Second time playing alto

[Bach5G]

I spent the summer thinking about playing the Rhenish on alto. It’s on the program for our first concert of the season. Practising was a bit harder than expected because of limited endurance in the high register and it seemed as if I pushed even a little one day, it would set me back the following day.

So I was a little nervous at our first run through of new season last night. But it went well. I got the Eb.

Afterwards I was surprised how stressed out I’ve been by this. It’s been in the back of my mind for most of the summer.

It turns out that we’re also doing Wienauski violin concerto, which is also written for alto, in our first concert of the season. So I get that too.

[PMPugs20]

Congratulations! If I may, how different is it playing the excerpt in context for you vs. on your own in the practice room?

[Bach5G]

Well, I was a little leery last June when the program came out with the Rhenish on it I did not have a reliable Eb. I hoped to develop that over the summer but practicing/developing a high range while reading ledger lines in alto clef proved much more taxing on my chops than I expected. And on my Rath alto, intonation up there was a bit off as well. So lots of concerns going in to the first rehearsal.

With the orch, I was able to lock in the intonation easier.

[PMPugs20]

Thank you for the reply, and congrats again.

[MrHCinDE]

Not quite the same altitude but I also found I played better on alto for Brahms 1 with the full orchestra than either home practice or trombone sectionals. In some sectionals I fluffed it spectacularly, never with the full orchestra. That piece was my public debut on alto btw. I think I was so focussed on not stuffing up in front of the full orchestra that I just concentrated more in the full group. It was just about on the healthy side of the fine line between concentration and fear.

It was a different story on one of the pieces I played in my second gig on alto, playing the 1st trombone part of the following arrangement of a Brandenburg Concerto. That was somewhat uncomfortable fitting in as part of an ensemble, it was a lot easier at home with a metronome! It‘s safe to say we didn‘t quite reach the level of excellence of this group…
https://youtu.be/gMNfQ5lqyFA?si=fvZB5NyZVla5aezY

[Bach5G]

Alto in Brahms 1?

I think it’s on our program later this year!

[MrHCinDE]

We tried tenor and alto in the sectional, I preferred alto and after some debate with the conductor in the end he also preferred the blend of ATB over TTB.

Try both and see what you like. For later Brahms works I‘d probably go with tenor. I‘ll leave the floor open for those who are better educated in music history than me to discuss what the merits of this approach, I just went with what I thought sounded good.

[harrisonreed]

Alto in Brahms 1?

I think it’s on our program later this year!

Jay Friedman writes on his website:

"It is also interesting that Wagner refers to the first two trombones as “tenor-bass,” a clear indication of the use of the F rotor valve. Liszt solved the problem head on by calling the 1st and 2nd parts “tenorposaune 1 and 2.” He and Wagner were important confidants to each other and it may have been Liszt who influenced Wagner in this regard.

Meanwhile composers such as Brahms stuck to the traditional method of writing for alto, tenor and bass, and it is obvious from the tessitura in his works that an alto trombone was specified."

And again:

"Loud playing on an alto is generally not a major concern because most of the repertoire (with exceptions of course) are weighted toward the middle and softer dynamics. I used to use an alto sparingly, but now I use it on almost everything, including Brahms symphonies and Schubert 9th because I believe I have found a combination of horn and mouthpiece that keeps the alto sound concept while providing the warmth of sound these pieces demand."

[LeTromboniste]

Alto in Brahms 1?

I think it’s on our program later this year!

Jay Friedman writes on his website:

"It is also interesting that Wagner refers to the first two trombones as “tenor-bass,” a clear indication of the use of the F rotor valve. Liszt solved the problem head on by calling the 1st and 2nd parts “tenorposaune 1 and 2.” He and Wagner were important confidants to each other and it may have been Liszt who influenced Wagner in this regard.

Meanwhile composers such as Brahms stuck to the traditional method of writing for alto, tenor and bass, and it is obvious from the tessitura in his works that an alto trombone was specified."

And again:

"Loud playing on an alto is generally not a major concern because most of the repertoire (with exceptions of course) are weighted toward the middle and softer dynamics. I used to use an alto sparingly, but now I use it on almost everything, including Brahms symphonies and Schubert 9th because I believe I have found a combination of horn and mouthpiece that keeps the alto sound concept while providing the warmth of sound these pieces demand."

