TubeNet

In doing my research on Sibelius 2 prior to performing it, I found some discrepancies between my favorite recording, Osmo Vanska/Lahti and the manuscript part (Gordon Cherry for ref) and the IMSLP part.

Besides an apparent misprint inin mvt 4 of the manuscript that has been corrected in the IMSLP version (this errata is NOT mentioned in the Encore "100" excerpt book), the other discrepancies seem to be performance practice issues in mvt 2, and only a few are mentioned in "100". Specifically, these changes are at: F, H, I, & N. The changes at F and N are discussed in "100" and I agree the notes should be added. The Lahti performance also mimics the basses and or btbn and H & I. I also agree these ornamentations should be added. For those who have played and or studied this work, what are your thoughts? I am in complete agreement with the Vanska/Lahti rendition: if you don't know the recording, it is quite fantastic and available on itunes.

Edited, forgt the name of the darn book 100, corrected that.

I'm unfamiliar with either of the sources you mention (the Lahti recording or the excerpt book), so I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

If you would elaborate on the nature of the changes you reference, it would be quicker and easier for the TNFJ to divide into the traditional three camps:

1) Play it as the composer wrote it
2) Play it the way the composer WOULD have written if he had access to modern equipment
3) Play it the way it sounds best

Thanks.

It effectively replaces the tuba part with that of the string basses, or in other instances the BTbn/bsns at the appropriate octave... The scoring of the tuba in these places ommits the pickup notes (eighths, 16ths, and pairs of 16ths added)

These I would leave the way the composer wrote them. They certainly weren't done for any sort of range issue. I might argue that at F and N Sibelius may have wanted more emphasis on the second note of the motive and created that by having the tuba enter then. As for doubling the bass trombone, why just those particular places?

I vote for "Play as written, no modifications."

ETA: Of course, I would correct the obvious misprint in the last movement. It's crystal clear. Who would argue that one?

Todd, the scoring of the 8ths at F & N is inconsistant internally across the two passages, I do not understand that. It sounds odd at the dynamic the tuba part is scored at. When the tuba omits these pickups, these forte entrances disrupt the line for me. The discussion in "the 100" says these notes should be added and backs that up with blessings from a famous scholar and friend of
Sibelius. I agree the 2nd note of the motive is more important that the first, with the 4th note being the apex of the motif.

Again, ommiting the other additons sounds awquard to Me as the tuba is the only instrument omitting these pickups. But to each his own, I respect your opinion, I tend to be a musical purist, but in this instance, I feel it sounds "the best". I informed the conductor of these changes, and she graciously allowed me to experiment, and in the end appreciating the changes.

Performed it this fall, and I did add the eight-notes in the second movement. I discussed the matter with the conductor, and he agreed that it sounds the best.

Btw: where is the obvious wrong print in the fourth movement?

The misprint is in bar 8 of S, the d half note should be a G.

Ah. I see now that it is already edited (read: smudged in) in my part.