Symphony Fantastique Question

[J.c. Sherman]

Originally for Serpent and Ophicleide, Berlioz did edit the part later to two ophicleides in C and Bb as noted earlier.

Cleveland Orchestra has always performed this work with Euph and Tuba, parts 1 & 2. The Maazel (sp?) recording is recorded that way with Cleveland, Al Kofsky on Euph, Ron Bishop on Tuba.

Cimbassi (the modern instrument) would be an awkward replacement. Berlioz uses the ophicleides in a distinct voicing for the instruments, separate and semi-supportive of the trombones. His book of orchestration clarifies this in detail. The modern cimbasso (a valved contrabass trombone) would make a Dies Irae completely unfit to Berlioz's eclesiastical reference, and the remainder just would be on-again of-again "working".

Ophicleids are IMO irreplaceable. But the French tuba and Euphonium are the closest you'll get with valves.

J.c.S. (whose spell checker is offline and is tired...)

[Todd S. Malicoate]

This again.

A modern orchestra is not going to sound the way Berlioz intended the piece to sound by any stretch of the imagination. The strings have modern strings, not crappy gut ones. The flutes have modern Boehm instruments made of space-age materials for superior projection. Same for the oboes, clarinets, and bassoons. The horns are playing on double horns with 1/3 again as large a bore as their Berlioz-age counterparts and superior materials that resonate better, play better in tune, and project better. The trumpets play on modern instruments that are in every way superior to the instruments called trumpets in the early 19th century. The trombones use much larger bore instruments. The percussion instruments are much better. Berlioz would even be surprised by the sound of modern chimes.

But tuba players still obsess over "what the composer intended."

Sheesh. Leave the ophicleides and serpents in the museums where they belong. Leave the euphoniums in the band rehearsal. Play the tuba, and play it well.

[Mark]

I'm I gleaning from this thread that everyone has "gotten over" playing Berlioz overtures et al on 6/4 size CC tubas?

It's a simple rule: Berlioz = F tuba.

[EdFirth]

I heard Chicago play it in Carnegie Hall in 1972. Jake played the York. WOW.

[bydloman]

I was fortunate enough to play the second part of Symphonie Fantastique with Chester Schmitz and the Boston Symphony for many, many years. We often had four horns on stage. In the 1970's I only used my Bell Model Meinl-Weston CC, because it was the only horn I owned. In the 1980's and 90's I had my B&S FF along with either my 5/4 Hirsbrunner CC or later my Meinl-Weston 2165. In the earlier years Chester had his Alex FF and his Alex CC, but later used his B&S FF and his Yorkbrunner. We always played the Dies Irae on the CC's. Sitting next to the AWESOME sound he produced was always a treat! I never have nor probably ever will hear anything like it again.
I agree with the post that stated one should play it on the equipment he/she is most comfortable. I can't imagine that if Hector Berlioz had the option he would have chosen two ophicleides. Today if everyone else is playing the "original" instruments, great, pull out your ophicleide - however if everyone else is playing modern brass instruments it would be quite unbalanced, as none of today's brass instruments are even close in size and quality to what was being used during the time it was composed.

Just one man's opinion -

Gary Ofenloch

[UDELBR]

I can't imagine that if Hector Berlioz had the option he would have chosen two ophicleides.

He did have the option. Berlioz died in 1869, and he wrote for ophicleide 'til his death (long after the development of bass and contrabass tubas).

[bbocaner]

Cimbassi (the modern instrument) would be an awkward replacement. Berlioz uses the ophicleides in a distinct voicing for the instruments, separate and semi-supportive of the trombones. His book of orchestration clarifies this in detail. The modern cimbasso (a valved contrabass trombone) would make a Dies Irae completely unfit to Berlioz's eclesiastical reference, and the remainder just would be on-again of-again "working".

No more unfit than bass or contrabass tuba is. Actually, I think much less -- I believe it'd sound much more like the church serpents he was trying to conjure up than tuba or even euphonium would, as long as the cimbasso players didn't use too much edge. The cimbasso in the upper register can be smooth and rich sounding. And while ophicleide in the upper register has a very sweet and soft euphonium-like sound, in the lower register at higher dynamics it is more buzzy and nasty which may be approachable with (modern) cimbasso.

