alto or tenor: Leonore #3

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Tue May 02, 2017 12:53 pm

Quote from: baroquetrombone on Apr 29, 2017, 05:26PMAmong other things in this thread:

What? For Beethoven? Um, no.

No, you're wrong. The trombones used in Vienna were very much baroque-style instruments well into the 1820s. See the picture of the 1823 Joseph Riedl (Vienna) trombone on page 136 of the most recent Historic Brass Society Journal.

Howard

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Tue May 02, 2017 1:06 pm

Quote from: baroquetrombone on Apr 30, 2017, 11:42PMNo, as I'm sure you know, but I'm going to go against my better judgement and respond anyway. Of course, if you know of trombones available from that time, I'd be more than happy to consider them for purchase. Until then though, I will continue performing on the closest thing we currently have, which is the aforementioned Schmied copies.
Actually, it's about time Egger & Co. started making copies of actual Viennese instruments, such as Leichamschneider, Kerner, Huschauer, and Riedl. The Schmied trombones were hardly professional-level instruments at the time they were made -- that's why most of them ended up in the settlements of the Moravian Bretheren, where they were used to play chorales.

Howard

ttf_baroquetrombone · Post by **ttf_baroquetrombone** » Wed May 03, 2017 2:28 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 02, 2017, 12:53PMNo, you're wrong. The trombones used in Vienna were very much baroque-style instruments well into the 1820s. See the picture of the 1823 Joseph Riedl (Vienna) trombone on page 136 of the most recent Historic Brass Society Journal.

Well gee, thanks for that, but "baroque style" does not equal baroque; "sackbut," as far as I know, is not a term that would have ever been used for orchestral trombones in a Beethoven orchestra; and until someone can prove to me that the trombonists in Vienna were in fact using 175yr old German instruments, I stand by my (correct) statement(s). I'm also well aware of the differences in trombones. I thought that was made obvious in my second post, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

The reason I replied in the first place is that statements like that, I think, are part of what makes people (not only directors and contractors, but also many many trombonists) think that there are two trombones, "sackbut" and modern, and if you are playing in a period instrument group, you use sackbuts. As you well know, that is about as far from the truth as can be, and if one is trying to be historically informed about trombones, there are infinite grey areas between the two.

Quote from: HowardW on May 02, 2017, 01:06PMActually, it's about time Egger & Co. started making copies of actual Viennese instruments, such as Leichamschneider, Kerner, Huschauer, and Riedl. The Schmied trombones were hardly professional-level instruments at the time they were made -- that's why most of them ended up in the settlements of the Moravian Bretheren, where they were used to play chorales.

Howard

Yes, with that, I wholeheartedly agree. We are only using the Schmieds because they are what is currently available. I would LOVE to have more options of all sorts. It seems crazy to me that so few originals are copied.

I'd be REALLY interested to try something that is known to be a copy (or an original) of an orchestral instrument from Beethoven's time, too, because while my baroque copies seem fine for classical choral music, they fight back at every turn playing something like Beethoven 5. The Egger Schmieds work really well for Beethoven and ironically don't feel good at all playing choral music.

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Wed May 03, 2017 6:04 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 02, 2017, 12:46PMNo, that's not true. Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, et al. invariably indicated "Trombone primo," "Trombone secundo," and "Trombone terzo" (or the appropriate abbreviations) in their manuscripts.

Howard

It is true. He really did build his case around that, no matter how much you deny it.

He says: "and a good example of this is Beethoven's specific request for only a tenor and bass trombone in the opera "Fidelio.""

Is the case he builds true? I don't know.

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Wed May 03, 2017 8:04 pm

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on May 01, 2017, 04:47PMWell, I'm gonna stop arguing now because I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread except your characterization of what I said. I must have chosen a wrong way to express myself then. I apologize if that was the case.
Sorry if I mischaracterized what you said.

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Wed May 03, 2017 8:49 pm

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on May 03, 2017, 06:04PMIt is true. He really did build his case around that, no matter how much you deny it.

He says: "and a good example of this is Beethoven's specific request for only a tenor and bass trombone in the opera "Fidelio.""

Is the case he builds true? I don't know.

Well he wrote for 2 trombones in the 6th Symphony, and they are generally considered to be alto and tenor parts, whereas Fidelio is generally considered to be tenor and bass parts. So I guess a good question would be: Was there a difference in the way Beethoven indicated these parts, either in clefs or in markings? And the followup question would be: If he didn't, where did subsequent publishers get the idea that one duo was tenor/bass while the other was alto/tenor?

ttf_SilverBone · Post by **ttf_SilverBone** » Wed May 03, 2017 9:11 pm

So, progress report.

I used an alto to play Leonore last night at rehearsal. I asked the conductor if he noticed a difference, and he didn't, which at least means I did a decent job of playing.

BTW, the conductor is a former bone player himself, and when I showed him the alto I used, he was enthusiastic about me continuing to use it.

Wish I had an alto I liked better than the one I have (Conn 36H). Too big a bore, too big a sound. Would really like to find an older Courtois (predecessor to the AC-131R) - played one once and really liked it.

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Thu May 04, 2017 5:05 am

Quote from: baroquetrombone on May 03, 2017, 02:28PMWell gee, thanks for that, but "baroque style" does not equal baroque;
Of course it doesn't. What I was getting at was that the function of the trombone did not change between the Baroque and Classical periods: it was primarily used for doubling voices and as a solo instrument in smaller formations (even within works with larger scorings). Therefore, the instrument itself did not change very much, even into the early 19th century. In Vienna, the change to a larger bore and larger bell flare took place only around 1830 (again, take a look at the photo of the 1823 Riedl tenor and at the drawing of the alto-tenor-bass trombone in Nemetz [1827] -- both still display very "baroque-style" contours).

Quote"sackbut," as far as I know, is not a term that would have ever been used for orchestral trombones in a Beethoven orchestra;
Nor is the term "sackbut" appropriate for German or Italian contexts, for example, at any point in the history of the trombone.

Quoteand until someone can prove to me that the trombonists in Vienna were in fact using 175yr old German instruments,
I never implied that they did. On the other hand, the Viennese instruments of the 18th century (by Geyer, Leichamschneider, Kerner, Huschauer) were not very different than those made in the 17th century in Nuremberg. And it is interesting that there are no alto trombones by these Viennese makers. (There is allegedly an alto by Geyer in Budapest, but from the photos I've seen of it and the measurements available, I tend to think that it is a tenor that was cut down at some point for one reason or another.)

QuoteThe reason I replied in the first place is that statements like that, I think, are part of what makes people (not only directors and contractors, but also many many trombonists) think that there are two trombones, "sackbut" and modern, and if you are playing in a period instrument group, you use sackbuts. As you well know, that is about as far from the truth as can be, and if one is trying to be historically informed about trombones, there are infinite grey areas between the two.

