TubeNet

Hi to all,
Some students of mine were asking for clarity about all the Mahler symphonies. It is common knowledge to all of us that there are 3 different tuba designations listed in the scores for us. Sometimes it just says Tuba, other works call for BassTuba, and others designate KontraBass Tuba. This clarity from the score should suffice.....yet it doesn't. In particular, the 5th and 6th symphonies come to mind. Number 5, states KontraBass, and 6 calls for Bass. So we all should play CC/BBb on 5, and F/Eb for 6, right?
Upon a detailed check into this, I assumed that these markings were likely the choice of the printer/editor, rather than Mahler himself. There are often 3 editions of his symphonies...all with discrepancies to this question. But upon checking the BEST source....Mahler's own, handwritten scores, I found Symphonies 5 and 6 to simply call for TUBA. So the clarity we seek isn't to be found. A designation of simply "Tuba" leaves pitch and sound quality choice to us, the performer. If you are inclined to play F vs. CC or CC vs F, make sure your ability to COMPLETELY play the part appropriately is met, and within the sound required by your conductor and brass section.
This topic is mirrored in works of Bruckner, which are very horn specific....even by movement!
The bottom line.....research. You will find an answer to your questions (usually).
Jim Akins
Professor of Tuba/Euphonium
The Ohio State University
Principal Tuba
Columbus Symphony Orchestra

Jim, this is not intended as a smartass comment/question whatsoever.

If the conductor asked for a different sound, and wanted something that goes against your concept and experience, what do you do?

It is has been my experience that conductors usually rely on our expertise. If they occasionally ask for a concept that is too far off the page....multiple rehearsals give me time to 'evolve' them back!
Jim

Does anyone believe the "basstuba" label on the sixth is not a mistake/misinformation?

"Does anyone believe the "basstuba" label on the sixth is not a mistake/misinformation?"

In spite of all the propaganda about what an overly sensitive guy Mahler was, he was also a very shrewd business person (he had to be, because he had to take care of a rather large family once his father had passed away). Therefore, he shopped his scores around to various different publishers. Anyway, there are at least two different versions of the sixth symphony that exist, and at least one earlier version that isn't being published (one with five hammer strokes!). Therefore, there was a lot of room for errors.

Mahler was just happy to get his symphonies performed during his own time, so I seriously doubt that he made a big deal about what kind of tuba somebody showed up to the gig with. On more than one occasion, the orchestra employed was a 'pick-up' orchestra of good players from multiple cities. He was perhaps the first composer/conductor to be deeply concerned about percussion. A witness at the rehearsal for a performance of M6 in Munich - the second performance of M6 (it was premiered in Essen) - gave testimony to just how much attention he gave to the percussion section. That was quite new for those times.

I seriously doubt that he made a big deal about what kind of tuba somebody showed up to the gig with

That makes two of us.

As I said.....his handwritten Manuscripts simply say tuba. Its up to you what you play!
Jim Akins

Mahler likely was aware of the different tuba traditions that existed already in his time. The WPO already had a special F tuba that was intended for a better blend with the trombones.

Klaus

Some musicologists are convinced Wagner’s and Bruckner’s distinctions between alto and tenor trombones for the 1st and 2nd parts were not matters of instrument pitch, but about their respective functions in the musical structure. Both parts were intended for Bb trombones according to these scholars.

This may also be the reason behind what by some is considered an error in Wozzeck, where Alban Berg lets a prominent and undoubled alto trombone passage start on the low Ab, which falls in the gap between the Eb alto trombone’s 7th position A and its pedal Eb.

And yes, I am sure composers like Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Ravel, and several others were fully aware about the instruments they wrote for. The key to understanding them is about knowing the local and period terminology they used in their specific musical environments.

Strauss could write Feierlicher Einzug because the major opera houses back then, like Leipzig and Wien, had fairly large stage bands that together with the pit orchestras could provide 15 trumpet players without hiring extras. Today Strauss hardly had written for that line-up unless he had been associated with military bands like those in DC. I don’t think even the largest German military bands have 15 trumpet players.

Klaus

ccfsilver wrote:As I said.....his handwritten Manuscripts simply say tuba. Its up to you what you play!

Alternatively, Symphonies 1-8 having been composed prior to Mahler's first visit to the US in 1908, and the CC orchestral tradition was only starting to take hold in the US after the turn of the century, it's possible that Mahler—having been educated in the Austro-German orchestral tradition, and composing in a late ninteenth/early twentieth century, Continental European setting—simply took the, then ubiquitous, BBb/F orchestral tuba preference for granted, and assumed the that the choice between the two would be obvious from the tessitura.

There's nothing to say that you need to choose either a contrabass or bass tuba; Alexander von Puttkamer (Berlin Phil) often uses both BBb and F tuba in the same work.

I've not seen him play all of the Mahler symphonies, but I know he does in at least some of them.

I think we're missing the point. If you've read much on what rehearsals were like when Mahler was conducting his own music, you'd know that he spent a great amount of time and energy tinkering with the score and parts ON THE SPOT. He needed to hear what he had composed with a live orchestra, and felt that he needed to make numerous adjustments. Often times, he would make adjustments based on the acoustics of where he was at that moment. This is well documented. My point is that Mahler did not think of his scores as already being, 'etched in stone'. In all the reading that I've done on G.M. - which is a hell of a lot! - I've never once come across a documented conversation where Mahler said ANYTHING about the tuba. Use what works and sounds right to you - or you AND the conductor. As far as it goes with brass (and the entire orchestra), we know that Mahler liked and demanded a huge range of dynamic contrasts.

That said, since Mahler did SO MUCH opera conducting over the years (he died at 50!), he certainly would have been used to hearing both F and BBb tubas. But seriously, I doubt if he gave it much thought either way. For him, something was pretty much either too loud or too soft. I'll give another example.

