Wagner Tuba Development Timeline

As noted in my previous post concerning Wagner Tuba, the book by William Milton was both informative and entertaining to read. Yet even at the end, I felt that although I understood how the instruments came to be, I had not cemented in my mind the key dates related to the development of the instrument. By going back through the first few chapters and consulting a small number of other general references, I was able to construct this time line, which I post here for the benefit of all.

1800-1829

  • 1813 Birth of Richard Wagner
  • ca. 1814-1818 H. Stözel and F. Blühmel independently develop a valve mechanism for use on brass instruments
  • 1824 Birth of Anton Bruckner

1830-1839

  • 1833 Birth of Johannes Brahms [Not really relevant at all to the development WT, but I choose to include it for perspective]
  • 1835 “First practical bass tuba” created by W.F. Wieprecht and J.G. Moritz
  • 1837 Journal reports of a “Tenor horn” played by the hornist Schunke
  • 1838 Tenor tuba produced by C.W. Moritz

1840-1849

  • 1842 Adolphe Sax sets up business in Paris.
  • 1843 F. Sommer of Weimar develops an instrument known variously as Sommerophone, Euphonion, or Euphonium. The sound of the instrument was said to be similar to both horn and trombone, and was played by regular players of either of those instruments.
  • 1843 Birth of Hans Richter
  • 1844 The firm of V.F. Cerveny, in Koniggratz (Bohemia), produces a small tuba called the Cornon, played with a horn-like moutpiece and leadpipe. The instrument found use in Austrian military bands to replace horns. [Niether Melton nor Marcuse (1964) specify the key of the initial offering; Marcuse states that a bass instrument in F was available later, and by 1872 a family in E-flat alto, B-flat tenor, E-flat bass, and B-flat contrabass.]
  • 1845 Birth of Ludwig Otto Friedrich Wilhelm, future King Ludwig II of Bavaria
  • 1848 An instrument labeled the “Deutsches Horn” is described as having “tone color like the horn in the upper register, and like a tenor trombone in the lower.” The adoption of this instrument by military bands is also remarked upon.

1850-1859

  • 1853 Wagner begins compositional work on the Ring cycle operas, starting with Das Rheingold.
  • c. 1853? Wagner is said to have visited Sax’s Paris workshop. A subsequent Rheingold sketch that same year lists four saxhorns of different sizes
  • 1854 Cerveny wins top honors for his instruments at a Munich exhibition.
  • 1854 A sketch of the Valhalla motif in 4 voices, originally marked “trombones, dolce,” is changed by Wagner to “Tuben,” and specifying 2 tenors, 1 baritone, 1 bass.
  • 1855 Sax is selling a family of matched brass instruments, called Saxhorns, from contrabass to piccolo registers.

1860-1869

  • 1860 Birth of Gustav Mahler [Again, not really relevant to the WT]
  • 1862 Conductor and Wagner patron W. Weissheimer writes to Wagner of difficulty finding suitable players for the “tuba quartet” in Rheingold [concert performance in Mainz(?)].
  • 1863 A letter from Wagner remarks that “supplementary horns for the Nibelung pieces,” as performed in Budapest, were obtained from military bands, and “were adequate.”
  • 1864 Birth of Richard Strauss
  • 1865 Wagner writes to his benefactor, King Ludwig II, and appears to dismiss Saxhorns as not “adequate for my purposes.”
  • 1866 Conductor and hornist Hans Richter becomes Wagner’s general musical assistant and secretary
  • 1869 Letter from Wagner to conductor Hans von Bulow indicates that Richter has been charged with the tasks related to the still-sought tubas
  • 1869 At the insistence of King Ludwig II, the premiere performance of Rheingold takes place, in Munich. The tuba quartet is supplied by military band instruments.

1870-1879

  • 1870 Wagner writes to Richter, who is visiting family in Vienna, asking for his further assistance with the scoring of the “extra brass instruments” in Rheingold, with an eye toward completing the same work in the other scores.
  • 1873 The printed score of Rheingold, published by Schott, describes the instrumentation of “8 horns, 4 of which alternate on the 4 tubas described as follows…2 tenor tubas in B flat…and two bass tubas in F….”
  • 1874 Richter visits G. Ottensteiner in Munich concerning the instruments. Both Richter and Wagner later indicate that his desired tubas have been ordered in Munich, from the firm of G. Ottensteiner.
  • 1875 A concert performance of music from Gotterdamerung is performed in Vienna using the first set of tubas.

1880 and after

  • 1883 Death of Wagner
  • 1884 First performance of Bruckner’s Symphony No. 7, scored with tuba quartet (first symphonic use of the instruments)
  • 1886 Deposition and later death of Ludwig II
  • 1892 First performance of Bruckner’s Symphony No. 8, conducted by Hans Richter in Vienna
  • 1896 Death of Bruckner
  • 1897 Death of Brahms
  • 1911 Death of Mahler
  • 1916 Death of Richter
  • 1949 Death of R. Strauss

Bibliography

Marcuse, Sibyl. Musical Instruments: A Comprehensive Dictionary. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1964.

Melton, William. The Wagner Tuba: A History. Aachen, Germany: Edition Ebenos, 2008.

My Wagner Tuba Experience – in which I describe how I came to own an instrument

I suspect that for most non-professional horn players, the Wagner Tuba is something that exists only on the periphery of awareness: seldom heard, even less often seen, and virtually never directly encountered in a personal experience. For me it was thus; I knew the instrument existed and had even been in an orchestra where they were used (a performance of The Rite of Spring many years ago), but it had never garnered any particular interest from me.

That perspective started to change only a year or two ago, when I was belatedly in life introduced to Bruckner’s 8th Symphony. I became absolutely enamored of the scherzo–which movement, of course, does not employ any Wagner Tubas–and gradually came to know the rest of it, and that means the Adagio movement, which does have some WT prominence. It was at that point that I knew, someday, I wanted to know this instrument, and learn those parts.

Enter 2020 and the global pandemic of Covid-19. Effectively all community music ceased, along with most other public group activities, and like many others I was left with a lot more time on my hands. In the first few months I was highly dedicated to practicing my favorite horn pieces. I played Bruckner 4 so much that my wife informed me I had to stop for a while. (In revenge, I sneaked a copy of the flute part onto her stand one day, and eventually heard her playing it.) The access to parts through IMSLP enabled me to pass through many of the other Bruckner symphonies: 1, 3, 6, 7–so many sharps! To this moment I still have not really made that symphony my own–and of course, 8.

On July 4th, Independence Day, a day normally I would have been spending with family gathered from far and wide, I was instead seated inside, browsing the internet once again, and watching TV or movies or streaming video. Presumably because of the Bruckner 8 study, I casually started to search for Wagner Tuba instruments. It was not the first time: heretofore I had found current, new instruments in the five-figure price range, and used instruments in the mid-thousands–still a little pricey for a whimsy. But on that day I stumbled onto Wessex Tubas and found they had a Wagner Tuba for sale under $1000. I tried to find any online reviews or other mentions of this instrument and manufacturer, but did not find a lot or any in depth. I consulted by email with my local horn associates, and learned that a local professional player did have one, and had given it the resounding endorsement of “adequate.”

