THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE

SCHOOL OF MUSIC

CAPTURING THE CHARACTERISTIC: TRANSCRIPTION IN THE MODERN WIND BAND

RYAN CZEKAJ SPRING 2019

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a baccalaureate degree in Music Education with honors in Music Education

Reviewed and approved* by the following:

Dennis Glocke Director of Concert Bands Thesis Supervisor

Linda Thornton Professor of Music Education Honors Adviser

Eric Bush Associate Director of Bands University of Iowa Faculty Reader

* Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. i

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the function of transcription in the modern wind ensemble. Data were gathered via the creation of an original transcription, interviews with

Elgar scholars, a survey of the Big Ten Band Director’s Association, and an analysis of concert programs from Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) bands. Elgar’s Mazurka from the Three

Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 was transcribed for modified wind ensemble. Live interviews were conducted in July 2018 with ten Elgarians from a variety of musical backgrounds. All BTAA band directors were contacted and asked to complete a survey consisting of six open-ended questions, as well as submit concert programs for their ensemble(s) from fall 2013-spring 2018.

Findings suggest that a modern transcriber must actively seek to capture a composer’s sound, through means such as a conceptual transcription and manuscript study. All Elgarians interviewed stated that the transcription of the Mazurka preserves the characteristics of Elgar’s sound. Out of twelve total characteristics of quality transcriptions listed by responding BTAA directors, 62.5% of respondents included “integrity of the music is preserved” and 56.3% included “transcription writes for winds with characteristic sounds”. Of the 1,909 performances catalogued in this study, 416 (21.8%) were transcriptions, with 297 (15.6%) being specifically transcriptions of orchestral literature. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vi

PREFACE ...... viii

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1

Transcription in the Wind Band ...... 1 Sir Edward Elgar ...... 2 Elgar’s Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 ...... 4 Purpose ...... 5 Need for Study ...... 6 Questions ...... 6 Limitations and Definitions ...... 7 Procedures ...... 8

Chapter 2 “Mazurka” from the Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 by Sir Edward Elgar: A Transcription for Wind Ensemble ...... 9

Purpose ...... 11 Procedure ...... 11 Results ...... 15 Discussion ...... 15

Chapter 3 Capturing the Characteristic: Scholarly Interview of Prominent Elgarians 20

Purpose ...... 21 Procedure ...... 22 Results ...... 23 Discussion ...... 24

Chapter 4 A Survey of Current Attitudes and Philosophies Regarding the Programming of Transcriptions Among Big Ten Band Directors ...... 27

Purpose ...... 29 Procedure ...... 29 Results ...... 30 Discussion ...... 34

Chapter 5 Programming Trends of Big Ten University Wind Bands and Transcription Programming Practices ...... 37 iii

Purpose ...... 39 Procedure ...... 39 Results ...... 40 Discussion ...... 44

Chapter 6 Conclusions ...... 48

Appendix A Guiding Questions for Elgar Interviews and Transcription Survey...... 51

List of Guiding Questions for Live Interviews ...... 51 Transcription Survey ...... 52

Appendix B “Mazurka” from the Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 – Conceptual, Pure, and Final Transcriptions for Wind Ensemble ...... 53

Conceptual Transcription ...... 53 Pure Transcription ...... 62 Final Transcription ...... 76

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 90 iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Four-part reduction of rehearsal [A] ...... 12

Figure 2-2: Rehearsal [A] of Elgar's published piano version of the Mazurka ...... 13

Figure 2-3: Violins at m. 1, published score (1899) ...... 16

Figure 2-4: Clarinets at m. 1, transcription ...... 16

Figure 2-5: Violins and violas, m. 93-94, original (1899) ...... 17

Figure 2-6: Clarinets, alto sax, and euphonium, m. 93, transcription ...... 17

Figure 2-7: Primary theme in the clarinet (m. 11), published score (1899) ...... 18

Figure 2-8: Primary theme in the clarinet (m. 11), The Elgar Complete Edition (2015) ...... 18

Figure 2-9: Primary theme in the clarinet (m. 11), manuscript ...... 18

Figure 2-10: Primary theme in the clarinet (m. 11), transcription ...... 18

Figure 4-1: Estimated number of transcriptions programmed per year ...... 30

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Conceptual transcription of Mazurka, rehearsal [A] ...... 14

Table 3-1: Characteristics of Elgar's sound...... 23

Table 3-2: Rationale for military band commission conjectures ...... 24

Table 3-3: Rationales affirming the presented transcriptions ...... 24

Table 4-1: Philosophy for including transcriptions ...... 31

Table 4-2: Transcribers reported to be programmed with greater frequency ...... 32

Table 4-3: Characteristics of a quality transcription ...... 33

Table 4-4: Characteristics that disqualify a work from transcription...... 33

Table 5-1: Transcription proportions in collegiate conference program surveys, 2009-2016 . 39

Table 5-2: Transcription proportions among surveyed Big Ten university wind ensembles .. 41

Table 5-3: Most commonly programmed transcriptions ...... 42

Table 5-4: Most commonly programmed transcribers ...... 43

Table 5-5: Among transcriptions, most commonly programmed original composers ...... 44

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is of paramount importance that I take the time to thank the following individuals, in full awareness that words cannot capture the depth to which you have impacted my life and work.

The project that ultimately became this thesis would not have even begun had it not been for the support and guidance of Dr. Eric Bush. Dr. Bush, it is with the benefit of hindsight that I realize I came to you for assistance at a time when you were balancing, among other things, work, a move to Iowa, and an infant son. Despite this, you did not hesitate for a moment in agreeing to serve as mentor. I hope this concluded work can serve as validation of the countless hours you invested in me!

I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have had Dr. Linda Thornton serve as honors advisor during my time in the Schreyer Honors College. Dr. Thornton, you remained faithfully committed to this project even at times when my confidence was shaken. I cannot overstate the influence you have had on my development as a writer, researcher, and music educator. If my research can have one-tenth the impact of your work, I will consider myself incredibly successful.

From the 2013 PMEA All-State Wind Ensemble to the present, every interaction with

Professor Dennis Glocke has pushed me to become a stronger musician and human being.

Professor Glocke, I am eternally thankful for lending me your time and talents time and time again. You saw potential in me to which I was blind, and drove me to successes I did not believe

I deserved. Chief among the pearl of wisdoms you bestowed upon me is the mindset that I should accept only the finest work, from others and myself. vii

My research in London would not have been possible without the contributions and fervent support of several phenomenal people – none more deserving of praise than John and

Ann Norris. I would have never imagined that an undergraduate student from Pennsylvania could find such warmth and acceptance from The Elgar Society. John, I will never be able to properly thank you for all you did to make my visit a success, but know that you made a new continent feel like home!

Finally, it is with the deepest love and gratitude that I thank my family for their unending support of my endeavors – specifically my mother, Carla, my siblings, Kayla, Elizabeth,

Michael, Jacob, Nathan, and my aunt, Darlene. While I acknowledge you may not share my adoration for Elgar, I appreciate your support of my passions nonetheless! Thank you.

viii

PREFACE

As a classical clarinetist brought up in the bands of the American public school system,

transcriptions have had a profound impact on my development as a musician. I had the great

fortune to have been offered as fine a public school music education as I can imagine, with

educators focused on the growth of well-rounded musicians (and human beings, for that matter).

In accordance with this goal, my band directors incorporated arrangements and transcriptions

into the repertoire their ensembles performed, so that my peers and I could experience music

other than 20th and 21st century band originals. Some of the fondest memories of my K-12 music education are performances of Holst’s Jupiter and A Somerset Rhapsody, and Elgar’s Variations on an Original Theme, “Enigma”, Op. 36. It was these experiences, coupled with band staples such as Holst’s Suite in Eb (and F) for Military Band, that seeded my love of 20th century British

music. With the benefit of hindsight, I realize that I would have never performed a work by

Elgar had it not been for transcriptions. Out of adoration for British music, and with insistence

that future band students experience such phenomenal artistry, I endeavored to not only further

the presence of Elgar’s writing in the body of wind band repertoire, but to determine the modern

status of transcription in the field as a whole. Adorning the hat of the transcriber, I committed

myself to paying homage to Elgar by embodying his musical characteristics as thoroughly as

possible. At that point I discovered that recreating a composer’s sound is an abstract thing, easy

to say and difficult to do. The following document represents my efforts in connecting with the

greats of the past, capturing the sublime essence of their music, and preserving it for future

generations of band students. 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Transcription in the Wind Band

Transcriptions have played an essential role in the repertoire of the American wind band

from the medium’s earliest days. Although professional ensembles of wind instruments existed

long before it, the first example of a band reflecting a modern instrumentation arose with Patrick

“Frank” Sarsfield Gilmore and the Twenty-second Regiment Band of New York (Battisti, 2002).

Between his appointment as bandmaster in 1873 and 1878, Gilmore shifted the timbrel focus of

the ensemble from the brass to the woodwinds, leading to a proportion of woodwind, brass, and

percussion that has been generally maintained over the past century-and-a-half. As a point of reference, Gustav Holst’s First Suite in Eb for Military Band was first performed in 1920 (Short,

1990) and Percy Grainger’s experimentations with the wind band began with the composition of

Hill Song No. 1 in 1902 (Battisti, 2002).

As a result of the lack of repertoire deemed “serious” available for performance, band programs consisted primarily of transcriptions of orchestral literature, light music, and opera excerpts (Battisti, 2002). Composer Sir George Dyson (1883-1964) stated, “It has often been remarked, and often deplored, that composers of serious aims ignore the military band”

(Whitwell, 1969, p. 35). Many prominent bandmasters of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including Gilmore and John Philip Sousa, transcribed music personally for their ensembles to perform. 2 The 20th century saw an explosion of original repertoire for wind band. This growth stemmed from a variety of demands, including the proliferation of band programs in public schools, the expansion in size and number of collegiate music programs, and the establishment of the military bands as top-caliber performing ensembles. Additionally, the establishment of the

Eastman Wind Ensemble by Frederick Fennell in 1952 is considered to be a leading catalyst of the expansion of works by serious composers (Wiltshire, 2010). Of the ten Pulitzer prize- winning composers between 2008-2018, six have written for winds, and four have specifically written for wind ensemble (Steve Reich, Jennifer Higdon, Zhou Long, Kevin Puts). With the wind band’s repertory now containing numerous symphonies and receiving attention from the world’s leading composers, one cannot help but ponder the status of transcriptions in such an expanse.

Sir Edward Elgar

Born on June 2, 1857 in Worcester, England, Sir Edward Elgar was a world-renowned

British composer known for compositions for nearly all classical media. Throughout his career,

Elgar composed cantatas, three symphonies, an opera, smaller works for orchestra including several arrangements of keyboard masterworks, a collection of chamber works including several wind quartets, and a vast repertory of songs. He composed for wind quintet, brass band, and the

Powick Asylum Band (a mixture of strings, winds, and brass), but never for wind band.

Although Elgar is perhaps best known for orchestral works such as the Variations on an Original

Theme, “Enigma”, Op. 36 and Pomp and Circumstance marches (specifically No.1 in D), his compositional output is as diverse as it is extensive. 3 Elgar’s upbringing allowed for musical exploration from a young age. His father,

William Henry Elgar, was established in Worcester as “an influence in the city’s musical life”

(McVeagh, 2001, p. 1). He was a violinist, pianist, organist of St. George’s Roman Catholic

Church, piano tuner, and owner of Elgar Bros. Music Shop. Therefore, young Edward’s childhood was filled with hours absorbing music, be it from the music shop, the organ loft, or at the town’s cathedral services and music societies. However, he never received formal music training beyond violin lessons in his youth in Worcester. After leaving his job at the solicitor’s office at 16, Elgar spent the rest of his life as a freelance musician, never again holding a secure post.

In his early career, Elgar strived for success through a variety of means. Engagements included leader of the Worcester Amateur Instrumental Society (1877), Philharmonic (1879), and Glee Club (1879), bassoonist in a wind quintet (for which he also composed), conductor/composer of the Powick Asylum Band, and violinist for various festival and city orchestras in and around Worcester. Of his compositions, biographer Diana McVeagh states,

“Though some of the early music is personal, none is exceptional, and Elgar must have been sustained at this time by an inward sense of power” (2001, p. 2).

In 1886 Elgar took on Caroline Alice Roberts, a young novelist, amateur singer, and daughter of Major-General Sir Henry Gee Roberts, KCB, as a student. The two were married in

London in May 1889. Throughout the remainder of their life together, Alice would serve as his primary source of emotional support. Were it not for her efforts, it is unlikely that Edward Elgar would have achieved the immense success to come. The decade following their marriage was one of tribulation for the couple, including a failed attempt to establish a presence in London. 4 Despite this, Elgar’s status as a composer grew steadily, with successful works such as Froissart,

The Black Knight, Scenes from the Saga of King Olaf, Imperial March, and Caractacus.

