By Esmail Khalili (email@example.com)
B.A. - University of Texas at Austin, 2003
M.M. - Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2009
What follows is an adapted online version of a paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Music degree in Instrumental Conducting.
- 1 Abstract
- 2 INTRODUCTION
- 3 PART I – THE BRITISH MILITARY BAND TRADITION UP TO 1909
- 4 PART II – HOLST’S 1909 MANUSCRIPT: A DETAILED ANALYSIS
- 5 PART III – THE AMERICAN BAND TRADITION UP TO 1948
- 6 PART IV – THE 1948 “AMERICAN” MODERN EDITION
- 7 PART V – COLIN MATTHEWS AND THE 1984 REVISED EDITION
- 7.1 Subsection A: Colin Matthews’ Treatment of the Baritone and Bass Saxophones in the 1984 Revised Edition
- 7.2 Subsection B: Colin Matthews’ Treatment of the B-flat Baritone in the 1984 Edition vs. the 1948 Edition
- 7.3 Subsection C: Colin Matthews’ Treatment of the Cornet in the 1984 Revised Edition vs. the Original Manuscript and 1948 Edition
- 7.4 Subsection D: A Comparison of the Trumpet parts throughout the suite: Colin Matthews’ Revised Edition vs. the Original Manuscript and the 1948 Edition
- 7.5 Subsection E: Colin Matthews’ Treatment of the French Horn in the 1984 Revised Edition vs. the Original Manuscript and 1948 Edition
- 8 APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL IRREGULARITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS
- 9 APPENDIX B - THE BARITONE: MUSIC EXAMPLES AND FIGURES
- 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
The purpose of this study is to examine the manuscript of the First Suite in E-flat by Gustav Holst and compare it to the two subsequent modern editions of the work. These were published in 1948 and 1984 respectively, both by Boosey & Hawkes of London. In particular, the differences in instrumentation and scoring between the three scores will be discussed at length. The construction of the 1948 edition was primarily due to the rising popularity of school bands in the United States and their desire to perform the suite. However, American bands included an instrumentation that exceeded the forces called for by Holst in the original manuscript. As a result, the 1948 edition includes several new parts. By this time the manuscript was lost, so the only point of reference was the 1921 published edition, which in addition to individual parts only included a reduced piano score. The British Military’s decision to remove the B-flat Baritone from the ranks of the standard British military band meant that the many solos scored for it in the original needed to be substituted by other instruments. This resulted in a wide array of alterations made to the 1948 score.
In 1974, the original manuscript was found, and Colin Matthews set about to reproduce a revised edition of the suite based on the manuscript. To this end, he eliminated some of the instruments added in the 1948 score, while retaining others.
The author of this paper has utilized all three scores discussed above, in addition to various historical texts dealing with British military bands. He has also communicated with retired British military personnel, Boosey & Hawkes representatives and Besson representatives in order to gain insight into the treatment of the three scores. An effort to communicate with Colin Matthews himself was initiated, but at this time, there has been no response. In the event that a response is returned, emendations or additions to this paper will be made.
The First Suite in E-flat of Gustav Holst is considered one of the cornerstone masterworks in the band repertoire, and thus one of the most influential pieces of music written in the 20th century. It has been performed tens of thousands of times since it was officially premiered in 1920, and along with Holst’s second suite for band, premiered two years later, was the catalyzing force that convinced many other composers that serious music could be written specifically for winds, brass and percussion. Works such as the English Folk Song Suite (1923) of Ralph Vaughan Williams and the William Byrd Suite (1923) of Gordon Jacob are leading examples of the influence that Holst’s suites exerted. However, the work that was to influence the future of wind music was written for an ensemble half the size of what we have come to expect from the modern concert band.
Even though its premiere featured a band consisting of 165 musicians at the Royal Military School of Music’s Kneller Hall, the ensemble through which Holst conceived the First Suite was decidedly smaller. An examination of the history of British military bands reveals that most employed anywhere between 20 to 30 professionally trained musicians. There were some that had more, and some that had less; bands occasionally joined forces for large-scale exhibitions, and sometimes added strings for performances of orchestral works.
The reason why the First Suite did not receive its official premiere until eleven years after its completion is not known. It is also not known why Holst composed the work, as there are no records of any commission for the suite. However, Imogen Holst, daughter of the composer, does suggest that the work may have been performed prior to its Kneller Hall premiere:
“I have not been able to find the date of the first performance… there are manuscript (non-autograph) parts with the name ‘Gustav von Holst’ on the title page, proving that it was in the repertoire before September 1918. There may have been a performance in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the summer of 1917… The work was probably written for some special occasion, and this may have been the Festival at the people’s Palace, Mile End, London in May, 1909.”
It is therefore possible that the First Suite was in fact performed prior to the widely accepted Kneller Hall premiere.
What we do know is that the First Suite in E-flat was Holst’s first composition written for military band. Frederick Fennell, in Time and the Winds, observes that Holst’s scoring for the work is so well conceived and organized for the band medium, that he must have had some previous experiences with groups of this kind. Indeed, Holst was himself a formidable trombonist, having already performed several seasons with the Scottish Orchestra prior to the composition of the suite. In addition, while still in college, he performed during the summers with various seaside bands, and was admittedly unsatisfied with the music that those ensembles performed. These experiences likely contributed to the composition of the suite.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolution of the First Suite in E-flat, Op. 28a, from its completion in 1909 to the present day, comparing the original manuscript to the two subsequent “modern” editions, published in 1948 and 1984 respectively. Along the way, the three scores will be put into historical context by looking at the contemporary considerations that influenced each one. A brief survey of the British and American band traditions at the time of each publication will provide a backdrop for understanding the orchestration choices Holst made in the original and those made in the later editions.
Note: The analysis and comparison of the three scores discussed in this paper can at times be complicated. Every attempt has been made to make the analysis as clear as possible, and numerous musical examples and score excerpts are provided to aid in this pursuit. However, in order to understand the discussion fully, it is suggested that the reader have access to a copy of the manuscript as well as the 1948 and 1984 scores. Copies of the manuscript may be obtained by contacting the British Library in London. The shelf listing for the manuscript is as follows:
Add. MS 47824. GUSTAV HOLST COLLECTION. Vol. XXI (ff. 37). First Suite in E flat
for military band, op. 28, no. 1, consisting of Chaconne, Intermezzo and March. [1909.] Full score. Autograph. With various notes on f.1 relating to ad lib. parts, etc. Published by Boosey & Co., 1921, in Boosey's Military
Journal, 142nd Series, No. 2. [I. Holst, no. 105.]
Appendix A contains characteristics, omissions and misprints within the three scores not discussed in the main body of the paper.
Appendix B contains full score excerpts dedicated specifically to the original Bb baritone part in manuscript its treatment in the 1948 and 1984 editions.
PART I – THE BRITISH MILITARY BAND TRADITION UP TO 1909
The history of British military bands is well documented, and although the purpose of this paper is not to study this history, it is important in understanding why the First Suite was written the way it was, and why it proved to be a work of monumental importance to the future of the band medium. The information presented here comes from two primary sources: The History of British Military Bands by Gordon and Alwyn Turner, published in 1994, and Treatise on the Military Band, by Lt. Col. H. E. Adkins, first published in 1931. The latter text is still used to this day as a textbook at the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall.
The first organized musical ensembles that performed on the field of battle originated in Turkey. These ensembles consisted of zarnas: oboe like instruments with a reed encased inside a cup shaped mouthpiece, fifes, and an assortment of drums. King Frederick the II of Prussia was presented with such a band as a gift of good will, and over time, the original Turkish instruments were gradually replaced by hautbois, bassoons, horns and trumpets.
In England, the first government sponsored directive establishing music on the battlefield occurred with the battle of Marston Moor of 1644. Following this monumental battle, from which sprouted England’s first centrally governed standing army, it was determined under the provisions of the New Model Army that each troop of cavalry was to employ a single trumpeter while each company of dragoons and infantry was to have one or two drummers.
Later, during the Seven Years War in the 1760s, the British Royal Artillery, while fighting alongside their Germany allies, came in contact with one of the Prussian military bands that had evolved from the original Turkish band discussed above. It was this encounter that lead the officers of the British regiment to form their own similarly constituted military band. It incorporated trumpets, horns, bassoons, clarinets and hautbois, in addition to drums.
Soon other regiments formed their own military bands, and this pursuit quickly became a matter of pride to each unit. The musicians were almost all hired foreigners from mainland Europe, and the drummers in particular were almost always men of African descent. The English War Office, seeking to exert some regulation over the growing number of bands, stipulated that all expenses relating to the upkeep and maintenance of the bands be paid for in full by the officers of each regiment. Rivalries between bands emerged, and they each developed their own traditions and music. By the middle of the 19th century, it was becoming increasingly clear that military bands served many useful purposes, from raising the morale of troops and enhancing recruitment to creating a unique sense of pride within each regiment.
By the mid 1850s, most regiments employed their own bands, still stocked primarily with foreign civilians and bandleaders from the continent. However, it soon became apparent that there had to be some form of standardization among the now hundreds of military bands scattered across the land. In 1854, a ceremony in honor of Queen Victoria brought several thousand British troops and their accompanying bands together in Varna, on the banks of Black Sea, preceding the start of the Crimean War. At one point, the massed ensembles were called to perform God Save the Queen. Unfortunately, the bands had prepared completely different arrangements of the work, scored in different keys. The resulting cacophony, in addition to defiling the anthem, convinced the attending authorities that something must be done.
Within two years, primarily through the efforts of H.R.H., the Duke of Cambridge, the Royal Military School of Music was founded at Kneller Hall, Twickenham, with funding for the school provided by the regiments themselves. From this point on, English soldiers would receive a standardized military music education.
The result of this training was that over time, the foreign musicians and bandleaders that had dominated the ranks of military bands began to subside, and even though the individual bands still retained their traditions and regimental allegiances, the regulation that the military school of music provided created a more cohesive musical establishment. It should be noted that many bands resisted this regulation, seeing it as a threat to their autonomy. For decades, regiments had the authority to employ whomever they wished and had almost total control over the operations of their bands. It was for this reason that there was never any standardized instrumentation among British military bands. Even after the founding of the Military School of Music, the instrumentation of each band was still determined by the bandleaders themselves.
By 1909, the British military band tradition was at its peak. In fact, the term “military band” was now being applied to any ensemble that incorporated winds, brass and percussion. This included civilian bands organized by local police and fire brigades, and even industrial firms. Unfortunately, in spite of the gains made through the Royal School of Music, no serious music had yet been composed specifically for the band medium, and there was still no standardized instrumentation. The lack of a set instrumentation was a major obstacle for composers, in addition to the pervasive belief that an ensemble of assorted wind instruments lacked the tonal cohesiveness to produced significant music. The First Suite in E-flat would shatter these obstacles.
PART II – HOLST’S 1909 MANUSCRIPT: A DETAILED ANALYSIS
The title page of the manuscript to the First Suite in E-flat reads:
Suite in Eb
for Military Band
Gustav von Holst
From this, two things are evident. First, Holst had not yet decided that there was to be a second suite when he began the score, and second, this writing occurred before he had his name officially changed to Gustav Theodore Holst. “Suite in Eb” has been scribbled over with what appears to be pencil or light ink and written above it with the same implement is “First Suite in Eb for Military Band by Gustav Holst.” “First Suite in Eb” is also written immediately next to the the original “for Military Band.” In addition, the “von” has also been scratched out, but is still legible. Beneath the emended title, the three movements are listed: Chaconne, Intermezzo, and March. The numbers 1, 2, and 3 have been added next to the movement names with the same light colored ink used to modify the title and composer’s name.
The bottom half of the page contains the following performance instructions: “As each movement is founded on the same phrase it is requested that the Suite shall be played right through without a break.” These instructions are also found in the original condensed piano score, published by Boosey & Hawkes in 1921.
Additional notes in Holst’s pen appear below the performance request. They state:
“It is requested that in the absence of a string bass the ad lib part for that instrument in the Intermezzo shall not be played on any brass instrument but omitted excepting where the notes are cued in other parts. Also in the absence of Timpani the ad lib part for the latter is to be omitted entirely.”
Following the previous note is another that has been scratched out. It states:
“The introduction of extra flutes, piccolos and side drums at the end of the march is only advised when there are sufficient brass instruments to make the countermelody that they play stand out.”
The significance of the above instruction and the reason why it is scratched is discussed on pages 14 and 15.
On the bottom left corner of the title page, written in lighter ink, it states “Copyright 1921 By B&h.” In the bottom center of the page is an identification code, obviously added later, that reads “H-10255.” Finally, on the bottom right corner, Holst gives the address “10 The Terrace, Barnes.” The significance of this address is that is confirms that Holst did not compose the suite later than 1913, when he moved to 10 Luxemburg Gardens.