Having long ago learned that opportunity is not a lengthy visitor, and no doubt influenced by the pandemic ennui, I decided that at this price point, and in the absence of any outright negative information found, that this was good enough for me. I submitted my down-payment for an instrument. At the time, the estimated delivery date was given as October. Time passed as it does, and then one day in mid November I received an email that my instrument was ready to ship upon receipt of the rest of the payment. I completed the transaction, and a few days later I received a shipment notification. About a week later, the instrument arrived on my doorstep.

The instrument itself – in which I briefly review it and the playing thereof

As a physical object, the Wessex Wagner Tuba is impressive to behold. I had a prior experience with a Chinese-made instrument, which was not great. But this was something entirely different in appearance. Had I seen this instrument in some other context, I would not have estimated its price to be what I had paid. The case, while proportionally large, seems sturdy and capable of protecting its contents.

The instrument arrived with a mouthpiece, which looks very middle-of-the-road, something like a Conn 2 or Holton medium cup. I blew a few initial notes using this, but quickly set it aside and turned to my regular horn mouthpiece, which unsurprisingly was an improvement. But since the focus of the WT is generally in a lower tessitura, I pulled out my small collection of miscellaneous mouthpieces accumulated over a few decades of horn playing. From these I selected a Hoyer B10, which I had used with success previously when playing natural horn. This mouthpiece has a deep, conical cup, and I found it to be satisfactory with this WT. It also allowed me to keep my normal horn mouthpiece in the horn, an important consideration if switching back and forth between the two instruments, sometimes quickly, as one does in Bruckner. (See more on mouthpieces at the conclusion of this essay.)

This instrument uses a compensating valve system, something found more often in the lower brasses but not as commonly today on horns. Compensating valve systems are explained in detail many other places on the internet, so I will not go into detail. Suffice to say that one can sense the change in the instrument properties when the F-side is engaged, something not experienced on a good, non-compensating double horn, for example. The instrument arrives standing in B-flat, with the F side added by pressing the thumb valve. This is the opposite of how most double horns are configured in the United States, and in initial attempts to play some familiar horn etudes on the WT, I found my fingers did not want to cooperate with this “backwards” configuration. The thumb valve can be reversed, although Wessex does not provide instruction on how to do this; and I considered doing it, but eventually decided to leave it as-received. (More on this decision will follow.)

What the instrument is – in which I understand in more detail what I have purchased

As anyone who is seriously considering purchasing any Wagner Tuba surely knows, there are two types: tenor tuba in B-flat, and bass tuba in F; and in modern times, double instruments in both B-flat and F. Comparing a tenor instrument to a bass by appearance, the bass can be seen to be somewhat larger, and the double is a complicated web of tubing. The Wessex instrument is marketed as “a double Wagner tuba to play in Bb or F,” and yet I found the bass register, using the F “side” of the instrument, to be generally unsatisfactory. The bass tuba parts were playable, but I felt something was not right–this surely was not the sound that Wagner has in his head and worked so hard to make manifest.

In order to further my education and understanding of the Wagner Tuba, I located and purchased two books:
Playing the Wagner Tuba: A Handbook for Hornists, by John Ericson
The Wagner Tuba: A History, by William Melton

The first of these is a very brief descriptive introduction, followed by a selection of excerpts. It is of particular value because in addition to the original notation of the excerpts, there is a transposition to F of the same passage. Given the complexities and inconsistencies of WT notation, this can be very helpful as one finds one’s way at first.

The second is a thoroughly researched account of the development of the instrument in the mid-1800s, its heyday in the immediate post-Wagner period, and then decline and eventual reappearance. While I heartily recommend this book in its entirety, portions of the text can be found also online at https://www.wagner-tuba.com/wagner-tuba/wagner-tuba-history/.

As I expanded my practicing from Bruckner into Wagner’s operas themselves, I was perplexed by the conclusion of Das Rheingold. The notation seems to indicate that both the tenor and bass tubas are playing the same pitches, notated differently. But some of the notes written for the tenors don’t exist on the B-flat instrument. Playing the tenor part in B-flat alto solved that, but I found nothing suggesting that was the intended solution, and furthermore doing so required the tenor tuba to achieve the equivalent of a high C on the horn in F, which seemed highly improbable.

It was at this time that I discovered the following remark at https://www.wagner-tuba.com/wagner-tuba/physical-properties-range/

“The length of tubing [of the tenor tuba and the bass tuba] is the same as the Bb and F horns but with a fourth valve which works the opposite way to the fourth valve of a double horn, taking the Bb tuba down to F and the F tuba down to C.”

This statement clarified a lot of things for me. All single WTs, tenor and bass, past and present, have four valves:

1 – whole step (two semitones)
2 – half step (one semitone)
3 – 1-1/2 steps (three semitones)
4 – perfect fourth (five semitones)

This confirmed what I had begun to suspect early on: the Wessex instrument is, in practice, really only a tenor tuba, where the 4th inline/finger valve has been replaced by the thumb valve and full F-side compensating system. For this reason, I have elected to leave it standing in B-flat and use the thumb valve as if it were the fourth inline valve on a single tenor tuba. I can still play bass tuba parts as required, but in my opinion the sound produced in the lowest register is not the real bass Wagner Tuba sound.

Visual comparison of the Wessex instrument against other modern, true double tubas, such as by Hoyer or Alexander, certainly shows a substantial difference. The specifications of those instruments, however, leave some ambiguity as to how these doubles work. The Hoyer has five rotary valves visible, but only 3 finger keys and one thumb key are obvious. The Alexander model has four rotary valves visible, but the description states “No. of valves: 4; No. of thumb valves: 1.” Meanwhile the single tenor and single bass instruments from both manufacturers have four inline finger valves. So for the moment, the exact operation of these true double instruments remains somewhat a mystery to me.

Conclusions and challenges

The Wessex instrument is one of several inexpensive Wagner Tubas available, all of which appear to follow a similar compensating “double horn” model, and therefore all of which are really tenor tubas only. I would not discourage any horn player from obtaining one of these instruments as an entry point into the world of Wagner Tubas: the more such instruments are in the hands of everyday players, the more opportunities there might be for the Wagner Tuba orchestral repertoire to be performed at the non-professional level. It is my hope that as time goes by, Wessex or another manufacturer will produce a true bass tuba at a comparable price point, so that the full tuba quartet will be accessible to more players and more ensembles.

