moore, donald scott - the concerto for bass trombone by thom ritter george and the beginning of...
DESCRIPTION
DMA dissertation from Cincinnati Conservatory of Music, 2009TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date:
I, ,
hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of:
in
It is entitled:
Student Signature:
This work and its defense approved by:
Committee Chair:
11/3/2009 244
30-Sep-2008
Donald Scott Moore
Doctor of Musical Arts
Trombone
The Concerto for Bass Trombone by Thom Ritter George and the Beginning
of Modern Bass Trombone Solo Performance
Timothy Anderson, MM
Randy Gardner, BM
Wesley Flinn
Timothy Anderson, MM
Randy Gardner, BM
Wesley Flinn
Donald Scott Moore
The Concerto for Bass Trombone and Orchestra by Thom Ritter George
and the Beginning of Modern Bass Trombone Solo Performance
A document submitted to the
Graduate School
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctorate of Musical Arts (D.M.A.)
in the Performance Studies Division
of the College-Conservatory of Music
by
Donald Scott Moore
B.S. Ed., Jacksonville State University, 1984
B.A., Jacksonville State University, 1984
M.M., University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music, 1988
September, 2009
Committee Chair: Timothy Anderson
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the literature for bass trombone of the late 1950s and early 1960s in
order to establish Thom Ritter George’s Concerto for Bass Trombone as a pivotal work that
signaled an abrupt change not only in how composers regarded the instrument, but also what
technical demands were expected of players. In the first portion of this paper, music of the past
is examined to show that the mechanical developments of the past had a direct influence on the
music written for the instrument. Due to the lack of solo material for the instrument before the
1950s, orchestral music is examined to identify perceptions commonly held by composers.
Details pertaining to the development of the bass trombone traditions popular in Europe before
1900 is described in detail, as is relevant information drawn from primary sources. There
follows a detailed discussion of the rapid changes made to the instrument in the twentieth
century, making use of interviews with performers and instrument collectors along with standard
reference works.
An overview of Dr. George’s career is provided with a biography. Unfortunately, the
whereabouts of Robert Braun, the bass trombonist for whom the piece was written, is unknown.
The author has used a variety of sources to reconstruct the events leading to the creation of the
Concerto and to determine the type of instrument used by Braun for the initial performance.
There has been disagreement concerning when the double-valve bass trombone was created.
This research examines various sources to show who was responsible for the creation of the
instrument and determine that the instrument could not have been used for the initial
performance of the George Concerto.
A performance assessment is included to show how the modern enhancements to the
instrument inspired the techniques used in the Concerto. In order to demonstrate the radical
change of technique in the Concerto, performance assessments are included of other works
composed during the late 1950s and early 1960s. This data clearly shows how the double-valve
bass trombone, and especially the “independent” double-valve bass trombone, makes the
Concerto far easier to perform.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Much appreciation is given to Prof. Timothy Anderson, Professor of Trombone at the
University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music. Prof. Anderson served as my advisor
for this project. Other committee members include Prof. Randy Gardner, Professor of Horn at
the Conservatory, and Prof. J. Wesley Flinn, Director of Theory and Composition at Clayton
State University Department of Music. Their expertise in assisting me with the writing and
research of this document proved indispensable.
My colleagues at Gustavus Adolphus College were extremely patient and supportive of me
while I worked on this paper. In particular I would like to thank Douglas Nimmo, David Fienen,
Mariangela Maguire and Ann Pesavento, who offered advice, encouragement, and afforded me
time to complete my research.
Most of all I would like to thank my wife, Brenda, for her overwhelming support and help in
keeping me on task throughout the writing of this document. My daughters, Christina and
Lillian, also deserve my gratitude for allowing their dad to spend so much time at the keyboard.
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................….....2 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.......................................................................................…...3
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................….6 II. THE MUSICAL LEGACY OF TROMBONE INSTRUMENT INNOVATION...13 III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN TENOR-BASS TROMBONE…....25 IV. A BIOGRAPHY OF THOM RITTER GEORGE…………………….............…..46 V. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCERTO FOR BASS TROMBONE, CN 176……………………………………………………………………....51 VI. THE INSTRUMENT USED IN THE PREMIERE PERFORMANCE OF THE
CONCERTO FOR BASS TROMBONE AND ORCHESTRA ………………...62
VII. A PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE CONCERTO FOR BASS TROMBONE AND COMPARISONS TO SEVERAL WORKS COMPOSED BETWEEN 1956 AND 1964 …………………….………………………….65
VII. CONCLUSION………………………….………………………………………..77 BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................……..79 APPENDIX I. AN INTERVIEW WITH THOM RITTER GEORGE……………………………….82
1
TABLES
Table Page1. Range of motion, Thom Ritter George, Concerto for Bass Trombone measures 22-27………………………………………………………………………9
2. Range of motion, Patrick McCarty, Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 65-74…………………………………………………………………...….10
3. Relative position location with valves as compared to the seven natural trombone slide positions………………………………………………………………………..66
4. Range of motion, Thom Ritter George Concerto for Bass Trombone, measures 20-43………………………………………………………………………67
5. Range of motion, Thom Ritter George Concerto for Bass Trombone, measures 20-43………………………………………………………………………68
6. Range of motion, Thom Ritter George Concerto for Bass Trombone, measures 69-86………………………………………………………………………69
7. Range of motion, Robert Spillman Concerto, measures 1-12…………………………….69
8. Range of motion, Robert Spillman Concerto, measures 60-68, 78-80, and 97-104…………………………………………………………………………...69
9. Range of motion, Patrick McCarty Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 65-83……………………………………………………………………....70
10. Range of Motion, McCarty, Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 164-188...………….71
11.: Range of motion, Robert Bariller, Hans de Schnokeloch, measures 23-31, 65-68, 72-76, 78-80, and 142-146…………………………………………………...73
12. Range of motion, Eugène Bozza, New Orleans, selected measures from rehearsal 11 to 15…………………………………………………………………….74
2
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page1. The Single, Dependent, and Independent valve arrangements………...……………….8
2. Thom Ritter George, Concerto for Bass Trombone measures 22-27………………..…9
3. Patrick McCarty, Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 65-74, third movement……..10
4. George Concerto, measures 76-78 (top) and 84-86 (bottom)…………….…………...11
5. Nicholas Eastop demonstrating the Oller BBb Contra Bass Trombone….…………...13
6. Detail from Micheal Pretorious’ Syntagma musicum (Venice, 1615-1619), showing the alto, tenor, quartbass and quintbass sackbutts………….…………...14
7. The Harmonic Series………………………………………………………………….15
8. Franz Joseph Haydn, The Creation, No. 28, tenor trombone after letter H…………..16
9. : The Stölzel-Blühmel Valve…………………………………………………………..17
10. The Périnet Valve……………………………………………………………………18
11. The Riedl, or Rotary Valve……………………………………………….………….18
12. Gioachino Rossini, Guillaume Tell, Overture…..………………………….………..21
13. Giuseppe Verdi, La Forza del Destino, Overture…………………………….……..22
14. Antonin Dvo!ák, Symphony No. 8. The first trombone part, measures 356-363…...23
15. The range of the F-Bass Trombone and the Tenor-Bass Trombone………….….….26
16. Slide position placement for the tenor-bass trombone with F-attachment…….…....27
17. Notes available in each slide position for the tenor trombone and the additional notes playable on the tenor-bass trombone with F-attachment….…...28
18. Giuseppe Verdi, excerpt from La Forza del Destino, Overture. The positions available on the tenor trombone without F-attachment and the alternate positions playable on the tenor-bass trombone with attachment….…….……….29
3
19. Béla Bartók, Dance Suite (1923), fourth movement, measures 50-54………….…...29
20. Johannes Brahms (1833-1897) Symphony No. 1, fourth movement, measures 407-413………………………………………………………………...30
21. Jake Burkle…………………………………………………………………………..33
22. The 70H “Fuchs” model bass trombone……………………………………………..36
23. The 60H model bass trombone……………………………………………………...37
24. The Bartok Glissando………………………………………………………………..38
25. Detail of the 70H “Fuchs” model bass trombone……….…………………………..39
26. The Reynolds 78-X Contempora Bass Trombone…………………………………...40
27. Detail of the Holton 169 Bass Trombone …………………………………………...41
28. Positions for both F and D valves together……………………………………….….41
29. A bass trombone with an independent valve arrangement……………………….…..42
30. The notes available with the second valve and three positions capable of producing C3 on an independent-valve bass trombone………………………......43
31. The patent drawings for the Thayer valve……….……………………………….….44
32. Thom Ritter George……………………………………………………………….....50
33. Thom Ritter George Concerto, measures 20-27………………………………….….56
34. Thom Ritter George Concerto, measures 73-75…………………………………..…57
35. Thom Ritter George Concerto, cadenza, measures 163-173………………………...58
36. Thom Ritter George Concerto, solo bass trombone measures 182-187, and horn measures 188-194…………………………………………………...………59
37. Thom Ritter George Concerto, measures 188-210……………………………...…...59
4
38. Slide positions possible with the F-attachment, second valve tuned to Gb, and both valves together……………………………………………….…65
39. Positions for F3, G3, Bb2 and Eb2…………………………………………………..66
40. Thom Ritter George, Concerto for Bass Trombone, measures 22-24………………...67
41. Patrick McCarty, Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 29-36……………..……….70
42. Patrick McCarty Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 169-173……………………71
43. Jacques Castérède, Fantaise Concertante, excerpt from the cadenza…………….....72
44. Robert Bariller, Hans de Schnokeloch, measures 25-29……………………………..73
45. Eugene Bozza, New Orleans, comparison of the slide positions of two selected passages for the single-valve, dependent and independent instruments……….....75
46. A comparison of three selections. Bozza, New Orleans after rehearsal 15, McCarty, Sonata Movement 3, measures 69-74, and George, Concerto measures 73-75………………………………………………..75
47. Thom Ritter George Concerto for Bass Trombone, multiple glissandi in measures 39-43…………………………………………………………………...76
5
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTIONPurpose
While a significant quantity of solo literature for bass trombone was available before
1964, the Concerto for Bass Trombone CN 1761 (1963) by Thom Ritter George signaled a
change in how modern composers regarded the technical and expressive capacity of the bass
trombone. Before this time, many composers considered the bass trombone as an extension of
the tenor trombone, never fully realizing its ability to navigate from one extreme register to
another, but rather limiting its range while ignoring its unique flexibility. With the Concerto,
musicians were presented challenges which required inventive solutions on the instruments of
the day.
This paper will compare the George Concerto with other popular solos of the period
through an extensive performance analysis to reveal how it redefined the bass trombone as a solo
instrument. A comparison of performance solutions for the different versions of the bass
trombone will be developed in order to guide contemporary performances of the Concerto.
Reason and significance
A search of academic databases reveals little concerning the Concerto. A significant
exception is a dissertation by Dr. Neal Finn, written in 1999. Although Dr. Finn offers an
exhaustive theoretical analysis of the Concerto, the primary focus of his paper was the creation
of his own one-movement concerto, which was inspired by Dr. George’s work.2 The absence of
6
1 The CN numbers refer to “composition number,” Dr. George’s own numeric catalogue of his works.
2 Neal Brian Finn, An Original Composition: Concerto for Bass Trombone and Orchestra with Analysis, and Thom Ritter George: Concerto for Bass Trombone--an Analysis (Greeley: University of Northern Colorado, 1999)
research should be corrected, as this work is one of the most popular concertos for the bass
trombone.
Numerous improvements to the instrument during the 1950s allowed musicians access to
the new challenges introduced by the Concerto. Chief among these developments was the
addition of a second valve. Not only did this innovation encourage the development of new
techniques to solve performance problems, but it also offered the performer a fully chromatic
low register, something not easily accomplished with a single-valved instrument. With the
addition of an additional valve came larger mouthpieces and wider bores, enabling more bass
trombonists access to the lowest registers. The George Concerto appears to have been written to
highlight the ability of the modern instrument to move throughout its range without great
difficulty.
Methodology
Performance evaluations of the standard solo repertoire for the bass trombone from the
late 1950s and early 1960s will be incorporated into the document. This information is intended
to reveal the limitations taken into account by the composers of that time, thereby providing a
body of evidence to contrast with the new possibilities explored by Thom Ritter George.
The performance analysis will be primarily intended for the to the single-valve bass
trombone, with additional references made to the “dependent” F/D instrument that was
developed shortly before the Concerto was composed, and the modern “independent” F/Gb/D
instrument. The single-valved bass trombone was the most popular instrument when the
Concerto was written. The valve on this instrument allowed the player to lower the fundamental
pitch of the instrument a perfect fourth, from Bb to F, without moving the slide. Along with its
7
added tubing, the valve became known to musicians as the F-attachment. Combining the hand
slide with the F-attachment to further lengthen the horn, a player could play every note between
E2 and Bb1, with the exception of B1.3 Without the F-attachment the instrument has a gap
between E2 and Bb1. Making its debut in the late 1950s, the “dependent” bass trombone gave
the player access to the low B1 via an additional valve placed in the attachment tubing. The
modern F/D/Gb “independent” bass trombone allowed the use of the extra attachment
independently of the F-attachment. It is the most common instrument used today, and affords
players a variety of solutions unthinkable in the early 1960s.4 These instruments are shown
below (Fig. 1).
Figure 1: The Single, Dependent, and Independent valve arrangements
The detailed analysis seeks to reveal the amount of effort needed to perform difficult
passages in the lower register on the different instruments. While aspects such as range and
speed will be considered, determining the level of difficulty for a trombonist within a specific
excerpt is largely a function of the amount of slide movement. When faced with a difficult
passage, it is in the player's best interest to keep the range of slide movement to a minimum. For
8
3 Pitches are identified here and throughout the text with a system based on the piano keyboard. The three lowest pitches on a standard piano keyboard are designated as A0, A-sharp0, and B0. Beginning with the next higher pitch, designated C1, all of the pitches in the octave above are labeled with a superscript “1.” Each consecutive C begins a new octave, labeled with the next higher integer as its superscript.
4 Douglas Yeo, "What is the difference between ‘in-line’ and ‘dependent’ bass trombones? Which is better?" yeodoug.com. July 13, 2004 2004. Douglas Yeo. <http://www.yeodoug.com/resources/faq/faq_text/valves.html> (accessed November 20, 2007).
this document, any rapid movement of the slide of 10 " inches or more (a shift of at least three
positions) will be considered challenging when playing eighth-notes at a tempo at or over 112
beats per minute. These passages should include at least 25% of their content at or below C3 to
make use of the various attachments. The analysis will consider a variety of options available on
each instrument, and report the level of difficulty as a percentage. Figure 2 provides an example.
Figure 2: Thom Ritter George, Concerto for Bass Trombone measures 22-27
On the single-valved instrument, 40% of the slide motion within the bracketed section requires
slide movement of three positions or more, while the modern independent instrument allows the
player to avoid this situation entirely. Moreover, the independent bass trombone allows 86% of
the slide movement in this passage to travel only a single position change or less. The detail of
this comparison can be seen in Table 1.
