TubeNet

I'd say that the first movement of the Gregson is harder than the first movement of VW, but that the rest is harder in VW.

Having performed both several times, I think the Gregson is much more of an exercise in endurance than the VW. That thing is just LONG. However, I think the VW contains more technical and musical challenges (my own personal opinion.) VW has "THE" lick in the first movement, plus probably the coolest cadenza in all of tubadom with so much room for interpretation. If you have to ask what is "THE" lick, then you haven't played it. Also, for friends who double on bass trombone, it is that lick that gives them cold sweats at nights. I don't think the Gregson posesses an equivalent challengs for the BB brethren.
As far as an audition committee is concerned, I have been told to go with the VW by numerous people. Most musicians know of Ralph, whereas Gregson has more of his fame in the British Brass Band circuit. Plus, the VW just plain sounds harder to the non-tuba player.

FWIW, my personal preference is to play the VW on bass and the Gregson on contrabass tuba.

Charlie Goodman wrote:I'd say that the first movement of the Gregson is harder than the first movement of VW, but that the rest is harder in VW.

I disagree. The Vaughan Williams is much more technically and artistically challenging than the gregson. That is just from my standpoint, and I havent been working on the Gregson for nearly as long as I have the VW.

I feel as if the Gregson is much more intuitive than the VW. ESPECIALLY the first movement. Firstly, the VW has a lot more CRASH BANG moments musically than the gregson. I am referring of course to the catabile section after the trill in the first movement which moves directly up into a high e triplet run down, in which the intervals are quite difficult to nail at a rapid pace. I am sure you all know what I am talking about. The Gregson first movement is also much more repetitive, based on a theme and variations style in kind of a rounded binary (or ternary) form as opposed to the vauge ABB organization of the first movement of the VW. I havent anywhere near formally analyzed either piece, that just is my quick overview analysis of the solo parts of both pieces. There is a lot more quickly changing melodic and stylistic contrast in the Vaughan Williams.

The Gregson, although a fun and challenging piece, just doesnt seem to have the artistic scope of the VW. It strikes me as only a small departure from most standard tuba literature in that it is pretty formulaic in construction.

All that having been said, I can only really compare the first movement of the Gregson, because that is the only one I have seriously worked on. Those are just my thoughts..... I could definately be wrong.

MartyNeilan wrote: VW has "THE" lick in the first movement, plus probably the coolest cadenza in all of tubadom with so much room for interpretation. If you have to ask what is "THE" lick, then you haven't played it.

I have played it. Whats THE lick? is it right away or is it later? There are many mini-musical climaxes in the first movement and I THINK I know what you mean but I am not sure. I agree about the cadenza totally.

I'm guessing that the "lick" is the run in measure 15, 2 bars before rehearsal 1.

The Vaughan Williams is just plain, beautiful music, expertly orchestrated by one of the best. I'd would have to go with Ralphie on this one.

MSM, you mean "Rafe"...

Raphie

I just think that the Vaughn Williams is more substantial music, particularly the second movement.

Granted, it's not Beethoven, but what can we do, our instrument was born too late!

Hmm. I really like both. The second mvmt. of the VW is enough to learn the solo IMO. The Gregson is fun and an endurance challenge. I suppose if I HAD to choose one I'd go with the Vaughan Williams.








Ralph

Z-Tuba Dude wrote:Granted, it's not Beethoven, but what can we do, our instrument was born too late!

It makes a convenient excuse, but I don't think this reasoning actually holds water. The double bass (and before that, the violone) has been around for a substantially longer time than the tuba, but the number of mainstream solo concert works is still very small. There's some Dragonetti, some Bottesini, some Koussevitzky and the odd work here and there, but nothing the average classical radio listener could recognize.

Same story for the contrabassoon and contrabass trombone--or the piccolo.

I respectfully submit that the reason for this is that we play a "supporting" or "color" instrument. There's no disgrace in this, but wouldn't it be more constructive to recognize things for the way they are?

When I've read about the Vaughan Williams concerto, it's almost always mentioned that he also composed solo works for mouth harp and vibraphone, so at least we have an indication of how the tuba concerto is viewed by the public at large.

I suspect that mention of Gregson to many classical music critics would get the response "Who dat?".

Clearly, the tuba was conceived as a supporting instrument.

....but then the cello was conceived as just a big fiddle, to supply low notes, as well.

In the Baroque, the viola da gamba (the cello's predecessor) was used extensively in the role of basso continuo. Later, they began to recognize it's solo capabilities. The cello took over the viola da gamba's baritone/bass responsibilities in the orchestra, when it came along.