For me as a currently isolated player, the biggest challenge of the Wagner Tuba is determining and producing the correct sound. Clearly, Wagner had an orchestral color in his mind that he could not obtain from existing instruments. We know that it was designed be something between a horn and a trombone, and to extend the contrabass tuba sound upward. The contemporary descriptions of the sound are always along the lines of something noble, mystic, and evocative of the spiritual, and a certain gravitas. From these things, we can assume that it should not sound just like a horn, nor just like a trombone. But the modern large-bore orchestral double horn is a different animal from the horns of Wagner’s time. Would he, today, still have deemed it necessary to have incorporated his unique tubas into his orchestra to realize the sounds he imagined? The question cannot be answered.

Other miscellaneous items

The following are some comparative instrument specifications that I accumulated during my initial WT education.

Bore sizes (as found on the manufacturer’s web sites)

Wessex “double” WT: 11.89 mm (0.470″)
Alexander 111 F Bass WT: 13.5 mm
Alexander 108 B-flat Tenor WT: 12.5 mm
Alexander 110 Double WT: 13.5 mm
Hoyer 822 B-flat WT: 12.5 – 13 mm (0.492″ – 0.511″)
Hoyer 824 F bass WT: 14 mm (0.551″)
Hoyer 4826 double WT: 13 – 14 mm (0.511″ – 0.551″)
Hoyer 6802 double horn: 11.90 mm (0.468″)

Mouthpieces

Hoyer B10

“deep cup and #10 bore (4.915mm)” [#10 = 0.193″ / 4.90 mm]
Presumed to be same as SKU 700440:
Rim: Ø23,7mm (Outer diameter. I measured mine at 23.75 mm. Inner diameter measured 16.63 mm
Cup: 16,8mm [could this be inner diameter?]
Bore: Ø4,9mm [#10]
Measured rim thickness 3.67. Mathematical result using the ID/OD numbers is 3.56 mm. Average of these is 3.615 mm

Lawson custom combination

(I have my original, actual-Lawson mpc. with this configuration, and a reproduction of same recently obtained from Osmun music.)
Rim: Contour P10G, Diameter 695 (17.653 mm) [I measured my Osmun copy as 16.8 mm ID and 24.51 OD]
Cup: F670
#11 throat and Lawson’s 3/8 concave back-bore (#11 = 0.191″ / 4.85 mm)
I measured the rim thickness (cross section) as 3.81 mm. Mathematical result using the ID/OD numbers is 3.855. Average of these is 3.8325.

Yamaha YAC HR32D4 Standard Series

Rim Inner Diameter (mm): 17.48
Rim Contour: Semi-flat
Rim Thickness: Standard
Cup Depth: Semi-deep (double cup)
Throat (mm): 4.50
Backbore: Seminarrow
Playing Characteristics: “Largest double-cup in the lineup. Also ideal for Wagnerian tuba. Large cup volume for a dark, heavy sound and easy low notes.”
(See Yamaha’s full mouthpiece catalog https://usa.yamaha.com/products/musical_instruments/winds/mouthpieces/frenchhorns/downloads.html#product-tabs to decipher some of these subjective descriptions.)

Yamaha HR-BACON THOMAS BACON Signature Series

Rim Inner Diameter: 17.99 mm
Rim Contour: Standard
Rim Thickness: Standard
Cup Depth: Semi-shallow (V-cup)
Throat: 4.50 mm
Backbore: Semi-wide

Yamaha HR-30C4

This is an old mouthpiece that I used for a long time ago on horn. It’s a real pea-shooter and I would never consider it for WT, but since I have it in my possession it offers a way to objectively measure some of Yamaha’s subjective descriptions.
Rim Inner Diameter (mm): 17.28mm [Yamaha’s specification]
Rim Outer diameter (mm): 24.30 [as measured by me]
Contour: Semi-flat
Thickness: Standard [I measured 3.85 mm. Mathematical result from OD/ID calculations: 3.75; average = 3.80]
Cup Depth Standard: (U cup)
Throat (mm): 3.98
Backbore: Standard

Ode to an out-of-tune orchestra

A personal relationship with Mahler’s second symphony

Originally written ca. November 2013

It is the first Friday night in November. I am at home, alone. My cat died two weeks ago and has yet to be replaced; my wife is slaving away at her office; my live-in father-in-law has gone off to do whatever it is that 65-something widowered gentlemen do with their free time.

Though many years have since passed, I am spending the evening in a way not too different from many similar nights when I was in my twenties: on my sofa, a book and a drink at hand, and listening to a masterwork of western music. The differences, and they are not insignificant, are that the room I am in is only one of several in a house, rather than being the sum total of a meager studio apartment; that I have advanced from grocery-store jug wine to whisky cocktails; and instead of a notebook to scribble in I have this laptop computer upon which to type.

My musical selection for the evening is Mahler’s second symphony. I have a long relationship with this symphony, having come to know it rather out of sequence for my relative musical maturity. I clearly recall hearing it for the first time, by chance, at a home-town friend’s house. At the time I was a know-nothing college student, a fledgling music major who, aside from some long-term exposure to Bach and a good deal of applied school music experience, really knew staggeringly little about orchestral repertoire. Nevertheless there it was, the opening of the first movement of Mahler 2, emanating from my friend’s family stereo. I was awestruck. Soon thereafter I availed myself of the local library. This was still the heyday of cassette tapes, so I eagerly transferred the library’s LPs of Leonard Bernstein’s recording onto a 90-minute cassette (anal-retentively typing–on a typewriter–a label for the box) and listened to it repeatedly. I also taped the third symphony, but I never really got into it. The Second was my first love and I was faithful.

Fast-forward a few years to that studio apartment, and I am in graduate school, having successfully earned a B.A. in music and then gone on under delusions of competence to pursue a master’s degree in music history. I was essentially living on credit–my graduate assistantship stipend paid my rent and maybe a few groceries–so when I gave in to the temptations of luxury I still meted out my pennies carefully. And thus it was that I found myself at the local CD store one night considering a copy of Mahler 2 to help subdue my misery. That familiar Bernstein recording, re-issued on CD with it’s vaguely Secessionist cover lettering and artwork, was a two-disc set, meaning that by music-company calculus was twice as expensive. Due to the symphony’s length, most available recordings span two discs. But as I flipped sadly through the bins, trying to imagine spending upwards of twenty-five dollars I didn’t really have, I happened upon what appeared to be a single-disc, and therefore singly-priced, recording: Otto Klemperer conducting the Philharmonia Orchestra and Chorus, with Elizabeth Schwarzkopf, soprano; and on the EMI label. Hmm. Well–and here I reveal again my ignorance at the time–I’d heard of Elizabeth Schwarzkopf, I think she was a pretty big name, and EMI is a reputable label. I didn’t know anything about this Philharmonia orchestra but I recognized Otto Klemperer as having had a direct association with Mahler, and I was pretty sure I knew that most orchestras in England were really all freelance players anyway, so there was every possibility that this would be good. And the price was right, so what could I do? To the cashier, then home to sofa, wine, and CD player.