The success of the Variations on an Original Theme, “Enigma”, Op. 36 (1899) would

catapult Elgar into the fame he had so long desired (McVeagh, 2001). McVeagh stated that

“Quite simply, the [Enigma Variations] is the most distinguished British orchestral work to that

date” (2001). Elgar would spend the remainder of his career in the national and international

spotlight, redefining the English sound and influencing a generation of British composers that

would follow.

Elgar’s Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10

Publication of the Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 occurred just as Elgar was at the

cusp of monumental fame. Elgar’s Variations on an Original Theme, “Enigma”, Op. 36, is

undoubtedly among Elgar’s most recorded and performed works today, hailed by biographer

Jerrold Moore as “the truest expression of Edward [Elgar]’s individuality in music” (Moore,

1984, p. 273). The “Enigma Variations” were finished on February 18th, 1899. The Three

Characteristic Pieces were submitted for publication on January 24th, just 3 weeks prior.

Although the pieces were published in their current form in 1899, each was composed at

different points in the 1880s. The Sérénade Mauresque, published as the second piece in the set, was composed first, in the spring of 1833. The piece was originally titled Intermezzo Moresque, and was premiered as a stand-alone work with minimal success (Lloyd-Jones, 2015).

The Intermezzo, along with what would become the Mazurka and Contrasts, was performed in Birmingham on March 1st, 1888 as an unpublished Suite in D Minor, under the 5 direction of the composer himself. This suite included a march as a fourth movement, recomposed from an existing work. The pieces of the Suite in D Minor were stated in a review by The Musical Times as “distinguished by fancy as well as tunefulness, though in some parts overlaboured and wanting in cohesion and artistic development” (Lloyd-Jones, 2015, p. xv).

Following Edward German’s commercial success with his Suite of Dances from Henry

VIII (1892), publisher Novello encouraged Elgar to produce something similar. Although initially hesitant to the idea (stating “I can’t write that sort of thing”), Elgar revised his Suite in D

Minor and sent it for publication under the title Three Characteristic Pieces (Kennedy, 2004, p.

64). The last movement, March, was not included in the final publication.

The three pieces were scored so that several of the winds may be omitted if not available.

This style of orchestration is unusual for Elgar, and was likely employed to make the piece more accessible (and therefore more marketable) to amateurs (Brookes, 2007).

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the function of transcription in the modern wind ensemble. To begin painting this picture, the author sought to determine how a modern-day transcription of orchestral literature for winds is written and gauge the level of acceptance of transcriptions among scholars of a given composer. Additional components include the frequency with which band directors program transcriptions, and the philosophical rationale behind their selection. Data were gathered via the creation of an original transcription, interviews with Elgar scholars, a survey of the Big Ten Band Director’s Association, and an analysis of concert programs from Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) bands. 6 Need for Study

Despite the immense historical significance of transcriptions to the wind band, few studies have explicitly sought to examine their modern function in the medium. A survey of philosophy in regard to programming transcriptions held by prominent wind conductors seeks to benefit music educators at all levels, potentially impacting the repertoire they program for their students. Additionally, original transcriptions of composers such as Sir Edward Elgar, who did not compose for band, have the potential to connect band musicians with music to which they would otherwise not be exposed.

Questions

This study sought to answer the following research questions:

• What is the function of transcription in the modern American wind ensemble?

a. What does it mean to transcribe an orchestral work for wind ensemble with the

goal of capturing the composer’s sound?

b. What proportion of repertoire programmed by collegiate ensembles consists of

transcriptions?

c. What are the most frequently programmed transcriptions and transcribers today?

d. What is the prevailing philosophy in regard to the programming of transcriptions

held by collegiate band conductors? 7 Limitations and Definitions

The scope of this study is limited to transcription as it relates to the American wind band.

Wind transcriptions of orchestral literature are the primary focus. Arrangements (as defined below) are not to be included in this study.

Wind band – Ensemble of wind instruments and percussion as seen from Gilmore’s days through modern times. Hallmarks include a substantial instrumentation, with all parts doubled and some having more than two individuals on a part.

Military band – The British term for an ensemble of woodwinds, brass and percussion. The

British “military band” and the American “wind band” are considered equivalent for the purpose of this study.

Wind ensemble – Ensemble of wind instruments and percussion as conceptualized by

Frederick Fennell. A wind ensemble, in its purest form, contains one player on every part.

Modified wind ensemble – Ensemble of wind instruments and percussion that maintains the timbrel principles of the wind ensemble while electing to double certain instrumental parts.

Transcription – The practice of rescoring a musical composition for performance in a different medium. Preservation of musical elements such as form and harmony, as well as the composer’s aesthetic goals and characteristic sound, is held in high regard.

Arrangement – The practice of rescoring a musical composition for performance in a different medium. Significant alterations are made to elements of the original composition, including but not limited to form, range, key area, and harmony. 8 Procedures

To answer the aforementioned research questions, I created a transcription for wind ensemble of Elgar’s Mazurka from the Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10, interviewed 10 prominent Elgar scholars in London, England, surveyed the Big Ten Band Directors Association, and analyzed five years of concert programs from BTAA university wind bands.

Data will shed light on the process of creating a transcription using modern means, the level of acceptance of transcriptions among Elgar scholars, the current proportion of the actively performed repertory occupied by transcriptions, and the prevailing philosophies held by BTAA band directors for including transcriptions in the repertories of their ensembles. 9

Chapter 2

“Mazurka” from the Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 by Sir Edward Elgar: A Transcription for Wind Ensemble

For nearly as long as transcriptions for band have been available, researchers and transcribers alike have sought to codify effective transcription technique (Bish, 1988; Skeat,

1938). Though these texts vary greatly in their processes, all seek to separate good practice in transcribing from bad. Indeed, it is not in any one source but in the summation of the findings of many such writings that one may begin to discover the qualities of fine transcribers in producing their art.

Skeat & Clarke (1938) produced a textbook for beginning arrangers. The book contains a brief amount of information of each instrument of the concert band, including both the theoretical and practical range, transposition, and functional equivalents in the orchestra. Readers are then led through exercises meant to hone one’s skill in transposition and arrangement from multiple sources to band. The text is a useful resource in studying specific instruments and their transpositions, but does not offer any specifics on what delineates a quality transcription.

More recently, Rockley (1997) analyzed Keith Wilson’s transcription of Hindemith’s

Symphonic Metamorphosis of Themes by Carl Maria von Weber and produced a set of guidelines for effective transcription. Several authors have followed similar procedures in search of the same result, but the status of Symphonic Metamorphosis in the band repertory makes this study particularly attractive. Rockley concluded, in summary, that an effective transcription: is based on suitable source material, considers overall timbre when rescoring parts rather than one-to-one duplicates, confronts the disparity in size of orchestral and wind band forces, writes for winds in 10 a technically feasible way, and adjusts articulation as necessary to produce the same sounds on

wind instruments. Additional practices are listed as they relate to specific string techniques, such

as pizzicato. The author finds this listing to be particularly helpful in that it can be related to new

material with ease.

Rytis Urniežius (2017) discussed the importance of orchestration as it relates to the

selection of suitable source material for wind band transcription. Urniežius divided orchestral

literature into three categories: Creations of the auxiliary, inessential orchestration; creations of

the transitional type; and creations of the immanent, essential orchestration. Mahler and Rimsky-

Korsakov are listed as two examples of composers who create with immanent orchestration. In the article, it is concluded that creations of inessential orchestration are best suited for transcription, creations of immanent orchestration are largely unsuited, and creations of the transitional type may be transcribed at the discretion of the transcriber (Urniežius, 2017).

Mark Hindsley is a unique example of a prolific transcriber who also lectured and published on the topic with great frequency. In regard to selecting repertoire for transcription,

Hindsley was driven by concert programming needs, as well as a belief that orchestral works with full instrumentation transcribe best (Gregory, 1982). Hindsley built his rather formulaic transcription process around a 83-piece symphonic orchestra and a 92-piece concert band. The instruments of the band are then divided into three categories: instruments primarily responsible for their own [orchestral] parts (piccolo, oboe, English horn, bassoon, trumpet, French horn, trombone, percussion); instruments primarily responsible for string parts (flute, clarinet, cornet, euphonium, tuba), and instruments which substitute for orchestral woodwinds and strings

(saxophone family). Specific elements of the model, such as the 83-piece symphonic orchestra, served as the basis for the present transcription. 11 Purpose

The purpose of this study was to document the process of transcribing for a modern wind ensemble via an original transcription for winds. The piece selected for transcription was the

Mazurka from Sir Edward Elgar’s Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 (1899). Due to a lack of pieces by Elgar in the wind band repertoire, secondary purposes of this transcription are an increased presence of Elgar’s music in wind band programs and the revitalization of a somewhat obscure example of Elgar’s orchestral music.

Procedure

Elgar’s Mazurka was deemed a suitable piece for transcription as it fit all of the following criteria listed by Rockley (1997), Urniežius (2017), and Hindsley (Gregory, 1982): Full instrumentation (frequent tutti writing); Auxiliary or inessential orchestration (as determined by the author); Limited use of idiomatic string techniques. The movement does not utilize an extreme range and is in the key of d minor, factors with further support its suitability.

Following a period of score study, the first step in transcribing the movement was the creation of a piano reduction. For the sake of the exercise, the primary theme (rehearsal letter A) was reduced. This was then analyzed in comparison with Elgar’s piano version of the Mazurka

(1899). The primary purpose of such an exercise was to check that the author’s conception of the primary musical elements in the piece aligned with Elgar’s. Figure 2-1 is the piano reduction of rehearsal letter A as created by the author, and Figure 2-2 is Elgar’s piano version of the same selection. With the exception of the melody octave and the triplet line in the alto voice that Elgar elected to omit from his piano reduction, the two versions contain no significant differences. 12 Figure 2-1: Four-part reduction of rehearsal [A]

13 Figure 2-2: Rehearsal [A] of Elgar's published piano version of the Mazurka

Next, the movement was charted by formal division, separating the original instrumentation by musical function in any given phrase (melody, harmony, counter-melody, motor, etc.). Using elements of Mark Hindsley’s process, a conceptual transcription of the movement was then created by superimposing these elements onto the wind ensemble, with attention to relative balance of parts. Hindsley’s 83-piece symphonic orchestra model was adopted, alongside an original wind band instrumentation that best resembles a modified wind ensemble. The purpose of this step was to fuse the systematic processes of Hindsley with the timbre-focused ideals presented by Rockley (1997). Table 2-1 is an example of this conceptual transcription, for the primary theme (rehearsal letter A). The full conceptual transcription is available in Appendix B. 14 Table 2-1: Conceptual transcription of Mazurka, rehearsal [A]

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Clarinet Melody (in octaves) Soprano Flute I/II Clarinet I/II, Violin I/II (33) I/II, Oboe I (9) Oboe Harmonic Soprano Alto Sax (2) Punctuation Bassoon, Bass Rhythmic Motor Bass Bass Clarinet, Trombone, Tuba, Bassoon I/II, Bari Cello, String Bass Sax, Trombone II (22) Bass Trombone, Tuba (9) Horn, Viola, Cello Offbeat Alto/Tenor Horn I/II/III/IV, (26) Accentuation Trombone I, Bassoon I/II, Tenor Sax (9)

At this point, the movement was drafted in full. For the purpose of the study, two versions were created: A “pure” transcription, which rescores parts but does not alter Elgar’s markings; and the final version, which employs several artistic choices that the author feels better translate the piece for wind ensemble. Alterations deemed significant by the author are discussed below. Members of the Penn State Symphonic Wind Ensemble recorded the final version on May 16, 2018.

The final step in the transcription process was the comparison of the draft with Elgar’s manuscript, found in the British Library. Side-by-side comparison allowed for the correction of editorial mistakes found in the 1899 publication, and ensured a direct link between Elgar’s hand and the wind ensemble transcription. Changes made to the transcription as a result of manuscript are detailed in the discussion. 15 Results

The transcription of Elgar’s Mazurka from the Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 is available in full in Appendix B. Both the “pure” and final versions are present. The recording, taken in May of 2018, is available via the enclosed CD.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to document the process of transcribing for a modern wind ensemble via an original transcription for winds. The resulting process, as detailed in this chapter, is recommended for future transcribers. While this process is by no means the only way to transcribe an orchestral piece for wind ensemble, it was effective for a number of reasons. The selection of a suitable piece for transcription is of vital importance (George, 1982; Rockley,

1997; Urniežius, 2017). The emphasis on a conceptual transcription prior to drafting and preservation of timbre is the cornerstone of the process. As outlined in Chapter 4, when BTAA band directors were asked to list characteristics of a quality transcription, 62.5% of respondents included “integrity of the music is preserved”. The attention to timbre and balance offered by the conceptual transcription supports a process that preserves such integrity. Finally, manuscript study is recommended to transcribers whenever possible. In addition to the fact that published scores frequently contain errors, the study a composer’s manuscript is another means by which the transcriber may preserve a piece’s integrity.

