Re: Dennis Brain's horn [was: Period vs Modern instruments?]

Michael Haslam wrote:
> 
> Peter T. Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Ken Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter T. Daniels
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> > > >How could you possibly know what he "intended," especially since he was
> > > >working intensively on the work with no less than Dennis (note spelling)
> > > >Brain himself? (Unfortunately the only picture of him in Mitchell's
> > > >*Pictures from a Life* is a studio portrait, with valve horn.) If he
> > > >"forces" the player to use a different instrument for the bookends, is
> > > >it mere coincidence that only the notes playable on a natural instrument
> > > >are used in the passages?
> > >
> > > No, but not because the notes are playable only on an instrument without
> > > valves.
> >
> > No, because the notes are playable _better_ on a natural horn.
> > (Obviously, not "only.")
> 
> Says who? As you have been told Brain's Raoux was a natural F horn
> retro-fitted with valves.

As _you_ have been told, "retro-fitting" a horn with valves changes
fundamental properties of it.

> > > What he wanted was the natural tuning, especially of the 7th,
> > > 11th and (probably) 13th* "harmonics".  These notes are there on every
> > > horn, and at the tuning he wanted if you can make it the length of a
> > > horn in F (see an earlier post).
> > >
> > > *  What he actually got was the 14th, because that's what Brain played
> > > for the notated A, and what all players in the British tradition have
> > > played since.  Britten was there, knew the difference, and didn't mind,
> > > according to Pears.  You can hear the 13th on a fairly recent recording
> > > by a Czech player.
> >
> > Where does Pears say this?
> 
> Not relevant if you listen to Brain's recording and follow the score
> with an understanding of the harmonic series.

Then why did he say "according to Pears"?

> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter T. Daniels
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> > > > >> The BBC library have a recording of Mr Brain playing the Britten
> > > > >> prologue (conducted by forgotten Harry Newstone) on his 1818 Raoux and
> > > > >> broadcast I think in 1954 or 1955.
> >
> > BTW, why would one need a conductor to play a solo line?
> 
> If you'd bothered to follow the link to the transcript of the programme,
> all would be clear to even someone as dimwitted as you, Peter. The
> programme was a documentary about the development of the early horn and
> included extracts with orchestra; these were, of course, conducted. The
> items for horn alone and the small ensemble pieces were, I would
> imagine, <sigh> not conducted.

An audio file, that? What size? What sort of connection is needed to
hear it? What sort of plug-in?

Do you not see that he wrote "the Britten prologue (conducted by
forgotten Harry Newstone)"?

> > > > >That would pretty much prove that the prologue (repeated at the end) was
> > > > >composed for the natural horn, and the wise horner won't use a valve
> > > > >horn for it.
> > > KCM:
> > > > It proves nothing of the sort.  The Serenade was composed in 1943 and,
> > > > IIRC, first performed in England.  The most usual design of horn in the
> > > > UK at that time was an instrument in the French style, with fairly
> > > > narrow bore and three piston valves*, most often, but not invariably,
> > > > used with an F crook.  Brain's Raoux (which he used for all the
> > > > movements of the Serenade)
> > >
> > > > How do you know that? Michael just told us that he was "forced" to use
> > > > a different instrument for the prologue and epilogue.
> > >
> > > If he wrote that (which I don't recall) he was wrong.  The Raoux had the
> > > required notes.
> > >
> > > If Brain had used a hand horn I am confident that that would have been
> > > recorded at the time, because it would have been so unusual.
> >
> > Maybe Clevinger was a more advanced horn player, 50 years on.
> 
> It is generally accepted that Brain has been succeeded by greater
> exponents of the horn. That in no way diminishes his legacy.

But it suggests that Clevinger may have played the work differently from
Brain -- using two instruments, for instance. One with valves, and one
without.
-- 
Peter T. Daniels                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]