CSO - VW!!!!!!

[chronolith]

Can't say I have made up my mind about it. But it definitely has me thinking (apologies in advance for the wall of text).

I will attribute this to my failings a human being though, since my first pass through listening was really just spotting all the stuff that does not sound like every other recording of this I have. The changes of octave, the pedal notes, the sudden change of tempi... I did enjoy some of the choices that he made. Taking the bassoon/cello option in the first phrase of the second movement may have been a little of that humor that LJV was talking about. A little inside joke for the tuba community.

I need to try and approach this like it is a piece I have never heard before. Damn hard when you find yourself instinctually moving your fingers on non-existent valves. The quality of Mr. Pokorny's playing is undeniable of course. I was initially worried about the weight and breadth of the sound of the York for this application, but his ability to reign in the instrument for the quiet high register was an unexpected surprise. More than low register FFs, this really got my attention. The range of possible sounds is widened.

There were moments though when I was taken out of the music by the pure absurdity of what goes into making a sound on a tuba. Reminds me of a conversation I had once with Roger Lewis where he produced a large raspberry and then announced that this is something apes and monkeys can do. Maybe it was mic placement or the aim of the bell, but it took me away from it for a few seconds. On reflection though this may simply be due to the fact that I am listening to an instrument I know well, by a player I have heard often, in a space in which I have heard many sounds - both live and in recording... where the sound is coming from a different location that I am used to.

Recognizing and defeating my own expectations will probably do the most to allow me to truly enjoy what I have heard. As I said it is not easy. I think overall this means that Mr. Pokorny has achieved one of the most important aspects of what it means to bring a concerto to the stage: to show you something different and valid, something you may not have heard before and were not expecting, to demonstrate what the instrument is capable of while setting a new standard, all while being supremely musical. My discomfort with the performance means that I certainly can't call it boring or redundant.

As a non-musician I would think you might walk away from it being surprised by the range of sounds and melody you can get on the tuba. So much for the old oom-pah ball and chain we all carry around. As a non-tubist musician I would think you would be impressed by the amount of skill it takes to wrangle the tuba into a truly expressive performer while being somewhat bemused by the role-bending implications of an entire work based around the sound of the tuba which spends so much time in the background, both literally and figuratively. Tricky for any but the most open minded. As a tubist I think we might consider thanking Mr. Pokorny for knocking some of the crust off this old warhorse. So many of us have had to work this thing up and present it for auditions or even performance. There is a love/hate relationship there for many. This performance may help to free us up a little bit to reinterpret and present it again without so much restriction. If we are ever questioned about it you can point to this performance as an example, like a trial lawyer citing a supreme court case as precedent. Maybe the next time you play it, you can feel free to make it your own a little bit more than you have, and maybe, just maybe, learn to love it again.

The RVW tuba concerto is not high art in my opinion. It's fun to play and listen to, and compelling musically here and there. I think Mr. Pokorny is well within the right to interpret the work as a showpiece for the instrument, and even a crowd pleaser for people who don't go looking for tuba concerti. I don't think we can argue that he succeeded in the effort.

Did I enjoy the performance? Again, not really made up my mind. I appreciate the significance of the performance and I am happy to see that someone is brave enough to break the mold a bit. Mr. Pokorny (and our instrument in general) is capable of so much more than what you hear written on the page of the RVW. I think the tuba community has a responsibility every once in a while to report to the public the state of the art of our instrument, to show some growth and evolution. There are plenty of recordings of wacky and bleeding edge material out there, but they don't often see the light of day or the outside of a university music library. Orchestra Hall is a different matter and I think that Mr. Pokorny has done us a great service and given us plenty to chew on.

For me personally I think I just need to go back and listen to it a number of times. To get over all the stuff I was not expecting or had already built conceptions around. We are Mr. Pokorny's greatest cheering section, and most assuredly his toughest critics as well. In a way I think we are the least capable of reviewing the performance with any sense of objectivity just because so many of us are subjectively tied to the instrument and this work in particular (sometimes painfully so).

Going to go back and listen again with the freshest ears I can find in myself.

