CV - Solo Trom bar 209

Mike Saville

Mike Saville

Member
I havn't seen this mentioned in any of the other errata threads. The solo trom notes in bar 209 (FFEF) are clearly wrong. I have tried playing various others with mixed success. What are others playing here? Or have you not noticed?
 
GJG

GJG

Well-Known Member
I can understand your concerns, however, I do not believe them to be incorrect. I agree that the dissonance is fairly pronounced, particularly against the Solo Horn note, but it is part of a recognisable chord progression, and I think the clash, which resolves on the 3rd quaver of the bar, is intentional.

(I don't want to appear to show off here, nor do I want to appear a bore, however the chord is essentially a first-inversion G7, (band pitch) with the 1st Trom. playing the 7th; added to which the 5th is flattened (Flugel) and the Solo Horn plays an accented passing note, which resolves onto the root. - it may well still sound 'wrong', but I think it is technically 'right', just a bit extreme!)

Regards,

G.
 
Mike Saville

Mike Saville

Member
I'm still not convinced - I too saw this harmonic analysis. I have played a large amount of atonal/20th C music professionally and this bar does not fit the analysis. If dissonance was meant I am sure that it would also be present in the preceeding and following bars somewhere else in the band.

My problem is that when all the material surrounding this part is largely tonal producing one of the main melodic sections of the work it simply does not make sense to throw in this bar in the 1st trom which sounds wrong. It may be that this is what the composer intended, however given the number of erata already published I very much doubt it . . . . . .
 
GJG

GJG

Well-Known Member
But there is a very similar 'clash' only 2 bars earlier (b. 207: 1st Trom D sharp, Solo Cornets D natural) ......... looking at the score, I find many similar instances all around this section.

Different harmonic analysis, to be sure, but similar degree of dissonance. If there is a 'weakness' in 209, making the dissonace sound worse than it might, it is the presence of the G natural on Baritones; if the Bari's followed the Solo Horn 8vb for the first three quavers, it might work better. Still think the Trom. notes are OK ........ as you say yourself, it's not as if there are any other notes in the vicinity which work any better! :wink:

Anyone prepared to change it ? (makes a change from adding pedals ......... )

G.

[Edited: 'cos I can't count]
[Edited again, 'cos I've had another look at the score and changed my mind :? ]
 
timbloke

timbloke

Member
this is beginning to sound like that mornington crescent thread!! i'll play the coventry variation "second inversion of the Gb dominant 7th with an added 9th" rules adopted in 1946 by bramwell tovey's great-uncle jeff tovey, and play earl's court.

seriously I quite like the bar, although i always find i want to play it a lot quieter than the preeceeding bars. but then again i've forgotten all my theory/musicianship stuff that we had drummed into us at college, so look on it from a less technical viewpoint.
 
JamesResurgam

JamesResurgam

Member
IMHO the second errata cover all the changes the composer desires. After all that’s what the adjudicators will be judging the bands by.

Now I suggest we concentrate on getting the notes off the page and make music of them, and I believe there’s lots of music to find in the piece.

My only comment is that I wish Rosehill had taken the same approach to Coventry Variations as Philip Sparke had with Kaleidoscope, and that Bram Tovey has been badly let down by them.

David James
 
GJG

GJG

Well-Known Member
JamesResurgam said:
My only comment is that I wish Rosehill had taken the same approach to Coventry Variations as Philip Sparke had with Kaleidoscope, and that Bram Tovey has been badly let down by them.

David James
Click to expand...
I think this is presumptious and unfair. As has been stated in another thread, it's not possible for us to know exactly what has happened, and Rosehill may well not be blameless, however, based on a) the nature of some of the Errata, and b) Rosehill's assertion that they were waiting for clarification from the composer, It seems equally likely to me that Rosehill were given an error-strewn and uncorrected copy of the original m/s to work from, therefore it would be just as fair to say that Rosehill have been badly let down by Bram Tovey

G.
 
JamesResurgam

JamesResurgam

Member
I base my comments on the e-mails that have passed between Eric Wilson at Rosehill, Bram Tovey and myself. It has made me rather unpopular with both parties, but I can live with that.

I will be presumptious and unfair in asking why you are so defensive of the company; do you have shares; are you related; or do you work for them. :wink:

Can I affirm my suggestion to get on with getting the music off the page.

David James
 
GJG

GJG

Well-Known Member
I can confirm that I have no connection whatsoever, either financial or personal, with Rosehill, nor I am I trying to defend the release of a publication which is so obviously sub-standard in quality. I am merely raising the possibility that they may not necessarily be 100% to blame ......

It's sometimes a bit difficult to get on with "getting the music off the page" when rehearsals are continually interupted by players, understandably, asking if the music is actually correct.

G.
 
Moy

Moy

Active Member
Nadia said:
hehe go jamsie :)
agreed... music can still be made whether it is an E or an Eb...
Click to expand...
Hey Adian he is working us really hard on Coventry Variations.
Looking forward to our area a week on Sunday.

By the way Jamesie thought you played tuba, but when I told him you sat next to a lovely Scottish lass he realised it couldn't possibly be
tuba. :wink: Don't tell the tuba section that. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top