All due respect to Jay Friedman who is a legendary player and rightly so, but this information is inaccurate in several ways. "Tenorbass" does not refer strictly to instruments with an F valve, that term was already used to designate larger Bb instruments before the valve was ever applied to trombones, and continued to be. Also a big chunk of Brahms music with trombones, including at least two symphonies, were written when he was in Vienna, where the section was 3 (Bb) valve trombones! And that is to some extent reflected in the writing after the 1st symphony. He certainly didn't "stick to the traditional method of writing for alto, tenor and bass" (besides, to what extent writing for true alto, tenor and bass trombones ever was "the traditional method" is very debatable. It certainly was true in certain places, but in many others had never been the case). We do have an early letter of Brahms expressing to a conductor his preference for "real" alto and bass trombones, and in my opinion I agree the writing in the 1st symphony clearly indicates at least a proper F or Eb bass and possibly an Eb alto on that particular work, but whether that's what actually happened is another question.

We have to be careful though with this idea of "what the composer had in mind" or the assumption that composers were generally the ones making decisions about what instruments were used. What matters much more is what the actual practice was (which varied tremendously for place to place and through time). Way more often, instruments used for a performance were simply the instruments always used in that particular place, and what the composer might or might not have had in mind generally had little bearing. I would be surprised if Liszt's writing "tenorposaune" implied an active choice on his part rather than simply reflected what the practice happened to be where he was. Of course Wagner had quite an extraordinary control over all the details and circumstances of his performances in Bayreuth, but he is very much an exception in that respect.

[harrisonreed]

Maximilien, tremendous respect to you, your outstanding playing, and your efforts to seek historical accuracy in performance. If I could offer, though, at least a counterpoint:

We do have an early letter of Brahms expressing to a conductor his preference for "real" alto and bass trombones, but whether that's what actually happened is another question.

We have to get away from this idea of "what the composer had in mind"

Why should we move away from what the composer really did want?

What matters much more is what the actual practice was (which varied tremendously for place to place and through time).

Perhaps this affected what the composer eventually wrote for and called for, and if so, maybe we should use what was compromised and written in the score out of circumstance, but I don't think we should play on valve trombones or whatever the poor sods had at their disposal, if the composer expressed a real preference. If historical accuracy to practice is more important than the music, maybe, but I think achieving the composers vision is more important. Brahms, if I recall correctly he wrote in his letter that he had a preference for a "real little alto" and lamented that the orchestras often did not use them. Why perpetuate something he didn't want even when we have the means to do exactly what he wrote for?

[LeTromboniste]

Maximilien, tremendous respect to you and your efforts to seek historical accuracy in performance. If I could offer, though, at least a counterpoint:

We do have an early letter of Brahms expressing to a conductor his preference for "real" alto and bass trombones, but whether that's what actually happened is another question.

We have to get away from this idea of "what the composer had in mind"

Why should we move away from what the composer really did want?

What matters much more is what the actual practice was (which varied tremendously for place to place and through time).

Perhaps this affected what the composer eventually wrote for and called for, and if so, maybe we should use what was compromised and written in the score out of circumstance, but I don't think we should play on valve trombones or whatever the poor sods had at their disposal, if the composer expressed a real preference. If historical accuracy to practice is more important than the music, maybe, but I think achieving the composers vision is more important. Brahms, if I recall correctly he wrote in his letter that he had a preference for a "real little alto" and lamented that the orchestras often did not use them. Why perpetuate something he didn't want even when we have the means to do exactly what he wrote for?

Just to be clear, I'm actually not advocating for historical accuracy here, quite the contrary. (I'm also most definitely not suggesting we should use valve trombones to play Brahms, unless maybe in period instrument orchestras). I think in the modern orchestral world, trombonists spend way too much time worrying about playing the "right instrument", something other isntrument in the orchestra very rarely do (you don't see tubists playing serpent or ophicleide, or trumpetists using trumpets in F or Eb basso, or clarinettists playing C clarinets), and whatever the "right instrument" is, the modern version is anyway miles away from any historical trombone of that time. The truth is between a modern alto and a modern tenor played with a modern technique, neither of them sound remotely close to what the composer could have imagined, and I don't see a problem with that. My opinion is, if you're playing in a modern orchestra with modern instruments, then just use whatever works best musically for you, your section and your orchestra in your particular context. I don't think playing tenor on a piece more likely intended for alto, or vice versa, is "wrong" in any way, nor is it a grave betrayal of the composer. I tend to think alto should be used more often than it was actually really written for, and sections should be happy to downsize, if only because I think the "bigger is better" and arms race in trombone equipment often encourages a distasteful and unmusical approach to playing (and one that most definitely alters the fabric of the orchestral sound away from what the composers could imagine when writing, if we care so much about that), but that's an entirely personal opinion.

I guess my point here is that there are a thousand ways in which we go against what the composer imagined, so if we care so much about the composer's precise intent, why focus so much on this one only and not on others? Does choosing one instrument over another really bring us closer to achieving the composer's vision when neither one of these instruments is anywhere close to the instruments the composer knew?