Yes, we are in agreement here. But I'm taking it a step further: What I've been trying to show is that the trombone section in the 18th and early 19th centuries was not a monolithic entity of alto in E-flat (or D), tenor in B-flat (or A) and a quart/quint in E-flat (or D), that the make-up of the trombone sections was different in different places and at different times. In other words, I would like to encourage the players in period-performance ensembles to display even more differentiation in their choice of instruments.

If you go back and read my HBSJ article, you'll notice that I first show that the terminology was not consistent, that an "alto" trombone, for example, could refer to an instrument in D or E-flat just as well as to one in A or B-flat, depending on the place and context. Then I went on to examine the situations in different places. -- Obviously, the thing that most people find/found difficult to accept is that I called into question the presence of the E-flat alto trombone in Vienna of the Classical period, which of course flies in the face of what most people think they "know." In the 12 years since the publication of my article, a lot of people have expressed their disapproval of my findings, but nobody has offered any evidence to refute them. Actually, the one document that has turned up confirms one of my conclusions.

Howard

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Thu May 04, 2017 5:19 am

Quote from: HowardW on May 02, 2017, 12:46PMNo, that's not true. Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, et al. invariably indicated "Trombone primo," "Trombone secundo," and "Trombone terzo" (or the appropriate abbreviations) in their manuscripts.

Howard

I went a bit too far: scratch Beethoven. I just had a look at the manuscript of the Ninth Symphony, and it seems that Beethoven did write "Basstrombone" in one place and "Trombone alto" in another. (Beethoven's manuscripts are not for the faint-hearted!) But on the other hand, in the 4th movement he notated the trombones on 2 staves: trombones 1 and 2 on one staff in alto clef, and the bass trombone on another staff in bass clef.

Howard

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Thu May 04, 2017 6:44 am

And since it's a thread about Beethoven ...

That's an [s]invariable[/s] "whoops"! I'll take Jay's reprimands for him. Two boxes of Oreos and a Chuck-E-Cheez gift card, if you please.

Maybe we're a step closer to recognizing that it definitely should be an alto. Clearly Beethoven understood what he was writing for. And if the group is scaled back, and you're trying to be historically informed, probably one of those "classical" alto replicas. Anyone tried one of those yet?

Also, Silverbone, the 36H can become a completely different instrument with a change of mouthpiece. The 15CL, which was designed with that instrument in mind, plays tiny! Very clear articulations and a compact clear sound.

ttf_svenlarsson · Post by **ttf_svenlarsson** » Thu May 04, 2017 7:52 am

If you get the chanse to play Beethover in an orchestra that want to only use period instruments you you are in a situation that can be a bit expensive. Among other things, the term "sackbut" is a modern name used to make sure you are talkiong about the period trombone. I Germany Pezelius wrote for Three tromboni, the oldest name for sackbut are; trombone.

In a modern orchestra you play alto if the conducter tell you to, or you figure you make the part better that way.

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Thu May 04, 2017 8:10 am

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on May 04, 2017, 06:44AMAnd since it's a thread about Beethoven ...

That's an [s]invariable[/s] "whoops"! I'll take Jay's reprimands for him. Two boxes of Oreos and a Chuck-E-Cheez gift card, if you please.

Maybe we're a step closer to recognizing that it definitely should be an alto.
No, actually not! Andreas Nemetz, who likely played trombone in the premiere of the Ninth, wrote in his Trombone Method (1827) that the "bass- tenor- and alto trombone is in B-flat," and supplied drawings of the mouthpieces for each -- the bass mouthpiece larger, and the alto mouthpiece smaller than that for the tenor. Moreover, the slide positions marked in the etudes of his method show that the alto and bass were indeed in B-flat. Circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but how much closer can we get to Beethoven?

Howard

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Thu May 04, 2017 9:41 am

Quote from: HowardW on May 02, 2017, 12:46PMNo, that's not true. Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, et al. invariably indicated "Trombone primo," "Trombone secundo," and "Trombone terzo" (or the appropriate abbreviations) in their manuscripts.

Howard

In the Requiem, Mozart assigns each trombone to the clef of the singers they are doubling, but he writes the solo in tenor clef. Does that not indicate that he intended it to be played on a tenor trombone, as opposed to an alto trombone, and that he therefore did not consider the alto and tenor to be the same instrument?

There's also an 1823 edition where the solo in the tenor trombone part appears to be crossed out and re-written an octave higher in the alto part. https://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/23872/hfpn

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Thu May 04, 2017 9:51 am

Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2017, 08:10AMNo, actually not! Andreas Nemetz, who likely played trombone in the premiere of the Ninth, wrote in his Trombone Method (1827) that the "bass- tenor- and alto trombone is in B-flat," and supplied drawings of the mouthpieces for each -- the bass mouthpiece larger, and the alto mouthpiece smaller than that for the tenor. Moreover, the slide positions marked in the etudes of his method show that the alto and bass were indeed in B-flat. Circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but how much closer can we get to Beethoven?

Howard

But there are Eb altos that exist from each period since the trombone was a thing and also paintings of them. I could say that the tenor trombone is in C because I have a Yamaha C/Bb trombone. I could call my King 3B an alto because I choose to use it on orchestra parts written in alto clef and I could also draw a picture showing the different mouthpiece that I use on my King 3B. If I showed a slide position chart, it would be the same as my Edwards tenor.

All that would prove is that I am peculiar.

Was his drawing of his alto showing it to be smaller than the tenor? Perhaps it really was a soprano trombone in Bb one octave higher?

ttf_Le.Tromboniste · Post by **ttf_Le.Tromboniste** » Thu May 04, 2017 10:49 am

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on May 04, 2017, 06:44AMAnd if the group is scaled back, and you're trying to be historically informed, probably one of those "classical" alto replicas. Anyone tried one of those yet?

Yes, often. As Howard and I both said earlier in this thread, they are however based on the wrong originals (instruments from a not-so-good maker in a small town in Poland (then remote eastern-Germany) - very unlikely to have anything to do with what Beethoven wrote for in Vienna. Especially given that we do have 4 specimens of Viennese instruments (none of them alto-sized though) that are exactly the right time period, and they are drastically different, they look basically like sackbuts on steroids...).

I recently tried the Crone copy by Egger, which is quite different. Best alto trombone I've ever had in my hands. Sadly I just don't know what I'd use it for. MAYBE Schumann.... Or playing 18th century concerti with a modern orchestra. That's about it...

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Thu May 04, 2017 11:00 am

Quote from: Blowero on May 04, 2017, 09:41AMIn the Requiem, Mozart assigns each trombone to the clef of the singers they are doubling,
No, he didn't. He died before he got to the stage of assigning trombones to the vocal parts. He merely indicated the four chords in mm. 7-8 of the first movement for the three trombones, and then the solo in the Tuba mirum for "Trombone Solo" -- not "tenor" or "alto" or "primo" or "secundo" -- simply "Trombone Solo."

Quote but he writes the solo in tenor clef. Does that not indicate that he intended it to be played on a tenor trombone, as opposed to an alto trombone, and that he therefore did not consider the alto and tenor to be the same instrument?
This is sort of like asking somebody whether he's going to stop beating his wife!