During the drafting process, several minor alterations were made between the “pure” and final versions of the transcription, in an attempt to best preserve Elgar’s intention. The primary example of this occurs in m. 1. Figure 2-3 depicts the violin parts in the original. 16 Figure 2-3: Violins at m. 1, published score (1899)

I determined that such a figure would be distorted when performed on a wind instrument.

Specifically, it was deemed that the overall figure of a trill with emphasis on each beat would be replaced by a garbled, over-accented disfiguration. To best recreate the figure in the winds, I

separated the trill and beat emphasis between clarinet 1 and 2, as shown in Figure 2-4.

Figure 2-4: Clarinets at m. 1, transcription

Another example of an alteration occurs in m. 95. The orchestral original features a rapid

succession of octave jumps in the string melody. This is shown in Figure 2-5.

I selected the following instrumentation to best preserve the timbre of the line: clarinet 1, clarinet 2, alto Saxophone, euphonium. However, such a slurred octave leap is not practically feasible for the alto saxophone or euphonium. Therefore, the following alteration was made for ease of performance, as shown in Figure 2-6. 17 Figure 2-5: Violins and violas, m. 93-94, original (1899)

Figure 2-6: Clarinets, alto sax, and euphonium, m. 93, transcription

Study of Elgar’s manuscript of the piece prompted one additional alteration in the transcription. The first iteration of the primary theme, occurring at m. 5, is slurred incorrectly in the published version. This was “corrected” in The Elgar Complete Edition by editor David

Lloyd-Jones (2015), who noted the discrepancy in the manuscript between slur markings in the introduction of the primary theme and its recapitulation. Lloyd-Jones transferred the slurring patterns of the recapitulation to m. 5. This transcription returned Elgar’s original markings, as the 18 author feels this best captures the composer’s intention. Figures 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10 show the various slur markings given to the primary melody in the published version (1899), The Elgar

Complete Edition (2015), the original manuscript, and the transcription, respectively. The

clarinet 1 part is shown for each.

Figure 2-7: Primary theme in the clarinet (m. 11), published score (1899)

Figure 2-8: Primary theme in the clarinet (m. 11), The Elgar Complete Edition (2015)

Figure 2-9: Primary theme in the clarinet (m. 11), manuscript

Figure 2-10: Primary theme in the clarinet (m. 11), transcription

Every transcriber will likely employ a different process when rescoring an orchestral

work for wind ensemble. However, the author recommends that all future transcribers carefully

consider the steps they take to preserve the integrity of the original. This study centers around the

creation of a conceptual transcription, focusing on the timbre and balance of the original versus 19 the transcription. Further study is needed to document the transcription method of prominent living transcribers and to analyze the effectiveness of frequently programmed transcriptions. 20

Chapter 3

Capturing the Characteristic: Scholarly Interview of Prominent Elgarians

The monumental task of the biographer is to capture not only the factual details of an

individual’s life, but the entirety of their character. When studying a composer, this inevitably

includes generalizations regarding the individual’s musical output. From the lens of the

transcriber, it is impossible to fully re-imagine a composer’s work without a fundamental

understanding of what qualities define that composer’s music. Such criteria are essential in

determining the merit, or “success”, of a transcription (Grassi, 2010; Hornig, 1972). Considering

the various perspectives from which one might study a composer’s work (conductor, performer,

transcriber, musicologist, and listener, to name a few), a listing of the defining characteristics of

a composer’s music must be drawn from a diverse pool of contributors and should be general enough to be applicable to all types of consumers.

Diana McVeagh (1955) defined some general traits of Elgar’s writing in her biography

Edward Elgar: His Life and Music. McVeagh notes the influence of composers Spohr,

Mendelssohn, and Gounod, most noticeably and directly on the oratorios of his early career.

Speaking more broadly, McVeagh highlights the use of chromaticism (chromatic harmony,

specifically), rhythmic motives, and rich textures as being uniquely Elgarian. In regard to

harmonic influences, McVeagh notes that “To attempt to refute or to deny Elgar’s harmonic

indebtedness to Wagner would be simply perverse” (1955, p. 197). While countless more

characteristics are attributed to exact moments in the repertory, the aforementioned list focuses

on traits that can be applied to the aggregate. 21 Michael Kennedy (2004) reviewed and expanded upon his analysis of Elgar’s music as originally presented in his Portrait of Elgar (1968). More attention is paid to individual events and pieces than overarching generalizations, however allusions to the greater output are made on occasion. In regard to the Five Part-Songs from the Greek Anthology, Kennedy states, “The songs epitomize the charm and lyricism of Elgar” (2004, p. 2). Speaking of the Enigma

Variations, which he considers “the greatest orchestral work yet written by an Englishman”

(2004, p. 71), Kennedy states that “It’s scoring is miraculous, pellucid, witty, delicate, colorful, touching” (p. 71). In composite, Kennedy considers Elgar’s music to be defined by charm, lyricism, and orchestration that is delicate and colorful.

These criteria, while incredibly valuable in their own regard, represent a narrow view of perspectives on the music of Edward Elgar. Specifically, the view of the dedicated biographer, trained in musicology. To achieve a more complete listing, the views of experts in all musical realms must be considered.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine a listing of characteristics that prominent

Elgar scholars use to define his music, and to determine their attitudes toward transcriptions of his works. To accomplish this, live interviews were conducted with Elgarians from a variety of musical backgrounds, including career conductors, arrangers, biographers, and musicologists. 22 Procedure

Ten leading Elgarians (Andrew Neill, Barry Collett, Dan Grimley, David Lloyd Jones,

Diana McVeagh, Ian Farrington, Jerry Moore, Martin Bird, Paul Harper-Scott, and Paul Rooke)

were interviewed in and around London, England. Individuals were selected who fit the

following criteria: Publication of Elgar-related writings or recordings in the Elgar Society

Journal or other means, noteworthy or long-standing positions within the Elgar Society, and proximity to London during the study period. A copy of the guiding questions is available in

Appendix A.

Data were collected via responses to a listing of four guiding questions. Interviewees

were asked four questions regarding the characteristics of Elgar’s music, the hypothetical

likelihood of Elgar composing for band, and the success of two band transcription examples in

capturing Elgar’s sound. In supplement to the guiding questions, recording selections of Elgar’s

Fantasy and Fugue in C Minor (Elgar, 1922 and Nowlin, 2017) and the Mazurka from the Three

Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 (Elgar, 1899 and Czekaj, 2018) were played for interviewees. For

both selections, subjects were presented with a recording of the original, followed by a

performance of a wind ensemble transcription of the work.

Answers were then entered into a computer database and analyzed based on key ideas as

determined by the researcher. For example, the statement “It’s a saturated sound. It is rich” was

summarized as “rich texture”, and the statement “He comes from the Germanic tradition –

through Schumann initially, and then, as his sound became mature, it’s this amazing blend of

Brahms and Wagner with his own twist” was summarized as “Germanic sound”. 23 Results

The first interview question asked subjects to list defining characteristics of Elgar’s

music. Of the ten answers, six (60%) listed a Germanic sound, rich texture, and sensitive

orchestration, the most frequently given answers. Additionally, 50% of subjects indicated that

Elgar’s orchestration is string-centered. Three interviewees (30%) attributed Elgar’s music to the

Late Romantic period. Table 2-1 displays all characteristics mentioned in more than one interview.

Table 3-1: Characteristics of Elgar's sound

Characteristic Number of Inclusions Germanic sound 6 Rich texture 6 Sensitive orchestration 6 String-centered orchestration 5 Late Romantic 3

When asked to consider the hypothetical possibility of Elgar writing for a wind band,

80% of subjects conjectured that he likely would have done so, if the right commission had been

offered. Interviewees skeptical of such a likelihood cited the orchestral focus of Elgar’s

compositional output (10%) and concerns with his self-image as a composer (10%). Table 3-2

highlights specific points of evidence offered in support of and against the possibility of Elgar

composing for wind band. 24 Table 3-2: Rationale for military band commission conjectures

Affirmative Rationale Number of Inclusions Contrary Rationale Number of Inclusions Driven by 8 Concern with 1 commissions professional image Image not a concern 5 Orchestral focus 1 Brass band writing 4 Unlikely, unless 1 as evidence "tickled" May have revived 1 sketches Opera as example of 1 risk taking Supports militaristic 1 persona

Eight out of nine (88.9%) responding subjects stated that the presented transcription of

the Fantasy and Fugue preserved the musical characteristics they listed previously. One subject

elected not to respond. Ten out of ten interviewees stated that the original transcription of the

Mazurka preserved the characteristics of Elgar’s musical style. Table 3-3 lists specific evidence

offered by the subjects that support their responses.

Table 3-3: Rationales affirming the presented transcriptions

Affirmative Rationale Number of Inclusions Captures the essence of Elgar 4 Mimics Elgar’s orchestration well 4 Strings are not missed 2

Discussion

References to a rich texture and sensitive orchestration are consistent with McVeagh’s

(1955) and Kennedy’s (2004) writings. Specific ties to the Romantic period and the German tradition are less common in biographical writings. In the interview scenario, subjects are 25 plausibly more willing to divulge professional opinions than in published texts, which are

expected to simply recant historical details.

When asked to consider the hypothetical possibility of Elgar writing for a wind band, one

skeptical interviewee cited concerns with his self-image as a composer. As discussed in the introduction, the wind band was not considered an art music medium until well into the 20th

century. Coming from humble roots, Elgar was determined to reach success as a professional

composer. As Jerry Moore noted in his interview, to Elgar, the symphony was “the top

department”. While the military band was undoubtedly a separate entity from the symphonic

orchestra, I find Elgar’s numerous miniatures as evidence to support the likelihood of a

composition for military band, had the right commission arrived. Subjective reasoning aside,

eight out of ten Elgarians suggested that he would have written for wind band if given the

opportunity. Which supports the notion that his compositional style is compatible with the

medium. Extrapolating from this point, one might see this to be an affirmation of the use of

transcriptions to introduce Elgar’s music to the wind band repertory.

Out of nine responding subjects, eight stated that the presented transcription of the

Fantasy and Fugue preserved the musical characteristics they listed previously. Ten out of ten

interviewees stated that the author’s transcription of the Mazurka preserved the characteristics of

Elgar’s musical style. Setting aside concerns of bias given that the transcriber was also the

investigator, support for the transcription of the Fantasy and Fugue alone suggests that, when done correctly, transcriptions have the potential to preserve a composer’s aesthetic. Once again, this evidence may be extrapolated as hugely affirming in regards to transcription as an art form.

Findings presented in this chapter represent the views of ten prominent and highly

respected Elgar scholars. While the presented findings begin to answer certain questions, such as 26 the fundamental criteria that define Elgar’s music, further study is needed to gain a more cohesive answer. Differing viewpoints may be collected via a larger sample size among published Elgarians. Additionally, future researchers may choose to add the views of the casual listener and ensemble musician, as such views on a composer’s music are in many ways equally valid. In regard to rating the “success” of specific transcriptions in capturing the characteristic traits of a composer’s music, future studies may include transcriptions of multiple composers’ works or compare various transcriptions of the same original piece of music. 27

Chapter 4

A Survey of Current Attitudes and Philosophies Regarding the Programming of Transcriptions Among Big Ten Band Directors

Researchers have long sought a succinct set of criteria for evaluating the artistic and

educational merit of a composition (e.g. Ostling, 1978; Wiltshire, 2010). Acton Eric Ostling

created such a list and, along with a panel of 20 collegiate band directors, used it to rate over

1,500 selections of band music (Ostling, 1978). Fonder (2003) reviewed Ostling’s criteria and expanded upon their definitions. Ostling’s criteria included a good balance of repetition and contrast, appropriate rest between phrases, balance of solo and tutti scoring, and an appropriate balance of originality and predictability. Summarizing Ostling’s beliefs, Fonder stated, “the value of any music performed should rise above merely being a useful teaching tool” (Fonder,

2003, p. 43). While Ostling’s criteria are invaluable to the field, they do not distinguish between original works and transcriptions.