I know what you’re thinking right now. You’re waiting for me to be piteously disappointed: the tempos will be wrong, the recording quality will be like a tin horn. Or perhaps you are waiting for it to be transcendent, to take my infatuation with the symphony to some new level, where the divine is at last revealed to me as Mahler had so fervently sought. I am sorry, or relieved, to disappoint you, but the recording and performance were…fine. Good, in fact, and very satisfying. I was happy to have it on CD instead of tape. The tempos are perhaps relatively brisk: the entire symphony clocks in at just over 79 minutes, compared to Lenny’s 93-minute opus. Claudio Abbado takes about 87 to make it through. Oh and yes, I am able to report those timings because, in the years that have passed since that happy single-disc find, I have acquired not only the CD re-release of the Bernstein performance I taped from LP, but even a third recording.

OK then, you say, so you were satisfied with it at the time. But now you’ve purchased not one but two other recordings, by bigger-name conductors and recognizable orchestras (New York for Bernstein, of course, and Vienna for Abbado). What makes you talk about this Klemperer recording? Why have you kept it anyway? It can’t be so wonderful that it stacks up well against newer recording technologies (1987 and 1992, versus 1962). Having two recordings sounds opulent enough, why do you have three?

I can tell you. It’s sure to be partly sentimentality, and partly inertia, and musically it actually does hold up in comparison; but there is another very specific reason: by the time the end of the fifth movement rolls around, nearing the ultimate conclusion of the work, the orchestra is noticeably out of tune. They sound like this symphony has worn them down, that they have been grappling with this giant for over an hour and it has taken its toll on them. Like the symphony itself, they finish triumphantly; but it comes at a cost. Unlike yet another perfect, “shiny” recording made in the studio by von Karajan (as Bernstein himself once said, derisively, in a 1990 interview with Rolling Stone magazine), you hear the labor of the Philharmonia musicians. What would ordinarily surely be considered a flaw is, to me, an importantly humanizing moment.

This flaw is the key, and why this recording is special to me. It’s easy to love something that is perfect; in perfection, what is there ever not to love? But perhaps in fact the perfect is not easy to love, but harder–easy instead to take it for granted. A flawed thing that you can love, you value it more. You know that you love it even though–or because–you know it is not perfect.

Mahler was noted for his severity and discipline as conductor of the the Vienna Opera. But as a man we know he was constantly torn by emotion, aware of his own flaws, painfully aware of the vagaries of human life itself, but still always yearning, laboring for that musical ideal. I think he might have nodded knowingly with Klemperer and his fatigued band. A little manifest struggle in a labor of love is, I think he would say, a good thing.

This material © 2013 Jeffrey A. Ohlmann. All rights reserved.

David Maslanka and Matthew Maslanka, Symphony No. 10 “The River of Time”

Author’s preface

I have been a brass player for going three-and-a-half decades. I have not kept track of what works by David Maslanka I may have played or heard, and I will say honestly that despite the accolades for his music, nothing really had made a lasting impression on me. That changed in the summer of 2018 when I had occasion to perform his only brass quintet, Arise!. Written in 1996 on commission by the Denver-based Aries brass quintet, musically it seemed unlike any of his larger wind ensemble pieces I had previously performed. The piece was quite difficult, and in my preparations I was compelled not just to practice my own part, but to study the score and try to come to an understanding of how it was put together. (You may read my resultant remarks about Arise! in a program note prepared for Neoteric Chamber Winds.) That project gave me a new appreciation of David Maslanka, that while I might not like all of his music all of the time, I do not doubt that there may be craft and skill in the composition.

Only a few weeks later, I found myself preparing his Symphony No. 10 for performance by St. Paul-based wind ensemble Grand Symphonic Winds. Not unlike my experience with Arise!, on the first playing of the symphony I did not understand its musical structure or content. My primary reaction to it was to say it was “the most opaque piece of musical composition” I’d come across in a long time. I again felt compelled to try to come to an understanding of the piece. This has involved repeated listenings, examining the score (as much as this is possible through electronic means), and compiling facts about and commentary from David Maslanka himself regarding previous pieces.

Such a studious approach, however, is not practical for the general audience member. (Nor, it could be argued, should it ever be necessary for basic appreciation of a piece; but that is a topic for another time.) But I do not shy away from my first assessment of this symphony: it is somewhat opaque, and not a typical example of a symphony; and it is my opinion that the casual listener who is not steeped in Maslanka’s ouvre will benefit from some remarks that go beyond the generalities found in a shorter program note. I have two hopes for the pages that follow: one, that they will provide a foothold for a listener who is hearing the piece for the first time and trying to make purely musical sense of it; and two, that I may have some insights to offer on possible deeper understanding of what lies behind the notes themselves.

Jeffrey A. Ohlmann, 12 October 2018

Introduction

Much of Western art music composition since the 1700s has been organized around the paired principles of departure and return, of familiarity and contrast, and of tension and release. The aesthetic appreciation of music, and the journalistic practice of music criticism (when it came into being in the 1800s), could judge a musical composition by how satisfactorily it fulfills, subverts, or surprises when measured against these criteria. In the later nineteenth and into the twentieth century, a new duality emerged: the success or quality of a work of art was judged according to how well it both/either was the deeply personal expression of the artist, and/or was an expression of “universal truths.” As the twentieth century progressed, a different duality evolved: on the one hand an even deeper emotionalism; on the other, increasing abstraction and a devotion to a musical system itself, for itself. In the twenty-first century, we may have to evaluate a piece in either or both of two ways: first, by what that piece brings to us of itself: its discernible properties, the qualities that can be heard, sensed, and generally agreed upon by anyone who listens—we might call this “materials” and “craft;” and second, by what the piece reflects back at us: what we believe we can sense or ascribe of ourselves in it—this we can call the “art” of the piece. This latter property, of course, is by nature individualized, though we may assert that the truly great works of art are capable of reflecting something that we find in common with one another. In this review and critique, I will seek to comment on the noteworthy materials and craft, and consider what are the artistic interpretations of the piece.

Musical antecedents in Maslanka’s work

While any great work of art should be able to stand fully on its own, it can be useful to know something about the composer (artist) and any prior works in the same genre. For a very general overview of Maslanka’s previous symphonies, see A rough survey of the symphonies of David Maslanka. As a composer for fifty years, Maslanka of course has an identifiable style (though I find that, unsurprisingly, it evolved and took a particular turn perhaps sometime around 2004), but beyond generalities there are a number of specific elements found in Symphony No. 10 that can be traced back to previous appearances in his earlier symphonies. In addition to the nine symphonies, two other works for wind ensemble bear inclusion: Mass for Wind Ensemble, Soprano and Baritone Soli, SATB Chorus, Children’s Chorus, and Requiem for Wind Ensemble.