I assume that Mozart wrote the solo in tenor clef because it was the most expedient clef for the music he intended to write. If you want more details, you'll have to ask him yourself.

QuoteThere's also an 1823 edition where the solo in the tenor trombone part appears to be crossed out and re-written an octave higher in the alto part.

There are a lot of different editions with different solutions for just about everything that Mozart left unfinished in the Requiem. Take a look at the first printed edition, published in 1800, by Breitkopf & Härtel -- in the Tuba mirum, the part for "Trombone Solo" includes only the first 3 measures, then the bassoon takes over for the rest of the solo.

Howard

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Thu May 04, 2017 11:34 am

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on May 04, 2017, 09:51AMBut there are Eb altos that exist from each period since the trombone was a thing and also paintings of them.
Not true. As far as I know, the earliest surviving alto trombone is from the mid 17th century, which would make it around a hundred years younger than the earliest surviving tenor trombone. And the earliest reliable depiction of an alto trombone is probably that in Praetorius's Theatrum instrumentorum from 1620.

Moreover, one of the first things you learn in the study of musical iconography is that a painting, drawing, or sculpture is not a photo. In a painting, an artist will often change shapes, sizes, perspectives, to make the painting look good. He/She is less concerned about accuracy. A case in point is the famous painting of angel musicians by Hans Memling. The instruments held by the angels look incredibly realistic, that is until you try to recreate the instruments based on the painting -- then you realize that the proportions, which are so very perfect in the painting, just don't work in real life.

And even Praetorius's drawings, which were made to scale and often even display a ruler on nearly every page, cannot be taken at face value due to paper shrinkage over the centuries.

QuoteWas his drawing of his alto showing it to be smaller than the tenor? Perhaps it really was a soprano trombone in Bb one octave higher?

Nemetz depicted only a single trombone with seven positions and a range from FF to f2. Moreover, he said "the illustrated bass- tenor- and alto trombone is in B-flat" -- so one and the same illustration is intended to show the alto trombone, the tenor trombone, and the bass trombone. And all three are in B-flat.

Howard

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Thu May 04, 2017 1:01 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2017, 11:00AMNo, he didn't. He died before he got to the stage of assigning trombones to the vocal parts. He merely indicated the four chords in mm. 7-8 of the first movement for the three trombones,
Right, and what clefs did he put those notes in? Alto, tenor, and bass, same as the choir entrances that continue on each staff, right?

Quote and then the solo in the Tuba mirum for "Trombone Solo" -- not "tenor" or "alto" or "primo" or "secundo" -- simply "Trombone Solo."
But it's the only thing on that staff, and the staff is notated in tenor clef, which in the opening trombone notes indicates the SECOND trombone part.
QuoteThis is sort of like asking somebody whether he's going to stop beating his wife!
I don't see how. Asking if you stopped beating your wife is a loaded question, as it presupposes that you have beaten your wife. If you have not beaten your wife, there is no way to correctly answer the question. With my question, one could answer yes, Mozart's writing of the solo in tenor clef indicates that he intended it specifically for the tenor trombone and therefore thought there was a difference, or no, he did not consider there to be any distinction between the two. Unlike the wife-beating question, answering "no" does not imply a "yes" answer to any other question.
QuoteI assume that Mozart wrote the solo in tenor clef because it was the most expedient clef for the music he intended to write. If you want more details, you'll have to ask him yourself.
And then every single publisher got it wrong and assigned it to the second trombone? Why?

QuoteThere are a lot of different editions with different solutions for just about everything that Mozart left unfinished in the Requiem. Take a look at the first printed edition, published in 1800, by Breitkopf & Härtel -- in the Tuba mirum, the part for "Trombone Solo" includes only the first 3 measures, then the bassoon takes over for the rest of the solo.

Howard
The only "solution" I'm aware of that puts the solo in the principal part, takes it up an octave. Was that because they didn't think Mozart knew what he was doing? Seems unlikely. Seems more likely that they assumed the first trombone would be an alto.

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Thu May 04, 2017 1:10 pm

Denis Wick (in "Trombone Technique") says that Beethoven, Schubert, and Schumann 1st trombone parts work well on an alto trombone. This is simply where the parts are written and what they often need to blend with.

But I'd much rather hear a small bore tenor playing in tune and on time than an alto playing with poor intonation and sloppy playing.

Given that the Mozart Tuba Mirum is a duet between the solo trombone and the Bass voice, I often wondered if it wasn't really intended for a large bore Bb trombone. But all of that is pure conjecture. In fact, I read somewhere (maybe Doug Yeo's site) that in the original a large part of the trombone solo was given to a bassoon (Heresy!

).

ttf_Tim Dowling · Post by **ttf_Tim Dowling** » Thu May 04, 2017 2:20 pm

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on May 04, 2017, 10:49AM

I recently tried the Crone copy by Egger, which is quite different. Best alto trombone I've ever had in my hands. Sadly I just don't know what I'd use it for. MAYBE Schumann.... Or playing 18th century concerti with a modern orchestra. That's about it...

As far as I'm aware the Crone original dates from 1780 or thereabouts. Not quite sure why you'd use it in Schumann from 60 or 70 years later. Anyway I want to get a Penzel 1850 style alto made. Also a great instrument! I'm working on it....Perfect for Mendelssohn Schumann etc.

ttf_baroquetrombone · Post by **ttf_baroquetrombone** » Thu May 04, 2017 3:39 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2017, 05:05AMOf course it doesn't. What I was getting at was that the function of the trombone did not change between the Baroque and Classical periods: it was primarily used for doubling voices and as a solo instrument in smaller formations (even within works with larger scorings).

I'm not sure where this part comes from now, but I must be playing a different Beethoven than you play, 'cause my function in Beethoven 5 is VERY different from any baroque music I've played, and this is a post about Beethoven. I haven't actually played Leonore, I don't think, but the trombone parts don't look vocal.

QuoteTherefore, the instrument itself did not change very much, even into the early 19th century. In Vienna, the change to a larger bore and larger bell flare took place only around 1830 (again, take a look at the photo of the 1823 Riedl tenor and at the drawing of the alto-tenor-bass trombone in Nemetz [1827] -- both still display very "baroque-style" contours).

QuoteNor is the term "sackbut" appropriate for German or Italian contexts, for example, at any point in the history of the trombone.

Yes. And? I think that's learned in week one of early trombone training.

Again, my problem with the post that I originally quoted was the statement that "sackbuts" would be historically correct for Beethoven. Clearly we agree that that is not the case, but for some reason you decided to say that I was wrong.

QuoteI never implied that they did.

If I'm wrong that Beethoven shouldn't be played on sackbuts, then you actually did....

QuoteOn the other hand, the Viennese instruments of the 18th century (by Geyer, Leichamschneider, Kerner, Huschauer) were not very different than those made in the 17th century in Nuremberg. And it is interesting that there are no alto trombones by these Viennese makers. (There is allegedly an alto by Geyer in Budapest, but from the photos I've seen of it and the measurements available, I tend to think that it is a tenor that was cut down at some point for one reason or another.)

