A king size bass drum.

After a looooooooooong time without writing (will explain why in a future article), I´m back to the office, retaking Percusize Me!, and willing to update it with the frequency I used to.

On May 17th and 18th, I played Verdi´s "Requiem" with the Ulster Orchestra. JoAnn Falletta was on the podium, and the choir was the union of the Belfast Philharmonic Choir and Codetta. Concerts took place at the Belfast Waterfront Hall and the Derry-Londonderry Millennium Forum.

I´m sure you all know the importance the bass drum part has in this piece... Well, my colleague Sam Staunton, in charge of playing it, hired the services of the "little boy" you can see here:

© David Valdés

This bass drum was built by Empire Drums, legendary percussion company located in London. It closed down several years ago, and much of its material was purchased by Bell Percussion (in fact, I remember eBay auctions selling huge amounts of instuments when the company went out of business). This bass drum is now part of Bell´s backline, and it can be rented. You can see it HERE.

It measures nothing more and nothing less than 66" in diameter (around 1.70 meters). Taking into account that a 40" (1 meter) drum is considered "big", you can get an idea of the size of this instrument...

I couldn´t measure its depth (I normally don´t carry an imperial measuring tape arround...), but it´s fairly shallow. You can see it in the next photo.

© David Valdés

In this other picture, I have used a Tom Gauger TG04 mallet as a reference. The stick is 15 3/4", so the depth of this drum is roughly 16". We shouldn´t be surprised by the shallowness compared to its diameter, as this is quite common with British bass drums ("gong drums" are quite popular in this country: fairly considerable diameter, shallow, single headed... Many orchestras still use this design nowadays, the London Symphony among others). 

© David Valdés

In the two following photos you can see the claws, tension rods and lugs controlling the counter-hoop. It´s pretty obvious they are not very practical, as you cannot access them from the front, and you need a key in order to manipulate them. You better like the sound Bell provides the drum with, as trying to change it is a pain in the ass.

© David Valdés

© David Valdés

With regard to the size of the head, well... you can get an idea! There´s no cow in the world with enough skin so as to make a natural head for this drum (we would need a diplodocus!). The head is synthetic, and was made on purpose by Remo. Even this maker had problems making a head this big... In the two following photos you can see a line crossing the head: that´s the point where two sheets of material were joined, as not even their biggest sheet was enough to cover such a big surface.

© David Valdés

© David Valdés

Now, compare the size of the stamps you can have on your Remo heads on your snare drums with the one on this... It´s almost the size of my hand!

© David Valdés

The cradle is very solid (and heavy!), and the bars sustaining the drum are covered with cork.

© David Valdés

© David Valdés

© David Valdés

It features two vent holes in two diametrically opposed points on the shell (next to the stickers advertising its new owners).

© David Valdés

It also features a plaque honouring the builders of this instrument, but it´s a shame it doesn´t mention a date. Will try to get in touch with Bell and investigate the age of this bass drum.

© David Valdés

Despite I used an oversized set of timpani (32", 32", 29" and 26", which is far for negligible in terms of size), they paled size-wise with respect to the "monster" I had next to me.

After that much information, the only thing left is to see it in action. This video was recorded during the first rehearsal by Phil O´Kane. The sound is not great, as a a domestic camera was used, but you can get a rough idea (although the ideal thing would be to feel its lows in person...).

By the way... Have you realized Sam, even when playing the tutta forza strokes, remains seated? This may remind you the "To sit, or not to sit? That is the question" article.   

…et in Arcadia ego.

© David Valdés

Editing timpani parts (III)

Today, I´ll finish my explanation on how I understand my edition of the timpani part for Verdi´s “Requiem”. For that, I´ll use examples from the composer himself as a way to prove my points of view. I don´t want to fall into an “ad verecundiam” fallacy: I just want to show my basis for editing the “Requiem” the way I did... I want to show my decision is based on a serious study and it has nothing to do with arbitrary moves.  

In the “Requiem”, “Dies Irae”, figure 12, we can see how Verdi wrote an upward line from B flat to D:  

We can deduce Verdi had three instruments at his disposal, and writes different to the traditional 4^th/5^th interval. The problem I see here is the following: because the three notes are very close together (a major third), the drums had to be very similar in diametre to produce quality notes in such a close range. If this is the case, the drums would have had a limited total range. If the drums were disimilar in diameter to extend the total range, those notes wouldn´t have been consistent, as the B flat would have been played in the low drum with a very tight skin, and D would have been played on the high drum with a relatively loose skin...

The same case of using three drums can be seen in the “Libera me”, nine bars after figure 103:

Also in “Aida”, from O, we can see the use of three timpani. The same happens ten bars after P in the finale of “Don Carlo”:

In “Don Carlo”, three drums are used ten bars after P in the finale. Even four timps are used (low F-B flan-C-high F) eleven bars after F in the “Scena” of the third act:

The following example not only demonstrates that Verdi expanded the number of drums to be used, but the use of the pedals too. This case is “Otello”, first act, six bars before I:

The “Otello” part has some interesting timpani writing, and is a firm candidate for editing.

We can see Verdi wanted “more notes” in “Aida”, “Il Trovatore”, “Macbeth”, “Falstaff” (final fugue). I´m quite sure Verdi was longing for timpani and timpanists that allowed to give expression to the timpani parts he would have liked to write.

With these examples I want to show Verdi wanted to expand his timpani writing (adding more drums or using the pedals), and he got it. Logically, the development of pedal timpani at that time was incipient (same as the technique of the timpanists that had to play those parts) and, for that reason, the same happens with Verdi´s writing. This gives us a quite “innocent” one, which has some mistakes and has still influences from past periods. I´m quite sure that have had Verdi born later, his timpani parts would have been more complex.

The question is... Would that parts have had any resemblance with my edition? That´s impossible to know. What I know for sure is my version is based on a profound study and the possibilities given by modern instruments. When Mozart discovered the “pianoforte”, he acted as a child with a new toy: he filled his music with f and p indications, lead by the novelty of the instrument and its dynamic possibilities. Have had Verdi access to a set of Ludwig Professionals (the instruments I used for that concert), I´m pretty sure he would have used them with profusion and, lead by the novelty of the instrument, would have exploited its harmonic/melodic possibilities, writing many note changes. The thing is he never new modern timpani but, because of the examples above, I tend to think he would have loved to have them at his disposal.  

  

I also would like to show some timpanists who edited the part.

On this video we can see Rainer Seegers with the Berliner Philharmoniker doubling the low G at the beginning of the "Dies Irae”:

The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra shows us a version very similar to mine. This proves me that, when done with a rigorous criteria, results tend to be very similar:

On the following video, we can see how the timpanists for the Arturo Toscanini Philharmonic edits the part:

Also, on this video featuring Karajan, we can hear the modifications made by the timpanist:

Finally, to round off this issue, here´s a link where you´ll get access to the full version of my edition of the “Requiem”. Feel free to use it and get back to me should you detect an error or want to comment your opinion on it. If you like it and use it, I´d be very grateful if you could mention me as its editor.

Verdi Requiem timpani part

Stay tuned!

…et in Arcadia ego.

© David Valdés

Editing timpani parts (II)

Continuing with the issue that we previously discussed, I´d like to show you my version of the “Sanctus”, from Verdi´s “Requiem”.

I recommend listening through full range speakers so the bass end can be clearly perceived.

To better follow the music, this free and legal link allows you to download the score:

Verdi Requiem score

This other link contains the compared parts:

Verdi  Requiem Sanctus compared parts

The peculiarity in the “Sanctus” is that we are dealing with an eight part fugue for double choir (something similar to those I had to write in Venetian style when I was a counterpoint student). Because of this, the static character of the timpani part doesn´t match in a form where the independence of the lines and melodic construction are crucial.

Verdi writes C and F constanly but, if you analize the chord sequence (have a look at the score), you´ll see that, due to the frantic harmonic rhythm, those notes don´t match and, when they do, they produce a weird sensation, as they produce a first or second inversion feeling.

In the first entrance, I double bassoons, bass trombone, oficleide, basses in choir II and double basses. I also take a lower dinamic level to clarify the contrapuctual texture:

I decided to add the accents so as to phrase like the brass does (see that I´m not accenting those lows F´s: I´m trying to taper the phrase down).

For the next beat, I used the same criteria: to double bassoons, bass trombone, oficleide, basses in choir II and double basses.

Those notes circled in red don´t have an accent because, in the first case, they are the ending of the previous phrase (remember the previous cell started with a half note rest and an upbeat consisting of two quarter notes). In the second case, because I´m trying to taper the phrase down.

The same criteria is used for the next entrance:

I substitute the roll for a quarter note, as no one else plays that same figure. It also interferes with the phrasing in the brass:

The problem with this edition is a concept one. As you should remember from my previous post in the blog, one of the main things to take into account when modifying parts was to respect the character, meaning and concept of the work in our hands... Does my edition respect the character of the “Sanctus”?

I must recognize that, maybe, I have taken my modifications quite far. This work is not the waltz from “Die Rosenkavalier” (R. Strauss) or the “Intrada” in Janacek´s “Glagolitic Mass”. The problem is, as I previously explained, the frantic harmonic (and agogic) rhythm: if I was Verdi, I wouldn´t have writen timpani part for this movement.

As I explained in my previous post, composers, due to the intrinsic limitations of timpani writing at that time, had two options when the two available notes didn´t match the context: writing obvious wrong notes, or muting the timpani... The part by Verdi (Euterpe forgive me!) sounds really bad, what takes me to the following question: What is more disturbing for an educated ear, a part whith obvious wrong notes, or a part with maybe many notes?

To my ear, the original part is not satisfactory at all. Maybe my edition is not satisfactory for being excesive, but the notes are correct. I would have opted for not writing timpani part in this number, but Verdi did it, so the “tacet” option is unviable... Something has to be played! So, if something has to be played, I prefer my version, even knowing this part calls too much attention to itself (other reason for lowering the dynamic levels was to make the part a little bit more discreet). I apologize for been such an iconoclast but, in my modest opinion, the part writen by Verdi is not musically satisfactory. 

Verdi by Giovanni Boldini

The “Sanctus” doesn´t admit half-measures:  if we are going for changes, they have to be dramatic. Playing the original part (in this case) doesn´t convince me at all. The ideal situation would be to edit without clouding the musical line, not calling too much attention to the timpani part, not getting caught in the pedaling fun... In this case, my editing work contradicts these fundamental ideas (apart from implying some kind of “show off”) but, I don´t think it´s worth making subtle changes (in this case) which imply still playing wrong notes: we must change everything or nothing.  

What is more disturbing to the global carácter of the “Requiem”?

a)      Wrong notes

b)      Timpani doubling the oficleide part

In my modest opinion, option a) is the most disturbing one.

What´s your opinion on this subject? I´d love to know it.

…et in Arcadia ego.

© David Valdés

Editing timpani parts.

Today, I´ll write about revising and editing timpani parts.

He who has ever played repertoire by Mendelssohn, Schubert, Dvorak, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Weber, Gounod, opera (mainly Italian and French works) and, as a particular case, Spanish zarzuela, is very likely to have found on many occasions notes that do not “match” with the harmonic/melodic context and, depending on his audacity or conservatism, would have decided to leave those notes as they are, or change them looking for a better solution.

It is shocking, indeed, to find so many dissonances in the Classic and Romantic repertoire... So obvious dissonances, that I tend to think the composer, lacking a third drum or the possibility of a quick note change, prefered to write that note (even “wrong” or out of context) rather than sacrifying the effect that a timpani stroke could add to the dramatic effect on a specific part of his work.

Sometimes, the contrary occurs, and the composer opts for silencing the timps (while trumpets, for example, go on playing). That makes me think that, would have had the composer the resources to improve his timpani writing (more drums, or the possibility of quick changes), he would definitely had continued the line that, due to the limitations on timpani writing, was left interrupt.

We have, then, both cases: when the composer writes down a note knowing full well it doesn´t match the context, or when the timpani get silenced because he can´t write down a note matching that same context. I´ll write refering to the first case.

We already know that, due to the intrinsic limitations on timpani writing at that time, composers used undeniably wrong notes, but my opinion is that those dissonances are not intentional, nor mistakes (I don´t think Verdi wouldn´t have realized a G natural clearly clashes in an A flat context). If composers have had more developed instruments at hand, permiting quick changes, we woulnd´t be disscusing this issue, as it would have been solved two hundred years ago.

Controversy arrises when, having to play these works, we have to make a decision on wether to play them “on the ink”, or modify the part to correct those errors.

I´m a firm supporter of the editing option, but always agreeing with the conductor and keeping the style, character and nature of the work. Almost every conductor I have worked with was keen and receptive to this kind of “part altering”, when not clearly involved in the process (Óliver Díaz considers these changes even before I can arise them to him!). Always considering the musical, historical, aesthetic, harmonic and melodic context, I can´t think of re-writing parts as a problem as long as we show the maximun respect for Music. I´m sure composers would have writen differently should they had the resources.

Hans von Bülow, Sir Henry Word, Felix Weingartner, Lorin Maazel... Are just a few of the great conductors keen with timpani part editing. David Sercy (Teatro alla Scala), Simon Carrington (London Philharmonic), Alan Cumberland (London Philharmonic), Kurt-Hans Göedicke (London Symphony) and Cloyd Duff (Cleveland Orchestra) are some of the great timpanists who edit their parts.

My method consists in a preliminary study of the score together with the “particella”. It´s crucial to use your ears in a very critical way, both to identify mistakes (wrong notes, lenghts, articulation, phrasing...) and to propose solutions. In order to justify the changes, I investigate the harmonic context, the bass line, what other sections are playing (depending on the repertoire, I look into one section or another), who is playing in my same octave (a dissonance at a distance of a second is harsher than one at a distance of 16th or a triple octave). With all that information, I make a decision whether to make a change or not, and what change to make once I decide to go for it. Once the part has been edited, it has to fit the musical context perfectly and, again, your ears will have the last word. As a precaution, never assume the part is correct (specially in opera, and more specifically, with Kalmus editions).

As an example, we can use Verdi´s “Requiem” and, more specifically, the begginning of the “Dies Irae”. This video was recorded live on January 29th, 2010 at Teatro Jovellanos, featuring the Gijón Symphony Orchestra and the Orfeón Donostiarra under the baton of Óliver Díaz. For a better listening experience, I recommend using full range speakers, as headphones or computer speakers don´t have enough bass response, thus making the changes less audible.

To better follow the process, here´s a link to the full score (free and legal):

Verdi Requiem full score

You can also download the edited version of this introduction as a pdf file here:

Verdi Requiem edited Dies Irae part

It´s in bar nº3 where we encounter the first problem, as part two and four of the bar (at least in the Ricordi edition) have no accent:

My interpretation is to accent those notes in bars 3 and 4 in order to imitate the phrasing of trumpets and horns. The last two notes are played with more emphasis to prepare the choir entrance. That G in bar 5, I let it ring for four bars (plus downbeat on the fifth one) to match the ornate pedal played by winds and strings. I mute that note once the choir ceases its intervention and the strings start they diabolic 16ths.

The next beat is a mixture of the motive played by woodwinds (the 32nds are taken from them) and the rhythmic cell by the fourth basoon, trombones, oficleide and double basses (see bar 20 in the score):

Offbeats coming next have to be played very precisely, as timpani are the only instrument playing that motive:

With regard to the next roll, I prefer starting it softer, so I can play a crescendo to accompany the upwards scale by woodwinds and strings.

The next bars are the most problematic ones, as the notes chosen by Verdi have nothing to do with the harmonic context. The chord sequence is G9b-Cm-F9b-Bb-G7dim-Ab (see bars 31 to 36 in the score), so it´s very clear that G and D (the notes used by Verdi) create obvious dissonances.

Keeping the original descendent interval of a fifth, what I do is to double the bass trombone, oficleide and basses in the choir parts. Also, I play the 8th notes which Verdi leaves in blank twice, so as to match the motive played by the trumpets.

In the edited part, do not understand the tie as “legato”: what I want to mean is the existence of two difference expresive units, one represented by the tie, and the other by the dots.

In the context of E major, a G natural doesn´t match at all, so it is for this reason that the next roll is played on E natural (same note played by basoons, oficleide and double basses).

Two bars afterwards, I play A flat instead of G because that´s the harmonic context (no need to say that minor second dissonance is unacceptable).

The rest of the interventions present no problem, as they literally double the basses part.

The problem with these kind of modifications is that, if no change is made, the result is obviously dissonant but, if we edit the part, many changes have to be made.

To prove my decision, I have to say Verdi knew pedal timpani (he maybe wrote with Carlo Antonio Boracchi´s instruments in mind -he was timpanist for La Scala-), that he wrote a roll with changing notes (“Otello”, first act, six bars before letter I), that he wrote an ascending line from B flat do D (“Requiem”, “Dies Irae”, bars 74 to 88). If Verdi wrote these changes, why he didn´t so in other parts in the “Requiem” or other of his operas? It´s surprisingly contradictory that Verdi had, at the same time, such a conservative timpani writing in some parts, and such an innovative one in others in the same work

My criteria is to make Music and, if that implies changing notes, I see no problem in doing it.

In my next post, I´ll write some more on this fascinating issue and, for that, I´ll use the “Sanctus” as an example.

I´d love to hear your oppinions on this subject, so any comment is welcome.

…et in Arcadia ego.

© David Valdés