also worth noting (pun intented) that Rimsky did not consider the full range of the CC tuba to be usable. He marks that everything below F is "little used." To add even more confusion, he states that the tuba is "eminently useful for doubling, an octave below, the bass group to which it belongs." Following R-K's written word would lead one to believe that you should follow the line down the octave to the F#. (It sits nicely in the range that he labels "frequently used" and follows his comment about doubling the brass section down the octave.)

Four-valve contrabass tubas with a very usable low register were certainly available by the late 1800's, and Wagner was already using them. But that doesn't mean they were in wide use in Russia. They were certainly NOT in wide use in American orchestras at that time.

Tchaikovsky scored the 1812 Overture (Opus 49, 1880) to go down (only once) to Ab/G#, which would be a difficult note on a 3-valve Eb tuba (though easy with a fourth valve), without using false tones. But other than that one note, the part would fall quite happily on a 3-valve Eb tuba, with perhaps a little slide adjustment here and there. Any 4-valve F tuba would have no trouble with the part, and it was scored for "basstuba". Tchaikovsky represents the other main current of Russian composing around that time (vs. the Might Handful of which R-K was one).

Of course, Wagner's Ride predates this by a ways (middle 1850's, at least for the first orchestration), but it was not performed until 1870. That was only two years before R-K wrote his book on orchestration, which he wrote after spending a couple of years learning non-Russian compositional methods. There's a good chance he'd never been exposed to the contrabass tuba by that time, or at least not in any meaningful way.

If I was being paid to play it, I think I would mention to the Maestro (assuming appropriate channels for doing so exist) that I intended--unless he directed otherwise--to carry the line through at the octave with the trombones to maintain the timbrel line. I suspect most real conductors would say something like, "let's try it and we'll see" or "sure." Academic conductors might instruct otherwise, in which case they are the ones writing the check. But in the sorts of groups in which I've played, I would just do it. As I hear that line in my head, it's supposed to be quite powerful, and I can't see how playing that last bit down the octave would do anything but reinforce that effect.

Rick "noting Bloke's reluctance to make himself conspicuous to the conductor" Denney

Bob Kolada wrote:Like bass trombone and tuba always being in octaves?

I prefer octaves to unison. However, I also prefer 4ths or 5ths to octaves when possible. I may even prefer 2nds to unison.

I don't know how more obvious it could be that the octave jump is there because of range considerations by the composer of the available instrument.

Play the thing down. It makes much more musical sense.

"Anyone have an autograph manuscript to see what Rimsky-Korsakov wrote?"

Looking at a copy of the autograph. The original is in the Public National Library in St. Petersburg, Russia.
The autograph has the first 3 notes in octaves with the 3rd trombone. On the C and for the rest of the passage R-K wrote in unison with the 3rd trombone.

The jump up the octave for the tuba is correct.

musikfind1 wrote:"Anyone have an autograph manuscript to see what Rimsky-Korsakov wrote?"

Looking at a copy of the autograph. The original is in the Public National Library in St. Petersburg, Russia.
The autograph has the first 3 notes in octaves with the 3rd trombone. On the C and for the rest of the passage R-K wrote in unison with the 3rd trombone.

The jump up the octave for the tuba is correct.

[yoda]
Correct it is ... make sense it does not.
[/yoda]