Yes, we are in agreement here. But I'm taking it a step further: What I've been trying to show is that the trombone section in the 18th and early 19th centuries was not a monolithic entity of alto in E-flat (or D), tenor in B-flat (or A) and a quart/quint in E-flat (or D), that the make-up of the trombone sections was different in different places and at different times. In other words, I would like to encourage the players in period-performance ensembles to display even more differentiation in their choice of instruments.

This is an interesting place that we end up. I know your position from your writings (most of which, yes, I HAVE read). You have no idea what I'm doing in performance though. I hate to make a huge generalization here, but I'm familiar with most of what HIP trombonists in the US are doing and I am one of the very few pushing my section to do exactly as you describe. It is not easy and is almost never black and white, so it's a slow process...but I guarantee that I am NOT at the back end of it....

I would be more than happy to play exactly the correct instrument in exactly the correct way for each and every concert I play. Unfortunately the lack of available instruments complicates that considerably, not to mention the lack of a lot of specific information.

QuoteIf you go back and read my HBSJ article, you'll notice that I first show that the terminology was not consistent, that an "alto" trombone, for example, could refer to an instrument in D or E-flat just as well as to one in A or B-flat, depending on the place and context. Then I went on to examine the situations in different places. -- Obviously, the thing that most people find/found difficult to accept is that I called into question the presence of the E-flat alto trombone in Vienna of the Classical period, which of course flies in the face of what most people think they "know." In the 12 years since the publication of my article, a lot of people have expressed their disapproval of my findings, but nobody has offered any evidence to refute them. Actually, the one document that has turned up confirms one of my conclusions.

You'll note that I didn't enter the alto/tenor argument at all. Once we get instruments that were used there, we can experiment with that, but for the moment, we're sort of stuck with what we have.

ttf_baroquetrombone · Post by **ttf_baroquetrombone** » Thu May 04, 2017 3:45 pm

Quote from: Tim Dowling on May 04, 2017, 02:20PMAnyway I want to get a Penzel 1850 style alto made. Also a great instrument! I'm working on it....Perfect for Mendelssohn Schumann etc.

Working on getting one made? I've been looking for a mid 19th century German alto for a few years for period German romantic stuff, which is just now starting to be programmed more in the states. ONE came up on eBay a few years ago and it was unmarked (though the details looked exactly like Penzel/Schopper) but I didn't buy it. I've regretted it ever since.

I've played a Kruspe alto, and it's a very nice instrument, but those (the tenors too) seem to be different than the Penzel/Schoppers somehow. Besides, Noah won't sell it to me.

ttf_Le.Tromboniste · Post by **ttf_Le.Tromboniste** » Thu May 04, 2017 3:58 pm

Quote from: Tim Dowling on May 04, 2017, 02:20PMAs far as I'm aware the Crone original dates from 1780 or thereabouts. Not quite sure why you'd use it in Schumann from 60 or 70 years later. Anyway I want to get a Penzel 1850 style alto made. Also a great instrument! I'm working on it....Perfect for Mendelssohn Schumann etc.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that instrument if you ever try it (or maybe you already have). It is a much larger instrument with a nice exponential flare. Feels to me almost like a modern alto.

I was merely saying that it is not geographically appropriate for basically any music of its time that we regularly play. The only music where I feel it would make sense to use that instrument would be later music, late classical to early romantic Leipzig music. Probably not the most accurate instrument for the job, but would make more sense anyway than using the Schmied copies. Which for instance we're using next week on Mendelssohn 5 (hope you have a chance to come hear one of the rehearsals or the Friday concert!). I wish there were other instruments easily available for that repertoire.

ttf_Tim Dowling · Post by **ttf_Tim Dowling** » Fri May 05, 2017 12:02 am

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on May 04, 2017, 03:58PMI'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that instrument if you ever try it (or maybe you already have). It is a much larger instrument with a nice exponential flare. Feels to me almost like a modern alto.

I was merely saying that it is not geographically appropriate for basically any music of its time that we regularly play. The only music where I feel it would make sense to use that instrument would be later music, late classical to early romantic Leipzig music. Probably not the most accurate instrument for the job, but would make more sense anyway than using the Schmied copies. Which for instance we're using next week on Mendelssohn 5 (hope you have a chance to come hear one of the rehearsals or the Friday concert!). I wish there were other instruments easily available for that repertoire.

Nice I'll try to come.. Actually Mendelssohn 5 is exactly the sort of piece where I think we "authenticists" (deep breath...) might be using the wrong instruments. Ok the Reformation is 1830, very early Mendelssohn and published after his death. He wasn't yet in Leipzig. I have a list of all performances by the Gewandhaus of all works between 1781 and 1881. I must check out how often he played that piece during his tenure 1835-47
Who's playing the serpent?

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Fri May 05, 2017 1:49 am

Quote from: Blowero on May 04, 2017, 01:01PMRight, and what clefs did he put those notes in? Alto, tenor, and bass, same as the choir entrances that continue on each staff, right?
Yes, but that in itself is not unusual. Measure 7 and beat one of m. 8 were otherwise empty (the voices enter only on beat 2 of m. 8), so he used them for the trombones. Often, and not only in Mozart's scores, there was no room for the trombones, so their parts were squeezed in wherever there happened to be space or written on separate short scores added at the end of the full score, as was the case, for example, in Don Giovanni, which is why you won't find the trombone parts in the autograph score to the finale of act 2 (and the appended short score for the trombone parts was lost already at some point in the early 19th century).

Back to the Requiem: Since Mozart did not finish the score and then go back to indicate where he wanted the trombones to play and where they were to stop playing, as he customarily did in his sacred works, we do not know for sure whether the trombones were intended to continue playing along with the voices after the four chords in mm. 7-8.

QuoteBut it's the only thing on that staff, and the staff is notated in tenor clef, which in the opening trombone notes indicates the SECOND trombone part.
I've never doubted that.

QuoteI don't see how. Asking if you stopped beating your wife is a loaded question, as it presupposes that you have beaten your wife. If you have not beaten your wife, there is no way to correctly answer the question.
Sorry, I'm a bit cautious now after getting burned giving a direct answer to this same question in a discussion a year or two ago.

QuoteWith my question, one could answer yes, Mozart's writing of the solo in tenor clef indicates that he intended it specifically for the tenor trombone and therefore thought there was a difference, or no, he did not consider there to be any distinction between the two.

Of course he knew that writing it in tenor clef would prompt his copyist and/or publisher to put the solo in the seond trombone part. He also surely knew that in Vienna it theoretically could have been played by the first trombone or the third trombone. On the other hand, he apparently knew neither who had commissioned the piece, nor where it eventually would be performed -- and we don't know if this made any difference to him at all...

QuoteThe only "solution" I'm aware of that puts the solo in the principal part, takes it up an octave. Was that because they didn't think Mozart knew what he was doing? Seems unlikely. Seems more likely that they assumed the first trombone would be an alto.