And you yourself say it's a distinct voicing, separate and only semi-supportive of the trombones, so I don't believe that being "out of proportion" with a section of modern trombones is that big of an issue.

I own an ophicleide myself (and I like to think I play it very well) so I have a very good idea of what it sounds like.

It sure does sound cool on tuba, but even a small F tuba is such a massively different sound than the original instrument that I don't believe it's a good choice.

[J.c. Sherman]

"The old is good, not just because it's past; nor is the new supreme because we live with it." - Paul Hindemith

Our instruments are in no way superior to Berlioz's. Perhaps they are manufactured more with consistency, but at the cost of individuality. Violins have more power with the steel strings, but at the cost of another character (Heifetz used three gut strings). Trombones are... bigger? And their slides are smoother, but even today we use a variety of horns from a variety of makers. Trumpets were a very different character indeed... as we're the cornets. Much of the beauty (IMHO of the old flutes has been lost, and many flautists are returning to wood in their head joints and some in the whole instrument. Mechanical "improvements" in the woodwinds have made the notes perhaps more stable, perhaps more consistent, but at the loss of simplicity of the instrument, greater variety of maker’s timbres... the list is very long.

Leave the ophicleides in the museum? Should we replace the entire orchestra with a "modern" synthesizer? Why use a modern orchestra at all to play Berlioz? If the instruments are all different, why not just use whatever instrument s we want on whatever part?

An ophicleide is no more a tuba - no more an ancestor to the tuba - than the harmonium. Why do we pick a tubist to play the part? It's really an important question. Berlioz NEVER used the tuba or bombardon (different instruments and their scoring reflects it) without an ophicleide. There are things each one does well, and things each one does not do well, much as a contrabass saxophone and a bassoon. They are different. There is some... SOME balance similarity between the ophicleide and the euphonium, and a hint of timbre similarity, but there is a WORLD of difference between the tuba and the ophicleide, no matter how small the F, or how gigantic the BBb. While the result is "cool" with a Yorkbrunner, it's as cool as organ pedal board would be. And we might as well use soprano saxophone for the English horn parts in the 3rd movement of Symphonie Fantastique.

In the end, we're handed the part, for whatever reason, and almost always. I admire the Cleveland Orchestra for their use of the Euphonium in this work, as the balance... at least the balance... is reflective to its scoring and register. The tuba adds something to the fff passages where ophicleide 2 comes in. But the feral quality of the Dies Irae does suffer. Plainly.

In the end, we want every performance to be unique, or we should send our audience out to buy a CD. I use ophicleide on ophicleide works because it make a fresh sound... one my audience, odds on, hasn't heard. I offer my comrades a new sound, and the effect to me is better... the blend is always MUCH better - to me - than a gargantuphone.

To each their own... but be careful of arguing that the modern orchestra is different... as it eventually slips down to skip the work or skip the orchestra.

J.c.S.

P.S. Berlioz wasn't much of a fan of the Serpent and purposely scored it out later as he learned what he was doing. He did not replace the 'cleides with tubas... he could have. He used tubas. He liked them. But not for everything. The ophicleide is as different as a bass clarinet from the tuba.

[J.c. Sherman]

Cimbassi (the modern instrument) would be an awkward replacement. Berlioz uses the ophicleides in a distinct voicing for the instruments, separate and semi-supportive of the trombones. His book of orchestration clarifies this in detail. The modern cimbasso (a valved contrabass trombone) would make a Dies Irae completely unfit to Berlioz's eclesiastical reference, and the remainder just would be on-again of-again "working".

No more unfit than bass or contrabass tuba is. Actually, I think much less -- I believe it'd sound much more like the church serpents he was trying to conjure up than tuba or even euphonium would, as long as the cimbasso players didn't use too much edge. The cimbasso in the upper register can be smooth and rich sounding. And while ophicleide in the upper register has a very sweet and soft euphonium-like sound, in the lower register at higher dynamics it is more buzzy and nasty which may be approachable with (modern) cimbasso.

