Early tuba orchestral parts

[Wyvern]

I guess we should look at the bright side:

• 1. How long ago was the saxophone invented?
  2. When was it integrated into the orchestra?
  3. ....or has it been, yet?

Does that not show that most composers have better taste

[imperialbari]

Re. Russia:

http://www.tuba.org.ru/int.php

Klaus

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Very interesting site, Klaus. Thanks!

[KevinMadden]

Late to chime in, and sorry to return to something mentioned about 4 pages ago but,

On the subject of 'drop the needle' tests;

I took two of the three required semesters of Music history here at Ic with a Dr. Mark Radice. His approach to 'drop the needle' tests was a bit different than some of the other professors, he would pick music intentionally not covered in class. The correct way to answer the questions was to write observations about what you were hearing and then make an assumption about the Composer and date of composition. I learned much more about the general details of the music of an era this way than I did memorizing specific charts. It was also a less stressful exam to prepare for.

[windshieldbug]

Around this time was definitely the switch from ophicleide, but im sure there were parts scored originally for tuba prior to this

I suspect that during the period in question, it was common practice to use whatever bass brass instrument was available at the time.

If you seek a parallel, look no further than the "cimbasso", whose construction and use is a conjecture of the parts played, available room in the pit, and sound pleasing to modern ears.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

2 more hours in the library tonight, but not much help skimming through the letters of Wagner and scores by Liszt.

About the only thing I found helpful was an article by Roger Bobo in a 1961 issue of The Instrumentalist. He asserted that Wagner was the first person to compose for the instrument we know of today as the tuba. Who am I to argue with Roger Bobo?

[imperialbari]

That is what the Adler book says as well....

Now if only they had a source.....and a piece

From a previous posting of yours:

“ From the Adler Book of Orchestration

"The tuba as we know it today was not introduced into the symphony orchestra till around 1875, when Richard Wagner conceived of and wrote for the insturment. The Wagner tuba was shaped like a horn and had a sound very much like that instrumnet but in a much lower range; it therefore provided bass support for the trumpets and trombones. The instrument replaced the ophicleide, which had been used since the beginning of the nineteenth century."

Samuel Adler, The Study of Orchestration (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2002)”

By putting the text about the tuba and about the Wagner tuba in the same paragraph this way, Adler makes me doubt that he is able to tell the difference between these two types of instruments. People goofing at such basic level never should be trusted as sources in discussions like ours. They may issue an answer, but who knows if they ever understood the question.

In a discussion group on a notation application another American author on instrumentation vehemently stated that the Wagner tuba could freely be exchanged with the euphonium in the symphony orchestras of today. I don't distrust the ability to read scores of these scholars, but I am not too sure about their ears.

Klaus

[Wyvern]

Can anyone verify what the bassoons and trombones are doing in the liszt (no score here) and see which one the tuba lines up with.

Les Prelude (symphonic poem No.3) looks a typical tuba part to me frequently with, or in octaves with the bass trombone. Don't know what the bassoons are doing.

[cjk]

I do believe that The Tuba Family by Clifford Bevan contains quite a bit of reference material about composers and their choices of instrumentation with regards to the tuba and its predecessors.

http://www.berliozhistoricalbrass.org/tuba_family.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank

[Rick Denney]

Boy, you don't read Tubenet for the weekend, and it's nearly impossible to catch up. I scanned the posts but didn't see what I'm about to write. These are just responses to what I read, in no particular order.

My understanding is that Berlioz was exposed to the tuba first in 1854. Whether that was the result of his tour, as I think Todd suggested, or a result of a viewing at an exhibition, which is what my memory tells me, I'll leave for further research. I also understand that Berlioz thought the tuba superior in tone and volume to the ophicleide, and rescored his prior works to use the tuba at about that time. It's certainly likely that compromises were made to accommodate the instrumentation available at the time, and there may be a range of different versions that have given scholars plenty of reasons to argue with each other.

Adler is a modern writer who depends on sources the same as the rest of us. I don't consider him (or the rest of us) a primary source for anything.

Wagner is generally credited with the first use of the tuba, but I don't know which work gets that credit. It is not, however, before the 1850's, based on my reading.

Wieprecht was a marketer, same as Sax. His objective was to sell systems of instruments to military bands, because at the time that's where the money was. The patent that he and his instrument-maker friend Carl Moritz took out was with the King of Prussia, and it was in German-speaking countries that Wieprecht focused his marketing efforts. The use of the tuba in a orchestra that included strings was not his initial aim, and I suspect it took quite a while for that transition to gain much ground. 20 years does not seen too long by any means, considering how slowly information moved in those days and how long it would have taken for musicians (always a conservative lot) to obtain and learn the new instruments. The Wieprecht patent is dated 1836. We know that many orchestras still used ophicleides into the 1880's at least.

