Tuba of choice for Verdi's "Requiem"?

[Z-Tuba Dude]

Nothing wrong with period instruments. The problem is when one section uses period instruments on a lark, instead of the whole ensemble becoming committed to them.

So how do you think that applies to using, for instance, the cimbasso in an opera?

Well, one difference is that no one is using a cimbasso that was built in the 1800's! In fact, we are not sure that the cimbassi of today, are even of the same design as in Verdi's time. One would hope that the modern instruments are at least being built to high intonation standards.

[Wyvern]

It seems to me that there is a lot of effort being put forward in finding the "right" tuba for a piece when the rest of the orchestra simply plays what they always play.

The previous generation of orchestral tuba players were often known by the one or two horns they played, usually in CC. Some of today's orchestral tubists don't seem to be identified with one horn at all or even one keyed horn.

I think there is a lot to be said to playing everything on one, or two tubas and gaining intimate familiarity with your tools. That must be the best way to make music!

Jonathan "who does not necessarily practice what he preaches"

[UDELBR]

I doubt there are many instruments built during Verdi's most productive era (c. 1840's - 1860's) which much resemble (*90% angle set-up with large 17.5mm - 19.5mm bore and 10" - 12" bell) that are sold today as "cimbasso's".

So as a result, folks suggest:

- "just play it on the dang F tuba. It's not even close to the composer's wishes, but what the hey: he's dead."

- "you should worry about missing notes, as that's clearly job #1"

- "acknowledging music history ain't in your job description. You're merely the toooba player, and that's all you'll ever be. 'Extra' knowledge will only give you worry lines."

[MartyNeilan]

I doubt there are many instruments built during Verdi's most productive era (c. 1840's - 1860's) which much resemble (*90% angle set-up with large 17.5mm - 19.5mm bore and 10" - 12" bell) that are sold today as "cimbasso's".

Small bore stuff like this was floating around in eastern Europe:







and small bore stuff like this could be found in Italy after Verdi's productive years...





...but I just have not ever seen anything dating back to the 1860's (etc.) that looks like this (and with a huge bore size like this)...

*
________________________________________________________________
* The best I recall, these instruments were originally suggested by Jim Self and the first one that I ever saw (early 1980's) was built for him in California.

13!

[Sam Gnagey]

* The best I recall, these instruments were originally suggested by Jim Self and the first one that I ever saw (early 1980's) was built for him in California. [/quote]

Indian University has two BBb cimbassi, one 4-piston by Vincent Bach and another 4-rotary of Italian origin. One like the Bach came up for sale not long ago. I checked them out of the inventory and played the Bach in opera orchestra there in the 1960s. I believe that bore size and design of those are pretty close to what is being made now.
I do think that the new instruments are too large bore overall. I stick with .687"/17.5mm on the ones that I put together.
FWIW,
Sam

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I doubt there are many instruments built during Verdi's most productive era (c. 1840's - 1860's) which much resemble (*90% angle set-up with large 17.5mm - 19.5mm bore and 10" - 12" bell) that are sold today as "cimbasso's".

So as a result, folks suggest:

- "just play it on the dang F tuba. It's not even close to the composer's wishes, but what the hey: he's dead."

- "you should worry about missing notes, as that's clearly job #1"

- "acknowledging music history ain't in your job description. You're merely the toooba player, and that's all you'll ever be. 'Extra' knowledge will only give you worry lines."

No. Respecting the "composer's wishes" (which are, of course, tied by time to the period in which he/she wrote) by choosing an instrument that most closely imitates the sound of the instrument being played when the composer wrote a piece makes no sense when the other 100-or-so players around you have no such similar concerns. That's not a lack of respect to history or the composer's wishes, it's a reality of playing in a modern orchestra with modern instruments.

Again, I'll gladly play Berlioz on a small-bore baritone horn when the trombones next to me make similar adjustments to "respect the composer's wishes."

[UDELBR]

I'll gladly play Berlioz on a small-bore baritone horn when the trombones next to me make similar adjustments to "respect the composer's wishes."

This, from an almost identical thread I've already cited:

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.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I remember the citation from before. I simply disagree with your assertion. I disagree that using a bass tuba over a contrabass changes the timbre "70% or so." In my opinion, that's simply nonsense. I challenge your notion that an untrained listener behind a screen would perceive any difference between two competent players performing a relevant excerpt with one on a bass tuba and one on a contrabass tuba.

