Question:
villa-lobos fantasia: bornkamp found something
this is just to warn everybody :wink:
a student of arno bornkamp found the original score of the fantasia for soprano-saxophone. he sent it to bornkamp (a copy of it) and he noticed, that the version that we play today (the one starting with the 3 c's) is in fact wrong. in the original score everything is written a tone higher!! So it would start with 3 d's.
bornkamp did a recital at the beginnig of a masterclass that he held in lucerne (switzerland) 2 weeks ago and he played the fantasia in the original key. he said that there were some little "corrections" compared to the "standard" version, too (Like trills, some single notes).
i think that this is very interesting. so if you planned to learn the fantasia, wait until this correct version will be aviable. there are just a few copys around now.
and don't forget to warn all your piano-players :lol:

Answer:
But will a corrected version actually get published? Most companies are notorious for NOT updating things when corrections are found.
Also, does the correction also apply to the transition between the 2nd and 3rd movements, where the three octave C's are used to set up the segue?

Answer:
merlin, this is not just about these notes that i mentioned, i just used them as examples. it is really the whole work which is a tone higher! it's a change of the key.
the other thing is that with the companies. well, i don't know, we'll see. but i think that this is really an important change, not just a single note which is incorrect. it affects the whole piece, including the complete piano (or orchestra) accompaniment. just imagine what would happen if someone found out that a beethoven violin-sonata is not played in the original key. 2 days, and you've got the new, printed version...
(of course i know that this won't happen with sax-literature :cry: )

Answer:
Dale Underwood discovered this over a year ago when he was in South America. He talked about it in his Brazilian music clinic at the Saxophone Symposium, January 2002. It was then that he also stated an intention to re-record the Villa-lobos in its original key.
I would love to hear Bornkamp play it though. Must have been a treat. One of my absolute favorite soprano players. Check out his CD "A Saxophone in Paris" where he plays some Koechlin Sonatines on soprano with orchestra. Very sweet.
OANegrin

Answer:
Let me get this clear:
Is the soprano part wrong only?
Or is the entire work (including the piano part) supposed to be up a tone?
How would this have happened, given the original scoring for orchestra...?

Answer:
The entire work was originally written a whole step up. Both solo and orchestral parts.
I do not know why this happened. I don't believe I've ever heard Marcel Mule play an altissimo G on soprano. Maybe this could be why?
OANegrin

Answer:
Well, taking the entire piece up a whole tone would definitely ease some technical problems...at the expense of the others it would create.

Answer:
I have been lucky enough to have spent this weekend with Dale Underwood. I asked him about the piece and the key. Here is the story he told me today.
He has seen the original score. He goes to Brazil every year now. He loves it there, they love him there.
The piece was written a whole tone higher. It was written for soprano sax, not tenor. It was premiered by a Brazilian saxophonist who did not own a soprano, so he played it on tenor. He also could not play the high G passages. So, it was taken down a step. This saxophonist is still alive and living in Brazil.
So, there you have it!

Answer:
Maybe that's why Mule never played it as well...the high G's.

Answer:
villa-lobos fantasia: bornkamp found something
The only sufficient way to describe Arno Bornkamp's playing is in the words of Miles Davis: Bornkamp plays like a mo****fu****! I saw him play at this year's Saxophone Symposium at George Mason and boy was it a pleasure to hear him! I was starting to give up on classical saxophone until I heard him. He was Timothy Roberts' and Otis Murphy's bus driver that night - he took 'em to school big time! Roberts and Murphy totally lack musicality, and they aren't the only classical saxophonists guilty of this. In fact most are pretty darn unmusical. They press buttons on their horns and add vibrato to notes but that's the extent of it. Isn't it about music?? Bornkamp along with James Houlik and Francois Daneels understand what music is all about. They don't play the saxophone...they play music! They are the Yo-Yo Ma's and Joshua Bell's of the saxophone.
Now with all this talk about Tim McAllister, I'm extremely curious to see how he measures up.

Answer:
I was also at Saxophone Symposium in VA this winter. And although I would vehemently disagree with saxy's claims on the playing of Professors Roberts and Murphy, I wholeheartedly agree with his/her assessment of Arno Bornkamp's performances. Bornkamp is a true artist and "janus" figure - taking the saxophone in new directions and re-paving the most commonly trodden paths at the same time. A very charismatic individual both on and off the stage, and a fine example for students of the game. I have been familiar with his playing from recordings for some time now, but was completely floored to see him live in action. Every nuance, every physical motion freely and gracefully given. Tough to describe the overall experience in typed words, but this member of the audience was very moved.
OANegrin

Answer:
villa-lobos fantasia: bornkamp found something
OANegrin,
That's exactly what I was getting at: music when played right moves you. It has everything to do with musicality, not mere technique. I guarantee that if Arno Bornkamp were to perform the same pieces that Roberts and Murphy played that night we would be completely floored. With instruments of longer history (i.e. piano, violin, cello, etc) Arno's kind of playing is the de facto STANDARD. I don't know what you heard, but Murphy and Roberts could not even get their sixteenth note runs to phrase right. And their dynamic range was not even half of Bornkamp's! That's absolutely unacceptable coming from people of their position and stature, our so-called "ambassadors of the classical saxophone". Music just oozed out of Bornkamp that night. If affecting people in some way is not what we're after, then what are we playing music for?

