Performance Practice: Brahms 2. F/C?

[UDELBR]

Works pretty well on Eb too, so my choice is "none of the above".

[Wyvern]

I have tried it in rehearsal on CC, a PT-6 when I had one and did not like - too broad. I then played the concert on Besson 981 Eb which seemed to work fine.

However, my preference is on F. I played it using my PT-15 in a conductors workshop where several budding conductors tried their hand. That sounded just right to me and I was pleased to have one of the trainee conductors come over afterwards and compliment the tuba sound.

[finnbogi]

Definitely bass tuba. The first time I played it, I used a school owned Yamaha B-flat but since then I have played it several times on my Besson E-flat and found that it sounds better. Blending with the trombones is essential.

[Roger Lewis]

The last time I performed this piece I used a Cerveny "piggy" 4 valve C tuba and the blend with the trombones was extremely good. Since Cerveny is one of the oldest brands out there I feel that perhaps it is closest to what might have been intended.

Everyone will have a "go to" horn for this composer. I know a French horn player who has one instrument that he only uses for Brahms. Many horns will work if tastefully applied.

Just my ramblings.

Roger

[tubapress]

Some really interesting thoughts here. Personally, I like the sound of a CC tuba on this work and have always played it on that equipment. For me, there is a certain quality about a CC that blends better than an F and I prefer the type of presence a contrabass tuba brings. Of course, this is a matter of personal taste. Whichever instrument you choose, you have to be sold on, much like a salesperson will invariably do a better job of selling products he/she believes in.

Gary "who remains firmly entrenched in the minority on this one" Press

[tubalex]

A few years ago I was in an orchestra which was doing the requiem and the second symphony in the same season. For both of these pieces the principal 'bone used an alto, if I remember correctly, and I used a pt-10. This worked really well, especially as we were playing in a very "wet" acoustic. Before that I'd only played the 2nd symphony with a trombone section which was a little more "athletic" in their general approach and it was easier to balance them with a PT 6. I prefer playing F on things like this and the "La Forza" overture but sometimes you can't win the "dimension" fight with other brass players.

[tubajoe]

Play it on CC. I've done it lots of times. Works great.

It does matter how heavy-handed the trombone section is, but many will go ahead and rock out on this one.
I don't think you have to treat Brahms with kid gloves; both his Sym #2 and Acad Fest Overture are pretty broad parts calling for a fairly big sound. It's certainly not 1812 or Fountains, but still can be present; I feel his orchestration calls for a sound where the tuba is a solid harmonic anchor.

[imperialbari]

Once read an article on the Vienna Philharmonic tuba model, which was the one Brahms had in mind for most, if not all, of his tuba parts.

The old version was a fairly small F tuba which blended well with the trombones. I don’t remember the maker, who was Austrian, but only a quite small number of this model ever existed. These few tubas were handed over from teachers to students/successors through several generations.

Around 1990 two matters had made the use of these old tubas more and more problematic. They had become very worn and the increasing size of the orchestral trombones had challenged these tubas’ ability to keep the proper balance.

A wider bored, but still bright sounding, version was built. And I don’t remember whether the maker was the same as with the old original. It is pretty long ago I read this. Maybe there also is some on this topic in Bevan’s 2nd edition. I still don’t have my library in my present home.

Klaus

[UDELBR]

BTW - "Historical Accuracy" is bunk unless everyone buys into it, including the strings and winds. If everyone else is going into it with modern equipment then it is WE who are out of step if we try to go for so-called authenticity.

I'd disagree. As the last permanent addition to the orchestra, we have the least well-defined "typical" sound. Composers and instrument builders weren't really clear on our role or sound until the last 80 years or so, giving us a lot of latitude to be more personal and expressive with our choices (a good thing, surely!). Strings, woodwinds, and even other brass instruments have a much narrower pallette of colors from which to choose than we do. Example: principal trombone "A" comes in with a modular trombone, switches parts furiously in the course of the day, and ultimately ends up sounding much the same as he did yesterday on his old axe. We however, can bring in a small F, an enormous CC, or anything in between, and sound vastly different.

