Haydn - Single or double tongue?

Sam · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 12:25 am Post subject:

What way do you find best/easiest/more effective to play the semi-quavers in Haydn's tpt conc Eb mov.3?

redface · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 12:30 am Post subject:

Single tongue. Sometimes I slur 2, tongue 2, I think some people do this on the recordings I've got. I don't think double ever sounds as good. I have got quite a fast single tongue (semiquavers at crotchet=140) though, so if you find double easier.
Basically use whatever sounds best for you.

Sam · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:09 am Post subject:

My single tongue isn't that fast. semis at 120 roughly. I'll try the slur 2 tongue 2. cheers

Nonsense Eliminator · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:32 am Post subject:

FWIW, if you look at a scholarly edition of the Haydn you will find that there are no instances where he indicates slur two/tongue two for the sixteenth runs. He was notoriously lazy about such things, but to the best of my memory, the only slurred sixteenths are in the sixth measure of of the theme. Also, on the instrument for which he was writing, a lot of the sixteenths would have been played without use of the keys, so they would have sounded pretty messy slurred. So I don't think slurring in the sixteenth passages is really justified by what Haydn wrote. I personally prefer to double-tongue all of the sixteenths, with a fairly light and loose articulation. These passages are kind of vestigial clarino writing, so I approach them with that in mind.

BTW, the Henle edition of this piece is the one to get, IMO. Not only does it include parts for B-flat and E-flat trumpet, but it is a "scholarly" edition, meaning that any notation that didn't come from Haydn is clearly indicated as such. There are a lot of editions of the Haydn with all kinds of really questionable editing, so I think it's a good idea to at least consult one that shows you what's authentic and what isn't.

greedo · Veteran Member Joined: 10 Jul 2002 Posts: 118

I just have to throw this in, as NE is always correcting everyone. I was always under the impression that the Haydn and Hummel were NOT written for clarino trumpet, which is why they are so historiclly important for the trumpet. They were written for the virtuoso Anton Weidinger and his new invention, the KEYED trumpet. The chromaticism used ny Haydn was something that would never have been possible on the natural trumpet, and I'm pretty sure is presently still not possible. Although very different to the modern piston trumpets we use today, the keyed trumpet did have KEYS. If I recall, NE had said that one of his favorite recordings of said Haydn concerto is the Mark Bennet/English Concert version, in which our Mr. Bennet (the baddest natural trumpet player in London, in this author's opinion) is using a replica of the Weidinger's keyed trumpet.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with NE completely. The question of how to correctly articulate the sixteenths is very much open to debate. Anyone who has seriously studied natural trumpet would know that they pretty much slur just about everything, and when the tongue was used, it was used with very different articulations than we know today. Plus the whole concept of studying natural trumpet playing is very debateable. There are only a limited number of resources from which to make our opinions.
anyhoo, just wanted to chime in and state that the Haydn concerto was not, to the best of my knowledge, written for the natural(clarino) trumpet.
out.

trickg · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 7:16 am Post subject:

Greedo, I hate to bring this up, but if you look closely at what NE wrote, he never said that it was written for clarino trumpet.

NE Quote: - - "Also, on the instrument for which he was writing, a lot of the sixteenths would have been played without use of the keys, so they would have sounded pretty messy slurred. So I don't think slurring in the sixteenth passages is really justified by what Haydn wrote. I personally prefer to double-tongue all of the sixteenths, with a fairly light and loose articulation. These passages are kind of vestigial clarino writing, so I approach them with that in mind."

Specifically:

"...instrument for which he was writing, a lot of the sixteenths would have been played without use of the keys..."

and

"...These passages are kind of vestigial clarino writing, so I approach them with that in mind."

I tend think, knowing what I know about NE and his writings here on the Herald, that he probably knows his music history well enough to know that the Haydn was written for the keyed trumpet. Heck even I know that and I don't have a degree in anything, much less a degree in music. On my first read of his post, I wondered about that too until I went back and re-read it.