My opinion stands. Tuba players obsess over this more than anyone else in the orchestra, and it's just silly. Flute players use their "super-bright" gold head joints 100% of the time with no concern that they produce a sound that's not even remotely close to their 19th century counterparts. Horn players use their modern double horns 100% of the time despite the radical difference in timbre from a single horn with crooks and shanks. The strings use steel or nylon core roundwound strings 100% of the time despite the enormous difference in sound from gut flatwound strings. I maintain that the range of timbre available to us via instrument choice is far, far less than that of other orchestral musicians who simply never make such "choices" nor seem to care about them at all.

Let's join the 21st century, shall we? It seems everyone else has already. Use whatever equipment allows you to make the best possible sound with the best possible intonation and puts forward the best possible product for your audience (who, I should point out, doesn't give a rat's *** about the "historical accuracy" of your instrument choice, either).

[UDELBR]

... your audience (who, I should point out, doesn't give a rat's *** about the "historical accuracy" of your instrument choice, either).

Well, that's not true. I regularly get feedback from audience members (via email), wondering "what was that instrument?" (cimbasso!), with complimentary comments on the sound.

We as tubaists have a wealth of options regarding instrument choices. As long as colleagues & conductors have no serious objections, I see no reason not to explore them.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I'll just agree to disagree with you on this subject.

I hope I wasn't giving the impression that individuals shouldn't feel free to explore those options they like and feel that they contribute to the overall product. I certainly applaud those who experiment with alternate instrument choices to favorable results.

What I dislike is the endless number of threads on this forum discussing what instrument is "correct" for this piece or that. Those threads always end up generating several "smarter than thou" type posts recommending particular instruments for particular pieces. It's just silliness in my opinion.

[Steve Marcus]

One alternative to "mere" opinion, informed or not, is to list major recordings of the Verdi Requiem from the past 20 years noting what model(s) the tubist has chosen. That might require asking the tubist himself/herself.

Not quite a thesis topic in itself, but...

[UDELBR]

..."smarter than thou" type posts ...

Meh. I'd guess this is what your signature alludes to.

[imperialbari]

One alternative to "mere" opinion, informed or not, is to list major recordings of the Verdi Requiem from the past 20 years noting what model(s) the tubist has chosen. That might require asking the tubist himself/herself.

Not quite a thesis topic in itself, but...

When I got the chance to follow our radio and opera orchestras 40+ years ago this ongoing TN debate had long been closed in these orchestras. The tubists never came near playing the lowest brass parts in the Italian repertory that I specifically knew of (Verdi: Falstaff & Requiem - Puccini: Tosca). These parts were played on Lidl 4 valve F cimbassos played by the tenured bass trombonist. My teacher was utility trombonist in the opera and was obliged to play cimbasso, when the regular bass wasn’t there for whatever reason. I even got the chance to try the opera cimbasso. As I remember it, it was large bore with no stuffiness. The mouthpiece used was a V. Bach tuba mouthpiece with a turned down stem.

I am very much aware about the situation in Paid-per-service orchestras, where the tubist wants the job for him-/herself. Yet I don’t understand why a tuba is at all considered for these parts. Our knowledge on the original Italian instruments may be limited, yet neither surviving instruments like the upright Orsi instrument from the Milano opera, nor texts from discussions between orchestra managers and composers suggest anything wide-bored that is not a downward extension of the trombone sound.

Klaus

[Z-Tuba Dude]

.....was obliged to play cimbasso,....

Klaus,
What form of the cimbasso is used in Europe? I assume there must be people who know a little more about the instruments of Verdi's time, than many of us in the States.

[imperialbari]

.....was obliged to play cimbasso,....

Klaus,
What form of the cimbasso is used in Europe? I assume there must be people who know a little more about the instruments of Verdi's time, than many of us in the States.

I don’t really know shapes and brands used even in my own country any longer, as I live far away from stages and concert halls and don’t travel any more. Rudy Meinl used to have a photo of the bass trombonist of one of our regional symphonies presenting one of their cimbassos.

Some players have complained over the angled shape locking the angle of their bels, so that they couldn’t lift the bell like the rest of the trombone section. 20 or 25 years ago there was a player in Cologne(?) who had an F cimbasso made in the shape of an oversize rotary trumpet for exactly that reason.

The second edition of Bevan’s book has a section telling about the old as well as the then new version of the Viennese cimbasso.

There was a quite insane Italian movie about the sick relationship between an orchestra (most actors being real musicians) and its Maestro. The tenor trombonists played slide trombones, whereas the bass trombonist played a valve trombone in F with 3 rotors. It was bent, but in a fairly open angle, maybe 135°.

