The Solo Tuba

Author(s): Henry Willis and Godfrey Sceats

Source: The Musical Times, Vol. 77, No. 1120 (Jun., 1936), pp. 542-543
Published by: Musical Times Publications Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/917895 .
Accessed: 08/12/2014 23:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Musical Times Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Musical Times.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 8 Dec 2014 23:03:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

542

Culross

THE MUSICAL TIMES

'

June, 1936

tn thp Fritnv
T.PttIPr
LA&%.

'
SIR,-With regard to Culross ' 1 still hold that
the 1634 editor meant what he wrote; and you that
he meant something else. We must therefore agree
to differ.
The last sentence of your editorial comment
(Musical Times, May, p. 445) caused me some
surprise. It runs as follows: 'As Dr. Shaw urges
fidelity to originals, will he explain why the harmonization of certain Scottish tunes in the " English
Hymnal" differs widely from that in their acknowledged source ? ' Really! Sir. No editor in his
senses would consider himself bound to reproduce
original harmonization, and I never suggested that
he should. We were talking of fidelity to original
versions of melodies. Harmonies only came into
the discussion by way of corroboration and were
not the point at issue. It would almost seem that
any stick is good enough to beat the 'English
Hymnal' with.
Your remarks may perhaps be taken in connection
with a letter from Mr. Vine Westbrook in your March
issue in which he condemns the 'English Hymnal'
forms of two tunes from the 'Scottish Psalter,' viz.,
' Wigtown ' and ' Martyrs.' He criticizes ' the avoidance of an obvious modulation to the dominant' in
'Wigtown' referring, of course, to the ending of
the second line, which appears thus in ' English
Hymnal ' (and ' Songs of Praise '):

b J J2

I"

This is how it is given in 'Scottish Psalter,' 1635,

and in support of the 'English Hymnal' reading
it may be said that it appears so in the book you
' the standard Scottish
claim-and
rightly-as
Hymnal,' i.e., the revised 'Church Hymnary' (1927).
It also appears in this form in the 'Scottish Psalter'
(1929) and in 'Hymns of Western Europe' (1927)a book bearing as editors the names of Sir Walford
Davies, Sir W. H. Hadow, and Sir Richard Terry.
With regard to 'Martyrs' may I first quote what
you wrote in the Musical Times (April, p. 349 at (2) ),
'" Culross" bears no sign of having been adapted
from plainsong: it is just an ordinary tune of the
period. .. .' (This applies equally to 'Martyrs.')
You proceed: '. . . and therefore to be regarded,
like contemporary tunes, as being not in a mode but
in the already well-established minor tonality.'
Now, Sir, 'Martyrs,' a tune of the period, not
taken from plainsong, is definitely modal. The
mode (the first) is clearly indicated by a B natural
signature at the beginning of each line and where
the harmonizer wanted a B flat (which occurs only
twice and only in the bass part) he writes a flat
before his B. In the first phrase the bass part has
B flat and later B unaltered. The unaltered B
has this alto part:

an additional proof that it is natural.

Here again the 'English Hymnal' version has
the support of ' Church Hymnary,' ' Scottish Psalter '
(1929), and 'Hymns of Western Europe,' in all of
which the melody tallies note for note. The standard
'Church Hymnary' has even paid the 'English
Hymnal' the compliment of adopting its harmonization both of 'Martyrs ' and of 'Wigtown.'
-Yours, &c,,
MARTINSHAW.

J-^V%LL%WL

[As Dr. Shaw still fails to see that he is opposing

not our view only, but that of expert opinion (cited
in the March Musical Times) there is nothing more
to be said. As for harmonies: we should have
thought that the originals deserved more consideration than they have received. It would not be
hard to show that some, at least, of the ' Scottish
Psalter' harmonizations are stronger and more
characteristic than those substituted for thelm in
the 'English Hymnal.' Why should criticism of
the 'English Hymnal' be so strongly resented ?
We have used the book since the very first month
of its life, and have no desire to change.
But, fine
though it is, there are faults that have become
uncomfortably apparent with the passage of time.
Any choirmaster-and
many choir singers-could
point to numerous faults in detail on the practical
side that ought to have been remedied when the
second edition was prepared. An article drawing
attention to some of the more important appeared
in the Musical Times for July, 1932. Here we
refer only to the major fault of antiquarianism.
There are far too many tunes that appear to have
been included on the score of age, or of folk or other
origin, rather than of merit. The ' English Hymnal '
was overpraised from the first, just as 'Ancient and
Modern' has been over-depreciated since its rival
appeared. If there are signs of a reaction-as there
certainly are-the ' English Hymnal' editors must
not be querulous. We strain a point in finding
space for Dr. Shaw's reply to matters raised as long
ago as March. We agree with him in regard to both
and 'Martyrs.' The care with which
'Wigtown'
the modality of the latter is indicated is, however,
evidence on our side. Clearly a little modal music
was written then, as a good deal is written now.
'Martyrs' may be said to flaunt its Doric scale by
its insistence on the characteristic note of the mode,
B natural, whereas such tunes as ' Culross'-however, let our little controversy end on a point of
agreement !-EDITOR.]