_________________
Patrick Gleason

email me at: trickg1@hotmail.com

[ This Message was edited by: trickg on 2003-07-18 10:17 ]

trickg · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 7:28 am Post subject:

Getting back to the subject of just how to articulate the 16ths in the 3rd movement, I double-tongue them although a slur two tongue two with double tonguing (da-ah da ga) would probably work too if you are having trouble doing a slur two tongue two with single tonguing, if that's how you choose to play them. It's a matter of keeping it smooth and light.

_________________
Patrick Gleason

email me at: trickg1@hotmail.com

[ This Message was edited by: trickg on 2003-07-18 10:28 ]

Nonsense Eliminator · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 7:48 am Post subject:

Seems like greedo doesn't like what I have to say!

Of course the Haydn was written for keyed trumpet, and I think it's pretty obvious that I know that. That's not the point. The point is, as greedo correctly pointed out, that is was a "new invention", meaning that Weidinger had developed his technique not on the keyed trumpet, but on the natural trumpet. So clarino technique is eminently relevant to a discussion of this piece. Furthermore, it has always seemed to me that one of the interesting features of Haydn's Concerto (and also of Hummel's) is the way the composers reference the different characters of the trumpet. Both concertos refer to fanfare and signalling role of the trumpet. Both also make use of its lyrical potential, particularly in the newly-available middle register and explore its chromatic capabilities. And the Haydn in particular has passages which are very "clarino-esque" in nature, most notably the sixteenth-note passage leading up to the infamous high D flat concert. This is what I was referring to when I wrote, "a lot of the sixteenths would have been played without use of the keys."

To reiterate: I never said the Haydn was written for natural trumpet. It was, however, written for somebody who was a natural trumpeter, so it is instructive to consider it in that context.

Now, on the issue of articulations, greedo wrote, "Anyone who has seriously studied natural trumpet would know that they pretty much slur just about everything, and when the tongue was used, it was used with very different articulations than we know today." I wouldn't say I have studied natural trumpet "seriously", but I have never encountered a suggestion that they slurred "just about everything". What reading I have done and my own (admittedly limited) experience on the instrument suggests that slurring of melismatic passages was not the norm, nor is it very practical. Nor does it sound to me that modern natural trumpet players slur "just about everything". It is possible that I am wrong about all of this, so I will check with one of my colleagues who is more knowledgeable about this sort of thing. Or, if somebody can cite a source I would be interested to hear about it.

On the other hand, it is absolutely true that "when the tongue was used, it was used with very different articulations than we know today." That is well documented, particularly in the Fantini method. (It seems to me that the Altenberg mentions this as well, but I wouldn't swear to it.) For those less well-versed than greedo, the gist of it is that often "gentler" syllables were used, in particular "ti-ri" or "li-ri". I didn't particularly feel like going down that road in answering a pretty straightforward question, which is why I confined myself to, "a fairly light and loose articulation." In fact, I debating including something like, "It is likely that historically, a softer syllables (such as ti-ri or li-ri) would have been used, but I like a soft double-tongue as a modern compromise," but felt it would have been a little over-the-top. Evidently I was wrong.

Perhaps a simpler answer would have been, "On his recording on keyed trumpet, Mark Bennett tongues everything."

vivace · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:04 am Post subject:

from what I know:
baroque trumpeters use double tounging. My old teacher is a baroque trumpeter. On all the stuff he had played for me, he did use double tounging. He also taught me that for the period, slur 2 tounge 2 was commonly used. This is what he has taught me from his studies on natural trumpet.
_________________
"All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing no song." - Louis Armstrong

Martin · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:19 am Post subject:

_PhilPicc · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 9:09 am Post subject:

I single tongue, for me it comes out cleaner.

I have a recording by Wynton Marsalis in which he single tongues the first two sets and then slurs 2 tongues 2 the rest of the recording.

My arrangment is written all tongued in the third movement. There is however a short passage in the first movement that is written slur 2 tongue 2.

Beats me,
Phil

_________________
Philip Satterthwaite

[ This Message was edited by: PhilPicc on 2003-07-18 12:13 ]

Bozzaman · Veteran Member Joined: 10 Jul 2003 Posts: 323

A very interesting thread. Two good reads on this topic would be:

Bullock, Donald. "Articulations for the Haydn Trumpet Concerto." International Trumpet Guild no.4 (October 1979): 26-28.

