Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on May 03, 2016, 10:55PMI must say I believe Mr. Weiner's research (whether one agrees with his conclusions or not) is a very valuable contribution to our knowledge about trombone history, and I agree with him that we should be questioning a lot more what instrument is really intended. Too often have I heard ''well, it's written 'alto' on the part, so it's written for alto trombone'' or ''it's in alto clef''. I still don't think any definitive answer is possible though, as far as performance choice goes, for a number of reasons :I also don't think that a definitive answer is possible -- there is simply not enough evidence available. And as I said above, I had hoped that my article would get people to open their eyes and find sources that I may haved missed, irrregardless of whether the sources supported or disproved my theories. When I started writing my article, after over ten years of collecting material, I actually intended to focus on the bass trombone, but then I realized that I had enough material to include the alto. I approached my self-imposed task without a predetermined goal and just let the sources lead me where they wanted to go. And, by the way, I'm still interested in finding or obtaining relevant sources. Again, as I mentioned above, no further relevant sources have turned up during the eleven years since the publication of my article. (At least two sources relevant to the period after that treated in my article have come to my attention -- they'll be presented in an article on Bruckner in the upcoming issue of the Historical Brass Society Journal, but since it's not my article, I can't say anything more at this time).
Quote1) What the composer had in mind Your five points are well taken and in any case largely coincide with my views. One thing though: you ask "why is the Tuba Mirum in the second part if the first trombonist is also playing tenor." The answer is simply: because the Tuba mirum solo is in the tenor range, and the first trombonist would probably have been using a smaller mouthpiece more suited to the relatively high tessitura of the first part.
QuoteWith regards to Mr. Weiner's actual reasoning, I tend to agree with at least some of Mr. Kimball's criticism, although perhaps in a more nuanced way. It is a feeling I have more and more as I read other texts and more primary sources, and come back to Mr. Weiner's text, that Mr. Weiner has *somewhat* of a bias to start with.No, not to start with. My "bias" developed while working with and thinking and writing about the sources.
Quote1) as noted by Mr. Kimball, there is a certain selectiveness in which sources are quoted and which parts of the quotes are kept.My text was originally written for a lecture at a conference. In other words, I had only 20 minutes in which to present my material. When I finished the first draft, I timed how long it would take for me to read it out loud. I stopped after 35 minutes with several pages still to go. So I ended up cutting out nearly half of what I had written, which demanded a certain selectiveness. Nevertheless, I was happy with the result. And when it came to publishing it, I did not see any need to add anything I had previously cut, especially since I had already treated a number of the sources more extensively in my previous publications (which were properly documented and referred to in the endnotes).
QuoteAlso, of taking quotes to infer an intention to a source without mentionning other comments of the same source which offer a contrasting or nuanced opinion. (e.g. Praetorius, and to some extent Berlioz come to mind)Again, time (and later space) constraints forced me to limit myself to the gist of the quotes.
Quote2) The three paragraphs on pages 65-66 where Mr. Weiner ceases to use facts and sources and starts reasoning from his own aesthetic preference raise the question of wheteher the said preference induces a bias when he examines facts the rest of the time.I purposely headed this section "Excursus--The solo alto trombone" because I wanted at least to touch upon this theme, although it really did not belong to the actual subject of my article. This section is and was intended to be subjective -- to get the readers to think about the possible consequences my evidence has for the solo repertoire of this period. (I still intend to expand upon this in a future article -- I simply have not had time to do so yet.)
QuoteI have four further issues with these paragraph :
a) ''(While there are surely trombonists today who make a nice sound on the Eb alto, I would contend that they, too, make an even nicer sound on the Bb tenor.)''This is subjective and was intended to be so.
Quoteb)'' Yet this popular belief is based on the mere fact that the solo parts of these pieces [L.Mozart, M.Haydn] are notated in alto clef'' - There are several other indicators that these might have been written for alto :
-they sit quite high and never really go down into the alto's uncomfortable range;
-some of them are very demanding and tiring, even on an alto sackbut - I would like to think that ''any self-respecting eighteenth-century virtuoso would have chosen an instrument that helped him make the most beautiful sound possible'' on a consistent basis and for the whole duration of the piece.
Point taken. But something else to consider is the pitch at which these pieces were performed. I have found evidence that the court chapel in Salzburg played at chamber pitch (a=415), so that everything, including the solo trombone parts, sounded a whole tone lower than written. In a couple sources, the trombone parts are even already transposed. However, I admit that these trombone parts still remain formidable.
Quote-according to Mr. Weiner's own research, presented in the very same article, Salzburg employed a section of alto (D), tenor (A) and bass (D) trombones - whe thus know that Gschladt had access to and was well versed in the art of playing an alto; The town musicians in Salzburg played alto, tenor, and bass trombones. This does not necessarily mean that Gschlatt played or even had access to an alto. Moreover, Gschlatt was employed in the court chapel as a trombone soloist, and also played violin, violoncello, and horn; there is no evidence that he had anything directly to do with the town musicians.
Quote-Haydn's concertino for horn and trombone from P.87, for example, is in D major - everything lines up to perfection when played on the alto in D - you have none of the ornament and trills issue that you find in Wagenseil when playing on alto - and the blend with a baroque horn (which has a clearer, brighter sound than the later invention horn and eventually valved horn) is especially good with an alto;
Does everything still line up to perfection when you take chamber pitch into consideration? Just wondering.