[J.c. Sherman]

chronolith, that was all beautifully stated. Truly.

Gonna listen again...

J.c.S.

[ginnboonmiller]

IMO, I'm frustrated. He sounds fantastic, no doubt. He should. He's Gene Freaking Pokorny. And there's three big things I took away from listening to that recording:

1. The Vaughn Williams is all we have for a Concerto that can make it as music to non-tuba-playing audiences.

2. It's about freaking time someone did a high profile performance as a tuba player that took the kinds of liberties that we ought to be taking as musicians. But most tuba players are afraid to be musicians because we spend all day every day learning how to count rests.

3. I wouldn't have made any of the musical decisions that Gene Pokorny made in his performance.

That's two good things about the performance to one bad, so I'm good with it, and I hope it IS controversial and that it gets discussed for years and that the next generation of tuba players gives interpretation the attention it deserves, because we don't get paid any more for playing exactly what's on the page than what we make if we try to be artists. Which is to say, we're all flat broke for playing tuba. But man, those long pickup phrases drive me insane. Kills the momentum. He gets loud where I get soft, vice versa, same with tempos. Good for him, but argh.

[eupher61]

I would be interested to know his thought process, the real story, behind using the York and doing some of the octave things. Which came first?

He has the ability to do all of the low stuff on F, certainly. Did RVW want those things, but Catlinett was unable to do them? Thus, the back-and-forth that frustrated RVW so much?
Or, did Gene take all sorts of liberties that were purely his own doing? Or, some combo?

OK, who can get Gene to 'fess up?

[J.c. Sherman]

What's interesting to me here, and after listening to this - the first unique performance of this work since Catelinet's - it brings a point home we should all understand; we are influenced by what we hear.

There few recordings of this work, really; Dowling, Fletch, Lind, Jake... and the original by Catelinet (hard to find). And they are all similar and true to the ink (with some notable exceptions from Catelinet). We need to remind ourselves that each time we look at a work, we're interpreters. We need to sometimes forget for a moment what we've heard, and see what's there on the page and what we can do for it... and to it... and with it.

Mr. Pokorny did an amazing job of letting himself decide the product. I wouldn't go in many of his directions, but that he's started this conversation is a revelation we as tubists needed. Too cool!

I'm now sitting and looking at it again; and kudos to the conductor for bringing a few things out I hadn't heard before.

Recordings are a double edged sword. Time to have a fresh look at the Hindemith as well!

J.c.S.

[UTSAtuba]

Agreed with the top. Though, still taking a step back from playing, I had anticipated his performance of the VaughnWilliams. It was nice to hear something different

[Rick Denney]

Haven't listened yet, but reading the comments a couple of questions come to mind.

1. Why would sound effects take one out of the music? I've always thought RVW was giggling to himself at the thought of writing a concerto for tuba, especially given the type of tuba playing he had heard up until that time. I see nothing unmusical about giggling with him.

2. Most people think of the tuba in derisive terms. So, we try to counter that expectation by being hyper-lyrical or hyper-technical. Why counter it? What are we afraid of--that people won't take us seriously? That is missing a fundamental principle of human psychology. The less seriously we take ourselves, the more people will listen to the music we make instead of rolling their eyes at us. This has been the secret of the success of, to name one example, the Canadian Brass.

3. Gene was not performing for tuba players.

Rick "looking forward to a fast connection to hear the audio more than ever" Denney

[UTSAtuba]

Here's a bootlegged copy of the recording, for those who are interested:

http://www.mediafire.com/?pzz2m3ztaba8gb6" target="_blank

In mp3 format.

From yours truly,

[alfredr]

I had to go to the store rather late last night. The radio in the car is always set to WABE 90.1 in Atlanta. On Wednesday nights, they usually do Chicago Symphony. I listened to the end of this, 5 or 6 minutes maybe, staying in the parking lot until it finished to hear just what it was, as I'm no expert at these things. They said it was Gene Pokorny, principal tubist, Ralph Vaughn-Williams Tuba Concerto, from a concert in May.

I was impressed.