Question to elephant: (and not meant to be insulting in the least): Do you really feel you can't keep up with the 'bones just because you decided to bring the F instead of the CC this week? Toby Hanks used to say "You can put out way more wattage on the smaller instruments; it's just a different sound".

[imperialbari]

You are right, Wade, as it is impossible to play historically correct, equipmentwise. And also in musical approach, as it is impossible to shred off the layers of collective musical experiences gained over generations. I also play an instrument type where the initiated sect writes HIP in capitals. They play in pitches (A=466/415/392) which all are fictions based on increments of equally tempered semitones. Their performance practices are based on text interpretation rather than a live tradition.

My maybe convoluted point in the previous posting was about keeping up the relative sonic functions of trombones and tuba. When younger I always wondered why some composers wrote for a section of trombones and tuba. I rather would have preferred a section of all trombones and then the tuba being used on its own terms. I missed a better blend between tuba and trombones.

The reason for the writing that made me wonder may have been, that those old composers heard low brass sections where that blend actually was present.

Klaus

[MikeMason]

I played on my holton 345 Bb .I vowed next time it would b on f.some scary moments...G

[UDELBR]

I use the horn I choose based solely on what timbre and weight I want to get. I play high on my CC and low on my F at work all the time, based on what I feel the needs are. It is not always fun. This gets to the absolute fiction that a 6/4 tuba is somehow "louder" than any other horn. It is not. It is much more broad. A BAT is less loud and more present. An F tuba has little weight but is *loud* by comparison. You feel a big horn and hear a small one, in my experience. I think that here on TubeNet we fail to define what we mean by "sound" and "volume", et cetera...

I maintain that the range of timbre available to us via instrument choice is far broader than that of other orchestral musicians. While a tenor trombonist can vary his timbre by (say...) 20% by playing on a peashooter instead of his usual large bore setup, we can vary our timbre vastly more: 70% or so simply by bringing a different axe. (percentages conjured out of thin air to illustrate a point: that a listener behind a screen would perceive more timbral difference between two different models or keys of tuba than two instruments of virtually any other instrument group). This said, that they also bring their 'historically accurate' instruments in order to make the 'historically accurate' blend is less important than you'd think.

[Z-Tuba Dude]

I use the horn I choose based solely on what timbre and weight I want to get. I play high on my CC and low on my F at work all the time, based on what I feel the needs are. It is not always fun. This gets to the absolute fiction that a 6/4 tuba is somehow "louder" than any other horn. It is not. It is much more broad. A BAT is less loud and more present. An F tuba has little weight but is *loud* by comparison. You feel a big horn and hear a small one, in my experience. I think that here on TubeNet we fail to define what we mean by "sound" and "volume", et cetera...

I maintain that the range of timbre available to us via instrument choice is far broader than that of other orchestral musicians. While a tenor trombonist can vary his timbre by (say...) 20% by playing on a peashooter instead of his usual large bore setup, we can vary our timbre vastly more: 70% or so simply by bringing a different axe. (percentages conjured out of thin air to illustrate a point: that a listener behind a screen would perceive more timbral difference between two different models or keys of tuba than two instruments of virtually any other instrument group). This said, that they also bring their 'historically accurate' instruments in order to make the 'historically accurate' blend is less important than you'd think.

Good point!

[Rick Denney]

I played the Brahms 2 with an amateur orchestra some years ago, and used my (at the time brand new) Yamaha 621 F tuba. It was perfect for that group--light and clear. It blended well with the trombones, all of whom had learned to hold back in that group given the small size of the string band and the limited ability of the strings to play in tune well enough to really put out some sound.

Now, I would use my B&S. I still prefer the lighter tone of the F, but the B&S has considerably more headroom than the 621.

My other instrument at the time I used the 621 was a Miraphone 186, but even that seemed too heavy at the time. There was also the security factor. Mostly, though, it was clarity rather than sound--the F maintained the crisp sound.

Rick "who voted large F, but not one that sounds like a small C" Denney

[JHardisk]

I voted "Large CC" for a few reasons.