And you yourself say it's a distinct voicing, separate and only semi-supportive of the trombones, so I don't believe that being "out of proportion" with a section of modern trombones is that big of an issue.

I own an ophicleide myself (and I like to think I play it very well) so I have a very good idea of what it sounds like.

It sure does sound cool on tuba, but even a small F tuba is such a massively different sound than the original instrument that I don't believe it's a good choice.

As a serpentist, I can tell you modern cimbasso has no timbral similarity in the least with it. And the modern cimbasso does have a wide spectrum of tones, but I don't think there should be much of a "euphonium" character to what is essentially a trombone... kind of misses Verdi's point. It is certainly supportive etc., but it's not separate... or shouldn't be. It's contraindicated to the "cimbasso's" raison d'etre. And the cimbasso/trombone contrabasso Verdi is scored much differently… especially range-wise in later works, and often in octaves with the trombones, whereas ophicleide is very often in unison with the 3rd trombone.

No argument though... it does sound cool on tuba...

J.c.S.

[bbocaner]

As a serpentist, I can tell you modern cimbasso has no timbral similarity in the least with it. And the modern cimbasso does have a wide spectrum of tones, but I don't think there should be much of a "euphonium" character to what is essentially a trombone... kind of misses Verdi's point. It is certainly supportive etc., but it's not separate... or shouldn't be. It's contraindicated to the "cimbasso's" raison d'etre. And the cimbasso/trombone contrabasso Verdi is scored much differently… especially range-wise in later works, and often in octaves with the trombones, whereas ophicleide is very often in unison with the 3rd trombone.

My point wasn't that it was the ideal substitute, just that it was perhaps workable because I felt it would sound a lot closer to ophicliedes than tuba, certainly a lot closer than a huge 6/4 CC! And I also mentioned it because tuba players would get the gig... I've certainly seen major orchestras make much more bizarre decisions on instrumentation simply because paying the guy already sitting backstage doubling is cheaper than hiring an extra musician.

You certainly would be taking the cimbasso out of it's comfort zone and using it in a different way than it is intended or ordinarily scored for, but I feel it could work. The cimbasso is capable of a broader and sweeter sound than a trombone - I'm thinking specifically of the youtube videos from "cimbassonista" -- like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N63DfmSKBc. It's more compact sounding than a tuba and a little bit of edge from the trombone-like bell might give somewhat the same effect as the direct buzzy nature of the ophicleide.

[luke_hollis]

Me and my big mouth asking questions. I have always played part I on a 4/4 CC with no problem largely because I don't have an F tuba and find it too annoying to learn more fingerings. It sounds like I need to surrender the first part to a euph but maybe I need to put this up to a vote.

I always appreciate Bloke's take on things...

[Wyvern]

Me and my big mouth asking questions. I have always played part I on a 4/4 CC with no problem largely because I don't have an F tuba and find it too annoying to learn more fingerings. It sounds like I need to surrender the first part to a euph but maybe I need to put this up to a vote.

No, keep your part and play on your CC as usual as long as your conductor is happy! The historical perfectionists may not approve, but no one else will mind at all as long as you can competently play the part.

We make a big deal of which instrument to play, but tuba is only one small part of the overall texture and to most other people (including musicians) a tuba is a tuba is a tuba - be it a euph, F, or 6/4 CC

[J.c. Sherman]

Me and my big mouth asking questions. I have always played part I on a 4/4 CC with no problem largely because I don't have an F tuba and find it too annoying to learn more fingerings. It sounds like I need to surrender the first part to a euph but maybe I need to put this up to a vote.

No, keep your part and play on your CC as usual as long as your conductor is happy! The historical perfectionists may not approve, but no one else will mind at all as long as you can competently play the part.

We make a big deal of which instrument to play, but tuba is only one small part of the overall texture and to most other people (including musicians) a tuba is a tuba is a tuba - be it a euph, F, or 6/4 CC

Ditto (but a tuba is not an ophicleide : ). Play your C and have fun with a rockin' part!

