TubaForum.net

bloke wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 8:19 am The vast majority of our wind instrument expression and articulation markings are derived from bowed string instruments’ markings, and - often - things are lost in the translation.

It may "come from" strings' markings, but I can tell you brass players do NOT do what string players do with the same markings; far from it. Brass players' tendency, well ingrained, is to play everything on the staccato side. String players' tendency, also well ingrained, is to play on the legato side. So conductors have to work to get string players to play short and have to work to get brass players to play long. Putting markings in music I wrote for brass got me FAR from the results I would have gotten with those same markings for string players, and I had to get a couple of pros together to read my stuff and work out what the markings should be for horn players, anyway, and I have noted that the other brass are the same way. So saying it comes from string markings is kind of like saying English is a Germanic language and expecting people to speak German when they read it.

@Mary Ann I’ve often thought it would be helpful if someone compiled something like a strings to brass to woodwind translation dictionary for articulation markings. It would help composers, arrangers and people doing transcriptions.

Mary Ann wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:36 pm It may "come from" strings' markings, but I can tell you brass players do NOT do what string players do with the same markings; far from it.

yes...one of my points...

It’s an easier lick on a C tuba, where it lands in the comfort zone, or even on an F tuba. The Bb tuba jumps from the 4th to the 5th partial, which have different intonation characteristics. I always play it as relaxed as possible, though still with forward momentum, pushing the first slide in on the way up so that it’s where it should be when I get to the C. But I need to ventilate the first valve on the Hirsbrunner to make that work.

But I think many American players would do well to hear it played by the best British bands, and then again by the better wind ensembles picked up from symphony players. Holst was an orchestral composer, notwithstanding that he was a trombone player.

Rick “who’ll have to dig up his old Cleveland Symphonic Winds recording to validate the above statement” Denney

Rick Denney wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:47 am It’s an easier lick on a C tuba, where it lands in the comfort zone, or even on an F tuba. The Bb tuba jumps from the 4th to the 5th partial, which have different intonation characteristics. I always play it as relaxed as possible, though still with forward momentum, pushing the first slide in on the way up so that it’s where it should be when I get to the C. But I need to ventilate the first valve on the Hirsbrunner to make that work.

But I think many American players would do well to hear it played by the best British bands, and then again by the better wind ensembles picked up from symphony players. Holst was an orchestral composer, notwithstanding that he was a trombone player.

Rick “who’ll have to dig up his old Cleveland Symphonic Winds recording to validate the above statement” Denney

My crazy-tall/large-bore Miraphone B-flat (similar idea to your Hb) is one of those instruments whereby the 5th partial corrects itself (rather than getting worse) as cylindrical tubing is added. D and C-sharp suck, whereas C and B-natural are fine.

My kaiser bariton (Melton aka Meinl-Weston) sports an opposite tendency, whereby D is almost sharp, C-sharp is right-at or just-below pitch, C is saggy, and B-natural also sags.

Conn 14K sousaphones (as another example of "otherwise") feature the same tendency as my kaiser bariton.

==================================

As to the figure...
Supporting my claim that it's one of those rule-breaking segments ( whereby UP [notes] is DOWN [volume] ), is because the following note grouping (notes which are half as fast) CONTINUE up and ABSOLUTELY follow the "UP is UP" rule.

The decrescendo is a no go for me. But the length of the last note should not be longer than half a beat in any case. If Holst had wanted a longer sound he would have written a longer sound.

I am thinking throught the "tut" release here: The British bass players of that era would have definitely played a short C, possibly even a "tut" based on what I hear from British brass bands. Since I never used a "tut" I would not be in this camp unless the section was playing it that way. Still, I have never heard an active release that I like, so I can't even talk myself into it.

Every time I played the 2nd Suite in F over the last 25 years, it's been so fast that the angst of deciding the length of the last note was decided by the conductor's tempo. Which was fast. The Dargason went fast, too.

Rick Denney wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:47 am It’s an easier lick on a C tuba, where it lands in the comfort zone, or even on an F tuba.

Certainly doable on BBb, but I have to agree that (under the fingers and length of tubing exchanges) CC or F is much easier or at least easier to do cleanly.

But I think many American players would do well to hear it played by the best British bands, and then again by the better wind ensembles picked up from symphony players.

Agreed.

Rick “who’ll have to dig up his old Cleveland Symphonic Winds recording to validate the above statement” Denney

I listened to that recording yesterday, and they charged right through that opening lick. Not quite hammered through it, but it was a strong train going down the track.

Alex C wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 2:12 pm I am thinking throught the "tut" release here: The British bass players of that era would have definitely played a short C, possibly even a "tut" based on what I hear from British brass bands. Since I never used a "tut" I would not be in this camp unless the section was playing it that way. Still, I have never heard an active release that I like, so I can't even talk myself into it.