I would respond to "why should we move away from what the composer really did want" that old dead composers' music transcends them now, just as it already transcended them in their lifetime. I believe ultimately our first goal when playing music should always be to express and create what we as artists believe is the most inspiring interpretation we can offer.


Now if we want to ask the question on a more intellectual level, just to know and be informed, rather than a quest of finding what way of playing is "correct", that's of course great, and there's great value in that. But the reality is we have to accept that "the sound the composer had in mind", "what instruments they wrote for" and "what instruments were used at the premiere" are three different questions that often have different answers that are all equally pertinent and useful information (let alone asking about what was used when any given work was played later or in a different place, which I would argue is equally interesting). I agree that comparing what the composer wished and what they actually got (when we can actually know for sure) is super interesting. I just don't think, if we're curious about the past, that the wish of the composer is more important than what was actually done in practice.

[CalgaryTbone]

Maximilien, tremendous respect to you, your outstanding playing, and your efforts to seek historical accuracy in performance. If I could offer, though, at least a counterpoint:

We do have an early letter of Brahms expressing to a conductor his preference for "real" alto and bass trombones, but whether that's what actually happened is another question.

We have to get away from this idea of "what the composer had in mind"

Why should we move away from what the composer really did want?

What matters much more is what the actual practice was (which varied tremendously for place to place and through time).

Perhaps this affected what the composer eventually wrote for and called for, and if so, maybe we should use what was compromised and written in the score out of circumstance, but I don't think we should play on valve trombones or whatever the poor sods had at their disposal, if the composer expressed a real preference. If historical accuracy to practice is more important than the music, maybe, but I think achieving the composers vision is more important. Brahms, if I recall correctly he wrote in his letter that he had a preference for a "real little alto" and lamented that the orchestras often did not use them. Why perpetuate something he didn't want even when we have the means to do exactly what he wrote for?

There are other things to think about - what works best with the players that you are playing with, and for the performer. Orchestras have become bigger (usually) than what Brahms was writing for. The string instruments are using different bow hair and strings than they were a century or more ago. Trumpets and horns are using valve instruments, often in different keys than their predecessors, and woodwinds have evolved too (metal flutes). Add to that, about 75 years or more of a tradition of the 2 tenors and a bass as the standard section, and almost no one will be playing an F bass these days.

I'm not saying to not use an alto, but issues of personal comfort and blend with the actual instruments that you are playing with can come into play too. I'm still "old school" and use my tenor on most Brahms because i am most comfortable with the tuning, and I feel good about the blend with the section and ALSO, with our trumpets who will use rotary trumpets for that rep. I can comfortably get "inside" the horn sound when we play together and not stick out. To be fair, I do use alto on the Schumann symphonies, and that works with those same players, but the general range is higher, and I feel like his music n benefits from a slightly lighter touch. That's my personal preference, but I have no problem with someone that makes a different choice and makes it sound good. I would have to work harder to make that choice work, and I'm not certain that my results would be as good.

Jim Scott

[harrisonreed]

I think everyone is making good points.

For me personally, I don't care so much about historical accuracy either -- ancient trombones are interesting but they don't sound as nice as modern ones to my ears. The 396-A or 36H are not very similar to those old trombones. But alto and tenor trombones are still distinct instruments that we have today. In an all modern orchestra, a modern alto, tenor, bass section would maybe be closer to the composer's intent than two large tenors and a bass. Especially if we can look at his letter and see that he wanted each part on a distinct instrument.

Of course we don't have to be slaves to any convention. If the conductor or section prefers tenors, we can do it and sound good to the audience. If the player can't play the alto, for whatever reason, we don't have to use one.

I think though, that the performer's goal, especially in a symphony, is to find the composer's music and bring it out. A symphony is not about the individuals playing it, or even the person waving the stick around. All the people on the stage should be bringing the piece and the composer back to life for the audience. And to that end, if they write in your part "altposaune" or you can see in your research that the composer had an opinion about what you should be doing, it's your job to bring that to the table, as a section.

I agree that Brahms calls for a different approach than Schumann. I have two different alto mouthpieces, and would use my more open one to play Brahms, to bring the power and help with the blend.

That is a whole different can of worms. I think the world of alto trombone mouthpieces is largely neglected and untapped. Probably for good reason -- not a lot of money in it. But even in my small experiments with alto mouthpieces I came up with two designs that address those issues. One is bright and light, and piercing. The other is a bit darker, and projects a lot more. Both are easy to play up high, and play very in tune on the alto. They are terrible if you try to use them on small tenor.

[BGuttman]

Howard Weiner has pointed out that the Austrian trombone section of the Romantic era had a small bore Bb instrument on Alto, a medium bore Bb instrument on Tenor and a large bore Bb instrument (possibly with F or Eb trigger) on Bass.