Quote-(again about P.87) there are two contemporary manuscript copies of that serenade - it is my understanding from the modern Urtext edition that one of those primary sources specifies ''alto trombone concertato'', although I can't confirm it, as I could only get my hands on the Esterhazy estate copy, which doesnt (perhaps Mr. Weiner, or anybody else, could enlighten us on this if they have seen the second copy?). Sorry, I also only know the Esterhazy estate copy, which is in Haydn's own hand.
Quotec)The reasoning of trills and ornaments on the lower partials indicating that it is written for tenor trombone doesn't convince me at all. Trombones have had to play trills on the lower partials ever since the Renaissance. Trills of a fourth (i.e. between the 3rd and 4th partials) are mentionned in treatises. You find trills between partials 3 and 4, and 4 and 5 repeatedly in baroque sonatas (Castello, Bertali, for instance). Unless we're going to argue that this means those sonatas are actually written for the bass trombone, I think we should leave the trills alone and put them on the account of my earlier point : many composers don't know or care (or both) about our technical difficulties.The types and performance of trills varied depending on the time and place. And in any case, comparing Castello with Bertali or either of them with Michael Haydn would be a rather absurd undertaking. I see no reason to discount the importance of trills in this question.
Quoted)Quoting Praetorius to back an assertion about the choice of instruments of an hypothetical virtuoso that lived over a century later does not seem like a very strong argument, even more so because the quote is only very partial (see Will Kimball's page about this). This was one thing that I wish I had formulated a bit better. I was definitely not implying that the opinion stated by Praetorius in 1619 was still valid or even known in the second half of the 18th century. What I intended to imply was that -- in view of the fact that the trombone had hardly changed in terms of form and size between the early 17th and late 18th centuries, and was still used for the same purposes: playing colla parte (without obliterating the voices) and solo playing in smaller ensemble settings, and both of these in the usually very lively acoustics of a church -- a late 18th-century listener/musician/critic with a musical astuteness equivalent to that of Praetorius would very likely have come to a similar conclusion as he did a century and a half earlier.
QuotePraetorius also says you should not write above E, that the best trombonists can reach A at the maximum on tenor, and that you should always give the high parts to an alto trombone. Given that his judgement on these issues was clearly void in the late 18th, I'd suggest we leave the entirety of what Praetorius wrote to its own context.In one place, writing about the tenor trombone, Praetorius said:
"Some players (among them the famed master Phileno of Munich) command this instrument so well that they are able to sound the low D and the high c", d" and e" without any difficulty. I heard another player at Dresden -- Erhardus Borussus, who is said to be living in Poland at present. He mastered this instrument to such a high degree that he could play almost as high as a cornett -- that is, to the high g" sol re ut..."
Of course elsewhere, where he was giving advice for everyday music making at court or in the church, Praetorius had to assume that his readers merely had run-of-the-mill town musicians at their disposal, musicians who were more or less competent on trombone and various other instruments, and could not be expected to perform musical fireworks alla Phileno and Erhardus.
Quote3) The main source of his affirmation that the Viennese didn't use altos is a method book by a trombonist. Mr Weiner presents this as reasons to see it as the most accurate source, but I don't see it quite that way. Then find a better source documenting trombone playing in early 19th-century Vienna! Until you do, Nemetz is all we have. Whether you like it or not!
Quote4)''From the seventeenth through early nineteenth centuries the small alto trombone was at best a marginal instrument with geographically limited usage'' - marginal relative to what? I understand that what he means is : it might not have been used in Vienna, which is the center of classical and early romantic music, and is widely believed to have been the center of alto trombone playing. The use of strong language like ''at best a marginal instrument'' seems out of line with his own conclusions : that the alto trombone was used in 4 out of 7 cities he examines in his article.Marginal to trombone playing as a whole, and during a time in which the trombone was only in use in a very few places to boot. "In 4 out of 7 cities" is ignoring the fact that the trombone was used in only 3 of them during the entire period in question; in the other 4 cities (actually 3 cities and Italy, which I didn't really manage to discuss), I documented the reintroduction of the trombone. The trombone was all but unknown in England from the late 17th century until ca. 1790 (in the one very short period in which Handel used trombones in Saul and Israel in Egypt in 1738/39 it was an absolute sensation, and most people had no idea what a trombone/sackbutt was). It had likewise died out in France by the end of the 17th century and was reintroduced only in the early 1760s by Gluck, who was accustomed to working with trombones in Vienna. And even in Germany, there were only a few towns during this period in which the town musicians had not given up the trombone in favor or more fashionable instruments; Salzburg and Leipzig were among the few exceptions.
QuoteOn a sidenote regarding extant instrument, I believe the evidence is inconclusive. Upon consulting other resources and talking to a specialist of early brass instruments manufacture ...And guess who called me this morning, Maximilien.
Quote... I have to agree with Mr. Weiner that most instruments that have survived were probably intented for the protestant church (or the Moravian church, in some cases), and are not likely to have been used in Vienna, let alone for the repertoire we're talking about here.
The problem is, while it is true that we don't know any surviving alto in Eb/D from classical-era Vienna, we barely have any tenor as well -> the sample size is too small to make any conclusion. Moreover, the instruments that DO survive are very different than what one would expect from classical trombones. The Huschauer instruments look like they're from a century before that - their bells are only slightly larger than sackbuts, and not flared at all. There is a 1806 set of alto, tenor and bass. The bass in in G, and the alto is in C (!).There are a number of tenor trombones from Vienna from this era: 5 or 6 by Leichamschneider, the Huschauers in Edinburgh and Verona, possibly a Kerner (?formerly in the Boosey & Hawkes collection), and a recently rediscovered Riedl from 1823 (which is very similar to the instrument depicted in Nemetz).
Howard
). And actually, A=466 (ish) 