Roger O. Hornig (1972) asked “what criteria ought to pertain when examining

[transcriptions] with an eye to their inclusion in our programming? What makes one transcription appropriate for band and another less so?” (p. 74). Horning lists the following criteria for directors to consider: does transcription captures composer’s intent; does it maintain the musical integrity of the piece; does the original lack idiomatic string techniques; and is the original separate from the “sacred” orchestral repertory (highlighting Beethoven specifically). This listing represents Hornig’s personal philosophy, and he implores directors to develop their own guidelines for programming transcriptions. 28 Several authors have published writings that serve to evaluate specific transcriptions

(e.g., Bish, 1988; Grassi, 2010). For example, Grassi (2010) analyzed three transcriptions for

band by Eric Whitacre of his own choral music, and contemplated what specific qualities of the

transcriptions contribute to their success. Grassi notes that “successful transcriptions present the

musical contents of the original in a way that is faithful to the composer’s intention yet must also

possess individual qualities” (2010, p. 131). In his concluding statement, Grassi praises

Whitacre’s transcriptions of Sleep, Cloudburst, and Lux Aurumque, stating that “the

transcriptions have intrinsic value and are works of individual merit” (2010, p. 135). Unique

among publications of its type is Grassi’s insistence on the quality of the transcription as a work

on its own, distinct from the status of the original.

Bish (1988) sought to identify common techniques of transcription via analysis of eleven

prominent transcribers from the first half of the 20th century. Subjects of study included Lucien

Cailliet, Erik Leidzen, and Frank Winterbottom. This study was extremely technical in its processes and findings, though certain elements are of pertinence in measuring transcription quality. Bish noted that “Of the seven Americans [studied], only Cailliet and Leidzen retain the instrumental tone colors and textures of the orchestral version throughout the transcription”

(1988, p. 570). In his recommendations for future research, Bish suggested “a survey of current attitudes and philosophies regarding the programming of transcriptions among high school and college band directors” (p. 572). The current study, conducted 30 years later, was designed to follow this recommendation. 29

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the current attitudes and philosophies

regarding the programming of transcriptions at each Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA)

university (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Indiana University, University of Iowa,

University of Maryland, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of

Minnesota, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Northwestern University, The Ohio State

University, The Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Rutgers University,

University of Wisconsin-Madison). To accomplish this, data were gathered regarding band

directors’ transcription programming habits, decisions pertaining to the inclusion of

transcriptions, preferred transcribers, and definitions of what defines a quality transcription.

Procedure

Surveys were sent to all 44 band directors in the BTAA. A copy of this survey is

available in Appendix A. Respondents were asked to specifically consider transcriptions of

orchestral literature for wind band. Data were collected via a six-question open-ended

questionnaire. I chose to examine a small number of directors from some of the finest and most

established university wind bands in the country, rather than a collect a large sample of data

spanning age and performance level. This was done to ensure that data represents the opinions of

directors of ensembles that perform at the highest level. 30 Results

Sixteen directors returned completed surveys, leading to a response rate of 36.4%.

Answers were then entered into a computer database, and analyzed based on key ideas as determined by the researcher. For example, the following passage was summarized as “enhance student experience” and “expose students to varied repertoire”, and “entertain an audience”: “I do like to include transcriptions as a means of connecting my students with orchestral and choral repertoire that they otherwise would not have an opportunity to perform or experience”. A graduate student in wind conducting repeated this process with 31.2% of the total data to ensure accuracy.

The first question of the survey asked directors to estimate the number of transcriptions they program in a typical year for their ensemble. Of the sixteen responses received, thirteen

(81.3%) fell primarily within the range of 2-6 transcriptions per year. Overall, answers ranged from an estimate of 0-1 to 8-9 transcriptions per year. Figure 4-1 displays all ranges given by respondents on a plot. One respondent elected to leave this question blank.

Figure 4-1: Estimated number of transcriptions programmed per year 31 In regard to their philosophy for including transcriptions, 43.8% of respondents

highlighted their students’ experience and repertoire exposure in their rationale, the most

frequently given answers. Other common answers were the desire to create a balanced program

and perform quality repertoire (31.3%). No other philosophical components were given more

than twice. Table 4-1 outlines all responses given, organized by key idea classification and

number of times mentioned.

Table 4-1: Philosophy for including transcriptions

Key Idea Number of Inclusions Enhance student experience 7 Expose student to varied repertoire 7 Create a balanced program 5 Perform quality music 5 Challenge musicians in a unique way 2 Entertain an audience 1 Orchestral transcriptions are avoided 1 Perform transcriptions of stature 1 Honor the American wind band tradition 1 All repertoire is considered equally 1 Reach the music of diverse composers 1

Alfred Reed, Lucien Cailliet, and Mark Hindsley were the most frequently listed

transcribers, mentioned by five respondents (31.3%) each. Donald Hunsberger, H. Robert

Reynolds, and Paul Lavender were each mentioned four times (25.0%). Table 4-2 includes all transcribers mentioned at least two responses, and the number of times mentioned for each. Four

respondents declined to list any specific transcribers that they program with greater frequency. 32 Table 4-2: Transcribers reported to be programmed with greater frequency

Transcriber Number of Inclusions Alfred Reed 5 Lucien Cailliet 5 Mark Hindsley 5 Donald Hunsberger 4 H. Robert Reynolds 4 Paul Lavender 4 Erik Leidzen 3 John Paynter 3 Kenneth Singleton 3 Clare Grundman 2 Joseph Kreines 2 Keith Wilson 2 Mark Rogers 2 Merlin Patterson 2 Walter Beeler 2

When asked to list the characteristics of a quality transcription, 62.5% of respondents included “integrity of the music is preserved” and 56.3% included “transcriber writes for winds with characteristic sounds”. Out of twelve total characteristics listed, the next most common was

“Original key areas preserved”, mentioned in 50.0% of responses. Table 4-3 lists all characteristics mentioned in at least two responses, organized by number of inclusions. 33 Table 4-3: Characteristics of a quality transcription

Characteristic Number of Inclusions Integrity of the music is preserved 10 Transcriber writes for winds with 9 characteristic sounds Original key areas preserved 8 True to Composer’s Intentions 4 Original Lines Unaltered 4 Wind instrument solos preserved 4 Transcends the medium 3 Orchestrated with clarity 3 Transcription creates an orchestral 2 sound Quality source material 2

The most common reason given that a piece should not be transcribed for winds was

“original contains idiomatic string techniques” (33.3%). The next most common characteristics that might disqualify a piece from transcription listed were “Classical period” and “original utilizes an extreme range”, each mentioned in 25.0% of responses. Table 4-4 lists all such characteristics, and the number of times each was included. Only characteristics included at least twice are listed.

Table 4-4: Characteristics that disqualify a work from transcription

Characteristic Number of Inclusions Idiomatic String Techniques 5 Classical Period 3 Extreme Range 3 Soft/slow string pieces 2 String-heavy orchestration 2 34 The final question, concerning pieces or genres that could enhance the band’s repertory

through transcription, did not garner responses of any consistency. Two respondents (12.5%)

recommended further transcription of English orchestral music. This was the only response

offered more than once.

Discussion

When asked to estimate the number of transcriptions programmed per year, 81.3% of

respondents answered primarily within the range of 2-6 transcriptions per year. If one were to

estimate four concert performances per year and six pieces programmed per concert on average

(24 pieces per year), this range would suggest that transcriptions represent between 8.3% and

25% of programmed repertoire. These findings are consistent with that of the study presented in

Chapter 5 as well as Powell’s (2009) survey of BTAA programming trends, which would suggest proportions of 21.8% and 11.87%, respectively.

This survey would suggest the following listing of philosophical components as most prevalent among current band directors in the BTAA: Enhance students’ experiences, expand repertoire exposure, create a balanced program, perform quality repertoire. All the aforementioned components were mentioned in at least 31.3% of responses. In summarizing these components, it would seem BTAA band directors elect to include transcriptions in the repertoire to enhance their students’ ensemble experience, expose them to a more diverse range of repertoire, and perform balanced programs of quality music.

Alfred Reed, Lucien Cailliet, and Mark Hindsley were the most frequently listed transcribers (31.3% of respondents), followed by Donald Hunsberger, H. Robert Reynolds, and 35 Paul Lavender (25.0%). This is consistent with data present in Chapter 5. All aforementioned

transcribers appear in the top six most frequently programmed transcribers, with the exception of

Mark Hindsley. Clare Grundman, while only receiving two mentions in the surveys (12.5%), was

tied for second most commonly programmed with Paul Lavender, both being programmed 17

times by BTAA ensembles. One possible explanation for Mark Hindsley’s place in the catalogued repertory is that, although he arranged and transcribed prolifically, many of his transcriptions are either out of print or written for an instrumentation that no longer reflects university ensembles.

The most commonly listed criteria that distinguish a quality transcription, all receiving four or more mentions (25.0), are as follows: “integrity of the music is preserved”, “transcriber writes for winds with characteristic sounds”, “original key areas are preserved”, “transcription is true to the composer’s intentions”, “original lines are unaltered”, and “original wind solos are preserved”. The presence of preserved key areas among the most common criteria raises an interesting point for future study. It is apparent that this component is not disqualifying, as

Hunsberger’s transcription of Festive Overture, the most commonly programmed transcription in the current survey, is written a half-step lower than the original.

In contrast, characteristics that diminish a piece’s chances of success as a transcription for

band can be summarized as the following: “original contains idiomatic string techniques” (33.3%

of responses), “Classical period” (25.0%), and “original utilizes an extreme range” (25.0%). The

idea that idiomatic string writing, such as tremolos, does not transcribe well supports Hornig’s

(1972) conclusion “does the original lack idiomatic string techniques”. While listed as separate

entries, “string-heavy” and “original lacks winds” would suggest a more global view that the best

candidates for transcription are symphonic works. 36 Specific recommendations for further transcription are worthy of mention. Individual directors recommend that future transcribers target neglected orchestral music, particularly from the Baroque or Romantic periods. Concertos were also highlighted as a genre that stand to benefit the wind ensemble’s repertory. One response noted a need to make improvements to existing transcriptions. Perhaps most importantly, future transcriptions of music by female composers and composers of color have the potential to significantly expand the band’s repertoire, expose students to a wealth of ideas, and balance the scales of gender and race in the performance repertory. For example, one director noted, “Utilizing transcriptions also allows me to diversify my composer representation: eg. Latinx composers, there is not a lot of band repertoire by Latinx composers, but there are several great transcriptions”.

This survey represents the ideas of sixteen highly respected conductors and pedagogues.

While the answers summarized in this chapter begin to define current attitudes and philosophies toward transcription in the field, further study is needed to gain a more cohesive understanding.

This could be accomplished through replication of surveys of collegiate conferences or nation- wide surveys of band directors at all levels of teaching. 37

Chapter 5

Programming Trends of Big Ten University Wind Bands and Transcription Programming Practices

Many scholars have sought to establish a core repertory of works for wind band. College

and university band programs have been regarded as leaders in the development of such a

repertory, much as the most influential professional orchestras have devised the orchestral canon

(Fiese, 1987). In regard to education, H. Robert Reynolds (2000) noted that “The music you choose becomes, in large part, the curriculum that you and your students follow toward a sound music education” (pg. 32). Just as a budding instrumentalist follows the repertory of major performing artists on their instrument, band conductors at all levels of teaching should be aware of the repertoire performed by the country’s leading wind bands.

Programming trends of collegiate wind bands have been studied for some time. Peercy

(1958) published a listing of the 75 most frequently performed works following a survey of more than 100 colleges and universities. While this study did not seek to specifically separate original works for band from transcriptions or arrangements, it should be noted that that 3 of the top 12 most frequently performed works on Peercy’s listing were transcriptions. Hornyak (1983), in a comparable survey, produced a listing of 24 works, five of which were transcriptions.

Holvik (1970) studied the concert programs of 78 CBDNA members for the period of

1961-1966, and presented findings on all works that had been performed ten or more times. Kish

(2005) replicated Holvik’s study, utilizing programs voluntarily submitted to the CBDNA Report

from 1998-2002. Kish presented findings on works performed 15 or more times, and adjustment 38 made to compensate for the expanded scope of the project. 98 (41.9%) of the 234 distinct works listed in Holvik’s study were transcriptions or arrangements, as compared to 27 (15.9%) of the

170 distinct works in Kish’s. As with nearly all the studies examined in this chapter, Holvik and

Kish’s goal was to establish a core repertory of wind band staples. While transcriptions were not the focus of such projects, their findings are pertinent to the present study.

Hopwood (1998) analyzed college and university wind band performances College Band

Directors National Association conventions from 1951-1995. Of the 2,888 total performances compiled, 611 (21.2%) were transcriptions and 116 (4.0%) were solos with transcribed wind band accompaniment. In total, 25.2% of all performed works were transcriptions. Of the 26 most frequently performed works catalogued in Hopwood’s study, five were transcriptions.