The first movement is scored for 31 instruments, listed below, plus timpani, bass drum, side drum and cymbals. It should be noted that this section only deals with details of the manuscript, and does not address differences between the manuscript and the two modern editions. For instance, the B-flat baritone, which has several solos throughout the manuscript, does not appear in either the 1948 or 1984 editions. These differences will be highlighted when those scores are addressed. What follows is strictly an analysis based on the manuscript itself.
Flute and Piccolo in Db, 2 Clarinets in Eb (2nd ad lib), 2 Oboes (ad lib), Solo Clarinet in Bb, 1st Clarinets in Bb ripieno, 2nd Clarinets in Bb, 3rd Clarinets in Bb, Alto Saxophone in Eb (ad lib), Tenor Saxophone in Bb (ad lib), Bass Clarinet in Bb (ad lib), 2 Bassoons (2nd ad lib)
1st Cornets in Bb, 2nd Cornets in Bb, 2 Trumpets in Eb (ad lib), 2 Trumpets in Bb (ad lib), 2 Horns in F, 2 Horns in Eb (ad lib), Baritone in Bb (ad lib), 2 Tenor Trombones (2nd ad lib), Bass Trombone, Euphonium, Bombardons, String Bass (ad lib)
Timpani (ad lib), Bass Drum, Cymbals, Side Drum, Triangle, Tambourine
It is interesting to note that Holst writes most instrument names in the plural case, indicating that he intended, or at least anticipated, for there to be more than one instrument per part. This is evident in all the clarinet and cornet parts, excepting the solo clarinet, which is labeled in singular case. The saxophones are also listed in the singular. This is significant because it conforms to the standard British practice of the day in employing only one alto and one tenor saxophone per band, and lends additional credibility to the idea that Holst expected for there to be more than one performer on the parts marked in the plural case. “Bombardons,” listed directly under the euphonium, was the term used at the time for tuba.
Perhaps the most important feature in the instrumentation of the suite is its built in elasticity. In all, there are seventeen instruments labeled ad-lib, meaning they are unnecessary for performance. British military bands in 1909 were typically much smaller than today’s American bands, and the lack of a standardized instrumentation from one unit to the next was a major obstacle for any composer wishing to write original band music. However, the genius of Holst’s orchestration allowed for the suite to be accessible to almost any military band; every solo given to an instrument labeled ad-lib is either doubled by another instrument or is cued into an instrument whose timbre is similar to that which it is originally scored.
Crawling across the bottom of the manuscript is a two stave piano reduction that persists for the duration of the work. This is important because it will be useful in deciphering discrepancies that will appear in the actual part writing later.
It doesn’t take long to see what appears to be Holst’s first editorial decision. The first eight bars of the tenor saxophone, bass clarinet, bassoon and Bb baritone parts have been taped or glued over with clean strips of staff paper. If one examines the manuscript closely, they can make out where Holst had previously written “legato” over both the tenor saxophone and baritone lines. (The other instruments are completely covered, so no words can be seen above their staves.) What this indicates is that Holst had originally written the opening statement of the Chaconne theme for all these instruments, in addition to the euphonium, bombardons and string bass. After some consideration, he must have felt that the texture was too thick, and subsequently removed the extra instruments. This point will be brought back when we examine the 1948 edition.
On page three, it is more difficult to spot, but there is another emendation. The Bb trumpets, Horns in F and Eb, and the Bb Baritone have all been taped over between measures 23 and 30. There is no indication what he originally wrote for these parts, but it shows that Holst again changed his mind, probably again believing the original texture to be too thick.
Using clean staff paper to cover up unwanted parts was not the only way in which Holst made corrections. If one looks closely at measure 16 in the oboe and 1st clarinet parts, the use of white ink to erase individual notes is evident. In this case, Holst decided that the 1st clarinet would double the solo clarinet line. There are numerous examples of this type of small scale editing throughout the manuscript. However, Holst was not above scratching out parts. From measures 26 to 32, he scribbles over the string bass part, and then writes “col Bomb” right above it at letter A, indicating that the player is to double what the bombardon (tuba) plays.
Holst also utilizes short hand frequently in the manuscript. At letter B, the woodwinds perform sixteenth note runs in unison over the fragmented chaconne theme in the brass. The last five measures of the florid passage, 44 to 48, are written out minus the slurs that Holst writes in the previous three measures.
If there was any doubt that Holst intended for these notes to be slurred, the piano reduction at the bottom of the page provides the answer, as the slurs continue all the way to measure 49 at the conclusion of the passage.
At measure 49, the low brass and bassoons perform an eighth note accompaniment to the primary theme, played by the cornets and trumpets. However, the bass clarinet and tenor saxophone parts been taped over, with the bass clarinet now playing in unison with the low brass and bassoons. Holst may have originally scored the accompaniment for tenor saxophone and then decided to have the bass clarinet play the part. (See Appendix A for further discussion of this passage)
Letter C begins the chamber music portion of the movement. Here the texture thins out to solo voices. Solo French horn and 3rd clarinet perform the theme, while the solo, 1st and 2nd clarinets add accompaniment and harmony. At the pickup to measure 65 we see the first major examples of Holst’s cueing. The alto saxophone here inherits the melody from the horn while a duet between solo flute and solo oboe commences. In measure 66, the Eb clarinet enters with its own separate counter melody. Holst, realizing that not all military bands employed the same number or type of instruments, provides cues for every one of the solo voices between measures 64 and 72.
Charted below is each of the original solo instruments followed by the instruments for which Holst provides cues.
A. Solo Flute (m. 64)
B. Solo Oboe (m. 64)
C. Solo Alto Saxophone (m. 64)
D. Solo Eb Clarinet (m. 66)
A. Solo Clarinet (m. 64)
B. 2nd Clarinet (m. 64)
C. 3rd Clarinet (m. 64)
D. 1st Clarinet (m. 66)
Essentially, Holst has made it possible for a clarinet quartet to perform these measures. The question arises however, as to why Holst wrote cues for the flute and Eb clarinet solos. Only the alto saxophone and oboe are marked as ad lib instruments in the score. Flute is not ad lib, and only the 2nd Eb clarinet is designated as such. Given the fact that Holst uses short hand notation often and is not above scribbling out notes when he changes his mind, it seems unusual that he would write cues for parts that he expects to be covered. It may be argued that Holst leaves the decision to the bandleader to determine how he wants this variation of the Chaconne theme to be performed. George Dyson, in his article, The Composer and the Military Band, makes the argument for the clarinet family to be the foundation of the wind band, stating that of all the wind instrument families, it is the most like the strings. He states:
“Clarinets exist that will give a complete four-part family. They have all been blessed by the orchestra and their tone, technique and notation are practically identical. They have an extended compass, a pianissimo comparable only to that of the strings, a good legato, a wide range of expression, great technical facility, and they are comparatively easy to play.”
With the exception of the aforementioned chamber section and measures 140 and 141 of the Intermezzo, every note Holst scores for flute or piccolo in the suite is doubled by another instrument. Almost always, the instrument that provides the doubling comes from the clarinet family. In light of these observations, the use of a clarinet quartet, as designated by Holst’s own cues, seems like a legitimate alternative to the primary scoring. Without having access to the original handwritten parts, knowing the true intention of the cues in the score cannot be fully determined. The piano reduction at the bottom of the score does not give any indication.
Between letters C and D, Holst seems to have been satisfied the first time with what he wrote. There are no taped over parts, and there doesn’t seem to be any indication that he inked over any previously written notes. However, there is one more interesting cue that Holst takes the time to write. At the end of the Eb clarinet cue written into the 1st clarinet part, is a clearly labeled cue for the solo horn in measure 70. It can also be seen in Figure 5. This cue is only three measures long because the 1st clarinet actually doubles the same horn line just a few bars later with the pickup to measure 73. The purpose of this short cue is unclear. Given the fact that the 1st clarinets are intended to double the line three measures later, this could be an indication that doubling the horn from measure 70 is optional. It seems unlikely, given the context, that the 1st clarinet could be considered a substitute for the horn altogether however.
From letter D to letter F, the manuscript is fairly straightforward. Holst seems to have become more secure with his intentions, as there are very few scribbles, scratches or inked over notes.
The Maestoso, beginning at letter F, presents some ambiguity. At this crucial section of the movement, the high woodwinds are split into two parts that are doubled by 1st and 2nd cornet and both sets of trumpets. However, Holst notates the woodwinds differently than he does the brass. The woodwind parts all contain slurs, while the brass parts are almost all articulated. The chart below shows how these parts correspond with each other melodically, sans slur markings. Some of the parts, i.e. oboe and 2nd cornet, are not exactly the same, but are very similar.
A. Flute, Piccolo, Eb Clarinet
B. Solo and 1st Clarinet
D. 2nd Clarinet, Alto Sax
E. 3rd Clarinet, Tenor Sax
F. Bass Clarinet, Bassoon
A. 1st Cornet
C. 2nd Cornet
D. Eb and Bb Trumpet
E. F Horn, Bb Baritone
F. Trombone, Euphonium, Tuba
Some of the brass parts are hybrid. For example, the Eb horns in the manuscript combine the low brass line with the 2nd cornet line. In addition, the F horns and baritone are a combination of the low brass and Eb/Bb trumpet lines.
The excerpt below begins four measures before Letter F. It can clearly be seen that with the exception of ties over barlines, the only place where the brass and woodwinds share the same slur markings occurs in the 1st cornet at measure 114, and the slurs connecting measures 114 and 115 in the Eb trumpet and Eb horn.
It should be noted that the piano reduction at the bottom of the page matches the slur markings indicated in the woodwinds. One may conclude that Holst therefore intended for all the corresponding brass parts to be played in the same way, and Holst’s tendency to write in short hand supports this. However, there are published examples of music where doubled melodic lines performed by both brass and woodwinds are intentionally articulated differently. At circle 25 of Howard Hanson’s Chorale and Alleluia, the woodwinds play the melodic material slurred, while the brass are clearly marked articulating the same material.
It may well be that Holst intended for the cornets and trumpets to follow the same articulations as their woodwind counterparts, and that he was either lazy or not concerned with notating them in the hand written score, but it could be argued that he did intend for the parts to be played as they appear in the manuscript. For example, Holst did make the effort write in all the ties over barlines where the same note was repeated from beat three to beat one, so he did not completely neglect these parts. Further analysis of the Maestoso at Letter F with the 1948 edition will add to this discussion.
The remainder of the Chaconne, from the rit. al fine to the end is straightforward with no idiosyncrasies or ambiguities. There are only a few inked over notes that have been rewritten, but no major changes or alterations exist.
Page thirteen of the manuscript marks the beginning of the Intermezzo. The movement opens pianissimo with an eighth note ostinato pattern played by 1st and 2nd E-flat clarinets. However, Holst provides cues for both parts. The 1st E-flat clarinet is cued into the flute while the 2nd E-flat clarinet is cued into the 1st clarinet. Recall that the 2nd E-flat clarinet is an ad lib instrument, so 1st clarinet makes sense as a substitute in its absence. However, the 1st E-flat clarinet is not ad lib. Similar to the Chaconne, where the solo clarinet contains cues for the solo flute, the question arises as to why Holst writes the cue for the 1st E-flat clarinet for the flute. Are the flute and 1st clarinet merely substitutes in the absence of both E-flat clarinets, or are may they be considered alternate parts, to be used at the discretion of the conductor? Holst does not waste space or ink in the manuscript, so there must be some significance to these cues, especially in the case of the flute. It is common for cues to be written into parts where a player rests for an extended period of time, so that they may be aware of what is happening in the measures prior to their entrance. However, there are several other instruments here that rest between twenty-four and twenty-six measures before entering, and none has added cues. In addition, there are two more instances where the flute is given the cues for the 1st E-flat clarinet in this movement.
A clue that may support the view that the flute and 1st clarinet are actually alternate parts comes from yet another work by another composer, written many years later. In Percy Grainger’s Lincolnshire Posy (1937), he composes two alternate beginnings to the third movement, Rufford Park Poachers, covering the first 50 bars. Version A begins with a woodwind quartet, performed by solo piccolo, solo E-flat clarinet, solo B-flat clarinet, and solo bass clarinet. Version A also features an extended solo for flügelhorn. However, Version B utilizes a different quartet at the opening. It is scored solo piccolo, solo oboe, solo bassoon, and solo alto clarinet. In addition, the extended solo following the introductory quartet is played here by soprano saxophone.
Grainger himself writes:
“Bandleaders will note that the main solo in “Rufford Park Poachers” may be played either on a flügelhorn or cornet (Version A) or on a soprano saxophone (Version B). The soprano saxophone is to be preferred – that is, if its player has assurance enough to throb forth this melody with searching, piercing prominence…”
Unfortunately, at this time there is no indication, certainly not in the manuscript, that Holst ever articulated whether or not he intended for his cued parts to serve as alternates, but we can clearly see that alternate parts are not without a precedent, even if we have to look to the future to find it. That being said, it is important to acknowledge what Holst wrote, even if it is deemed as nothing more than an inconsequential formality.