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment
1 9 3 5 2 2 0 40% 60%
F/Gb/D Independent
4 15 3 0 0 0 0 0% 100%
Table 1: Range of motion, George, Concerto for Bass Trombone measures 22-27
Applying the same criteria to a similar excerpt in Patrick McCarty's Sonata (1962)
reveals an attempt by the composer to avoid such complexities (see Figure 3):
9
Figure 3: Patrick McCarty, Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 65-74, third movement
These leaps utilize notes that are in the same positions on the F-attachment model and are easier
to play at rapid tempos. Using the same criteria as above, we learn there is no technical
advantage in using the modern independent bass trombone:
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment
11 4 4 2 0 0 0 40% 60%
F/Gb/D Independent
11 4 4 2 0 0 0 40% 60%
Table 2: Range of motion, McCarty, Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 65-74
Composers were careful not to exceed the technical constraints of the instrument, yet the
Concerto presented a significant departure from this tradition. Accompanying this data will be
extensive descriptions regarding the range of each work in order to demonstrate the gradual
acceptance of the increased flexibility of the instrument.
While bass trombone performance in the United States was centered primarily on its use
in ensembles rather than as a solo instrument, composers in France were writing innovative solo
works for the instrument. Much of this music was written for faculty performance or student
examinations at the Paris Conservatory and other institutions. Important works from this period,
such as Fantaisie Concertante (1960) by Jacques Castérède, Hans de Schnokeloch (1961) by
Robert Bariller, and New Orleans (1962) by Eugène Bozza will be among those examined more
closely in this paper. Due to the popularity of the new French compositions for bass trombone
10
written during this time, it is important to discover if they influenced Dr. George’s approach in
writing for the instrument.
Along with a performance analysis of the George Concerto, an extensive interview with
Dr. George will seek to reveal several unanswered questions about the composition. Foremost
among these concern his collaboration with Robert Braun, the student for whom the piece was
written, and Emory Remington, the trombone teacher at the Eastman School of music at that
time. If Dr. George worked closely with Mr. Remington while writing this piece, there may be
evidence of Remington’s philosophy of trombone performance being linked to a vocal style
found in the Concerto. An examination of the work reveals evidence of particular compromises
in respect to range, perhaps to ease the technical challenges of moving across such extreme
registers with enough frequency as to make the work nearly impossible to play on the
instruments of that era. It is important to understand if this was due to Remington’s views and, if
true, to learn if the composer should wish to edit the Concerto for modern performance
practices.5 Figure 4 shows one of these compromises, where the range is compressed in
measures 84-86 as compared to a similar passage in bars 76-78.
Figure 4: George Concerto, measures 76-78 (top) and 84-86 (bottom)
11
5 It should be noted here that there are many figures which cover a distance of two octaves or more in the Concerto. While similar ideas may appear in other works of the time, this work has many more instances at faster tempos.
In describing solutions to the technical performance problems found in the Concerto, this
paper seeks to discover if the new challenges encouraged musicians to demand changes in
instrument design from the instrument manufacturers. Two bass trombonists active during this
era will be interviewed to reveal if this happened, and when the dependent-valve bass trombone
won universal acceptance. These musicians, Alan Raph and Edward Anderson, were active
professional bass trombonists during the late 1950s and early 1960s, and can provide unique
perspectives on the musical challenges of that time.
Alan Raph wrote one of the first method books for the double-valve bass trombone ,
which codified a systematic approach to using the dependent instrument. Edward Anderson,
retired bass trombonist of the Cleveland Orchestra, joined the orchestra in 1964 after attending
Eastman. He was familiar with Emory Remington's approach to the instrument. In addition to
these gentleman, Doug Yeo, bass trombonist of the Boston Symphony, will address the
controversy surrounding the development of the double-valve instrument.
ConclusionDue to the lack of information detailing this significant contribution of Dr. George, this
study would fill a considerable void in research. The information could assist not only musicians
who play this particular work, but also those who seek to understand the unique stylistic
differences within the solo literature written for the bass trombone during the period when the
Concerto was written.
A lecture recital will be prepared to demonstrate the findings of this study. In addition,
the author is scheduled to perform the Concerto with the Gustavus Wind Orchestra on a tour of
the western United States in January, 2009.
12
CHAPTER TWO:
THE MUSICAL LEGACY OF TROMBONE INSTRUMENT INNOVATION
The development of the trombone is best understood within the confines of the homogeneous
instrumental consort. Although the modern bass trombone is identical in length and proportion
to the modern tenor trombone, only varying in tube bore, mouthpiece and bell size, the story of
its development is linked to attempts to create a longer instrument capable of playing lower than
the tenor without becoming so large as to be uncontrollable for the player. During the sixteenth
century the use of families of instruments, identical in everything except size and pitch, became
increasingly popular.6 The trombone, or sackbutt as it was known, joined the crumhorns,
cornetts, and recorders in this regard, having soprano, alto, tenor and bass versions popular by
the end of the Renaissance. Iconographic sources provide useful documentation of the various
sizes of trombones. This is particularly true in the woodcuts by Michael Praetorius (1571-1621),
which provide detail of the bass trombone of
his day.
The bass trombone of the Renaissance
was limited by the unwieldy length
necessary to provide the lowest tones,
requiring long slides that required the
addition of extensions for the musician’s
arms to reach the lowest positions.
Figure 5: Nicholas Eastop demonstrating the Oller BBb Contra Bass Trombone.
13
6 Kenneth Kreitner, et al. "Instrumentation and orchestration." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/20404 (accessed July 16, 2008).
Nowhere is this better demonstrated than with the Oller BBb Contra Bass Trombone, also
referred to as the Octave Posaun (Fig. 5). This instrument, built in 1639 by Georg Nicolaus Oller,
and is on display at the Musikmuseet in Stockholm,
Sweden.7 From the detail in the Praetorious
woodcut (Fig. 6), the tenor sackbutt appears similar
in length and proportion to the modern tenor
instrument and therefore could be played without
great difficulty. Pitched a fourth or fifth lower than
the tenor, the quart- and quint-bass trombones
provided musicians a compromise with the octave
posaun, complete with slide mechanism in the bell
section, activated by a rod, to adjust the pitch of the
instrument by about a semitone.8 These instruments allowed a more manageable solution to
musicians of this era with the addition of the double wrap in the bell sections, although they
sounded a fourth or fifth lower than the tenor, in F or Eb, instead of a full octave. Maker Anton
Schnitzer of Nuremberg applied the double-wrap idea to both the bell and slide sections of the
BBb instrument before 1600, reducing its proportions to a manageable length, but apparently it
was deemed an unsatisfactory instrument.9
Figure 6: Detail from Micheal Pretorious’ Syntagma musicum (Venice, 1615-1619),
showing the alto, tenor, quartbass and quintbass sackbutts.
14
7 Ben Van Djik, “Contra Bass Trombone Lecture Notes,” Basstrombone.nl, http://www.basstrombone.nl/default.asp?subj=contrabasstrombone (accessed June 26th 2008).
8 Robin Gregory,The Trombone: The Instrument and its Music, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1973), 34
9 F. W. Galpin, ‘The sackbut: its evolution and history, illustrated by an instrument of the sixteenth century’, Proceedings of the Musical Association, 33 (1906-7), 3-4.
While the trombone had enjoyed the ability to make fine alterations to pitch through use of
the hand slide, other instruments required the use of keys to uncover holes in the tubing, or a
technique called “stopping,” which is a means of covering the end of the instrument with the
hand in order to adjust the pitch of an instrument. All brass instruments could play melodic
passages in the upper register, where the natural harmonics become more diatonic, even
chromatic to a point, although the
effort to play in the third and
fourth octave required complete
mastery of the instrument and
enormous stamina (Fig. 7).10
Composers realized the advantage
the slide mechanism afforded musicians, since diatonic and chromatic figures were also possible
within the middle and lower portions of the instrument’s range. Before the invention of the valve
allowed players of the trumpet and horn a fully chromatic range, examples of melodic writing in
the middle and lower registers for trombone abound, even from the earliest known examples of
instrumental compositions. Choral masterworks of the late 18th century, such as Franz Joseph
Haydn’s The Creation (1798), demonstrate the versatile nature of the slide trombone, whereas
the trumpet was relegated to fanfare figures common to non-melodic instruments (Fig. 8).
Adding keys to uncover holes drilled into the tubing of the trumpet effectively shortened the
instrument’s length, shifting its harmonics to a higher fundamental. The key mechanisms and the
stopping technique both had one crucial drawback, in that each technique dramatically impaired
&
?
1
w w wb w w w w# w w wb wn
ww w w
4
7
10
13
Figure 7: The Harmonic Series. Notes appearing in red are significantly out of tune.
15
10 Baines, Anthony and John Borwick, "Harmonic Series," The Oxford Companion to Music, Ed. Alison Latham. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e3137 (accessed July 7, 2008)
the tone of the instrument. It was this limitation that instigated a golden age of experimentation
on the part of instrument manufacturers in the late 1700s and early 1800s, eventually leading to
the invention of the valve.
Credit for the invention of the brass instrument valve has historically been attributed to two
men, Heinrich Stölzel (1777-1844) and Friedrich Blühmel (d.1845). The first mention of this
innovation was printed in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in 1815:
NEW INVENTION
Kammermusikus Heinrich Stölzel of Pless in Upper Silesia has, for the perfection
of the Waldhorn, devised a simple mechanism by which a chromatic scale of nearly
three octaves, with all non-natural notes clear and strong, and similar in sound to
the natural notes, is obtained by means of two levers for the right hand.... He has
laid his invention before the King of Prussia and now awaits a favorable outcome.11
This initial announcement has no mention of Mr. Blühmel at all. Surprisingly, three years passed
before the patent was awarded. Although the patent was given jointly to Stölzel and Blühmel,
the first we learn of Blühmel’s involvement is by his signature on the patent. Between the two
Figure 8: Franz Joseph Haydn, The Creation, No. 28, tenor trombone after letter H.
16
11 Translated in Baines, Anthony, Brass Instruments, Their History and Development, p. 206, Farber and Farber, London (1976)
men, it was Stölzel who had the more prestigious musical appointment, as Blühmel was
described as a “Berfhoboist,” or “mountain-hoboy,” which does not appear to indicate strong
social standing.12 In contrast to Stözel’s position as a horn player in the private band of the
Prince of Pless and later in the Royal Opera in Berlin, Blühmel was a horn player in the band of
a mining company. He is not heard from again until the patent had expired ten years later, during
which time he had attempted to patent another valve design that had been rejected by the
Prussian Patent Office. He then claimed Stölzel purchased his prototype horn in 1817 and tried
to pass it off as his own invention. These claims are problematic, as this date is after the initial
announcement previously mentioned and after attempts by Stölzel in 1815 to contact instrument
makers Griessling and Schlott. Renowned trumpet performer and scholar Edward H. Tarr makes
a convincing argument in Mr. Blühmel’s defense, showing that he was inspired to invent the
valve by the Siliesian blast furnaces he had observed. Stölzel had demonstrated a horn with
tubular valves in July of 1814, but it was not until 1816 when Blühmel demonstrated a horn with
two valves.13 Two years later he demonstrated a trombone with three valves, just before the
patent was awarded to both he and Stölzel. He was then paid
400 thalers by Stölzel to relinquish all further rights to the
valve. Beginning in the 1820s, other inventors began to refine
this new idea, regardless of the dispute or the patent.
The Stölzel Valve was a piston type, requiring two
cylinders with cork fillings designed to redirect the air through Figure 9: The Stölzel-Blühmel Valve
17
12 Morley-Pegge, R., The French Horn: Some Notes on the Evolution of the Instrument and of its technique, p. 30, Ernest Benn Limited, London (1960).
13 Edward H. Tarr. "Blühmel, Friedrich." Oxford Music Online (2007) http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40422 (accessed July 8, 2008).
various tubes in order to effectively shorten the length of the instrument (Fig. 9). Simply put,
this method subtracts tubing to be the instrument, thereby functioning much the same as the old
key system. The most widely used valve system, which is still popular to this day, was
developed by frenchman François Périnet in 1838. Périnet developed his device from an
additive concept, much the same as the adding of crooks, to lower the pitch of the instrument
(Fig. 10). Today the Périnet device is commonly referred to as the piston valve.
Preceding the Périnet invention was the first rotary valve,
produced by Joseph Riedl of Vienna in 1832 (Fig. 11). Like the
piston, it was an additive device, but the design was much more
compact. It is this device that has gained prominence in the past
seventy-five years for the horn, tuba and, in some European
countries, the trumpet. Its success was guaranteed by its
simplicity. Within a hollow cylinder lies a round disk with two channels carved on opposite
sides of the outside edge. In the resting position, the air flows along the traditional bore of the
instrument, through one side of the disc,
or “rotor,” and on through the instrument.
When activated, the rotor turns 90º to
channel the air through a length of tubing
attached through the outside casing of the
valve, back through the opposite side of
the casing through the other channel, and
continuing out the instrument as before.
Figure 10: The Périnet Valve
Figure 11: The Riedl, or Rotary Valve
18
Another reason for the success of this type of valve is due to its playing characteristics.
While in the normal, or open position, the piston valve allows the air to pass without and change
in the diameter of the tubing, nor along any curved path. This changes, of course, when the
valve is activated, and the air must be radically diverted through the added tubing. In the rotary
the air is slightly diverted in the open position as it passes through one side of the valve. The
same amount of change is added when the valve is engaged. Since the player notices only a
slight difference in the playing characteristics of the instrument between the open and activated
position of the valve, the rotary may be regarded as a better compromise than the piston,
although manufacturers often compromise the size of the paths through the valve, reducing this
benefit altogether.
Despite the fact that instrument makers were quick in their attempt to replace the hand slide
with valves, the hand slide has remained the preferred device for the trombone. Valve
trombones, instruments that have replaced the hand slide with valves, were a natural
development stemming from an age where mechanisms of all kinds were viewed with great
interest and awe. In the second edition of Andreas Nemetz’s Neueste Posaun-Schule, published
just after 1830, the author states:
The trombone has attained the greatest perfection with the valve trombone. To Mr. Jos.
Riedl goes the honour of having first transferred the artificial mechanism of the valve
trumpet and valve horn to the trombone. In the year 1830, Mr. Joh. Tob. Uhlmann, brass
instrument maker in Vienna, substantially altered and perfected that mechanism; for this
reason he was also awarded an exclusive Imperial Royal privilege.14
19
14 Quoted in Trevor Herbert,The Trombone, Yale University Press, New Haven,(2006) 185.
Nemetz was not alone in his preference. The Court Opera Orchestra in Vienna was using the
valve trombone by 1840, and, indicating further preference for the instrument as they were
purchased also for use in the court chapel.15
By the second half of the nineteenth century some composers accepted the valved instrument
as the standard fare, at least in military and civic bands, and Italian operas. The advantages of
the valve instrument over the hand slide for the military musician mounted on horseback is self-
evident, however composers were drawn to the ease the valve afforded the musician when
confronted by challenging passages. Movement between notes that once required large
movements of the slide to accomplish were now reduced to the pressing of buttons. The
appearing of the new Viennese designs had great influence on the Italians, most likely due to the
close proximity of the two countries and the relative ease musicians exercised in working
between the two nations.
Giuseppe Verdi’s (1813-1901) late operas make considerable use of the agility of the
instrument, as can be seen through his correspondence with Pelitti Company of Milan concerning
the invention of a valved instrument pitched in Bb a full octave below the tenor for his operas
Otello (1887) and Falstaff (1893). Verdi was searching for an instrument to provide the
foundation for the brass that would more perfectly match the timbre of the other trombones.
Pelitti soon developed such an instrument, as Verdi noted upon a visit to the factory to hear it
demonstrated:
Repeated experiments were made with the new trombone in B flat pitch one octave lower
than the tenor. The new instrument gave splendid results regarding range, timbre, sonority,
20
15 Herbert, The Trombone, 185.
power, ease and facility of execution, blending perfectly with the other trombones.