The Wieprecht F tuba has a bore about the same as a euphonium, and the outer branches are smaller than a modern euphonium. My impression from playing a similar period instrument (albeit without considering the effect of dry valves or condition), was that it played and sounded more like a stuffy tenor tuba than a bass tuba. Take a four-valve compensating euphonium and hold the fourth valve down--you now have a three-valve F tuba. That's the general impression I got. It's no wonder that Berlioz scored the parts high.

On the general subject of using modern instruments for Berlioz and other mid-19th-century composers, I'll use a tiny F tuba if the trombones and trumpets use the pea-shooter instruments of the day, and if the string players use gut instead of steel, etc. It seems to me that the decision to use period instruments has to be made as an ensemble rather than as individuals. But it should also be noted that Berlioz had visions grander than could be realized in the mid-19th Century. I don't think the modern wall of sound would necessarily offend him, as long as it maintained the same overall balance.

Vaughan Williams also doubled the tuba and bassoon in the third-movement solo of his Fourth Symphony. He was also faced with a tiny F tuba, and may have wanted a little more tonal color in the sound. When played on a modern C (and usually a BAT at that), the bassoon might as well be playing air guitar. Ditto the Dies Irae. In the Norrington recording on period instruments, the ophicleides sound a bit more like bassoons themselves, and the blend made sense.

Rick "thinking only Todd has quoted primary sources from the letters of Berlioz, but without resolution" Denney

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Rick "thinking only Todd has quoted primary sources from the letters of Berlioz, but without resolution" Denney

Agreed, unfortunately. It would have been much easier if only Berlioz had written to his sister "I heard the most wonderful bass instrument today in the halls of Dresden...a new brass instrument called the tuba. I must write for this beast in my new works and revise my old ones to properly implore this new treasure."

Alas...no dice.

[Rick Denney]

Rick "thinking only Todd has quoted primary sources from the letters of Berlioz, but without resolution" Denney

Agreed, unfortunately. It would have been much easier if only Berlioz had written to his sister "I heard the most wonderful bass instrument today in the halls of Dresden...a new brass instrument called the tuba. I must write for this beast in my new works and revise my old ones to properly implore this new treasure."

Alas...no dice.

Or, a note on a score that says, "Ophicleide part changed to the Wieprecht tuba on February 12, 1855, in response to having seen the instrument demonstrated by Herr Fryburger at the Great Exhibition of Podunsk last week."

These guys never realize that anyone will care, but in that they are going with the percentages, I suppose.

Of course, without such notes, everybody is speculating, and I figure I can speculate with the best of them. I got into a big, um, debate with an expert on Tubenet some years ago because I kept insisting that he disclose his primary sources for the assertions he was making about Berlioz and Symphonie Fantastique.

Rick "wondering how many deservedly obscure composers who nobody cares about kept meticulous records" Denney

[Wyvern]

Wieprecht was a marketer, same as Sax. His objective was to sell systems of instruments to military bands, because at the time that's where the money was.

Rick, I would have to disagree with you that "Wieprecht was a marketer". He was in overall charge of Prussian military bands and his main motive from what I have read was to get "a true contrabass wind instrument"* for the bands.

* Clifford Bevan in The Tuba Source Book (1996) page 2

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Here's a question...

Is Clifford Bevan a "primary source" any more than Samuel Adler?

I agree with Rick's take on Wieprecht...I read a great deal in the letters of Berlioz about various displays (trade shows?) of instruments which involved both Wieprecht and Sax...besides, it's not like there were any other ways of promoting and selling your wares in the middle of the 19th century...internet connections were hard to come by, and TV reception was terrible!

Of course, as the author of the foremost text on orchestration of the time, Berlioz would have been particularly interested in new developments of wind instruments. It's not surprising that he would have spent a great deal of time with the best instrument makers in Europe.

[Rick Denney]

Rick, I would have to disagree with you that "Wieprecht was a marketer". He was in overall charge of Prussian military bands and his main motive from what I have read was to get "a true contrabass wind instrument"* for the bands.

I've also read Bevan (both editions, plus the article in the Tube Source Book) and didn't quite take away the same impression. But I have also read other articles, from far less well known sources, that presented Wieprecht as a would-be competitor to Sax, and I'm sure that affected my reading of Bevan's material.

