Prokofiev 5, Why so much good tuba?

[bud]

I'm writing program notes for Prokofiev's Symphony no. 5 and thought that it would be cool to include why the listener is hearing more tuba than they're accustomed to hearing in most other orchestra works. Anybody know why he wrote so much and so well for the tuba? Sources would be appreciated too if you know them.

[BVD Press]

No sources here, but according to a myth I heard the basses were awful and the tuba player for the premiere was quite good. Basically the tuba player covered piles of music.

[Chuck Jackson]

I have heard from a couple of sources, one an Armenian ex-pat here in Vegas, that Prokofiev did NONE of his own orchestrations, being quite intimidated by the whole process. I think the topic is covered in "Testimony" also, but Shostakovich wasn't a big fan of Prokofiev and the book is thought to be a fabrication by Volkov, so who knows.

In a TUBA Journal from the 70's (?) Walter Sear said that Prokofiev was quoted as saying that the tuba "was like a big beetle that I can pick up and put down from here to there".

This is no help, but is a point of departure.

Chuck

[tubashaman2]

.

[Wyvern]

I write programme notes for my orchestra and it is always difficult to define why a composer writes as they do. What you could say is something like Russian symphonies are renowned for their good brass writing and Prokofiev 5th symphony particularly shows off the tuba.

I think as a whole Prokofiev's writing for tuba is excellent and although the part in 5 is exceptionally good, I do not see any reason to believe there is any special reason - that is just how he wrote to realise the sound world in his head.

[bud]

anybody else?

[sloan]

I have heard a few "authoritative" explanations of the proliferation of notes in the tuba part of that symphony. I don't remember any of the explanations, because I didn't necessarily believe any of them to be factual.

Did I miss a memo?

[mbeastep]

"Testimony" accuses Prokofiev of relying on professional orchestrators to do his scoring, but this has been refuted by other writers (including, I believe, his second wife, Myra Mendelssohn) who say that P's orchestration was quite precise, but that he didn't have time in his busy schedule to sit down and copy all of his thoughts out. Therefore, he developed a very clear type of shorthand which explained his wishes to the copyists who were willingly supplied by the Soviet state after Prokofiev decided to return there. His honored position there certainly was part of the reason for the bitterness of Shostakovich, who had a much rougher time of it under Stalin.

I think it's clear that Prokofiev had a special feeling for the tuba. Even if he had been relying on others to write the wonderful parts he gave us in Romeo and Juliet, Cinderella, the Love for 3 Oranges, Alexander Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible (a tuba duet!) and the last three symphonies, he would have had plenty of time to hear their mistakes and tell them to avoid that wretched tuba the next time. Unlike Sibelius, Prokofiev never underwent this change of heart. He wrote great tuba parts until the end.

It is not at all uncommon for Russian composers to favor the tuba; witness the good parts in the works of Tchaikowsky, Kalinikov, Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich. It was certainly not a mysterious, experimental instrument by the time Prokofiev's musical sensibility was being formed. Whatever he meant exactly by the "big black beetle" remark, I think the sound of the tuba, in all its variety, was something that he knew well and loved.

mbeastep

[tubashaman2]

.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Tchaikowsky I don't consider a Russian composer---neither did the mighty 5.

It is certainly your right to express your opinion about Tchaikowsky and how "Russian" you think he is, but it is an odd generalization to assert that "The Mighty Handful" agreed on such a thing. Balakriev, the leader of the circle, is acknowledged as one of the most profound influences on Tchaikowsky. Even though their relationship was strained, it is hard to believe that Balakriev would have spent so much time and energy helping Tchaikowsky had he considered him "not Russian." Cui was the most vocal critic of Tchaikowsky's music, but certainly that was a function of his ongoing feud with Tchaikowsky's teacher Anton Rubenstein.

I would be interested to read any evidence you have of the assertion that Moguchaya kuchka didn't consider Tchaikowsky to be Russian (other that your personal opinion which is, of course, "known"). Rimsky-Korsakov, in particular, was one of Tchaikowsky's greatest supporters and endured similar criticisms from the nationalists of throwing away his Russian roots to compose more "European" music.

The writings of Stravinsky help shed light on this long-running argument among modern music scholars. Please reference:

Stravinsky, Igor, "An Open Letter to Diaghilev," The Times, London, October 18, 1921.

[Dave Roberts]

Because Sergei and Mother Russia loved "BIG BEAR".

[Chuck Jackson]

Tchaikowsky I don't consider a Russian composer---neither did the mighty 5. Honestly....his melodies are wonderful, but his orchestrations are so bland and makes it sound german. My opinion....

Really? I can cite at least a couple of hours of direct quotations from Orthodox Church music and nothing quite says "Russian" like the use of their indigenous church modes, melodies, and harmonies. Saying Tschaikovsky is not a Russian composer is a bland generality, something you might want to stay away from as you continue your tour through the various degree programs associated with your career path.