However, what is clear is that Holst does make several obvious revisions in the Intermezzo. Between measure 18 and measure 25 at Letter A, seen in Figure 8 below, Holst thins the original texture substantially. He does this in two ways, neither of which is new. First, he uses two pieces of clean staff paper to cover the original part writing. The first piece covers all the staves from the tenor saxophone all the way down to the 2nd cornet. This includes the bass clarinet, bassoon and both the solo and 1st cornet. The second piece covers the B-flat trumpets, both sets of horns and B-flat baritone. In addition, the alto saxophone and string bass parts have been inked out. The fact that the alto saxophone and string bass lines have been edited separately indicates that Holst must have made the revisions to those parts either before or after the others.
It is difficult to discern on this copy, but it can be seen that the alto saxophone and string bass parts have been inked out, and that there are two sheets of staff paper covering the parts discussed in the paper. The added barlines help to show where the two sheets begin and end.
What exactly does Holst change? A look at page 15 of the manuscript informs us. Here, in the last two measures before Letter A, he uses white ink to cover up all the notes previously written for the above-mentioned instruments. The reader can clearly make out that the alto and tenor saxophones, bass clarinet, bassoons, both sets of horns and string bass all were previously doubling the main melodic material being performed by the flute, piccolo, oboe, solo and 1st clarinet, and solo cornet. In addition, the 1st and 2nd cornet originally were given the same material as the 2nd and 3rd clarinets, seen in Figure 9 above. Holst must have felt that the texture at this point was too thick, especially when one considers the musical development that occurs at letter A. The transition from the first 24 bars to Letter A does indeed seem to flow better with the reduced instrumentation when compared to the texture already established earlier in the movement.
Between letters A and B, there is only one minor part correction: In the ascending woodwind runs beginning four bars before B, Holst inks out the passage notated in the E-flat clarinets.
At Letter B, the material from the beginning of the movement returns, and Holst again writes the cues for both E-flat clarinets in the flute and 1st clarinet.
In the nine bars before C, both sets of horns have been covered with a strip of clean staff paper. During this section, the B-flat baritone is marked solo, performing the primary melodic motive while doubled by the upper woodwinds, saxophones, bass clarinet and string bass. It appears that Holst had originally given this same melodic line to the horns based on what looks to be corresponding accents not covered by the new staff paper. Again, it seems that Holst must have felt his original texture was too thick.
It is difficult to make out the actual strips of staff paper in this copy, but the slur markings and accents not covered by the new paper are clearly visible, and it can be seen that they correspond exactly with the baritone solo written below. Therefore, Holst had originally written the same material in the horns.
At letter D, Holst changes the tenor and bass trombone parts through measure 98, using a clean strip of staff paper. Unfortunately, there is no indication, short of actually removing the strip, of what Holst originally wrote for these instruments. It can be safely assumed that texture was the reason for the reduction.
Six measures before letter F, the primary melody returns in exactly the same form as it first appeared at the beginning of the movement. For the third time, Holst goes to the trouble of scoring the cues for the E-flat clarinets in the flute and 1st B-flat clarinet.
Much like the Chaconne, Letter F to the end of the movement is fairly straightforward. The only corrections/alterations occur in the final two bars. Holst originally scored notes in measure 141 for oboe, alto and tenor saxophone, bass clarinet, baritone and tuba. These have all been either inked out or literally scribbled out with his pen. In the case of the oboe, it appears that after erasing the original part, Holst rewrote it so that it corresponded with the C major chord already written into flute, piccolo and E-flat clarinet. In the final measure, 142, he deletes the alto and tenor saxophone notes, and scribbles out the notes in cornets, horns, baritone and trombones. Once again, the guiding principle here seems to be keeping the texture light, and the removal of the parts indicated facilitates this.
It is difficult to see, but at the end of the solo cornet line, it says “senza sordino,” and following the Horn in F line, it says “change to Eb for March. The white smudge in the next to last measure on the oboe line is where Holst inked over the original part. In its place he scores the written high C.
It seems logical, evaluating the movement as a whole, that Holst made most or all part corrections after he had completed the score. In each case, the removal of parts keeps the texture of the entire movement light in character, and this was likely done in one fell swoop after either analyzing the score or perhaps even having heard it played through, which raises the question of whether the piece was performed in the 11 years before its official premiere at Kneller Hall. In any event, the corrections made throughout the Intermezzo are consistent with the overall character of the movement.
The March is the least complex of the three movements, and is also the least revised. There are very few corrections and very few instances where Holst goes back and edits the score. Not once does Holst use new staff paper to cover over previously written material, and there are no scribbled out parts. Only occasionally does Holst ink over a note and rewrite it somewhere else. The notation in general is very clean and it is clear that his ideas were well conceived before he put his pen to paper.
There is however, one major revision that Holst makes, and it occurs at Letter D, measure 123. At this point in the music, Holst combines the two major themes of the movement and reverses their roles from how they first appeared earlier in the movement. The original brass band music that dominated the beginning of the March is now scored in the upper woodwinds. The flowing, lyrical music that forms the middle of the movement, having previously been performed by the woodwinds and horns, is now scored for cornets, trumpets and trombones. Together, these two themes are heard in counterpoint.
The revision here is that after completing the score, Holst changes the 1st cornet part so that it doubles the upper woodwind line. The reason for this must be a practical consideration as the cornet gives the woodwind melody more articulation and projection. Also, the rising triplet figurations between measures 141 to 145 require a great deal of tongue dexterity, particularly by the clarinets. If the tempo pushes beyond 120 beats per minute, the passage only becomes more difficult. Cornet virtuosos were not uncommon in 1909, and this type of passage lends itself well to such a player. Thus, Holst may have had two different motivations for rewriting this line. He allows for greater clarity in the counter melody, and also gives the 1st cornet player a chance to show his technical skill.
It is interesting to observe that when Holst made this major revision, he did not tape over the cornet line and rewrite it. Instead, he places a large X over the 1st part at letter D and writes “see below” next to it.
At the bottom of the page is the following note:
“From here, 1st cornets play wood wind melody. 2nd cornets play brass.”
The reason for explaining that the 2nd cornets play with the brass is a result of Holst’s own shorthand. He originally wrote out the notes for the 2nd cornet in the first measure at D, but then wrote “col 1st cornets” in the next measure, indicating that they were to double what the 1st cornets play. This is just a reminder that the change applies only to the 1st cornet(s).
At the top of the same page, above letter D, Holst had originally written another note:
“Extra flutes and piccolos ad lib play this part from here to the end.”
However, as can be seen above, this instruction was subsequently scratched out. Its original purpose was no doubt practical. Holst seems to have known that the woodwind line may need more voices in order to balance with the brass, depending on the size of the section. It likewise makes sense that he did not specify adding clarinets, as it is easier for flutes and piccolos to handle passages that require fast tonguing. What is interesting is that he eventually changes his mind and decides that he wants 1st cornet to double the line instead of the previously suggested addition of more piccolos. This was probably a wise decision, as most conductors know.
PART III – THE AMERICAN BAND TRADITION UP TO 1948
Like the history of the British military band tradition, there are many texts devoted to archiving the development of bands in the United States. In order to understand why the 1948 edition of the First Suite was published, it is helpful to survey the development of band in America. Once again, there are two primary texts from which the following information is gathered. The first is Time and the Winds, published in 1954, by Frederick Fennell. The second is The American Wind Band: A Cultural History, published in 2005, by Dr. Richard K. Hansen.
The American band tradition has its roots in the forming of the United States Marine Band in 1798. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the touring bands of Patrick Gilmore and John Philip Sousa captured the imagination of Americans and Europeans alike. In 1911, Edwin Franko established his own professional concert band, employing musicians from the Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic. Goldman himself played principal trumpet with the Metropolitan Orchestra for several years.
These bands and others took their lead from British military bands. Frederick Fennell notes that even though both the French and Germans had their own highly developed military bands, it was the English variety that had the greatest influence on the American band. He states:
“The complexities of the reed instrumentation of French military bands have never appealed to civilian or military authorities in this country, and the typical bands of the German Army contain a complicated instrumentation of brass instruments which has even less appeal… Midway between these two instrumentations stood the constitution of the English bands of the Royal Artillery… and the Band of the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall.”
Patrick Gilmore’s band of 1878 employed 66 musicians, while the band John Philip Sousa listed in his autobiography from 1924 numbered 77. However, like their English counterparts, there was not a specific instrumentation that all American bands followed. Among the instruments found in Gilmore’s band were Eb soprano cornet, Eb alto horn, Bb tenor horn and flügelhorn, in addition to contrabassoon, Ab soprano clarinet, Eb soprano clarinet, Eb alto clarinet and baritone saxophone.
Sousa’s band, by contrast, was much more conservative, calling upon the English horn, bass saxophone, and alto clarinet in addition to the typical complement of trumpets, Bb clarinets and trombones. None of the other instruments listed in Gilmore’s band found their way into Sousa’s 1924 ensemble.
Entering the 20th century, there were three main forces that would change the direction and shape of the American concert band. Prior to World War I, professional touring bands like those of Gilmore and Sousa reigned supreme. However, the Great War, advances in technology and a game called football would change all that.
The beginning of the 1900s saw public school orchestras start to take hold, first as after school activities in which students received partial credit towards graduation, and eventually as everyday classes that met during school hours. At this time, there was not the same level of interest in band programs.
In 1917, the United States officially entered the First World War. The heightened sense of patriotism domestically, as well as wide spread government sponsored training of military band musicians for performances both home and abroad created a renewed sense of awareness and pride regarding the band medium. Following the conclusion of the war, hundreds of military band musicians returned home without work. Many of these men entered college and earned degrees in education. The instrument manufacturing industry, which had increased its production during the war years, saw an opportunity to continue its growth, and in conjunction with the music publishing companies, began promoting the value of music education in the public schools.
Frederick Fennell states, “with the re-adjustments which the war and its conclusion forced upon almost every phase of American life, educators were obliged to further consider the contrasts between the so-called subject and experience curriculums.
As music education was starting to be seen as a valuable asset to the experiences of students in the classroom, public school band contests began to flourish. The first such contest was formed in 1923 in Chicago, organized by local instrument manufacturers. The success of this contest, and those that followed, sparked the creation of two national organizations: The Music Supervisors National Conference and the National Bureau for the Advancement of Music. Both organizations helped to proliferate the competition movement, and did so as nonprofit organizations. One of the effects of school band competitions was that instrumentation among public school bands began to become standardized. This was one of the results of organization between instrument manufacturers seeking to achieve a steady sale of instruments, and music publishers seeking to widen their market by publishing music accessible to all bands.
Between 1918 and 1929, the number of public school music programs increased dramatically. In 1922, there were 200 school band and orchestra programs nationally, and by 1929, there were between 15 to 25 thousand bands programs alone reported.
During this time of exponential growth in public school music programs, the great professional bands were dying. Much of this decline can be associated with advances in technology. In the heyday of the professional touring bands, most people had to travel by train, as did the bands themselves. With the increased affordability of automobiles, more and more Americans had greater freedom of movement, and likewise greater flexibility in making entertainment choices. Of course, this alone was not the reason for the decline of great bands. Radio technology had drastically improved as well. By 1924, there were over 2.5 million radio sets in the United States. Broadcasts of live concerts were now being heard across the country. In addition, Jazz music was taking hold as a popular art form, and it required considerably less resources to take on the road compared to a full sixty or seventy member concert band. All this, along with train fares rising due to more people traveling by car, contributed to the eventual decline of the great professional concert bands.
It is ironic that with the decline of professional bands there was an inverse relationship with the rise of public school bands. This rise, perpetuated by patriotic fervor during and after the war, along with the business savvy of instrument manufacturers in promoting and organizing contests, received a further boost with the advent of the college marching band.
The first collegiate marching band in the United States was formed in 1905 by Albert Austin Harding. He is quoted as saying, “When we first began to form letters and words, … we had never seen or heard of a college band which formed words while marching and playing.”
The effect the marching band at Illinois had on the rest of the nation was the same that the first British military band had on the rest of England. It cannot be said any more eloquently than how Frederick Fennell describes here: “It has been the greatest single force in the development of high school bands which always seek to emulate it.”
Marching bands spread to college and high school campuses all over the nation, and firmly established the band medium as a necessary addition to the cultural lives of Americans. This belief still holds true to this day, one hundred years later.