Tarr, Edward H. "Haydn's Trumpet Concerto (1796-1996) and its Origins." International Trumpet Guild no. 4 (September 1996): 30-34, 43.

I especially like the Bullock article. He prints as a special supplement his own "scholarly" interpretation of the solo part for the entire concerto.

Its really difficult to say what performance practice was without an enormous amount of research. It is good to get as many interpretations as possible and then make your own informed judgement. The whole point is to pull off an inspired, musical performance. Who really cares if you tongue-two-slur-two, or not. Anybody got a keyed trumpet laying around anywhere?

Bozzaman

Nonsense Eliminator · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:33 am Post subject:

Bozzaman is absolutely correct that there are no simple answers about performance practice, and even fewer absolute rules. (And by the way, thanks for the article references, next time I'm in a music library I'll look those up!) I think, however, that we should always try to do something for good, or at least half-decent, reasons.

To demonstrate what I mean, here are some bad reasons:

That's what the copy I photocopied off my band director said
That's what so-and-so did on his senior recital
That's what the single recording I listened to was like
I like to be different
It's easier that way

...and here are some adequate reasons:

My teacher (who plays the trumpet for a living) told me to
I listened to a bunch of different recordings and that's what most of them did
I like how it sounds

...and here's a good reason:

After listening to many standard and not-so-standard recordings, doing some reading on the subject, and consulting teachers or colleagues whom I respect, I have come to the conclusion that this interpretation is consistent with the notation and relevant performance practice, and is musically satisfying to me.

It is quite possible that several people could arrive at different interpretations for "good" reasons. That's not only acceptable, it's what makes music interesting. However, I think that sometimes musicians, and trumpet players in particular, are far too willing to settle for "adequate" or even "bad" reasons. I think the process of trying to really get inside a piece and figure out the nitpicky little details is very important and we should all do so as often as possible, and particularly in the case of the Major Repertoire Pieces.

In this particular case, I've arrived at my interpretation from a variety of directions. First, and simplest, that's what's on the page. (As I've said, however, Haydn's notation is often inconsistent and imprecise.) Second, I've listened to a bunch of recordings and noted what I do and don't like. Third, I've had various teachers suggest various things. Fourth, I've done enough reading and listening to convince myself (right or wrong) that I have a decent idea of what performance practice was, and to come up with a personal compromise between authentic and modern practices. And finally, I've thought about how I want it to sound and figured out what articulation best accomplishes that musical goal.

For me, the answer is to double-tongue all the sixteenth notes. Probably the deciding factor in this decision is that I think adding slurs tends to over-emphasize the first notes under the slurs. By double-tonguing everything, I find that that the line flows better and moves forward, versus slurring every other pair, which I find makes the music "land" on the beats too much. I like to think of the first movement in two, and the third movement in one, and I find that double-tonguing is more in line with that interpretation.

Now, does anybody care to debate whether or not the trills should start on the note?

[Edited for format. Bulleted lists are tricky!]

[ This Message was edited by: Nonsense Eliminator on 2003-07-18 13:38 ]

trickg · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:41 pm Post subject:

HA! Great addition to this thread NE. You are far, FAR more dedicated than me. When I've played it the furthest I ever went was to obtain a handful of recordings and compare notes on those, then play it like they play it, sort of, because it's me that's playing it so even if I intend it to sound like Gerard Schwartz or Wynton Marsalis, it's still gonna sound like me, and everyone feels music a little differently anyway.

As for the trills, I don't even want to go there except to say that I've always approached trills, unless otherwise told or notated, from the top down. That's the trouble with not being musically scholarly, sans degree.