Of course, there is nothing about being in overall charge of Prussian military bands, or even that he wanted a true contrabass wind instrument, that would make my statement false. The distinction we assume (and attempt to enforce) between public service and commerce was not the case in those days.

Rick "who also gets paid to do things he actually does believe in" Denney

[windshieldbug]

Also, I think it is ironic that the Moritz tuba is 5 PISTON valves, and currently Germany uses ONLY rotors

The Moritz (and similar tubas) made use of the Berlinner piston, whose closest relative is the rotary valve, and not the Perinet-type piston valve...

[imperialbari]

Also, I think it is ironic that the Moritz tuba is 5 PISTON valves, and currently Germany uses ONLY rotors

The Moritz (and similar tubas) made use of the Berlinner piston, whose closest relative is the rotary valve, and not the Perinet-type piston valve...

The bug is true, but for those wanting to google further on the topic the precise spelling and term may be of good use: Berliner Pumpen.

I have a defunct V. Scmidt of Copenhagen F tuba with 3+2 BP, where it is interesting that the 2 left hand PB sit first in the airpath and have the function of our first two valves on modern tubas.

The top layer passages in the Pumpe (piston) are very similar to the passages of an activated rotor, only offset 45°, as the exit and re-entry into the valve casing sit perpendicular to the direction of the main bugle trough the valve block. This is one of the weak spots of the system, as it can only be applied to instruments large enough to allow the 2nd valve tubing pass below the bottom of the casing and come back up the other side. Never saw anything smaller than a baritone or a valve trombone with these valves. The strong side is the un-disturbed 90° turn to/from the valve branches where the rotors have combined turns of 180° just to enter a valve loop.

The bottom layer passage is even better, as it goes right through the BP, when it is not activated.

I am very interested in the geometry of valve passages, and I wondered, why the Berliner Pumpen went out of fashioned, but only until Sven Bring of Stockholm and Søren Roi Midtgaard of Aarhus/Billund (both members of TubeNet) started providing me photo material. As for passage geometry the BP are unsurpassed. But they have to be fat (= large diameter). And the 2nd valve loop passing around the end of the casing forces the casings and the moving Pumpen/pistons to be short. The longer Perinet pistons are pretty well steered directionally in their movements. The BP are more prone to wiggling thereby causing much more wear on the casing. The system is too vulnerable.

As I see it, the spirit of the BP today is best represented by what I call the American low brass front action block. The valve type is Perinet by technology, but the airpaths of valves ##1, 3, and 4 have exits and re-entries into the pistons at even smoother angles than 90° (actually 135°). Only the second valve is compromised to avoid the around-the-piston-casing wrap.

I like the airpaths of the Berliner Pumpen and also of the Wiener Pumpen. But like a modern system with a next to ideal airpath (the Thayer valve) these old systems are clumsy and vulnerable. The rotors won the original race in the German, Nordic, and Slavonic speaking areas, whereas the Perinet pistons won in the French and English speaking areas. Today we see a few more systems, where one might say that the Hagmann is a Perinet type airpath put into a rotor, and the Willson Rotax(?) is a rotating Berliner Pumpe.

Just another rant.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

[Rick Denney]

Library finally open to access the Grove...
Now the question: Was it Faust or Der Fliegende...
Also, I think it is ironic that the Moritz tuba is 5 PISTON valves, and currently Germany uses ONLY rotors

The Belinerpumpen valves are fore-runners of rotary valves, not modern Perinet-style piston valves (to summarize Klaus's excellent rant). The only thing they share with a modern piston valve is the button.

More interesting is the recognized need for five of them.

My question, though, is who was the author of that Grove article? Are references provided to support those statements? Even the Grove Dictionary of Music is a secondary source.

I think the information you summarized from the Grove sounds reasonable in light of everything that I've read. But my material probably either came from the author of the Grove article, or the Grove article is based on sources for the same stuff I have read. I suspect that if we had primary sources that answered your question, that answer would have already been carved on the forehead of generations of tuba students.

My reading suggests that Cerveny was active making tubas (with rotary valves, by the way) from the middle 1840's. If that's the case, then it's entirely likely that Wagner knew of them by that time. "Likely" is probably the best we can do, until some heretofore lost documents turn up.

Rick "thinking those early composers needed a little configuration management" Denney

[MileMarkerZero]

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

Here's the cartoon if ya want to watch it as you read the analysis.

http://www.revver.com/video/109858/bugs ... opera-doc/