Powell (2009) revitalized efforts in the examination of programming trends with his study of the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA). In his study, Powell solely examined the premier wind ensemble from each institution, a far more focused sample than any study preceding it. Other researchers would replicate Powell’s procedures for the Pac-Ten (Paul,

2011), Atlantic Coast Conference (Wiltshire, 2010), Big Twelve (Paul, 2012), and Southeastern

Conference (Wacker & Silvey, 2016). Table 5-1 displays each study’s findings in relation to the proportion of the repertory occupied by transcriptions. 39 Table 5-1: Transcription proportions in collegiate conference program surveys, 2009-2016

Source Conference Number of Catalogued Transcription Surveyed Performances Proportion Powell (2009) Big Ten 2,106 11.9% Wiltshire (2010) Atlantic Coast 1,210 24.3% Conference Paul (2011) Pac-Ten 1,166 29.1% Paul (2012) Big Twelve 1,702 32.0% Wacker & Silvey Southeastern 1,917 29.4% (2016) Conference

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the programming trends of wind bands at each

university in the BTAA, paying particular focus to transcription programming practices. It was the intention of this study to gather data on such aspects of programming as the most performed transcriptions, ratio of transcriptions/arrangements to original works for winds, most performed transcriber, and most composed original composer among transcriptions. This was accomplished

through a survey of concert programs from fall 2013 through spring 2018. In a manner

reminiscent of Holvik (1970) and Kish (2005), this study chose to include ensembles at all level

of performance within these universities. This was chosen in an attempt to gain a more global

view of the role of transcription in the programming practices of the BTAA wind bands.

Procedure

All 44 directors of bands in the BTAA were contacted and asked to provide concert

programs for their ensembles from fall 2013 through spring 2018 for use in this study. Five years 40 of data was selected to ensure a representative sample of programming. Five years is also significant as the typical undergraduate program is completed in four to five years. Fourteen directors responded, resulting in a 31.8% response rate. Programs were received for 23 ensembles, with two being stricken from the study due to a lack of data (8 and 9 performances received). Each composition from every concert performance was entered into a computer database. When multiple performances of the same work were given within a short period of time (for example, a concert at home and a conference performance), the composition was counted only once. Pieces were entered with their title, composer, status as an original work/transcription of orchestral literature/transcription of other medium, and transcriber/arranger. Performances of a complete multi-movement work and a single movement of that work were treated as separate items.

Results

Of the 1,909 performances catalogued in this study, 416 (21.8%) were transcriptions, with 297 (15.6%) being specifically transcriptions of orchestral literature. Proportions of all transcriptions in the repertory of individual ensembles varied from 6.1% to 40.0%. Specifically in regard to transcriptions of orchestral literature, this range was from 3.8% to 26.4%. Table 5-2 lists the proportions of both classifications for each ensemble.

Donald Hunsberger’s transcription of Festive Overture by Dmitri Shostakovich was the most frequently performed transcription, with seven performances. Each of the following transcriptions were performed six times: Danzón No. 2 by Arturo Márquez (Oliver Nickel),

Elsa’s Procession to the Cathedral by Richard Wagner (Lucien Cailliet), Folk Dances by Dmitri 41 Table 5-2: Transcription proportions among surveyed Big Ten university wind ensembles

Institution Ensemble Number of Transcription Transcription Catalogued Proportion Proportion (All) Performances (Orchestral) Indiana University Wind Ensemble 153 22.2% 34.6% Michigan State Concert Band 66 7.8% 15.2% University Northwestern Concert Band 89 11.2% 18.0% University Northwestern Symphonic Band 142 15.5% 21.8% University Northwestern Symphonic Wind 125 19.2% 31.2% University Ensemble Penn State University Concert Band 52 7.7% 21.2% Penn State University Symphonic Band 96 17.7% 24.0% Penn State University Symphonic Wind 103 24.3% 29.1% Ensemble Purdue University Collegiate Band 26 3.8% 11.5% Purdue University Concert Band 45 17.8% 22.2% Purdue University Symphonic Band 41 7.3% 9.8% Purdue University Varsity Band 66 4.5% 6.1% University of Illinois Wind Orchestra 33 24.2% 27.3% University of Illinois Wind Symphony 120 10.8% 15.0% University of Iowa Concert Band 85 12.9% 16.5% University of Iowa Symphony Band 110 26.4% 40.0% University of Iowa University Band 73 9.6% 13.7% University of Wind Orchestra 96 11.5% 14.6% Maryland University of Concert Band 129 11.6% 14.7% Michigan University of Symphony Band 166 18.1% 21.7% Michigan University of Wind Ensemble 93 18.3% 20.4% Nebraska-Lincoln Totals 1909 15.6% 21.8% 42 Shostakovich (H. Robert Reynolds), Mock Morris by Percy Grainger (Joseph Kreines), Slava! by

Leonard Bernstein (Clare Grundman), Symphonic Metamorphosis of Themes by Carl Maria von

Weber (complete) by Paul Hindemith (Keith Wilson), and Variations on “America” by Charles

Ives (Arr. William Schuman, Trans. William E. Rhoads). “March” from Symphonic

Metamorphosis was programmed three times, meaning that if incomplete performances were not separated as distinct entities Symphonic Metamorphosis would have received the most performances. Table 5-3 lists all transcriptions performed five or more times.

Table 5-3: Most commonly programmed transcriptions

Title Composer Transcriber Number of Times Programmed Festive Overture Dmitri Shostakovich Donald Hunsberger 7 Danzón No. 2 Arturo Márquez Oliver Nickel 6 Elsa's Procession to the Richard Wagner Lucien Cailliet 6 Cathedral Folk Dances Dmitri Shostakovich H. Robert Reynolds 6 Mock Morris Percy Grainger Joseph Kreines 6 Slava! Leonard Bernstein Clare Grundman 6 Symphonic Metamorphosis Paul Hindemith Keith Wilson 6 of Themes by Carl Maria von Weber (complete) Variations on "America" Charles Ives/Arr. William E. Rhoads 6 William Schuman "Profanation" from Leonard Bernstein Frank Bencriscutto 5 Symphony No. 1 (Jeremiah) “Dance of the Jesters” Peter Tchaikovsky Ray Cramer 5 from The Snow Maiden Fugue à la Gigue J.S. Bach Gustav Holst 5 La Procession du Rocio, Joaquin Turina Alfred Reed 5 Op. 9 Millennium Canons Kevin Puts Mark Spade 5 Symphonic Dances from Leonard Bernstein Paul Lavender 5 West Side Story 43 Donald Hunsberger was the most commonly programmed transcriber, with twenty performances of nine unique works. Clare Grundman’s and Paul Lavender’s transcriptions each received seventeen performances, with six and nine unique transcriptions respectively. Table 5-4 lists transcribers who had their transcriptions performed six or more times. This tabulation was all-inclusive in regard to transcription type, and treated single-movement performances as the same work as a full performance. For example, in this table Keith Wilson is accredited with one original transcription, though as previously mentioned performances of the March were treated as a separate item in other calculations.

Table 5-4: Most commonly programmed transcribers

Transcriber Number of Times Number of Unique Programmed Transcriptions Donald Hunsberger 20 9 Clare Grundman 17 6 Paul Lavender 17 9 Alfred Reed 15 8 H. Robert Reynolds 14 3 Lucien Cailliet 12 4 John Boyd 10 7 Keith Wilson 9 1 Jay Bocook 8 6 Oliver Nickel 8 2 John Paynter 7 3 James Curnow 6 5 Joseph Kreines 6 1 Mark Hindsley 6 6 Mark Spade 6 2 Ray E. Cramer 6 2 William E. Rhoads 6 1 44 Among transcriptions, Leonard Bernstein was the most commonly programmed original composer, with forty performances. Johann Sebastian Bach followed closely, with thirty-five performances. Table 5-5 lists original composers programmed seven or more times among all transcriptions.

Table 5-5: Among transcriptions, most commonly programmed original composers

Composer Number of Times Programmed (Transcriptions) Leonard Bernstein 40 J.S. Bach 35 Charles Ives 19 Percy Grainger 18 Dmitri Shostakovich 16 Malcom Arnold 14 John Williams 14 Aaron Copland 10 Richard Wagner 10 Paul Hindemith 9 Arturo Márquez 8 Gustav Holst 8 Ralph Vaughan Williams 8 George Gershwin 7

Discussion

This study analyzed recent programming practices of wind bands at BTAA universities from fall 2013 through spring 2018, specifically focusing on transcription programming practices. The proportion of the total repertoire surveyed in the study represent by all transcriptions is somewhat consistent to that reported by recent studies. Transcriptions of all types represented 21.8% of the 1,909 total performances catalogued in this study. As reported in 45 Table 5-1, recent surveys of premiere wind ensembles in the Pac-Ten (Paul, 2010), Atlantic

Coast Conference (Wiltshire, 2010), Big Twelve (Paul, 2012), and Southeastern Conference

(Wacker & Silvey, 2016) resulted in transcription proportions ranging from 24.3% to 31.96%.

The variation in proportion across conferences may be the result of differing tastes among directors, or may be the result of geographic differences.

Holvik (1970) reported transcriptions and arrangements as representing 41.88% of the catalogued repertoire. In his 2005 follow-up study, Kish reported a proportion of 15.88%. Such findings, in addition to the proportions listed in Table 1.1, suggest a general decline in the number of transcriptions programmed from 1970 to 2005, followed by an increase from 2005 to the present. Holvik and Kish included university ensembles of all levels in their survey, but represented a far greater sample, both in entries and geographic region.

Powell’s (2009) survey of the BTAA revealed a transcription proportion of 11.87%. This value is significantly lower than that of the current survey (21.8%). While this might be taken to represent an upswing of transcription performances in the past decade, the important distinction between the current study and Powell’s is that while this study accepted programs from all

BTAA wind bands, Powell limited the scope of his study to premiere ensembles. Therefore, the difference in proportion is more likely associated with the range of performance levels than with such a short change in time. Further study is needed to investigate such differences.

The status of Festive Overture as the most frequently performed transcription in this survey corroborates evidence presented in previous studies. The transcription was the 18th most

frequently performed work of any type in Holvik’s survey (1970), and has since appeared on

listings by Kish (2003), Powell (2009), Wiltshire (2010), and Wacker & Silvey (2016). These 46 findings suggest that Hunsberger’s transcription of Festive Overture has become a lasting part of the wind ensemble’s core repertory.

It is noteworthy that, among the most frequently programmed transcribers, transcriptions, and original composers, the vast majority represent a continuation of the white, Western

Classical art music tradition. Future transcriptions offer a unique opportunity to connect wind musicians with music from a diverse pallet of composers and pieces, but findings would suggest that current programming practices favor established tradition.

In his 2005 publication, Kish thought it pertinent to offer a word of caution to any reader absorbing the findings of such a study. The use of performance frequency as a tool for measurement has its benefits, especially in determining current trends across a population.

However, this cannot be the sole measure from which one determines the significance of a piece to the greater repertory. Such assumptions can particularly hinder the introduction of new pieces to the repertory, transcription or otherwise. When comparing the results of one program survey to the next, it is paramount to consider the population, time period, and performance level surveyed. Among studies discussed in this chapter, no two are identical in regard to these criteria.

In regard to future studies, Holvik (1970) stated:

After having done all of this research and accumulating thousands of cards and sifting out

the most frequently performed works, I am of the opinion that this sort of survey should

be made at regular intervals. In time, the quality of the works available to and performed

by our bands certainly will improve.” (p. 19) 47 Further surveys of this type will not only extend the timeliness of the data, but may seek to determine the specific effects of geographic location, ensemble performance level, student age, and time period to the programming trends of ensembles. 48

Chapter 6

Conclusions

This study sought to answer the following research questions:

• What is the function of transcription in the modern American wind ensemble?

a. What does it mean to transcribe an orchestral work for wind ensemble with the

goal of capturing the composer’s sound?

b. What proportion of repertoire programmed by collegiate ensembles consists of

transcriptions?

c. What are the most frequently programmed transcriptions and transcribers today?

d. What is the prevailing philosophy in regard to the programming of transcriptions

held by collegiate band conductors?

Considering the vast repertory available for performance by the modern wind ensemble, any new transcriptions must be of superior quality if they are to join the canon. Of the 1,909 performances catalogued in this study, 416 (21.8%) were transcriptions. Out of twelve total characteristics of quality transcriptions listed, respondents most frequently included “integrity of the music is preserved” and “transcriber writes for winds with characteristic sounds”. As a transcriber, I see that as meaning that, at best, one transcription is performed per concert, and selected transcriptions capture the essence of the original to a high degree.

On a brighter note, the results of this study affirm the belief that transcriptions can achieve the goal of capturing a composer’s sound effective successfully. When presented with side-by-side recordings of original works by Elgar and transcriptions for wind band, prominent 49 Elgarians remarked on the preservation of the composer’s sound characteristics in an

overwhelmingly positive way. Setting aside concerns of bias given that the transcriber and

primary investigator were one in the same, this level of support suggests that, when done

correctly, transcriptions have the potential to preserve a composer’s aesthetic. I hold great

confidence that this statement transfers to transcriptions of works by other composers, and

implore others to study this further.

Transcription that is true to the original composer’s intentions involves a rigorous process and a high level of artistry. While the more formulaic practices of mid-century transcribers like

Mark H. Hindsley were effective in producing transcriptions at a pace rapid enough to meet

demand, one-size-fits-all processes are no longer adequate to meet the aesthetic demands of the

medium. My process centers around the creation of a conceptual transcription, focusing on the

timbre and balance of the original versus the transcription. Manuscript study is recommended to

transcribers whenever possible, as well as extensive listening of the full breadth of the original

composer’s output. Each transcriber will vary in the specifics of their process, but I recommend

that all future transcribers carefully consider the steps they take to preserve the musical integrity

of the original.

The frequency with which transcriptions of music by 20th century composers are

programmed highlights the ongoing importance of the craft to the wind band medium. In this

study, Donald Hunsberger’s transcription of Festive Overture by Dmitri Shostakovich was the

most frequently performed transcription, with Donald Hunsberger holding the status of most

commonly programmed transcriber. Among transcriptions, Leonard Bernstein was the most

commonly programmed original composer, followed by Johann Sebastian Bach. While it is

important to consider that Bernstein’s 2018 centennial was the catalyst for many of the 50 performances catalogued in this study, the significance of composers such as Bernstein and

Shostakovich to the wind band repertory cannot be denied. Modern transcribers will continue to expand the wind band repertoire by drawing in the works of 20th and 21st century composers who did not otherwise write for winds.

In short, the function of transcription is the same as it was for Gilmore’s Band in 1873:

To connect band musicians with significant musical works. Despite over a century of dedicated original repertoire for the wind band, directors wishing to connect their students with musical styles and composers prior to the late 19th century continue to turn to transcriptions.

Transcriptions also serve to draw the music of modern orchestral composers into the wind band canon. As original compositions push the wind ensemble to new heights, transcriptions will remain, grounding the medium and connecting the ensemble to its roots.

51

Appendix A

Guiding Questions for Elgar Interviews and Transcription Survey.

List of Guiding Questions for Live Interviews

1) To the best of your ability, how would you describe the “Elgar” sound? What traits stand

out to you as characteristic of Elgar’s writing?

2) Had Elgar been born 20 years later, and therefore lived 20 years longer, do you think he

would have considered writing for wind band?

Upon listening recordings of the “Fantasia and Fugue” in original and transcription:

3) Does the transcription capture the characteristics of Elgar’s writing as discussed

previously? Why or why not?

Upon listening recordings of the “Mazurka” in original and transcription:

4) Does the transcription capture the characteristics of Elgar’s writing as discussed

previously? Why or why not? 52

Transcription Survey

Ryan Czekaj, principal investigator May 1, 2018

Please fill out the following survey to the best of your ability. While crafting your responses, consider the following: 1) For the purposes of this study, only orchestral literature transcribed for wind band will be considered. 2) Transcription is defined as the following: The practice of rescoring a musical composition for performance in a different medium. Preservation of musical elements such as form and harmony, as well as the composer’s aesthetic goals and characteristic sound, is held in high regard. As a reminder, your participation in this research study is voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time. Any question may be skipped if you deem the action appropriate.

☐ I have read and understood my rights as a participant in this voluntary research study.

1) How many transcriptions do you program in a typical year for your ensemble?

2) What is your philosophy regarding the inclusion of transcriptions in the repertoire your students perform?

3) Are there certain transcribers that you tend to program with greater frequency?

4) What are the characteristics of a quality transcription?

5) What are the characteristics of pieces you feel would not work well as transcriptions for wind band?

6) Are there pieces you feel would enhance the band’s repertoire through transcription? Feel free to list specific composers, pieces, genres. 53

Appendix B

“Mazurka” from the Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 – Conceptual, Pure, and Final Transcriptions for Wind Ensemble

Conceptual Transcription

INTRODUCTION Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I/II, Oboe I/II, Rhythmic Intensity Soprano/Alto Flute I/II, Oboe I/II, Clarinet I/II, Violin (tremolo) Clarinet I/II/III (13) I/II (36) Viola/Cello (22) Rhythmic Intensity Tenor Alto Sax, Tenor Sax, (16th notes) Trumpet I, Bassoon I/II, Bass Clarinet (8) Bassoon I/II, Horn Harmonic Tenor Trumpet II, I/II/III/IV, Trumpet Punctuation Trombone I/II, Horn I/II, Trombone I (11) (first entrance) I/II/III/IV (10) Trumpet II, Harmonic Tenor/Bass Trumpet II, Bass Trombone I/II, Bass Punctuation Trombone, Tuba, Trombone, Bass (12) (second entrance) Bass Clarinet, Bari Sax, Euphonium (7) Bassoon, Cello, Bass Melodic Fragment Bass Bass Clarinet, Bari (20) Sax, Bassoon I/II, Tuba (6)

LETTER A-B

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Clarinet I/II, Melody (in octaves) Soprano Flute I/II Clarinet I/II, Violin I/II (33) Oboe I (9) Oboe Harmonic Soprano Alto Sax (2) Punctuation Bassoon, Bass Rhythmic Motor Bass Bass Clarinet, Trombone, Tuba, Bassoon I/II, Bari 54 Cello, String Bass Sax, Trombone II (22) Bass Trombone, Tuba (9) Horn, Viola, Cello Offbeat Accentuation Alto/Tenor Horn I/II/III/IV, (26) Trombone I, Bassoon I/II, Tenor Sax (9)

LETTER C (First 4 Measures)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I/II, Oboe I/II Melody (in octaves) Soprano Flute I/II, Oboe I/II (4) (5) Bassoon I/II, Horn Blocked Harmony Tenor Alto Sax, Horn I/III I/II (4) (Fifths) (4) Violin I/II, Viola, Rhythmic Line Full Range Clarinet I/II/III, Oboe Cello, Bass (60) (pizzicato eighths) II, Bassoon I/II, Bass Clarinet, Bari Sax (13)

Letter C (Measures 5-8)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Violin I/II, Viola Melody (sextuplets) Soprano Flute I, Clarinet (42) I/II/III (10) Flute I, Clarinet I/II, Melodic support Soprano, Alto/Tenor Flute II, Alto Sax, Cello (13) (triplets or dotted Tenor Sax, Bass rhythms only) Clarinet, Trumpet I, Trombone I (8) Oboe I/II, Bassoon Harmony: Motor, Alto/Tenor/Bass Oboe I/II, Horn I/III, I/II, Horn I/II, Chordal Trombone II (6) Trombone I/II, Bass (16) Viola (12) Offbeat Accentuation Alto Bassoon I/II, Euphonium (3) Horn III/IV, Trumpet Harmony: support for Tenor/Bass Bari Sax, Horn I/II, Bass Trombone, swell III/IV, Trumpet II, Tuba (6) Bass Trombone, Tuba (8)

55 LETTER D

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Piccolo, Melody (in octaves) Soprano/Alto/Tenor Flute I, Piccolo, Clarinet I/II, Trumpet Clarinet I/II/III, Oboe I/II, Violin I/II, Cello I/II, Trumpet I/II, (46) Euphonium (18) Oboe I/II (2) Harmonic Line Soprano Alto Sax (2) Bassoon, Bass Rhythmic Motor Bass Bass Clarinet, Trombone, Tuba, Bassoon, Bari Sax, Cello, String Bass Trombone II Bass (22) Trombone, Tuba (8) Horn, Trombone I/II, Offbeat Accentuation Alto/Tenor Horn, Trombone I, Cello (16) Tenor Sax (7)

LETTER E (First 4 Measures)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I (1) Harmonic Line Soprano Flute I (2) Clarinet I, Bassoon I Solo/Duet Alto/Tenor Clarinet I, Bassoon I (2) (3) Violin II, Viola, Chordal Harmony Alto/Tenor Clarinet II/III, Horn Cello (36) III/IV, Euphonium (9) Bassoon II, Bass (9) Pizzicato Bass Bassoon II, Bass Accentuations Clarinet, Bass Trombone (3)

LETTER E (Measures 5-8)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Violin I/II (30) Melody Soprano Flute I/II, Alto Sax, Oboe I/II, (7) Flute I, Oboe I/II, Harmonic Line Soprano/Alto/Tenor Clarinet II/III Tenor Clarinet I/II, Horn Sax, Trumpet I, Horn I/II, Viola (19) I/II/III/IV, Euphonium (14) Bassoon I/II, Cello, Harmony/Motor Bass Bass Clarinet, Bass (20) Bassoon I/II, Bari Sax, Trombone I (6) 56 LETTER F (First 4 Measures)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I/II, Clarinet I, Quartet Melody Soprano/Alto/Tenor Solo Flute I/II, Solo Bassoon I (4) Clarinet I, Bassoon I (4) Violin II, Viola, Chordal Harmony Alto/Tenor Clarinet II/III, Horn Cello (36) III/IV, Euphonium (9) Bassoon II, Bass (9) Pizzicato Bass Bassoon II, Bass Accentuations Clarinet, Bass Trombone (3)

LETTER F (Measures 5-8)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Violin I/II Melody Soprano Flute I, Piccolo, Alto (31) Sax, Oboe I/II (7) Flute II, Oboe I/II, Harmonic Line Soprano/Alto/Tenor Clarinet II/III, Tenor Clarinet I/II, Horn Sax, Trumpet I, Horn I/II, Viola (19) I/II/III/IV, Euphonium (14) Bassoon I/II, Cello, Harmony/Motor Bass Bass Clarinet, Bass (20) Bassoon I/II, Bari Sax, Trombone I/II (8)

LETTER G (First 4 Measures)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Oboe I, Flute I (2) Solo/Duet Soprano Oboe I, Solo Flute I (2) Bassoon I/II, Horn Chordal Harmony Alto/Tenor Bassoon I/II, Horn I/II, Tuba, Viola, I/II, Euphonium (5) Cello (27)

LETTER G (Measures 5-8) 57 Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Clarinet I/II, Melody/Countermelody Soprano/Alto/Tenor Clarinet I/II/III, Bass Bassoon I/II, Violin (staggered entrances) Clarinet, Bassoon I/II, Viola, Cello I/II, Flute I, Alto (57) Sax, Tenor Sax, Euphonium (17) Horn I/II (2) Harmony (Octaves) Tenor Horn I/III (2) Bass (8) Rhythmic Chordal Bass Bari Sax, Tuba (3) Harmony

LETTER H (First 4 Measures)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Oboe I, Flute I (2) Solo/Duet Soprano Oboe I/II, Solo Flute (3) Bassoon I/II, Horn Chordal Harmony Alto/Tenor Bassoon I/II, Horn I/II, Tuba, Viola, I/II, Euphonium, Cello (27) Tuba (7) Bass (8) Downbeat Bass Bass Clarinet, Bari Accentuations Sax (2)

LETER H (Measures 5-8)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Clarinet I/II, Melody/Countermelody Soprano/Alto/Tenor Clarinet I/II/III, Bass Bassoon I/II, Violin (staggered entrances) Clarinet, Bassoon I/II, Viola, Cello I/II, Flute I/II, Alto (57) Sax, Tenor Sax (17) Horn I/II (2) Harmony (Octaves) Tenor Horn I/III (2) Bass (8) Rhythmic Chordal Bass Bari Sax, Tuba (3) Harmony

LETTER I (Measures 1-8)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Oboe I, Melody (staggered Soprano Flute I, Oboe I/II, Clarinet I, Violin I entrances) Alto Sax, Clarinet I 58 (19) (8) Viola, Cello, Violin Harmonic Line Soprano/Alto/Tenor Clarinet III, Trumpet II, Bassoon I/II, Horn II, Tenor Sax, Horn I/II/III/IV (42) I/II/III/IV, Trombone II, Euphonium (13) Bassoon I/II, Cello, Harmony/Motor Bass Bass Clarinet, Bass (20) Bassoon I/II, Bari Sax, Bass Trombone (5)

LETTER I (Measures 9-12)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Piccolo, Oboe Melody (octaves, Soprano/Alto/Tenor Flute I, Piccolo, Oboe II, Violin I/II, Cello staggered entrances) I/II, Clarinet I/II/III, (43) Bass Clarinet (14) Bassoon I/II, Viola, Harmonic Line Alto/Tenor Bassoon I/II, Alto Cello, Trumpet I/II, Sax, Tenor Sax, Horn Horn I/II, Clarinet I/II I/III, Trumpet I/II, (30) Trombone I, Euphonium (14) Horn I/II/III/IV, Harmony/Motor Bass Bass Clarinet, Bari Trombone II, Bass Sax, Horn I/II/III/IV, Trombone, Tuba, Trombone II, Bass Bass (15) Trombone, Tuba (11)