PART IV – THE 1948 “AMERICAN” MODERN EDITION
(BASED ON INDIVIDUAL PARTS FROM THE 1921 EDITION)
The 1948 edition of the First Suite in E-flat was the first since the original Boosey & Co. publication of 1921. With developments in instrumentation in the United States during the two decades following the original published version, there were calls for a newer, more accessible edition. The growing popularity of public school band contests resulted in American bands incorporating a wide array of instruments such as the alto and contrabass clarinets, and the baritone and bass saxophones. With more and more bands employing these larger forces, the original version of the First Suite could be not be performed as written. In addition, the 1921 edition only had a reduced piano score, and by this time the manuscript had been lost. Albert Austin Harding, long time Director of Bands at Illinois University, suggested that the First Suite be revised to accommodate the growing number of American bands and their modern instrumentation. To facilitate this, a new full score based on the original published parts was produced by Boosey & Hawkes.
This new edition contained several modifications. First, the flute and piccolo, originally keyed in Db, were changed to the key of C, as this was becoming increasingly popular. Next, the Bb baritone part was discarded. In 1921, at a conference of the Directors of Music of the Navy, Army and Air Force, held at Kneller Hall, it was decided that the B-flat tenor saxophone would officially replace the B-flat baritone. H. E. Adkins states that this was due to baritone’s “lack of character and its ineffectiveness.”
In addition to the removal of the baritone, the string bass was also omitted. At this time, it isn’t known why the string bass was removed, although it may be that school bands just did not incorporate it, as is largely the case even today. It may also be that since the string bass was marked ad lib by Holst that Boosey & Hawkes did not feel the need to include it. However, this is also not known at this time. Instruments added to the score included the E-flat alto clarinet, the E-flat baritone and B-flat bass saxophones, B-flat contrabass clarinet, and a set of flügelhorns. Thus, the full instrumentation of the 1948 edition is as follows:
Flute and Piccolo in C, 2 Oboes, 2 Clarinets in Eb, Solo-1st Clarinet in Bb, 2nd Clarinet in Bb, 3rd Clarinet in Bb, Eb Alto Clarinet, Bb Bass Clarinet, 2 Bassoons, Eb Alto Saxophone, Bb Tenor Saxophone, Eb Baritone Saxophone, Bb Bass Saxophone, Bb Contrabass Clarinet
1st Cornet, 2nd Cornet, 2 Trumpets in Bb, 2 Flügelhorns in Bb, 1st and 2nd Horns in Eb, 3rd and 4th Horns in Eb, 2 Tenor Trombones, Bass Trombone, Euphonium, Basses (Tuba)
Timpani, Bass Drum, Cymbals, Snare Drum, Triangle, Tambourine
Note that in the manuscript, Holst designates the use of “side drum” while the 1948 edition uses “snare drum.” In addition, the term “bombardon” in the manuscript is contrasted with “basses” in the 1948 score, both referring to the use of tubas. The flügelhorns, while technically considered “added” instruments, merely function as a replacement of the second set of trumpets that appear in the manuscript. The reason for this is currently unclear. Their use will be examined in Part V in Subsection D. In addition, the four horn parts in the 1948 edition are all keyed in E-flat; the original manuscript places only the second pair in E-flat, with the first being keyed in F. The reason for this minor emendation is also not known at this time. It should be noted that all the instruments added to the 1948 edition serve primarily to double already existing parts. Anything new would constitute recomposition and thus weaken the integrity of Holst’s original work.
Because the majority of the differences between the manuscript and the 1948 score occur as a result of the added instrumentation, most of the discussion below will consist of specific analysis of the instruments added, and how they function in relation to the work.
Note: Subsections A and B both reference the original Bb baritone part. However, this information is disjunct, as those sections focus on the instruments added to the 1948 score. For the sake of clarity, I have included Subsection C for those wishing to see a complete and concise analysis of the original baritone part as it relates to the 1948 edition. The treatment of the original baritone part by Colin Matthews in the 1984 edition follows in Part V.
Appendix B contains all figures and examples relating to the baritone from the manuscript and both modern editions.
Subsection A: Treatment of the Alto Clarinet in the 1948 Edition
Throughout the suite, the E-flat alto clarinet primarily serves to double the alto saxophone. It frequently doubles the 2nd and 3rd clarinets, occasionally doubles the bass clarinet and even the trombones at times. The texture in many cases is so thick that the effect of the doublings is undetectable. The most interesting, and debatable, use of the alto clarinet comes in the Intermezzo, where it is scored at least twice as a substitute for the B-flat baritone. Excerpts of the manuscript and the 1948 score during these sections are provided in Appendix B. Below is a measure-by-measure analysis of each entrance.
Measure 16 – doubles the alto saxophone and parts from the 2nd and 3rd clarinets.
Letter A, measure 25 – doubles the alto saxophone.
Measure 35 – combines the alto and tenor saxophone parts.
Letter B, measure 41 – doubles the woodwind runs, all played in unison. The texture here is so thick, with the inclusion of the bass clarinet and the alto and tenor saxophones, that the alto clarinet’s effect is negligible. The instrument remains tacet until measures 87.
Measure 87 – doubles the 2nd clarinet and alto saxophone.
Measure 99 – doubles the 2nd clarinet and alto saxophone.
Letter F, measure 114 – combines parts from the 3rd clarinet, alto saxophone and bass clarinet.
Measure 120 – doubles the alto saxophone through the end of the movement.
Measure 1 – the alto clarinet is the lone woodwind other than Eb clarinet to play the first note of the movement, C concert. In the original manuscript, only brass instruments perform the first note with the E-flat clarinets.
Measure 27, three measures after letter A – doubles alto saxophone.
Measure 39, four measures before letter B – combines the bass clarinet and alto saxophone lines in the ascending woodwind run.
Measure 59 – doubles the woodwind melody and seems to replace the B-flat baritone, which is marked “solo” in the manuscript. (See Figure 3 in Appendix B)
From letter C to D, the alto clarinet is tacet.
Letter D, measure 83 – doubles the cornet solo. Here the alto clarinet is the substitute for the baritone, who doubles the cornet in the manuscript. Given the completely different timbre of the two instruments, and the fact that the alto clarinet lacks the projecting power of either the baritone or the cornet, this scoring choice seems very questionable. The euphonium, being much more closely related to the baritone, would seem like the more appropriate choice. It only contains the cues for the 2nd bassoon at this point in the manuscript. (See Figure 4 in Appendix B)
Measure 100 – the alto clarinet is again designated as the substitute for the Bb baritone. The texture here is considerably thinner than before, but considering the fact that the euphonium is again available, and also has the baritone cues in the manuscript, the choice of the alto clarinet is debatable. (See Figure 5 in Appendix B)
Letter E, measure 109 – doubles the alto saxophone.
Measure 126 – doubles the alto saxophone and 1st and 2nd clarinets.
Measure 131 – doubles the horn, bass clarinet, euphonium, and tenor saxophone. This is another substitution for the omitted baritone. The baritone saxophone is also scored here. (See Figure 6 in Appendix B)
The alto clarinet is tacet for the final seven bars of the movement.
Measure 1 to Letter A, measure 37 – The alto clarinet remains tacet.
Measure 40 – doubles the woodwind melody. The texture is so thick that the inclusion of the alto clarinet is negligible.
Measure 89 – doubles the alto saxophone. This continues almost note for note, with a few exceptions, until measure 142. From measure 131 to 135, the 1st cornet also shares this material.
Letter E, measure 147 – doubles the trombones
Measure 153 – doubles the alto saxophone and parts of the E-flat horns. The alto clarinet doubles the alto saxophone to the end of the movement.
Subsection B: Treatment of the Contrabass Clarinet and the Baritone and Bass Saxophones in the 1948 Edition
Recall from earlier that the only saxophones considered standard or common in British bands, either civilian or military, were the alto and tenor, with typically only one player per part. The baritone and bass saxophones were much more common in the United States, and their inclusion in the 1948 score was a concession to American practice. In this edition, the contrabass clarinet and bass saxophone are used principally to cover the missing string bass part and to double the tubas and euphoniums. In some cases, they also double the bassoons and tenor saxophone. The baritone saxophone, in addition to serving the preceding role, is scored in several places as a substitute for the omitted baritone. Together, these instruments give the work a heavier, more robust quality, but do not take anything away as a whole. However, in smaller ensemble settings similar to those of tradition British military bands, the addition of these instruments could be a detriment to the clarity and overall blend of the ensemble.
Note: In the 1984 revised edition, Colin Matthews retains the use of the baritone and bass saxophones. However, as will be discussed in Part V, he edits how these instruments are used throughout the suite.
Measure 1 – The contra bass clarinet doubles the euphoniums and tubas in the opening statement of the chaconne theme. As the string bass is omitted in the 1948 score, this seems to be the logical substitute. From the manuscript, rediscovered in 1974, we know that the string bass was ad lib, so no substitute would be necessary to cover the part. The baritone and bass saxophones are tacet.
Measure 16 – In the third statement of the chaconne, the contrabass clarinet doubles the bassoons and tenor saxophone. According to the manuscript, the bassoons and tenor saxophone are doubled by the string bass, which is cued in the tuba. While the contrabass clarinet is the obvious substitute for the string bass, the tuba part in the 1948 edition does contain the cues for string bass.
Letter A, measure 25 – The bass saxophone enters for the first time, doubling the contrabass clarinet, baritone saxophone, tuba and euphonium. The manuscript identifies this line for string bass, tuba, and euphonium only. The addition of the three extra instruments more than compensates for the loss of the string bass, and gives this statement of the chaconne an especially thick texture.
Measure 33 – The 5th statement of the theme sees the continuation of the baritone and bass saxophones, and the contrabass clarinet performing the theme in conjunction with the low brasses, bass clarinet and bassoons.
Letter B, measure 41 – All three instruments double the full brass section with the fragmented theme.
Measure 47 – On the last note of the fragmented theme, only the baritone saxophone plays the Bb concert. The bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet double the 1st cornets, trumpets, flügelhorns and tubas in playing only an eighth note. In this manner, it seems that the baritone saxophone is being treated the same as the horns, trombones and euphonium in holding the dotted half note, while the contrabass clarinet and bass saxophone follow the lead of the tubas in only articulating the downbeat.
Measure 48 – In the seventh statement, only the bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet perform, doubling the low brass countermelody. The editors decided that the addition of the baritone saxophone wasn’t needed here.
Letter C to letter D sees these instruments tacet during the chamber music section of the movement. As the texture here is already very thin, the inclusion of these instruments would upset the integrity of Holst’s original intentions.
Letter D, measure 81 – Here there is some creative usage of these instruments. The bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet double the bassoons and tubas while the baritone saxophone doubles the cornets and euphonium in performing the inverted theme. The reason for the inclusion of the baritone saxophone is that it is the designated substitute for the omitted baritone. The obvious difference in tone quality makes this a potentially treacherous choice, given the original intent of Holst. Since the euphonium is scored with this same melodic line in both the manuscript and the 1948 edition, the inclusion of the baritone saxophone seems excessive. (See Figure 7 in Appendix B)
Letter E, measure 97 – the baritone saxophone doubles the 2nd cornet while the bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet double the split tubas. Once again, the baritone saxophone is the substitute for the baritone. (See Figure 8 in Appendix B)
Measure 105 – The baritone saxophone again serves as the substitute for the baritone. The 2nd cornet part is almost exactly the same with the difference of one note, in measure 107. The bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet double the split tubas. No example is provided here.
Letter F, measure 114 – From here to the end, the baritone saxophone joins the contrabass clarinet and bass saxophone in doubling the tuba line.
Letter A, measure 25 – This is the first entrance of the three instruments. The bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet double the tubas, while the baritone saxophone doubles the 2nd bassoon.
Measure 39 – all three instruments double the tuba.
Measure 59 – the baritone saxophone doubles the upper woodwinds, bass clarinet, bassoon and the alto and tenor saxophones. The baritone saxophone is likely the substitute for the ad lib string bass part here. (See Figure 3 in Appendix B)
All three instruments are tacet from letter C to letter D. The bass saxophone remains tacet until letter F.
Letter D, measure 83 – the baritone saxophone here doubles the bassoons in octaves and the bass clarinet while the contrabass clarinet and bass saxophone remain tacet.
Measure 91 – the contrabass clarinet joins the baritone saxophone in doubling the bassoons and bass clarinet. This continues to the meter change at the double bar in measure 99.
Measure 100 – the contrabass clarinet doubles the 1st trombone and tuba with the pickup to measure 101.
Letter F, measure 123 – the baritone saxophone doubles the soli performed by the tenor saxophone, bass clarinet and euphonium. There is no precedent given in the manuscript for this addition. In the manuscript, the baritone does not enter until the pickup to measure 134, so the baritone saxophone at this point is purely superfluous. The bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet double the split tubas, with the bass saxophone playing the top part. This continues all the way to measure 140.
In the final measure of the movement, 142, the baritone saxophone performs the last note in unison with the upper woodwinds, tenor saxophone, bass clarinet, bassoon, and the tuba and euphonium.
Measure 1 to Letter A – all three instruments are tacet.
