castell coch

Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by euphfanhan, Apr 25, 2006.

  1. euphfanhan

    euphfanhan Member

    We were playing this march at band tonight and were short of several players, so that might be the reason for it, but does anybody know where, about a third of the way through the march, there is a sort of bell effect where instruments come in a quaver apart, each lasting a crotchet. The second quaver, however seemed to be missing. I wondered if anyone could tell me which part has this? Or if it is just a misprint.
    I haven't explained this very well (!) but I don't have the music with me :rolleyes:
    Any help would be much appreciated :tongue:
     
  2. theMouthPiece Related Searches

    Find more discussions like this one
    march
    rolleyes
    help
    instruments
    sort of bell effect
  3. chiephonium

    chiephonium Member

    can't tell you off the top of my head but it is a ****** good march!! (for the euph part anyway)
     
  4. MRSH

    MRSH Supporting Member

    The only bell-effect seems to be in bar 29 (3 and 4 bars before you repeat the section). The quavers for these two bars and a note in order are: Basses/Euphs/2 Bari/1 Bari/1 Tbn/1&2 Hn/Solo Hn & 3 Cnt/2 Cnt & Rep & Flug/Everyone.

    I don't have 2nd or Bass Trombone but all 9 quavers are there.

    Hope this helps.
     
  5. topeuph

    topeuph Member

    I know what you mean. The 2nd quaver entry is missing. Its also missing on the score if I remember rightly. I may be wrong, but i seem to remember that the euph note (which is on the 2nd beat of the bar) should be on the 2nd quaver of the bar, ie, the 2nd note of the bell effect. I hope this makes sense to you.
     
  6. MRSH

    MRSH Supporting Member

    Aha - yes I seem to remember that too now you mention it - maybe I had spotted that and corrected it in the score I have which is why my score is right but the printed parts may be wrong. Good spot :tup
     
  7. euphfanhan

    euphfanhan Member

    Oooh yes, thats what I meant! I thought it was weird I was playing at the same time as the 2nd bari. We were all getting a bit annoyed having a seemingly random gap!
    Ta v much :tongue:
     
  8. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    I don't think the second entry is missing. I think that bar is a restatement of the first bar of the piece, with the next bar different to the second bar of the piece in order to develop the theme.

    It's academic, though, as there is no full score as far as I know, and i doubt any adjudicator has ever commented on it....

    (Matt, you score lines are as they are becuase Melvin White said he didn't like it as was and felt the second quaver was missing. You agreed and altered your score and the Euph parts. (Croydon rehearsal before Hove a couple of years ago!) He and I agreed to differ after the rehearsal...)
     
  9. GJG

    GJG Well-Known Member

    It's true there never used to be a full score, however in recent years Wright and Round have published several newly-originated full scores for a number of classic marches (mostly by Rimmer), and Castell Coch is one of them.

    I haven't seen a copy yet, and I would be curious as to whether the editor has done anything about the 'missing' entry ...
     
  10. topeuph

    topeuph Member

    I used the new Castell Coch score recently, and Indeed the 2nd entry is missing. Obviously it could be that TJ Powell wanted it to be missing, but it sounds wierd, and common sense tells you that the euph part MUST be incorrect.
     
  11. GJG

    GJG Well-Known Member

    I don't think anyone can say that with certainty, and, on reflection, it would have been a brave (foolhardy?) editor indeed who would have dared to change it without being able to consult the composer ...

    Will's argument concerning the introduction is not at all unsound, and I think there will be just as many perfectly valid opinions either way.
     
  12. theMouthPiece Related Searches

    Find more discussions like this one
    march
    rolleyes
    help
    instruments
    sort of bell effect
  13. topeuph

    topeuph Member

    The reason i say it MUST be incorrect is because the Bell effect is a 2 and a half octave arpeggio of G minor (I think), and on the score it goes somthing like this. If each line is a Quaver.
    G
    Missing quaver.
    Bb-D (Bb in Euph and D in 2nd Bari)
    G
    Bb
    D
    G
    Bb
    D

    So by putting th Euph Bb a quaver earlier we have an uninterupted arpeggio, and everyone's happy. :D
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2006
  14. topeuph

    topeuph Member

    But i see the point being made about the similarities to the opening. But there are significant differences between the opening bass line and the bell effect, even if the missing 2nd quaver was meant to be missing.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2006
  15. GJG

    GJG Well-Known Member

    Indeed, but if it were that simple, surely the editor would have changed it when the new score was originated? Does your copy say who did it? I know some of the others were done by Goff Richards (I think?) but I don't know if he did all of them. Whoever it was, it might be nice to hear their input on the subject.
     
  16. topeuph

    topeuph Member

    I was guest conducting with another band that was playing Castell Coch at the time, so I can't remember who did the score. i'll try and find out for you. On the subject of editors changing obviously wrong notes, isn't it time they did somthing about "The Arban", Its been around since c1861 and there's still about Million errors in it.
     
  17. Mrs Fruity

    Mrs Fruity Member


    There's more than that in mine! (Of course some of them I invented myself) ;)
     
  18. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    Or.... the Bb in the Euph should be a D(!) Is everyone still happy? I am:cool:
     
  19. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    If anyone has the score GJG referred to, what is the balancing of the other parts around the portmanteau effect?

    Is anyone else playing the D with the 2nd Baritone? If there are two or three other players playing it, then OK, the "it's wrong" conspiracy theorists might have it, but........

    It seems unusual for a traditionalist composer arranger to have a sustained Bb so low in the Euph part, and equally, why is the Bb not in the Bass Trombone part as well?

    Just a thought. As was commented on in a previous thread, I am only a sibelius qualified composer and arranger, therefore my opinion isn't valid. Necessarily:biggrin:

    Anyway, it's a cracking march when well played.
     
  20. MRSH

    MRSH Supporting Member

    Conducted this march tonight and - because of this thread - tried it both ways. The Euph on the 2nd beat - as opposed to the 2nd quaver - just sounds wrong. It doesn't build the chord properly and is just out of context with everything else around it.

    And why does there have to be others playing the 'wrong' note for it to be 'right'? (If you get my meaning). There are, afterall, two euphoniums and all the way up the chord there are two (parts) on a note.

    But, whatever people decide to do with this discepancy, it is a fantastic march. One of his best.
     
  21. Hornblower RN

    Hornblower RN Member

    Perhaps The Bombardier or Castell Caerffilli might be a little better?
     
  22. flashbarry

    flashbarry Member

    I always felt the empty quaver was wrong and on checking the parts decided the euph and bass trombone should play it. If you think about it with the euph and 2nd baritone would sound harmony rather than a single tone every quaver.

    Its quite possible the editor constructed the new full score from the exisiting (old) parts so unless they were corrected the previous errors would be included in the new score.

    Cheers!
     

Share This Page