Mass (1996) is a large work (95 minutes performance time) and follows the traditional mass structure and texts, but with additional movements interspersed as preface or prelude to each regular mass movement, with new texts by poet Richard Beale. Any musical features notwithstanding, this work is noteworthy as a major manifestation of Maslanka’s “Holy Mother”-inspired pieces, of which the tenth symphony is another example. (Expansion on this theme follows later in this review.)

Requiem (2013) is a shorter work (11′) and not a requiem mass in the traditional sense, but “a single-movement fantasia.” Commentary provided by Maslanka says this piece was “written in response to an event of the Holocaust in World War II. It is not possible truly to grasp the deaths of millions of people, but the death of one, in this case a year-old baby – brought me face-to-face with the horror and revulsion of the whole” (http://davidmaslanka.com/works/requiem-2013-11, accessed 2018-10-18). Extramusical inspiration or associations aside, Requiem is possibly the most musically-similar composition that precedes Symphony No. 10.

David and Matthew Maslanka’s personal background to Symphony No. 10

The genesis of the piece clearly is rooted in strong emotions: Alison Matthews, wife to David and mother to Matthew, was dying of an immune disorder. David Maslanka then was diagnosed with cancer, and himself died only a month after Alison. Acting on his father’s wishes, Matthew—a qualified musician himself and long-time musical assistant to his father—undertook completion of the piece using what materials had been left by David, either whole or in draft/sketch form. David Maslanka already was a spiritual person well before the end of his life, and frequently sought to impart this spirituality into his music. By his own writing, we know that this tenth symphony is no different, as he speaks of mediation and “images” that came to him as he prepared to begin the work:

The work began as always with meditation: “show me something I need to know about the piece I am going to write.” Here is the first image that came:

The Holy Mother takes me sliding down a rocky mountain slope, all loose small rocks. It’s a wild stony country, very little vegetation, many beautiful colors in large rock formations, brilliant sun. We find a large pool nestled among tall vertical rock faces. The water is turquoise blue. We go into the pool and swim/flow downward, rising again toward a circle of light. At the surface is a “divine” place of craggy multicolored rock faces. A voice speaks my name and says, “you are ready, receive what wants to come through…We are here. You go and do.”

And the second from a few days later:

I am met by the Holy Mother in the guise of an 18-year-old Swiss farm girl – blond, pretty, traditional dress. I am shown various views of the earth and the oceans. The earth is clean, the oceans are clean. Humans have come into balance with the earth and are happy. The farm girl shows me a farm full of milk cows. The world is still technological but we are living an agrarian life, I am shown a large beautiful auditorium where music is being made. The girl thanks me for what I have done to make this new world possible. This is an odd thought for me to accept.

(http://davidmaslanka.com/works/symphony-no-10-the-river-of-time/, accessed 2018-09-11)

This “holy mother” concept dates to at least 1996, when Maslanka mentions such a figure in relation to the composition of his Mass: “Almost from the start of my thinking about the Mass, I was moved to include the “female creative,” or the “Holy Mother,” an image which has arisen in many forms in my meditative life” (http://davidmaslanka.com/works/mass, accessed 2018-09-30). This vision is, in effect, the personification of his creative  muse. He spoke further of this in an interview in 2002:

One of the really strong images that has come into my awareness over the past 15 years, that is just before we moved to Montana, and then very vividly in Montana itself, is the image of what I would call the Holy Mother. In traditional terms, this is the “feminine creative.” In religious history you have the figures of Sophia and Mary, both profound images are identified with the unconscious, which is the source of creative flow. I have been given a direct vision of what I now call the “Holy Mother” and refer daily to this inner image for a sense of now to proceed with any creative task. My visualization is not always in the form of a human figure, because the power that drives the visualization is not limited to human form. The awareness of what I will call the “mother-  creative” is an internal path that connects conscious mind with deep intuition.

(Beth Antonopulous, “David Maslanka,” in A Composer’s Insight, volume 2, edited by Timothy Salzman. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music Publications, 2004, 96).

So we have a spiritually-motivated man, first facing the death of his wife of 36 years, and then suddenly facing also his own mortality; and later, we have the now-parentless son, seeking to bring to completion the father’s last artistic endeavor. One almost could not think of a more emotionally-charged scenario without involving also a murderer and a mistress. We need not merely intuit this, for it is spelled out plainly in Matthew’s commentary about the piece:

Dad titled the completed first movement after his wife and my mother: “Alison.” He was writing as my mother was dying of an immune disorder in the spring of 2017. This movement may be seen through that lens, with bitter rage at the coming loss and a beautiful song full of love.

….The second movement’s title, “Mother and Boy Watching the River of Time,” comes from my father’s final pencil sketch of the same name. It depicts two small figures sitting on a river bank in front of a forest and mountain foothills. The music is largely a transcription of the second movement of the euphonium sonata he wrote for me, Song Lines.

….The third movement became my response to the deaths of my mother and father. It is not what dad would have written; rather, it is a synthesis of my mind and his, colored by extraordinary pain and loss. I have named the movement after my father.

The fourth movement, “One Breath in Peace,” is the acceptance and ability to move forward after loss.

With knowledge of the compositional circumstances thus set, we turn our attention to the musical result—the composition itself.

Description of the work

Most, if not all, serious works of art have two primary aspects to be examined: the surface, which is what is directly perceived by the senses, and the structure, which is sometimes less directly perceptible but which must exist to give the piece shape, form, or direction. While the theoretician and true analyst will rightly assert that the structure of the work is what matters most, the surface is what is directly perceived by the audience upon hearing. The structure works its effects, and in a great work the structure will be sensed upon hearing even without deep analysis. In keeping with the objective of providing some measure of guidance or a “road map” for the casual listener, and not attempting a deep, scholarly analysis of the structure, in the following paragraphs I describe the most salient perceptible (audible) features of each movement, and then will follow with interpretations and finally a judgement rendered about the symphony as a work of art.

By titling a work as a “symphony,” certain general expectations in the listener are set:

  • It will be a discernibly multi-movement work. There are obviously numerous variations and exceptions to this rule, some of them great exceptions, but for the purpose of generalization, it holds true.
  • The first movement usually will have some musical “weight,” and may follow a general formal plan of an introductory section followed by a variation on the “sonata” of “first-movement” form established by the Classical period: exposition of one or more primary themes; development of the thematic material; recapitulation in some form; conclusion.
  • There will be at least one, and more often two, interior movements. Either the second or the third movement will be generally slower or more somber in character, and the other one then will be faster or more vibrant in contrast.
  • The concluding movement may have either even more musical/emotional weight than the first, or be a virtuosic demonstration by the composer/ ensemble.
  • An especially pleasing symphony often will express a coherence among the movements, possibly through use of a unifying musical theme or themes.
  • It may or may not have a descriptive subtitle or even a program that is expressly laid out by the composer in lesser or greater detail.