Letter A – both the bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet double the tuba and 3rd trombone, which is an octave higher. The baritone saxophone doubles the counter melody played by the euphonium. Holst intended for the euphonium to act alone here, so this addition is questionable. It would make more sense for the baritone saxophone to double the tuba line or just not play at all here rather than try to blend into the euphonium sound. These doublings continue through to the downbeat of measure 88.
Measure 99 – the bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet again double the tubas, while the baritone saxophone doubles the euphonium in measure 100. The baritone saxophone is again used to substitute for the baritone, marked “solo” at this point in the manuscript.
Measure 109 – the bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet double the trombones, euphonium and tubas in measures 112, 116 and 118.
Letter D, measure 123 – the bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet again double the tubas while the baritone saxophone doubles the low brass, cornets and trumpets. These doublings continue all the way to the end of the work.
Subsection C: Treatment of the Original B-flat Baritone in the 1948 Edition
Before beginning the analysis, a few words should be spent discussing the differences between the baritone and the euphonium. Over the years, the two terms have become interchangeable in rehearsal halls across the United States. However, the baritone and euphonium, while related to each other, are different instruments in their own right. (See figures 1 and 2 in Appendix B)
The baritone is a member of the Saxhorn family, which includes the Eb sopranino (Eb soprano cornet), Bb soprano (cornet), Eb alto (Saxhorn), Bb baritone, Bb bass (euphonium), Eb bass (bombardon or tuba), BBb bass (bombardon or tuba). In Germany, the baritone is also known as a tenor horn, while in Austria the euphonium is called the baritone. These different names have also contributed to the confusion between the two instruments.
Technically speaking, baritones during the early 20th century only utilized three valves, while Euphoniums had already added a fourth, thereby lowering the compass of the instrument and improving its pitch in the lower register. In addition, while both instruments are conical in nature, the baritone has a smaller bore and its bell is significantly narrower. The euphonium, as a result of a larger bore and wider bell, produces a warmer, darker tone with greater projection, particularly outdoors. It is for these reasons that the euphonium continues to thrive to this day, while the baritone has been relegated to use primarily in brass bands.
The following section gives a specific accounting of how the baritone part is employed within the 1948 edition. The manner in which Holst originally scored the baritone is given first, followed by the subsequent modifications made in the 1948 score. Some of the modifications discussed below were mentioned in Subsections A and B, but for the sake of cohesiveness, they are included below.
Letter D of the manuscript provides the first significant excerpt for the baritone. Here it doubles the cornets in their low register during the processional in c minor. As the baritone here is written in its best register, and cornets are not, it gives much needed support. However, the line is also scored for euphonium, and since the baritone is an ad-lib instrument, its absence is not devastating as the euphonium is more than capable of providing a darker, more sonorous tone in the same register. However, the 1948 score substitutes the baritone saxophone for the baritone, while still keeping the euphonium. (See Figure 7 in Appendix B)
At letter E of the manuscript, the baritone acts as glue between the 2nd cornet, alto sax and 2nd clarinet, while the euphonium doubles the 1st cornet melody. The 1948 edition once again employs the baritone sax as the substitute for the baritone here. It is interesting, in light of the decision made at the 1921 conference, that the 1948 edition does not modify the tenor saxophone part so that it takes on the original baritone line. The tenor saxophone instead doubles the pedal Bb in bass clarinet, bassoon and tuba. To be fair, this is how Holst originally scored the instrument. However, it would seem to make more sense to score this line for the baritone saxophone and allow the tenor saxophone to take its rightful place as the heir to the baritone. (See Figure 8 in Appendix B)
From letter F to the end of the movement, the baritone doubles the 1st and 2nd French horn. The 1948 edition makes no attempt provide a substitute for this doubling.
At the pickup to measure 59 of the manuscript, the baritone is marked “solo”, sharing the melodic line with the upper woodwinds. This part is also doubled in the string bass. As discussed in Subsection A, the 1948 edition omits both the baritone and string bass while incorporating the alto clarinet and baritone saxophone here. (See Figure 3 in Appendix B)
The next major part for the baritone occurs at letter D, measure 83 of the intermezzo. Here it doubles the cornet solo, with the euphonium holding cues. The 1948 edition, instead of using euphonium or baritone saxophone, gives the solo to the alto clarinet. This may simply be an attempt to give a prominent part to the individual who must play this instrument. However, alto clarinet does not have the projecting power to complement the cornet as Holst originally intended. (See Figure 4 in Appendix B)
In measure 95 of the manuscript, the euphonium picks up the melody from the baritone and follows it until the recapitulation in measure 99. The 1948 edition does give the euphonium its rightful part, although the transition from alto clarinet is likely an awkward one.
At Measure 100, the recapitulation of the opening material features the baritone yet again. Holst here provides cues in the euphonium. The 1948 edition once again calls upon the alto clarinet to perform the baritone solo, in spite of the euphonium cues. (See Figure 5 in Appendix B)
At the pickup to measure 132 of the manuscript, the baritone doubles the euphonium, horn, the alto and tenor saxophones, and bass clarinet. The 1948 edition uses alto clarinet yet again, also adding baritone saxophone to the line. (See Figure 6 in Appendix B)
Four bars before the end of the Intermezzo, measure 139, Holst has the baritone double the horns. The 1948 score does not provide a substitute for this short excerpt.
From the beginning, the baritone contains an important line in the manuscript. It essentially doubles the solo cornet with some minor exceptions, and in measures 17 and 18 doubles the 1st and 2nd trombones. The 1948 edition does not cover the baritone line during these measures. (See Figure 9 in Appendix B)
At letter A, the euphonium plays the countermelody while the baritone doubles the woodwinds with the lyrical “Land of Hope and Glory” melody. This is of little consequence because the horns have the melody as well, and again, with the 1921 edict, the baritone should not be missed too sorely because the tenor saxophone also plays the line. It is clear however, that Holst did intend for there to be more brass color than just horn, so there is some hesitancy to ignore the omission completely.
The baritone next appears in the pickup to the fourth bar of C, measure 100, doubling the euphonium. The 1948 edition employs the baritone saxophone as substitute.
At measures 111, 115 and 119, the baritone doubles the horns and tenor trombones while the euphonium doubles the bass trombone and tubas in each succeeding measure. Here, the 1948 edition does not cover the baritone part. It is interesting how the baritone saxophone is sometimes used as a substitute, but at other times, it isn’t. When it is used does not seem to be consistent or always logical one way or the other.
At letter D of the manuscript, the baritone follows a schizophrenic path. It at first it doubles the top tuba line until measure 131, at which point it doubles the first horn. At measure 141, it has a unique line similar to, but not exactly the same as the bass clarinet and tuba. Then at the pickup to measure 147, it doubles the tenor trombone before moving to double the horns at the pickup to measure 153. From there, it jumps down and doubles the trombones at measure 158. It isn’t clear right now why Holst has the baritone move around quite so much. At any rate, the 1948 score doesn’t attempt to cover the winding baritone line as all these parts already exist, and in the full texture, it seems safe to say that the distinct color of the baritone is intelligible amidst the fray of other instruments.
From the Piú mosso to the end, the baritone doubles the trombone line. Once again, the 1948 score doesn’t provide a substitute for this line due to the overall strength of sound in the trombones and euphonium.
PART V – COLIN MATTHEWS AND THE 1984 REVISED EDITION
Sometime after the publication of the 1921 edition, the original manuscript was lost. As a result, the only full score available of the First Suite was from 1948 edition, and many conductors struggled with the peculiarities contained therein. It was well known which instruments were additions to the original, but because the 1921 score was only a piano reduction, Holst’s original intentions remained unclear. Then, in 1974, the original manuscript was discovered. Frederick Fennell, in a reprint of his 1975 article discussing the suite, states:
“Shortly after this initial piece in our Basic Band Repertory series was published, the manuscript of the Suite in Eb for Military Band surfaced for the first time. The full score always existed and it could have answered all the questions which were raised in my initial study and in the minds of other conductors whose pursuits of definite answers in this has been an equal frustration.”
Among the questions raised were those concerning the scoring discrepancies associated with the alto clarinet and baritone saxophone. In light of these realizations, a new, revised score was subsequently prepared by English composer Colin Matthews, with the assistance of Imogen Holst and Frederick Fennell. This new edition was published in 1984 by Boosey & Hawkes.
Matthews knew that a complete return to the scoring of the manuscript would once again limit the accessibility of the work, particularly in the United States, where American bands are still to this day typically larger than their British counterparts. In the introduction to the revised score, Matthews states:
“Since the composition of military bands and wind bands in general has changed since 1909, this new edition of the score does not attempt to go back wholly to the original manuscript… The second pair of trumpets and the baritone have been omitted entirely, while the added baritone and bass saxophones have been retained (with some emendations). The additional parts for alto and contrabass clarinets and flügelhorns have been omitted... The omission of the baritone has allowed the euphonium part to be expanded, most notably in the Intermezzo after letter D, and at the beginning of the Finale, where it doubles the 1st cornet at the lower octave.”
Matthews also makes modifications to the cornets, trumpets and horns. He writes:
“Particular care has been taken to ‘cover’ ad lib parts. Since in the original manuscript all the trumpets were ad lib, the omission of the second pair has not left any serious gaps: indeed the opportunity has been taken to fill one or two that Holst himself left (in the Finale at letter C, for example). Three cornets are essential, but the parts have been adjusted, since Holst, when writing for cornets in three parts tended to write for two second cornets (at the end of the first movement and the Finale the fourth cornet is optional). In the same way he was occasionally careless about the disposition of his four horn parts, and these are now organized so that the third and fourth may safely be omitted.”
Below is a comparison of the instrumentation of the manuscript to both modern editions.
1909 Original Instrumentation
Flute and Piccolo in Db, 2 Clarinets in Eb (2nd ad lib), 2 Oboes (ad lib), Solo Clarinet in Bb, 1st Clarinets in Bb ripieno, 2nd Clarinets in Bb, 3rd Clarinets in Bb, Alto Saxophone in Eb (ad lib), Tenor Saxophone in Bb (ad lib), Bass Clarinet in Bb (ad lib), 2 Bassoons (2nd ad lib)
1st Cornets in Bb, 2nd Cornets in Bb, 2 Trumpets in Eb (ad lib), 2 Trumpets in Bb (ad lib), 2 Horns in F, 2 Horns in Eb (ad lib), Baritone in Bb (ad lib), 2 Tenor Trombones (2nd ad lib), Bass Trombone, Euphonium, Bombardons, String Bass (ad lib)
Timpani (ad lib), Bass Drum, Cymbals, Side Drum, Triangle, Tambourine
1948 Instrumentation (added instruments italicized)
Flute and Piccolo in C, 2 Oboes, 2 Clarinets in Eb, Solo-1st Clarinet in Bb, 2nd Clarinet in Bb, 3rd Clarinet in Bb, Eb Alto Clarinet, Bb Bass Clarinet, Bb Contrabass Clarinet, 2 Bassoons, Eb Alto Saxophone, Bb Tenor Saxophone, Eb Baritone Saxophone, Bb Bass Saxophone
1st Cornet, 2nd Cornet, 2 Trumpets in Bb, 2 Flügelhorns in Bb, 1st and 2nd Horns in Eb, 3rd and 4th Horns in Eb, 2 Tenor Trombones, Bass Trombone, Euphonium, Basses (Tuba)
Timpani, Bass Drum, Cymbals, Snare Drum, Triangle, Tambourine
1984 Revised Instrumentation
Flute and Piccolo in C, 2 Oboes (ad lib), 2 Clarinets in Eb (2nd ad lib), Solo Clarinet, 1st Clarinet in Bb, 2nd Clarinet in Bb, 3rd Clarinet in Bb, Bb Bass Clarinet (ad lib), 2 Bassoons (2nd ad lib), Eb Alto Saxophone (ad lib), Bb Tenor Saxophone (ad lib), Eb Baritone Saxophone (optional), Bb Bass Saxophone (optional)
1st Cornet, 2nd Cornet, 2 Trumpets in Bb (ad lib), 1st and 2nd Horns in F, 3rd and 4th Horns in F (ad lib), 2 Tenor Trombones (2nd ad lib), Bass Trombone, Euphonium, Basses (Tuba), String Bass (ad lib)
Timpani, Bass Drum, Cymbals, Side Drum, Triangle, Tambourine
Subsection A: Colin Matthews’ Treatment of the Baritone and Bass Saxophones in the 1984 Revised Edition
As noted earlier, even though the 1984 revised edition is based on the Holst manuscript, Colin Matthews decided to retain the use of the baritone and bass saxophones because of their common standing in modern American bands. However, Matthews does edit the saxophone parts to make their inclusion fall more in line with the spirit of the original manuscript. Because the 1948 edition calls upon the baritone saxophone to double many parts originally scored for the B-flat baritone, it receives the majority of emendations. Only the changes Matthews makes to the 1948 parts are discussed in this analysis.