Resulting in this, two B flat tenor trombones, a bass trombone in F and the new bass
trombone in B flat are necessary to achieve a trombone quartet that is perfect,
homogeneous and effective without bringing into the orchestra a timbre from the band that
would affect the instrumental blending of several instruments.16
It is this instrument that is referred to as a “trombone basso” in these final Verdi operas,
commonly known today by the generic term “cimbasso,” a term that could mean a variety of
Italian bass brass instruments. This instrument joined the family of other valved trombones
manufactured for orchestral use by Pelitti.
It was this change in the instrument that resulted in a change of approach by some composers
of that era. It should be noted here that the operas of Gioachino Rossini (1792-1868) are notable
exceptions that contain a number of challenging passages written before valves were applied to
the trombone. Perhaps the best-known example is the overture to Guillaume Tell (1829). The
“storm music” passage avoids awkward shifts of the slide by starting on B2 in seventh position
and moving up in somewhat chromatic pattern (Fig. 12):
Figure 12: Gioachino Rossini, Guillaume Tell, Overture
Any sudden shifts, like from low A to B, would present a near-impossible task on the slide
instrument of that era, especially in the marked tempo of 108 for the half note. Verdi’s La Forza
21
16 Quoted in Renato Merucci, “The cimbasso and related instruments in 19th-century italy,” trans. W. Waterhouse, Galpin Society Journal 49, (1996), 155.
del Destino (1862) provides a typical example of writing for the valve trombone (Fig. 13):
Figure 13: Giuseppe Verdi, La Forza del Destino, Overture
The initial entrance after letter C, while not comfortable on a slide instrument, is not impossible.
The player must travel from fourth position to seventh to play the low G2 to B2 in the triplet,
then continue moving the slide up for most of the remaining repeated figure. The problem
begins in the second measure. Here there is a rapid transition from the low A, in second position,
to the B, again in seventh. The valved instrument has no difficulty with this passage. Examples
like these, along with contemporary commentary, indicates that composers were writing for
players of the valve trombone by the middle of the century and that it had become the more
accepted version of trombone in Italy,
Composers in other countries composed for the valve trombone, most notably in the Czech
Republic. Professor Joseph Kail of the Prague Conservatoire had banned the study of the slide
trombone in favor of the valve trombone throughout most of the 19th century, and it was not
until 1903 that a slide trombone instructor was hired.17 Players in the Czech Philharmonic
continued to use valve trombones well after their Austrian counterparts has reverted back to the
slide instrument. This importance of the valve trombone was not lost on the Czech composers,
22
17 Ken Shifrin, “Are We Doing Dvo!ák Wrong?,” The British Trombone Society Journal (1999), http://www.trombone-society.org.uk/resources/articles/dvorak.php (accessed July 16, 2008).
especially in the music of Antonin Dvo!ák (1841-1904). Perhaps the foremost evidence can be
seen in the first trombone part to his Eighth Symphony (1889).
Figure 14: Antonin Dvo!ák, Symphony No. 8. The first trombone part, measures 356-363.
At the symphony’s conclusion, Dvo!ák has indicated a tempo of 120 for the quarter. At that
tempo, the diatonic descending scale from D4 to D3 is difficult on the slide instrument, but
when the piú animato in bar 356 (Fig. 14) is taken into account, the possibility of success with
this passage is remote. Another clue to Dvo!ák’s intent is the doubling of this figure with a
trumpet.
As great as the admiration was for the technical achievements made possible by the valved
instrument, a growing consensus of its inferior tone quality developed by the twentieth century.
Nowhere was this better stated than in the words of the composers of that generation. Nikolai
Rimsky-Korsakov (1844-1908) voiced the opinion echoed by composers and musicians alike in
his brilliant treatise Principles of Orchestration, published after his death:
Valve trombones are more mobile than slide trombones, but the latter are certainly to be
preferred as regards nobility and equality of sound, the more so from the fact that these
instruments are rarely required to perform quick passages, owing to the special character of
tone.18
This growing realization by musicians guaranteed a second-class status for the valve trombone,
as it became better associated with lesser military and civic organizations than with symphony
23
18 Nikoli Rimsky-Korsakov, Principles of Orchestration, 1913, ed. M. Steinberg, trans. E. Agate, vol. 1 (New York:Édition Russe de Musique, 1923), 3.
orchestras. Yet the same spirit of innovation that brought the valve trombone to life continued to
thrive as inventors continued searching for ways to improve the slide instrument.
The examples highlighted here show the musical adaptations made by Italian and central
European composers for the new instrument designs of the 19th century. Although the
application of the valve did not end the widespread use of the slide instrument during the 1900s,
it did create new challenges for the players of slide trombones who came face-to-face with the
music written for valves. Additional pressure to increase one’s technical skills came through the
didactic materials of the day, for as these methods appear to be fairly generic in nature,
oftentimes the more difficult exercises for valved instruments were included without any
apparent distinction contained in the instructions. This tradition continued through popular
works of the era, such as Adam Wirth’s Posaunen-Schule für Alt, Tenor und Bass Posaune
(1870), and carried on through modern times in transcriptions of Arban’s cornet writings for
trombone and baritone.
As the technical prowess of slide trombonists increased through the 19th century, composers
responded with music reflecting the acceptance of these skills. The bass trombone, in need of a
solution to its unwieldily size, benefited greatly from the development of the valve, yet it was the
application of this innovation to the tenor slide instrument which gave birth to the modern bass
trombone we know today.
24
CHAPTER THREE:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN TENOR-BASS TROMBONE
The innovations that were applied to the bass trombone had more relevance to reducing
its cumbersome nature than to extending its chromatic range. As the most common bass
trombone of the early 18th century, the bass trombone in F was considered to be the best
compromise between an instrument long enough to play the lower notes composers expected, yet
not so long as to become too awkward for musicians to play. Chief among the problems with the
F bass trombone is the length of the hand slide, which required a hand extension for many
players to make use of the furthermost positions. An ingenious solution was produced only four
years after the invention of the rotary valve.
In 1839, instrument maker Christian Friedrich Sattler (1778-1842) of Leipzig was first
to equip the Bb tenor instrument with a rotary valve activated by the left thumb. Combining the
ease of playing of the tenor with the lower register of the F bass trombone, the valve added about
three feet of tubing to lower the pitch of the instrument by a fourth.19 Although the slide retained
its tenor length, players quickly learned how to make the necessary adjustments to the positions
in order to play the lower notes in tune. Sattler named his new invention the Quartventil
Posaune,20 which effectively created an F bass out of a standard tenor trombone. Today this
device is known as the F-attachment.
The advantages of this Sattler’s solution can be readily seen by comparing the effective
ranges of the F bass and tenor-bass trombones (Fig. 15). The tenor-bass instrument does not
25
19 Anthony C. Baines and Arnold Meyers, "Trombone," In Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40576 (accessed July 21, 2008).
20 Literally translated as “Fourth-valve Trombone.”
have the length of slide to produce B1, and it is likely, as much as it is for most tenor and bass
trombones today, that the instrument was quite sharp on C2. Musicians of the 19th century were
cognizant of this issue and were adept at “lipping” the note down to the desired pitch for C2, but
B1 remained the sole property of the F bass trombone. The missing B1 is of little concern
however, as the lower trombone parts for the classical and early romantic literature avoid B1 and
are usually limited to going no further an C2.21
Figure 15: The range of the F-Bass Trombone (top) and the Tenor-Bass Trombone (bottom).Notes appearing in red were seldom used. Notes in magenta were playable but quite difficult due to the
instrument bore and mouthpiece size, avoided by 19th century composers.
A problem found in the F-bass trombone is the wide gap between B1 and F1. This is another
advantage of the tenor-bass over the F instrument, that there was only one note between the
fundamental register and those within reach of the F-attachment, where the F-bass had no way to
play the tones lying above its first fundamental pitch, F1. Although this is easily corrected with
?
1
F-Bass Trombone
w w wb w wb wn w(GAP) w w wb w wb wn w
?
1
Tenor-Bass Trombone
wbwb
ww
wbwb
ww
wbwb
ww
ww with
F-attach: ww
ww
wbwb
ww
wbwb
wnwn
26
21 Exceptions do exist but are largely the inclusion of “pedal” Bb1, a note that is easily playable as the fundamental tone on the tenor trombone. A good example appears in Berlioz’ Symphonie fantastique (1830), fourth movement, where the third and second trombones play a terrifying Bb1 to A1 figure. Notes between Bb1 and F2 were avoided throughout Berlioz’s score.
the addition of a valve attachment, the tenor-bass remained able to play most of the range of the
F-bass while retaining the range of the tenor instrument.
Since the added tubing of the tenor-bass approximated that of the sixth slide position, players
realized the awkward slide movement from the inmost to the outmost positions could be avoided
by using positions nearby in conjunction with the F-attachment. Certain “alternate” positions are
available over much of the natural range of the instrument, where the overtones are less than a
fifth apart. Adding the F-attachment allows more alternates to be possible in the lower registers.
Figure 16 describes the relative placement of the hand slide for the seven regular, or natural
positions as compared with the six positions available with the F-attachment engaged. Only six
positions exist when combined with the valve, since as the instrument length increases, so must
the amount of length required to produce any given change of pitch. Positions V1 and V2 gave
performers options when playing notes in the outer two positions, however other options became
recognized by players as viable options when confronted by a difficult passage.22 Since B3, a
Figure 16: Slide position placement for the tenor-bass trombone with F-attachment.
27
22 Thomas W. Streeter, “The Historical and Musical Aspects of the Nineteenth Century Bass Trombone, Part 1,” International Trombone Association Journal 3 (January 1976): 33-34.
note that was only available in sixth position, was also available in V2, it was reasonable to
assume that Bb3 was available in V3, A3 in V4, and so on. Notes available for each slide
position are listed in Figure 17:
?
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
wbwb wwwbwwbwb
wwww# wwww
wbwb wb wb wbwb wbwb w
wwwwwwwwb
wbwb wb wbwb wb wbw
wwwwwwww
wwww#www
?
1
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6
w
wwbwwwwww
wwww#wwwwb
wbwb wb wwbwb wbw
wwww#wwwwb
wbwb wb wwbwb wbw
wwbwwwww
Many of the notes above the third octave have a very unsettled, less focused sound played with
the valve when compared to the open instrument. For this reason it is customary for trombonists
to only use the valve below F3, with the only exceptions being certain trills and other effects.
An example from the literature for valve trombone can be useful when considering the
technical advantages of the tenor-bass trombone. The example used earlier from Verdi’s La
Forza del Destino reveals how a musician playing a slide trombone equipped with an F-
attachment has little difficulty performing the passage. As mentioned before, in order to play the
G2 to A2 in the initial measure, the slide trombonist must cover a large distance from fourth to
Figure 17: Notes available in each slide position for the tenor trombone (top), and the additional notes playable on the tenor-bass trombone with F-attachment (bottom, marked with
a “V” for “Valve”). Notes in red are significantly out of tune.
28
seventh position and then reverse the direction of the slide to play C3 in sixth position. The
speed of the music makes this nearly impossible to accomplish with the slide alone. If the
musician had an instrument equipped with the F-attachment, the B2 and C2 is easily played close
to the initial G or A in each measure (Fig. 18):
Composers rapidly made use of this instrument. By the early twentieth century, composers
recognized the proliferation of the tenor-bass trombone not only as a replacement for the F-bass
trombone, but throughout the section. The second trombone part of Bartók’s Dance Suite (1923)
contains an excellent example (Fig 19):23
?
1
Comodo (q=106)
V2 1 V2 1 V2 1 V2 1 V2 1 V2 etc...
X44 X# X XjX Xj X X# X XjX Xj X X# X X X X X X X X# X X X X X Xj#24 X .
6
9
12
15
18
Figure 19: Béla Bartók, Dance Suite (1923), fourth movement, measures 50-54.
This example reveals the necessity of the tenor-bass trombone, as the excerpt would require the
player to move from first position (A#) to seventh (B) on the valveless instrument.
Figure 18: Giuseppe Verdi, La Forza del Destino, Overture, exerpt. The tenor trombone without F-attachment (top), and the alternate positions playable on the tenor-bass trombone
with F-attachment (bottom). Differences are circled.
29
23 Herbert, 197.
By the second half of the nineteenth century, trombonists playing the bass trombone parts of
orchestral works needed wide-bore instruments capable of playing down to C1 with a solid,
stable tone while maintaining clarity in the high register. The modern bass trombone is a result
of a recognition on the part of manufacturers of this need to produce wide-bore instruments
based on the existing tenor-bass trombone to fulfill this need. It is important to recognize that
wider bores have always been common in larger trombones. Players of the nineteenth century
demanded wider-bore versions of the tenor-bass instruments, equipped with larger mouthpieces,
to make the third trombone and bass trombone parts easier to play. Within the closing measures
of Johannes Brahm’s (1833-1897) Symphony No. 1 lies an example of the flexibility these
players required (Fig. 20). The C1 in bar 412 is the lowest note on the instrument above the
pedal range, demanding a large bore to allow enough flow of air to vibrate the large amount of
lip area needed to play such a low frequency. As the instrument increases in length, the
resistance of the instrument increases as well, reducing the player’s ability to move large
volumes of air.
?
1
w44 E ¥ X w E Eb Eb Eb EE w
Figure 20: Johannes Brahms, Symphony No. 1, fourth movement, measures 407-413.
Overcoming this resistance in the instrument became of primary concern in the mid-twentieth
century, as the tenor-bass trombone with the wider bore came to be known simply as the “bass”
30
trombone within orchestral circles as musicians used the new instrument to play parts designed
for the F-bass.24
Although the F-bass and G-bass trombone was often used for the bass trombone part in
German and English orchestras, respectively, by the late 1800s a wide-bore Bb instrument began
to be used elsewhere. Otto Langey, a New York trombonist active at the turn of the twentieth
century, commented that the “bass trombone in B flat is sometimes used, this is simply a B flat
tenor made with a larger bore and played with a larger mouthpiece.”25 It is this tradition that
gained in popularity, particularly in the United States, as players searched for an instrument
flexible enough to play the music of both classic and contemporary composers.
It was during the early decades of the twentieth century that American instrument
manufacturers, who had more plentiful resources than their war-ravaged European counterparts,
began to employ certain instrument designs to create warmer, fuller tones at higher volumes. As
the performing concert bands, like those of John Philip Sousa and Herbert L. Clark, began to
disappear during that time, many musicians turned to the symphony orchestras for employment.
Whereas the instruments preferred by the trombonists in bands were small-bored in order to
project the sound above the ensemble, the instrument required in the orchestras needed a wide-
bore in order to blend with the ensemble. This difference remains evident when the modern jazz
ensemble is considered in comparison to the symphony orchestra. For the jazz trombonist,
especially those who performed at the height of the swing era of the 1930s and 1940s, projection
31
24 It should be noted here that the British tradition made use of the G-bass trombone until the 1950s, borne of a rather peculiar tradition of the use of tenors pitched in C until about 1880. This maintained the relationship of a forth between the tenor and bass instruments seen in Germany.
25 Otto Langly quoted in Herbert, 165.
through the ensemble was imperative for the large dance halls. Symphonic musicians, especially
those in the United States, continued to prefer instruments with better blending characteristics.