I have not read all this thread. I don't know what I have missed, either in the thread or the concerto.

[PhilGreen]

Thank you UTSAtuba.

[Rick Denney]

Giggle? RVW?

Sardonic chuckle, maybe.

Nah. Vaughan Williams didn't play those mental games. And this was after Adeline had died and he had married Ursula. He giggled a lot in those days, from all reports.

He may not have been giggling in that picture, I'll admit. I've heard the recording made associated with that picture.

But I think he'd have giggled at Gene's performance, which I'm now listening to as I type. Gene is playing the cadenza in the first movement like a freaking cadenza! He's thinking like a soloist--commanding the music.

Vaughan Williams's name for John Barbirolli, who was given to the same sorts of liberties Gene is exhibiting (and in contrast to the far stricter Adrian Boult), was Glorious John. Nothing sardonic about that. He respected Boult, but Barbirolli got his octogenarian blood pumping. I've heard Barbirolli's conducting of RVW's 2nd Symphony from about the time of the composer's death, and it takes flight.

Prediction: The way Gene is playing the second movement will alter performance practice for future generations. He's picking completely different places to breathe than I'm used to hearing, and I'm loving his phrasing.

His third movement is "Come play with me. Try to keep up."

He's also following Jacobs's line of thinking--the tuba impresses by playing low, not by playing high. And there aren't many who can play low the way Gene can play low.

Rick "laughing" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Nah. Vaughan Williams didn't play those mental games.

I would think you'd have to know him personally to make such a statement. You are older than I am, so maybe you did.

Heh. I've read enough about him (and enough of what he wrote)--basically everything in print--that I sometimes feel as though I do know him. And NOT because of the Tuba Concerto.

One of the reasons he appeals to me is that he could be a great and powerful composer and artist without being neurotic. That realization is important--it frees us to take the music at face value and not try make it profound when it isn't.

Rick "born the year he died" Denney

[tubapress]

Tonight I listened to Gene's performance via one of the links posted here then read abb8unch of the posts regarding these performances. There is much said to agree/disagree with. In the end, each person will come away with their own perception of what took place, whether or not they liked it and even whether the decisions Gene made are valid.

The first point I would agree with (as would most) is that Gene Pokorny is one of the most skilled performers on the instrument we have had. He is in an elite class because of what he can do. He did a lot of things in the performance of this concerto that were pretty amazing and he pulled them off pretty effortlessly.

Secondly, I applaud Gene for his out of the box thinking and willingness to go out on a limb to make the performance his own. Some of the liberties he took with tempo gave me real reason to re-examine my own interpretation of the work. Bravo on that point.

The cadenzas were expanded and I liked a lot of what he added. It truly showed off the range and capabilities of the instrument...exactly what a cadenza is designed to do. Bravo again!

However, there is a line between taking liberties and rewriting a composer's work. For my taste, there were a number of decisions he made in interpreting this work that I personally take issue with.

1. The work was written specifically for a bass tuba, not a contrabass tuba. It is true, as one person mentions, that if a cellist played the second movement certain octave displacements would be required. Agreed. As far as I can tell, Gene was not playing a cello. And I don't see the justification for disregarding the composer's choice of instrument. How often have we heard the Eb trumpet solo in the battle scene of Ein Heldenleben played instead on piccolo trumpet instead, taking everything up an octave or two to suit the register of the instrument? The same applies here. I found myself asking “what si going on here?? And why??”

2. While it was indeed interesting and entertaining to hear an extraordinarily familiar work spiced up by changing octaves frequently and adding techniques such as flutter tonguing, I again do not see the rationale. Vaughan Williams was a phenomenal composer....and he knew what the heck he was doing! I am not a purist by any stretch of the imagination...however, again I do not see the rationale for re-composing what has been composed. I have never heard a violinist change octaves around in a Mendelssohn or Tchaikovsky concerto performance. I've never heard an opera star change the octaves in a Puccini aria. Why on earth should we feel we have the license to do whatever we want with the music on the page when it comes to octave displacement? Especially when dealing with a composer like VW who clearly demonstrated in his works that he knew what the tuba was capable of. It was somewhat of a novelty to hear Gene execute these changes easily, but just because it CAN be done doesn't justify doing it. I have the same issue with flutter tongue. Perhaps VW had the sound of flutter tongue in his ear, perhaps not. The guesswork that leads one to believe that is what he wanted is not sufficient reasoning in my mind to execute it.

