Early tuba orchestral parts

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Symphonie Fantastique is pretty much always quoted as the first piece orchestrated for tuba. We know that Berlioz originally wrote the piece in 1830 for one ophicleide and one serpent, then changed it to two ophicleides by the premiere. What I have never seen in print, though, is the date when Berlioz decided to revise the parts for tubas...it is said that he changed it to make use of the "newly invented tuba," but it's hard to say whose tuba they are talking about.

Wagner first used tuba in his opera Das Liebesverbot from 1834 (premiered in 1836). The question is, way that before or after the Berlioz revision? When was the first time the Berlioz piece was performed with tubas? Those are the difficult questions, but I'm reasonably sure it's going to be between those two pieces.

I'm sorry that's probably not more than you already know, but at least it's food for thought and discussion.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

im sure you mean all your dates in the 1800s Todd.

Yes, I did...thanks for the correction. I've edited it in my original post.

Well how about Hungarian March or damnation of faust by Berlioz, were they for ophecliede or tuba. Did Wagner use tuba in his opera or do the modern parts just say that.

The Hungarian March is from part I of the opera La damnation de Faust. It was written quite a bit later and premiered in 1846. Tuba was quite possibly more commonly used by then in the professional ensembles. Wagner probably did use tuba from the beginning, certainly by the time he finished Rienzi (1840).

The tuba was invented during this time period of early berlioz and Wagner, but how many people went out and bought a tuba, and im sure tubas were not heavily manufactured at the beginning. So did Wagner really call for tuba in his early opera?

The Moritz tuba was invented around 1835. It would have rapidly been adopted by professional players in the large opera houses of Europe...they were dying for a larger instrument to fill those huge halls. It's not surprising that by 1840 the instrument would be in wide use.

By the way, James, since I didn't say so in my first response (and should have)...this is an intelligent, well-thought-out, thought-provoking discussion. Well done!

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I believe Rienzi scored for both serpent and tuba correct?

Yes, but Wagner used the serpent more as a woodwind instrument...in modern orchestras, that part is played by a third bassoon.

I would suggest you discuss the issue with Dr. Straughn on Monday. He can get you in the RILM database and possibly lead you to scans of the actual Wagner scores. Certainly, there will be some in-depth texts about the writings of Wagner and the orchestra he composed for. Good luck in your search, and let us know what you find out.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Do you know Dr S Todd?

I know of him...his analysis of "What's Opera, Doc?" is superb.

http://www.thomasvillecentral.com/operadoc.htm

[TMurphy]

We did a lot of "drop the needle" and score identification at my school in our four semesters of Music History. I remember some study group of idiots spending a lot of time memorizing the scratches and pops from the record that had made it onto the cassette study tape made up by the professor. (Why they couldn't have used that same time to listen to the various chants for that test is beyond me. They do not sound the same at all if you just listen to them.)

We got into the class and this entire study group failed the "drop the needle" portion of the exam, all of them pretty much getting a zero on the section (50 out of 130 points, or something like that). The teacher had seen them in the music listening lab at the main library and heard them commenting on and marking various scratches and pops so that they could use the to aid in identification. So she used a different recording of the same chants for the test. I guess when you go for the grade and not the information you get burned sometimes. They were fools and all of us who had taken the time to actually learn the material laughed at them. I can still identify most of those chants, because I chose to learn them. I studied for that test in 1988. A genuine love for learning is needed as a musician, and if you can develop it you can access a wonderful education.

I am glad to see that you have "drop the needle" exams at ACU, James. I have heard that some music programs are now telling the students which exact measures will be o the exam, which fairly guarantees that most students in that program will never learn the remaining material. Making you guys learn so much material for the test is a good thing.

I remember in my Music History II class at Rutgers (covering Classical period-20th century), we used to have unannounced listening quizzes, which were cumulative. By the end of the semester, there were over 14 CDs worth of material he could choose from for a quiz (occasionally, he would give us a break and announce when there would be a quiz, or tell us it would only be on works from certain CDs). I remember one quiz in particular, which was on Romantic period art songs (Schubert, Schumann, etc.). Not only did he use different recordings on the listening quizzes (which he did frequently), but some of the songs on the CDs we had would be sung by someone of the opposite sex on the listening quiz. That threw a LOT of people off.