The company that was most successful at creating these new, wide-bore trombones was the
C. G. Conn Company of Elkhart, Indiana. Drawing on their examination of German
instruments26 and the significant experience of professional musicians, the company established
a dedicated department for research, the Experimental Laboratory, as early as 1928. Lead by
chief engineer Allen Loomis (1877-1948), the company introduced a multitude of new
techniques, enhancements and devices that gave the company a dominant position in the
marketplace.27 This was the group which brought innovations such as the Stroboconn, which
gave visual measurement of pitch and overtones, and the Coprion bell, a one-piece, seamless bell
for brass instruments.28 This branch of the company became the Division of Research, Design,
and Development after World War II under the direction of Dr. Earle Kent (1910-1994). While
Dr Kent and his engineers are better known for inventions like the Connsonata Organ (the first
fully electronic organ), it was the continued refinement of brass instruments that placed the
company at the forefront of brass instrument design by the 1950s.
The company was also known to have a “Model Shop” in the years before World War II, in
which players could try different options to produce custom instruments. Special orders to meet
the demands of professional artists were common. Jake Burkle, known as Conn’s master
trombone maker until his retirement in the 1940s, had built special instruments for Arthur Pryor,
32
26 German instruments of the era were known to have a wider bore than other European instruments. The bells of these trombones were usually much wider.
27 Margaret Downie Banks, “A Brief History of the Conn Company (1874-present),” The National Music Museum, http://www.usd.edu/~mbanks/CONTENT.html (accessed August 9, 2008).
28 Coprion bells were created by depositing copper on a stainless steel form via electrolysis. The result was said to be an instrument with a warmer tone and far greater projection.
Simone Mantia and others since the 1890s, indicating the company had vast experience
incorporating this experience into the designs of their production instruments (Fig. 21). Mr.
Burke was the most influential designer at the company, and responsible for almost every major
innovation Conn employed in its trombones during the
first half of the twentieth century.
Conn began to popularize wide-bore tenor
instruments for the American market around 1900,
beginning mainly as elaborations of German
trombones. This preference stood in contrast to the
narrow-bore instruments favored in France and
England. By the 1940s a trend of using Conn
trombones in American orchestras appeared as musicians
favored the wide-bore 8H and 88H tenor models in
particular.29 These instruments were designed to have a broad, more rounded character of sound,
which was a result not only of the size of the bore, but also the high copper content of the bell
and increased dimensions of the mouthpiece.
Pertaining to the Conn bass trombones, the company had produced an instrument before
1920 incorporating a wide bore and F-attachment, but bass trombonists received it without great
enthusiasm. This began to change in 1915, when Robert Fuchs, the bass trombonist of the
Chicago-Philadelphia Grand Opera Orchestra, was given a Conn bass trombone that proved to be
Figure 21: Jake Burkle, master trombone builder at Conn for over 55 years.
33
29 The Conn 88H was identical to the 8H but included an F-attachment.
superior to his German-made instrument. In the June, 1915 edition of Conn’s Truth, a company-
published newsletter, Mr. Conn himself writes:
34
ROBERT FUCHS
Third trombonist of this trio (of the orchestra's trombone section), believes that he has the
best trombone made in the world today, and all musicians who are acquainted with Mr.
Fuchs know he would not make this statement unless he was satisfied in his own mind as
to that fact. We might add that Mr. Fuchs was adverse to changing from a bass trombone
he had been using for so many years with splendid satisfaction to mine, but after giving
our New Invention Bass Trombone a good and through trial, he discovered a number of
superior qualities in it that were not possessed by his old one, and frankly admitted the
fact and adopted a Conn Trombone as a result. Anyone acquainted with the bass
trombone work of Grand Opera can readily understand how necessary it is that such an
instrument be most perfect. We are pleased to present Mr. Fuchs as one of our new
converts.30
A statement by Fuchs appears in the same publication:
My Dear Mr. Conn,
The bass trombone you made for me is satisfactory in every respect. Am more than
pleased with it. Anyone wanting the best in trombones should get a “C G CONN”. With
best wishes for your continued success.
This new model, the 70H, does not appear in Conn’s catalogue until 1920 (Fig. 22). It is
entirely possible, and indeed probable, that the instrument Fuchs describes was available as a
special-order instrument in the years before it appeared in regular production.
35
30 Steve Dillon, email message to author, August 13th 2008.
This instrument was very
similar to a modern
instrument, with a bore
size of .562 inches and
bell sizes larger than
tenor models, around 9-9
1/2 inches wide. This particular instrument remained in production from 1920-1926 and was
traditionally known as the “Fuchs Model” Bass Trombone. After 1926 the 70H was changed to a
dual-bore size, .547/.562, until it reverted back to the .562 size in 1937, where it remained until
1955. The Fuchs Model was then replaced by the 72H, an instrument that did not retain the
former model’s wide-throated rose brass bell or tuning-in-slide option.31
The prestige enjoyed by the C. G. Conn Company began to decline during the 1940s. The
emphasis on research and development, along with the famous Model Shop, closed during World
War II due to the conversion of the plant into making navigational equipment for the US Navy
and the drafting of many of the company’s workforce into military service. By this time James
Burkle had retired and, as occurred for many manufacturers, the workers took advantage of the
Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, otherwise known as the GI Bill, to find more profitable careers.
The upheaval in US manufacturing caused by the war effectively placed all instrument
companies on a more equal footing. Other manufacturers were able to increase sales of
competing instruments during this time not only due to these changes, but also due to the
decision by Conn to no longer develop the Fuchs bass. Conn dedicated a portion of its
Figure 22: The 70H “Fuchs” model bass trombone, ca. 1927. Note the tuning-in-slide mechanism.
36
31 Moving the tuning slide from the bell section and into the hand slide allowed more of the bell section to have a conical bore, resulting in a more mellow sound.
production for military hardware for the Korean War (1950-1953) and began to liquidate various
parts of the company, including the Leedy and Ludwig Drum Division.
Although Conn again developed bass trombones popular with symphony musicians for a
brief time in the late 1960s, the company continued to lose ground to its competitors. The two
most important bass trombones developed during this time was the 60H and 62H. Both these
instruments continue to enjoy acclaim by musicians, and are considered by many to be among
the best instruments ever made (Fig. 23). The decline of the company was expedited in 1969
when the company was
sold to the Crowell-
Collier MacMillan
Company, a textbook
publishing company.32
The corporate
headquarters were
moved from Elkhart, Indiana to Oak Brook, Illinois and all historic records were destroyed.
Brass instrument production was moved to Abilene, Texas to take advantage of cheap labor, and
the quality of those instrument suffered significantly. Conn’s brass factory in Elkhart was
purchased by the Selmer Company for production of its Vincent Bach brass instruments. Many
of the skilled workers who had worked for Conn found new employment with Selmer. Of the
companies who produced professional-quality instruments since the 1960s, the Vincent Bach
Corporation was the most popular instruments with symphony musicians.
Figure 23: The 60H model bass trombone, ca. 1968.
37
32 Banks, “The Conn Loyalist,” http://www.usd.edu/~mbanks/CONN20.html#Mac.
During the 1950s, Kauko Kahila (b.1920), bass trombonist of the Boston Symphony
Orchestra, began to search for a better solution to add a low B1 to the range of the bass trombone
in order to play the “Bartok Glissando” (Fig. 24). This is a
glissando which appears in the fourth movement of Béla Bartók’s
(1881-1945) Concerto for Orchestra (1943), a work
commissioned by the Boston Symphony. The piece was
premiered on December 1, 1944 and played regularly by the
orchestra ever since. The work made various technical demands upon the instruments of the
ensemble, such a glissando for the timpani requiring the necessity of a foot pedal, also in the
fourth movement. Instead of writing for the tenor-bass bass trombone, Bartók wrote the third
trombone part for a F-Bass trombone, an instrument still in regular use in Europe, but not in the
United States. Since the glissando encompassed a rising tritone from B1, the player could not
simply pull the F-attachment tuning slide out to gain the note since the upper note would then be
E2. Rather than secure a F-Bass for these performances, the players would either attempt to
lower the C2 by “lipping” the pitch down, or move the tuning slide in the F-attachment from an
“E” position during the glissando to an “F” position by pulling a strap tied to the tuning slide.
This was a risky proposition, to say the least.
Kahila’s solution was to add an additional valve to the F-attachment to supply the additional
tubing to lower the instrument’s pitch to E. Before joining the Boston Symphony in 1952,
Kahila played with the Saint Louis Symphony for eight seasons. It was during that time he
began correspondence with the Reynolds Instrument Company to find a better method to extend
?
1
E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ X
Figure 24: The Bartok Glissando.
38
the valve range of the bass trombone to include B1. After he joined the Boston Symphony and
faced the challenge of the Bartók Concerto, Kahila developed his idea into a workable solution:
The double valve came about when we were playing the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra
which, as you know, was commissioned by Koussevitsky and premiered by the Boston
Symphony. I figured there must be a way to get the low B, and if I added another length
of tubing I could do it. I made the plans for it and submitted it to the Reynolds Company
and they said, "Sure, we'll do it." So it worked. But you know the mechanics of the
trombone; the air doesn't go as freely through the valves. But I didn't have too much
trouble. I used to make the gliss pretty well with it. The secret is to hit it, and when you
move the slide, you're already off the second valve. Anyway, Reynolds gave me one of
the horns since I had the idea and then they commercially marketed it.33
If the Conn designs of the 1920s are examined closely it is apparent that Kahila’s idea is
similar to a solution offered for several trombone models available before that time. These
instruments, tenor and bass models alike, had an optional tuning slide with a “switch,” or a valve,
which added an additional loop of tubing to the F-attachment (Fig. 25). This was not activated
by a lever, but by turning the
valve itself, making it difficult
to move while performing.
Appearing in the late 1920s as
an option on the “Fuchs” model
bass trombone, the musician
Figure 25: A 70H “Fuchs” model bass trombone, ca. 1930. Detail shown of the “switch” to add the additional tuning to the F-attachment.
39
33 Douglas Yeo, “A Conversation with Kauko Kahila,” International Trombone Association Journal, XV, no. 3 (1987): 20.
could quickly adjust the tuning of the attachment in a matter of seconds. Kahila made a practical
adjustment to this idea by simply making the second valve actuate with an additional lever.
Kahila’s idea of the double-valve trombone is confirmed by Alan Raph, a bass trombonist
who was active in New York since the 1940s and familiar with many of the players in the
northeast. Raph mentions New York Philharmonic bass trombonist Allen Ostrander (1909-1994)
as someone Kahila recruited to convince the Reynolds Company to create this instrument.34 Both
Kahila and Ostrander were playing Reynolds single-valve trombones at the time, and so the
company added the second valve to the F-attachment of the 72-X model bass trombone and
introduced the new instrument in 1958. The result was the Reynolds 78-X Contempora Bass
Trombone (Fig. 26).
The instrument was a success, although both Ostrander and Kahila considered it to be an
additional instrument to be used for special purposes, such as
playing the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra. Both musicians
continued playing their single-valved instruments the majority
of the time. The reason for this, according to Raph, was the
“stuffy” quality of the 78-X attachment due to the tight bends
of the airway through the valves. Reynolds did not wish to
spend the extra development capital to create larger rotary
valves for this instrument, and so it remained a compromised
effort.
Figure 26: The Reynolds 78-X Contempora Bass Trombone.
40
34 Alan Raph, e-mail message to the author, June 22, 2008.
As Conn, Holton, Bach and other manufacturers developed double-valved versions of their
own bass trombones in the mid-1960s, more players developed a preference for these new
instruments. These instruments addressed the shortcomings of the Reynolds by enlarging the
tubing and improving the valves. Edward Kleinhammer, bass trombonist of the Chicago
Symphony Orchestra, worked with Holton to create the
Model 169, an instrument that added a second valve into
the tuning slide of the F-attachment (Fig. 27).
Musicians asked for various tunings for the second
valve, mainly Eb and D, and manufacturers responded
by supplying multiple tuning slides of different lengths for the additional attachment. It should
be noted that the longer tuning slides actually made the Bartok glissando more difficult, as the
shift that Kahila mentions when the player takes away the second valve would create a jump of a
step or more, thus negating the whole notion of a glissando. The D tuning for both valves
became more popular due to its even disbursement of the chromatic scale down to low Bb, and
the ability to play the major arpeggios from the first five fundamental pitches (Bb1 through Gb1)
with relative ease. The notes
available with both F and D
valves activated are shown in
Figure 28.
In the 1970s, manufacturers
discovered that musicians could
have additional flexibility by placing both valves in the main artery of the instrument (Fig. 29).
Figure 27: Detail of the Holton 169 Bass Trombone (1965).
?
1
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
ww#www
wbwwbwb wb
wwwww
ww#ww# w
wbwwbwwb
Figure 28: Positions for both F and D valves together. Notes that are out of tune shown in red.
41
This became known as an “in-line,” or independent arrangement, since each valve could be used
independently of the other. Again, the favored tuning of the second valve was designed to sound
a D2 when used with the first valve.
This meant that the tubing of the
second valve by itself produced a
sharp Gb2, since the required length
needed to produce the low D with
the first valve was a bit short of
the length for the normal 5th
position.35 The independent-valve bass trombone has remained the most popular instrument
since the 1980s.
An interesting predecessor of this new instrument can be found in the Edinburgh University
Collection of Historical Brass Instruments. This instrument is an Eb bass trombone with two in-
line valves used in the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra. The maker is unknown, but the
instrument was known to have been procured by the orchestra in the 1930s:
The Gewandhous E-flat bass was probably used as a contrabass. It is a beast, with a very
heavy slide. But the concept of in-line valves is what is important. It is so interesting to
me that a manufacturer (it is unsigned) in Germany was making instruments like this in
the 1930s while in the USA, the thought of two valves - much less inline - was "new" in
the late 1950s.36
Figure 29: A bass trombone with an independent valve arrangement.
42
35 Although the Gb tuning for the second valve became more widespread, some players used shorter and longer tunings, much as is found on the dependent instrument.
36 Douglas Yeo, e-mail to author, August 22, 2008.
With the extreme length and weight of its hand slide, it is most likely that its valves were used to
avoid using the outer positions altogether rather than being used in conjunction with the entire
slide.
The common Gb tuning for the second valve of the new independent bass trombone gave
musicians the ability to play many lower-register notes in new positions, thus adding an
impressive range of options that gave them further flexibility. It is important to realize this
additional valve was usually confined in its use to the middle and lower register, much as the F-
attachment had been, yet the new valve placed some notes in new positions along the slide (Fig.
30). For example, since C3 was now made available just short of the natural third position, the
player could select an option from the top, middle, or end of the slide.
?
1
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
wb
wbwb wb wbwb wb wbw
wwbwwwwww
wwww#wwwwb
wbwb wb wwbwb wbw
wwww#wwwwb
wbwb wb wwbwb wb
Figure 30: The notes available with the second (S) valve (top), and three positions capable of producing C3 on an independent-valve bass trombone (bottom).
43
A prime source of criticism for the independent-valve instrument was the constriction of the
airway through the two valves at all times. Initially the dependent instrument was thought to be
superior, as the player could push air through more easily, but this began to change as
manufacturers attempted to use larger valves and new valve designs.37 A revolution of sorts
began in the 1980s, when Orla Ed Thayer began production of his Thayer Valve, a unique cone-
shaped design which eliminated the tight bends and crimped passageways common to all valve
systems (Fig. 31). By 1990, this valve system became the preferred system of professionals
throughout the United States, and was put into production by many of the instrument
manufacturers of that era.38
In response to the Thayer valve came a wide range of new valve designs. One criticism of
the Thayer valve was an apparent “deadening”
of the middle and upper registers. A response
came from René Hagmann of Geneva in 1990.
His solution was the Hagmann Valve, which
resembled an elongated rotary valve turned on
its side. This valve sought to reduce any tight
angles of the airway without adding additional weight along the tubing of the instrument. Other
popular designs developed from the original rotory design of Joseph Riedl. One design was
developed for the Conn Corporation by Swedish trombonist Christian Lindberg, but it has not
gained widespread popularity. Another from Greenhoe Incorporated, operated by trombonist
Figure 31: The patent drawings for the Thayer valve (1977).
44
37 Raph, e-mail to author, June 20, 2008.
38 Ronald Babcock, “Dreams, Concepts, Trials and Triumphs: The Story of Ed Thayer and his Axial-Flow Valve.” International Trombone Association Journal 26, no. 1 (1998): 40.
Gary Greenhoe of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, has been available to a variety of
manufacturers much like the Thayer Valve. Its simplicity and improved playing characteristics
have enabled this mechanism to enjoy widespread popularity since its introduction in 2000.
Each innovation applied to the modern bass trombone has sought to address a particular flaw
in the instrument, yet added other benefits unforeseen by musicians and designers. As
composers began to take interest in creating solo literature for the instrument, musicians were
able to demonstrate how each innovation allowed new techniques to be written. Moreover, these
improvements gave musicians of lesser skill the tools needed to assist them to play what
previously had been too difficult. The refinements described here, especially those since the
1980s, have given rise to a number of preforming soloists, mostly orchestral musicians, who
have advanced the bass trombone not only though solo appearances with collegiate wind
ensembles, professional orchestras and solo recitals, but also through the newly-developed
technologies popularized by the advent of the personal computer and internet.
Many famous musicians of the classical and romantic periods were well-known as
performers and as composers. By the 1900s more classical musicians began to specialize in one
musical specialty, either as instrumentalists or composers. The distinction widened in the course
of the twentieth century between performer and composer, and composers relied more on
information supplied by soloists rather than personal experience. This was indeed the case with
the bass trombone and the George Concerto for Bass Trombone, much as it is for the more recent
works for trombone of Kalevi Aho and Eric Ewazen. These composers wrote specialized
compositions created to highlight the particular strengths of one soloist.
45
CHAPTER FOUR:
A BIOGRAPHY OF THOM RITTER GEORGE
Thom Ritter George (b. June 23, 1942) realized his interest in composing music from a
young age. His first composition was written while a schoolboy in Detroit, Michigan at ten years
of age, and during his high school years he studied composition with Harold Laudenslager
(1920-1971). Laudenslager, a student of Paul Hindemith, was a violinist in the Detroit
Symphony Orchestra and composed a variety of works, ranging from unaccompanied pieces to
full orchestral scores. A search on Yale University’s Composers’ Worklists39 reveals his interest
in writing for a variety of instruments and ensembles, from unaccompanied works for solo violin
and flute to large symphonic scores with chorus, and even a quartet for trombones.40 As he
began to study with Mr. Laudenslager, Dr. George composed formal works revealing a promising
future for the young composer: a set of violin studies, violin sonatas, many duets for violins,
works for solo piano, songs, and even works for solo instruments and orchestra. There are over
eighty works written during his years in high school.
In 1960 Dr. George began studies at the Eastman School of Music. His studies in
composition were with Thomas Canning, Louis Mennini, Wayne Barlow, John LaMontaine and
Bernard Rogers. His earliest published compositions date from these undergraduate years,
including the Sonata for Baritone Horn and Piano, Concerto for Bass Trombone and Orchestra,
Hymn and Toccata (for band), and Concerto for Flute and Orchestra. Dr. Paul White, Associate
Conductor of the Rochester Philharmonic, had a particularly powerful influence on the young
46
39 Composers’ worklists found in published scores, books, or periodicals: Harold Laudenslager, Yale University Music Library, http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/laudenslager.htm .
40 Emily J. Butterfield, The Professional Life and Pedagogy of Clement Barone, DMA Document, The Ohio State University, 2003, 115.
composer as a member of his conducting class, and encouraged him to develop his talents with
the baton and podium.
The music of Johann Sebastian Bach had a profound influence on Dr. George during these
formative years. Several pieces from this period he describes as “neo-Bach,” although he found
Bach’s methods less useful as time passed. It is the study of Bach’s counterpoint that has proven
to have lasting importance for many young composers, and for Dr. George it remains significant
in his writing to this day.41
Upon the awarding of both his Bachelor’s (1964) and Master’s degrees (1968), Dr. George
was appointed Composer and Arranger for the United States Navy Band in Washington, D.C..
While serving for the military, he had opportunity to develop his conducting talents by studying
with Lloyd Geisler, Associate Conductor of the National Symphony, and also by leading the
band. Some of these performances were at The White House for President Lyndon Johnson. As
for his compositional endeavors, the music of Paul Hindemith was of particular interest at this
time:
In the mid-1960s, I became quite interested in Hindemith's compositions and
technical methods. Hindemith was also a neo-classicist, and he showed us some
fresh possibilities, particularly in regard to harmony and form. By the 1960s,
there were some in the modern music field who considered Hindemith "old hat,"
principally because he advocated tonality in an era where many academics were
interested in serialism. From today's viewpoint, Hindemith is in the position of
47
41 Interview with Thom Ritter George, June 17, 2008.
many composers who wrote a great deal – some of his music is effective and
valuable while other scores are less interesting and infrequently played.42
Works from this period include Western Overture (band), Sinfonietta (orchestra), and in tribute to
Hindemith, the final two additions to his series of sonatas written for every orchestral instrument.
Dr. George completed the Doctor of Musical Arts degree at Catholic University in 1970 and
was immediately hired as Music Director of the Quincy (Illinois) Symphony Orchestra. This
afforded him the luxury of advanced conducting studies with Boris Goldovsky and Sir Georg
Solti of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Although conducting was obviously important to him
at this time, the composing continued, namely the First Suite in F (band), The People, Yes
(soloists, chorus and orchestra), Brass Quintet No. 4, Pastorale (flute and organ), and two ballets
scored for orchestra, Erica and Four Games. These compositions evidence his interest in the
neo-classic compositions of Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971), and reveal Dr. George’s enthusiasm for
re-evaluating his approach to tonal, diatonic music. After intensive study of Stravinsky’s scores,
fresh techniques were applied to every detail of his composition style from that time forward.
In 1983 Dr. George moved to Idaho as Conductor of the Idaho State Civic Symphony, a
position that combined his love of conducting with a teaching position at Idaho State University.
There he has lead the orchestra in over 200 performances, many with internationally acclaimed
artists, and many with debuts of his own compositions. His Piano Concerto No. 3 was
commissioned in 1995 for the orchestra’s sixtieth anniversary celebration, which he led from the
podium.
48
42 Ibid
Other works from his tenure in Idaho include Second Suite in C (band), Suite for String
Orchestra on Olde English Songs, Sonata for Alto Trombone and Piano, Violin Sonata No. 3, Six
American Folk Songs (flute and piano), and Second Rhapsody for Orchestra (“Westward
Journey”). Orpheus, a large work for soloists, chorus and large orchestra was written for the
opening of the Stephens Performing Arts Center at Idaho State University. As of this writing he
has composed more than 350 works. Dr. George continues to compose regularly, as evidenced
by recent concertos for the French horn and flute.
Thom Ritter George is the recipient of many awards for his compositions, including two
Howard Hanson Awards, several prizes from the American Society of Composers, Authors, and
Publishers, and the Seventh Sigvald Thompson Award.
An impressive number of awards have been awarded to Dr. George for his service to the
community. Quincy College awarded him the Citation for Meritorious Service. Idaho State
University’s Alumni Association named Dr. George and his wife Patricia recipients of the ISU
Achievement Award. The State of Idaho honored Dr. George in 1988 for his artistic excellence,
and the city of Pocatello has recognized his musical contributions to their community on several
occasions.
Throughout Dr. George’s career he has leveraged his conducting responsibilities toward
refining his compositional style, a luxury enjoyed by an increasingly small number of modern
composers. In this manner his identification as a neoclassic composer is underscored, joining
the tradition of Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Brahms, Stravinsky, Mahler and others.43 The
familiarization with not only the instruments of the orchestra, but also the musicians themselves,
49
43 Maria Komorn and W. Oliver Strunk, "Brahms, Choral Conductor," The Musical Quarterly 19, No. 2 (April, 1933), 151-157.
became supremely important in his work, as he set certain guidelines and limitations for each
instrument based on his findings. In every solo work by Dr. George, there is evidence of his
careful devotion to this information while meeting the technical demands of the soloist.
Figure 32: Thom Ritter George
50
CHAPTER FIVE:
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCERTO FOR BASS TROMBONE, CN 176
Thom Ritter George befriended many brass players while at Eastman. Robert Braun, a
classmate and close friend, frequently joined George and these other musicians for dinner. It is
no wonder how the Concerto was born from the mutual admiration and camaraderie that
surrounded this group. Dr. George describes Mr. Braun as a particularly gifted performer with an
uncanny ability to make large leaps with apparent ease, as well as an innate sense of melodic
expression. To the brass players at Eastman, which had the preeminent trombone studio of the
early 1960s, Braun was recognized as a virtuoso on the bass trombone, a rarity at that time.44
The encouragement for writing new music for bass trombone, or any trombone for that
matter, came from Emory Remington (1891-1971). Remington was the trombone professor at
Eastman from 1922 until his death. His training was received at an early age through his father,
a cornettist, but he credited his musical abilities to his vocal training as a boy in in the choir at St.
Andrews Episcopal Church in New York. Upon leaving service in the Navy, he joined the
Eastman Theatre Orchestra and the faculty at Eastman in 1922. Known to his students
affectionately as “The Chief,” Remington developed a method of teaching which was famous for
focusing on the entire player as a musician, as opposed to being simply a trombonist. As a result
of his personal approach, his studio retains a legendary status among trombonists to this day.
Reasoning that trombonists perform most often in ensembles, part of his approach included
the formation of the Eastman Trombone Choir as a means to train his students in correct style
and coordination through chamber music. Undoubtably this had much to with his early vocal
51
44 Thom Ritter George, interview with the author, June 17, 2008
training at St. Andrews, whereby he understood the importance group participation can play in
forming disciplined musicians. While there were a few transcriptions of vocal scores and other
arrangements available for trombone choir at that time, Mr. Remington was interested in
convincing young composers to write for his ensemble. As Dr. George states,
For the trombone choir, he needed music. It was Remington who latched on to
me, a new incoming composer at the school, and kept pressing for compositions.
There was something about his insistence that made it impossible to turn him
down. I wrote several scores for him. On one occasion, I offered him a
transcription for trombone choir. He accepted it and played it, but he also told
me, "No... no... not transcriptions. Anyone can do that. What we need is
pieces."45
Dr. George must have remembered Remington’s response to transcriptions he composed for the
choir. The first of these was of works by Marc Antonio Ingegneri (c.1535-1592) entitled Three
Responses (CN 071), written during George’s first term at Eastman. Taking Remington’s advice
to heart, he composed an original trombone quartet entitled Prelude and Fugue No. 1 (CN 077)
early in 1961. It was not until 1963 that he returned to writing for the choir, however it was
another arrangement for trombone quartet,46 the Fugue No. 22 in B-Flat Minor by J. S. Bach
(1685-1750).
The encouragement by Mr. Remington also applied to the solo repertoire. The Concerto for
Bass Trombone (CN 176) is the largest work, but not the first he wrote for Mr. Remington’s
52
45 Ibid
46 The composer notes that both the Fugue and Three Responses can be performed with multiple players on each part.
students. Preceding it was the Concerto Grosso No. 3 (CN 149), a work for solo trombone and
string orchestra written early in 1963, demonstrating how the music and technique of Bach
continued to have a powerful influence on the composer in the early 1960s:
I wrote several neo-Bach pieces, but gradually his methods proved less useful to
me in composition. His counterpoint has been an ongoing inspiration, and
counterpoint is still an important aspect of my writing, even in pieces which are
essentially homophonic. I have always enjoyed Bach's music greatly, having
conducted, played, and listened to it my whole life.47
Writing the ensemble works and the Concerto Grosso were important steps in establishing Dr.
George’s confidence in composing for an instrument with which he had previously been
unfamiliar. Now that he had an understanding of the idiosyncrasies of the trombone, George
turned his attention toward writing the Concerto.
The Concerto for Bass Trombone was designed to showcase two primary skills that separated
Braun from other bass trombonists at Eastman, namely his keen musical instincts of lyricism and
phrasing, no doubt enhanced by Remington’s vocal approach, and the technical skill of jumping
from one register to another with great speed. An examination of the solo reveals how these two
elements form an important contrasting element throughout the work. Wayne B. Barlow
(1912-1995),48 George’s composition teacher at the time, and Paul White, conductor of the
Eastman-Rochester Orchestra, demanded Dr. George submit the score in pencil for their
approval. This was extremely annoying to George, as he has already worked out much of the
53
47 Ibid
48 Mr. Barlow was the first person to receive the Doctor of Philosophy in Composition degree in the United States (Source: Eastman School of Music Alumni Office)
details and very much wanted to only write the full score once. As he had feared, the two
professors quickly approved the pencil sketch, and as George states, “Only then was I allowed to
make the ink score on vellum ("onion skin") paper. It would have saved me a considerable
amount of work had they allowed me to score the concerto on the vellum in the first place.”49
An examination of the score reveals evidence of three goals Dr. George had for the Concerto.
First, the piece should be limited to about ten minutes in length. This was due to the composer’s
belief that wind instruments lack the range of colors of a violin of piano, and thus the audience
can grow tiresome of a full-blown concerto. It is no surprise that this neo-classic composer
would be primarily interested in how the work would be received by his audience.
The range of the work should not push the player into uncomfortable territory. While many
modern works exceed the F#4 found in the Concerto by a fourth or more, the composer
remembered Remington’s belief that the trombone should be anchored to a vocal style. Since he
considered the bass trombone to have a “baritone” voice, it would not be proper to force the
instrument into the tenor range. Forcing an instrument to play out of its characteristic range
would, much as a singer, cause the tone to have undue strain. The lower range touches “pedal”
F1. It is important to note the omission of B2, a note that was not possible on the modern bass
trombone without the second valve.
Finally, Dr. George was mindful of the lack of solo material for the instrument, and sought to
solve this problem much as Hindemith had done for the tenor trombone. Aware that much of the
solo repertoire for bass trombone consisted of joke pieces, transcriptions, and works that were of
low quality, he considered that a well-crafted concerto could encourage others to begin writing
54
49 George, interview.
for the instrument. Indeed, he found much to like about the distinctive voice of the bass
trombone, particularly in the hands of a true virtuoso.