LETTER J

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Piccolo, Melody (octaves) Soprano/Alto Flute I, Piccolo, Clarinet I/II, Violin Clarinet I/II, Solo I/II, Viola (46) Trumpet I, Bass Clarinet (13) Oboe I/II, Bassoon Harmony/Motor Full SATB Range Oboe I/II, Bassoon I/II, Horn I/II/III/IV, I/II, Clarinet III, Alto Trumpet I/II, Sax, Tenor Sax, Bari Trombone I/II, Bass Sax, Horn I/II/III/IV, Trombone, Tuba, Trumpet II, Viola, Cello, Bass Trombone I/II, Bass (44) Trombone, Euphonium, Tuba 59 (25)

LETTER K (Measures 1-3)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Violin I/II, Viola, Melody (octaves) Soprano/Alto/Tenor Clarinet I/II, Alto Cello (52) Sax, Tenor Sax, Bari Sax, Bass Clarinet (12)

LETTER K (Measures 4-7)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Piccolo, Oboe Melody (octaves) Soprano Flute I, Piccolo, Oboe I/II (4) I/II (5) Violin II, Viola (26) Harmony/Rhythmic Soprano/Alto Clarinet I/II/III (8) Unrest Bassoon I/II, Violin I, Harmony (Fifths) Alto/Tenor Bass Clarinet, Cello (28) Euphonium, Trombone I/II (6)

Horn I/II, Bass (10) Harmony/Motor Tenor/Bass Bassoon I/II, Bari Sax, Bass Trombone (4)

LETTER K (Measures 8-11)

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Violin I/II, Viola Melody (sextuplets) Soprano Flute I, Clarinet (42) I/II/III (10) Flute I, Clarinet I/II, Melodic support Soprano, Alto/Tenor Flute II, Alto Sax, Cello (13) (triplets or dotted Tenor Sax, Bass rhythms only) Clarinet, Trumpet I, Trombone I (8) 60 Oboe I/II, Bassoon Harmony: Motor, Alto/Tenor/Bass Oboe I/II, Horn I/III, I/II, Horn I/II, Chordal Trombone II (6) Trombone I/II, Bass (16) Viola (12) Offbeat Accentuation Alto Bassoon I/II, Euphonium (3) Horn III/IV, Trumpet Harmony: support for Tenor/Bass Bari Sax, Horn I/II, Bass Trombone, swell III/IV, Trumpet II, Tuba (6) Bass Trombone, Tuba (8)

LETTER L

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Flute I, Piccolo, Oboe Melody (octaves) Soprano/Alto Flute I, Piccolo, Oboe I, Clarinet I/II, I/II, Clarinet I/II/III, Trumpet I, Violin I/II Trumpet I (15) (35) Bassoon I/II, Triplet Harmony Alto, Tenor, Bass Bassoon I/II, Bass Trombone II, Bass Clarinet, Tenor Sax, Trombone, Tuba, Bari Sax, Horn Viola, Cello, Bass I/II/III/IV Trumpet II, (35) Trombone I/II, Bass Trombone, Tuba (18) Oboe II, Clarinet II, Chordal Harmony Soprano/Alto/Tenor Alto Sax, Horn Horn I/II/III/IV, I/II/III/IV, Trumpet II, Euphonium (7) Trombone I (8)

LETTER M

Instrument Group Function SATB Range Instrumentation (Original) / 83 (Transcription) / 32 Bassoon I/II, Violin Triplets Alto/Tenor/Bass Bassoon I/II, Clarinet I/II, Viola, Cello, I/II/III, Bass Clarinet, Bass (62) Tenor Sax, Bari Sax, Euphonium (14) Flute I, Piccolo, Oboe Ascending Line Soprano/Alto Flute I, Piccolo, Oboe I/II, Clarinet I, Violin (pizzicato, staggered I/II, Clarinet I/II/III, I/II, Viola (47) entrances) Alto Sax (15) 61 Flute I, Oboe I/II, Chordal Harmony Soprano/Alto Flute I, Oboe I/II, Clarinet I/II, Horn I Alto Sax, Horn I/II (6) (8) 62

Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 No. 1 ~ Mazurka

Sir Edward Elgar (1857-1934) ~ Transcribed for wind ensemble by Ryan Czekaj (b. 1997)

Pure Transcription

© 2017. Ryan Czekaj, State College, PA. All Rights Reserved. Score Three Characteristic Pieces 63

I. Mazurka Sir Edward Elgar (1857-1934) Arr. Ryan Czekaj (b. 1997) A q = 130 ι œ − ˙Ÿ− œ œ = =œ =œ ∀œ Flute 2 œ % α 3 Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ ε ο . Ρ FL. Ÿ ∀œ− Piccolo ι = = =œ 2 œ œ œ œ % α 3 ˙− œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ε Ρ = Oboe ι Ÿ = = œ− œ 2 œ œ œ % α 3 ˙˙− œ œ œœ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ − ˙− . ε = == = = ο œ œ œ œ œ œ = = =œ = ι Bassoon ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ ≈œ œœ ≈œœ ≈œ œœ ≈œœ ≈œ > 2 Œ œ ∀œ œ ‰ Œ ‰ ≈ θ œ ≈∀œ ‰ ≈ θ œ ≈œ ‰ ≈ θ ‰ ≈Θ ‰ ≈Θ ˙ œ− α 3 œ Ι œ œ œ œ œ œ . ε = = = Ρ Ÿ Clarinet in B 1 ι Ÿ Ÿ = − α ∀ 2 œ œ œ ∀œ % 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ = = œ œ œ . ε = = = ο Ρ ι Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Clarinet in B 2 ∀ œ α 2 œ œ − − − % 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ− = = = . œ œ œ Ρ ε = = = ο Clarinet in B 3 ∀ α 2 Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ‰ ≈œ œ ≈œ œ ≈œ % 3 ∀˙− ˙− œ ∀œ œ Θ = = = œ œ œ ε = = = Bass Clarinet ∀ œ œ œ œ œ œ = = =œ 2 ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ θ ‰ ≈ θ ≈ ‰ ≈ θ œ ≈œ ≈œœ ≈œœ ≈œ ≈œœ ≈œœ ≈œ % 3 œ œ ≈ œ œ . œ ∀œ = œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ε = = œ ˙ Ρ− Alto Sax ∀ 2 œ œ œ œ œ œ = = = œ œ ≈œ œ ≈œ % ∀ 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ‰ ≈Θ ε Tenor Sax ∀ 2 ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ =œ ∀=œ =œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ− % 3 Œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ‰ ≈ œ ≈œ ≈œ ‰ ≈ œ ≈œ ≈œ ˙ œ = = Θ. Θ ε = Ρ Baritone Sax ∀ 2 = θ θ œ œ % ∀ 3 ∑ ∑ œ ∀œ œ Œ œ ‰ ≈ œ œ ≈∀œ œ ‰ ≈ œ ≈ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ε= = Ÿ Trumpet in B 1 ι = − α ∀ œ œ œ ∀œ % 32 ˙− œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ = = . ε ο Ρ Trumpet in B 2 − α ∀ 2 ∀œ % 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ ε = = = œ = = Ρ = = = = − Horn in F 1 œ œ = = = 2 ∑ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ œ % 3 œ ∀œ œ œ œ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ ∀œ = − = = ˙− ˙− ˙−. ˙− ˙ ε ο Ρ = = = Horn in F 2 = = = 2 ∑ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ % 3 œ œ œ = = = ε = ∀=œ =œ = − Trombone 1 > œ =œ =œ œ ˙] ˙] ] œ α 32 ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ˙ . ε ο Ρ = =œ Trombone 2 =œ ∀œ = = = ] ] ] œ− > 2 ∑ Œ œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ Œ ˙ Œ ˙ α 3 . ε ο Ρ − Bass Trombone > = ˙] ˙] ] œ α 32 ∑ ∑ œ ∀œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ˙ . ε= = ο Ρ Euphonium = = = œ ≈œ œœ ≈ œ ≈œ œœ ≈ œ ≈œ > 2 ∑ ∑ œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ θ ‰ ≈Θ œ ‰ ≈Θ œ ˙ œ− α 3 œ . ε Ρ Tuba > = θ θ œ ] ] ] α 32 ∑ ∑ œ ∀œ œ Œ ‰ ≈ œ ≈∀œ ‰ ≈ ≈œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ . ˙ ˙ œ− ε= = Ρ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} Timpani > 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ ι‰ Œ ι‰ Œ α 3 ˙ œ œ œœ. ˙− ˙− ˙ œ Ρ ο Ρ œ Crash Cymbal 2 3 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ Bass Drum 2 Ρ % α 3 ∑ ∑ µ ∑ 2017R∑yanCzekaj∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ Ρ Three Characteristic Pieces 64 A 10 − œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈ ≈∀œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ œ =œ− = œ œ ≈∀œ Fl. ≈ œ œ ˙ =œ− ∀œ− % α Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ Ρ ƒ Ρ œ œ Ρ œ Ρ œ œ ƒ œ− œ ∀œ œ œ œ− œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ = œ œ ∀œ Picc. œ ≈ œ− œ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ œ− œ œ ≈œ = œ− ∀œ µœ œ ≈ Θ ≈ œ ˙ œ− œ Ι Θ % α Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ Œ Œ Œ Œ 3 ‰3 ‰ Œ ‰ ≈ Ρ ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ ι − Ob. œ θ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ ≈œ ˙ Œ œ Œ œ ] œ ‰ Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ œ ≈∀œ œ œ ≈ œ− ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ Œ œ œ œ ∀œ ≈ œ ≈ œ % α Ι œ œ− œ− œ˙ œ˙ ∀œ˙ œ œ œ œ 3 − œ − Ι Ρ ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ − − − ƒ − − − œ− − , Bsn. > − , , , œ œ œ œ , œ œ œ œ ≥ œ] œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ œ Œ œ Œ 3 Œ ˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ Œ α œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 Ι − − − œ − − − 3 − − 3 Ρ Ρ ƒ œ ∀œ œ œ , ∀œ, œ ] œ ∀œ B Cl. 1 − œ ≈ œ− ≈ œ œ ≈ œ − œ œ œ œ œ, ∀œ − œ œ ≈ œ ≈ α ∀ œ Θ œ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ œ − − − œ ≈ œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ œ ∀œ , 3 % œ ˙ œ œ œ 3 ∀œ œ − − œ− 3 Ρ Ρ 3 Ρ ƒ Ρ 3 3 ƒ B Cl. 2 α ∀ œ ≈∀œ œ œ ] œ ≈∀œ % œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ œ œ− œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ ≈ Œ œ œ Œ œ ∀œ ∀œ, ≈ œ œ ≈ œ − Θ œ− ∀œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ˙ œ œ ∀œ œ, , , œ Ρ Ρ œ− œ œ− − œ− ∀œ − ƒ Ρ Ρ 3 3 3 ƒ B Cl. 3 ∀ ] α œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ Œ % œ ι œ œ œ œ− − œ− œ, œ œ− œ ∀˙ œ œ − −3 − œ, − − B. Cl. − ] ∀ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ− œ œ− œ, Œ ι ‰ œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈∀œ % œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ −3 œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − − , œ − − − 3 3 3 Ρ Ρ− ι − − − ƒ A. Sx. − œ , , ∀œ, œ ∀∀ œ œ− − œ− œ ˙ œ œ œ œ, œ ∀œ − ι % Œ Œ ∑ ‰ Œ œ ‰ Œ ‰ ∀œ ˙ Œ œ œ œ Œ œ ∀œ œ 3 ≈ œ œ ∀œ ‰ Œ œ− − 3− − − − − œ, œ− − œ− ∀œ , œ œ œ œ œ, œ œ T. Sx. ∀ = ι ≥ ι ι ι œ − − ι ≥ ι œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ− Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ Ι ‰ Œ % œ− Ι Ρ Ρ œ B. Sx. ∀ = œ œ œ œ ≥ œ] œ % ∀ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ Œ œ− œ œ œ œ− œ− Ι 10 Ο B Tpt. 1 α ∀ œ − − ι ] œ ≈∀œ % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ œ ≈ œ Ρ Ο Ρ ƒ B Tpt. 2 ∀ ι ] α œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ Œ % œ− œ Ι Ρ Ο − Ρ , , , , − − , ] ι Hn. 1 œ ι‰ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ ˙− ˙ ∀˙− œ œ ‰ Œ % œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ ˙ œ œ œ Ι , , , , − , ˙− œ ∀˙− ƒ − υ Ι Ρ , , , , − − , ] Hn. 2 œ œ œ œ ι Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ ‰ Œ % œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀˙− œ œ , , , , − − , υ Ι , ,ƒ , , œ œ− ∀œ− ˙ Tbn. 1 > œ œ œ œ ˙ ∀œ = œ] œ α Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ˙− œ ˙ Ι ‰ Œ ƒ − œ Tbn. 2 > − œ− œ œ œ œ œ ] ι α œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ µ˙ ‰ Œ œ œ œ œ = œ œ Ρ ε Ο B. Tbn. > − = ] ι α œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ Œ ˙ ‰ Œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ− œ œ Ρ ε − − − − œ Euph. − − − œ œ œ œ, œ− œ œ− œ] œ œ ≈∀œ > œ− Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ, Œ Œ ∀˙ ‰− œ− ≈ α 3 3 3 Θ Ρ ƒ Tuba > − ι α œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ Œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ− ˙ œ œ 10 Ρ ε = Ÿ Timp. > Ÿ}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} ι α œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ− œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ˙− œ œ ‰ Œ = 10 Ρ œ Ε 10 Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. Ρ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ρ Three Characteristic Pieces 65 B C − , αœ, ] œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ− œ− ∀œ œ œ œ œ] œ œ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ ∀œ ≈ œ Fl. ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ œ] œ] œ œ ≈ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ % α Ι ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Ρ Ρ ο œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ Picc. ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ % α Ι ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ ≈∀œ Ρ Ρ − ] ] ο − − œ ] ] ] œ ∀œ œ œ Ob. œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ ≈ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ α œ œ ≈ œ− ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ Œ αœ œ œ µœ œ œ œ ≈ ≈ œ ≈ ≈∀œ ≈ œ ∀œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ % œ− œ− αœ˙ œ œ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ υ υ υ œ Ρ Ρ Ρ = − ] ]υ ]υ ι ο quasi pizz. = − = − − − − − ] ] œ œ Bsn. œ = œ = œ œ œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ œ œ µœ ∀œ œ œ > œ œ œ Œ Œ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ œ œ α Œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ œ œ µœ Ι œ œ œ œ œ υ υ υ υ υ quasi pizz. = = = 3 = œ œ = , œ] ] ο B Cl. 1 œ− ≈ œ œ ≈ œ − œ œ , − − − œ œ œ œ] ] œ œ α ∀ œ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ 3 œ− ‰ Œ œ œ Œ Œ % œ ˙ œ− − œ− µœ− Ι œ Ρ Ρ Ρ 3 quοasi pizz. œ œ, B Cl. 2 ∀ µœ œ, − ∀œ− − ] ] ] ] α œ− œ œ ≈ œ ≈ ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ ι‰ Œ œ œ œ œ % œ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ µœ− 3 œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ− œ œ ∀œ− ˙ − − œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Ρ Ρ ο quasi pizz. Ρ − B Cl. 3 ∀ œ ] ] ] ] α ∑ ∑ œ− ∀œ œ œ œ ι‰ Œ ∑ œ % œ µœ œ œ − œ− ∀œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ − œ œ B. Cl. œ ≈ − − − ] ] ] ] ] ο ∀ œ− œ œ ≈ œ ≈ ≈∀œ œ œ− œ œ ≈ œ− œ œ αœ Œ œ œ œ œ ‰ ι‰ Œ ∑ ∑ % œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ− 3 œ œ œ Ι , œ œ ∀œ ∀œ Ρ Ρ Ρ A. Sx. − − , ] ∀∀ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œœ− µœ œ, − ∀œ− − œ− œ œ ] ] ] − − % Œ Ι ‰ Œ Ι ‰ œ ∀œ ˙ 3 œ− œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ˙ ˙ − − 3 Ι Ρ Ρ ο , ] T. Sx. ∀ µœ, − ∀œ− − œ œ ] œ] ] ι ι Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ œ ‰ œ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∀ œ ˙− ∀ œ ˙− % œ− œ− Œ œ− œ− œ− ˙ 3 Ι Ι ƒ ο ] B. Sx. ∀∀ = = − œ] œ] œ] œ ] % œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ œ− œ− œ− œ− œ µœ œ− ∀œ œ− Ι 20 B Tpt. 1 ∀ œ ≈ œ œ] ] ] ] ] ι α œ− œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ− ‰ œ− ‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ % œ œ− œ Ι Ι œ œ œ œ œ Ρ Ρ Ρ B Tpt. 2 ∀ ] ] ] ] ] α ι ι ι − ι ι‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ ‰ ‰ ι‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ Œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ % œ œ œ− − œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− Ρ − œ− Ρ , , − − − − − − − ] ] ] ] ] Hn. 1 œ ∀œ ι Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ œ ˙ αœ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ % œ œ œ ∀œ ˙ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙− ˙− , , − − − υ ˙ ˙ ƒ − − − − υ υ υ υ Ι − − , , ] ] ] ] ο Hn. 2 œ œ − ] ι Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ Œ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ % œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ œ œ , , − − υ υ υ υ υ Ι ƒ Tbn. 1 , ] ] ] ] ] > Œ œ− Œ Œ œ− Œ Œ œ− ∀œ œ Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ α − Ι ƒ Tbn. 2 ] ] ] ] ] > Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ− Œ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ α œ− œ− œ− œ− œ œ αœ œ œ œ µœ Ι ƒ − B. Tbn. = = ] ] > − − œ] œ] œ œ ] α œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ œ− œ− œ− œ− œ αœ œ− Ι œ ] Euph. − œ œ ∀œ ≈ œ − œ œ − œ − − ] œ œ > œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ ≈ œ œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ œ] œ] œ] œ Ι α ≈ œ Œ Œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ Ρ Ρ Ρ Tuba > = = − ] ] ] ] ] α œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ œ− œ− œ− œ− œ αœ œ− ∀œ œ− œ œ œ œ Ι 20 Timp. ] ] ] ] Ÿ = > œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ− Œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ œ ˙ Œ œ œ ˙ Œ α œ œ œ Ι 20 ο

