Both on bottom, or one on top?

[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

[sloan]

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

I used to ask...when there was a divisi part and I was the only tuba.

But then I noticed that the answers were all the same: if all of the notes are in a "comfortable" range, the conductor wants the tuba to play the lowest one. Otherwise, the conductor wants the tubas to play the notes that are LIKELY TO BE MOST SECURE.

After awhile, you notice that SOME divisi are there because the composer wants to hear both lines, and some are there as a "courtesy" fo "less-than-god-like" players. Usually it's obvious. In this particular piece, I think I see some of each. In the bands I play in, we always START from the assumption that all lines need to be played, and there is usually a default assignment as to "who goes where".

Finally, even when you decide to play all the lines, there's the question of which line is *primary* and which is *supporting*, or...how the two lines should balance. Tuba players must be very good at doing this, because I've sat through many hours of rehearsal while the conductor fine-tunes the 6 voices in the trumpet section, but I've never seen a conductor feel the need to adjust the balance between two lines in the tubas. I *have* seen a conductor "suggest" that some or all of the tubas play up/down an octave to make sure that the note is heard and articulated cleanly.

So, to the OP, I would first ask: can *I* play the notes musically? This *may* eliminate a line FOR AN INDIVIDUAL. The section as a whole should START OUT by making sure that all the written notes are sounded, with everyone playing in their individual comfort zone. That's what you do on the first rehearsal. After that...the conductor will let you know what he wants done differently, if he cares. If he doesn't care...try ad libbing by following the 2nd trombone in 3rds - that might get his attention.

[Tuba Guy]

Well, looking at the bass sax part, it seems that they would be going to their D above the staff, which could easily be a very hard note to play (I only did bari sax, but if everything isn't working just right on the horn, the high D wouldn't come out at all).
I seem to remember playing this in high school, looking through the folder, and seeing two different editions. The older one didn't have that divisi for the tubas, and the newer one (something tells me it was edited by Colin Matthews) had the divisi. I would second what has been said about not breaking up the musical lines and continuing up to the high C unless you're not able to play up there.
Now, whenever I played this (or anything else by Holst), I broke out the school's 3 valve compensating Besson Bellfront...any thoughts on this?

[Wyvern]

http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/5 ... y_Band.pdf" target="_blank

Looking at that linked full score is very instructive. In most places it is obvious if to play the top part, or lower by the remaining instrumentation. As an example 5 bars before B in the last movement there is no sense at all in ascending to the upper Ab. All the other instruments are descending, so it makes sense for both tubas to do likewise. That note was obviously just included to allow for 3 valve Eb's.

Where as at E in the 1st movement I would evaluate playing the top Bb as the sax are also divisi at that point and little else covers.

I will go through the score and pencil 'apparent' preferences on my part.

[iiipopes]

No, in English nomenclature, "basses" means tubas. Bottom notes: BBb; top notes: Eb.

[imperialbari]

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

When did the slightly larger bore (.526 vs. .484) G/D bass come out? Interestingly enough some folks still use these, usually underneath smaller bore tenor trombones (the last one I heard of played with 2 King 3B's).

My memory says that the larger, but not large, bore version was first made in 1935.

I just measured my three samples as the inner bore of the slide stockings:

The 1920 or so Hawkes and the circa 1960 Besson Westminster have a bore of 0.480", which likely started out at 0.484". Neither have slide locks. The old one has non-plated inner slides down to the stckings, which may be out of non-plated nickel silver.

The 1978 B&H Imperial with the D valve likely is one of the last ones made. My measurement says 0.514", which fits with the old bore (.516) of the baritones, and which also is the bore I seem to remember about (my books are still in my old home). Denis Wick during a clinic told about how the G bass bone with a D or a C valve sounded very well on the low C in the trombone chorale in Brahms’ first symphony. I have considered getting slide extenders for the valve, so that it can be pulled to C, which would make the low Ab possible.

The bass trombone carries the slow theme of the movement in question as a solo somewhere down the page. There is a legato shift between G and Ab. Playing detached with the handle is hard enough. Moving the slide from 1st to 7th position in legato must have been very hard.

Klaus

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I beg you...don't waste the conductor's valuable time with this non-issue.

Whether you both play the upper notes, both play the lower notes, or split them between the two of you, the passage will sound fine if you just play with good style, intonation, and time. I still don't understand what's so special about these three bars of music that require bothering the conductor with his/her "opinion."

[sloan]

I beg you...don't waste the conductor's valuable time with this non-issue.
Whether you both play the upper notes, both play the lower notes, or split them between the two of you, the passage will sound fine if you just play with good style, intonation, and time. I still don't understand what's so special about these three bars of music that require bothering the conductor with his/her "opinion."

good grief. IF the conductor feels that way, they'll let you know. And their answer will be a LOT more concise than FIVE PAGES OF NET CHATTER

good grief, even bloke's b.s. troll posts don't garner such blather!

So, you are saying that bloke has lost his touch?