Matthews leaves the bass saxophone unchanged throughout the movement. The baritone saxophone, however, is omitted in three places, all of which correspond to its use in the 1948 score as a substitute for the B-flat baritone. The omissions occur at Letter D, measure 81, Letter E, measure 97, and at measure 105. As a result of these cuts, the baritone saxophone does not play at all between measures 81 and 112.
The only change Matthews makes is to the bass saxophone part at Letter F. In the 1948 edition, the bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet double the split tubas, with the bass saxophone playing the top part and contrabass clarinet playing the bottom. Matthews, having eliminated the contrabass clarinet altogether, now has the bass saxophone doubling the 2nd tuba.
From Letter A to Letter to measure 88, Matthews retains the baritone saxophone part added in the 1948 score. As stated previously, the retention of this part is questionable because the euphonium is the only instrument given this counter melody in the manuscript, and the inclusion of the baritone saxophone is gratuitous.
The only changes in the march occur after Letter C, in measures 112, 116 and 118, with Matthews omitting the bass saxophone for the first time in the entire suite. At this point in the 1948 score, it doubles the 3rd trombone, euphonium and tubas. Even with the bass saxophone included, its presence is negligible.
Subsection B: Colin Matthews’ Treatment of the B-flat Baritone in the 1984 Edition vs. the 1948 Edition
In keeping with the purpose of following the manuscript as closely as possible, while still allowing the work to be accessible to modern concert bands, Matthews makes several changes to the alternate scoring choices for the baritone found in the 1948 edition. Some of these modifications have already been addressed in previous sections, but for the sake of unity, all modifications concerning the original baritone part are included here.
At Letter D in the manuscript, where the baritone doubles the cornets and euphonium, Matthews removes the baritone saxophone added in the 1948 score. Since the euphonium is the closest relative to the baritone, no other voices are needed for the desired effect. The timbre of the baritone saxophone in this texture is difficult to blend in to the cornets and euphonium. (See Figure 7 in Appendix B)
At letter E, where the baritone doubles the 2nd cornet, alto saxophone and 2nd clarinet, Matthews again removes the baritone saxophone. When the alto saxophone and 2nd clarinet enter three bars after E, the inclusion of the baritone saxophone would be less pronounced, but Matthews decides simply to cut it altogether. (See Figure 8 in Appendix B)
At measure 59 of the manuscript, recall the baritone is marked “solo,” sharing the melodic line with the upper woodwinds and string bass. However, like the 1948 score, Matthews omits it. However, he chooses to retain the added baritone saxophone part from the 1948 score and adds the original string bass part. What is interesting about this baritone solo is that Matthews does not provide any cues for it. The euphonium at this point is tacet in the manuscript, and is the most logical substitute for this part. (See Figure 3 in Appendix B)
At letter D, measure 83, Matthews does incorporate the euphonium as substitute for the baritone, doubling the 1st cornet. Recall that the 1948 edition gives this baritone part to the alto clarinet. The euphonium, which curiously has cues for the 1st bassoon here in the manuscript, far exceeds the alto clarinet in overall tone and projection. This of course is obvious, and makes the decision of the 1948 editors to utilize the alto clarinet in this context that much more peculiar. (See Figure 4 in Appendix B)
At measure 100, the baritone is marked solo again, with the cues marked in the euphonium. Matthews uses the euphonium, as opposed to the alto clarinet, as seen in the 1948 edition. Even though the texture here is much thinner than it is at Letter D, the alto clarinet again makes a poor substitute compared to the euphonium. (See Figure 5 in Appendix B)
At letter F, the euphonium and tenor saxophone share the solo line. In the pickup to measure 132, the baritone enters, doubling the euphonium, horn, the saxophones, and bass clarinet. Here Matthews decides keeps the baritone saxophone. With the euphonium already scored here in the manuscript, and the texture thickened by the 1st and 2nd horns, the addition of the baritone saxophone does not take away from the overall effect of the music. (See Figure 6 in Appendix B)
Recall that in the manuscript, the baritone takes turns doubling the 1st cornet and the tenor trombones from measure 4 to the downbeat of Letter A, and that the 1948 edition does not attempt to cover this part. Matthews, however, is more creative and splits the euphonium into two parts. The bottom part plays the original euphonium part, but Matthews also provides an additional ad-lib part that takes care of the missing baritone melody. (See Figure 16 below)
From measure 88 to the end of the suite, Matthews does not make any further modifications.
Subsection C: Colin Matthews’ Treatment of the Cornet in the 1984 Revised Edition vs. the Original Manuscript and 1948 Edition
In the introduction to the revised score, Matthews states that the cornet parts have been adjusted because Holst, “when writing for cornets in three parts tended to write for two second cornets.” Below is a detailed comparison of the cornet parts as they appear in the manuscript and after they have been restructured in the Matthews edition.
In the manuscript, there are three occasions in the Chaconne where either of the cornet parts split. The first occurs in measure 52. Here, the 1st cornet part splits while the 2nd stays unison. Matthews does not alter this. The second split is after Letter F, in measures 117 and 118. Once again, Holst writes the split in the 1st cornet, and Matthews maintains this. However, at the third split, in measure 124, Matthews flips the two parts, with the 1st cornet now playing the original 2nd part. This is significant because in the manuscript, Holst has the 1st cornet rest between measures 125 and 128. In measure 128, when both parts rejoin, Matthews takes the 2nd cornet part and gives it to the bottom 1st while and having the 2nd cornet double what the 1st plays in the manuscript. The final three bars also show a restructuring of the 1st and 2nd parts. Regardless, both 1st and 2nd cornets are split in the last three measures in the manuscript.
The two staves below show Holst’s original scoring in the manuscript. They are the same in the 1948 edition.
The following two staves show Colin Matthews’ restructured scoring.
In the example above there is a misprint. The written A above the staff in the last measure of the 1st cornet should be a written C above the staff.
I would argue that the modifications Matthews makes, particularly from measure 124 to the end, are counterproductive to Holst’s original intent. From Letter E, through the Maestoso, and into the rit. al fine, the 1st cornet has substantial melodic material, especially at the height of the phrase after Letter F in measure 117. In the manuscript, Holst intentionally gives the first cornets three full measures of rest before they have to reenter and subsequently perform a top line F, followed by a top space G, before finally having to sustain a high C above the staff to conclude the movement. The presence of those three measures of rest is no idle coincidence. Given the fact that both cornet parts split in the manuscript, it would be prudent to keep the cornet parts as written by Holst and allow for the 1st cornet player(s) to take the rest that Holst intended before the final climax.
In the Intermezzo, recall that Holst originally writes a separate stave for solo cornet, while retaining staves for 1st and 2nd cornet. Matthews dispenses with the solo line and simply writes the solo part into the 1st cornet stave. This isn’t an issue as there are no instances where the solo cornet plays at the same time as the separate 1st cornet.
At measure 27, we see the first major alteration by Matthews. Here, he completely reverses the 1st and 2nd cornet parts. Originally, Holst had the 2nd cornets split while the 1st stay in unison. Instead, the 2nd cornet parts are now played by the 1st.
The top two staves below are Holst’s scoring, while the bottom two show Matthews’ reorchestration.
At measure 39, Matthews alters the scoring of the two parts so that the first cornet line becomes more streamlined. In this instance, the modification makes sense as all three parts now follow a linear path into Letter B.
Between measures 131 and 133, Holst originally wrote the cues for the 3rd and 4th horns, both ad lib instruments, into the 1st and 2nd cornet parts. Matthews includes the 3rd and 4th horns in his score, but he does not include the cues. Granted, he has already scored the solo cornet line into the 1st cornet, but in the absence of the 3rd and 4th horns, conductors would not be aware of the alternate scoring option that Holst built into the cornet parts. A simple way to incorporate these cues would be to either add them to the bottom 1st cornet, or split in the 2nd cornet. However, these cues should be present.
Note: At measure 100, it appears in the manuscript that the 2nd cornet splits into three notes on the downbeat, but the photocopy is unclear. Matthews here writes a written D below the staff.
In the march, between measures 23 and 26, Matthews edits the cornet parts considerably. The parts are still essentially there, but he rescores them, cannibalizing the trumpet parts as he goes. In the manuscript, the 1st cornets are split, playing in octaves, while the 2nd cornets, also split, play mostly in 3rds. In measure 24, the bottom 1st rejoins the top 1st in unison, while the split 2nd cornets continue to play in thirds. Matthews takes the top 2nd cornet in measure 23 and places it as the bottom 1st cornet in the same measure, and likewise takes the bottom 1st and places it in the 2nd cornet stave. The original bottom 2nd cornet is already being doubled by the 2nd Bb trumpet, so this part isn’t lost, unless one is performing the work sans ad lib instruments.
Below is the original scoring of the Cornets and Trumpets. All parts are at written pitch. Recall that Eb trumpets are written a minor third below the actual pitch.
Below is Colin Matthews’ reorchestration of the above parts. Once again, all parts are at written pitch. Note Matthew’s use of only one pair of trumpets as opposed to Holst’s use of two.
In measures 79 and 80, Holst writes the cues for the split Eb trumpets into 2nd cornet stave. Once again, all the trumpet parts are ad lib. Matthews does not write these cues into the 2nd cornet part in his edition.
At measure 81 and 85, Matthews again rescores the cornets. He takes the written C in the split top 2nd part and writes in as the bottom 1st in measure 81, and does the same in measure 86, even though that C does not exist anywhere in the original manuscript in measure 86.
At letter C, Holst again writes cues for the trumpets into both cornet parts in measures 97 and 98 and 101 and 102. Matthews writes these parts for the cornet, but they are not marked as cues. Had Holst wanted both trumpets and cornets playing these two measures together, he would have fully notated the parts into the cornets. However, he didn’t. When viewing the Matthews score without the aid of the manuscript, it appears that the cornets are supposed to perform these measures every time, not only in the absence of the ad lib trumpets, as Holst intended. Recall at the beginning of Part V, Matthews is quoted from his introduction as stating, “Since in the original manuscript all the trumpets were ad lib, the omission of the second pair has not left any serious gaps: indeed the opportunity has been taken to fill one or two that Holst himself left (in the Finale at letter C, for example).” As can be seen in Figure 10, Holst did not leave any gaps to be filled, since both sets of trumpets in the manuscript play the same notes. In measures 101 and 102, the trumpet parts are not exactly the same, but the cues in the cornets do cover both parts.
Below is the original notation in the manuscript. As can be seen, the cornet cues cover all the notes played by the trumpets.
Below is Mathews' reorchestration. The cornet parts are not marked as being cues. In addition, Matthews has rescored the cornets so that there are two 1st cornet parts, while there is only one 2nd cornet.
In measures 99 and 100, and again in 103 and 104, Holst scores the cornets such that the 2nd cornet splits, with both 2nd cornets sustaining whole notes while the 1st cornet performs a repeated descending quarter note passage above. Matthews, however, takes the top 2nd cornet part and scores it as the bottom 1st cornet.
At Letter D, just as in the 1948 edition, Matthews writes the 1st cornet melody as Holst indicates in the manuscript, that is, doubling the woodwinds. However, following the lead of the 1948 edition, measures 137 and 138 of the 1st cornet are slightly altered. Although the only discernable difference is the absence of the triplet figure on beat two of each measure, it is nonetheless not indicated in the manuscript that this alteration is to be made. At this time, without having seen the original published parts from the 1921 edition, it cannot be determined the origin of this modification.
The top stave below denotes the woodwind melody at concert pitch, with the second stave representing the cornet doubling at written pitch. Note that the cornet melody, as written in both the 1948 and 1984 editions, outlines the woodwind line, minus the triplet figure. However, there are seven other measures in which the cornet is given the triplet figure in both modern editions.
Finally, at the Piu Mosso, measure 169, Matthews again rescores the cornets up to the final three measures of the work, at which point he switches back to the same scoring order that Holst writes in his manuscript.
Subsection D: A Comparison of the Trumpet parts throughout the suite: Colin Matthews’ Revised Edition vs. the Original Manuscript and the 1948 Edition
It should be noted that in the original manuscript, the trumpet parts are split in pairs. The first pair is keyed in Eb, written a minor 3rd below the actual pitch, and the second pair is keyed in Bb, written a major second higher than the actual pitch. Recall that both modern editions treat the trumpet parts differently: The 1948 edition uses Bb trumpets and flügelhorns in pairs, while the Matthews edition simply reduces the four lines down to a single pair of Bb trumpets.
The first entrance of the trumpets occurs in measure 31, two bars before the 5th statement. Here, both sets of trumpets play split octaves in unison. However, in measure 33, the Bb trumpets, still split, double the 1st and 2nd cornets respectively. The Eb trumpets continue to play in octaves. In the 1948 edition, the original Bb trumpet part doubling the cornets is eliminated. Instead, the Bb trumpets and flügelhorns double the original Eb trumpets in octaves. Matthews, having reduced the trumpet section to a single pair of Bb trumpets, eliminates the original doubled Bb trumpets, and like the 1948 score, rescores the original Eb trumpets in Bb.