From the late nineteenth century onward, deviation from these norms is common. In the case of Maslanka’s 10th, we find these characteristics:

  • There are four distinct movements.
  • The first movement does not follow a typical “first-movement” formal plan.
  • The  second movement is more similar than different to the first.
  • The third movement is the most substantial of the four, and the most “symphonic” in character, and is contrasting in comparison to the first two.
  • The concluding movement is similar to both the first and second movements.

Maslanka had departed from symphonic norms before; in particular the ninth symphony (2011) may be accused of having devolved into an extended fantasy on a number of chorale melodies rather than anything readily identifiable as a symphony. Among all of his symphonies, five movements is the most common, with the remainder split between three or four movements.

First movement description

The first movement is 175 measures in length, with a performance time of about 10 minutes. It is in two primary parts, an introduction (58 bars / 4 minutes) and the main body (117 bars / 6 minutes). The introduction is a long arc of upward motion that crests between mms. 30-38, then descends to m. 58. Generally, it is rhythmically free, with many fermatas. The sound is open, the harmonies spare, giving it a bleak, cold tone that is evocative of some of Shostakovich’s symphonies. (Maslanka professed a special appreciation for Shostakovich.) This initial section culminates in a fortissimo outburst that at first seems like it may be thematic and the start of the anticipated main body of a symphonic first movement, but this quickly fades away and the texture again thins and the forward motion is suspended. Finally, A new texture emerges, a pulsing, chordal accompaniment—familiar to Maslanka’s style—with a lyrical melody introduced by the alto saxophone.

Second movement description

The second movement is is 138 measures in length, with a performance time of about 9 minutes. It begins almost as a “take two” of the first movement, with a similarly thin, bleak opening. The initial statement is a chant-like melody, played by a solo flute, with a contour similar to Wir glauben all an einen Gott (“We all believe in one God”), a hymn tune by Martin Luther, the text a paraphrase of the Christian creed). This similarity may be either purely coincidental, or a deliberate pseudo-chorale, rather than a purposeful interpolation of this melody and its theological implications. The flute is interrupted repeatedly by a boisterous reed ensemble playing contrapuntal passages. The texture makes an abrupt shift to another Maslanka-signature, pulsing-chord accompaniment, overlaid with a flowing euphonium solo. Matthew Maslanka has written that this is largely a transcription of a “sonata” written by David for euphonium and piano.

(As an aside, the euphonium piece in question is titled Song Lines, and as of this writing, appears to be unpublished, and its precise date of composition is unknown to the general public. The Spring 2018 edition of Montana Music News, a publication of the Montana State Music Teachers Association, makes a passing reference to it: “[University of Montana faculty pianist] Steven Hesla….teamed up with Matthew Maslanka to present the World Premiere of David Maslanka’s ‘Song Lines’ for euphonium and piano in Portugal.” (https://msmta.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/03/MSMTA-Newsletter-Spring-2018.pdf, page 16, accessed 2018-09-11). The implied performance date is summer 2017. This performance is corroborated by an article appearing in the June 2017 edition of Der Nekarbote, The official gazette of the city Neckargemuend, Germany, the sister-city of MIssola, Montana. (“Steven Hesla: Ein Vater der Städtepartnerschaft,” Der Neckarbote Nr. 24, 18 June 2017, 9, https://www.lokalmatador.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Lokalmatador/ePaper/Pdf/neckargemuend_2018_24.pdf, accessed 2018-09-11).)

This relatively simple melody and accompaniment makes way for a more rhythmically active, syncopated tutti section. After building some momentum, like this first movement this energy gradually subsides and the previous euphonium melody returns. The movement is capped by a coda marked “very deliberate,” featuring a new type of chordal accompaniment now in the harp rather than piano, with a lopsided rhythm, over which a long-toned melody lingers in the alto saxophone and horn.

Third movement description

The third movement is 299 measures in length, with a performance time of about 15 minutes. This movement begins with a straightforward introduction (24 bars / 2 minutes)  that features the chorale melody Liebster Jesu, wir sind hier  (“Dearest Jesus, we are here”). The traditional chorale phrases are separated by various free-form vocalizations made by the instrumentalists. After a complete stanza of the chorale melody (plus a repeat of the final phrase), the body of the movement begins with a theme derived from the 2nd or 4th phrase of the original chorale. The overall effect of up to this point is evocative of the finale to Mendelssohn’s “Reformation” symphony, which employs Ein feste Burg (“A mighty fortress”)  in a somewhat similar manner.

The theme that continues the main body of this movement is bold and confident, unambiguously in a major mode. The chorale-derived theme is presented twice through the next 28 bars (about 2 minutes), first by a solo trumpet with piano chords, then by the whole ensemble with additional flourishes.

The next substantive section is a fairly conventional development on the chorale theme. The turbulence of this development is paused by a more relaxed, pulsing texture that introduces a new, lyrical theme. Heard first in the English horn, then the alto saxophone, it is answered by the ensemble with a counter statement. Swirling figures build and ultimately release the lyrical theme in its full form. This new melody features many repeated pitches in each phrase, a characteristic of a vocal melody with a text. Matthew Maslanka identifies this as a tune found in one of the musical sketches left by his father, labeled there as “The Song at the Heart of it All.” But if there is a text to this “song,” it is not given. The character of this melody is more like a folk song than a chorale. In his earlier works, David Maslanka invented folk-like melodies that intentionally simulate the style of actual folk melodies. Specifically, he spoke of the 7th Symphony as “…‘old songs remembered’. With one exception all the tunes are original, but they all feel very familiar” (http://davidmaslanka.com/works/ symphony-no-7, accessed 2018-09-28). Moreover, the ninth symphony uses a nearly identical theme in the fifth and final movement (Symphony No. 9, mvt 5: Fantasia on O Sacred Head Now Wounded, 14′ 30”).

The forward motion is halted by long unison tones, broken finally by a sharp strike on the piano. The low instruments of the ensemble murmur until a solo euphonium performs a full, nearly unaccompanied statement of the “song at the heart of it all” melody. Religious chords in the other low brasses add solemnity, leading to the recapitulation of the main chorale theme.

It is at this moment that the movement takes its most decisive turn from a conventional symphonic movement. Ordinarily, the recapitulation is affirmative, cementing the return of the primary theme(s) unadulterated, and—in a tonal work, at least—grounding the themes firmly in the original key. Here, however, as the chorale theme tries to assert itself, the euphonium bursts into the texture with what can only be described as primal, almost inhuman wailing. A second, dissonant key center grinds against the tonic of the chorale theme, denying us the resolution we expect.

Fourth movement description

The fourth movement is 144 measures in length, with a performance time of about 8 minutes. There is a brief (16 bars / 1 minute) introduction. From the first four notes of the movement, the overall melodic tendency is a downward line that settles on a sustained pitch. Like the first and second movements, the opening is comparatively sparse in texture and dominated by woodwind voices. The thematic material for this introductory section, though rhythmically obfuscated, is based on the melody of the chorale Jesu, der du meine Seele (“Jesus, you who are my soul”). As remarked earlier, the melody and the text of a chorale typically are intertwined. The first verse, in German and in English, is as follows:

Jesu, der du meine Seele
Hast durch deinen bittern Tod
Aus des Teufels finstern Höhle
Und der schweren Seelennot
Kräftiglich herausgerissen
Und mich solches lassen wissen
Durch dein angenehmes Wort,
Sei doch itzt, o Gott, mein Hort!
Jesus, it is by you that my soul
through your bitter death
from the devil’s dark hell
and the heavy pain of sin
has been mightily snatched away,
and you have made this known to me
through your delightful word:
be now, oh God, my stronghold.

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/Chorale022-Eng3.htm, accessed 2018-10-19.

After a brief pause, the texture shifts to a simple, continuous arpeggio pattern in the piano, with long, uncomplicated descending lines from a solo oboe, coming to rest each time on D. A subtle element that should  not to be overlooked in this same section is the pianississimo (ppp) pulsing of the bass drum. The section is in straight 4/4 time, but the drum stikes on two beats, then rests on one, repeating in this manner. The effect is incontrovertibly that of a heartbeat.

The introductory material returns at meas. 49, this time in muted brass, but now with an underlying dissonance in the harmonic support. Again like the first and second movement, the ensemble builds to an impassioned outburst, but this time it is somewhat more contained. The moment passes and the piano and oboe return, now in triple meter, but still generally trending downward and coming to rest. The woodwind choir from the very beginning returns for two brief imitative statements, and the movement concludes with a solo male voice and piano performing the final phrase of the chorale.

Interpretation

First movement interpretation

Knowing that the first movement is the only portion that was fully completed by David Maslanka prior to his death, and the title given to the movement of “Alison,” we can agree with Matthew’s statement given above that this movement is David’s combined love song, outrage at the universe, and farewell to his wife. The lyrical melody introduced by the solo alto saxophone has two key features: one, the first phrase consists of three notes—there are three  syllables in the name “Alison;” and two, the first phrase of the melody also is 6-bars—there are six letters in “Alison.” The following phrases are 5, 5, and 4 bars in length, the theme shortening as Alison Maslanka’s life was being shortened. Toward the end of the movement, the phrase lengths are the same, but the note values themselves have been abbreviated.

Second movement interpretation

The second movement follows a similar musical and emotional shape as the first. Between the title given by Matthew, “Mother and Boy Watching the River of Time,” and David’s inspirational “holy mother” or “female creative” figure, interpretation of this movement could go at least two ways. It is already established by the first movement title (and the known pre-musical context of the composition) that this symphony, at least as it started, is “about” the death of Alison. The “mother and boy” of this movement therefore could be construed as Alison and Matthew. This interpretation is further supported by the extended euphonium solo in this movement, the source of which Matthew has stated is a work written by David for him. This conclusion, however, is undermined by the fact that such an extended euphonium solo is not a unique feature to this David Maslanka work: both the third movement of Symphony No. 5 (2000) and the the fifth movement of Symphony No. 3 (1991) likewise feature this instrument in long, prominent solos—although the conception of those two symphonies also are on themes of loss and lament (http://davidmaslanka.com/works/symphony-no-5, accessed 2018-09- 28).

The alternative interpretation is that the “mother” is David’s “mother creative” and that he (David) is the boy. The “River of Time” could be all of time & creation, or life and family as David has experienced it, or David’s creative span alone. This notion is supported by the first “image” in the creative process for this symphony given above (“The Holy Mother takes me sliding down a rocky mountain slope….We find a large pool nestled among tall vertical rock faces. The water is turquoise blue”).

David Maslanka had previously remarked on water as a metaphor for life and concept of a life-energy that is both separate and at one with a particular lifespan. In the program note for Unending Stream of Life – Variations on All Creatures of Our God and King (2007) for Wind Ensemble, he wrote: “The title, ‘Unending Stream of Life,’ comes from the Vietnamese Buddhist monk and prolific author on Buddhist subjects, Thich Nhat Hanh. One statement of his stayed with me throughout the composition of this piece: ‘We are life. We are inextinguishable!’” (http://davidmaslanka.com/works/ unending-stream-of-lifewind-ens-2007-25, accessed 2018-10-17).

In a 2010 interview, he elaborated on this thought further:

Thich Nhat Hanh often uses the illustration of the ocean and the waves on the ocean. He says the ocean is life and the waves are the specific manifestation of that life. The wave is a separate thing and yet the wave is the ocean. So in our understanding of it, life is in the human body and each one of them is a manifestation of that human life. Not only do you not die, as it were, you simply do release this manifestation…you come to a certain point when life no longer sustains itself, but the energy which pushes it does not go away…it can’t. It moves onto whatever else it goes to and becomes over time something else and many, many more things more than likely. We don’t know what that is and yet that is the fundamental idea here that there is finally, no death as such…we do simply continue.

…I would like the option for something bigger and more complete….I think that personalities dissolve but the fundamental energy that drives every organism and drives the earth itself and drives the universe does not. So this is the thought that Thich Nhat Hanh was expressing. When you get that as the underlying thought, it is fundamentally hopefully and uplifting, as opposed to depressing and disastrous.

(Scott A. Hippensteel, A Study Of David Maslanka’s “Unending Stream Of Life”. DMA Dissertation, Ball State University: Muncie, Indiana, May 2011, 138-139.)

Third movement interpretation

Of the four movements, the third was the least-completed and least-sketched by David, and so there is by definition more of Matthew’s work  in the final product than David’s. Matthew has written that “the third movement became my response to the deaths of my mother and father. It is not what dad would have written; rather, it is a synthesis of my mind and his, colored by extraordinary pain and loss” (http://davidmaslanka.com/works/ symphony-no-10-the- river-of-time, accessed 2018-10-19).  The prominent use of the chorale Liebster Jesu, hier sind wir (sometimes wir sind hier; either way, “Dearest Jesus, we are here”) is simultaneously in the style of David and an homage to him. Matthew selected the melody of the 2nd and 4th phrase of this chorale as the first primary theme to this movement.

A key feature of any chorale is the marriage of the tune and text, such that invoking either one typically evokes the other. The text of the first stanza of Liebster Jesu with English translation is as follows:

Liebster Jesu, hier sind wir,
deinem Worte nachzuleben:
dieses Kindlein kommt zu dir,
weil du den Befehl gegeben,
daß man sie zu Christo führe;
denn das Himmelreich ist ihre.
Dearest Jesus, we are here,
gladly your command obeying.
With this child we now draw near
in response to your own saying
that to you it shall be given
as a child and heir of heaven.