Various publishers/editors did in fact come up with other solutions. As I mentioned yesterday, the first edition (Breitkopf & Härtel, 1800) left only the first three bars of the Tuba mirum solo in the trombone part, giving the rest to the bassoon. Another early edition I looked at recently divided the solo between a cello and a viola.

And quite a few music critics, musicologists, composers (Berlioz!), etc. in the 19th and 20th centuries were of the opinion that Mozart really screwed up in the Tuba mirum and didn't have any idea about how to write for the trombone. However, what all of these critics did not know was that Mozart's interpretation of the Tuba mirum with a florid trombone solo was entirely within the Austrian tradition of the 18th century. Concerning this, take a look at Doug Yeo's recent essay on the Tuba mirum (he posted about it on the Forum just last week or so.)

Howard

ttf_Le.Tromboniste · Post by **ttf_Le.Tromboniste** » Fri May 05, 2017 4:13 am

Quote from: HowardW on May 05, 2017, 01:49AM
Of course he knew that writing it in tenor clef would prompt his copyist and/or publisher to put the solo in the seond trombone part. He also surely knew that in Vienna it theoretically could have been played by the first trombone or the third trombone. On the other hand, he apparently knew neither who had commissioned the piece, nor where it eventually would be performed -- and we don't know if this made any difference to him at all...

Notwithstanding the question of what instruments they actually used in Vienna, if we take this reasoning - that Mozart knew it might well be played by a section with a true alto on top and that may explain why he put the solo in the second part - and follow through with it, isn't the logical end to that reasoning that both are historically correct? That one can use either an alto or tenor? After all, if Mozart himself conceived that the part might be played on an alto, how can it be wrong to do it now?

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Fri May 05, 2017 5:35 am

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on May 04, 2017, 03:58PMI was merely saying that it is not geographically appropriate for basically any music of its time that we regularly play. I wish there were other instruments easily available for that repertoire.

See...

That's kind of like saying that the London sound we hear on, say, the Star Wars theme (1977) and especially even earlier examples of London Symphony playing is not geographically appropriate because there is no way that the trombone section could have had American 88H's. They were, after all, difficult to transport to the UK due to certain laws, and we all know that no self respecting Englander would ever use any American made product. Clearly, Denis Wick (who may not have even been at the London Symphony, but it's our best guess) would have used a Besson, so we all should use a Besson when playing period music from John Williams (who only indicates "Trombone 1").

Sometimes I wonder about how little time it would take to completely have no idea what instruments were actually used. A week? During the performance? I bet that many of the brass players themselves had no idea where their instrument came from.

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Fri May 05, 2017 6:20 am

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on May 05, 2017, 04:13AMNotwithstanding the question of what instruments they actually used in Vienna, if we take this reasoning - that Mozart knew it might well be played by a section with a true alto on top and that may explain why he put the solo in the second part - and follow through with it, isn't the logical end to that reasoning that both are historically correct? That one can use either an alto or tenor? After all, if Mozart himself conceived that the part might be played on an alto, how can it be wrong to do it now?

Historically correct? Hardly possible! There are simply too many unknowns involved. But historically informed is something else! If somebody has done research and comes up with new insights, I would be interested to try them out and then decide if they work for me. I might find them great, or maybe not. -- But what is difficult for me to accept is the close-mindedness of those who steadfastly contend, for example, that "alto clef means alto trombone" and who won't even consider that that might not be true in spite of the evidence to the contrary. And BTW, my ideas and arguments have convinced a number of people, who have been satisfied and convinced by the results. But I have no intention of trying to force anybody to play, for example, all the first parts in Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, and Schubert on tenor trombone. Play them on what works best for you.

Howard

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Fri May 05, 2017 3:12 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 05, 2017, 01:49AMYes, but that in itself is not unusual.
I don't think I said it was unusual.
Quote Measure 7 and beat one of m. 8 were otherwise empty (the voices enter only on beat 2 of m. 8), so he used them for the trombones. Often, and not only in Mozart's scores, there was no room for the trombones, so their parts were squeezed in wherever there happened to be space or written on separate short scores added at the end of the full score, as was the case, for example, in Don Giovanni, which is why you won't find the trombone parts in the autograph score to the finale of act 2 (and the appended short score for the trombone parts was lost already at some point in the early 19th century).
The brass addendum does seem to have survived for Magic Flute, though, and it looks like it was very much standard for him to write the trombone parts in ATB clefs. I think there's one staff where he combines the two upper trombone parts in alto clef, but I haven't seen any examples outside of the Requiem where he used tenor clef by itself for a trombone part.
QuoteSorry, I'm a bit cautious now after getting burned giving a direct answer to this same question in a discussion a year or two ago.
Not trying to "burn" anyone. You obviously have done a lot of research and I really appreciate being able to hear your thoughts on this stuff.
QuoteVarious publishers/editors did in fact come up with other solutions. As I mentioned yesterday, the first edition (Breitkopf & Härtel, 1800) left only the first three bars of the Tuba mirum solo in the trombone part, giving the rest to the bassoon. Another early edition I looked at recently divided the solo between a cello and a viola.
Yes, I know. That was part of my point. There are many differences in editions, yet pretty much all of them assumed the solo was for the second trombone. Yet Mozart never said it was for second trombone.
QuoteAnd quite a few music critics, musicologists, composers (Berlioz!), etc. in the 19th and 20th centuries were of the opinion that Mozart really screwed up in the Tuba mirum and didn't have any idea about how to write for the trombone. However, what all of these critics did not know was that Mozart's interpretation of the Tuba mirum with a florid trombone solo was entirely within the Austrian tradition of the 18th century. Concerning this, take a look at Doug Yeo's recent essay on the Tuba mirum (he posted about it on the Forum just last week or so.)

Howard
Already looked at it. Mr. Yeo was of the opinion that trombonists at the time probably weren't up to the task, and that was why the instrumentation was changed. When I see the edition with the solo crossed out of the tenor trombone part, it makes me suspect the same thing, that the second trombone player couldn't handle the part. That still doesn't explain why the part would be written up an octave for the first trombone, though. Mozart's writing may have been criticized, but I'm not aware of anyone ever saying he wrote the solo in the wrong octave.

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Fri May 05, 2017 3:35 pm

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on May 05, 2017, 05:35AMSee...

That's kind of like saying that the London sound we hear on, say, the Star Wars theme (1977) and especially even earlier examples of London Symphony playing is not geographically appropriate because there is no way that the trombone section could have had American 88H's. They were, after all, difficult to transport to the UK due to certain laws, and we all know that no self respecting Englander would ever use any American made product. Clearly, Denis Wick (who may not have even been at the London Symphony, but it's our best guess) would have used a Besson, so we all should use a Besson when playing period music from John Williams (who only indicates "Trombone 1").

Sometimes I wonder about how little time it would take to completely have no idea what instruments were actually used. A week? During the performance? I bet that many of the brass players themselves had no idea where their instrument came from.
That was my thought as well. Do we even know for a fact that every trombone player in Vienna played a trombone made in Vienna? Isn't that sort of like assuming every player in Los Angeles in the 1960s played an Olds and every player in New York played a Bach?