The top two staves are from the original manuscript. The middle two are from the 1948 edition, and the last stave is the single pair of trumpets from the Matthews edition.
This scoring continues all the way until the pickup to measure 49, the 7th statement of the chaconne. At this point in the manuscript, Holst calls for both Bb trumpets to double the 1st cornet. When the 1st cornet part splits in measure 52, it is presumed that Holst intended for the bottom Bb trumpet to take the bottom split. (This is presumed because Holst does not write out the Bb trumpet parts. Instead, he uses short hand and a simple direction: Coll 1st cornets) The Eb trumpets during this section are fully notated with the same part as the 1st cornet, except they do not follow the same exact splits. Matthews again eliminates the Bb trumpet parts and uses the Eb trumpet part, rescored for Bb trumpet.
The trumpets in all three editions remain tacet from Letter C all the way until measure 103, seven measures after Letter E. From here, the scoring of the trumpet parts gets complicated.
In the manuscript at measure 103, the Eb trumpets play an Eb concert before lowering to a Bb concert pedal that sustains all the way to the Maestoso at Letter F, measure 114. In the 1948 edition, this scoring holds true, except that the Eb trumpets are scored for Bb trumpet.
Returning to the manuscript, at the pickup to measure 105, both Bb trumpets double the 1st cornet melody of the chaconne theme all the way to measure 125, at which point they play the 2nd cornet part. However, in the 1948 edition, only the top line of the Bb trumpet part (actually played here by flügelhorn) follows the 1st cornet at measure 105, while the bottom line (the bottom flugelhorn) plays the pedal Bb concert until letter F, essentially doubling the Eb trumpet parts discussed above.
The top two staves show the trumpet parts from the manuscript while the middle two staves show the trumpet parts from the 1948 edition.
In Matthews’ treatment of this section, he makes an attempt to simplify everything, giving the two Bb trumpets the original Eb trumpet part. Matthews chose to omit the doubling of the 1st cornet melody by the Bb trumpets as the line is already there. This scoring runs all the way until measure 122.
At letter F, measure 114, there is a discrepancy between the manuscript and both modern editions. According to the manuscript, the Eb trumpets split: the lower voice plays a C concert half note while the upper voice plays an Ab concert half note. However, in both modern editions, the C concert is omitted and all trumpets, including both flügelhorns in the 1948 edition, perform the Ab concert. The explanation for this must be that the 2nd cornet already plays the low C, so its doubling is not essential.
Still at Letter F, recall that the Bb trumpets in the manuscript double the 1st cornets from the pickup to measure 105 until measure 124. In the 1948 edition, the top flügelhorn plays this line until the downbeat of Letter F, at which point it switches to playing the original Eb trumpet part. The second flügelhorn, which had been playing the bottom Eb trumpet part since measure 105, simply continues along this path. The Bb trumpets in the 1948 score also double this line to the downbeat of measure 122.
In the manuscript, Holst has the Bb trumpets double the 2nd cornet line at measure 124, with the exception of measure 128, where they split on beat one, the top note doubling the 1st cornet. Excluding that note, and another in measure 129, the Bb trumpets double the 2nd cornets from measure 124 through to the end of the movement. The Eb trumpets stop playing in measure 122 and don’t return until beat three of measure 127, playing the same rhythmic pattern as the horns, baritone, euphonium and tuba. However, in the modern editions, the trumpets/flügelhorns stop playing in measure 122 and don’t return until the beat three hits that begin in measure 127. In both cases, it was determined that since the cornets and trombones are playing the melody, that the doubling of the 2nd cornets by the trumpets was unnecessary.
The excerpt from the manuscript below begins in measure 121. The slashes in the first three bars of the Bb trumpets refer to instructions Holst made back at the pickup to measure 105, where he indicates for the trumpets to double the 1st cornets. In measure 124, seen below, he notates the 2nd cornet parts the same as the 2nd cornet, as discussed in the paper.
The excerpt below, from the 1948, edition begins in measure 120.
The excerpt below is from the 1984 Colin Matthews edition. It begins in measure 122. Notice that Matthews does not double the Bb trumpets with the 2nd cornet, as Holst does in the manuscript. Also notice the rescoring that Matthews writes of the cornet parts beginning in measure 124. This was also discussed in the previous section over the cornets.
In the manuscript, the trumpets do not enter until measure 29, and their part ends at measure 43. The 1948 edition has both trumpets/flügelhorns perform the written Eb trumpet part, while eliminating the original Bb part entirely. Colin Matthews follows suit. All the notes in the Bb trumpet parts throughout the movement are covered by the cornets, Eb trumpets, and even the tenor trombones between measures 39 and 42.
The opening measures of the march are the same between the manuscript and both modern editions, with the obvious exceptions of no Eb trumpets and the addition of flügelhorns. The differences first begin after measure 13. In the original manuscript, Holst indicates that the Bb trumpets are to be split, with the top line doubling the first cornets and the bottom doubling the 2nds. The Eb trumpets are split more or less the same, but their parts contain more independence than the Bb trumpets.
Recall from the analysis of the cornet parts that in measures 15 and 16, the first cornet has a repeated descending quarter note passage. As per the manuscript, the top Bb trumpet doubles this line. Looking at the 1948 edition, the Bb trumpets and flügelhorns both play the original Eb trumpet line, which does not contain the descending passage. Thus the doubling is missing. In the Matthews edition, the single pair of Bb trumpets also play only the Eb trumpet line. Granted, the 2nd Bb trumpet part in the manuscript is a strict doubling of the 2nd cornet, and that line is scored in the 2nd Eb trumpet, but it’s the doubled descending line that is missing from both modern editions. Overall, this is a minor issue because all the parts are covered in the event that the ad lib trumpets are omitted.
In measure 18, the 1948 edition follows the manuscript more closely, with the Eb line being played by the Bb trumpets. This occurs until measure 23. Here the 1948 edition gets creative. The Bb trumpet parts here correspond to the original Eb parts, but the flügelhorns combine both the Eb and Bb parts. The top flügelhorn actually plays the top Bb line from the manuscript, while the bottom flügelhorn plays the bottom Eb line. The bottom Bb trumpet part from the manuscript seems to be missing. However, this line is played by the 2nd cornet. (See also Figure 16 above to see the 2nd cornet line)
Below are the trumpet parts from the original manuscript, followed by those from the 1948 edition. All parts are notated at written pitch.
In the Matthews addition, since he only uses two trumpets, he too combines different parts here. The top Bb trumpet line is taken from the top Eb trumpet line in the manuscript, which is doubled in the 1st cornet. The bottom Bb line integrates both the original bottom Bb line in the manuscript and also the 2nd cornet part. The bottom Eb trumpet part in the original is given to the 2nd cornet by Matthews in measures 23 and 24. (See again figure 16 above for comparison to the cornet part)
Moving ahead to measure 81, if we take a look at the manuscript, the Eb and Bb trumpets have almost identical parts, with a few minor exceptions. The parts here are also very similar to those in the cornets at measure 81. The bottom Bb trumpet plays a written F, followed by a written C. In the 1948 edition, these notes are omitted. Instead, the flügelhorns and Bb trumpets both play the Eb trumpet part from the manuscript. As it turns out, the 2nd cornet doubles the Bb trumpet, so the part is still covered. Colin Matthews also eliminates the Bb trumpet part in favor of the Eb trumpet part for the same reason.
At letter C, as discussed in the cornet comparison, the trumpets provide a pianissimo rhythmic motive. Matthews doubles this passage in the cornets without providing the necessary cues. The 1948 edition is more accurate in that it writes this part for the trumpets and flügelhorns and gives the cues in the cornet parts. (Refer to Figure 17 above)
In measure 109 of the manuscript, Holst indicates that the Bb trumpets are to double the 2nd cornets, playing a written A and written C#. The Eb trumpets play a written E natural and B natural (A and E when written in Bb). The 1948 edition follows this exactly, with the flügelhorns performing the Bb line and the Bb trumpets performing the Eb line.
Matthews first eliminates the Bb trumpet because it doubles the 2nd cornet. He writes the Bb trumpet parts to correspond with the original Eb trumpets. However, in measures 111 and 112, and again in measures 115 and 116, he alters the scoring. In 111 and 112, he utilizes the original Bb trumpet parts, and in 115 and 116, he combines the bottom Eb trumpet split with the 2nd cornet part.
The excerpts below compare measures 109-112 from the original manuscript and the 1948 edition.
Below are measures 113 to 116 of the March in the original manuscript followed by the Colin Matthews’ revised edition.
From letter D to the Piú mosso, the trumpet parts are the same in the Matthews edition as they appear in the manuscript with one small exception. In measure 165, the Bb trumpets play a written half note D on beats 3 and 4 below the staff, while the Eb trumpets play a written A (D) on the staff. Matthews just gives the trumpet parts in his edition the high D. It’s a minor detail, but no other instrument save the bass clarinet has the same C concert in the same register.
From the Piú mosso to the end, Matthews once again alters the scoring of the trumpets. As with the cornets during this section, the texture remains the same.
Subsection E: Colin Matthews’ Treatment of the French Horn in the 1984 Revised Edition vs. the Original Manuscript and 1948 Edition
Recall that in the original manuscript, Holst writes the first pair of horns in F, and the second pair in Eb. The 1948 edition scores both pairs in Eb and the Matthews revised edition scores both in F. In the original manuscript, Holst scores the 3rd and 4th horns so that they typically double the 1st and 2nd. However, there are sections where they have their own unique material, usually playing a third below the 1st and 2nd. This is significant because the Eb horns are marked ad lib in the manuscript, so their removal would eliminate the harmonies that Holst wrote. With this in mind, Colin Matthews sought to edit the horn parts so that the 3rd and 4th could be omitted without the loss of any integral material. The 1948 score, because it was constructed from the 1921 published parts, follows the part writing of the manuscript almost exactly, but does not designate any parts as being ad lib. Where there is a discrepancy between the 1948 edition and the manuscript, it will be noted. Otherwise, the following analysis will refer only to Matthews’ treatment of the original horn parts and the alternations he makes to them. It should be noted that there are several occasions where the 3rd and 4th horns have material differing from the 1st and 2nd that Matthews does not edit. In most cases, this is because other instruments also play the same material, so there was no reason to rescore those parts. The measures where these instances occur will not be discussed.
The first entrance of the horns does not occur until measure 31, two bars before the fifth statement of the theme. Holst writes both pairs here in unison. However, at measure 36, he splits them, with the 1st and 2nd playing in unison a third above the 3rd and 4th, also in unison. Matthews restructures the parts so that the 1st and 3rd horns perform the top line a third above the 2nd and 4th. This allows for the safe removal of the ad lib 3rd and 4th horns.
In measure 40, one bar before Letter B, Matthews rescores the original horn parts completely. Matthews changes the 3rd and 4th horn parts so that they are in unison with the 1st and 2nd. However, in restructuring the 3rd and 4th horns, Matthews eliminates the low C concert that Holst had originally scored for the bottom Eb horn on beat one, and he also eliminates the F concert on beat two in the top Eb horn.
The first two staves below show the horn parts from the manuscript, followed by the restructured horn parts in the Colin Matthews edition. The first measure shows the parts at written pitch, and the second shows them at concert pitch. Notice first that the low C concert on beat one, C4 in the bottom Eb horn, is not duplicated at the same pitch level in the Matthews version. Secondly, notice that the F concert on beat two in the top Eb horn is omitted completely.
No other instrument in the ensemble, in either edition plays a C4 on beat one, and on beat two, the other instrument that plays a bottom space F concert is the 2nd cornet, but only for an eighth note.
In measures 53 and 54, Matthews reverses the pairs so that the original 3rd and 4th parts are now played by the 1st and 2nd, and vice versa. Because of the way that Holst scores all four parts, this restructuring allows for the bottom pair of horns to be removed without losing any of the original material.
As can be seen below, all the notes in F horn part in the manuscript are covered by the Eb horns. Matthews identified this and reversed the parts, allowing for the safe removal of the new 3rd and 4th horns with losing the harmonies Holst wrote.
From Letter C to measure 102, the 3rd and 4th horns are tacet.
In measures 103 and 104 both pairs of horns perform in unison. In measures 105 and 106, Holst again writes the horns in thirds, with the 1st and 2nd horns a third above the 3rd and 4th horns. Matthews once again rescores the parts so that the 1st and 3rd horns play the top part and the 2nd and 4th play the bottom. This ensures that the harmony is present in the event that the bottom pair is omitted.
