This thread is really becoming a must-see of trombone historical information! We are veering slightly off topic however. I'd like to pedal back a little and offer a response to Mr. Weiner's rebuttal of my arguments about the use of alto trombone (or more precisely, my arguments against the dismissal of the alto trombone).
I'd like to thank Mr. Weiner for his response.
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AM(At least two sources relevant to the period after that treated in my article have come to my attention -- they'll be presented in an article on Bruckner in the upcoming issue of the Historical Brass Society Journal, but since it's not my article, I can't say anything more at this time).
I really look forward to reading that article about Bruckner!
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AMThe answer is simply: because the Tuba mirum solo is in the tenor range, and the first trombonist would probably have been using a smaller mouthpiece more suited to the relatively high tessitura of the first part.
I find that answer unsatisfying, for two reasons
1) as pointed out by Mr. Kimball, it is very unlikely that Mozart (or any composer, for that matter) was aware (or cared, really) of the size of trombone mouthpieces...
2) You use the exact reverse logic to support your claim that the concertos/serenade and divertimento movements for solo trombone were written for tenor : that the tenor is the logical choice for a virtuoso because it can play in the whole range of the instrument and offers the best sound all around [insert Praetorius part-quote about the alto sounding bad in the registers it shares with the tenor]. Now you suggest that the Tuba Mirum would not have been played by the first trombone because he would have been using a mouthpiece more suited to the high range (and thus not allowing him to have the best sound in the solo's range). So, then, if the tenor played with a trumpet mouthpiece has (predictably) a bad mid-low range, which is the range where the alto is said to have a poor sound, what exactly is the advantage of playing tenor over alto?
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AMNo, not to start with. My "bias" developed while working with and thinking and writing about the sources.
But you admit in your very article that you have an aesthetic preference for the sound of tenor trombone, aside from historical questions, when you write ''While there are surely trombonists today who make a nice sound on the Eb alto, I would contend that they, too, make an even nicer sound on the Bb tenor.'' This is of course a valid point of view, albeit very subjective. But you can't make such judgements and then claim to have no bias against the alto trombone when a significant part of your argument is based on the question which horn sounds better and would thus have been chosen by trombonists?.
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AMDoes everything still line up to perfection when you take chamber pitch into consideration? Just wondering.
After some reflection, we had decided to play it in D major 466, with the orchestra reading from transposed parts.
Obviously, this would not have been the case when the entire serenade was performed. Of course, in D major at 466, the arpeggios and scales were extremely natural. As for playing it in 415 (or in C), I can't say for sure without trying it, but I think it would still line up better on alto than tenor. It's like playing in Ab vs playing in Db on modern tenor. I don't think the trills are a problem in any of those cases. They'll still mostly be on the same partials.
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AMSorry, I also only know the Esterhazy estate copy, which is in Haydn's own hand.
Apparently there is another copy in Kremsmünster, in the hand of Estlinger and Raab, who are certainly reliable sources. If it turns out that copy effectively has ''alto trombone'' written on the score or part, that would be a definitive answer, at least for that specific work.
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AMThe types and performance of trills varied depending on the time and place. And in any case, comparing Castello with Bertali or either of them with Michael Haydn would be a rather absurd undertaking. I see no reason to discount the importance of trills in this question.
To begin with, please allow me to quote your own article : ''It might seem like a long stretch from Bertali to Mozart and Haydn, yet for most of this period a certain continuity in Viennese trombone playing can be observed.''
Of course, though, I'm not comparing the musical style, and of course the style of trills varied, as well as the way they are approached and used compositionally when they are notated. And of course trills are a lot more numerous in Haydn, Mozart et al. But in all good faith, the mechanics involved - rapidly alternating between two partials - are the same. Arguably, 18th century trills are made easier by the appogiatura that precedes them. If trombonists of the 17th century were expected to play trills efficiently on partials a fourth or a major third apart, then there is no reason to believe the trombonists of the 18th century would have had any difficulty playing the trills in Haydn, Mozart, Albrechtsberger (and arguably, Wagenseil, although I'm not saying it was written for alto). Especially since you pointed out the teacher-student lineage in Vienna, which extends from the 17th to the late 18th century at least.
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AMa late 18th-century listener/musician/critic with a musical astuteness equivalent to that of Praetorius would very likely have come to a similar conclusion as he did a century and a half earlier.