Perhaps every compositional trait employed by Dr. George in the Concerto can be
summarized by his belief that composers should consult at great length with performers of the
instruments for which they are writing. He believes that many modern solo works contain
needless technical challenges due to lack of information:
I think it is very good for composers, particularly young composers who are finding their
way with instruments, to work closely with skilled performers. In later years, I advised
my composition students to do the same, but much to my chagrin they commonly
disregarded this advice. The composition students thereby cut themselves off from
helpful ideas and their scores consequently contained problematic passages which could
have been avoided. In my own pieces, I have asked for advice from performers many
times. Usually, actual playing shows where alternatives are needed.50
The three sections of the work resemble a standard three-movement plan used in the standard
concerto form, namely a fast allegro with two contrasting themes followed by a slow section, and
ending with another fast section. Single-movement concertos were not a new invention and can
be seen in works by other composers, including the following:
Balakirev, Mili Concerto No.1 in F# Minor for Piano and Orchestra
Copland, Aaron Concerto for Jazz Piano
Delius, Frederick Piano Concerto in C Minor
Concerto for Cello
Glazunov, Alexander Concerto for Alto Saxophone in Eb Major No.2, Op. 26
55
50 Ibid.
Kriesler, Fritz Concerto in One Movement for Violin and Orchestra, Op. 34
Rimsky-Korsakov, Concerto for Trombone and Wind Band
Nicoli
Rubenstein, Anton Cello Concerto No.2 in D Minor, Op.96
Saint-Saens, Camille Concerto No.1 in A Minor
Sullivan, Arthur Cello Concerto in D Major
Tcherepnin, Alexander Piano Concerto in One Movement No.2, Op.26
An important addition to this list should be the Concertino, Op.4 by Ferdinand David
(1810-1873). This work, literally a “little concerto,” makes use of the three-movement form
without pause and treats the third section as a recapitulation of the first section.
The George Concerto begins with an introductory Adagio, which presents a dark, sombre
mood. This quickly leads to the lively Allegro section, where the listener discovers the two
outstanding performance traits of Mr. Braun. First, wide leaps encompassing a up to a thirteenth
are presented at a rapid tempo of 126 beats per minute (Fig 33).
Figure 33: Thom Ritter George Concerto, measures 20-27.
After this theme is developed further in the following measures, there appears a lyrical theme to
demonstrate Braun’s gift of lyricism (measures 45-60). The key established in the measure 20 is
F major, yet it does not remain there for any duration. The technical flourish of the solo line
56
keeps the harmony in constant movement without any predictable direction, although the section
refers to F occasionally to maintain stability.
Perhaps the most technically challenging music for the soloist appears in the development
beginning in measure 69. Here the most surprising technical demands are placed on the soloist,
where a simple diatonic melody is ornamented by successive occurrences of the fundamental
pitch each in a different octave (Fig. 34).
Figure 34: Thom Ritter George Concerto, measures 73-75.
This is repeated three times from pitch centers of D, A and Eb, respectively. Material for
this development comes from the second half of the first theme, without the sixteenth-notes.
These technical fireworks lead back into a restatement of the first theme, supplying the
necessary material to construct what serves as a first movement based on sonata-allegro form.
The second theme reappears a minor third lower, with an adjusted close to bring the section back
to the original key. The exact duplication of measures 65-69 found in measures 120-124 are
designed to give the impression of another return of the main theme, but instead Dr. George uses
the material to bring close the first section and prepare for the second.
The slow introduction returns, but played an octave lower. When the material repeats
measure 9 in measure 151, George takes the F3 and follows with a restatement of the first theme
of measures 20 and 21. It is from here that the true intentions of the second section become clear
to the listener, that this section is actually an extended cadenza. Fragments of the material from
measures 73-85 appear in 157-161, except the short diatonic melody is not interrupted by the
57
octave leaps, which are saved for the end of each fragment. This is an ingenious way to remind
the listener how this material was originally used. Beginning in measure 163 is more material
derived from measures 73-85, but now the tempo is quite fast, and the notes within the melody
are doubled or quadrupled into sixteenth notes, requiring the soloist to double-tongue the
passage. Each fragment is separated by three accented eighth notes spanning more than two
complete octaves (Fig. 35).
?
?
?
2
X#78 X X X X X X# X X X# X#X#34 X X X XJ a X# X#
X44 X X X X# X X X X X X X Xb X X X
Xb38 Xb XbXb X Xb X Xb X a Xb Xb
Xb78 X X X Xb X Xb X X Xb XbXb X X X Xb X Xb X X Xb Xb
Xb X X X Xb X Xb X XnXb Xb
X38 Xb XbX
Xb Xb Figure 35: Thom Ritter George Concerto, cadenza, measures 163-173.
The cadenza ends through an abrupt change to half notes in measure 174. While the motion
is slower, it uses the wide leaps employed elsewhere in the piece while simultaneously recalling
pitches from the first theme. This melodic idea is sequenced and developed rapidly to blur any
further recollection of material from the cadenza or first section on part of the listener before the
third section begins in measure 182.
The third section begins as a fugue based on the introductory theme in F minor, stated alone
by the soloist. This underscores Dr. George’s interest in the music of J. S. Bach at that time, as
58
the six-measure subject is answered by an answer in the horns (Fig. 36).
?
&
2
w22 w Eb . X wb w wb
w22 w Eb . X w w wb
Figure 36: Thom Ritter George Concerto, solo bass trombone measures 182-187 (top) and
horn measures 188-194 (bottom, transposed).
Although there are breaks of more than an octave in measures 189-210, the bass trombone is
given a more melodious line to play. It is this portion of the piece that best demonstrates the
noble baritone voice of the instrument described by Dr. George, as it provides a counterpoint to
the fugue subject played by the orchestra (Fig. 37).
?
?
?
2
Eb22Eb E . Xb Eb E E E E Eb Eb
Eb E . Xb EbEb E . X E . Xb
Eb Eb X ¥ D ¥ X X X ¥ Xb Xb X E E
E Eb ¥ Xb Xb Xb ¥ Xb Xb Xb Eb Eb Eb Eb¥ X X X ¥ Xb Xb Xb Xb ¥ D
Figure 37: Thom Ritter George Concerto, measures 188-210.
Measure 222 marks the return of the main theme by the soloist, appearing in G minor. The
two-octave eighth note figures used in the development appear once more to signal a brief return
of the subject in F major before developing further in measures 230-236. Of special interest here
are the lowest pitches used in the piece, reaching A1, G1, and F1. While it is not unusual to find
these notes in bass trombone literature at this time, it is unusual to leap to them by octave in what
appears to be a melodic context.
59
Several restatements of this material are passed between soloist and orchestra. Dr. George
uses augmentation in the solo beginning in measure 240 against the subject statements in the
orchestra to establish an accelerando from measure 259 to 262, where the piece reaches a tempo
of 72 for the whole note. The idea of the accelerando, or a rush to conclusion, is further enabled
by the successive diminution of note values in the final seven measures. After holding an Eb4
for two measures, the soloist moves through half-note triplets in measures 276 and 277, quarter
notes in measure 278, and a quarter-note quintuplet in 279. Similarly, the woodwinds and strings
provide eighth notes in measures 277 and 278, but move to eighth-note quintuplets in measure
279. This technique of combining diminution and accelerando provides an excitement to the
work while providing a satisfying conclusion.
As a neo-classic composer, Dr. George was careful to avoid needless complexities that would
be lost on the listener and sought to maintain identifiable pitch centers throughout the piece. His
fascination with the techniques of Paul Hindemith appear in his use of quartal harmonic and
melodic elements, much as the fugal writing indicates his love for the music of Johann Sebastian
Bach. These elements keep the work from sounding dated, as he avoided popular academic
trends and instead looked to music that drew upon time-tested techniques for his inspiration.
There are two important aspects concerning Dr. George’s approach in composing the
Concerto that made it unique. First, while the work appears to move beyond what was
considered to be practical for the bass trombone of that time, his care in reviewing every aspect
of the solo with Robert Braun allowed him to expand the possibilities for the instrument in ways
he may not have anticipated. This gave the performer a great deal of control over the finished
product, as mentioned by Dr. George:
60
When writing the piece, I had Braun play every passage shortly after I composed it. If
something did not sound right, I devised an alternative. If for any other reason something
did not work, Braun told me about that too. Actually, such situations were few.51
By George’s own admission, the work was designed based on what he considered special about
Braun’s abilities, and those assumptions appear to be accurate. Every technical challenge found
in the piece has a solution on the instrument as it existed and, as will be shown in the following
chapter, within the common performance practices known to most professional bass trombonists
at that time.
The second characteristic of Dr. George’s approach is grounded in his knowledge of singing
and the pervasive ethos of Emory Remington’s philosophy within the trombone studio at
Eastman. Since Remington taught his students to play the trombone in a manner similar to the
way a singer produces sound, George understood that instruments, like singers, should be limited
to particular ranges for the sake of tone quality. Thus, an instrument should not be asked to
“sing” outside of a range simply because a particular player may be able to do so.
Springing out of the friendships developed within a unique musical environment and the
encouragement of a caring mentor, the Concerto for Bass Trombone is no different from other
important collaborations which have led to much of the best-known literature of classical music.
This fortuitous series of events allowed the bass trombone to move forward from the back of the
orchestra, inspiring other composers to reconsider the instrument, and musicians to reconsider its
technical and lyrical possibilities.
61
51 George, interview.
CHAPER SIX:
THE INSTRUMENT USED IN THE PREMIERE PERFORMANCE OF THE
CONCERTO FOR BASS TROMBONE AND ORCHESTRA
Although the author searched through various alumni offices, military band personnel lists
and on-line discussion boards, the whereabouts of Robert Braun remains a mystery.
Complicating the question concerning whether Braun used the only available double-valve
instrument of the time, a Reynold 78-X, is that neither Dr. George or Braun’s classmates
remember the instrument he used for that performance. Although this important information is
not readily available, there is enough evidence to conclude that the new Reynolds instrument was
not used for these performances and was not even considered by the composer when writing the
Concerto.
The first indication is found in the concerto itself. Throughout the solo there is no occurrence
of B1, meaning the instrument most likely was not easily capable of producing it. Players of the
1950s had two options to play this note, the most reliable found in pulling the tuning slide of the
F-attachment out far enough to produce low B1. In truth, most trombone makers designed their
F-attachments to have tuning slides long enough to produce the note in V6. A second method
involved “lipping” the low C down by playing with a loosened embouchure. Although the tone
suffered, it negated the need for the player to pause to pull out the tuning slide during a
performance.
There are examples of American composers writing for an “E-pull” for the instrument.
Perhaps the most important in this discussion is the Concerto (1962) by Robert Spillman.
Spillman also graduated from Eastman, receiving his Masters Degree just the year before Dr.
62
George entered. This carefully crafted work has several instances of B1 in the first movement,
but all take place after a nine-measure rest and are followed by a six-measure rest, allowing the
player plenty of time to adjust the tuning slide. The third movement presents more occurrences
of low B1 in the final seventeen measure of the piece, again after six measures rest. In both
instances it is important to note that there is no use of F2, which negates any need to worry that
the player may accidentally attempt to play the note with a de-tuned F-attachment. Another
example contemporary to the George Concerto is Patrick McCarty’s Sonata for Bass Trombone
and Piano (1962). In this work there are no occurrences of low B1.
The same trends are apparent when considering the French music of the same period, but
with important differences. Sonate (1956), by Henri Martelli, makes use of B1 throughout the
piece. If the player pulled the F-attachment to E, the whole work is easily playable on a single-
valve instrument. Although this would seem extreme to modern bass trombonists, there was no
double-valve instrument in France at the time, and much of the French solo literature for bass
trombone during this time was also meant to be played by tuba and Eb saxhorn. Due to the
multipurpose nature of this music, it appears plausible for the French musicians to adapt a more
adventurous attitude toward using different tunings for the F-attachment since they had no choice
in the matter. Robert Bariller’s Hans de Schnokeloch (1961), which lists its intended instrument
as bass trombone or tuba, omits B1 entirely, ranging no lower than C#2. Two occurrences of B1
are found in New Orleans (1962) by Eugène Bozza. The approach used in this work is especially
interesting, as the notes are always found within a slow passage marked to be played with rubato.
This allows the B1 to be easily “lipped” down. Additionally, the composer added optional
“ossia” notations that make these passages even easier or omit the B1 altogether. For the French
63
bass trombonist, the evidence suggests that the E tuning and the practice of “lipping” the pitch of
the F-attachment were accepted as part of the established technique for the instrument.
Another important indicator concerning whether the Reynolds double-valve instrument was
considered for the George Concerto is found within the studio of Emory Remington. Remington
played Conn instruments, and recommended his students only play Conn trombones. Ed
Anderson, former bass trombonist with the Cleveland Orchestra who studied with Remington in
the late 1950s, recalled that while he preferred an instrument manufactured by Bach, he always
played a Conn in his lessons out of respect for his teacher.52 One must assume that the other
students realized the same desire to observe the preferences of their beloved mentor.
When the technique required for moving in and out of the valve register is weighed against
the perceived “stuffy” quality of the Reynolds 78-X, there appears to be less reason to assume it
was a valid alternative to the most common instruments used in the Remington studio, the Conn
70H and 72H model bass trombones.
64
52 Ed Anderson, interview with the author, August 20, 2008.
CHAPTER SEVEN:
A PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE CONCERTO FOR BASS TROMBONE AND
COMPARISONS TO SEVERAL WORKS COMPOSED BETWEEN 1956 AND 1964
As mentioned in Chapter One, the items of primary importance to this analysis are instances
in the solo part with eighth-notes at a tempo at or over 112 beats per minute. These passages
should include at least 25% of their content at or below C3 to make use of the various
attachments available in 1964 and today. The analysis will consider a variety of options
available on each instrument, and report the level of difficulty as a percentage. Movement of the
slide of 10 " inches or more, a shift of at least three natural53 positions, will be considered
challenging at the aforementioned tempo.
Considering that shifts between positions with valves engaged can be comparable to the
same amount of slide movement seen in a shift of fewer natural positions, the amounts listed in
the data tables are always determined by rounding the positions with valves to the nearest natural
position (Fig. 38).
Figure 38: Slide positions possible with the F-attachment (V), second valve tuned to Gb (S), and both valves together (D). All positions with the Gb valve are only playable on the independent, or “in-line” bass trombone.
Note that these positions can vary depending on the instrument.
65
53 Natural positions are those which do not include use of any valve.
As seen in Figure 1, notes played with V1, S1, or D1 are regarded the same as first position.
Other positions are compared to their natural counterparts in Table 3.
Notes played in these
positions...
are regarded as being
played in these positions
V1, S1, D1 1
V2, D2 2
S2 3
V3, S3, D3 4
V4, S4, D4 5
V5, S5 6
V6, S6, D5 7
Table 3: Relative position location with valves as compared to the seven natural trombone slide positions.
The reported amount of position change is then determined by counting the number of
positions required between one note to the next. Thus,
if F3 to G3 is considered, the amount of movement
recorded would be three positions, since the slide
would move from first to fourth position. Similarly, if
the music called for a change from Bb2 to Eb2, a change of three positions would be noted since
moving from first position to V3 corresponds to changing from first to fourth position (Fig. 39).
Of prime importance is the consideration of standard alternate positions for all three versions
of bass trombone, so as to eliminate any options that may have been more accepted at the time
George composed his Concerto. Regarding passages within the George Concerto that appear to
Figure 39: Positions for F3, G3, Bb2 and Eb2
?
3
1 4 1 V3X X Xb Xb
66
present the most problems for the single-valve instrument, alternate positions were considered
when collecting data for the range of motion tables. The most extreme example is found in
measures 22-24 and again in 88-90 (Fig. 40).
6 6 V6 4 6 V6 7 6 V6 6 4 3 4 6 6 6 V6 4 6 V6 7 6
?