And even if we could make such an assumption, do we know for a fact that a particular composer is writing with that instrument in mind? Did John Williams tailor his scores for Gilligan's Island toward the small bore American made jazz instruments that the studio players at the time undoubtedly were playing, and then adopt a different strategy for the LSO players, or did he even know what kind of horn the guys would bring to the session, or even care? It seems to me that just because a certain instrument was used for X performance doesn't mean the composer necessarily had that instrument in mind when he wrote the part.

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Sat May 06, 2017 12:34 am

Quote from: Blowero on May 05, 2017, 03:12PMI don't think I said it was unusual.The brass addendum does seem to have survived for Magic Flute, though, and it looks like it was very much standard for him to write the trombone parts in ATB clefs. I think there's one staff where he combines the two upper trombone parts in alto clef, but I haven't seen any examples outside of the Requiem where he used tenor clef by itself for a trombone part.
It was of course standard at that time to write the trombone parts in ATB clefs. But when composers were working things out, they often combined the trombone parts on one or two staves, and left it for their copyists to straighten things out in the fair copy and the individual parts.

QuoteWhen I see the edition with the solo crossed out of the tenor trombone part, it makes me suspect the same thing, that the second trombone player couldn't handle the part. That still doesn't explain why the part would be written up an octave for the first trombone, though. Mozart's writing may have been criticized, but I'm not aware of anyone ever saying he wrote the solo in the wrong octave.

But, as strange as it may seem to us, somebody apparently did think that he wrote it in the wrong octave, or at least thought that it would sound better an octave higher.

Howard

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Sat May 06, 2017 12:57 am

Quote from: Blowero on May 05, 2017, 03:35PMThat was my thought as well. Do we even know for a fact that every trombone player in Vienna played a trombone made in Vienna? Isn't that sort of like assuming every player in Los Angeles in the 1960s played an Olds and every player in New York played a Bach?

No, we don't know for a fact that every trombone player in Vienna played a Viennese trombone. But considering the relatively large number of Viennese trombones found today in Viennese collections (and their known provenences from the Viennese court chapel and other Viennese churches), and the simultaneous lack of contemporary trombones from other places, we probably can assume that the Viennese trombonists did play on instruments by local makers. And don't forget that trombones were hardly in use and hardly made elsewhere at the time in question. One probably could have ordered a trombone from Nuremberg, where the brass instrument makers undoubtedly still had their old plans and mandrels laying around, but such instruments would likely not have been at the proper pitch for use in Viennese ensembles. -- Viennese pitch in the 18th century was ca. 430 Hz. In Salzburg and Leipzig, two places where trombones were still in use at this time, the pitch levels were choir-pitch (ca. 465 Hz; for the trombones and organ) and chamber-pitch (ca. 415 Hz, for the strings and woodwinds).

And of course we're talking about a time in which instruments of all kinds were still hand-made and not mass produced, and in which transportation and distribution were at an entirely different stage of development than in the 1960s or even the 1860s.

I almost forgot: Often, and I'm pretty sure this was the case in Vienna, the musicians were provided instruments by their employers. Moreover, music instrument makers could not just open up a shop wherever and whenever they wanted -- in Vienna they had to be citizens of the town and, at least by the end of the 18th century, were then often "purveyors to the court." Thus the employers (the court and the associated churches) also had an interest in purchasing the instruments locally.

Howard

ttf_Edward_Solomon · Post by **ttf_Edward_Solomon** » Sat May 06, 2017 1:58 am

Quote from: Tim Dowling on May 05, 2017, 12:02AMOk the Reformation is 1830, very early Mendelssohn and published after his death. He wasn't yet in Leipzig. I have a list of all performances by the Gewandhaus of all works between 1781 and 1881. I must check out how often he played that piece during his tenure 1835-47

That raises another thorny topic: what kind of bass trombone was intended? Mendelssohn writes low Ds a few times in the score, yet the part is hardly suited to a long bass trombone, which would have to make numerous forays into the high register above middle C, a notoriously difficult part of the instrument to control and one which other composers that scored for the instrument studiously avoided (e.g. Weber). Mendelssohn's high Ds and even F sharp would have been beyond the ability of just about any proponent of the (by then mainly military) F or E flat bass trombone.

Seeing as Sattler had not yet effected the addition of the rotary valve attachment, that leaves one likely option: a pre-Sattler tenor-bass trombone (with no valve attachment) and falset low notes or low notes taken up an octave.

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Sat May 06, 2017 1:33 pm

Sorry if this is too many topics going at once, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this: Beethoven seemed perfectly comfortable putting an F in the trombone part in the 5th Symphony, but in the 9th Symphony, the trombone only goes up to C#. In the fugue section, the first D in the altos is left out of the trombone part, and then the D at the end is taken down an octave, which makes for some really stupid voice leading. (And that dates back to the first edition.) The inescapable conclusion seems to be that someone didn't trust the trombone to be able to play that high (or didn't like the sound the trombone made when it was played that high). So did some trombone player butcher a high part that soured Beethoven on the idea of writing high notes for the trombone, or did some editor decide for himself that it was too high for the trombone, or was there some other reason, or is this something that is unknowable?

ttf_Le.Tromboniste · Post by **ttf_Le.Tromboniste** » Sat May 06, 2017 3:21 pm

Quote from: Blowero on Yesterday at 01:33 PMSorry if this is too many topics going at once, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this: Beethoven seemed perfectly comfortable putting an F in the trombone part in the 5th Symphony, but in the 9th Symphony, the trombone only goes up to C#. In the fugue section, the first D in the altos is left out of the trombone part, and then the D at the end is taken down an octave, which makes for some really stupid voice leading. (And that dates back to the first edition.) The inescapable conclusion seems to be that someone didn't trust the trombone to be able to play that high (or didn't like the sound the trombone made when it was played that high). So did some trombone player butcher a high part that soured Beethoven on the idea of writing high notes for the trombone, or did some editor decide for himself that it was too high for the trombone, or was there some other reason, or is this something that is unknowable?

Or, perhaps, if Nemetz indeed played 1st trombone on the Ninth, Beethoven knew he was getting a tenor on top and wrote accordingly, whereas he had previously written for a true alto on the 5th symphony? All of this is of course pure conjecture.

ttf_Tim Dowling · Post by **ttf_Tim Dowling** » Sat May 06, 2017 7:17 pm

Quote from: baroquetrombone on May 04, 2017, 03:45PMWorking on getting one made? I've been looking for a mid 19th century German alto for a few years for period German romantic stuff, which is just now starting to be programmed more in the states. ONE came up on eBay a few years ago and it was unmarked (though the details looked exactly like Penzel/Schopper) but I didn't buy it. I've regretted it ever since.

I've played a Kruspe alto, and it's a very nice instrument, but those (the tenors too) seem to be different than the Penzel/Schoppers somehow. Besides, Noah won't sell it to me.