If we are worried about historical instruments, trombones of the mid 19th Century were much smaller bore than today.

But the net result in a concert is the Conductor's interpretation of the composer's work. He's the guy who takes the fall for a lousy interpretation and it's our job to give him exactly what he wants (note: in English an unspecified gender is always male and this applies to a female or other orientation conductor as well).

[Bach5G]

“Both are easy to play up high, and play very in tune on the alto.”

Where can I get one of those?

[harrisonreed]

“Both are easy to play up high, and play very in tune on the alto.”

Where can I get one of those?

I made mine with Vennture, but they are designed with my rim on them, so they are pretty wide diameter. I could probably design one for you to match the rim you play, but you would have to process it through them. Let me know.

I am not associated with them at all, but I think designing the stuff is fun.

image_67185409.JPG

[LeTromboniste]

Howard Weiner has pointed out that the Austrian trombone section of the Romantic era had a small bore Bb instrument on Alto, a medium bore Bb instrument on Tenor and a large bore Bb instrument (possibly with F or Eb trigger) on Bass.

I'm not sure what exactly you refer to but I suspect Howard's point that you reference is about the classical era and the early 19th century (and not the Romantic), and not so much about bore size, rather mouthpiece size. In fact the little surviving evidence points to an equal bore size (few instruments survive, but most notably a set of 3 Viennese instruments from 1813, an "alto" in C, a tenor in Bb and a bass in G, all with the exact same bore size, although the bass has a larger bell). There is still ongoing debate about whether they used only Bb instruments in Viennese orchestras or if different size alto and bass were in use. The situation varied elsewhere in Austria.

For the Romantic era, it's much clearer, valve trombones dominated Austria and Bohemia from the 1830s for 50+ years. Most of what Brahms wrote in Vienna, as well as Bruckner and Dvorak among others, would have been played on Bb valve trombones.

(note: in English an unspecified gender is always male and this applies to a female or other orientation conductor as well).

...

yikes

[MrHCinDE]

“Both are easy to play up high, and play very in tune on the alto.”

Where can I get one of those?

Available in all good music stores, right next to the bass trombones which can be played tastefully in the pedal register and euphoniums which are specially built for off-beats.

[Kbiggs]

I’m really enjoying the conversation in this thread, particularly the points raised by Max and Harrison. I wish we had more conversations that critically and historically examine these kinds of subjects and issues. It gets to the heart of the performer’s role and function.

To my mind, until sometime in the early 20th century, we’ll almost never know the composer’s “intent” for a specific type or kind of instrument, aside from the score notation “violin,” “bassoon,” or “trombone.” While Webern, Schönberg, and Berg may have been fastidious with compositional technique, the instruments they wrote for were usually understood within context—usually whatever was played in that orchestra at that time. Yes, Berlioz specified cornet à pistons as well as trumpet. But which ones, which maker? Mahler might be an exception, e.g., marking “tenorhorn” for the solo beginning the 7th Symphony (not euphonium!)—but what kind? The smaller bore “tenor horn” (more cylindrical), the slightly larger bore German “baritonhorn” (mor conical), or something like the British baritone (really a saxhorn)? You get my meaning, I hope.

Yes—I know there are plenty of examples to the contrary, and my examples above might not be entirely accurate. But I think the point is enough to raise suspicion anytime we hear the phrase “composer’s intent.” We have enough difficulty correctly determining our own states of mind, let alone deciphering what someone meant from their manuscripts and diaries. We do the best we can with the tools on hand, and we use our education and experience, along with a good dose of judgment, to create or re-create a piece of art.

Personally, I love hearing performances on period instruments, and I’ve loved the few times I’ve played in HIP groups. But I’d rather hear a piece played well on modern instruments (even if articulation, dynamics, phrasing, etc., aren’t historically informed) than to listen to a group struggle on unfamiliar instruments.

[stewbones43]

I am about to head off to the first rehearsal of this season's concerts with the local amateur (community) orchestra.- as many string players as we need and one of everything else!
After a couple of "BIG" concerts-Strauss, Four Last Songs and Mahler 5, then a mixture of Tchaikovsky, Eric Coates, De Falla, Khachaturian and ending with the Firebird by Stravinsky- we have now come back down to earth with 4 mainly classical programmes; trombones are in 6 of the 12 items and as the only alto player, I will be playing the 4 alto parts- Brahms 1 & 4, Beethoven Leonora No.3 and Mozart's Magic Flute Overture. Nothing too taxing but some nice bits in the symphonies.
We have 4 of us on the books so we can share things out and do 3 concerts each.
It will be good for my alto playing.

Cheers

Stewbones43