3
XbX X Xb X X X X
XX X
XXb X
XX X Xb X X X X
XX X
XXb X
Figure 40: Thom Ritter George, Concerto for Bass Trombone, measures 22-24. Notes with alternate positions shown in red.
In these passages, alternate positions are used for F3 and even Ab3 in an attempt to keep the slide
close enough to V6 for the low C2. When the dependent and independent double-valve
instrument is considered, these alternates are not considered, instead choosing D3 for every C2 in
an attempt to distinguish the different performance practices common to each instrument.
There are two passages in the George Concerto that fit the criteria mentioned earlier. The
first occurs beginning at the first Allegro section, measures 20-43. This passage uses a range of
C2 up to Eb4, a great deal of the range employed in this piece, which is from F1 to F#4. Table 4
details the range of motion employed in this section.
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment
19 46 30 11 3 4 0 16% 84%
F/DDependent
23 42 25 23 1 1 0 22% 78%
F/Gb/D Independent
18 56 31 7 0 1 0 7% 93%
Table 4: Range of motion, Thom Ritter George Concerto for Bass Trombone, measures 20-43.
67
The temptation to not use the alternate positions when using a dependent instrument results in
more work for the musician overall, although it avoids most of the more extreme shifts of four or
more positions required by the single-valve instrument. Modern independent-valve bass
trombones enjoy a large overall advantage in this passage, largely by using the S3 position for
notes C3 and F3. Both independent and dependent instruments enjoy the additional security of
using position D2 for the repeated Db2 appearing in measures 25-27 and 91-93. This places the
positions for Eb3 and Db2 close together, to further reduce the side distance needed to play this
passage.
However, if this information is considered without some of the alternate positions employed
as shown above for the single-valved bass trombone, a very different picture develops, as shown
in Table 5. This shows that the level of difficulty is significantly increased without the use of as
many alternate positions as possible in these measures, and the differences between the
instruments available at the time and the modern independent bass trombone are further
exaggerated.
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment, with alternates
19 46 30 11 3 4 0 16% 84%
Single F-Attachment, without alternates
17 47 29 18 8 4 0 28% 72%
Table 5: Range of motion, Thom Ritter George Concerto for Bass Trombone, measures 20-43.
The second example from the George Concerto is found in measures 69-86. In this section
we see a negligible difference between all three instruments, chiefly caused by the avoidance of
C2, C#2, and no real advantage gained from using position D1 for note D2 (Table 6).
68
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment
29 49 21 7 3 0 0 9% 91%
F/DDependent
29 49 21 7 3 0 0 9% 91%
F/Gb/D Independent
30 49 21 7 3 0 0 8% 92%
Table 6: Range of motion, Thom Ritter George Concerto for Bass Trombone, measures 69-86
When the Concerto by Thom Ritter George is compared with works of the same period,
substantial differences are revealed. Spillman’s Concerto (1962) contains two instances within
the first movement, shown below in Tables 7 and 8. The differences between the instruments are
nearly nonexistent within both Table 7 and 8, much as they were in the second George excerpt,
yet quite different when compared to measures 20-43 in the George.
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment
18 2 28 8 0 0 0 14% 86%
F/DDependent
18 2 28 8 0 0 0 14% 86%
F/Gb/D Independent
25 2 22 7 0 0 0 12% 88%
Table 7: Range of motion, Robert Spillman Concerto, measures 1-12.
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment
19 12 13 3 1 0 0 6% 94%
F/DDependent
21 12 13 2 0 0 0 4% 96%
F/Gb/D Independent
19 12 16 1 0 0 0 2% 98%
Table 8: Range of motion, Robert Spillman Concerto, measures 60-68, 78-80, and 97-104.
The second American work for this comparison is the McCarty Sonata (1962). Throughout
the first movement is little that fits within the requirements for this comparison, although the
69
exploration of the lower register of the instrument is of great interest (Fig 41). McCarty added
an “ossia” to this music, yet the lower octave works very well on the single-valve instrument,
which indicates these low notes were considered somewhat extreme at the time. As mentioned
before, this work does not contain a B1.
Figure 41: Patrick McCarty, Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 29-36.
The only portions of the piece that fit the conditions for this study appear in the third movement,
Measures 65-83 and 164-188 reveal no advantage when using a dependent instrument over the
single-valved, and a substantial advantage when using an independent instrument (Tables 9 and
10). This advantage is due to the large number of instances when positions S2 and S3 can be
used for C3 and B2, respectively (Fig. 42), and it is this advantage alone that compares favorably
with the first George Concerto excerpt.
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment
19 9 9 8 0 0 0 18% 82%
F/DDependent
19 9 9 8 0 0 0 18% 82%
F/Gb/D Independent
18 13 9 5 0 0 0 11% 89%
Table 9: Range of motion, McCarty Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 65-83.
70
Figure 42: Patrick McCarty Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 169-173. Positions shown on top are for the single-valve bass trombone, those on the bottom are for the independent bass trombone.
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment
8 30 23 21 0 0 0 26% 74%
F/DDependent
8 30 23 21 0 0 0 26% 74%
F/Gb/D Independent
10 40 20 12 0 0 0 15% 85%
Table 10: Range of Motion, McCarty Sonata for Bass Trombone, measures 164-188.
One key factor separating the George Concerto from both the Spillman and McCarty works are
the number of quick slide shifts of four or more positions. For the musician playing the single-
valved bass trombone, these movements are what pose the greatest challenge, which all but
disappear when either the dependent or independent instrument are used. In the Spillman
Concerto and McCarty Sonata there are no position changes of four or more positions. This can
be seen as an indication that Dr. George is making a much greater demand on the technique of
the bass trombonist than the other composers.
In France, a thriving trombone studio had developed at the National Conservatory of Music
in Paris. Many works for solo instruments of all kinds were written not only for the professors of
the conservatory, but also for various solo competitions and student examinations that were part
of the normal environment at the school. A difference found in many of these works is due to
71
their multi-purpose nature, that is, they were composed for more than one kind of instrument.
These were most often listed as Tuba (in C) and Bass Saxhorn in Eb. Determining how French
composers regarded the usable range of the single-valved bass trombone is complicated by the
inclusion of these other instruments, as the lowest registers of these other instruments easily
reach into the low register, including B1. Oftentimes these lower notes are avoided through an
“ossia” option for the bass trombonist, or they are approached in such a way that the E-pull or
“lipping” the pitch of C2 down to B1 is possible.
The first French work considered by this study is Fantaise Concertante by Jacques
Castérède, composed in 1960 for both bass trombone and tuba. Unfortunately, there are no
significant passages that explore the correct range and tempo to compare it to the George
Concerto, however the piece gives insight into the technical considerations made by the
composer for the single-valve bass trombone. This work avoids low B1 except in one instance.
This note is found in the cadenza, where the B1 is approached chromatically from above,
allowing the lipping down of C2 to be done easily and making the E-pull unnecessary (Fig. 43).
The large portions of the technically difficult sections of this piece are above D3, and
demonstrate a tradition of writing challenging passages for the bass trombone in a range that is
not dissimilar from what might be expected for a tenor trombone.
Figure 43: Jacques Castérède, Fantaise Concertante, excerpt from the cadenza.
72
Hans de Schnokeloch by Robert Bariller was written in 1961, the following year. This work
explores the lower register of the bass trombone, yet reveals an effort by the composer to avoid
leaps that would result in wide slide motions when using the valve register of the instrument.
Table 11 reveals no real advantage in using the dependent instrument and a slight improvement
with the modern independent instrument.
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment
6 57 30 20 1 0 0 18% 82%
F/DDependent
6 58 30 19 1 0 0 18% 82%
F/Gb/D Independent
14 62 25 13 0 0 0 11% 89%
Table 11: Range of motion, Robert Bariller, Hans de Schnokeloch, measures 23-31, 65-68, 72-76, 78-80, and
142-146.
Within Hans de Schnokeloch are found leaps from D3 to D2 which are, with the exception of a
C#2 in the closing measures, the lowest pitches of the piece (Fig. 44). The overall mood of this
work is jovial and folk-like, avoiding extreme complexity or technique.
?
3
a24 X# X X Xa X X X X
a X X X Xa X X X X
a X# X X XFigure 44: Robert Bariller, Hans de Schnokeloch, measures 25-29
Eugène Bozza’s New Orleans (1962) enjoys a popularity unrivaled by any other solo work
written in the 1960s, with the possible exception of the George Concerto. With a range
extending from F1 to Bb4, the composer appears to not concern himself with staying in a
particular range for the sake of timbre. The piece employs two low B1s, both within passages
73
utilizing rubato and passing through them chromatically. Players can therefore retain the F
tuning on the single-valve instrument without consequence.
Another interesting feature contained in New Orleans is the addition of several “ossia”
passages, allowing players options to avoid technical challenges to negatively effect their
performance. Of these, none appear to omit B1, which could have indicated easier options for
the bass trombonist, but rather appear to avoid F#1 to Bb1. Remembering these works were
composed with Eb bass saxhorn in mind, as many of these notes were not playable on the three-
valve Eb saxhorn.54
The several selected measures of the work that fall within the criteria of this study begin at
rehearsal 11 and end before rehearsal 15 (Table 12).
No Movement
One Position
Two Positions
Three Positions
Four Positions
Five Positions
Six Positions
Percentage of 3-position movement or more
Percentage of 2-position movement or less
Single F-Attachment
0 7 9 17 0 0 0 52% 48%
F/DDependent
0 7 9 17 0 0 0 52% 48%
F/Gb/D Independent
6 19 3 5 0 0 0 15% 85%
Table 12: Range of motion, Eugène Bozza, New Orleans, selected measures from rehearsal 11 to 15.
Here we see the greatest contrast between the single and independent instruments and the
modern independent bass trombone. The reason for this stark difference, upon examination of
the score, lies in the use of the Gb attachment of the independent instrument to change many of
the three- and two-position shifts into movements of one position or none at all (Fig. 45).
74
54 The range of the Eb bass saxhorn with three valves had a gap in its range between E1 and A1.
?
5Single and Dependent
V2 5 V2 4 V2 V2 5 V2 4 V2 5 V2 5 V2 4 V2 5 V2 4 6 5 2 5 2
S3 5 S3 4 S3 S3 5 S3 4 S3 5 S3 5 S3 4 S3 5 S3 4 6 5 2 5 2
Independent
24 X X# X X X X X @ X X# X @ X X X @ X X# X X X X X X X X X#X X# X
Figure 45: Bozza, New Orleans, comparison of the slide positions of two selected passages for the single-valve, dependent (top) and the independent instruments (bottom).
A fascinating similarity between the George Concerto, McCarty’s Sonata and New Orleans
are the wide leaps found within certain sections of each piece. Evidently all three composers
appreciated the ability of the instrument to maneuver easily in and out of its lowest registers (Fig.
46). The major difference between these excerpts lies in the tempos and the amount of rests.
Although the example from New Orleans appears to be more difficult, the passage from the
George Concerto poses a greater challenge, not only due to the quick tempo, but also because of
the complication added by the accented upper melody.
?
5
Moderato
Xa a
X#aXX a
XX X# a
X# XXa
XX a
XX# a
XX#
q.=56-72
q=116
Figure 46: A comparison of three selections. Bozza, New Orleans after rehearsal 15 (top), McCarty, Sonata Movement 3, measures 69-74 (middle), and
George, Concerto measures 73-75 (bottom).
75
A final important feature found only in the George Concerto is the multiple glissandi in
measures 39-43 (Fig 47). There are a few glissandi in Bozza’s New Orleans, but these are used
to evoke a “jazzy” mood and style, consisting of short falls of a major third or less. None of the
other pieces contain a glissando.
?
?
5
X X ~~~ Xb Xn ~~~ Xb X~~~ Xb X~~~~~ Xb X Xb Xb X X Xb X X Xb Xb Xb
X X~~ Xb X~~ Xb Xn ~~~X X~~~~~ X Xb Xb X X X X X X X X Xb X X~~ Xb Xb Xjn a ¥Figure 47: Thom Ritter George Concerto for Bass Trombone, multiple glissandi in measures 39-43.
76
CHAPTER EIGHT:
CONCLUSION
This study has served to reveal two outstanding differences found in Dr, George’s Concerto
for Bass Trombone which separate it from the other works that preceded it. First, the data shows
that it makes more use of the valve register, or the range from C2 to F2. Some passages use the
outermost positions of the single-valve instrument and, in order to reduce the amount of large
movements of the hand slide, demand the player use less stable alternate positions for a few
middle-register notes. Second, the modern independent bass trombone eliminates much of the
complexity of the piece by bringing repeated lower register notes into close proximity on the
slide to those in the other registers.
Furthermore, the study as a whole garners an appreciation for the care Dr. George took to
differentiate the bass trombone from the tenor trombone and other low brass instruments. While
French composers composed creative works for the instrument and obviously made greater use
of advanced playing techniques such as “lipping” and detuning the F-attachment, they also used
these techniques to make these pieces playable on instruments other than the bass trombone. The
Concerto is not playable on any of these other instruments, either due to the heavy use of
glissando in a critical portion of the piece, or due to the use of such a wide range.
One concern mentioned at the onset of this paper was whether Dr. George wished to edit the
piece in order to make use of the greater capacity of the independent instrument. Due to his
strong convictions concerning the recognition of certain ranges for every instrument and voice,
his opinions are as firm now as they were when the Concerto was written.
77
As a neo-classic work, this piece foreshadows many of the commissioned solo works that
came twenty years after its premiere. For many years commissions came for avant-garde works,
many of which were destined for academia rather than for the concert hall.55 As more orchestral
bass trombonists began to seek solo literature, the composers who were comfortable writing in a
more accessible style and harmonic language were given the task of writing for a far more
flexible instrument, played by a number of virtuoso performers. Dr. George was aware that he
was writing an extremely virtuosic piece at the time, but could not have foreseen the innovations
of instrument design and the accompanying changes in technique that allowed musicians, many
without the rare talent of Robert Braun, to perform it.
78
55 Christopher J. Glasser, “ The Contributions of Thomas G. Everett to Bass Trombone Repertoire, Literature, and Research” (DMA diss., University of North Texas 2002), 21.
Bibliography
Babcock, Ronald. “Dreams, Concepts, Trials and Triumphs: The Story of Ed Thayer and his Axial-Flow Valve.” International Trombone Association Journal, 26, no.1 (1998): 38-42.
Baines, Anthony. Brass Instruments, Their History and Development. Farber and Farber, London, 1976.
Baines, Anthony. "Trombone." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40576 (accessed July 21, 2008).
Baines, Anthony and John Borwick. "harmonic series." In The Oxford Companion to Music, edited by Alison Latham. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/ subscriber/article/opr/t114/e3137 (accessed July 16, 2008).
Banks, Margaret Downie. “A Brief History of the Conn Company (1874-present).” The National Music Museum. http://www.usd.edu/~mbanks/CONTENT.html (accessed August 9, 2008).
Brown, Keith. Orchestral Excerpts from the Symphonic Repertoire for Trombone and
Tuba. 10 volumes. New York: International Music Company, 1964-70.
Carse, Adam. Musical Wind Instruments: A History of the Wind Instruments Use in
European Orchestras and Wind-Bands from the Later Middle Ages up to the
Present Time. New York: Da Capo Press, 1965.
Finn, Neal Brian. “An original composition : Concerto for bass trombone and orchestra with analysis, and Thom Ritter George: Concerto for bass trombone--an analysis.” DMA diss., University of Northern Colorado, 1999.