That ''the alto trombone can naturally play descant parts perfectly well''? Indeed, they would very likely have come to a similar conclusion...
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AMThen find a better source documenting trombone playing in early 19th-century Vienna! Until you do, Nemetz is all we have. Whether you like it or not!
I don't think the Nemetz book should be seen as more than a single trombone player's point of view, for the reasons stated previously, and to which you haven't responded. I believe my arguments are valid. It is certainly a valuable historical source, and an indicator of what was done by some trombone players, but I don't think we should try to make it into something it isnt. It isn't a census of what Viennese trombone players used, it isn't a neutral or uninterested account, and it isn't a generalization of a whole artistic practice.
You asked for a better source. I think that is not an entirely objective question. There are various reasons to believe various contradictory sources more than another. We will probably never find sources that offer a definitive answer either, and that does not confirm Nemetz as the ultimate source by discrediting them, nor would a ''better'' source discredit Nemetz. But anyway, here is my opinion :
I do not think Seyfried should be dismissed so easily (by the way, I find very revealing that you acknowledge him when he reinforces your point about the bass trombone, but ignore him altogether (no pun intended) when he contradicts your view about the alto - I know you do state he has the alto in Eb, but you haven't given any reason to why he is a reliable source that back Nemetz on the bass trombone, but apparently not reliable enough that is can counterbalance Nemetz on alto).
He was an important figure of musical Vienna at the turn of the 19th century. He gives complete position charts, which he could/would not have done unless he had had basic knowledge about the instrument, which raises the question where, when and why would he have learned about the alto trombone if it wasn't being used?. His treatise is a reedition, and I can't see any reason why he would have modified/added information about the alto trombone to Albrechtsberger's original, and specified the nominal pitch, if the alto trombone in Eb was effectively not being used. That wouldn't make any sense. One might argue that he simply copied his material from any of the (numerous) treatises that also list the alto as being in E flat. But why then would he copy those sources about the alto, but not about the bass?
Another important reason why his account has to be highly regarded is that he was a friend and collaborator of both Mozart (at least to some extent) and Beethoven. He was assistant conductor during the original run of Die Zauberflöte, and he conducted the premiere of the original version of Fidelio. He was there at the dress rehearsal and premiere of Beethoven 5 and 6 (I imagine he was there at the premiere of the Ninth and a number of other Beethoven works that use trombones). Him writing about the nominal pitch of the alto (Eb) and bass (Bb) is as close as we'll ever get to an eye-witness account of what was actually used.
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AMMarginal to trombone playing as a whole, and during a time in which the trombone was only in use in a very few places to boot. [...]
And even in Germany, there were only a few towns during this period in which the town musicians had not given up the trombone in favor or more fashionable instruments; Salzburg and Leipzig were among the few exceptions.
How odd then that most of the extant instruments of the 18th century are from other germanic cities, and that many of them are altos.
I'd add that I'm not convinced at all that the situation in France is what is generally accepted, as I outlined in my previous post regarding what Berlioz actually says in his treatise. I agree with your conclusion that ''the typical Parisian trombone section'' was three Bb tenors, however I'm not sure such blanket statements do us any good. This is exactly the kind statements that leads to opinions such as ''It is French music, therefore it is written for/should be played on three tenors''. Exactly the kind of statements you and I dislike (e.g. ''it's in alto clef, therefore it is written for alto''). There were most definitely alto trombones in France/Paris, that saw at least some use.
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AMAnd guess who called me this morning, Maximilien.
So I was told! Thank you for your help on that matter, by the way. According to Herbert's book, there were two Umlauff trombones (tenor and alto) in the Strahov collection. Do you have any idea where those might be now? (You can PM me)
Quote from: HowardW on May 04, 2016, 04:48AMThere are a number of tenor trombones from Vienna from this era: 5 or 6 by Leichamschneider, the Huschauers in Edinburgh and Verona, possibly a Kerner (?formerly in the Boosey & Hawkes collection), and a recently rediscovered Riedl from 1823 (which is very similar to the instrument depicted in Nemetz).
So there are 9 tenors in Bb, an ''alto'' in C and a bass in G. I won't address the strangeness of the alto in C. But all in all, a dozen instruments. On how many dozens actually built between 1750 and 1830? The sample size being extremely small, I don't think the composition of the sample is of any statistical relevance.
Maximilien