Style can vary from conductor to conductor, but I would want to match whatever the woodwinds play for consistency, unless, of course, the conductor has different ideas for each.

Every time I played the 2nd Suite in F over the last 25 years, it's been so fast that the angst of deciding the length of the last note was decided by the conductor's tempo. Which was fast. The Dargason went fast, too.

I'm not sure what drives some conductors to play it like a circus march. It ain't no barn burner. But if we have to double tongue it like a circus march at high speed, then, by damn, I want elephants, clowns, and popcorn to go with it!

again...(and I know that most tuba players' ears ignore the woodwind "echo" when listening to performances and recordings, but...)

The typical thing is the tubas coming in (as if they were bar bouncers), and then the woodwind players (playing the very same figure) as if it were music.

Tuba players tend to panic when they are asked to play four-to-the-beat...particularly when (nearly) all by themselves.

Most people (including most tuba players, I'm afraid) are still in the "really good for a tuba" frame of mind, when judging tuba players' execution of phrases and phrase fragments.

Paraphrasing a quote of a committee member at a tuba full-time orchestra position audition...

"...I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be listening for, here...so...is this about as good as it gets, then...??"

My experience: those first five notes pretty much dictate how the rest of the piece is going to go. If those first five notes are messy, the rest is going to be messy too.

Usual culprit: too loud and no dynamic contrasts (just loud and louder).

Staccato means separated, not short. Too many people play them short. The C quarter note is twice as long at the eighth notes. I would always use tu on any staccato, not tut. Just my opinion, and since I don't teach at a college or sit in a major symphony, my opinion doesn't matter.

The lyrics to the first 5 notes:
"Please don't [mess] it up"

bort2.0 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:02 pm The lyrics to the first 5 notes:
"Please don't [mess] it up"

i've seen the statement "staccato doesn't mean short; it means separated" many times
How does one separate (place space between) notes without making at least the first one shorter?
And what, then, does staccato mean if it appears on a note surrounded by rests?

Studying with a really fine violinist (also known to be a fine teacher) would enlighten (again, as all of the wind articulation markings are based on string markings), and a staccato note next to a rest (shortcut writing in wind parts) just continues to promote/encourage the tut-tut-tut type of playing that wind players (particularly wind-band players) regularly do, whereas string players are only heard doing as a special effect.

A large percentage of tuba/baritone teachers tend to work on getting their students (well...often literally...) up to speed on technique (ie. playing catch-up) whereas string (and woodwind) teachers' students often tend to be a bit more accomplished, whereby more lesson time can be spent on phrasing and performance practice execution subtleties.

I would recommend studying with an accomplished/successful tuba (or euphonium) player if reviewing and tweaking audition material, but would probably eschew them (again) in favor of a violinist or cellist (particularly if an advanced student) for all other types of musical instruction...and would also ask the same bowed-string instrument musician to (well...) listen to tuba/euphonium excerpts.

Perhaps (??), it doesn't help that many wind-band music directors are also marching band directors - as (outdoors) a "tut" (particularly in a stadium) can becomes a "tah".

Note how LONG the sound is AFTER the player STOPS making ANY effort...L-O-N-G...and with considerable decay.



and here...



ALL OF THAT HAVING BEEN SAID...
Due to the sheer volume of sound, occasionally (in symphony orchestras) brass sounds need to be subtly shorter than bowed string sounds, as the louder brass sounds will be heard (by the patrons) reverberating longer in a resonant hall than the bowed stringed instruments' sound...EVEN WITH the CONSIDERABLE "after-ring" of the bowed-instruments' sounds.

The SOUNDS we make (as they are heard/interpreted by PATRONS' ears) are all-important, whereas "how we make those sounds" are of no importance...other than IF the desired effects are achieved, and musical (rather than mechanical - again, unless special effects are desired) sounds are produced.

I always thought of staccato markings being as much about the articulation of the front edge of the note more than about its length, particularly with notes I’m likely to double-tongue anyway. In this Holst example, if I try to stop air I’m screwed. I just use a harder tongue and build a little reverberation into the last note. But I think of the last note not as the destination (as I normally would with this sort of phrase), but as the last step I get to take before others take subsequent steps.

But in most community bands of my experience, the woodwinds hammer the last note as much as the tubas.

Rick “technique not up to thought processes” Denney

I'm probably going to back away from this thread, because there's nothing more to say, and (well...) appearing to be so presumptuous as to "school" others just ends up painting oneself as an @$$h0le ...but THIS: no composer can possibly notate all of the natural phrasing that occurs in the standard performance practices (ref: Tabuteau school, et al) of western classical music...and (well...) not all musicians are going to agree on how to phrase...thus, a "leader" or a "music director"...but (well...) here, just ONE example (my preference) on how this COMPLETE phrase would be musically executed...ie. not as if played on a calliope, or on one of those mechanical bands - as seen at state fairs (etc.)



...and the quarter notes would definitely be longer than the eighth notes...