Both on bottom, or one on top?

[Z-Tuba Dude]

....because absolutely no one else will know the difference.

Normally, I would agree with you on this point, but if I remember correctly, when those lower notes are played, the lower tuba is the ONLY instrument playing down there (suddenly "appearing" in the middle of the phrase), making it much more conspicuous.

I would be more convinced of the voracity of the intent in the lower line, if it started one measure sooner, either on the downbeat "Ab", or on the next note, "C". That, to me, is where the shift to the new musical character begins.

[TubaRay]

Well, after 26 replies, at least we all seem to agree on the correct course of action, don't we?

[Alex C]

Normally, I would agree with you on this point, but if I remember correctly, when those lower notes are played, the lower tuba is the ONLY instrument playing down there (suddenly "appearing" in the middle of the phrase), making it much more conspicuous.

I would be more convinced of the voracity of the intent in the lower line, if it started one measure sooner, either on the downbeat "Ab", or on the next note, "C". That, to me, is where the shift to the new musical character begins.

Well, the point of my post was that it was a bad idea top begin with, AND... a conductor came up with the idea. ERGO, asking a conductor anything is usually a bad idea. Usually.

[Dean E]

I also recall the Fennel, Cleveland recording having the tuba parts ONLY playing the upper divisi....

RC

I don't know how many tubas Cleveland had. An orchestral 5/4 CC horn can add marvelous (in-tune), electrifying brilliance when playing in the upper register. (As a practical matter, I assume that many Eb horns would not be nearly as in tune as a CC at the top of the staff.)

Playing the upper line also assists the ensemble to create the psychological perception of lower, foundation notes. I don't remember the correct name of this phenomenon.

Finally, I agree with others that many divisi parts were written or edited to accommodate three-valve Eb horns.

[Wyvern]

on first viewing the post title,i'm just glad we're still talking about tuba stuff

The entire forum needs to be congratulated for "staying on top" of this topic. The low road could have been entertaining though, however ugly.

And I give you more ammunition if I tell you the other tuba player is a young lady

[Wyvern]

I have just got back from a rehearsal with the band. This is a piece that is actually being used to audition for a new conductor - so another reason for me to not ask them!

Before playing today I noted that the upper part is covered by the euphonium and bassoons, so elected to play the lower on my PT-3 CC. The conductor of today seemed quite happy in that he did not comment on it.

So I think I am getting on top of the situation!

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Before playing today I noted that the upper part is covered by the euphonium and bassoons

...and all of the trombones!

[Wyvern]

13

??? Sorry, what does 13 mean?

[imperialbari]

..... I tell you the other tuba player is a young lady

[Rick Denney]

13

??? Sorry, what does 13 mean?

It comes from a set of instructions written by Doc to those who seemed to be having trouble understanding the Tubenet dynamics.

Number 13 of those instructions was: Bloke is always right.

Rick "who forgot the rest" Denney

[imperialbari]

Score forensics is interesting. From the pages linked to by the bug it is obvious, that this score has a story like some much older scores only known from copied samples or sets of parts. Only the original score resurfaces here just to introduce a new problem: the British military reformed its standard band line-up around 1928. The British style baritone(-s) went out and the saxophones entered. Maybe there were other changes, which I don’t remember from reading a book on British band instrumentation (brass, military, brass and wood) by Denis Wright(?) 40+ years ago.

There have been mentioning of the upper line being doubled in trombones, euph, and bassoons. Looking at the whole passage (only upper line of the doubled portion) makes me wonder about which instruments in the score that have this span within their natural and comfortable range. Aside of the bassoons and the added baritone saxophone I only come to think of bass trombone and bass tuba (plus of course good players on contrabass tuba). The passage of course can be played by tenor trombones with an F-valve and by compensated 4 valve euphoniums. But the standard British band tenor trombone back then was a peashooter with a bell diameter down to 6”. And whereas the euphonium easily can play the notes below F, they don’t carry very far in an ensemble tutti context. So I will have to ask, whether the trombones and the euph are added during the passage, which then would present some sort of staggered instrumentation? Which in turn would make the lower octave more plausible for the tuba(-s).

Klaus

PS: The British bass trombone back then was in G and had no valve. Its lowest note above the pedal range is C#.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

A pdf of the score certainly helps in this case. Interesting to note that the bass saxophone/contrabass clarinet part drops on the C a full bar before the tuba part adds the lower notes.

It's also interesting to see the 1st and 2nd trombones drop an octave a measure before that...on the measure that starts with a Bb. One has to wonder why it wouldn't have been better to add the lower octave in the basses in that bar as well.