Galpin, F. W. “The sackbut: its evolution and history, illustrated by an instrument of the sixteenth century.” Proceedings of the Musical Association, 33 (1906-7): 4-14.
Glasser, Christopher J. “The Contributions of Thomas G. Everett to Bass Trombone Repertoire, Literature, and Research.” DMA diss., University of North Texas, 2002.
Guion, David. The Trombone: Its History and Music, 1697-1811.Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1988.
Gregory, Robin. The Trombone: The Instrument and its Music. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1973.
79
Herbert, Trevor. The Trombone. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2006.
Komorn, Maria and W. Oliver Strunk. "Brahms, Choral Conductor." The Musical Quarterly 19, no. 2 (April, 1933): 151-157.
Kreitner, Kenneth et al. "Instrumentation and orchestration." In Grove Music Online. Oxford
Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/20404 (accessed July 16, 2008).
Morley-Pegge, R. The French Horn: Some Notes on the Evolution of the Instrument and of its
technique. Ernest Benn Limited, London, 1960.
Merucci, Renato. “The cimbasso and related instruments in 19th-century italy.” Translated by W. Waterhouse, Galpin Society Journal 49 (1996), 152-165.
Rimsky-Korsakov, Nikoli. Principles of Orchestration, 1913, ed. M. Steinberg, trans. E. Agate. 2 vols (New York:Édition Russe de Musique, 1923).
Shifrin, Ken. “Are We Doing Dvo!ák Wrong?,” The British Trombone Society Journal, (1999). http://www.trombone-society.org.uk/resources/articles/dvorak.php (accessed July 16, 2008).
Smith, Robert Gene. “The life and work of the orchestral bass trombonist, Allen Ostrander, and the development of his bass trombone methods and solos.” DMA diss., Louisiana State University, 1992.
Streeter, Thomas W. The Historical and Musical Aspects of the Nineteenth Century Bass Trombone, Part 1. International Trombone Association Journal 3 (January 1976). 33-34.
Tarr, Edward H. "Blühmel, Friedrich." Oxford Music Online, <http:// www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40422> (accessed July 8, 2008).
Van Djik, Ben. “Contra Bass Trombone Lecture Notes,” Basstrombone.nl. http:// www.basstrombone.nl/default.asp?subj=contrabasstrombone (accessed June 26th 2008).
Yeager, Jonathan K. “Interpretive Performance Techniques and Lyrical Innovations on the Bass Trombone: A Study of Recorded Performances by George Roberts, ‘Mr. Bass Trombone.’” DMA diss., University of North Texas, 2006. Yeo, Douglas. “A Conversation with Kauko Kahila.” International Trombone Association
Journal, 15, no. 3 (1987): 18-22.
80
APPENDIX
The following is an e-mail correspondence between the author and Thom Ritter George, the composer of the Concerto for Bass Trombone and Orchestra, CN176.
This interview was posted online by the composer with the permission of the author, and can be accessed at http://www.isu.edu/~georthom/bass_trbn_conc_moore.html.
81
An Interview with Thom Ritter George, June 17, 2008
1) In general, what/who were your major influences as a composer?
TRG: I am a neo-classicist, a composer who uses classical principles in writing music for contemporary times. Classical principles reached their summit in what is now called The First Viennese School – Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. These composers still remain a model for me today, but I readily admit the surface of their music and my own are quite different. Just to take one example from hundreds of situations, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven all used perfect authentic cadences in every score; I do not use perfect authentic cadences in my compositions.
In the early 1960s, Bach's music and technique was a powerful influence on me. I wrote several neo-Bach pieces, but gradually his methods proved less useful to me in composition. His use of counterpoint has been an ongoing inspiration. Counterpoint is still an important aspect of my writing, even in pieces which are essentially homophonic. (I still enjoy Bach's music greatly, having conducted, played, and listened to it my whole life.)
In the mid-1960s, I became quite interested in Hindemith's compositions and technical methods. Hindemith was also a neo-classiest, and he showed us some fresh possibilities, particularly in regard to harmony and form. (By the 1960s, there were some in the modern music field who considered Hindemith "old hat," principally because he advocated tonality in an era where many academics were interested in serialism. From today's viewpoint, Hindemith is in the position of many composers who wrote a great deal – some of his music is effective and valuable while other scores are less interesting and infrequently played.)
In the 1970s, I took a closer look at Stravinsky's compositions of his middle period (his neo-classical period). This is wonderful music. It is tonal and diatonic, yet at the same time there is a newness, a freshness about it. Seeing what Stravinsky was doing in these scores led me to reconsider my technical resources from the ground up – intervals (!), harmony, harmonic function, form, melody, voicing, everything. That was time well spent and laid the foundation for my future works,
2) How would you best describe your style at that time the Concerto was composed?
TRG: The Concerto for Bass Trombone is a neo-classical work. Some of Hindemith's harmonic ideas were helpful in several passages.
82
3) How would you best describe your style now?
TRG: While still a neo-classicist, I have been seeking a greater simplicity of expression. Also, I have been trying to create works which are written on several levels; that is, for the casual listener the music simply sounds attractive on the surface, but the listener who seeks a deeper meaning will be rewarded. I have been studying and striving for effects related to pacing of the music: How and when do things unfold? How is a musical story told?
4) Which of your other works are most like the Concerto?
TRG: None. The structure is unique to the Concerto for Bass Trombone.
5) Was there any work by another composer that influenced your concerto?
TRG: No.
a) Robert Spillman's Concerto for Bass Trombone (1962), Bozza's New Orleans (1962), Castérède's Fantaisie Concertante (1960), Patrick McCarty's Sonata (1962).
TRG: I have not studied these scores.
6) Since you were a student at the time, who mentored you in the writing of the concerto (Thomas Canning, Louis Mennini, Wayne Barlow, John LaMontaine, and Bernard Rogers)?
TRG: Wayne Barlow was my composition teacher the time I wrote the concerto, and he reviewed the score before it was played. Barlow did not monitor the writing as I was doing it. In fact, I wrote other music for his classes. He was a man of high intelligence who was principally interested in chamber music at that stage of his career (1964).
7) What can you tell me about Robert Braun, and how his style and abilities as a bass trombonist influenced your work?
TRG: Braun was a classmate and close friend. I ate dinner with him and other brass players
83
almost every night during my college years. He arrived at Eastman from his native Maine and studied with Emory Remington ("The Chief"). Braun had a virtuoso command of the bass trombone, something which was rare in those days (1960s). He was especially known for his "flexibility," the ability to make large range jumps with apparent ease. Braun also had very good musical instincts.
8) Where is Braun now (Eastman Alumni Office has no idea, Google gives inconclusive results)?
TRG: I do not know where Braun is today. After leaving Eastman, he almost immediately went to Las Vegas where he pursued a career in commercial music. He played many shows at casinos. I last visited with him in Washington, D. C. during the late 1960s. Braun was in town with a traveling band. After talking with him and the band in his hotel room, I never saw him again.
9) Tell about your work with Emory Remington.
TRG: Remington ("The Chief") was the long time trombone professor at the Eastman School. When I arrived in Fall 1960, I discovered he had a powerful program in place. He had consummate knowledge of trombone playing, and he had a very definite philosophy about what the trombone should sound like. For Remington, the trombone should be played in a manner similar to the tone production of a fine singer. In fact, he sang through every trombonist's lesson as the student played. His insistence on the singing style was impossible to escape. He looked upon each of his students as a son or daughter of his own and had great empathy for them.
Remington also conducted his famous trombone choir, I believe twice a week. He reasoned that trombonists very often play as a group, and he wanted to develop a sense of perfect coordination in ensemble.
For the trombone choir, he needed music. It was Remington who latched on to me, a new incoming composer at the school, and kept pressing for compositions. There was something about his insistence that made it impossible to turn him down. I wrote several scores for him. On one occasion, I offered him a transcription for trombone choir. He accepted it and played it, but he also told me, "No... no... not transcriptions. Anyone can do that. What we need is pieces."
After leaving the Eastman School, I wrote Aria and Dance, CN 263 (1970) for him and his
84
trombone choir. On a trip to the school, I presented this to Remington and saw him for the last time. I was always glad I composed this final tribute to a remarkable man and teacher.
In the course of things, I also wrote two concertos for his students. The Concerto for Bass
Trombone, CN 176 (1964) is the biggest. The other work, my Concerto Grosso No. 3, CN 149 (1963), is a three movement concertino for tenor trombone and string orchestra.
10) Where there any changes in structural plans to the Concerto as you began to write? For instance, was it to be a multi-movement piece instead of a single-movement concerto?
TRG: No. As usual, the form was planned before I did any writing.
a) Performance time constraints (Eastman-Rochester Orch)
TRG: No. The Eastman-Rochester Orchestra was thoroughly professional and could play anything.
b) Endurance worries on the part of the soloist
TRG: Neither Robert Brawn or subsequent performers mentioned endurance worries to me.
11) Do you remember any technical considerations on the part of the design of the instrument that had to be taken into account?
a) No low “B” in the concerto, which is the only note not available on a single-valve instrument.
b) The double-valved instrument appeared just before you wrote this piece, but it was not as easy to play as the single-valved instrument due to the “stuffy” double-valve configuration. Did Robert Braun use a single or double-valve instrument?
TRG: I recall players at the time often talked about various improvements in their instruments, but I must confess I did not follow this closely since I am not a brass player.
When writing the piece, I had Braun play every passage shortly after I composed it. If something did not sound right, I devised an alternative. If for any other reason something did not
85
work, Braun told me about that too. Actually, such situations were few.
I think it is very good for composers, particularly young composers who are finding their way with instruments, to work closely with skilled performers. In later years, I advised my composition students to do the same, but much to my chagrin they commonly disregarded this advice. The composition students thereby cut themselves off from helpful ideas and their scores consequently contained problematic passages which could have been avoided. In my own pieces, I have asked for advice from performers many times. Usually, actual playing shows where alternatives are needed.
I do not know whether Braun used a double-valved or single-valved bass trombone to play the premiere.
12) Were there any compromises you made in the solo part, were parts of it too difficult?
TRG: I do not think there were compromises (foregoing artistic results for technical reasons), but there were adjustments as indicated above.
a) MM 83-85, range compared to similar passages (In general, what were the chief concerns about range. Was the upper range of greater concern?).
TRG: There was not a great concern about range. Remember, Braun had great flexibility and could handle big jumps without problems. Having said that, I thought then, and still think today, that the bass trombone should not be required to do things in a high range best suited to the tenor trombone. In this, the bass trombone should be treated more like a baritone singer. Even the most powerful baritone singing in opera commonly is worried about his high range. The top of the range should be used sparingly.
b) “Holes” (rests) in cadenza, for breath (m.163+)? Apparently this was to be played at a consistent tempo.
TRG: Yes, this passage should be played at a fairly consistent tempo. The occasional rests are part of the melodic articulation.
c) Were there other ideas you had for the cadenza?
86
TRG: From the first, the cadenza was conceived as an alternative to a regular slow movement. The cadenza joins the end on the first movement to the beginning of the last ("Fugue"). I did not think the bass trombone would be at its best trying to play an extended, emotion-drenched slow movement as we often hear in Classical or Romantic concertos. But in a concerto, there should be some time where the solo instrument gets to play alone. At these moments, the audience has the opportunity of concentrating on the solo artist without the distraction of the orchestral fabric.
13) Talk about the lyrical writing. You mentioned in your email that amongst all the technical talk it would be wise to also consider the lyric passages. How were these different from what is found in other pieces of the time?
TRG: I will admit that the lyric passages in the concerto are generally short, but they are quite important. Musically, they offer a change from the generally virtuoso character of the concerto as a whole. In addition, the solo artist can show how he or she can shape a melody. The lyric passages must not be just a succession of notes. Rather, the melodies have to grown and move forward to certain goals. (This is a common challenge in all lyric playing.)
14) Do you still have the sketches and notes from your work on this piece?
TRG: Yes, I still have all sketches for the concerto. There is one aspect of these papers which I have always thought peculiar. At the time I wrote the piece, the authorities at Eastman (Wayne Barlow and the conductor Paul White) insisted that I write out the full score in pencil for their inspection. They reviewed this score and quickly approved it. Only then was I allowed to make the ink score on vellum ("onion skin") paper. It would have saved me a considerable amount of work had they allowed me to score the concerto on the vellum in the first place.
15) Anything else that I have missed you think is important?
TRG: Actually, there are a few more things to consider. Here are a few –
(a) The bass trombone, like other brass instruments, is still trying to develop a strong repertoire. The instrument will not be taken seriously if its concert music is comprised of transcriptions, joke pieces, jazz works, and pieces that are not really saying anything. What is needed is truly solid compositions, well made technically and having a message. Due to the way music history evolved, good bass trombone repertoire is essentially a 20th and 21st Century phenomenon.
87
(b) My Concerto for Bass Trombone was possible because by 1964 we started seeing substantial improvements in the physical instrument and many performance advances made by the players themselves. No longer would the players be relegated to simply playing the bass notes of chords in orchestra and band works. They could do much more than that.
(c) In writing solos for wind instruments, it is important to consider the length of pieces. The winds, of course, have their own special beauties. But to an audience, the winds do not have a range of tone colors which will sustain a long concerto in the sense that a violin can. I believe masters of the past realized that. For example, Mozart's concertos for wind instruments are short when compared to his violin and piano concertos. This was a composer who loved the winds, but he realized that it was better to write a shorter, pithy concerto for a wind instrument than risk letting the audience tire of tone color sameness.
I considered this when I composed the Concerto for Bass Trombone, and it explains in part why I rejected the notion of trying to write a full blown slow movement. The play time for the concerto is about ten minutes, enough to show the instrument in a brilliant, virtuoso way, yet not so long as to let the tone color grow stale.
(d) I have heard quite a few performances of the concerto which were played too fast. Just because a performer can negotiate the score very fast, it does not mean that the effect of the music comes out well. The major problem in these cases is that the melodies and especially the harmonies are not allowed to unfold in a natural, musical way which is best for the structure. I carefully considered the metronome marks in the concerto and recommend that performers stay reasonably close to those markings.
In all compositions, the selection of tempos should be a top concern of skilled musicians. It affects what they are doing technically, but it also affects the impression the audience is receiving. In his book Of Music and Music Making (1957), conductor Bruno Walter devoted an entire chapter on good tempo practices, tempo abuses, and finding the right tempo for different situations. While Walter's writing style is rather Germanic and exhaustive, his ideas in the section on tempo and throughout the whole book are excellent.
16) You mentioned your displeasure with the wind band arrangements of your concerto, the reasons being artistic in nature. Could you say more about this?
TRG: In my view, the orchestral accompaniment is the perfect medium for this piece. For example, there is no way for a wind ensemble or band to even approximate the mysterious, ethereal, divided string opening of this work. There are many other passages in which only an
88
orchestra sounds right.
Much of that has to do with the fact that the concerto was conceived for orchestra. If a person studied the sketches, they would see little notations such as - "cl" "str" "va" – all are shorthand for how the music is to be scored in the orchestra.
Not long after, I was commissioned to write my Concerto for Flute, CN 223 (1966). The commission specified that there would be three versions of the accompaniment: (1) flute and chamber orchestra; (2) flute and piano; and (3) flute and wind ensemble. That was an entirely different matter than the scoring of the Concerto for Bass Trombone. So for the Concerto for
Flute, I planned things from the start so that all the accompaniment versions would sound idiomatic in each.
89