_________________
Patrick Gleason
- Jupiter 1600i, ACB 3C, Warburton 4SVW/Titmus RT2
- Brasspire Unicorn C
- ACB Doubler

"95% of the average 'weekend warrior's' problems will be solved by an additional 30 minutes of insightful practice." - PLP

Sam · Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2003 8:54 am Post subject:

I suppose everyone has their own prefferred way of playing it. I've been double tonguing them til now and hadn't even thought of single tonguing it until recently (strangely). Need a fast single tongue though (just started a thread in fundamentals on this) to manage it. I'll probably keep double tounging and keep working. Got a few months before I need to play it so I'll see how this goes.

greedo · Veteran Member Joined: 10 Jul 2002 Posts: 118

never said I didn't LIKE what you said NE. Just thought for someone who always seems to be correct everyone else should be a little more specific, but after reading your last 9 or so paragraphs, I can see that you've done so. It's obviously you know what your talking about, and I was never questioning that. I just think if we try to get too serious about what is or is not historically correct when it comes to trumpet playing, we are really getting into an area of which extremely little is known. The whole concept of true performance practice is a misnomer. How do we know exactly what these guys did hundreds of years ago? How can we think, that like Weidinger, they were always using the most modern cutting edge practices available, that they wouldn't do the same if they were here today? I mean if baroque composers would have had the modern day piccolo trumpet available to them, how might that have changed the face of solo trumpet literature?

I just think sometimes we get entirely too scientific about stuff, when really we go for what sounds best, and feels the best for the individual, and what is most convincing musically.

In the case of the Haydn/Hummel, if you're not planning on playing it on a historical instrument, then just find what works, and be consistent, ie all-tongued, all-slurred, 2X2, etc...

meant no offense by anything. I did study natural trumpet in London, and love all my historical recordings, but I think my modern Hardenberger and Tommy Stevens recordings are my favs.

peace

walter · Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2003 5:32 pm Post subject:

Very interesting thread ... and I don't particularly like the Haydn or Hummel concerti! I think that they're historically interesting, and because of this, I like NE's view of the Haydn as a significant historic document.

Altenburg's remarks on double tonguing always perplexed me, and still do. The "soft" syllables that NE refers to (i.e. ti-ri or li-ri) may have something to do with 2 things:

First, the "r" sound that is produced by many contemporary Europeans is very different from an American "r". Even in Europe, the "r" pronunciation varies quite a bit. I've often heard European speakers generate the "r" in almost a growl-like fashion, almost approaching a hard "g" sound (to American ears).

Altenburg, as I recall, cited various sources in describing how rapid articulations (i.e. double & triple tonguing) are produced. Since consonant sounds are produced differently in different areas of the world (to say nothing of dialects), I wonder if this adds to the problem of understanding how trumpeters, living hundreds of years ago, rapidly articulated. Even this assumes that they were good at describing what they actually did. (NB: I have often observed that communicating basic physical reality from one person to another often fails miserably.)

I love what NE has to say about citing different levels of "authority". I've looked at some other website Forums on trumpet playing and been sorely disappointed at the level of discussion and "authority". Even here at the TH, even in the best of threads, the process of critical thinking displayed by many posters also disappoints me.

Is this elitist? Of course it is! The word "elitist" has developed a prejudicial disfavor among many people that it doesn't deserve. Neither Critical Thinking (an area of academic study) nor musical ability are democratically determined. A musician must apply standards, rising to the elite of the musical world, to rightfully gain admission to many musical groups. We can argue about what the standards are or should be; but nobody wants to get rid of discrimination and elitism of some type in deciding who plays and who listens.

Haydn's concerto is an excellent example of appealing to both the mind and the heart. This thread carries on these concepts, and Haydn would have loved reading it.

[ This Message was edited by: walter on 2003-07-19 21:05 ]

walter · Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2003 5:32 pm Post subject:

Nonsense Eliminator · Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:26 am Post subject:

redface · Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 10:09 am Post subject:

NE and Walter,

with regard the the ti-ri and li-ri articulation:
I was once told that these phonetics were essentially the same as the modern da-aa (i.e. slur two notes together). I think the pronunciation of these sounds can really vary. I think Altenburg was German, and I can remember from my school German lessons that the R in German is notably more vigorous than the English one. I think that ti-ri or li-ri really means slurred, but nevertheless with an equal emphasis on both notes (though with different attack). The tongue doesn't stop any air when saying R, so i think a kind of gentle breath articulation/attack is what is called for - it certainly has sounded that way when I have heard it played on cornetti. It would be interesting to know what the language of the time sounded like phonetically in order to really know what they meant.