Re: Re: Puccini and Tubas


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Dan on February 25, 2001 at 11:48:04:

In Reply to: Re: Puccini and Tubas posted by Jay Bertolet on February 25, 2001 at 00:50:07:

After recently doing a good deal of reading on the subject, I'll have to disagree with you, Jay. With the possible exception of Manon Lescaut, every Puccini opera that I have seen or played has clearly said "Trombone Basso" in both the score and the part. Now, what orchestras are in the(IMO bad)habit of doing these days is another issue. I know that at the Met, they often use tuba on the bottom of Puccini operas, but, I have heard, for rotation purposes. (Chime in here, Chris Hall, if you are reading this) Smaller orchestras often use tuba simply because they have a tubist on payroll, and don't want to hire a 4th trombone player. However, in my opinion, there's no question that a bass trombone evokes far more the feeling of "the bad things to come" on the third note (low E)of "Tosca" than a tuba can. That's the sound that I think Puccini had in mind.

According to Mr.Zechmeister (sp.) of the Vienna State Opera Orchestra, the "Cimbasso" that Verdi wrote for was a three valve contrabass trombone in BBb. In the later works (Otello, Falstaff)he wrote for "Trombone Basso" which in his world was a 4 valve "contrabass" trombone in F, which basically corresponds to today's cimbasso in F. This is likely the instrument that Puccini was accustomed to seeing in Italian orchestras of his day. Having recently bought my own cimbasso, I am naturally more interested in seeing the instrument used when indicated in the score. Of course nothing can replace the breadth and power of a great tuba sound when that is what is called for, but on the other hand, a tuba cannot replace the direct(in your face)impact possible in the low register of a bass trombone (or cimbasso).

Flame away if you wish...I'll fire back with some low c's on my cimbasso.


Follow Ups: