These videos have appeared on the Horn Matters Facebook page previously – they are worth re-posting here.
This video focuses on the diaphragm.
The second video is without narration. It adds internal organs and illustrates the rib cage in action.
* * *
[Updated/extracted from a “Random Monday” post 2021– JE]
This topic has come up for me at this point in many horn lessons over the years. The short answer is that your horn may not have one even though you may honestly believe that it does.
Among horns I see most commonly standard model Holton horns have a small slide that is a separate B-flat horn tuning slide tucked up next to the change valve, but most Geyer type horns with the change valve on the other side of the valve section do not. And a Conn 8D, seen in the photo, also does not.
Stepping back, if you take your horn and follow the tubing from the mouthpiece, the first tuning slide you come to will be your main slide. Then besides the valve slides on the typical double horn you will have one to three more slides. If it is a Geyer style horn you have one more on the back and it only impacts the F side. A horn built like a Conn 8D has two slides in addition to the main slide. Those slides BOTH are F horn tuning slides.
The slide with the big arrow in the illustration is an F horn tuning slide. Over the years however I have ran into many players who thought it to be a B-flat horn slide. I guess because it is on the front.
If you are in doubt of the function of this or any other slide just take the slide out and try to play the horn. If it works on the B-flat side with the slide out but not on the F side, then the missing slide only impacts the F horn.
Then there is the related question of what do you do if your horn is sharp on the B-flat horn but you don’t have a B-flat horn tuning slide? The answer is you need to think the topic backwards; the F side is low in relation to the B-flat side. In other words the F side is pulled out too much. Bring it up to match the B-flat horn then bring the whole horn down with the main slide. Intonation works a lot better if your horn is in tune with itself.
There are a number of topics where it is particularly interesting to compare and contrast the approaches of Philip Farkas and Gunther Schuller. Being contemporaries with established careers Schuller had no qualms about presenting ideas that contrasted significantly with those of Farkas. The warm-up is a good example.
For Farkas a central part of what to practice was the warm-up. He offered his own warm-up in The Art of French Horn Playing as an example. “The player may benefit from using it or incorporate parts of it that he feels useful, as each individual needs to emphasize different phases of his practice in order to strengthen weaknesses.” While intended to “limber up” the lip, in his warm-up he also tried to “incorporate all the rudiments.” This passage is especially relevant in relation to how he approached the warm-up.
The warm-up is a necessity in the morning or when first picking up the horn for the day. Although taking only from 10 to 30 minutes, it will start the embouchure off properly for the entire day. This amount of warm-up will usually suffice for the day, but occasionally, as when the lips are chapped or sluggish from overwork, the warm-up can be used to great advantage before an evening concert to limber up the embouchure, even though it has been performed earlier in the day. This warm-up has been carefully thought out to freshen the lips and not cause fatigue, so that a quick run-through before a concert or rehearsal is often very beneficial.
His warm-up is a classic, covering a wide range of exercises over all registers. I have heard teachers to say that it is the main reason that they recommend students purchase The Art of French Horn Playing. Personally I find it starts out a bit quick but I used a Farkas-based warm-up (with a more gradual starting ramp) for years and years. However, as I noted in the introductory article on understanding the Hornmasters and the warm-up, for me I prefer in a playing day to warm-up before each session rather than look at the warm-up being something I do one time that sets up the chops for the entire day.
The warm-up routine presented by Gunther Schuller in Horn Technique is markedly different than that of Farkas, as it is based on one single long tone exercise. Before getting to that however Schuller notes that
The greatest artist on the French horn that I have been privileged to hear spent a full half-hour warming up each day. It simply took that long for his embouchure and breathing apparatus to reach the degree of utter sensitivity his great artistry demanded. That was Bruno Jaenicke, a German emigrant, who for some twenty-five years was the solo horn of the New York Philharmonic.
He also notes that
If the player’s schedule calls for a heavy rehearsal in the morning, a free afternoon and a performance that night, he will do well to re-warm-up (on a reduced scale) before the evening concert. The original morning warm-up will not extend to the evening in such a case, especially after a strenuous morning rehearsal. During the afternoon the lip will tend to stiffen up, and therefore it must be loosened up and made flexible once more.
The warm-up presented by Schuller is focused on long tones and developing the perfect rhythm of the inhale. Every note is played as though it is a first note. It is nothing like the “captain warm-up” style warm-up presented by Farkas. Schuller confirmed in a master class that I was present at a few years back that this was his total and essential warm-up. On the surface this might seem somewhat limited (or somewhat extreme!) but in relation to his performing career at the time, as Principal Horn in the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, this emphasis on first note accuracy made great sense. And having tried it I find that the routine, while a bit boring, certainly works and will benefit some players more than the Farkas routine.
In closing from Schuller I would offer this final quote: “It is essential to avoid any undue pressure on or forcing of the lips—the idea of the warm-up being just that: to warm up gradually.”
Of all the symphonies of Antonin Dvořák my favorite is the 7th. While his 9th symphony is epic and immensely more popular, and the 8th has its strong appeal, the horn parts and the Romantic sweep of the 7th really hit home for me.
And – in the final measures there is typically an extra bonus that is a lot of fun to play.
The Horn I part starts out with plenty to chew on and digest.
The first page alone covers a wide scope; the feel is that of turbulence and drama. In a sense it is almost operatic, and this probably explains why I enjoy this piece so much.
(All the excerpts below are for Horn in F.)
In the second movement, a brief solo scores very high on my imaginary list of favorite orchestral horn solos.
It is a sublime moment.
Take a look too at the Horn III part available from the IMSLP page.
Like Dvořák’s other orchestral works, it has an active third horn part with occasional solos and lead moments peppered throughout.
Looking at the final page of the Horn I part, we see mostly tutti passages. The piece is winding down and the end of the tunnel is in sight.
At face value this ending looks relatively straightforward.
However there is an unwritten tradition where different notes are played in the final Molto maestoso. I am not sure where this tradition began, but I have been told that it was something that George Szell commonly did with the Cleveland Orchestra and that it perhaps began there.
This bit of re-orchestration does have some merit; it adds volume and depth to an important line that otherwise may not be heard.
The passage in the red box below is typically doubled by the first horn player, sometimes in tandem with Horn III or even a trumpet. I performed it once where – at the conductor’s request – the entire horn section joined in.
We liked that con mucho gusto but in hindsight, it might have been overkill.
Unlike tricky transpositions, this practice is something that most conductors expect or at least know about.
If you are a section player playing this piece, a consultation with the principal is probably a good idea. For example, I could see a number of reasons to double only the first three measures – or even just the first two – of the clarinet part highlighted above.
Ah… but what are the notes to play you ask?
I will only give a small hint: Clarinet in A is equal to Horn in A.
Brahms wrote for the natural horn in all of his works, but wrote for it in a period when the valved horn was in widespread use. Remembering that the valve was invented by 1814, that the valved horn was in fairly common use in Austria and Germany by around 1850, and that, for example, Brahms first symphony was completed in 1876! That is pretty late for natural horn.
As his orchestral works are such standards, the horn writing remains something that is both fascinating and puzzling to us today. I have looked at this topic quite a bit, and it boils down pretty quickly in my mind to two key points:
As to why he wrote for natural horn, part of it certainly is tradition, and that tradition also mixes in with other things including an anti-Wagner stance on the part of Brahms. The style of natural horn writing does mark his music with a type of sound that is unmistakable.
He wrote his Horn Trio before the orchestral works — as background, please read this article before the deeper look that follows.
The remainder of this article was for many years posted as part of a longer article on Horn Articles Online. A version of these materials was also published in “Brahms and the Orchestral Horn,” The Horn Call 52, No. 1 (October, 2021), 47-51.
In an examination of his orchestral writing the Symphony No. 1, Op. 68, completed in 1876, is an appropriate place to start. While we don’t have the quotations from his writings to shed light on his intentions as we do in the case of the Trio (see this article for more on that), Brahms in his first symphony makes several musical statements about his intentions in his horn writing. The following is a typical example.
Brahms, Symphony No. 1, Op. 68, mvt. II
In this example he calls for the horn in E and requests only notes playable on the natural horn. He is consistent with this style of writing throughout the symphony, calling for four horns crooked in pairs in the keys of C, E-flat, E, and H (B-natural in German notation). Even a casual look at the parts will confirm that clearly he is writing for the natural horn or he would not have selected the keys that he selected, the notes that he selected, and the divisions seen melodically between the two pairs of horns crooked in different keys.
There are two big issues to consider in relation to this writing. The first is Brahms intentions as notated in the parts; in this case, the intention is clearly to write the parts in a manner that would leave them performable on the natural horn. But the second issue looms large in the background. How did players actually perform these parts in the period? They almost certainly performed the work on the valved horn in early performances.
A strong statement that Brahms may be making musically by his continuing to write for the natural horn is this: to write for the natural horn was one of the most anti-Wagner stances he could have taken in relation to the charged musical climate of the period. Even if this was not his intention, he certainly gained something by writing for the natural horn, an almost intangible aspect but one that we, as horn players, are sensitive to. Horn writing conceived for the natural horn is inherently “hornistic;” it has a sound that sounds “right” for the horn, a sound that cannot be mistaken for a part written for another instrument in the same range as the horn. Being as well versed in the natural horn as Brahms was, this “sound” issue alone must have been highly significant.
His next major symphonic work, the Symphony No.2, Op. 73, composed in 1877, raises even more questions, most notably with his further request of the B-natural crook. Does Brahms have an axe to grind? This key was an extremely rare key to be found in a natural horn part in the classical period and he must have realized as well that it would be difficult to transpose this key onto the F crook on the valved horn. However, if you finger 123 on the F crook on a valved horn you get the key of B-natural. It is almost as if Brahms is daring the first horn to play this section the “right” way, without transposition, by fingering the B-natural crook with the valves and using natural horn technique.
Horn players themselves however seem to have came up with another solution to the difficult transposition even in the period. The famous Leipzig horn teacher and player Friedrich Gumpert (1841-1906) included the excerpt in the following manner in volume VIII of his Orchesterstudien (Solobuch) für Horn, published between 1886 and 1891 [12].
Brahms Symphony No. 2 excerpt as presented by Gumpert
In other words, Gumpert suggested transposing the part not onto the F crook but onto the E crook, where the transposition would be at an interval of the fourth instead of the augmented fourth required on the F crook. In this period crooks were still used on the valved horn, so this approach makes perfect sense [13].
In the Symphony No. 2 Brahms also requested the C, D, E, and G crooks. Valved horns were available with all of these crooks at the time. Horns constructed to take terminal crooks could typically be crooked as high as B-flat alto. Even fixed leadpipe models could take crooks in the period. This is notable in relation to the G crook as a horn of the general design illustrated below (this particular horn is a Geyer, but based on a design that dates to the 19th century) could be crooked as high as horn in G. As it stands in the photo this horn is in F; but with a straight tuning slide (the tuning slide on the horn has an extra turn) this horn would stand in G. We can’t be sure, but perhaps this had some influence on Brahms to not request crooks higher than G.
One of his next orchestral works was his Academische Festouverture [Academic Festival Overture], Op. 80, composed in 1880. In this work we can glean another significant insight from passage below.
Brahms, Academic Festival Overture, Op. 80
In this passage he requests certain notes to be performed Gestopft [stopped] at times in all four parts. These notes would have been performed stopped on the natural horn in this context but would have been performed open on the valved horn. This notation could be seen as an admission by Brahms that he realized his horn parts were in fact being performed on the valved horn; the notation makes it clear however that these specific locations were intentional stopped effects that must be performed stopped even if performed on the valved horn [14].
[Another article on this excerpt may be found here.]
This notation clearly harkens to statements of Hector Berlioz (1803-1869). In his Grand traité d’instrumentation et d’orchestration modernes (1843) he wrote,
Many composers show themselves opposed to this new instrument [the valved horn], because, since its introduction into orchestras, certain horn-players, using the pistons for playing ordinary [natural] horn parts, find it more convenient to produce by this mechanism, as open notes, notes intentionally written as closed notes by the author. This is, in fact, a dangerous abuse; but it is for orchestral conductors to prevent its increase; and, moreover, it should not be lost sight of that the horn with pistons, in the hands of a clever player, can give all the closed sounds of the ordinary horn, and yet more; since it can execute the whole scale without employing a single open note.[15]
This passage is especially relevant to his own Symphonie Fantastique (1832), movement IV, where in a note to the published score (1845) Berlioz requested at the beginning of the movement that the horns “produce the stopped tones with the hand without using the valves” (“faites les sons bouchés avec la main sans employer les cylindres“); this instruction is almost universally ignored today [16].
Berlioz, Symphonie Fantastique, mvt. IV
Like Berlioz, Brahms also clearly did not want his intentional stopped horn effects to be lost if performed on the valved horn. In fact, you can see notations of this same type in the first symphony of Brahms at the beginning of the second movement, so he was very aware of this issue right from the beginning of his symphonic writing.
As we arrive at the later orchestral works of Brahms we see that he continues to write in a way that his parts are at least theoretically playable on the natural horn. In these works Brahms pushes the limits of natural horn technique with the knowledge that the parts would in fact most likely be performed on the valved horn. Passages such as the following are playable on the natural horn, but most would agree that this would lay better on the valved horn.
Brahms, Symphony No. 3, Op. 90, mvt. III
The die was cast, he wrote the way he wrote (for the natural horn), and players played the way they played (on the valved horn).
One final thought. Is it really natural horn writing if nobody played it on natural horn at the time of composition? Brahms did certainly write only for the natural horn, but there is a case to be made that he knew at some point that players would play the parts on valved horns and at that point the writing does in a sense cease to be natural horn writing and becomes something of an exercise in notations and transposition.
But what an exercise!
NOTES:
12. This dating is based on the listing of this work in volume 10 of Friedrich Hofmeister, ed. Handbuch der Musikalischen Literatur (Leipzig: Hofmeister, 1893), 260, which covers the years 1886-91. All of the published works of Gumpert misspell his family name as “Gumbert” as is noted in Norman Schweikert, “Gumpert, not Gumbert!,” The Horn Call 1, no. 2 (May, 1971), 45-46. Also refer to this article in Horn Artcies Online.
13. See for example “A Letter From Anton Horner,” The Horn Call 23, no. 2 (April, 1986), 91-93, and also my article “Crooks and the 19th-Century Horn,” The Horn Call 30, no. 1 (November, 1999), 49-58.
14. Brahms thus clearly intended this passage to have somewhat distant sounding “natural horn” stopping which is less harsh and buzzy than the fully stopped sound that is typical in performances today.
15. Hector Berlioz, A Treatise On Modern Instrumentation and Orchestration, trans. Mary Cowden Clarke (London: Novello, n.d.), 141-142.
16. See Hector Berlioz, Fantastic Symphony (New York: W. W. Norton, 1971), ed. Edward T. Cone, 122, for this marking, not seen in all editions of the work (noted in Jeffrey Snedeker, “Joseph Meifred’s Méthode pour le Cor Chromatique ou a Pistons, and, Valved Horn Performance in Nineteenth-Century France” [D.M.A. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1991], 77-79). Today, this passage is probably most commonly performed muted, a notation actually present in some modern editions of the work.
In “Sometimes Up is Down” I spelled out some pitfalls in performing Italian operatic repertoire. For Horn in A:
The basic “A-horn” rule-of-thumb for the 3rd hornist is this:
- If your “up” transposition puts your sounding pitches above the 1st horn, you most likely need to invert the interval transposition to sound below the 1st horn.
- However, if your A-horn passage is a solo, it might be an “up” transposition.
This is not a hard-and-fast rule as there are some exceptions, most notably in Donizetti’s “Lucia di Lammermoor.” A prominent horn quartet passage (in Act II) can go either way depending on the conductor’s preference. I have performed it both ways.
This week I was reminded of Rossini’s Overture to Semiramide and its unique pitfalls. The opera itself, which takes place in ancient Babylon, is rarely performed these days due mainly to the male contralto lead role (a castrato part).
Its overture on the other hand is a regular staple in orchestra concerts. After an up-tempo introduction, the horns (and bassoons) are prominently featured in a hymn-like prayer. The horns at this point are keyed in D.
This passage is fairly straight-forward in terms of horn transposition. However, things become less clear later in the same overture. The transposition for Horn III is Horn in A and there is no indication of whether it is basso or alto.
For the intrepid horn player caught unprepared, this passage can be a good lesson. While the solo at m. 181 is performed in A-alto, the remainder is A-basso. While I have yet to find any documentation as to why it is this way, this is the time-honored tradition in 19th-century Italian operatic horn parts.
This is especially true in bel canto opera.
I have a pretty vivid memory of playing this part many years ago in youth orchestra and being utterly confused. I made the mistake of asking the conductor what to do (instead of my private horn teacher). The conductor insisted that everything was to be played in A-alto.
As a horn player with only a few years under my belt and a weak high-range, the experience was both humbling and humiliating.
In this series of Hornmasters posts I have presented and commented upon quotes from classic horn method books on topics in the order presented in the Farkas book. The next topic is that of warming up, a topic that every book addressed to some degree.
The element that I think readers sometimes miss in looking at these is that there are different but valid fundamental approaches to the warm-up, geared to players with different chops and different playing situations. So instead of quoting all the different books without context, first we will in this article look at the topic of different approaches to warming up.
At one point at ASU I ran the brass methods classes for music education students, and the text we used was the Scott Whitener A Complete Guide to Brass. Some topics are covered better than others, but I particularly liked this quote. Overall, on the warmup he does get the big picture.
There are two approaches to warming up. Some brass players favor a flexible warm-up, choosing material at random. Others (and the author falls into this group) base their daily warm-up on a series of exercises that have been designed to bring the player’s tone production up to peak form gradually. The flexible approach allows the player to vary the material according to the condition of the embouchure and the time available, but this can also be done in the second approach by having a large variety of daily exercises available. The common point between the two approaches is to avoid forcing the embouchure through set material when it is not up to it (due to heavy playing or a layoff).
Besides the two approaches mentioned by Whitener there are at least a couple more major elements to understand in relation to warm-up routines in books.
The first element is a lot of the printed warm-up routines are probably, truth be known, idealized. Some of them are totally honest I am sure, but honestly I begin to doubt that many of the published routines were closely or regularly followed by the people who wrote them. They contain useful exercises to be sure, but are not to my mind practical daily routines as laid out.
The other element that I would highlight is that most of the players who wrote horn method books were orchestral players. This impacts how they approach warming-up in general.
Orchestral horn (and brass) players fall clearly into two categories; those that warm-up at hall and those that warm-up at home. I prefer to warm-up at the hall right before the service. Ideally I start playing a half hour before the service and do a twenty minute warm-up routine. If it was a two service day I would do that same routine twice. I did this all the years I was full time in Nashville, and to this day it makes me nuts to warm-up much less than that before an orchestral service. Those that prefer to warm-up at home first would clearly require a different type of warm-up routine than what I would use.
My full time job now though is as horn professor at Arizona State. It took me a few years to figure this out, but when I have a teaching day I really feel best when I do a longer first warm-up. Thus, on an ideal morning I do more playing than I would ever do right before an actual rehearsal or concert but, again, for a teaching day the longer warmup sets up the day of playing off and on better.
Then there is the topic of when does warm-up end and practice begin? You really should be pretty warmed-up in roughly ten minutes. After that the playing becomes practice when you get down to it.
Another topic to mention in understanding warm-up routines in general is that of the warm-up should be a part of how you avoid chop problems. A good warm-up in whatever form suits you is really important, don’t be fooled by what you see others do, you may need to do something different than them. A couple years ago I posted an article on this general topic featuring a quote from Gunther Schuller. A longer version of the quote may be found there, but the main point to get readers thinking in relation to how they see others warm up is
Wherever I have travelled there always seem to be a few players who feel–or at least claim to feel–that warming up is not necessary for them. Some of these are indeed excellent players, gifted with natural physical talent for the horn, to whom the warming up that a less natural player requires is an anathema. Around such players a kind of myth arises that the warm-up is a waste of time, and only for weak players–that it is a “sissy” approach to the horn. This gets so insidious at times that others, very impressed by the talent of these “natural” players, feel inferior if they warm up, and consequently become ashamed of their cautious attitude–very often with disastrous results in their playing….
What about buzzing?A final topic to address in this more general overview of the warm-up is buzzing. I think more people talk about buzzing than actually buzz at the beginning of their warm-up. To be honest I might buzz a little in the car driving in (especially if I was running late to be somewhere) but that is it. For a longer warm-up though I will work in some buzzing maybe 25% of days, but even then only for a few minutes. Speaking generally I am in favor of buzzing (see here for example), don’t get me wrong, but it is really possible to work yourself into chop problems with buzzing that is too extensive. Use common sense on it.
With that introduction, when we return to this series it will be for a closer look at some of the warm-up ideas put out in classic horn method books.
When my new embouchure training device arrived in the mail, I eyed it rather suspiciously. My approach towards using the Personal Embouchure Training Exerciser (P.E.T.E.) was cautious to say the least. I knew that it could hurt and well as help.
By now I think most of us have heard rumors and bad stories about the infamous “heavy routine” of Joseph Singer, and in this vein I treat the P.E.T.E. similarly – as if I am putting a stick of dynamite between my lips.
I have heard a few bad stories already about this particular device.
Whenever people get hurt trying something new (like this device), it is usually due to user error and is not the fault of the device itself. In my mind, this clearly illustrates that the P.E.T.E. is not something to take lightly.
Used recklessly, it is a good way to ruin your chops.
The P.E.T.E. has two usable ends for embouchure training – one end to squeeze on and another to pull the lips outward.
The first was hurdle for myself was to avoid squeezing or pulling to excess. The mindset that working harder is better is something to stay away from in this case.
The included directions are somewhat vague – which might be a good thing. It takes some experimenting to get the hang of it without going overboard. Fortunately with its ergonomic design and weight (I ordered the silver model) it is fairly easy to grip and use.
The P.E.T.E. workout is a bit deceptive in that its work load and benefits may not be immediately felt. The temptation to go overboard is a constant danger. The trick for myself was to use the device exclusively in a separate routine – a separate session with plenty of rest before and after.
The most important discovery came from using set training techniques. Short, squeezing repetitions organized into small sets seem to work the best; with only occasional sets of hard squeezes held to the point of utter exhaustion (as suggested by the directions).
I would caution too towards using the device to the point of burning sensations, as the directions imply. For myself any burning sensations whatsoever are an indication that I have gone too far and it is time to stop.
These caveats aside, I give the P.E.T.E. a hearty endorsement. It is something that can be done away from the horn and for myself, a person who works a regular office job, it has truly helped to build and maintain chop strength.
One thing that should come through in Horn Matters is that an interest of mine is the history of how the horn has been taught. I find old method books to be especially interesting, and one of the best but almost completely unknown today is the method of Joseph Meifred.
For me what is especially interesting is he started really from scratch at how to teach valved horn. It was a brand new instrument, and elements of his exact method are really out of step with modern technique, as it involved a combination of open and half stopped notes on a two valve horn. But if you get past that element actually quite a few of the materials in his method are great but really rarely used.
Reflecting on that, in 2011 I worked many Meifred exercises into my publication Ultimate Horn Technique, and later updated those materials to use in two new (2019) publications seen here, available print and Kindle versions through Horn Notes Edition; search for them on Amazon. I believe these are the only etudes and materials by Meifred that are in print today!
For those of us looking at it as modern horn players, Meifred had a rather different approach to the valved horn, a topic laid out more fully in the article below.
The remainder of this article is based on my dissertation, which is an expansion of materials published in the Horn Call Annual 4 (1992). A version was posted for many years on Horn Articles Online. I’ve added headings for improved readability.
Joseph Meifred (1791-1867) was an active teacher, a student of horn design, and a pioneer performer on the valved horn. A Cor basse, Meifred studied the natural horn with Dauprat at the Paris Conservatory, where he was awarded the First Prize for horn in 1818. In 1833 the Paris Conservatory instituted a valved horn class with Meifred as professor; he held this position until his retirement in 1864 [Coar, 156-57].
Meifred’s Méthode pour le Cor Chromatique, ou à Pistons, published in 1840, was the first method for the valved horn written by a major performer. In the introduction Meifred put forward five major objectives of his approach to performing on the valved horn.
First. to give to the horn the sounds it is lacking;
Second. to re-establish proper intonation to some;Third. to render notes that are muted sonorous, all the while preserving those which are lightly stopped, for which the timbre is very agreeable.
Fourth. to give the leading tone, in whatever the key or mode, the countenance that it has in the natural range.
Fifth. to not to deprive composers of crook changes, each of which has a special color [trans in Snedeker, diss, 148].
For artistic reasons, Meifred especially wanted to maintain the use of some right-hand technique in his valved horn playing in order to perform what he referred to as the “Notes sensibles” [sensitive tones], particularly those a half step lower than the tonic or the fifth of a key. To quote from the Méthode, “I have advanced . . . that to want to prohibit all the stopped notes of the horn, replacing them with open sounds, would be to inflict harm on the countenance of the instrument and to make it to lose its special character that gives it an indefinable charm.” Meifred held firm to the same underlying aesthetic of the natural horn that was held by his teacher Dauprat; that the lightly stopped tones were very expressive and what made the sound of the horn so unique and beautiful.
Meifred gave the following example to show how his valved horn technique differed from natural horn technique. In addition to the markings for the superior (whole step) and inferior (half step) valves (the Méthode was for the two-valved horn), notes to be taken lightly stopped and fully stopped are noted.
Cor ordinaire, showing how to perform a passage on the natural horn
Cor à Pistons, showing the new method that would be used combining the right hand and the valves
Example 1. Meifred, Méthode, p. 32.
Heavily stopped notes, such as written f’ and d’, were thus avoided, while all leading tones were taken lightly stopped.
Meifred used the valves in part simply as crooking devices [Snedeker, correspondence, 17]. In the first concert ever given by the Société des Concerts du Conservatoire on March 9, 1828, Meifred performed a valved horn solo that formally introduced the new instrument to the French public [Morley-Pegge, 108]. The review of this solo appearance gives a clear picture of how he applied this technique to the horn.
A solo for the valve horn, performed by Mr. Meifred, to whom is owed its improvements, gave an advanced idea of all the resources one can find on this instrument. Difficult passages, unperformable on the ordinary [natural] horn, and multiple modulations were played by Mr. Meifred with a facility that demonstrated even to less-informed listeners the advantages of the new process [Fetis, trans. in Snedeker, diss, 26-27].
The most significant point is that the work contained multiple modulations. Meifred was especially concerned with preserving the proper relationships of open and half-stopped sounds in new tonal areas. The valves were used as crooking devices only in the sense that a short-term modulation was found in the music to a key area that had many notes available using one fingering, the “effective” key being those produced by a crook and the “false” keys being those produced by the valves [Meifred, 28, 47, 70]. No reference was made in the Méthode to using the valves to crook the instrument into new keys for long-term use as a hand-horn; clearly Meifred did not see the valved horn as a type of omnitonic horn.
In the preface to the section on transposition, Meifred stated in regard to orchestral playing that “It will always be better, in the interest of execution, to use the crook indicated by the Composer . . . .” It is in this context that transposition is explained by Meifred. A chart in the Méthode shows how to transpose every key to the F crook by clef.
It is important that Meifred, a major performer and teacher, used the technique of transposition. That he was, however, anxious to maintain the use of the full range of crooks was clearly shown in the Méthode. He stated that the first valved horns that were made in Germany were constructed in F and could not change keys, a design which he modified to allow the instrument to be crooked in several keys; the most significant modification was the addition of tuning slides on the valves which could be adjusted for those keys. A valved horn of this design would be ideal to perform the following example which Meifred gave from the Marche Funèbre of Dauprat’s Quatuors, Op. 8. Meifred maintained the use of the originally requested crooks and gave fingerings for valved horns pitched in G, F, and D. Especially notable are the varied fingerings, which treated some pitches as either open or covered tones, depending on the harmonic context.
Example 2. Meifred, Méthode, p. 84 (Dauprat, Marche Funèbre, Op. 8, mm. 1-14).
Meifred worked diligently to promote and develop the valved horn and its technique in France (with only limited success; after Meifred retired from the Conservatory the valved horn was not taught there again until 1896 and was not officially recognized by the Conservatory until 1903 [Morley-Pegge et. al., vol. 2, 245]). Through his technical approach, Meifred was able to maintain much of the tonal character of the natural horn on the valved horn. Timbre variations were considered an inherent part of the sound of the horn.
SOURCES
Birchard Coar, A Critical Study of the Nineteenth Century Horn Virtuosi in France (DeKalb, IL: Birchard Coar, 1952).
F. J. Fétis, “Régénération de l’École Royale de Musique. Société des Concerts,” Revue Musicale 3 (1828), 148, trans. in Snedeker, diss., 26-27.
Joseph Meifred, Méthode pour le Cor Chromatique, ou à Pistons (Paris: S. Richault, 1840).
R. Morley-Pegge, The French Horn, 2nd ed. (London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1973).
Morley-Pegge et al., “Horn,” New Grove Instruments, vol. 2, 245.
Jeffrey L. Snedeker, “Joseph Meifred’s Methode pour le Cor Chromatique, ou à Pistons, and, Early Valved Horn Performance in Nineteenth-Century France” (D.M.A. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1991).
________, “Correspondence,” The Horn Call Annual 5 (1993), 17.
I will return on January 3, 2011. Safe travels and
best wishes for a prosperous New Year!