1. I own a large CC tuba, that is very versatile, and handles like a 4/4 when I need it to. I also own an F tuba that would do this piece justice, but prefer the weight of the CC tuba.
2. When I played this piece, the trombones used their standard equipment, and put out a lot of sound. In an effort to balance (read: NOT keep up, or overblow), I felt the large CC was appropriate. I feel this is particularly helpful in the descending line at the end that begins on F#, and progresses through the trombone parts, leaving principal trombone to play a high E.
3. Go back and listen to the "Deck Special" recording of Warren playing with the Houston trombone section. He played a large CC on this excerpt with the section, and it sounds fantastic.

I'm in the corner with those that have mentioned, that if everyone is going to play the "performance practice" game, then I'll play too. If they are using modern equipment, then I'll go with the flow.

When I was back in Philly, I had the pleasure of hearing this work a few times by the Philly Orch. In fact, I have 4 mini-discs of live performances It was performed on a large CC tuba each time, by 2 different players. In one of the recordings, the ending D chord played by the trombones sent the lady next to me into some sort of music-gasm, and she made all sorts of delightful racket. I daresay that if the trombone players were using period instruments, she would not have had the same thrill.

I don't think this has been mentioned...

Play the part, don't miss notes, make music, enjoy Brahms. Who cares what horn you play it on!

[cambrook]

There are many variables to consider; the hall, the section, the orchestra, the conductor (maybe - we don't want to get in the habit of asking their opinion too much....)

Having said that, I cannot imagine playing this piece on a large CC tuba. I have played it many times, and it works well on a smallish CC, an Eb or a largish F for me. I have the same type of tuba that John owns, and while I agree that it is "very versatile, and handles like a 4/4 when I need it to", I would feel that I was always having to hold back if I used it in Brahms 2. All the notes are secure, it lays pretty well, but it would feel like I was giving myself "the hand".

IMHO, playing a large CC for Brahms 2 is in the same category as using a large CC for Symphony Fantastique.

[JHardisk]

Hey Cam...

[Wyvern]

Going a bit off subject - Any theories of why Brahms only included tuba in his 2nd Symphony?

Was it because he came to see the tuba as an instrument of his rival, Wagner?

It has always struck me as such a shame that so much of the music of this most performed of composer's does not include tuba.

BTW The conductor of my regular orchestra enjoys hearing tuba so much, he has promised me part in forthcoming performance of Brahms 1 - will have to see what he does? Going by previous Beethoven 9 part, it will be very skilfully arranged

[Z-Tuba Dude]

Going a bit off subject - Any theories of why Brahms only included tuba in his 2nd Symphony?

Was it because he came to see the tuba as an instrument of his rival, Wagner?

It has always struck me as such a shame that so much of the music of this most performed of composer's does not include tuba.

BTW The conductor of my regular orchestra enjoys hearing tuba so much, he has promised me part in forthcoming performance of Brahms 1 - will have to see what he does? Going by previous Beethoven 9 part, it will be very skilfully arranged

Once, Don Butterfield mentioned to me his theory, that Brahms was exposed to some bad tuba playing, and figured better no tuba, than a badly played part.

The shame of it is, that the dark character of much of Brahms' music would create great opportunities for the tuba.

[imperialbari]

Going a bit off subject - Any theories of why Brahms only included tuba in his 2nd Symphony?

Was it because he came to see the tuba as an instrument of his rival, Wagner?

Speculations only, but I just read a bit on the writing situations for these symphonies.

The first was written over a long period and hardly dedicated a specific orchestra. Germany had and partially still has a tradition of a large number of orchestras, the flip side being that some were very small. As a sample may be mentioned Herbert von Karajan becoming director of the Ulm orchestra in 1930. It did opera and concert work, but only had 24 or so members causing a lot of rewriting to be done, which HvK considered a great learning experience.

Point being that Brahms could not be sure about a tuba being available for the 1st symphony.

The 2nd was written in Austria where the Vienna Philharmonic already then was a fully sized orchestra.

The 3rd was written in Wiesbaden in Germany, but was premiered by the VPO. Brahms may not have known about which orchestra would play it while writing it.

The 4th was premiered in Meiningen, which appears having had a fine orchestra back then, but again Brahms may not have been sure about the availability of a tuba while writing.

I think Brahms had a very realistic approach making sure the given orchestras could fill all parts.

Klaus