Vaughan Williams original manuscript solo part...

[imperialbari]

Very interesting interview! And not differing from the main intend of the OP of this thread.

Klaus

[imperialbari]

Maybe (not this week ) I should record all three mvts. and let people *hear* the differences.

I certainly would want to hear such recording, but cannot avoid thinking that this would create copyright/license problems of its own.

Klaus

[BVD Press]

It would be great if BVD could put something out with regard to this. I've seen Roger Bobo's work on this and picked his brain. I'd love to see what Joe has in the Bloke Archive. A very worthwhile project.

I will see what I can come up with on Monday.

[josh_kaprun]

Bloke, does your copy have (in mvt. 1) a slur/phrase marking across the entire run from the low F in measure 15 to the high Bb right before rehearsal 1 in the following measure? My copy also has the four sixteenth-notes in measure 27 being (in order) C, F, Gb, Bb. I have a hand-written copy that matches the handwriting in the A-score (which I also have a copy of) and I'm curious if that is the same part that you have.

[anonymous4]

I just heard that one very famous tuba player in Germany said he would not advance anyone in a competition playing my Vaughan Williams because it’s too far away from the Oxford University text.

As annoying as this is, this is something to keep in mind regarding talk of new editions, etc. In a situation where the people judging are sometimes not tuba players (auditions, competitions) wouldn't it be a big time risk to play a corrected editions. The listeners, who have heard it one specific way for years, might just perceive it as playing a bunch of "wrong" notes and articulations. What do horn players do with their various editions of Mozart? Maybe we can take a cue from those who were there before.

[Rick Denney]

What do horn players do with their various editions of Mozart? Maybe we can take a cue from those who were there before.

I think we can take our cue from Roger Bobo's teaching method. Note that he had his students play three different versions--the original, his revision of the original, and the printed version. The best students were also expected to play a fourth version--their own, based on how they edited a version with just the bare notes.

Thus, I would think a player prepared to advance at auditions should be able to manage any approach, just as I would expect the best horn players to be able to play the various editions of the Mozart concerti. My bet is that when a Mozart concerto is included on an audition, the required edition is specified.

Rick "really wishing Bobo had found an opportunity to record the work" Denney

[imperialbari]

The Mozart situation is very different as period practices included embellishments and to some degree improvisations. What, aside of great musicianship, is demanded from a Mozart soloist, is an understanding of the period frame of reference including the limitations of the natural horn. Mozart had a profound understanding of period limitations and turned them into assets. 15 year ago I worked intensely with the KV447 score on basis of a score close to the Urtext. I was astonished to find that the tonal freedoms of the violins weren’t exploited in this work. But for the octave Mozart mostly gave the the violins scale material that could be performed on the hand horn. A true horn concerto.

Once one of my students was given an edition, where a still famous horn soloist had written down his own improvisations to be copied by the player. That edition was useless, as it prevented the player from reading the basic structure provided by Mozart and then act accordingly.

Klaus

[Amilcare]

Actually, I am not sure what the copyright issue is as the corrections might come under "fair use." That Oxford has decided to burden us with a mass of errors would not preclude using this corrected part with the rest of their ill-conceived materials. Also, if no profit were involved, it would be a service. I've done the work and shared it around by hand.

[imperialbari]

So we should consider the print versions of the VWTC apocryphal?

K

[imperialbari]

Not at all. You were the one to bring up the dubious books, which in some versions of the Bible are placed between the Old and the New Testaments. I just took the tech term back on the original topic.

K

[Amilcare]

Actually, the real history of the RVW concerto needs to be done in a proper historical, musicological manner. I had heard about a talk given by the original soloist (Philip Catelinet) at an ITEC a decade or more ago. His recollections were amusing, but he seemed to think the whole affair a bit of a joke or even an imposition on his otherwise quiet life. I do have a CD I bought in London of the premier recording with Catelinet as soloist. He was a former RAF euphonium player when he undertook to play F tuba (a very small one) with the LSO. Sadly, we do not know what horn RVW had in mind for the piece. The trills in the first movement are easier on the Eb;-)

[Amilcare]

OK

[Amilcare]

two of three

[Amilcare]

three of three

[Amilcare]

The TIFFs are not good quality, there needs to be a way to upload PDFs;-) I hope they print better than they look onscreen.

[JB]

Can't see 'em nor open/download them; any suggestions

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Can't see 'em nor open/download them; any suggestions

download/file.php?id=1458
through
download/file.php?id=1465
Get 'em while they're hot!

Now I'm supposed to take this poster's word for it that his TIFFs are the "correct" version? Bloke looked at one page and found an "error." Will it never end?

