[Trombone-l] alto&bass trombones in 18th-cent. orchestras WAS: Scriptural reference

[Howard Weiner]

At 21:21 04.05.06 -0400, Raymond Horton wrote:
>Very sorry, Howard!
>I had just read the issue last week, had made a mental note to 
>commend you on this list on YOUR article, and then when this subject 
>came up, without the issue beside me, I jumbled the two articles 
>together in my already-jumbled mind.   But, as I said - a 
>particularly fine issue, including BOTH your articles.

Thanks, Ray! I'm glad you read and enjoyed both my articles.

>Your main article is excellent on an important issue for all 
>performing trombonists -just when did those composers expect to hear 
>a "real" "alto" or a "real" "bass" trombone?

My article "When is an Alto Trombone an Alto Trombone? When is a Bass 
Trombone a Bass Trombone? -- The Makeup of the Trombone Section in 
eighteenth- and early Nineteenth-Century Orchestras" is primarily 
aimed at trombonists who play in historically informed performance 
(HIP) ensembles, where the trombone section is usually made up of an 
alto in E-flat, a tenor in B-flat, and a bass in E-flat or F. But, of 
course, it also could also have implications for those of us who play 
in modern orchestras. In any case, what I tried to show was that this 
"usual" HIP trombone section was by no means universal and that the 
orchestral trombone section of the 18th and early 19th centuries had 
different formations depending on time and place. And in particular 
in Vienna and Paris, where B-flat (tenor) trombones were employed on 
all three parts.


>On that subject, I think you are _likely_ right about the Haydn 
>_Creation_ BT part being written for a Bb instrument with falset 
>notes, but I am not 100% sold yet.
>Are there any other possibilities?  Such as:
>
>1) Haydn imports player and instrument with an Eb bass (were there 
>any in Germany at that point?) or an F bass (the Bb is a mistake) (I 
>assume trombonists were rare in England at that time anyway, were they not? )

It is unlikely that Haydn imported a player with an E-flat bass 
trombone, simply because Haydn was not normally the concert 
organizer. The "Creation" was performed over 40 times between the 
premiere in February 1798 and early 1810. Many of these performances 
were put on by musicians' benevolent societies as benefit concerts 
for musicians' widows and orphans, with the participants (usually 
society members and local amateurs) performing at most for a minimal 
fee. Bringing in somebody from Germany or elsewhere would have been 
prohibitively expensive; and don't forget that this was a time in 
which trombonists were usually employed as town musicians, and would 
not easily have been able to take a leave of absence and jump on a 
stage coach to go to a gig in Vienna.


>2) Haydn wanted a bass trombone and just wrote for what he was used 
>to in Germany - whatever that was?

As a youth, Haydn was a choirboy at St. Stephan's Cathedral in 
Vienna. Most of his creative life was spent in the service of the 
Esterhazy family at Eisenstadt, (which is not far from Vienna) and 
Esterhaza (a bit further east, in Hungary), with occasional sojourns 
in Vienna. The Esterhazy orchestra was on the small side, and did not 
include trombones. In other words, Haydn was familiar almost 
exclusively with the Viennese trombone tradition, which knew neither 
the small alto in E-flat nor the large "quart" trombone in E-flat.


>I wonder if there any possibility of real evidence being found or 
>surmised somehow.

Well, my evidence is certainly not complete, but it is real. Don't 
forget that almost any historical study will have holes in it that 
have to be filled by means of interpolation and surmise. Short of 
traveling back in time with a time machine, it's the only way we have 
of arriving at a half-way complete picture. Nevertheless, in 30+ 
years (16 of which were spent with an eye open for material 
especially concerning this particular subject) of collecting 
information on the early history of the trombone, I haven't been able 
to find anything that would substantially alter my findings.


>But your contribution to the study has been immensely valuable, and 
>delightfully intriguing..

Thanks again!
Howard