I find it odd that the Russian word for "Bear" -Myedvyed is a close approximation outside of its cyrillic counterpart- is the "sissiest" sounding word in the entire Russian language.

Chuck

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Tchaikowsky I don't consider a Russian composer---neither did the mighty 5.

The first half of this is perfectly acceptable, and needs no further explanation.

The second half should be backed up with at least one example of scholarly research. Chuck is exactly right that such "over-generalizations" should be avoided by those who wish to pursue the study of music at the graduate level.

Todd S. "who is perfectly willing to be persuaded if presented with such an example, but who seriously doubts it will be forthcoming" Malicoate

[Chuck Jackson]

Todd S. "who is perfectly willing to be persuaded if presented with such an example, but who seriously doubts it will be forthcoming" Malicoate

Good point Todd. I hope you don't mind if I argue for the defense. I wrote a paper in college tracing the "roots" of the Russian Nationalist movement in music in the 19th century. Although I don't have said paper in front of me, I remember that Tschaikovsky took folk tunes outright (Where the Birch Tree Grows, the big minor tune in the last movement of the 4th) or finessed them (the opening bassoon solo in the 6th is almost note-for-note an Orthodox Chant in the Easter Liturgy) to such a degree that they took on a life of their own. And furthermore, in his quest to become more "Eastern" he took folk tunes from Poland and Ukraine (3rd and 2nd Symphonies respectively) and made entire works out of them. If one looks closely at the arch of the melody in the opening of "In the Steppes of Central Asia" and the second movement of the 4th, one could conceivably make the conjecture (which was done quite convincingly by one of my college orchestration profs) that Tschaikovsky was paying homage to Borodin, whose music he loved.

One need to look no farther than his works for chorus (his settings of the Orthodox liturgy are only eclipsed by Tschnekovs in beauty and subtlety), his ballets which are steeped in Russian Folklore, and his operas which are thoroughly Russian.

As with any composer FURTHERING a nationalistic ideal he, of course, took new and radical ideas and applied them to his music. Vaughn-Williams, Grainger, Mahler, Janacek, Bartok, D'Indy, Bruckner (in form), Ginestera, Chavez, Panufnik, Revueltas, and a whole host of others took extant material from their respective cultures and molded with current harmonic and formal practices. Are their melodies boring? Maybe by themselves they have a simplicity that would be thought of as trite, but these composers, steeped in their respective vocal and dance traditions, molded these melodies and dances into powerful NATIONALISTIC works (Bluebeards Castle, Jenufu, 5 Variants on Dives and Lazarus, The Peacock Variations, Dances of Galanta, The Roumanian Dances, Variations on a French Mountain Air, Lincolnshire Posy, Billy the Kid, Swan Lake, Boris Goudonov, Estampes, and Sensemaya come to mind off the top of my head

And James, if you do a little research you would find that the Big 5 didn't think Tschaikovsky was a poor composer, they were bothered that he had eclipsed them in fame. They also felt that they, the 5, should have complete control over Russian music, something Moussorgsky vehemently opposed.

Hope this helped.

Chuck

[tubashaman2]

.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Again just my personal opinions

Again, your opinion is perfectly valid and you support it well.

I just don't understand why you asserted that The Mighty Five agreed with it. All the material I can find on the subject seems to indicate the opposite.

This is great practice for graduate school where you must be prepared to support your assertions...particularly when it comes time to defend your dissertation or thesis.

[tubashaman2]

.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Again---the orchestration and instrument choices are critical in nationalistic music. Perhaps the Russian 5 could not support his music as much because it didnt SOUND Russian though he used Russian themes---I will research further this summer

Good luck! I disagree with this entire last paragraph as well and would be interested to read any sources that support your position. My own take on The Mighty Five is that they were far less critical of Tchaikowsky than you make them out to be. Remember, Balakirev was a mentor for Tchaikowsky after Rubenstein's departure from St. Petersburg and the rest of The Mighty Five supported his early works with great zeal.

I'll also challenge your assertion that orchestration and instrument choices (the same thing, to me) are crticial to defining the Romantic Nationalism movement in Russia. What is different about the orchestration in those works you deem more "Russian" versus the works of Tschaikowsky? Is there any evidence that The Mighty Five were interested in preserving a more Russian "sound" through specific instrumentation?

I'll counter that The Mighty Five were much more interested in matters of tonality and harmonic progression...they "invented" an exotic style which they wished to promote as the "Russian" style even though the stylistic elements they embraced were not Russian in origin. The use of Orientalism is a very prominent example.

[wgcl]

So what does it mean to sound "Russian"?

[Todd S. Malicoate]

So what does it mean to sound "Russian"?

Perhaps it's like pornography...you "know it when you hear it"???