What a great class that was...I learned so, so much.

[TMurphy]

Exactly. Such "tactics" really force you to learn the actual music and not just fragments of the melody or scratches on a record. I never really had a problem with any of that stuff as I actually enjoyed all of the music we were assigned to absorb. I still have it and play it in my CD player. I was at the UNT bookstore a few years back and bought used copies of the CDs used in all the undergraduate classes. I listen to them as much as any of my other CDs. But I am a pretty odd guy like that. I have in my CD player right now the six disc set that accompanies the Kerman "Listen" text that we used in my first of four semesters of Music History. I have a track on right now that is an excellent demonstration of Japanese taiko drumming. Very eclectic collection; very interesting material. (We used the Norton stuff in the three later Music History classes, Kerman being only for the first semester Survey class. Dr. Jesse Eschbach detested the Kerman text. I always liked it. Oh, well.)

Interesting...I am not familiar with the Kerman stuff. We used Norton in music history 1, but for history 2, my professor (Dr. Doug Johnson, a phenominal teacher and Beethoven scholar) made up his own texts (handbooks, consisting of a few articles and tons of scores). He made up the CDs himself, too.

Edit: Removed the pictures and link from the quote of Wade's post...no need to have them twice.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Sorry, my mistake. The Breitkopf & Hartel study score of Das Liebesverbot says bass tuba. Must be another "modern edition" change.

So, unless someone has access to the original manuscript of Rienzi, I don't know how you would determine to original intent for instrumentation of the composer. Our library has the overture in their racks...I'll go look at it and see if I can determine if it's "original" or not.

[UDELBR]

Can anyone verify if Rienzi was ORIGINALLY scored for tuba

Rienzi was originally scored for ophicleide.
http://www.tubanews.com/articles/36-ess ... d-cimbasso" target="_blank

[Wyvern]

The part for Flying Dutchman of 1843 I have is marked 'basstuba (ophicliede)', so sounds like either optional at that stage.

I am always interested how the tuba became so well established in Russia. Tchaikovsky right from his first student overture in 1865 included tuba and very few Russian symphonic works after that date are not enhanced by our instrument.

[J.c. Sherman]

Well said Elephant...

I deal in stereotypes a lot; and it seems that tubists are the least aware of the history of their instrument, despite how short that history is (tongue partially in cheek)!

Symphonie Fantastique was never scored for tuba(s), the serpent was replaced with a Bb ophicleide. It is a truism that Berlioz never scored for tuba without and ophicleide also present. Both reinforced the weaknesses of the other, much as his double-scored ophicleides.

Moritz's tuba was made for band use originally; for Herr Weiprecht.

Remember, the serpent had a very different sound, as did the ophicleide. We are rather weird in that we - and our conductors - replace them willy-nilly with tubas and contrabassoons, thought their use may be very similar. It's interesting that we would never put a tuba into a modern performance of Handel's "Fireworks," yet we feel totally cool playing Midsummer Nights Dream on Tuba. Meistersinger, Reinzi, Dutchman, and Loehngren (sp?) are all sanctioned replacements for the ophicleide by the composer. Other works don’t have that same benefit.

The tuba wasn't an instant success; its success was roughly inversely proportional to the success of the ophicleide in various regions. Roughly. Some areas and composers were very slow to accept the new instrument; Verdi always hated tuba. France had little tolerance for something much more powerful than the ophicleide until much later, as did England.

We have a fascinating, turbulent history to look at when we approach each piece. "Tuba" is the most vague indication in a score imaginable, even well into the 20th century. We have the duty and privilege to research our works well when we play. And don't check Wikipedia; it's LOADED with serious errors!

J.c.S.

[Uncle Buck]

Both my undergraduate and graduate schools did a ton of "drop the needle" testing. My undergrad was probably a more "prestigious" school (but incidentally, had a reputation in the area for producing band directors who could identify any orchestral excerpt, but couldn't teach anybody to play it).

At that more "prestigious" school, I went through at least five music history professors, none of whom made any effort to teach studying techniques for those exams.