Yes I am wording on getting an 1850s style alto made, and ther are some instruments that could serve as models. The Penzel is the best of the very few I've been able to find. And it's definitely the missing link between the classical altos you can get and the later romantic ones. A Kruspe or Heckel is not that far off by the way. But the Penzel bell has a tight throat and the bell bow is very small in bore. No tuning slide on it of course.

ttf_Tim Dowling · Post by **ttf_Tim Dowling** » Sat May 06, 2017 7:43 pm

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on Yesterday at 03:21 PMOr, perhaps, if Nemetz indeed played 1st trombone on the Ninth, Beethoven knew he was getting a tenor on top and wrote accordingly, whereas he had previously written for a true alto on the 5th symphony? All of this is of course pure conjecture.

Well the absence of high D's in the 1st part might suggest he was under the impression that C# was the highest note available. Someone may have informed him of that. I add them in myself. (Tsk,tsk)
Oddly enough 3 movements of the Missa Solemnis were also played at the premiere concert. That part has some high D's in it.

ttf_Rockymountaintrombone · Sat May 06, 2017 11:59 pm

There is one high "D" in the Beethoven 9, near the end of the piece. It makes that weird jump down of a major 7th in the fugue earlier in the mvt. all the more perplexing. I usually play the high "D" in the fugue as well, because it makes more musical sense and is frankly easier to play when the note before is a high "C#".

As far as the choice of alto vs. tenor, and the various viewpoints expressed here, I would not even begin to try to argue from a historical standpoint. I would say, however, that the sound of an alto, tenor and bass for the trombone section has become the prevalent sound that is expected in the modern symphony orchestra to reflect the music of Mozart. Beethoven, Schumann, Schubert and many others. Likewise, the rotary trumpet is a popular choice for that repertoire, and that instrument is definitely not historically accurate for much of that repertoire that would have used valveless horns and trumpets, or low "F" trumpets in the later rep.

I think historical accuracy is a noble pursuit when the entire orchestra is enlisted in that endeavor. In a modern orchestra, where the strings and woodwinds are using their modern instruments, and the string compliment is probably bigger that in classical/early romantic times, the main goals are to add brilliance at a lesser dynamic level, and to differentiate the sounds between the various trombones in the section to help differentiate the various vocal parts in the choir. I like an alto on top because the E flat instrument gives off different overtones than the B flat tenor and bass - there is a slightly different blend than when you use a small tenor on top. On the other hand, no one should play an alto if they aren't comfortable on it - no one will enjoy hearing a performance that is out of tune and inaccurate.

I think the historical performance folks are bothered by the use of the word "historical" when there is a grey area regarding what was the main instrument of the time. The orchestral performers, on the other hand, are used to modern performance practice, where the alto has become an expected instrument for this repertoire, and expect that this was always the case. Then, we get the students and amateurs who haven't had the time to properly learn to play the alto, and I'm not even going to get into the arguments about what makes/models/designs of altos are appropriate. In this music, play the instrument that you can: (1) make sound good (2) play as well in tune and as accurately as you can manage (3) will blend as well as possible with the other trombones, AND wth the rest of the brass, AND with the rest of the orchestra (4) won't overwhelm the strings/woodwinds and voices (in choral music).

Jim Scott
(playing an alto next week for Beethoven 6th)

ttf_Bcschipper · Post by **ttf_Bcschipper** » Sun May 07, 2017 10:41 pm

Quote from: baroquetrombone on May 04, 2017, 03:45PMWorking on getting one made? I've been looking for a mid 19th century German alto for a few years for period German romantic stuff, which is just now starting to be programmed more in the states. ONE came up on eBay a few years ago and it was unmarked (though the details looked exactly like Penzel/Schopper) but I didn't buy it. I've regretted it ever since.

I've played a Kruspe alto, and it's a very nice instrument, but those (the tenors too) seem to be different than the Penzel/Schoppers somehow. Besides, Noah won't sell it to me.

Although it is a bit off topic, but there seem to be at least two kinds of Kruspe alto. There is a Kruspe alto with Neusilverkranz and a bell of about 16 cm diameter but no 7th position. And there is a Kruspe alto without Kranz but with a slightly larger bell (close to 18 cm) and a 7th position.

ttf_Bcschipper · Post by **ttf_Bcschipper** » Sun May 07, 2017 10:51 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2017, 05:05AM
...

Yes, we are in agreement here. But I'm taking it a step further: What I've been trying to show is that the trombone section in the 18th and early 19th centuries was not a monolithic entity of alto in E-flat (or D), tenor in B-flat (or A) and a quart/quint in E-flat (or D), that the make-up of the trombone sections was different in different places and at different times. In other words, I would like to encourage the players in period-performance ensembles to display even more differentiation in their choice of instruments.

I couldn't agree more. Since there are so few instruments of which copies are made, historical performance-practice seems even more standardized than performances on modern instruments. This goes totally against the spirit of historical performance practice that should also aim to reproduce the historical variety of instruments at that time.

ttf_Bcschipper · Post by **ttf_Bcschipper** » Sun May 07, 2017 10:55 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2017, 11:34AMNot true. As far as I know, the earliest surviving alto trombone is from the mid 17th century, which would make it around a hundred years younger than the earliest surviving tenor trombone. And the earliest reliable depiction of an alto trombone is probably that in Praetorius's Theatrum instrumentorum from 1620.

Statistically speaking, how many e-flat altos would we expect to have survived? If we were to assume that e-flat instruments were as rare or rarer as today relative to tenors then given how few tenors have survived, we should expect no alto to have survived. So the fact that there is no surviving alto, is not sufficient evidence that they may not have existed.

Given some theoretical considerations about durability of brass etc. and the distribution of known surviving instruments, it should be possible to calculate the set of historical distributions of instruments consistent with today's evidence.

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Mon May 08, 2017 1:21 am

Quote from: Bcschipper on Yesterday at 10:55 PMStatistically speaking, how many e-flat altos would we expect to have survived? If we were to assume that e-flat instruments were as rare or rarer as today relative to tenors then given how few tenors have survived, we should expect no alto to have survived. So the fact that there is no surviving alto, is not sufficient evidence that they may not have existed.

Given some theoretical considerations about durability of brass etc. and the distribution of known surviving instruments, it should be possible to calculate the set of historical distributions of instruments consistent with today's evidence.

I tend to doubt that statistics would be of help here. There are too many things that cannot be calculated, such as the damages and losses caused by war. A case in point: during WW2 the instrument collection in Berlin suffered great losses, but in Vienna, which I think was hit just about as severely by allied bombing and shelling, the instrument collection survived intact. And even efforts to remove valuable collections from metropolitan areas that were obviously endangered often backfired: for example, the music collection of the Royal and University Library in Königsberg was packed up and moved for storage to a mansion in the countryside, which then took a direct hit and burned to the ground.

And of course even trying to determine the provenance of music instruments is often difficult if not impossible. Sure you can say that a trombone with "Nürnberg" engraved on the bell was made in Nuremberg. But where was it after that, before some private collector bought it in the 19th century and later donated it to a museum in Hamburg, for example? At the royal court in Warsaw, in Rome, in Dinkelsbühl? (It's really a stroke of luck that so many instruments from the Viennese court ensemble found their way into Viennese collections and have remained more or less where they had been used.)