As I understand it, American regional orchestras avoid hiring extras when at all possible, which appears like a sensible attitude, when they struggle financially. If they want to play Italian music with 3 trombones and a cimbasso, they hardly should follow the Danish tradition that I saw, where cimbassos are for trombonists only. They rather should let their tenured tubaist play that instrument.

Klaus

[cambrook]

This thread has been quiet for a whole day........

To go back to the original question: "what tuba would you use for this piece?" I would answer a F (or maybe Eb) but not a contrabass tuba. I have played this on Eb and it works well, but a good F tuba would probably be better (as long as it has a good low C).

Next time it comes up I'm looking forward to playing it on cimbasso, but that's only because I'm lucky enough to have an excellent Haag cimbasso that doesn't have the shortcomings of some other instruments. If I didn't have the Haag I'd use my F tuba rather than use a bad cimbasso.

I'm no purist, but for Verdi the issue is not about playing a "historically accurate" instrument. Verdi had a specific and documented preference for not using tuba. If I can honour his views (without being forced to play a substandard instrument) then I'm very happy to do so.

Cheers,

Cam

[cambrook]

Joe - I'm sure that if Verdi heard you playing your super-modified 6V 2165 or your Buescher then he would have changed his mind - and there would have been no reason for any cimbassos to exist

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Is there any reliable documentation as to the SPECIFIC instrument that VERDI identified as "tuba" and HOW WELL it's player was able to play it ?

Certainly not. There is the one instance of Verdi complaining to Guilio Ricordi in 1872 about the use of a bombardon for Aida and demanding instead the new "trombone-basso Verdi" in Bb as the fourth trombone voice. This particular letter has been the stimulus of a number of doctoral-level papers about the use of tuba in works by Verdi. The letter has also been mis-quoted over and over by replacing Verdi's use of "bombardon" with "damned tuba." Verdi never specifically commented on the use of tuba.

What I think all of those papers and this discussion are failing to realize is that Verdi certainly never had the opportunity to hear an instrument even close to the modern tuba. The bombardone of the mid-19th century were basically wide-bore ophicleides with even worse (if that's possible) intonation and a particularly poor low range. What's really amusing is that the closest modern equivalent to this bombardon of the time would be a very narrow-bore (far smaller than anything available today) F tuba.

The fact that Verdi preferred either a ordinary ophicleide with a low B range or the "trombone-basso Verdi" doesn't in any way indicate that he would have disliked the sound of a modern tuba in his works.

[cambrook]

Interesting perspective Todd; perhaps if Brahms had heard a modern tuba played well he would have written tuba parts in all of his symphonies?

Perhaps if Verdi heard modern trombones he may have decided that 2 of them gave enough sound and he didn't need a full low brass section for his operas - we'll never know...

BTW, I'm not saying it's wrong to use a tuba in the Verdi Requiem, I just think it's more appropriate to use a cimbasso IF a good instrument is available. I know that is a big "IF" for professional orchestras, it's would be unreasonable to expect freelance players to have one.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Interesting perspective Todd; perhaps if Brahms had heard a modern tuba played well he would have written tuba parts in all of his symphonies?

I'd like to think he would. The bass brass instruments of his time were so awful it's easy to see why he didn't, though.

Perhaps if Verdi heard modern trombones he may have decided that 2 of them gave enough sound and he didn't need a full low brass section for his operas - we'll never know...

Again, you're probably correct. The sound of those instruments was so radically different it's just impossible to know what difference in orchestration would have been made. I continue to assert that the use of modern instruments all around the orchestra makes the attention to "historical accuracy" in the bass brass voice ONLY rather insignificant.

BTW, I'm not saying it's wrong to use a tuba in the Verdi Requiem, I just think it's more appropriate to use a cimbasso IF a good instrument is available. I know that is a big "IF" for professional orchestras, it's would be unreasonable to expect freelance players to have one.

I also would never say it's "wrong" to use a modern cimbasso. I would even go so far as to say it's preferable. But I also wouldn't say using a modern tuba is "wrong" either. Neither would I say using a contrabass tuba is "wrong," provided the player takes an informed approach towards his/her playing style in performing such a work. Sure, it's not going to sound like it would have in Verdi's time, but neither does the rest of the orchestra.

I wonder if the many advocates for more authentic-sounding bass brass instruments for 19th century works would agree with Doug Yeo that these parts would be better performed by trombone players on trombone-sized mouthpieces, particularly if it hit them where it hurts the most (in the pocketbook)?