My first month in graduate school (taking a combined undergrad/graduate music history class), the professor made the excellent (maybe too self-evident for my previous professors to consider mentioning) suggestion of simply breaking down the required listening by category - by meter, instrumentation, language (even if you only speak English, it doesn't take too much work to learn to identify French, Italian, German, Latin), etc.

Pretty straight-forward, but I think some professors, at some schools, consider themselves above teaching their students the obvious.

No matter where, college students still need the obvious.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I read in the library for a couple of hours today and learned quite a bit that I didn't know before.

There are at least a couple of compilations of the letters of Berlioz...the ones I had access to and read today were Selected Letters of Berlioz edited by Hugh MacDonald (W. W. Norton, 1995) and New Letters of Berlioz 1830-1868 compiled by Jacques Barzun (Columbia University Press, 1954). Unfortunately, the word "tuba" isn't even mentioned in any letter I read today...so much for an easy solution to this riddle.

In the Barzun compilation there is a letter from Berlioz to his friend George Hainl dated July 2, 1845. Hainl was the conductor of the orchestra in the Grand Theater of Lyons where Berlioz was going soon for a concert series which included Symphonie Fantastique. He requested a list of instrumentation he would need that included two ophicleides (one in C, one in Bb) but made no mention of tubas. Now, this may only mean that he knew the orchestra there didn't have any tubas but it is strange that he didn't even ask for them but did ask for an Eb clarinet which was also very rare at the time. It seems from this letter that Berlioz hadn't "revised" the Symphonie Fantastique for tuba yet.

In the MacDonald book, there is a letter from Berlioz to the Baron Wilhelm von Donop dated March 31, 1854. Berlioz was on a concert tour of Germany (his second) in Hanover, and in this letter expresses his immense satisfaction of the Hanover orchestra's performance of Symphonie Fantastique. It doesn't specifically mention tubas, but it seems likely that is was on a German tour that Berlioz learned of the bass tuba and its superior tone to the ophicleide.

A good text on the life of Berlioz was published by D. Kern Holoman (Howard University Press, 1989). He supports the assertion that the German concert tours of Berlioz led him to rename some of his parts "ophicleide or tuba." The modern score to Symphonie Fantastique says "2 Tube," and the parts say "Tuba I" and "Tuba II." No mention of ophicleide in the modern editions.

Meanwhile, in Germany, Wagner was busy composing for tuba in the early part of the 1840s. Rienzi does indeed say "Ophicleide" on the score, but The Flying Dutchman, written in 1841 and premiered in 1843, says "Tuba." Tannhauser, premiered in 1845 but started as early as 1842, says "Basstuba." Wagner's first composition for tuba may have actually been Eine Faust Overture, first completed in 1840. The Kalmus score for that work also says "Basstuba," but Wagner revised that work twice and had the opportunity to change a part originally for ophicleide to tuba...I couldn't find specific reference to that.

Either way, it seems very clear that Symphonie Fantastique wasn't really the first piece intended for tuba. I'm amazed I couldn't find an article about this specific question somewhere in the old TUBA Journal or Brass Anthology...someone should really do a comprehensive paper on this.

[Z-Tuba Dude]

"I have in my CD player right now the six disc set that accompanies the Kerman "Listen" text that we used in my first of four semesters of Music History. I have a track on right now that is an excellent demonstration of Japanese taiko drumming. Very eclectic collection; very interesting material. (We used the Norton stuff in the three later Music History classes, Kerman being only for the first semester Survey class. Dr. Jesse Eschbach detested the Kerman text. I always liked it. Oh, well.)"

I discovered the Kerman text/recordings when preparing to teach a music course at a local college. I was very happy with the choices of music that they picked, they are all exactly what I wouild have chosen, given the chance!

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

• Although I have no empirical information about the topic, I am sure that Wagner would have jumped at the tuba when it became available, given his own inventive nature (Can anyone say "Wagner tubas"?).
  
  He also introduced the idea of each instrument group having at least three members, so that it would be possible for each section to play a complete homogeneous chord, without the assistance of incongruous instruments.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Can anyone say "Wagner tubas"?