Overall, I was disappointed. Not in Gene's playing, per se, although I agree that performing this particular work on the York CC was not as flattering as it might have been on a smaller instrument, but rather in the choices he made in interpreting this work.

To me, and again this is only my opinion, it comes across as change for the sake of change. Many choices I found a bit jolting, incongruous with the rest of the piece and simply uncalled for. I think it is entirely possible to leave your distinct mark on a piece of music without changing octaves and articulations and adding modern techniques that aren't anywhere to be insinuated in the manuscript.

The art of performing music that has already been written is an art of interpreting what is ON the page. I love how a Bernstein or a Celibidache can interpret a Tchaikovsky symphony so differently than a Klemperer of an Ormandy. I think if one has the inclination to make changes that basically says "this music isn't good enough as composed", then perhaps writing your own original composition is the way to go.

It is entirely possible (again my own opinion) that maybe Gene accomplished 2 important things here: produce something very different from what has come before while spurring a vigorous conversation within the industry regarding interpretation. I applaud Gene for opening our eyes to new possibilities, even if I don't agree with many of his musical decisions in this particular instance.

Let the debate continue!

Gary "the lesser known GP" Press

[tubapress]

Tonight I listened to Gene's performance via one of the links posted here then read abb8unch of the posts regarding these performances. There is much said to agree/disagree with. In the end, each person will come away with their own perception of what took place, whether or not they liked it and even whether the decisions Gene made are valid.

The first point I would agree with (as would most) is that Gene Pokorny is one of the most skilled performers on the instrument we have had. He is in an elite class because of what he can do. He did a lot of things in the performance of this concerto that were pretty amazing and he pulled them off pretty effortlessly.

Secondly, I applaud Gene for his out of the box thinking and willingness to go out on a limb to make the performance his own. Some of the liberties he took with tempo gave me real reason to re-examine my own interpretation of the work. Bravo on that point.

The cadenzas were expanded and I liked a lot of what he added. It truly showed off the range and capabilities of the instrument...exactly what a cadenza is designed to do. Bravo again!

However, there is a line between taking liberties and rewriting a composer's work. For my taste, there were a number of decisions he made in interpreting this work that I personally take issue with.

1. The work was written specifically for a bass tuba, not a contrabass tuba. It is true, as one person mentions, that if a cellist played the second movement certain octave displacements would be required. Agreed. As far as I can tell, Gene was not playing a cello. And I don't see the justification for disregarding the composer's choice of instrument. How often have we heard the Eb trumpet solo in the battle scene of Ein Heldenleben played instead on piccolo trumpet instead, taking everything up an octave or two to suit the register of the instrument? The same applies here. I found myself asking “what si going on here?? And why??”

2. While it was indeed interesting and entertaining to hear an extraordinarily familiar work spiced up by changing octaves frequently and adding techniques such as flutter tonguing, I again do not see the rationale. Vaughan Williams was a phenomenal composer....and he knew what the heck he was doing! I am not a purist by any stretch of the imagination...however, again I do not see the rationale for re-composing what has been composed. I have never heard a violinist change octaves around in a Mendelssohn or Tchaikovsky concerto performance. I've never heard an opera star change the octaves in a Puccini aria. Why on earth should we feel we have the license to do whatever we want with the music on the page when it comes to octave displacement? Especially when dealing with a composer like VW who clearly demonstrated in his works that he knew what the tuba was capable of. It was somewhat of a novelty to hear Gene execute these changes easily, but just because it CAN be done doesn't justify doing it. I have the same issue with flutter tongue. Perhaps VW had the sound of flutter tongue in his ear, perhaps not. The guesswork that leads one to believe that is what he wanted is not sufficient reasoning in my mind to execute it.