J.c.S.

Mea Culpa - first performed it on F... the conductor kept changing her mind... "Ophicleide!" no wait... "BAT!!!" (first rehearsal, BAT...) no wait! I need MORE!!! (wtf?!?!) BLOOOOOOOOOOOOP... MORE!!!! finally played two Fs as loud as we could and she liked it (?!?!?) BLAAAAAAAAAAP!

[tubatom91]

I'm playing the 4th movement right now on F tuba, it's no big deal, just play whatever the hell you sound best on. For me F tuba is the voice that I like in this piece. I don't have a second tuba playing, argue with if you want but the 4th movement isn't in need of a second tuba player except the last 8 or so measures, and I am just going to drop the octave and have a good presence of sound and have fun. FWIW I'm playing a "big" F with a Blokepiece #2...I think I'd sound better with a silver plate horn and a gold mouthpiece

[Rick Denney]

Assuming that Berlioz was trying to conjure up a church sound by emulating serpents (which I will take at face value, not knowing one way or the other), if his objective was to put people in a church setting in their minds, does anyone think an ophicleide or serpent sound would do it? Does anyone who goes to church hear serpent sounds? No, and not for about the last 150 years or so. Nowadays, if you want to conjure up a church connotation, you must sound like a pipe organ. And even that is becoming an anachronism.

Norrington's original-instrument recording with two ophicleides sounds interesting, but I don't think it conjures up a church setting in my head, and I know what people say Berlioz intended. I like Norrington's work--his recordings of Beethoven are a landmark--but I still prefer to hear Fantastique from an orchestra that sounds like the 400-person orchestra Berlioz kept writing about.

Rick "thinking musical decisions have to recognize the context of the audience as well as the context of the ink" Denney

[UDELBR]

thinking musical decisions have to recognize the context of the audience as well as the context of the ink

In that case, slap on a disco beat and everyone'll be much happier.

[J.c. Sherman]

thinking musical decisions have to recognize the context of the audience as well as the context of the ink

In that case, slap on a disco beat and everyone'll be much happier.

Rick, as usual, you are correct. And as you noted, the serpent reference is lost on the audience, if not 90% of the orchestra as well. That said, Berlioz was... twisting the plainsong accompaniment role of the serpent into a feral, terrifying chant of the artist’s damnation. Which, as noted above, could be made with Cimbasso, Organ (interesting thought, the more I think it)... or a BAT. Context matters, and certainly the modern 110 piece orchestra may have the decibels of a 400 person group from the 19th century... but there might be something missing... Namely 390 players

My frequent defense of the ophicleide usually comes down to making sure there is a considered decision when replacing the ophicleide with the tuba, as the instruments really are very different. It is expeditious to make the replacement, but are we always sure it’s the right decision? I think rarely so, but I’m weird. Other’s think not. Neither of us is right (except me (kidding)), but we should always, no matter what the instrument in our hands, practice historically informed performance, as its opposite is ignorant performance. Tubists are far above that

Context for me usually leans toward the audience, especially as program notes do so much to drag the audience into the setting of the work. The use of ophicleides, as I've noted, to me is a novel sound, not really an "old" sound to our ears because we rarely hear it. And it suits the composer's interests, which I usually put above my own... until I play a Bach flute partita on the tuba, of course.

All the entries in this dialogue have one thing in common - tuba players are a smart, learned bunch!

J.c. (the hypocrite from hell)

[JB]

certainly the modern 110 piece orchestra may have the decibels of a 400 person group from the 19th century... but there might be something missing... Namely 390 players

400 - 110 = 390?

tuba players are a smart, learned bunch!

[windshieldbug]

certainly the modern 110 piece orchestra may have the decibels of a 400 person group from the 19th century... but there might be something missing... Namely 390 players

400 - 110 = 390?

390 at the ORIGINAL pitch...

[JB]

certainly the modern 110 piece orchestra may have the decibels of a 400 person group from the 19th century... but there might be something missing... Namely 390 players

400 - 110 = 390?

390 at the ORIGINAL pitch...