At Letter F, between measures 114 and 119, the 3rd and 4th horns contain material differing from the 1st and 2nd horns. The majority of this material is doubled at one point or another between the 1st trombone and the upper woodwinds. Matthews chooses to leave the parts here the same as written in the manuscript. The texture is very thick at this point, so the potential absence of this line is not likely to be detected. However, with the exception of beats two and three of measure 119, the 1st and 2nd horn line is in unison for the duration of this passage. It would therefore not be unreasonable to rescore the horns so that the 1st and 3rd horns perform the top line and the 2nd and 4th horns perform the bottom. The harmonized half note in measure 119 is shared by numerous other instruments and in the event that the 3rd and 4th horns are omitted.
The first two systems below show the original horn writing at Letter F. Matthews chooses to retain this scoring. However, with the removal of the ad lib 3rd and 4th horns and the ad lib trumpets, the only instruments playing the bottom melody are the 2nd cornet and different combinations of woodwinds.
I suggest that in order to preserve the texture that Holst intended, the horns be split in the manner shown in the bottom two systems. This is exactly the same thing Matthews does on numerous occasions throughout his edition concerning the displacement of the horns in the manuscript. In addition, I have altered the final chord in measure 119. Whereas the 3rd and 4th horns previously played an Eb concert on beats two and three, I have them now doubling the Ab and C concert played by the 1st and 2nd horns. The 2nd cornet already plays the Eb concert at the same pitch level, so this is not lost. It is essential to keep the Ab concert played by the 2nd horn because only upper woodwinds share this note, and the strength and depth of tone would be missing otherwise, in the event that the 3rd and 4th horns are omitted.
For the remainder of the Chaconne, Matthews makes no other alterations.
The horns first appear in measure 27, the third bar after Letter A. Matthews leaves the parts as they appear in the manuscript. The 3rd and 4th horns at this point are doubled by the 2nd cornet, so the effect of their removal would be negligible.
Between Letter B and Letter D, the 3rd and 4th horns are tacet.
In measure 86, Holst writes a written third space C, Eb concert, in the 3rd horn on beat three.
No other instrument in the ensemble has this pitch. Matthews takes this note and places it in the same spot for the 1st horn, whom Holst previously had doubling the 2nd horn on a second line G. This simple alteration allows the harmony intended by Holst remains intact in the absence of the bottom pair of horns.
Measures 89 and 90 see significant changes to the original horn parts, with most of the emendations coming from the 3rd horn.
These measures are considerably altered so that the 3rd and 4th horns can be safely omitted. Even though the 4th horn line is not doubled by either the 1st or 2nd horns, these notes are covered by other instruments throughout the rest of the ensemble.
The dotted markings above indicate that Holst may have intended for these notes to be slurred. However, the piano reduction at the bottom of the manuscript shows these same notes without slur markings. This could be interpreted as a mistake, but Holst does write in slurs in the reduction for other parts. Matthews assumes that these notes are to be slurred, and marks them as such in his score. While I believe he is probably correct, the manuscript does not definitively answer the question.
In measures 94 and 97, Matthews inserts slur markings in the horn parts where it appears that Holst had intended to, but for whatever reason did not. There are no further alternations to this movement.
At the conclusion of the Intermezzo, Holst gives instructions for the 1st and 2nd horns, keyed in F, to switch to horns in Eb. In the fourth bar, Holst indicates that the 3rd and 4th horn are to double the 1st and 2nd. This doubling continues for the duration of the entire movement with the exception of measures 88 through 96. However, during these nine measures, Matthews does not alter the scoring. Between measures 157 and 161 Matthews again adds slurs that it appears Holst left out. The alto saxophone here shares the same line as the horns, and in the manuscript, there are slurs and ties that are omitted in the horn part.
It is interesting to note that in the March, Holst organizes the horn parts in the same manner that Matthews does in his revised edition. That is, instead of having the 3rd and 4th horn play the same part, with the 1st and 2nd horn harmonizing above, Holst has the 1st and 3rd play one part, while the 2nd and 4th play another. It isn’t clear why Holst did not write the horn parts for the entire suite in this manner, considering the fact that he designates the 3rd and 4th horns as ad lib. This could simply be, as Matthews suggests, an oversight on Holst’s part. It could also be, although purely conjecture at this point, that Holst intended to, or actually did, write his own revised version of the manuscript. In this case, many of these idiosyncrasies may have been corrected by Holst himself. However, no such manuscript has yet been discovered, and the alterations made by Matthews regarding the horn parts only make the work more efficient.
APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL IRREGULARITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS
This appendix contains, as the title suggests, irregularities and characteristics of the 1948 and 1984 scores as they relate to the original manuscript. These include differences in notation, misprints, omissions and other minor characteristics. Some additional characteristics found in the manuscript are also addressed.
Note: This is not an errata list. Although some obvious misprints are listed below, the purpose of this paper was not to specifically look for wrong notes or editorial errors. That said, some were discovered during the research process, even in the manuscript. There are likely more not included here.
Treatment of Cues between the Scores
As discussed in Part II, there are instances where Holst gives cues for instruments not marked ad lib in the score. At Letter C of the Chaconne, the flute solo is cued in the solo clarinet. The 1948 score does not notate this, but instead has a superscript over the solo clarinet stave indicating the cue. However, the solo clarinet part from the 1948 edition does include the entire cue. In the Matthews edition, this cue is not notated or marked in the score. As discussed in Part II, there are additional cues for the alto saxophone, oboe and 1st Eb clarinet included in the manuscript. All of these are marked in the 1948 score, but only the oboe cue is notated in the Matthews edition. Because the alto saxophone is an ad lib instrument, Matthews’ omission of that cue (for the 3rd clarinet) in particular is perplexing.
In the Intermezzo, the 1st E-flat clarinet is cued into the flute. This occurs three times in the movement. The 1948 edition includes the superscript notification above the flute stave for all three occurrences and the cues are also included in the actual flute parts as well. Once again, Matthews does not include these cues into his score.
In measure 88 of the March, Holst gives cues for the 2nd bassoon and bass clarinet to the euphonium. The 1948 edition shows a superscript above the euphonium part indicating this. I was unable to procure a copy of the euphonium part from the 1948 edition, but it is likely that it also contains the cues for the bassoon and bass clarinet. This cue is not included in the 1984 edition.
Other Differences and Omissions between the Scores
This section deals with specific differences and omissions within each of the three scores that just don’t fit into any of the other categories discussed previously. For example, in the Intermezzo, Holst writes a separate stave inserted above the 1st cornet line for solo cornet. This does not exist in the Chaconne or March. Neither the 1948 nor the 1984 editions include this separate stave. The solo line is simply superimposed over the existing 1st cornet part in both editions.
In measures 105 and 108 of the Intermezzo, the triangle plays a single half note in each measure. This corresponds with the descending horn line being played at the same time. The 1948 edition notates the triangle on the timpani stave, but the Matthews edition does not include this important part at all. This is probably just an editorial oversight.
Below are measures 100-110 of the manuscript. Letter E occurs in measure 109. Notice the cue for the baritone in the euphonium part. The second stave from the bottom clearly shows the half notes played by the triangle.
Below is the same excerpt as above, except it is from the 1984 Colin Matthews edition. As the passage was split between two pages, they have been elided together for ease of reading. The baritone solo here is scored for euphonium. Notice the hand written inclusion of the triangle part. The string bass part in the final three measures is also notated an octave higher than it is in the manuscript above.
At Letter C of the March, Holst indicates that both tenor trombones play the same rhythmic figure as the trumpets (or cornets in the event that the trumpets are omitted). However, in measures 99 and 100 of the manuscript, only the 1st trombone plays, while the 2nd trombone rests. The 1948 score adheres to this. However, Matthews has the 2nd trombone continue to play with the 1st trombone in these measures. The manuscript clearly marks the short passage with a roman numeral I, indicating that only the 1st player is perform this passage, but Matthews does not indicate this.
Below is the notation as it appears in the original manuscript. Both the 1st and 2nd trombones are placed on the same stave. Holst writes a whole rest in measure 99 to indicate that the 2nd trombone does not play Also note the roman numeral I that appears over first trombone part. Holst does not write a whole rest in measure 100, but it assumed that he intended for the 2nd trombone to continue resting.
Below is Colin Matthews’ treatment of the same six measures. He first gives each part its own stave. However, in measures 99 and 100, he changes Holst’s original scoring and has both trombones play the sustained G concert.
Misprints and Errors in the Scores
Below are notational errors discovered during analysis of the three scores. Since this was not the focus of the paper, there are likely more that have gone unnoticed.
In the Chaconne after Letter A, the bass clarinet in 1984 edition is notated incorrectly in measure 27. The manuscript shows that the bass clarinet is to play a written F natural through the measure. The 1948 edition is correct here.
In measure 55 and 56 of the manuscript, two bars before Letter C, Holst makes an error in the bass clarinet line. Recall from Part II that Holst edited the bass clarinet and tenor saxophone parts here. Starting in measure 49, the bass clarinet doubles the low brass, but Holst seemingly forgets to notate the final two measures of the phrase. Both the 1948 and 1984 editions complete the bass clarinet line to the end of the phrase, and it seems that it was Holst’s intention to do the same. See the example below.
Still in measures 55 and 56 of the manuscript, Holst also notates the bassoon part incorrectly. It too doubles the low brass from measure 49 to the downbeat of measure 57.
Note the bassoon and bass clarinet staves as they double the low brass and string bass. The bassoon part in final two measures is notated differently from all other parts. This appears to be a mistake on Holst’s part.
In measure 137 of the Intermezzo, Holst incorrectly notates the tenor saxophone, which doubles the euphonium. He writes a quarter note on beat one followed by two eighth notes on beat two. However, it should be the exact opposite. In addition, the notes he writes are not the right ones either.
The dotted lines show the slur markings as notated by Matthews in his 1984 edition. However, the actual parts in the manuscript score do not have any slur markings other than the one connecting beat four of measure 138 to the whole note in measure 139 in the tenor saxophone part. In addition, the euphonium part in the manuscript, copied in this example, seems to be notated incorrectly when also compared to piano reduction below. Matthews corrects this to match the tenor saxophone.
Below is the piano reduction from the manuscript, showing the intended slur markings for both the tenor saxophone and euphonium. Note the difference in notation from the Matthews edition.
In the March, after letter A, there is a discrepancy between the tuba parts of the manuscript and the Matthews edition and the 1984 edition. From measures 61 to 63 and 86 to 87, the tuba part is notated an octave higher by Matthews than it appears in either the manuscript or 1948 edition. It should be noted that the string bass plays the exact same notes in the same register as the tubas in the manuscript.
In measure 85 of the March, Matthews adds a C5 to the split cornets. This note does not exist anywhere in the manuscript. No other instrument in measure 85 contains a Bb concert at that pitch level. Holst does write a written C5 in measure 81, so it may be that Matthews makes the assumption that Holst intended to do the same in measure 85.
Matthews’ notation of the cornet parts in measure 85 is notated belowon the left, and the notation of the cornets in the original manuscript is on the right.
APPENDIX B - THE BARITONE: MUSIC EXAMPLES AND FIGURES
(Actual examples yet to be scanned)
1. Mitchell, Jon C. “Early Performances of the Holst Suites for Military Band.” Journal of Band Research 17, no. 2 (Spring 1982): 44-50.
2. Adkins, H. E. Treatise on the Military Band. London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1945.
3. Fennell, Frederick. Time and the Winds. Kenosha, Wisconsin: Leblanc Publications, 1954.
4. Short, Michael. Gustav Holst: The Man and his Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
5. Turner, Gordon, and Alwyn Turner. The History of British Military Bands, Vol.1: Cavalry and Corps. Staplehurst, United Kingdom: 1994.
6. Holst, Gustav. First Suite in Eb for Military Band, Op. 28a, No. 1. Autograph manuscript score, 1909. British Library, London. Add. MS 47824.
7. Holst, Gustav. First Suite in Eb for Military Band, Op. 28a, No. 1. Full score prepared from individual parts from the 1921 published edition. No editor listed. London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1948.
8. Holst, Gustav. First Suite in Eb for Military Band, Op. 28a, No. 1: Revised Full Score based on the autograph manuscript. Rev. ed. Colin Matthews. London: Boosey & Hawkes, 1984.
9. Dyson, George. “The Composer and the Military Band.” Music & Letters 2, no. 1 (January 1921): 58-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/726437 (accessed December 19, 2008).
10. Grainger, Percy Aldridge. Lincolnshire Posy. Full score. Rev. ed. Frederick Fennell. Cleveland: Ludwig Music, 1987.
11. Hansen, Richard K. The American Wind Band: A Cultural History. Chicago: GIA Publications, 2005.
12. Fennell, Frederick. “The Holst Suite in Eb.” Conductors Anthology: a compendium of articles from the Instrumentalist from 1946 to 1992 on the administrative side of being a school music director 5-6 (1993): 140-147.