The Solo Tuba

SIR,-The letter from Mr. Woodcock in your May
issue raised an interesting point. The fact is that the
Solo Tuba, as represented on many large English
organs, has no part in ensemble, being exclusively for
solo use. There is no counterpart of that stop in the
best Continental organs where the ' Bombarde' organ
consists of a family of bright-toned Trompettes and
Mixtures for the use with, and blending into, the full
ensemble. It is, therefore, natural that Continental
artists should use English Tubas as they are accustomed to use their ' Bombardes,' and they should be
held blameless if the stops fail to ' come into
the picture.'
As so great a virtuoso as Mr. Germani fell into the
trap (I was present at that superb recital) it should
make us ask if Tubas of colossal and preponderating
tonality have any real place in the organ.
For myself, I hold that the Tuba or family of
Tubas should come in perfectly for a tutti effect, and
if the harmonic development of the stops and the
power relation is correct then their use in full ensemble
will be correct and desirable.
Registration
Mr. Hubert Crook writes that it is almost impossible
to lay down any hard and fast ruling on the question
of combining Flutes and Diapasons, and gives some
interesting examples of what he claims to be successful
combinations.
Is it not realised that the whole
question resolves itself around the question of the
type of flutes ?

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 8 Dec 2014 23:03:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

June,

1936

THE MUSICAL TIMES

It can be laid down in the most definite manner

that Harmonic Flutes do not blend with Diapasons,
that any open flutes are undesirable, but that
correctly voiced Stopped Flutes are capable of
successful combination. Why ? The reason is simple.
Open flutes have various upper partials present in
varied order of prominence: many, when developed in
a flute, are inimical to those of a Diapason. With a
Stopped Flute the odd numbered partials only are
present, and the blending power is correct. This will
be obvious to anyone who draws (1) a Diapason with
a 4-ft. Harmonic Flute, (2) a Diapason with a 4-ft.
Stopped Flute.
With reference to ' Full Swell,' it will be obvious
to the cultured ear that flutes and soft strings have
no value and only tend to add to the out-of-tuneness.
Mr. Crook's selected 'Full Swell' on his organ at
High Wycombe indicates a true eclectic sense that
can but commend itself to the serious student.
The best effects in registration are surely when
tonal clarity is obtained. Myself, I regard the presence
of flutes on the Great Organ of a three-manual instrument with any pretence to an adequate scheme as
out of place: on the Swell, Choir, and Solo, yes; on
the Great, no. The Great Chorus should be a pure
Diapason structure, capped, if the size of the instrument permits, by the Chorus Reed or reeds.
A striking instance of a clean Great, Diapason
Chorus only, is at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford,
which instrument I had the pleasure of carrying out
in consultation with Sir Hugh Allen and Dr. W. H.
Harris some years ago.
In conclusion, may I express my appreciation of
the excellent article on registration under 'Organ
Recital Notes' by your contributor, 'A. F. ' ? Let
us trust that his sound comments will have the close
attention of all, especially the student, in whom our
hopes for the future rest.-Yours, &c.,
HENRY WILLIS.
Ferndale Road, S.W.9.
SIR,-It is of course true, as Mr. Woodcock says,
that foreign instruments rarely if ever possess highpressure reeds of the scale and power of the Tubas on
the biggest English instruments. But having signified
my agreement on this point, I pass over Mr. Woodcock's other remarks and come to something elsenot, however, unrelated to them. I too have read in
more than one notice of Germani's recital of the' sheer
noise'-or
something to that effect-of some of the
music. This prompts me to say that after listening to
the music of Bach and other early composers, which
had never exceeded in power the Full Great without
use of the Tuba in the ff parts of the Toccata in F,
which even so was a much louder organ, I know, than
Bach would ever have known, the way Reger stalked
in on those gigantic Tuba stilts was exactly right and
as admirable a portrait of him as one could well
imagine, and provided the greatest thrill of the whole
recital to at least one of the listeners. Once he got
the taste of these Tubas, Germani certainly gave us
liberal doses later on in the recital, but sitting high
up at the back of the vast hall one found the full
power of the instrument, including the Tuba in big
chords, to be adequate, but no more than that. The
tone was magnificent.-Yours,
&c.,
GODFREYSCEATS.
Forest Hill, S.E.

