tubatooter1940 wrote:No legit band or orchestra would have me or my beat up peashooter Eb tuba, but going through a huge p.a. with a duo up to a sextet playing trop rock music to beach bunnies in bikinis keeps me really busy and can be rewarding in a totally different way.
To hell with getting a full time orchestra gig....I WANT THAT JOB!!!
Biggs wrote:I recently heard an excellent symphonic band perform Holst's arrangement of Mars and found it equally as satisfying as the orchestral version, if not more so.
What group played this arrangement and when? Is it published? Would you be so kind as to send me a scan of the program with the program notes that outline this transcription by the composer?
I have never heard of it and would like to get a copy of the score (which is possible if the Holst family is allowing performances of this arrangement. They pretty tightly control arrangements of his works.)
There is only one *Holst Family Officially Approved* wind band transcription of the complete work (done in the late 1980s) and there there are the published B&H arrangements of Mars and Jupiter (not done by Holst). I have seen some illegal ones. I have never heard of one done by Holst and would very much like to study it. It would be an invaluable aid in orchestration skills to see what he himself did.
Thanks!
Our band (The Denver Concert Band) recently performed Mars. It was an original transcription done by Holst himself in 1924. It's probably out of print now, it's been in our music library for decades.
the elephant wrote:[THAT'S what I want a copy of! Can you scan the first page of the score (with all of the relevant information on it) and send it to me as a PDF file?
Mr. Elephant,
I do not have a scanner, but I looked at J. W. Pepper and the version we played is still available there.
Biggs wrote:I recently heard an excellent symphonic band perform Holst's arrangement of Mars and found it equally as satisfying as the orchestral version, if not more so.
How was the very specific- and eerie-sounding col legno effect accomplished without strings? It could not have had the same effect merely using woodwinds playing the same rhythm since they cannot imitate this effect at all.
Again, this is simply a matter of taste. There is no wrong (or right) answer here.
What group played this arrangement and when? Is it published? Would you be so kind as to send me a scan of the program with the program notes that outline this transcription by the composer?
I have never heard of it and would like to get a copy of the score (which is possible if the Holst family is allowing performances of this arrangement. They pretty tightly control arrangements of his works.)
A few years ago the Holst family allowed the original orchestral score to be *edited* and new, error-free, cleaner copies to be generated from the original parts. There is no difference in the tuba part save for the addition of the editor's name and that the printing is a bit more clear or fresh looking.
There is only one *Holst Family Officially Approved* wind band transcription of the complete work (done in the late 1980s) and there there are the published B&H arrangements of Mars and Jupiter (not done by Holst). I have seen some illegal ones. I have never heard of one done by Holst and would very much like to study it. It would be an invaluable aid in orchestration skills to see what he himself did.
Thanks!
The effect was, admittedly different, but I would not go so far as to say it was worse. The use of the lowest woodwinds (contrabassoon, contrabass clarinet, et al) as well as string bass seemed adequate, but, again, differently adequate.
The performance I heard was by the University of Iowa Symphony Band under the direction of Dr. Myron Welch on November 13 and 14 of this year. I played with this group on these days but did not play during Mars. I have not seen Holst's score (it is owned, to the best of my knowledge by the UI Dept. of Bands so I assume it is/was published at some point) but agree it would be of interest. I do not have the program on hand to scan, but you can find more information on the UI website by searching for "Band Extravaganza" or emailing Dr. Welch (myron hyphen welch at uiowa dot edu).
Biggs wrote: . . . the lowest woodwinds (contrabassoon, contrabass clarinet, et al) as well as string bass . . .
For col legno? It is a percussive effect made by tapping the wood of the bow on the strings. How did the low woodwinds do that?
Hey now, I didn't get that A in string techniques by not knowing about col legno!
I think the ol' "with stick" can be replicated reasonably well by a)being familiar with the sound created in the orchestral version and b)articulating appropriately (dryly, percussively, whatever you want to call it). I'm not saying its the same - anyone can easily tell the two apart. But I would conjecture that
col legno : woodwind articulation :: orchestral low brass motif : same motif with 3 tubas, 3 euphoniums, 8 trombones, baritone sax, et al
I also would conjecture that Holst did not expect his band arrangement to be similar rather than congruent, but I am not an expert on Holst. I enjoyed the band performance but it does not replace the orchestral.
I will see if I can drum up the details about the score.
Orchestra. The music is more pleasant to listen to, and I very rarely have to hear the Unholy Bastard Child of Madame Defarge and Lucifer that is the saxophone. Adolphe Sax should have been kicked in the nuts real hard with steel toe Red Wings for that one.
ZNC Dandy wrote:Orchestra. The music is more pleasant to listen to, and I very rarely have to hear the Unholy Bastard Child of Madame Defarge and Lucifer that is the saxophone. Adolphe Sax should have been kicked in the nuts real hard with steel toe Red Wings for that one.
Although, he did 'invent' (read: steal from the Germans) the Saxhorn, so that exhonorates him to some extent...
bardus est ut bardus probo, Bill Souder
All mushrooms are edible, some are edible only once.
I have played in an amateur orchestra, and musically that was more satisfying than most of the playing I've done in bands. Most of my reasons have been listed. I enjoy opportunities to play alone rather than in a section, even when the section is better than me as has often been the case.
I prefer to listen to orchestral music rather than band music, but that doesn't always translate to playing preference.
There is a big "but", though. Some orchestral music I love more than any band music, but some orchestral music is poison to my soul. As with lawyers, orchestral musicians have to sell it even when they don't believe in it.
Band music can also be execrable, of course. But bands that play really crappy band music tend to do so consistently. Bands that set a programming standard of musical excellence tend to rarely or never play the real crap. Thus, you can avoid the crap just by selecting the right band to join. Orchestras are rarer and require more willingness to put up with the band in return for the good.
Nothing is as musically exhilarating as some orchestral works, even if big parts of it are spent just listening to the rest of the group. I never cared about long rests if the music during those rests was listenable. In band, though, I really want to be playing most of the time because the in-between bits are often not as satisfying.
Mary Ann's idea that orchestra pops are the best of both worlds makes a lot of sense--I've only done that on one occasion myself. But there is some music that lacks power when played by an orchestra, and the monochromatic intensity of the band is needed. Stars and Stripes Forever comes to mind. I still enjoy playing that in band despite having played it 1,348,537,302 times.
Something nobody has said, though, figures large into my own preferences: Orchestra players have a different sound and performance concept than do most band players. And that is the sound that is always in my head.
But the programming has the biggest effect. Our current band conductor looks for great music worthy of the time spent working it up. We play a lot of transcriptions of orchestral works, including a lot of very good movie music. I have played in bands that programmed band schlock (think Symphony of Sit-Coms), and found myself so uninterested that I didn't last over a month. I was grouchy in those groups, and offended by the attitude of many of their regular players that they were afraid to improve for fear they would be left behind. Our current group takes all comers but our conductor still lays down the challenge, and we all grow. That's about the best someone like me can hope to expect.
So, I'll take nearly any orchestra position over band positions were the usual band schlock gets programmed. But I'll take a challenging and well-led band situation over an orchestra that spends its time on music I don't enjoy. And orchestra that hits my favorites frequently, though, is still the most attractive to me.
Rick "not good enough to be in an orchestra meeting minimum standards" Denney
Rick beat me to the (to me ) correct answer: YES.
I´ve had VERY limited experience in orchestra. The ONE ("Ein Deutsches Requiem" by Brahms) single orchestra gig provided what has been stated: good music and great singing to listen to (favorite Bariton solo: "Herr, lehre doch mich..."), and lots of hair-raising (to me) passages where I´d been lost counting rests, right before my entrance.
It was thrilling, and I´d jump at a possibility to extend my limited experience.
Symphonic wind band is assigning you a totally different role. It is exciting to team up with five to seven section mates to try and play your *** off in those massive passages most pieces written originally for band will offer. I´ve learnt a whole new set of playing concepts that would never have occured to me in community band.
It does hurt, though, that one is reduced to a kind of monster to be unleashed whenever the music is at its loudest.
(the soft and delicate "quasi solo" passages are left to the superior players, not me). You learn to create big sound, but there seems to be little demand for differentiated playing.
Most of my practise time for band season consists of something similar to ROCKY´s special training at the butcher´s.
It is brass choîr and quintet where I found opportunities to really concentrate on sound colors, varying articulation and rhythmic diversity. This hasn´t helped basic tuba playing skills such as giving the audience a new hairstyle during concert, though.
Hans
Melton 46 S
1903 or earlier GLIER Helicon, customized Hermuth MP
2009 WILLSON 6400 RZ5, customized GEWA 52 + Wessex "Chief"
MW HoJo 2011 FA, Wessex "Chief"
I'm kinda like Schlep...not good enough for orchestra, and have gotten some "down the nose" looks at my York Master bell front. The community bands that I am in are a New Horizons concert band--and we're an old age, grade 3 music band...with one tuba player; and the only adult marching band in the area...wtih one tuba player.
I have played mainly band music, in bands, and like that best. My skills were never good enough for orchestra (exept when I was the only bass trombone player in high school, and the orchestra wanted a bass trombone player).
I said BAND although I haven't played with one since I finished my master's degree a few years ago (I have played with a number of orchestras since that time). In a band, you get you play all the time. The group isn't limited to one player. You actually have more varieties of music to play. And it's usually less nerve wracking.
Too bad there are so few professional bands these days outside the military forces.
________________________________________________________
You only have one chance to make a first impression. Don't blow it.
Like most people have already said, I love both. When I was younger I would say band. There are more parts and you don't have to sit and count 157-2-3-4.....158-2-3-4.... Right now in my life I would say orchestra. Not because it is better but I am doing it more now getting to play all those standards and excerpts I have been practicing for years. It is moving music cause it is new and I have played a lot if not most of the band standard pieces. It has giving me new life in my playing.
Orchestra. Wade states the reasons more eloquently than I.
For those that say an orchestra is stuffy...well, you are right. As a brass player, who HASN'T been looked down by string players as those "lower beings that inhabit the back row"?
My story, sticking to it.
George
Bass Trombone
NIH Philharmonic
Washington Sinfonietta
It has to be Orchestra. Yes in bands you get to play more, but even that is not always true. When you play some of the more difficult band pieces, like the Maslenka symphonys and such, you rest for hundreds of measures at a time. Since I am currently in a band and orchestra, I feel as though they both are rewarding in their own respects. In orchestra you get gorgeous melodies from the composers we all love. However, in band we are beginning to see and hear some extremely interesting things. Composers are beginning to push the boundaries of the instruments, and thats something you dont get in an orchestra. I think for me the choice simply came down to being in a section or not. In a section, there are always tonality issues and in the harder music, with harder parts, there is always someone who will have some trouble. In orchestra, i dont think it is that you are solo, because i dont agree with that. There are the trombones and the basses. Its more the ability, for me at least, to experience the music, playing or just listening. Just my thoughts...
I have voted orchestra, but I do think this depends a lot on the standard of the group and the music being played.
A good orchestra playing a great work with rewarding tuba part is no doubt tops for me, but a good band playing exciting music is a lot preferable to a lesser orchestra playing boring music.
Jonathan "who thinks preference has a lot to do with personal experience"
.