Overall, I was disappointed. Not in Gene's playing, per se, although I agree that performing this particular work on the York CC was not as flattering as it might have been on a smaller instrument, but rather in the choices he made in interpreting this work.

To me, and again this is only my opinion, it comes across as change for the sake of change. Many choices I found a bit jolting, incongruous with the rest of the piece and simply uncalled for. I think it is entirely possible to leave your distinct mark on a piece of music without changing octaves and articulations and adding modern techniques that aren't anywhere to be insinuated in the manuscript.

The art of performing music that has already been written is an art of interpreting what is ON the page. I love how a Bernstein or a Celibidache can interpret a Tchaikovsky symphony so differently than a Klemperer of an Ormandy. I think if one has the inclination to make changes that basically says "this music isn't good enough as composed", then perhaps writing your own original composition is the way to go.

It is entirely possible (again my own opinion) that maybe Gene accomplished 2 important things here: produce something very different from what has come before while spurring a vigorous conversation within the industry regarding interpretation. I applaud Gene for opening our eyes to new possibilities, even if I don't agree with many of his musical decisions in this particular instance.

Let the debate continue!

Gary "the lesser known GP" Press

[Rick Denney]

Gary, think of it this way:

Vaughan Williams was known to collaborate with his soloists, making changes as needed, and giving the performer the benefit of the doubt. The premiere performer of this work was more constrained than many who have followed, and thus the changes that were made might not represent where RVW might have gone had circumstances differed. I see Gene's interpretation as the collaboration that could have occurred had someone like Gene been the premiere performer in 1954.

I wonder if those liberties are really all that great compared to the liberties taken by great pianists, violinists, and singers when performing their concerto/solo war horses. Maybe we think too much like ensemble players.

Rick "thinking all concerto performances are collaborative" Denney

[Art Hovey]

My opinion is worth no more than anyone else's, and perhaps less because I never came close to mastering the VW on bass tuba. But when I hear someone with a contrabass tuba play music that was composed for some other instrument and make it sound right that makes me happy because that's my instrument, and that's what I want to sound like.

If the VW had been composed for bassoon or horn or harmonica and Mr. Pokorny showed us (as he did) how wonderful it can be on a big tuba would we be complaining?

In addition to the incredible quality of the performance by Gene and by the CSO we should also be grateful for the outstanding work done by the recording engineer. It's a perfect example of tasteful use of compression which really does improve the listening experience.

[Ken Herrick]

If the VW had been composed for bassoon or horn or harmonica and Mr. Pokorny showed us (as he did) how wonderful it can be on a big tuba would we be complaining?

Funny you should mention the HARMONICA, Art. Due to Catelinet's shortcomings and the subsequent need for RVW to keep revising what he wanted, it almost became a harmonica concerto! I wonder what the Harmonicats would have done with it!

My feeling is that it is about time somebody put some life into this piece - it has always been little more than a throwaway space filler as far as gaining performance time goes. EG Jake's performance being slotted into a "pops" concert with Morton Gould in the 60's. It has never been taken seriously. Had there been somebody like Gene collaborating in the creation of this work it might well have come out more like they way he did it.

I have heard Jake, Chester and Harvey all perform this live, plus a few recordings, and I now have a new favourite rendition. I'll leave it to Gene, should he decide to, to tell more about his reasons for doing what he did and the "program" behind it. From me - a big BRAVO!!!

[tubalooney]

You can still here Gene pokorny's interpretation here

https://soundcloud.com/chicagosymphony/ ... -van-zwede" target="_blank" target="_blank

I like it a lot and I grew up as a tuba player with John Fletcher's version and worked with John as well as my professor Patric Harrild on the concerto for my final exams. I loved the cadenzas. The second movement was very touching and beautiful. Gene is way out there as a great musician who happens to play the tuba.


All the best

[UDELBR]

Link doesn't work; you need to add an "n" at the end, as in "Jaap van ZwedeN".

[tubalooney]

Oops!
Here we are!


https://soundcloud.com/chicagosymphony/ ... van-zweden" target="_blank" target="_blank





Cheers
Phillip