Answer:
SaxyAcoustician,
While I do admire your enthusiasm towards Mr. Bornkamp's playing, I do hope you give Otis Murphy's playing a bit more credit. While you may find his playing lacking "musicality", I assure you MANY people find his playing to be subtle, elegant, and refined. Mr. Murphy's interpretation may not be obvious or "ooozing", but I have always found it to be convincing. I highly reccomend his CD "Memories of Dinant", available through RIAX recordings.

Answer:
Saxy, I'm not going to have this be a back-and-forth thing, so this will be my last post on this subject.
I absolutely agree that music is more about artistry than technique, but at the same time, I believe that issues you mentioned pertaining to phrasing and dynamics are in the realm of technique. To me, technique is only a facility for expression, not an end in itself.
That being said, this school year I have read books and heard lectures about two different approaches to art - Apollonian and Dionysian. Briefly, the term Apollonian refers to the Greek god Apollo, what is believed to be the basis of classicism. Apollo is usually portrayed as a young, very physically fit man, whose form and motions are of the most structured and subtle nature, yet full of beauty and grace. On the other side of the coin is Dionysian (from Dionysius, god of wine and indulgence, basis of romanticism), which runs really in the opposite direction from the Apollonian approach. Both approaches are full of merit and can be employed to result in the most effective of art.
In my mind, each artist resides somewhere on the line between these two valid approaches. An Otis Murphy, Umble, Londeix would be closer to the Apollo end. A James Houlik would be towards the Dionysius end, and an Arno Bornkamp or Sinta would be more or less in the middle (leaning towards Dio probably). My taste tends to be more on the romantic side than anything else, but I also have great appreciation for artists who speak to me no matter where they fall on the line.
These are just my thoughts based on infos I have read or heard. I do not mean to lecture, just to explain my views. I hope I've not offended any, and that we can eventually get back to the original intent of this thread.
OANegrin, BACHANGEL%hotmail.com

Answer:
this is quite strange now...
when i had this masterclass with bornkamp, he talked exactly about this Apollo-Dionisos-thing that you mentioned above. and he stated that he himself thinks that the saxophone is clearly an dionysian instrument (sorry if the spelling is wrong).
and i agree with everyone who says that bornkamp plays awfully musical. i heard a student who played the Glasunow in the lesson with bornkamp. and the things that bornkamp said and played were soooooo musical. i did not even know that one can play like this on the sax....

Answer:
villa-lobos fantasia: bornkamp found something
stefan, thanks for that informative post. I'm not surprised to hear about Bornkamp saying that the saxophone is Dionysian in nature - after all, his playing reflects that mindset. I played for Houlik in two masterclasses and both times, just like your Bornkamp experience, he was ALL about the music. The saxophone is capable of such enormous expression as so poignantly demonstrated over the years by jazz players, smooth jazz players, pop players, blues players, etc. As a serious classical saxophonist (see Klock thread) who has undertaken the study of jazz just as seriously over the years, I feel that classical saxophonists need to take lessons from saxophonists outside their genre. I don't mean necessarily taking actual lessons from such players but listening to them to learn how and why they sound so expressive, and why they move you. They take the Dionysian approach to saxophone playing - they HAVE to, otherwise they'd sound stale and wouldn't have recording contracts. If you're a classical player, try emulating the likes of David Sanborn or Warren Hill or Dave Koz or Everette Harp. You don't have to learn to improvise, just focus on their sound. If you catch what they're doing, you'll begin to hear yourself sound more dramatic and more expressive on the classical stuff. If you don't like listening to the pop or jazz stuff, try emulating Houlik or Bornkamp. They'll lead you in the same direction.
OANegrin, threads usually go off on tangents which is what makes for interesting conversation. :) Your Apollonian/Dionysian comparison is a good one and definitely a useful tool in assessing the styles of like artists. In fact I like it a lot. I believe that music and art in general are Dionysian in nature. Otherwise art would never evolve with the whims of human expression and indulgence. Concerning your comment about artistry and technique... Sadly to say technique is all I saw in Roberts' and Murphy's playing that night (I'm not even going to mention the countless others who have stood in front of the Navy Band at previous symposiums who were the same way). Bornkamp went beyond the technique required for the art. The artistry in Bornkamp's playing is undeniable.
Walrus, I've heard that word "convincing" used before in the context of music and art. I've used it too myself in the past to describe some players but the more I thought about that word the more I felt that it was more negative than positive. It tells me that a player has merely "convinced" someone that he/she has managed to assimilate a certain standard style. I think that word is best suited for young, up-and-coming artists who are in the midst of their shedding period. In those cases, the comment is positive. But for major university professors I don't think it is. To say Eric Alexander, Chris Potter, Joshua Redman, Michael Brecker, David Liebman, etc are "convincing" would be an insult to them. The most memorable performances I've experienced are the ones where the performers elicited a response from me like, "WHOA!!!!! YEAH!!!!!", and my heart's pounding like crazy and I can't stop talking about it for years, just like the Bornkamp show did to me recently. To paraphrase Houlik, I would rather move than impress.
Maybe I'm the one with the problem here. I've experienced so much that it takes that much more to get me excited, like a bad drug habit. Don't mean to offend or argue, just giving a view (albeit maybe a bit extreme) and some meaningful suggestions.
Peace
Dr Ben