A band I am playing with is doing First Suite in Eb for Military Band by Holst. There is the divisi section in the first movement as below. The part is just marked BASSES so must also be intended for the string bass.
There is just two tubas in the band. Do you think one should play the top line, or both the lower?
If it was a tuba part, that would be obvious, but I wonder if the top line is really intended for the string bass? A tuba up there is going to be very prominent!
My view is perhaps more strict than others, the octaves should be divided equally amongst the amount of players at hand.
With regards to the top part being very prominent if played by tuba, maybe Holst had an Eb tuba in mind, thereby the first chair player having the ability to control volume in that tessitura more effectively than a BBb player. In the USA, some military bands for a long time had the tradition of the first chair player playing an Eb tuba, or atleast an Eb tuba player having his own part in a lot of pieces. Was this at all true in the UK?
The pictures I have seen of old British military bands usually have an Eb and BBb bass. The Eb player is traditionally principal and plays any solo passages.
I have also noticed that there is usually a division on these old parts (early 20th century) if the music drops below low A, the bottom limit of a three valve Eb (British Eb's are no good at producing false tones!), which again poses the question of if the lower line is the preferred if all the tubas are capable of playing in that register? Often the top line seems to be doubled.
I once played in a band with an old ex-Royal Marine bass player on BBb and when I started playing the top line going up above the stave (staff) in, if I remember correctly the overture Zampa, he said that was JUST for the string bass and I should play the lower line with him.
I am just interested in what is done in other bands.
Last edited by Wyvern on Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
My assumption has always been that Holst intended the top line for Eb, the bottom for BBb.
Since there is a string bass part printed for the Holst, I think this has a lot more to do with the range of a 3 valve Eb perhaps being limited (without false tones).
Personally, I always listen to the music, and judge what should happen by the strength of the players. Not only is the upper line doubled by reeds, but often the euphoniums, too.
Rather than second-guessing the master, I play the low line if the upper instruments are strong, or the texture seems able to benefit from it. Sometimes that means adopting both stances during the same piece.
Instead of talking to your plants, if you yelled at them would they still grow, but only to be troubled and insecure?
The 4 first bars of the passage are a sequence raising one diatonic step through each bar.
The top line of the 6th bar is a sequence of the 5th bar, even if the last 3 notes are relatively a third lower (which the may be as well for range as because they thereby lead directly to the first note in the next bar).
Hence it is the top line which carries the inherent melodic logic. The bottom line takes a downward jump of a sixth, an interval not fitting with any other interval patterns in this line. I don’t remember the music even if I have played it many years ago. If the same line is presented in other instruments in other places of that movement, that may support or counterprove my reading.
I was told by a Masters conducting student once that the lower part was not originally in the score but was added later by an editor. He also pointed out MANY mistakes in many of the parts so it makes me think he is correct. I'll ask him later how he figured this out.
The practice in bands I've played in had nothing to do with historical accuracy and everything to do with making the low range heard beyond the first few rows (this was before the advent of my Holton 345). If the euphs weren't doubling the higher part, one tuba played it and the rest covered the lower part, the theory being that the upper octave brings out the lower one.
It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
bububassboner wrote:I was told by a Masters conducting student once that the lower part was not originally in the score but was added later by an editor. He also pointed out MANY mistakes in many of the parts so it makes me think he is correct. I'll ask him later how he figured this out.
bububassboner wrote:I was told by a Masters conducting student once that the lower part was not originally in the score but was added later by an editor. He also pointed out MANY mistakes in many of the parts so it makes me think he is correct. I'll ask him later how he figured this out.
Every recording I've heard and every version I've seen all have that part in them (written or played that way). If that section was not originally written that way then it must have been changed a long, long time ago. Either way, I believe the top part is meant for the Eb/F while the lower is for the CC/BBb. I think this because a lot of march music I've played either comes with a section like this or has 2 separate tuba parts. I've also noticed the Salvation Army books (and the like) have the tuba parts written an octave apart in most cases. It also seems consistant that the higher part gets the solos.
Easy answer...it really doesn't matter very much at all in the overall scheme of things. The conductor very likely won't care and will be extremely happy if you just play reasonably in tune and in time.
My personal opinion is to opt for the lower notes...there are plenty of other instruments in the band covering the upper octave nearly all of the time.