Registration

further doubts he may have of my inability, I may

tell him that I do not include Orchestral Oboe in ' Full
Choir,' unless I wish to produce a hideous effect. By
the way, when he says he does not include Clarinet,
I assume he means 8-ft.; the 16-ft. Clarinet makes a
very fine chorus reed. Re his feeble effort to ridicule
my method which I term 'Rhythmic Registration,'
all I wish to say is, that if he does not wish to use it,
that is to his disadvantage, not mine. When I wrote
my previous letter, I simply wanted to offer to readers
the benefit of my experience, which, I think, is fairly
wide, since it covers a period of twenty-five years as
organist and choirmaster, during which time I have
been fairly active as a recitalist in church, concert
hall, and also for the B.B.C. I mention the B.B.C.
because there, more than anywhere else, utmost care
in colouring, together with cleanliness and celerity in
registration are absolutely essential, and it is in this
connection that I have found 'Rhythmic Registration' so useful.-Yours, &c.,
F. W. ANDREWS.
Blackburn.

The Text of 'Sumer is icumenin'

SIR,-I thank you for publishing my letter concerning ' Sumer is icumen in ' in the May issue of the
Musical Times, but I feel I must point out an error
which might lead to misunderstanding and perhaps
even letters of protest. On p. 448, lines 1 and 2,
' luck' should be of course ' buck.' I have no doubt
that my careless writing caused the mistake.-Yours,
&c.,
JOHN WHITE.
S.W.17.
SIR,-Mr. John White is, of course, quite right in
insisting that the correct ' translation ' (if we may so
call it) of ' Sumer is icumen in ' into modern English
is 'Summer has come in' (and not 'Summer is acoming in ').
But this is not quite the whole story. As I pointed
out, in the course of a correspondence in the Radio
Times some three years ago, our ancestors in the
Middle Ages apparently did not usually think of the
year, as we do, as divided into four seasons; but
and winter. Summer, of
into two only-summer
course, meant spring and summer; winter meant
autumn and winter. 'Spring,' indeed, according to
the ' Oxford Dictionary,' in the sense of' a season of
the year,' was not used until late Tudor times. When,
therefore, the writer of this little poem started off
'Summer has come in,' what he really meant was
'Spring has come in.' Obviously, no one would
suddenly shout ' Summer has come in,' in the middle
of (what he regarded as) summer; but he might at
the beginning, that is to say, at the beginning of what
we call spring. But, indeed, the whole of the poem
confirms this view.
I would suggest, therefore, that the best translation
of these words would be 'Now the spring is here
again'; or something like that. 'Spring' should
be substituted for 'summer,' anyhow. It is perhaps
rather disconworth noticing, as a curious-and
certing-point, that' Summer is a-coming in,' though
from a linguistic standpoint hopelessly indefensible,
is really much closer to the author's actual meaning
than ' Summer has come in.'-Yours,
&c.,
A. R. CRIPPS.
Worthing.

Why not Metner?

SIR,-I am sorry to trouble you again so soon, but

I suppose I ought to reply to Mr. Hubert Crook. He
says he ' read and re-read ' my letter; I am afraid I
was not so polite to his letter: once was quite enough,
especially when he descended to the low level of
informing us that he' did not include Vox Humana
and Clarinet in his Full Swell.' For my part, I
would not insult readers of the Musical Times by
such ante-elementary information; but to dispel any

543

SIR,-Why should the Russian composer's name

be presented to English people in the German guise
of 'Medtner' ? No Englishman can pronounce 'dt,'
and there is no letter corresponding to 'd' in the
Russian form of the name. Tchaikovsky's name is
less often presented to us through a German
medium than it used to be: may we not hope for a
similar reform in the case of Metner ?-Yours, &c.,
E. G. P. WYATT.
Rustington, Sussex.

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 8 Dec 2014 23:03:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions