Brass Band Logo

NJH Music Logo

Some of the contents of the pages on this site are Copyright © 2016 NJH Music
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tune Books (fwd)

On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, Raymond Sturge u wrote:

> > Erik Pittock
> > 
> > pittock@xxxxxxxx
> > 
> > </excerpt>
> > 
> > The new tune books were published in 1989.  As far as I'm aware, it was
> > done primarily so as to include a large number of newer tunes, some of
> > which were in one of two suppliments to the first tune book.  Also, a
> > number of old tunes were removed (some of which, including Rule,
> > Britannia always made me smile).  Whether or not it was to improve the
> > arrangements, make them easier for smaller bands or whatever, there seems
> > to be widespread view (at least from where I sit) that many of the
> > arrangements aren't up to the musical standard established by the
> > previous tune books.  The harmony parts are often simple and some parts,
> > notably the euphonium part, have been drastically cut back in their
> > importance.  Whereas they might have had a run to build momentum in a
> > piece they simply mirror the tune or the harmony.
> > 
> > 
> > Now, having said that, bear in mind that, musically speaking, I am not
> > worthy to carry the batons of many of the people that did the
> > arrangements.  However like I said, many people have made similar
> > remarks, some who know what they are talking about, and to paraphrase the
> > old saying, "I may not know much about music, but I know what I like." 
> > And of course, all of this carries the asterisk that some of the new
> > arrangements are quite good and the inclusion of the new tunes is a
> > positive.
> > 
> > 
> > But I'm interested in what others think.  And I believe that almost all
> > of those that I've heard speak negatively about the arrangements have
> > been on this side of the Atlantic.  To those of you who have used both
> > the old and the new tune books, how do the new tune books compare?  
> 
> Hey Eric,
> 
> I've played out of both and have come to the same conclusion that the OLD 
> are in fact better than the NEW!  I believe you were right in saying that 
> the arrangements of tunes have been arranged so that they are more easily 
> played by small corps bands that are not quite up-to-par like other corps 
> bands.
> 
> To my knowledge, most of these tunes were arranged by Ray Steadman-Allen.  
> If you check out the arrangement of ASCALON (# ?, I forget) to which we sing 
> the words FAIREST LORD JESUS you will certainly notice the exact 
> similarity in the opening statement of Steadman-Allen's DAYSTAR!  Wether  
> these new arrangements of the tunes are bad wouldn't be fair to say, they are
> just easier to play.  I will say that some of the tunes are pretty 'lame' but 
> this can't be blamed on Steadman-Allen, he just arranged the tunes.  Some 
> are still a challange though, not all SA bands play #385 very well :)
>
					    I think you mean #485 Mark!!! 

> I do miss some of the old tunes but I do enjoy the new as well, too bad 
> we can't have a book with both! (for the challenged & not so challenged 
> bands).  Is there any harm in that?  From what I understand, the use of 
> the old books seems to be strictly forbidden!  What is the reasoning 
> behind this??
> 
> Any way, I think the OLD euphonium part is definety a big loss too.  Those 
> old arrangements were great!  Too bad we couldn't have the best of both! :(
> 
> Mark Sturge
> 
> 
> --
> unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help' to
> listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 


--
unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help' to
listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Services] [Contact Us] [Advertise with us] [About] [Tell a friend about us] [Copyright © 2016 NJH Music]