Beethoven, in his 9th Symphony, exploited the cellos/basses, as never before, in the 4th movement, with that big recitative section. Later Schubert, in the Unfinished Symphony, took the cue from Beethoven.

Now, look at the cool concerto that Dvorak wrote for the cello (IMHO perhaps one of the best concertos ever written!).

My point is, that the cello's role, which moved from being subservient, to a legitimate solo instrument, was a gradual process, as well.

While I think there is greater public acceptance of the tuba as a solo instrument, than ever before, we are a long way from "there"!

Z-Tuba Dude wrote:....but then the cello was conceived as just a big fiddle, to supply low notes, as well.

Sorry, but douible-bass violoni have been around since before the 15th century. Grab a score of the Bach Brandenburgs and you'll see parts clearly labeled for violincello and violone (In the third, it doubles the harpsichord continuo).

But the cello is a far more verstatile instrument than the violone or double bass, its tessitura lying in a more useful range and being capable of nimbler maneuvers. I think that it's interesting that Bach wrote six suites for unaccompanied cello, but not a one for unaccompanied (or, for that matter, accompanied) violone. And if you want to play some "never before" bass lines from Bach, try the third movement of the third Brandenburg--it's a real knuckle buster.

In the same way, the trombone or horn is more versatile than the tuba and so have correspondingly more solo works written for them.

Boccherini wrote something like 110 works for 'cello quintet, but I'm aware of no works for tuba quintet (not tuba-euphonium). Nor am I sure that I'd want to hear one.

Will the tuba ever "arrive" as a solo instrument in the same sense that the violin, flute, horn, trombone, trumpet, bassoon, etc. has? Given its very nature, I'm not too hopeful.

SJSUW wrote:

Chuck(G) wrote:Will the tuba ever "arrive" as a solo instrument in the same sense that the violin, flute, horn, trombone, trumpet, bassoon, etc. has? Given its very nature, I'm not too hopeful.

Nor do I care about that particular prospect. Supporting roles, with occasional character pieces, are fine if you ask me.

I'll have to chime in here and say that I agree. Is this not what the instrument was invented to do?

TubaRay wrote:

SJSUW wrote:

Chuck(G) wrote:Will the tuba ever "arrive" as a solo instrument in the same sense that the violin, flute, horn, trombone, trumpet, bassoon, etc. has? Given its very nature, I'm not too hopeful.

Nor do I care about that particular prospect. Supporting roles, with occasional character pieces, are fine if you ask me.

I'll have to chime in here and say that I agree. Is this not what the instrument was invented to do?

I was walking out of an orchestra concert once and a kid who saw me leaving pointed and said to his mom, "There's the guy who plays loud at the end!"

I'd rather be that guy than somebody in the viola section who plays a million notes in the concert, but never gets noticed.

Of course, I'd prefer to be Yo Yo Ma over either of those options, but that's not going to happen . . .

Chuck(G), AND JUST ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE HERE APPARENTLY, with all due respect, I think you are limiting your conception of the tuba because of your preconceived notions about the instrument.

People doing this, players and composers alike, is the reason the tuba has such a small amount of literature with much of it being hokey and meant simply for humorous effect.

Cases for the tuba as a solo instrument:

It fills a niche that many instruments do not. No other solo instrument can go as low as the tuba. The only reason people dont hear low solo instruments is because composers traditionally have not composed for them.

The tuba has a range that is pretty much unmatched by any other wind instrument. 5+ octaves. Very impressive and a lot of potential there. I think that there is even more potential for range in the tuba, as I continue to surprise myself with what I can squeak out on my CC.

The tuba, contrary to popular belief, can both fill the role of a light instrument and a bombastic and intimidating force. Not to mention everything in between. It may take a little more finesse to play in some styles, but it is definately doable. Look at the french horn. Now that is a REALLY tough instrument. Mechanically that thing is just..... AHHHH. Small pipes with a length comparable to a tuba. Insane. But I digress.

Most if not all humans are unable to double tounge on woodwind instruments. This limits them. The tuba is not limited in this respect. point: Tuba literature is not on pace with other less technically capable instruments. See range point as well. Woodwinds have limited range. They (in my opinion) are often not as expressive as a brass instrument or even *gasp* a tuba. However, they have much more literature. This does not make much sense.

And honestly, who cares if Beethoven didnt write anything for Tuba. I sure dont, because I can STEAL what he wrote for other instruments, and make it sound better than when they play it.

I see the issue as such: Tubas are forced to play a supporting role all the time because thats the way it has always been. Lets have a piece where there is four part writing in the tubas and one boring trumpet part that is divided in octaves. THAT would be refreshing and different, not like this Eric Whitaker October nonsense (dont get me wrong, its a good piece, just not revolutionary) And the way too much watered down john williams crap we see from composers like Jim Curnow.

Okay, this may ruffle a few feathers here, but as a tuba player is the reason you don't care about solos is because you're LAZY and never want to practice your band music? Do you want to be able to play 90% of the pieces that come across your stand on the second or third time you go through them? That means you never have to seriously buckle down and practice. The less solo stuff out there for the tuba the better? Just so we can continue to be lazy and not practice to sound as good as other instruments on our parts? Tubas don't get solos because tuba players are lazy beer drinkers. Myself included.

If we as tubists, who have more insight into the instrument's potential than anyone else, do not have a vision of a richer musical future for the tuba, then who will???

We have to inspire composers, and music directors to provide more, and better literature/opportunities for tubists. We will meet many musical obstacles, and prejudices along the way, but we must continue along the path, undeterred. There will be more failures, than successes, but there will be successes!

(hopping down off soapbox.......)

The two Hardest movements of works in the tuba repertoire that I've played are the Second Movement of the Hindemith Sonate and the Third Movement of the VW Concerto.

They are both extremely hard to put together with the piano or accompinament you're playing with.

adam0408 wrote:Chuck(G), AND JUST ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE HERE APPARENTLY, with all due respect, I think you are limiting your conception of the tuba because of your preconceived notions about the instrument.

Fair enough, Adam; I feel I should respond.

I enjoy a novelty act just as much as the next guy. I tend to think of a bottle not as a musical instrument, but as something in which to hold a liquid. Does that make the middle section of de Meij's "Extreme Makeover" unmusical?

Of course not! But it's still a novelty act and pretty cool at that. As is Susan Nigro doing one of her masterful contrabassoon solos. As was Tommy Reilly playing the RVW Romance for Harmonica. As is anyone playing the RVW Concerto for Bass Tuba. As is dog dancing. Masterful, but very novel. Is it artful? It certainly has the potential to be. Is it mainstream? Not in a million years.

It seems that we see a lot of postings on this forum about performance of Air and Bouree, the RVW concerto, the 'cello suites, the Gregson, Effie, and loads of solo works. But nary a posting about the technique of supporting other instruments and blending.

And that is the primary function of our instrument. I can't recall seeing many postings about what the technique for supporting string bass with tuba should be. Or how one best blends with the trombone section.

To me, it's mostly a matter of priorities. Debating the merits of the Gregson vs. the RVW seems to be a case of misplaced ones.

bloke wrote: I wonder how many 21st Century (young) players have received the bandstand instruction, "Quit screwin' around and play the @#$%^&* bass."

Well, I had an instructor in the 20th century who was infamous for supposedly hollering "Blow and Count, you dumb f&*^!" after a student was trying to make more out of something than need be. Close 'nuff!

I wonder how many people who have commented on the repetitiveness of the Gregson have heard it or performed it with an actual orchestra, and not the tonally more limited brass band acompaniment.

Vaughan Williams is my favorite composer, and some of his work makes my hair stand on end. But not the tuba concerto, which, in the words of a well-known player with whom I discussed just this question recently, would sound about the same if played on a bassoon. The tuba either has to take the heroism effect to the extreme or it has to parody it.

The Gregson has a heroic quality that is the hallmark of great brass music from the Strauss Horn Concerto to the opening bars of Mahler's 5th. And the climax of the second movement with the three Eb's in descending octaves makes my hair stand on end.

I've heard the best tuba players in history perform the Vaughan Williams with results ranging from unglued to missing-the-point beautiful. I've only heard the Gregson performed with orchestra by one performer, and it made a big impression on me (it's on Hans Nickel's Cantuballada). Nickel is a great performer, but I think the Gregson really hasn't had the exposure in front of an orchestra that the RVW has, and therefore it's a little difficult to make comparisons.

Most people have only their practice-room experience on which to base their judgment, though they have all heard the greatest tuba players in history play the Vaughan Williams.

As to Chuck's comment, just because the tuba is a novelty instrument in a solo setting doesn't mean it can't provide an artistically satisfying performance (which a dancing dog cannot do). But we have to play music that says something more than "look at me!" We have to go beyind the old talking-dog joke--that it's not that the dog can talk well but that the dog can talk at all. A lot of the RVW is in the "look at me!" category, the second movement being the exception. The Gregson fares better from that perspective, it seems to me. The Hindmith is better still, but it is not a concerto and it is tonally inaccessible to most audiences.

Rick "who can't play either one" Denney