To me, the music says play the upper line. The bottom line is a convenience for those that might find it a little to difficult to play the upper line. Don't get me wrong I'm all for filling out the sound of the group with the lower octaves, but not here. It makes a really nice line sound bad.
I agree that the melodic line of the upper part is likely what Holst was wanting sound wise and either he or some later editor put that lower line for us BBb players who find anything above that E in the staff a challenge.
If you ask, I would guess most conductors would say, "please bring out both lines."
windshieldbug wrote:Personally, I always listen to the music, and judge what should happen by the strength of the players. Not only is the upper line doubled by reeds, but often the euphoniums, too.
Rather than second-guessing the master, I play the low line if the upper instruments are strong, or the texture seems able to benefit from it. Sometimes that means adopting both stances during the same piece.
That sounds a good pragmatic approach!
Bob1062 wrote:I say play Eb on the top (assuming that is what the other player has?) and YOU on the bottom part (what are YOU playing?).
The other player who is the regular tuba with that band will play the bottom line on their compensated Besson EEb as they usually do. I could take either CC, or Eb tuba, but the latter would make sense if I am playing the top line - there would be no point in a heavier tuba in the upper octave. However in the general scheme of things, I think the band would sound better with a contrabass foundation.
To my way of thinking, everyone should play the top line (assuming that doesn't cause a problem for any players).
In addition to what was mentioned about following the musical line (which definitely implies taking the upper part), the musical character of the line increases in tension, as it heads up to the "C". That tension is somewhat diffused if there is a sudden (seemingly erroneous) drop down to the lower octave.
I played this piece last year - we had two EEb's and two BBb's. I think it's definitely a tuba part - from memory there is a separate string bass part which is quite different from the tuba part in a couple of places.
Having read the current discussion and looked at the example I'm equally divided between the idea that the top line is the real line with the bottom line added in as an after thought in case the top line goes too high for the players and the thought that as the line goes higher the whole thing goes above a real bass register and the bass "drops" out of the band thus the lower line appears to keep a more constant texture.
A good look at the score for the whole piece and anything else Holst wrote for military band might give some insights into how he wrote for this instrumentation.
As you would know the EEb in use in the UK in those days was a much smaller lighter toned instrument than the current omnipresent Sovereign - what older brass band guys in my youth called a single Eb.
I think if your playing both parts then the bottom part should get the full treatment and that the higher parts (fourth line G up to middle C should really only be played on a small instrument that will blend with the euphos etc. A full modern high register orchestral tuba sound on those couple of bars would stick out. If playing both lines then it's more about maintaining an even band texture through the passage rather than continuity of line. If your only doing the top part then it's more about the individual line if that makes sense.
A lot of brass band writing has the EEb part maintaining a nice line while the BBb part jumps around alternating between unison with the EEb part and going an octave below. The aim is obviously to maintain a bass presence over a certain range and not "lose the bass" when the line goes up a bit.
Because this piece is by Holst it may make more sense to think of what would be happening if it was written for orchestra rather than band. If these were double bass and 'cello parts I feel it would probably have the one line going right up rather than the double basses suddenly dropping down an octave.
If playing both parts I think you would want the bottom part to have all the weight and be the "real" part with the upper octave just adding a bit of colour.
One of my pet hates in amateur brass bands is the EEb part soaring through the middle of the band like some great bloated tenor line with the BBb part fumbling around underneath it. I guess I'm into the pyramid of sound thing - there have been arguments on here about this.
Yosef: Tubist wrote:I say get the perspective of the person in charge of this sort of thing.. why don't you just discuss it with your conductor and see what they think?
Definitely a bad idea. I once asked a "well known, prominent conductor" who shall remain UN-named; his brilliant solution was to have one tuba play all of the notes, including the upper octaves and the second tuba to play ONLY the bottom notes and leave out everything else. Plain stupid solution.
Two tubas? split the octaves - because of Ockham's Razor (which admonishes us against unnecessary hypotheses) and because absolutely no one else will know the difference.
This isn't a life-or-death decision. If it was you'd get better guidance by having a medium ask Holst's etherial self.
City Intonation Inspector - Dallas Texas "Holding the Bordognian Fabric of the Universe together through better pitch, one note at a time."
Practicing results in increased atmospheric CO2 thus causing global warming.