This kind of information usually does not exist, or only for the most recent history of an instrument. And even some of that gets lost and forgotten. Another case in point, which is possibly of interest to a number of people reading this: The "classical" trombones made by Egger are based on originals in Basel. That is to say, an alto in E-flat and a quart trombone in F both by Schmied (Pfaffendorf) in the Basel Musical Instrument Museum. These were bequeathed to the museum as part of the collection of Wilhelm Bernoulli, a Protestant minister who lived in a castle on the shores of a lake northeast of Zurich (which is where I first saw and played these instruments). Bernoulli kept records of where and when he bought his instruments. -- I'm not sure anymore, but I think he acquired the Schmied trombones in the 1930s or so. -- In any case, the "alto" was actually an alto bell section with the slide of a tenor trombone, a fact that Bernoulli did not record. Fast forward several decades: In the early 1970s, Heinrich Huber, then co-principal trombonist of the Basel Symphony Orchestra, bought a Schmied tenor trombone from the estate of a collector in Germany. This "tenor" was however a tenor bell section with the slide of an alto trombone. After some negotiation, Bernoulli and Huber traded slide sections. About ten years later, in the early 1980s, Bernoulli's collection was transfered to the museum in Basel, so that Reini Egger had a set of "classical" trombones within walking distance of his shop. Neither the "original" condition of the alto with a tenor slide nor the subsequent trading of slides are mentioned in the records of the Basel museum. And even a master's thesis written in Basel in 2010 on early trombones in Swiss collections lacks this information, because the author did not think to contact Huber, who had sold his original Schmied tenor trombone following his retirement, but who would have been more than happy to supply information.

That's why I doubt that statistics would be much use to us in this matter.

Howard

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Tue May 09, 2017 11:05 am

Quote from: HowardW on May 06, 2017, 12:57AMNo, we don't know for a fact that every trombone player in Vienna played a Viennese trombone. But considering the relatively large number of Viennese trombones found today in Viennese collections (and their known provenences from the Viennese court chapel and other Viennese churches), and the simultaneous lack of contemporary trombones from other places, we probably can assume that the Viennese trombonists did play on instruments by local makers. And don't forget that trombones were hardly in use and hardly made elsewhere at the time in question.
What about this one? http://collections.nmmusd.org/Brass/Trombones/5946Fiebig/FiebigTrombone.html

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Tue May 09, 2017 12:10 pm

Quote from: Blowero on May 09, 2017, 11:05AMWhat about this one? http://collections.nmmusd.org/Brass/Trombones/5946Fiebig/FiebigTrombone.html

I didn't mean to imply that no trombones at all were made elsewhere. From this period there are also the trombones made by members of the Schmied family, as well as several from Leipzig makers. But their total output was rather small, especially in comparison to that of the Nüremberg makers of the 16th and 17th centuries. And, for what it's worth, none of them found their way into Viennese collections.

Something else: take a look at the full view of this instrument and tell me if you think that the proportions are correct. Remember that the rim of the bell on early trombones was approximately equivalent to fourth position. Here it would seem to be at about second position at the very most. This brings up another problem with original instruments: hardly any are in original condition, even if they appear shiny and seemingly in perfect shape behind the glass in the museum. To tell the truth, this one looks like it has really been through the [s]ringer[/s] er... wringer. [I woke up in the middle of the night and thought "Wait a minute, there's a w missing."]

Howard

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Tue May 09, 2017 1:16 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 09, 2017, 12:10PMI didn't mean to imply that no trombones at all were made elsewhere. From this period there are also the trombones made by members of the Schmied family, as well as several from Leipzig makers. But their total output was rather small, especially in comparison to that of the Nüremberg makers of the 16th and 17th centuries. And, for what it's worth, none of them found their way into Viennese collections.

Something else: take a look at the full view of this instrument and tell me if you think that the proportions are correct. Remember that the rim of the bell on early trombones was approximately equivalent to fourth position. Here it would seem to be at about second position at the very most. This brings up another problem with original instruments: hardly any are in original condition, even if they appear shiny and seemingly in perfect shape behind the glass in the museum. To tell the truth, this one looks like it has really been through the ringer.

Howard

Well the decorations on the ferrules match between bell and slide, so I think it's likely to be the same maker. The proportions are strange though. The thing is, it seems to be the position of the bell receiver that causes the unusual bell/slide line up. It obviously had some (bad) work done to it. I wonder if it was cut down from a tenor.

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Wed May 10, 2017 3:47 am

Quote from: Blowero on May 09, 2017, 01:16PMWell the decorations on the ferrules match between bell and slide, so I think it's likely to be the same maker. The proportions are strange though. The thing is, it seems to be the position of the bell receiver that causes the unusual bell/slide line up. It obviously had some (bad) work done to it. I wonder if it was cut down from a tenor.

It may very well have been cut down from a tenor. And I'm not so sure that all the ferrules match, but the photo is not so great. I'll see if I can obtain more information from a friend in Vermillion.

According to the accompanying text, the maker was not a full-time instrument maker, but rather a miller. (The rather slipshod nature of his signature on the bell is also hardly worthy of a professional craftsman.) If I remember correctly, the members of the Schmied family were also only part-time instrument makers.

Howard

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Wed May 10, 2017 11:17 am

Quote from: HowardW on May 10, 2017, 03:47AMIt may very well have been cut down from a tenor. And I'm not so sure that all the ferrules match, but the photo is not so great.
Look at the detail photos of the slide brace and the bell brace.

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Wed May 10, 2017 11:35 am

Quote from: Blowero on May 10, 2017, 11:17AMLook at the detail photos of the slide brace and the bell brace.

I did. I see parts that don't seem to match. Whoever did the repair job obviously tried to make the replacement parts similar to the originals, but didn't do such a great job of it. But to be honest, the quality of the image is not really good enough to say for sure -- a low resolution jpeg just doesn't make it.

Howard

ttf_Blowero · Post by **ttf_Blowero** » Wed May 10, 2017 12:38 pm

If you click on the low reso images, they become high reso. The lines etched into the ferrules are exactly the same. The bad patch on the inner slide brace with solder gooped all over was obviously done after the fact. I'm pretty sure they didn't even use tin/lead solder in the 1700s.

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Thu May 11, 2017 1:04 am

Quote from: Blowero on May 10, 2017, 12:38PM
If you click on the low reso images, they become high reso. The lines etched into the ferrules are exactly the same. The bad patch on the inner slide brace with solder gooped all over was obviously done after the fact. I'm pretty sure they didn't even use tin/lead solder in the 1700s.

I'm not convinced, but I don't see any sense in arguing about it. There is definitely something very wrong about this trombone in its present condition, and it's not an instrument that I would consider worth having copied (for any number of reasons). Stew Carter describes this instrument in the cited HBSJ article. Apparently, the upper inner slide tube is in two sections (i.e., repaired at some point of time), and the inner slides tubes consequently of different lengths.

Howard