The bass clarinet drops out after the highest bar and doesn't finish the phrase at all, even though the bassoons and bass sax/contra clarinet continue the passage to the end. That makes no sense to me at all, unless Holst was used to hearing a really loud "honky" bass clarinet that couldn't decrescendo effectively...even that doesn't make sense considering the other woodwinds continue the line on down.

There is no string bass part notated on the original Boosey score, but page 2 makes it obvious that Holst composed one with the "Str. Bass solo" notation (he didn't even bother to notate that passage...you have to understand instinctively that the string bass doubles the low woodwinds there).

But, I suspect, Holst (as a master orchestrator) simply wrote the line and decided "gee, I better not have an entire section of basses up there above the staff...time to add the extra octave."

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Finally AlexC, You called my solution plain stupid

Clearly, he called the conductor's solution "plain stupid," not yours. Lighten up, Francis. It was absolutely stupid...is the second player only supposed to play in the entire suite only when there's an octave divisi? If not, what's so special about this particular phrase? The answer Alex's conductor gave shows a very poor grasp of how band tuba parts are written.

Seriously, are you going to ask the conductor his/her opinion EVERY TIME there is an octave divisi in a band tuba part?

[peter birch]

I am sure that is to allow for 3 valved Eb tuba in military bands, and nothing beyond that, the low G is comfortably in the range of a 3 valved Bb tuba and so no problem for that instrument. Sometimes we shouldn't over think things.

[peter birch]

Finally AlexC, You called my solution plain stupid

Clearly, he called the conductor's solution "plain stupid," not yours. Lighten up, Francis.

Seriously, are you going to ask the conductor his/her opinion EVERY TIME there is an octave divisi in a band tuba part?

..never ask the conductor

[windshieldbug]

Finally AlexC, You called my solution plain stupid

Clearly, he called the conductor's solution "plain stupid," not yours. Lighten up, Francis.

Seriously, are you going to ask the conductor his/her opinion EVERY TIME there is an octave divisi in a band tuba part?

..never ask the conductor

We called our Music Director "The Diode" (a semi-conductor)...

[Kevin Hendrick]

Finally AlexC, You called my solution plain stupid

Clearly, he called the conductor's solution "plain stupid," not yours. Lighten up, Francis.

Seriously, are you going to ask the conductor his/her opinion EVERY TIME there is an octave divisi in a band tuba part?

..never ask the conductor

(it only "incorriges" them ... )

[imperialbari]

A pdf of the score certainly helps in this case. Interesting to note that the bass saxophone/contrabass clarinet part drops on the C a full bar before the tuba part adds the lower notes.

It's also interesting to see the 1st and 2nd trombones drop an octave a measure before that...on the measure that starts with a Bb. One has to wonder why it wouldn't have been better to add the lower octave in the basses in that bar as well.

The bass clarinet drops out after the highest bar and doesn't finish the phrase at all, even though the bassoons and bass sax/contra clarinet continue the passage to the end. That makes no sense to me at all, unless Holst was used to hearing a really loud "honky" bass clarinet that couldn't decrescendo effectively...even that doesn't make sense considering the other woodwinds continue the line on down.

There is no string bass part notated on the original Boosey score, but page 2 makes it obvious that Holst composed one with the "Str. Bass solo" notation (he didn't even bother to notate that passage...you have to understand instinctively that the string bass doubles the low woodwinds there).

But, I suspect, Holst (as a master orchestrator) simply wrote the line and decided "gee, I better not have an entire section of basses up there above the staff...time to add the extra octave."

Thanks for the links to the 1948 score!

If you had read the article that windshieldbug linked to earlier in this thread, you would have gotten answers to some of your questions about the instrumentation, which was changed in the 1948 score compared to the original.

As the trombone parts appear to be original, Holst looks like having thought more about weight of sound than about the presentation of a clear line. That speaks in favour of most tubas playing the lower line, if the upper instruments all are present.

Klaus

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Yes, this one:

http://www.aboda-vic.org.au/Publications/Holst2.pdf

Totally agreed that the "added" bass saxophone/contrabass clarinet part shouldn't add any weight to the decision. What would be most helpful is the answer to the question..."Did Holst include the lower octave notes in his original 1909 manuscript?"

Can someone run over to the British Library to check? Inquiring minds want to know!

[imperialbari]

My search on the British Library site may not be optimal as it did not come up with a facsimile of the original score. Even the 1985 edition is revised:

http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/?func=find-b&r ... adjacent=N

Klaus