Text & translation: https://hymnary.org/text/blessed_jesus_here_we_stand and https://hymnary.org/text/liebster_jesu_wir_sind_hier_deinem_worte, accessed 2018-10-12)

Between the two available texts for the 2nd and 4th phrases, “gladly your command obeying” and “in response to your own saying,” the first of the two texts offers more fertile ground for speculation about its place in the symphony.

In commentary for Symphony No. 5 (2000), David Maslanka stated that he was “not a Catholic, nor even a practicing Christian” (http://davidmaslanka.com/works/ symphony-no-5/, accessed 2018-10-13). Matthew Maslanka’s religious proclivities are not known. But by employing a chorale, Christianity is invoked and Christian beliefs necessarily then color any context in which it the chorale appears. According to typical Christian belief, the death of a loved one, especially when unexpected or tragic, is often described as “God’s will,” or, by extension, following God’s command. But there is often tension in the believer between his or her desire to adhere to the will of God, and the sorrow or anger felt at the worldly loss.

In the conclusion of the third movement, we hear this conflict in the harmonic clashes over the chorale theme. We also hear the dissonant wails by the solo euphonium. Throughout the symphony, there is temptation to assume that when the euphonium is featured prominently, it is a stand-in for Matthew himself, and the emotional tone of whatever music it plays is representative of Matthew’s own emotions. As noted above in the interpretation of the second movement, there are other instances of prominent euphonium solos in David Maslanka’s previous symphonies, which refutes this position. But on the other hand, Matthew has written that this movement is “his response” to the deaths of David and Alison. He also writes, “The restatement of the opening material [in the third movement], though at first comforting, becomes jarring and unsettled, rising to a dissonant roar. The euphonium soloist is left to scream, ‘why?!’ at [the] world that seems content to keep spinning” (http://davidmaslanka.com/works/symphony-no-10-the-river-of-time/). Indeed, the euphonium utterances at the end of the third movement are like the primal moans of some pre-verbal creature.

Fourth movement interpretation

David and/or Matthew’s use of the chorale Jesu, der du meine Seele has already been noted, and the first stanza quoted in the preceding description of the movement. But it is the final two stanzas that offer the most bearing on this movement in the overall emotional arc of the symphony:

Nun, ich weiß, du wirst mir stillen
Mein Gewissen, das mich plagt.
Es wird deine Treu erfüllen,
Was du selber hast gesagt:
Dass auf dieser weiten Erden
Keiner soll verloren werden,
Sondern ewig leben soll,
Wenn er nur ist Glaubens voll.

Herr, ich glaube, hilf mir Schwachen,
Laß mich ja verzagen nicht;
Du, du kannst mich stärker machen,
Wenn mich Sünd und Tod anficht.
Deiner Güte will ich trauen,
Bis ich fröhlich werde schauen
Dich, Herr Jesu, nach dem Streit
In der süßen Ewigkeit.
Now I know you will quieten
my conscience, that torments me.
Your faithfulness will fulfill
what you have said yourself:
that on this wide earth
no one should be lost
but should live forever,
if only he is full of faith.

Lord, I believe, help my weakness,
Let me never despair;
You, You can make me stronger,
when sin and death assail me.
I will trust in Your goodness,
until I joyfully see
You, Lord Jesus, after the battle
in sweet eternity

These texts, “Now I know you will quieten my conscience, that tortures me…Let me never despair” speak to Matthew’s description of this movement: “the acceptance and ability to move forward after loss.”

Judgement

As an example of “the symphony,” Maslanka’s tenth fails to satisfy many of the expectations normally set for the genre. The first and second movements are too similar in scope and arc, more alike in tone or mood than they are different. We could accept an entire first movement serving as an introduction to the rest of the larger work, but then we expect the second movement to be something different; and here it is not different enough. We are unsure now of the direction that the whole piece may be going. The third movement offers a more expected symphonic experience; As already noted, the introduction is similar to the final movement of Mendelssohn’s Reformation Symphony, and the rest of the movement follows a more-or-less typical three-part, exposition-development-recapitulation form as one would expect in a first movement of a conventional symphony. The final movement does serve adequately as a coda to the whole work, but again it has many similarities to the first and second movements, which dilutes its effectiveness.

If the work is not ultimately satisfactory as an example of the symphony, the question is left as to whether it is an effective composition sui generis. Can it stand alone, musically, without all the knowledge of the circumstances of its composition; or, is the piece too personal to allow audiences to experience it as anything other than biographical of its composers? Here, too, I think it falls short, and largely for the same reasons that it is not a good symphony. The similarity of movements 1, 2, and 4 is unrewarding. The comparative desolation of the movement openings, followed by the outbursts and return to quietness, are not viable without the extramusical background knowledge. The recapitulation of the third movement, with the primal cries of the euphonium/low brass and the jarring polytonal chords, likewise does not make musical sense without the knowledge of the events that inspired Matthew to complete the symphony in the way that he did.

The final question, then, is if it is not a good symphony, and not a great piece of music in and of itself, is it at least a successful monument and memorial to the life of David Maslanka? I think the answer now is yes. When all of the extramusical knowledge is taken into account—Alison’s illness and death, followed then by David, leaving the work incomplete; and then David’s request to Matthew that he finish the symphony—and when David Maslanka’s career and ouvre is surveyed, even from a distance, this symphony is brought into perspective, and the work does succeed. We can hear in the first movement David’s sorrow and love for his wife. We can hear in the third movement the anger and anguish of Matthew at the loss of his parents. And in the fourth movement we can feel these emotions calming, the passions returning to ground just as the melodies slowly descend and settle on long, sustained notes, undisturbed; and then, in the final moments of the piece, a simple evocation and tribute to David. It is a fitting eulogy to a composer whose  contributions to the world of wind instrumental music will continue to live on.

This material © 2018 Jeffrey A. Ohlmann. All rights reserved.

Background

I began my study of music on violin at age four. At age 10 I added the French Horn, which was to become my principal instrument. In high school I learned trumpet so that I could participate in the jazz band, and even momentarily flirted with the trombone.

I earned a B.A. in music from Luther College in 1993, where I studied with Ron Fox (horn and brass ensembles), Douglas Diamond (orchestra), and Frederick Nyline (band). While at Luther I served as principal horn in the LCSO for two years and section leader of the LCCB for one. During my college years I also participated in the pit orchestra for the summer Dorian Opera Theater at Luther College, and served as a substitute horn with the LaCrosse, WI, Symphony Orchestra.

From 1993 to 1996 I attended Bowling Green State University where I studied horn performance, music history, and ethnomusicology. Combining my interests in music history and music performance, I studied and performed works by Haydn and Mozart for the natural or hand-horn techniques.

In 1998 I returned to the Upper Midwest, settling in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Currently I perform regularly with the Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, the Saint Paul Civic Symphony, Neoteric Chamber Winds, the Gilbert and Sullivan Very Light Opera Company, and Grand Symphonic Winds, for whom I frequently contribute concert program notes.