Very appropriate. Dies irae = The day of wrath aka the Final Judgement. Many film composers have used it as the basis for invoking the feeling of doom; including Nightmare before Christmas where Danny Elfman uses it extensively.
Option 1 sounds great, and just proves the composer knew what he was doing from the beginning. Option 2 would sound better if it were played well. Option 3 was nice - the tuba gave it depth and weight, and the ophicleide added that sinister quality the passage needs while still nicely blending with the other low instruments. Option 4 was bizzare - like someone accidentally turned down the treble on the audio. Though I don't doubt there are players who can do remarkable things with timbre, mostly Tuba is too dark and 'woofy' a sound to play this well, and overpowers the orchestra a bit to boot.
Option 1 sounds best to me, but I think there are not many musicians able to play the serpent as phenomenally as Patrick Wibart...so this combination in modern times is very rare and hard to come by.
Lorem1psum, Patrick Wibart is almost certainly the most accomplished modern day serpent player, and is one of the top two or three ophicleide players. But this very simple piece of playing in no way proves any of that. This passage does not require phenomenal playing of either instrument.
It's gotta be the third one for me. The pure tone of the tuba holding down the pitch and adding the power, while the grittiness of the Ophicleide provides the satanic edge that Berlioz wanted. Bravo!
christopherhovis, what 'grittiness' of the ophicleide? In this register, an ophicleide sounds pretty close to that of a baritone Saxhorn, hardly a coarse or gritty sound. And indeed, when I listened to this third example, it was hard to even tell there was an ophicleide playing because the tuba's bigger sound overwhelmed it.
@christopherhovis9926 , regardless, there is nothing about this Ophicleide sound that merits a description of "gritty". "Diffuse", shallower", "unfocused" perhaps would all be more appropriate word choices.
Yes, it was originally written for Serpent for Ophicleide. There was no way to use Tuba at the time, the instrument was created 5 years after this symphony was premiered.
Sounds ordinary to us because we're used to hearing tuba for bass parts today. Someone from Berlioz day could easily have said it sounded just as 'ordinary' on ophicleide.
Someone from Berlioz’s day would recognize the Serpent’s use from the Mass of the dead and would say, why couldn’t those other instruments play a piano the way the orchestration indicates in the score…too heavy, too overbearing…
@@royrogers4468, well, no. Berlioz was a great orchestrator and put in instruments that would give him the sound he wanted, which was a cold, thin, spooky sound. It sounded creepy back in the day too. Playing it on tubas makes it sound too smooth, and it loses its intended effect. Has nothing to do with what we are 'used to'. By your reasoning, a trumpet today no longer has a bright sound, and a flugelhorn does not have a mellow sound, because, hey, we are used to their sounds now.
The third version has something that sounds perfect, terrifying, pure, but it sounds perfect. We may think that Tuba and Ophicleide are not a good combination, but together they achieve such an incredible sound. I don't know what it could be, but the third version has something that the others don't.
Berlioz described the timbre of the ophicleide as raw and rough in his treatise. The tuba, on the other hand, is very pure and rounded in its tone. When you combine the two instruments, you have a sound with a punctuated attack but a rounded and rich body.
My personal favorite is number three. The mixture of the tuba and opheclide blend together with the reeds a lot better than the others imo. The first one is also very good and a very very close second.
Honestly I really like the second one. Sure, the ophicleides are cracking notes, the contrabassoons are blasting and the tempo is weird, but all these create a bizarre experience that you can’t help but enjoy
Serpent and ophicleide sound the way Berlioz firstly intended. Realy sinister and evil, haunting a bit, low end is not that present, but sounds blend better with woodwinds. With two ophicleides, brass section overpowers a bit and stands it s own ground. With two tubas it sounds watered down, to soft and velvety, but low end is stronger and blends better with strings.
The second excerpt is terrible. Norrington is clueless on tempo and has made no effort to make the bassoons actually play in tune and in blend with the Ophechliedes. It completely makes it impossible to compare
I played it on a french C Tuba recently (our conservatoire is lucky to still have one of these) and it was indeed fun to do but it was in my opinion too powerful of a sound in the lower range and it didn't blend in very well with the trombones as they were modern large bell trombones and not old french trombones
@@ericpalacios920 yep, and the 2d tuba was played by an F bass tuba (although we first tried with a Bb bass Saxhorn) ! the french C tubas are really fun to play although its really hard to play on tune, i ended up coming with weird combinations to play on tune but it was fun!
This passage represents something very specific and particular, which is entirely lost on modern audiences, but would have been plainly and immediately understood in Berlioz' time and place. The Dies Iræ is the Gregorian chant sequence for the Requiem, i.e. mass for the dead. In France in earlier centuries, Gregorian chant was sung quite slowly, and even more slowly for more solemn liturgies. It was sung in unison by men's voices, and in the 19th century normally supported by ophicleides or serpents playing in unison. Berlioz specifically refers to this in his orchestration treatise's entry about the serpent, saying how terrifying the instrument sounded when playing the Dies Iræ at funerals. So, with four bassoons taking the place of a men's chorus, and two ophicleides/serpents playing along, intoning this chant melody slowly, in unison without harmony, accompanied only by tolling bells, Berlioz is providing a quite literal and realistic depiction of a funeral of his time and place. So, per this movement's program, the poet, having arrived in hell upon his death, after seeing the beloved he murdered among the denizens of hell, suddenly finds himself viewing events back on earth -- the transition depicted by the brief, quiet unison passage in the lower strings -- only to witness his own funeral. The impact on a French audience of that time would have been an immediate and unambiguous understanding, and quite frightening.
Berlioz on the serpent: "The truly barbaric tone of this instrument would be much better suited for the bloody cult of the Druids than for that of the Catholic church, where it is still in use -- as a monstrous symbol for the lack of understanding and coarseness of taste and feeling which have governed the application of music in our churches since times immemorial. Only one case is to be excepted: masses for the dead, where the serpent serves to double the dreadful choir of the Dies Iræ. Here its cold and awful blaring is doubtless appropriate; it even seems to assume a character of mournful poetry when accompanying this text, imbued with all the horrors of death and the revenge of an irate God." -- Treatise on Instrumentation, trans. Theodore Front, p. 348.
It's such an intriguing recording from Norrington though. It does a lot of really provocative things and you can kind of tell the orchestra is not on board and is really fighting back. I quite enjoy the tension
@@freddiemeyers it's always interesting to see an orchestra who don't really want to do the same as the conductor. There's a recording of Bernstein conducting Coriolan and half the comments are complaining about the slow tempo. The thing is, the tempo is fine, but the orchestra clearly want to play it faster. It makes the whole performance fall apart - so much less successful that your description of Norrington's Symphonie Fantastique.
I think that number 2 is more menacing, I really enjoy the contrast between the orchestral chorous and the dies irae excerpt. But surely it's "different" from most interpretations.
Norrington's interpretation brings absolutely nothing to the table. Aside from being too slow the players arent playing well either. The bassoons are all out of tune with eachother and the ophecleides are a bloody disaster. 2 is frankky unlistenable.
This is the demistration of the high competence of Berlioz, the first one I think is more near at what the orchestra on that period could have, serpent and ophicleide, and sound super, the color of sound and the balance is amazing. It's also interesting the mix between a small F tuba and an ophicleide.
My favorite recording of the Dies Irae is the one with Barenboim Conducting Chicago. I love hearing Gene Pokorny play the Dies Irae 2 octaves down. I personally prefer the full sound of the tubas.
I know this recording. Pokorny often plays the Dies Irae octaves down, but this is not the original part!! I don't like when musicians play octaves down or up like Warren Deck and many others
I think the first version sounds the best. With all the period instruments and a good tempo, it's really nice. But this video is focused on the tuba section and I think the basoons are very important in the global sound. And I find that's why the second version is so bad. It's like the bassoons reeds are really too soft and sounds so badly
@@lorenzovignato I was expecting that the Norrington was much earlier, when people hadn't quite figured out how to play period instruments, but it's 2013. Tuning is bad and it's not just slow but static; I've heard it at that tempo with a sense of forward motion and it can work, it just doesn't here.
I also agree, it sounded as though they had three regular bassoons and one REALLY bad contra player. Also, Norrington's tempo completwly kills everything.
Like many, I prefer option 1, serpent & ophicleide. Also like others, I feel option 2 is a non-starter. I like option 3, ophicleide & tuba, better than option 4, two tubas. But, the recorded sound of option 4 is to me somewhat subdued. Had it more presence I suspect I'd like it better than I do.
When I played in a youth orchestra I was first tuba(and the euphonium player when needed) we did this 1st tuba on euphonium and 2nd tuba doubling down an octave. I can't find anyone playing that way to save the life of me. It sounded pretty good so if anyone gets the chance to play it that way, take it you will not regret it.
Playing it on euphonium may actually be legit historical performance option as the tubas adopted later in France where in the key of C covering the same range as euphonium, as opposed to the larger tubas adopted elsewhere.
I know. I had one of those high C tubas on rent from the principal trumpet player for a year. I just couldn't get used to the fingerings for a c instrument. I am used to Eb tuba and euphonium.
I would put 1 and 3 at nearly equal measure. The blend with Serpent, Ophecleide and Bassoons is very well done. The blend and power of Tuba, Ophecleide, and bassoons needed for Royal Albert Hall strikes me as a good choice for the size of the space. Mazel's tempo is a bit quick, but the two Tubas sound almost pedestrian and over blended. Norrington's version is a nightmare. Ignoring the complete lack of proper tempo which brings the entire piece to an aas-grinding halt, the Bassoons are over-blowing and are out of tune (it also sounfs like they have three Bassoons and 1 Contra). I understand Ophecleides are notoriously unreliable, but the players in the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment are supposed to be experts. They are also hiddeously out of tune, inconsiatent with their attacks, and generally just sound pitiful, lacking blend with themselves or the bassoons. All of this lies at Norringtons feet as he is supposwd to fix these kinds of problems as the conductor Unfortunately it makes judging the 2 Ophecleides version impossible as it isnt quality enough and is a bad example of that choice of instrumentation.
This one, singular excerpt is also the inspiration and basis for the entirety of Sondheim’s “Sweeney Todd” which is quite possibly the most brilliantly written musical ever produced.
@@ryannamecat , (NiTe)ething does NOT know it, he is just another RU-vid commenter who blathers nonsensically. He then goes on to assert that that Sweeney Todd is perhaps the greatest musical ever.....while tons of people lobe Sweeney, and I am one of them, it is a great leap of arrogance (or ignorance of other great musicals) to make such an assertion, and then use that lame opinion to justify the initial statement. If he knew what he was talking about, he would have most likely backed up his assertion with some verifiable facts.
Personally I like the horrible, woody, out-of-tune sound of the Serpent. It really brings out the evil character and mood of the witch’s sabbath. I would have used two of them, which I believe was Berlioz’s intention, but the Ophicleide was the main Bass brass instrument of the time. Same goes for a lot of Mendelssohn (Midsummer Night’s dream being the most notable), which was also written for the Serpent, but premiered on Ophicleide.
First thing's first. The Serpent does not have those characteristics that you mention. It has an incredible variety of tones and can be as tuned as any other. I am a Serpent player and I am totally against this as anyone can make it sound beautiful and in tune and make it sound like in the Dies Iræ IN TUNING. Second. Mendelssohn did not write A Midsummer Night's Dream for Serpent. It was written to English bass Horn (in his letter to his sister) and later to Ophicleide.
@@forveillelier I’m just going on the way it is used in Berlioz’s context. I firmly believe that the Serpent, as an instrument, can produce some of the most beautiful sounds I have heard with my own ears in person. I am currently writing a piece of music, in which, the Serpent has a prominent part. I’d really like to know about the differences to the English Bass Horn and the Serpent, as I always thought they were the same instrument, shaped a bit differently, with different names.
@@mogmason6920 I also have no information on this instrument. I don't know any video where they play it and that worries me. But if there isn't any video where they play it, I'm going to be the one to do it.
Bueno, después de ver todos los comentarios, creo que todos estamos de acuerdo: la primera versión es la mejor. Nada puede sustituir a los serpentones y oficleidos!
3 года назад
Last one is also played by Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra.
the ophicleide has its characteristic "buzzing and gritty" bass sound, meanwhile the tuba is too smooth and woofy. even with 1 ophicleide and a tuba it sounds much better than 2 tubas, let alone with 2 ophicleides or even paired with a serpent.
Love 1 and 3, suspect 2 would be more convincing if it were played properly, and at a less pedestrian tempo. 4 sounds so ordinary by comparison - wonder what it would sound like with bass trombone and tuba in 8ves.
Number one is the best, because they all use instruments that were used hundreds of years ago, and I think that best suits the song. Especially with the serpent and the ophicleide, that makes it even better because of the sound. Now, which one is the worse in my opinion? Number 2, it just sounds..sad in my opinion, I felt it that it went pretty slow, and that they didn’t tried their best.
One. The sound of the period instruments in important: Trumpets (natural, without valves) and Cornets-a-Pistons (with valves, and descended from the Post Horn) should not sound alike, like the modern instruments do; the bassoons in this recording are spectacular; and the sound of serpent and ophecleid are important in evoking the sound of 19th century plainchant. Also, the French (NB, orchestra/conductor no. 1 is French) love and respect plainchant; Norrington, whom I can't stand as a conductor, just doesn't seem to "get it": It sounds like a parrot pecking at a toy piano.
Not too bad, but the sound of the ophicleide is not related to the orchestra. For me in a modern orchestra the sound of older instruments doesn't work good
@@ezequielsanchez9191 too much lighter. Dies irae needs dark sounds. Originally was written for ophicleide and serpenton, then Berlioz changed to tuba, so...
I actually like the bassoons in 2. That reedy buzz is great! But the ophicleide players needed to get better acquainted with their instruments. I like Jansons' tempo. And the Bavarian Radio Symphony brass are fine.