Sure, I can say it. Unfortunately, the instrument referred to is not a tuba. More of a modified french horn. Think saxhorn.

[Z-Tuba Dude]

Can anyone say "Wagner tubas"?

Sure, I can say it. Unfortunately, the instrument referred to is not a tuba. More of a modified french horn. Think saxhorn.

Right you are!
But I was trying to point out his inventive nature...the fact that he went to the trouble of actually inventing a new instrument, when none was available to express his vision! My theory about him embracing the tuba quickly, was not hurt by the fact that the purpose for inventing the Wagner tubas (played by part-time horn players!) was to extent a tuba-like tone upwards in the harmonic structure of the orchestra, AND to create a section of "tubas" to play independent harmonic passages.

[windshieldbug]

Der fliegende Tubänder

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Right you are! But I was trying to point out his inventive nature...the fact that he went to the trouble to actually invent a new instrument, when none was available to express his vision! My point was not hurt bty the fact that his purpose in inventing the Wagner tubas (played by part-time horn players!) was to extent the tuba-like tone upwards in the harmonic structure of the orchestra, AND to create a section of "tubas" to play independent harmonic passages.

Suffice it to say I totally disagree with your assertions, but there is so much disagreement in the academic community about the Wagner Tuba that I'll refrain from expressing my take on the situation as if it's factual.

You are certainly correct that Richard Wagner was extremely innovative...it is a good point. If the direction my (limited) research leads is correct, he is also the first composer who composed specifically for the tuba. I can't back that up, either, with anything but a gut feeling at this point.

Although, I will say the funniest story I've heard in reference to the Wagner Tuba is Alexander's initial refusal to make them for Wagner since he was notorious for non-payment.

[Z-Tuba Dude]

Suffice it to say I totally disagree with your assertions, but there is so much disagreement in the academic community about the Wagner Tuba that I'll refrain from expressing my take on the situation as if it's factual.

You are certainly correct that Richard Wagner was extremely innovative...it is a good point. If the direction my (limited) research leads is correct, he is also the first composer who composed specifically for the tuba. I can't back that up, either, with anything but a gut feeling at this point.

Although, I will say the funniest story I've heard in reference to the Wagner Tuba is Alexander's initial refusal to make them for Wagner since he was notorious for non-payment.

He was a bit of a scoundrel, wasn't he?

In the interest of academic advancement(?!?), which of my misguided opinions you disagree with?

[Todd S. Malicoate]

In the interest of academic advancement(?!?), which of my misguided opinions you disagree with?

Your opinions aren't "misguided" and are supported by as many musicologists as those who disagree.

Wagner was no horn-maker, so I disagree that he invented the instrument. All he knew is that he was dissatisfied with the Valhalla motive in Das Rheingold and wanted a more horn-like (conical?) sound. Many sources would tell you he had the ancient Nordic horn (lur) in mind. Wagner spoke of his dislike of Sax's instruments, but the final design of the Wagner Tuba is extremely similar to Sax's earlier instruments...Georg Ottensteiner is widely believed to have been the maker of the first Wagner Tuben, used in 1875.

You spoke of Wagner's desire to extend the tuba tone upwards...I would say he was enamored of the horn sound and wanted to extend it downwards. The effective range of the instruments has a great deal to do with my opinion on that point. I do agree that the goal was to have a quartet "family" of instruments, two high-pitched and two low-pitched, to function as an independent choir. Bruckner apparently had the same idea for his Symphony No. 7. Strauss dabbled with writing for it, but ultimately called it "rough and inflexible" with a "demonic noise" and recommended the use of baritone horn, tenor horn, or euphonium instead.

There...I managed to do what I didn't want to...ramble on like I'm a damned expert or something. The vast majority of the above is just my own interpretation of some loose historical facts. Please feel free to draw your own conclusions!

[J.c. Sherman]

Someone said "the superior tone of the tuba" compared to the ophicleide.

Nonsense. They're different instruments; might as well compare tubas and saxophones.

I direct you here for the supposedly inferior tone of the ophicleide:

http://www.ophicleide.com/" target="_blank" target="_blank

Great site in general, but scroll to the bottom for some samples.

J.c.S.