Arnold Rose gave testimony that in passages where the strings were playing long, sustained 'watermelons', Mahler would demand that the strings NOT bow in unison, believing that uneven bowing would produce a more 'sustained' tone. This is where Stokowski got that idea!

There's still debate as to what precisely Mahler meant - or wanted - for the "Tenorhorn" part that begins M7 (usually played on euphonium). Mahler, wrote, "like the roar of nature" (auf Deutsch), but it's often times played too smooth and politely (same with "Bydlo", in my book). Was there an actual Tenorhorn at the world premiere in Prague (Czech Phil.), or was it simply a smallish baritone that would eventually morph into the modern day Euphonium?

The same situation applies to the "Posthorn" solo in the scherzo of M3 (usually played offstage on a trumpet or flugelhorn). And there's still some heated debate as to whether Mahler wanted the mandolin player to play tremolos on his/her halfnotes and wholenotes in the fourth movement of M7 (the 2nd Nachtmusik). I personally like it with the tremolos, but we have no evidence that that's correct other than the note values themselves. FYI.

The oval Bb Tenorhorn of the German-Czech tradition is a well defined instrument. It may have 3 or 4 rotary valves with the latter usually indicating an instrument of better quality.

The Posthorn was an instrument used by the coachmen of the old post coaches with their dual purposes of carrying post and passengers. The later valved version was a circular instrument like a not too widely flared flugelhorn.

Have you ever seen/heard a mandolin player of any national tradition play single stroke long notes? Why would Mahler employ a mandolin player to play single stroke long notes, when that effect could be achieved by one or two harp players already already on the payroll?

Some discussions run in circles because of lack of wider views over local traditions through various eras. So I wrote this several years ago, when I got tired of lacking knowledge of terms:

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/jul2001 ... 61604.html

In my opinion Mahler made a statement about the tuba by writing a tuba part for Beethoven’s 9th.

Klaus

cambrook wrote:... often uses both BBb and F tuba in the same work.

That's one approach I find completely indefensible. What composer would tolerate an instrumentalist suddenly and completely changing timbre on his own whim (swapping to F within a piece) without specific instructions?

OK Klaus, you really know your stuff. The only time I've seen someone use something that looks like what the postman carried was with the Wiener Philharmoniker (VPO). On the Bernstein dvd of M3 from the early '70s, they show the player using something that looks like a smaller, tightly wound circular horn but with valves on it. I guess that must be the real deal.

As for the Tenorhorn, I'm sure you've nailed it . What do you think of it being played on the Euphonium since so many players seem to use that? Does it seem too smooth and 'pretty' sounding to you also?

And by all means, what you say about the mandolin tremolos makes perfect sense to me.


"Mahler made a statement about the tuba by writing a tuba part for Beethoven’s 9th"

Surely basstuba and not kontrabass tuba (and don't call me Shirley!).

I think the euphonium is not the right sound for M7, I heard a wonderful performance in Zurich a few years ago with the Tonhalle orchestra conducted by David Zinman. The instrument used was what Klaus referred to in another post as "B-Bariton", played brilliantly by Thomas Rüedi.
https://www.thomasruedi.ch" target="_blank"

"What composer would tolerate an instrumentalist suddenly and completely changing timbre on his own whim (swapping to F within a piece) without specific instructions?"

Really? What about when a tuba player plays the 'Frere Jacques round in minor' in the third movement of the first symphony on a basstuba, then uses a kontrabass tuba for the rest of it? You're opposed to that? How about this: in the soft, slow 'moonlit' passage located in the middle of the first movement of M7, I switched to my Besson 3+1 eefer because I wanted that passage to sound very, very soft (the rest was played on a prototype 188). For me, it was a question of dynamics and control, not timbre. Was I wrong to do that?

I don't know, maybe I've got this wrong, but I really think most composers - assuming they were even around to conduct or hear a performance of one of their works - would have a lot more on their minds than whether the tuba player was cheating or not.

I can't point to any now, but I've seen lists that specify what instrument for what excerpt. Maybe I'm thinking of the Lyric list from several years ago? It seems like I've seen it for a European vacancy, too.
That said, I'm starting to fall away from a strict inheritance of bass vs contrabass. No special reason aside from sheer orneriness, I guess. I am simply siding with the thought of the composer had better things to worry about.

And, *** hijack alert***, I've recently been studying the Hindemith sonata. Analyzing like I should have a long time ago. Reading some dissertation online, it's pointed out that the autograph MS says bass tuba on the cover, but the music says Tuba.
It was written after Hindemith had lived in the US, though in Switzerland at the time, when CC and BBb were certainly the most prominent instruments in use. That author essentially said whichever worths for the performer, but really push the contra.

barry grrr-ero wrote: For me, it was a question of dynamics and control, not timbre.

Surely that can be achieved through more time in the practice room...?

This all is a very similar discussion to the one that occurs when folks debate whether a specific piece (usually an opera) requires cimbasso or tuba or ophicleide. Historically, these composers' works were published and when they were, the publisher usually put a moniker on the part that they felt would lead to as much sales of the work as possible. Over the years, as orchestral traditions (and instrumentation) changed, reprints would incorporate these difference as best they could. Lots of confusion has been created from that process alone.

I personally prefer to research premieres of works and any specific directions that the composer may have left. Even so, I'm not above switching instruments for a given situation. In the last 2 seasons, I've performed Brahms 2 twice. Once I used a bass tuba, the second time I used a contrabass. I thought both worked so I stand by the final product. I think too often, players turn off their common sense and try to develop rules to make the selection process mindless. Employing your good musical judgment and a modicum of common sense still seems to me to be the best path.