Honestly, is it worth all this trouble? There's not that much difference, and the piece "works" (for everyone except tuba players, perhaps?) just fine as printed by Oxford.

shatner.jpg

[Rick Denney]

Actually, the real history of the RVW concerto needs to be done in a proper historical, musicological manner. I had heard about a talk given by the original soloist (Philip Catelinet) at an ITEC a decade or more ago. His recollections were amusing, but he seemed to think the whole affair a bit of a joke or even an imposition on his otherwise quiet life. I do have a CD I bought in London of the premier recording with Catelinet as soloist. He was a former RAF euphonium player when he undertook to play F tuba (a very small one) with the LSO. Sadly, we do not know what horn RVW had in mind for the piece. The trills in the first movement are easier on the Eb;-)

I have that recording also. It does not make a strong case for the work. It is clipped and choppy.

The small F, however, was absolutely the preferred orchestral instrument used in Great Britain in those days and before. The instrument Catelinet used was a four-valve compensating F, but the more common orchestral instrument was a five-valve Barlow F. The instruments were tiny--the typical Barlow F had a 12" bell. I would think it entirely within the range of a euphonium player. I have tooted on a compensating F similar to what Catelinet supposedly used, and it was actually bigger than the Barlow according to the descriptions I've seen. That was the same instrument that Jacobs used, probably to ill effect, but certainly to a much higher standard than what Catelinet was able to achieve.

It was Fletcher who first broke with the tradition of the orchestral F in the UK, and famously (perhaps apocryphally) responded the question of why he didn't use the F with, "I haven't bloody got one, have I?" Boosey and Hawkes had ceased production of these some years before. Bevan's latest edition provides a detailed tracing of the orchestral F tubas to the extent currently known.

It is entirely likely that the composer, not wishing to make a silly tuba concerto his life's work, just made the edits needed by the soloist and washed his hands of it. It is unlikely he heard another performance of the work in his lifetime, and as far as I've been able to find it was only recorded once again before his death in 1958. That was by Bill Bell with the Little Orchestra of New York, which was the American premiere performed in 1955, where Mr. Bell performed it on short notice, sitting in for Harvey Phillips. That performance was on, I seem to recall, a small King F tuba that had been converted from an Eb. Bell also set a very much higher standard than did the original performer. I doubt that RVW ever heard that recording, however.

I have a recording conducted by RVW of his 4th symphony, which was made in 1937. Even accounting for the recording technology of the day, the tuba is not strong, and the tuba duet with the bassoon in the third movement Scherzo is mostly bassoon. I expect that was the sound in the composer's head--the Concerto for Bass Tuba has always sounded to me like it would be perfect for the bassoon.

I would absolutely not take the edits made by the composer after Catelinet's performance as gospel. In the end, we won't know what the composer really wanted. But we an decide what's musical. It seems to me that Bloke's offering would be similar to Bobo making the same offer--it would be a version to study, and a decision for performers to make when offered the opportunity to perform the work. Choices are easier to make when they are available, but having those choices doesn't mean anything about current practice has to change.

Rick "concerned that the original manuscript will be completely lost when the the owners of these versions based on it are no longer with us" Denney

[Wyvern]

Honestly, is it worth all this trouble? There's not that much difference, and the piece "works" (for everyone except tuba players, perhaps?) just fine as printed by Oxford.

I am probably one of the people on here best placed to approach Oxford UP, but also rather wonder if it is worth the trouble. The concerto has been performed 'as it is' for over 50 years with generations of tuba players learning that version and mostly being satisfied. Are any changes really sufficient to make worth the effort? Even if they are, how do we know without documentary evidence of provenience if the 'bloke' version is really more accurate than the 'Amilcare' one posted?

Vaughan Williams was still alive at the time of the publication of the printed version, so who is to say he did not endorse and authorise any amendments to earlier manuscript scores?

Yes, interesting to research and to hear from a musicologist angle, like different versions of Bruckner symphonies - but I am as yet unconvinced of the value, or legitimacy of a new performing version.

[Wyvern]

Because I suspect this would be the prevailing attitude...

No, it isn't worth the trouble.

As I was cleaning my car I was just thinking of the likely conversation if I approached OUP to get express written permission (notarized) to publish the 'bloke' part as in original post.

Me: Hello! A respected tuba player on TubeNet says that the published solo part for the Vaughan Williams Tuba Concerto is inaccurate and he has a revised copy made from a rental part he used many years ago.
OUP: What is TubeNet?
Me: The tuba discussion forum
OUP: ahh!!!
OUP: What are the differences in the part?
Me: I don't really know - he will not share with anyone. He says wrong notes and incorrect markings.
OUP: What is his evidence?
Me: The part from which he noted the corrections was badly written and looked old
OUP: We need proper documentary evidence - not assumptions and hearsay!
Me: He is sure it is more accurate
OUP: The published part was signed-off by Ralph himself and we are not going to authorise any other version without VERY good evidence.
Me: Good bye then
OUP: Don't we know you from somewhere
Me: Yes, I worked at PRS for 26 years
OUP: Well you should have known better than to waste our time with this!

Bloke, Please just come off your high horse and share what you know with us and put that PDF up.

The worst OUP are likely to do is send a shirty email demanding it be taken down - but far more likely, they will not know, or care.