20 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Three Characteristic Pieces 66 D 30 œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ =œ− = œ] œ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ ∀œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ Fl. ≈œ œ œ œ =œ− ∀œ− ≈ ≈œ œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈ œ œ % α Ι ‰ Œ Œ . Œ Œ ο Ρ to Piccolo ƒ Ρ Ρ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ Picc. ι ≈œ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ ι % α œ ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ ≈∀œ œ ‰ Œ Œ ƒ Ρ Ρ Ob. Œ Œ œ Œ − ] œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈œ œ ι œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ ∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ % α œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ ≈œ œ œ ‰ œ˙ ∀œ˙ œ œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ− œ ≈ ≈ œ− œ ≈ œœ ∀œ œ œ œ 3 œ˙− . œ Ι Ι − ƒ Ρ − − − − Ρ Ρ= − = − Ρ − − Bsn. œ− œ − , ] > œ œ œ œ œ, œ œ œ ˙ =œ œ œ œ = œ = œ œ α œ œ œ œ œ Œ 3 Œ ‰ Ι ‰ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − 3− − . Ι œ Œ œ Œ œ œ 3 Ρ− = = ∀œ œ œ ] œ ∀œ = œ œ = B Cl. 1 œ œ = œ ∀œ œ œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ− ≈œ œ ≈ œ − œ œ α ∀ œ œ œ − − − œ œ œ œ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ 6 ≈ œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ % œ œ œ 3 ∀œ œ − − œ− . 3 6 œ œ Ρ Ρ 3 Ρ− ƒ ∀œ œ œ Ρ B Cl. 2 = œ ∀œ œ ] α ∀ ∀œ œ œ œ œ ≈∀œ − œ œ % Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ ∀œ œ 6 ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ ≈ œ œ . 6 œ œ− ∀œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ− œ− œ− œ− œ − 3 3 3 Ρ− Ρ ∀œ œ œ ƒ Ρ Ρ B Cl. 3 = œ ∀œ œ ] α ∀ ∀œ œ œ œ ι % Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∀œ œ 6 ≈ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ œ œ œ 6 œ œ œ − œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ− − œ− œ,. œ− œ− œ− − − quasi pizz. − −3 − œ, Ρ B. Cl. ∀ − , ] œ œ ≈ œ œ œ Œ œ− œ œ− œ Œ ι‰ œ œ ≈ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈ Œ % œ − œ œ 3 . œ ˙ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ − 3 − , − Ι 3 6 Ρ Ρ œ œ œ − − − 3 ƒ Ρ Ρ ο ‰ œ ∀œ − A. Sx. ∀ ι œ œ œ , − œ œ œ œ œ % ∀ ˙− œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ Œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ ‰− ≈ œ Ι ‰ Œ Œ Ι ‰ Œ Ι ‰ œ ∀œ Œ Œ 3 − − − œ,. œ− − œ− ∀œ œ Θ − − − − − = Ρ Ρ T. Sx. ι ι œ œ ∀ ∀ œ ∀ œ − − Ι − % ˙− œ œ ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ Ι − . Ι − − Œ − − quasi pizz. Ρ ƒ œ œ B. Sx. ∀ œ œ œ œ œ − œ] œ = = − % ∀ ∑ œ Œ Œ ˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ . Ι − − œ− − 30 ο Ο Ρ B Tpt. 1 α ∀ − − ι ] œ ≈∀œ œ ∀œ œ ≈ œ œ − − % ∑ ∑ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ ≈œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ− œ ‰ œ ‰ . − œ− Ι Ι Ο Ρ ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ B Tpt. 2 ] α ∀ ι ι ι % ∑ ∑ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ ι‰ ι‰ Œ ι‰ Œ œ− œ œ ‰ Œ œ ‰ ‰ ι‰ − œ−. ∀˙ œ œ œ œ− œ œ − œ− œ Ο Ρ− Ρ − ] ι Ρ , , − − − Hn. 1 ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ι‰ Œ ˙− œ ∀˙− ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ œ % ˙− œ œ ˙ ∀˙− œ œ ∀œ ˙− œ œ ˙− . œ υ Ι , , − − − Ι ] ƒ, , Hn. 2 ι œ œ % ∑ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∀˙− œ œ ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∑ υ Ι , , ƒ Tbn. 1 ˙ œ] œ > ∑ Œ Œ Œ ˙− œ ∀˙ œ− ‰ Œ Œ œ− Œ Œ œ− Œ Œ œ− α . Ι ∀œ− Ρ œ ƒ Tbn. 2 > œ œ œ œ ˙ œ− œ] œ α ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ œ . Ι − − − − Ο Ρ ƒ B. Tbn. > − ] ι = = − α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ ‰ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ− œ− œ− œ− Ρ − œ Euph. − œ− œ œ− , − œ− − ] œ ≈∀œ − œ œ ∀œ ≈ œ − œ œ − > œ− œ œ− œ, œ œ œ ∀˙ − − œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ ≈ œ œ α ∑ Œ Œ 3 Œ 3 Œ 3 ‰ œ ≈ œ . Θ ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ Tuba ] = = > ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ‰ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ− α ι œ œ œ œ ˙ œ− − − − − 30 Ρ œ œ Ÿ}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} Ÿ Timp. > œ œ œ œ ι α ˙ Œ ˙ Œ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ = 30 œ ο Ρ 30 ∑ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. π ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

3 Three Characteristic Pieces 67 E 39 − − − œ] ] αœ œ µœ œ œ œ] µœ] œ œ] œ Fl. ˙ œ− œ ι œ œ α αœ Ι ‰ Ι ‰ Ι ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ, œ % 3 ˙− . œ œ œ ˙− Ι Ι Ο œ ] ο œ œ œ] Picc. œ] œ] œ] œ œ œ œ œ œ œ , α ∑ ∑ œ Ι ‰ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙− % Ι . œ ] ] Ο − œ ] ] ] ι Ob. ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ α Œ αœ œ œ µœ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ, œ % œ˙ œ . œ œ œ ˙− 3 3 αœ˙ œ œ œ ten. υ υ υ Ι Ο œ − − − − − − − − ] ] ]υ ]υ ι ] οι − œ Bsn. œ œ œ œ µœ ∀œ œ œ Œ Œ œ œ œ > œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙− ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œœ œœ œœ α œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ Œ œ Œ œ µœ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ Ι Œ Œ 3 3 υ υ υ υ υ − − − − − 3 Solo − ten. − − − œ] ] ο B Cl. 1 − − − œ œ œ œ] ] ι α ∀ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ − œ œ œ œ œ − œ − œ œ œ œ − % ˙ œœ œ 3 œ Ι ‰ Œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − − − µœ− . 3 ο œ œ B Cl. 2 ∀ µœ œ − ∀œ− − ] ] ] ] = α œ œ œ− œ œ ι‰ Œ ˙− œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ % œœ− œ µœ− 3 œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− ˙ − − π − − − − œ − B Cl. 3 ∀ − œ œ] ] ] ] α % œ ∀œ œ œ œ ι‰ Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ µœ œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− ˙− = œ œ œ œ 3 3 π − − − − B. Cl. − œ− − ] ] ] ] ] ∀ Œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ % 3 œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ αœ Ι œ∀ œ ∀œ − œ − − œ œ œ − − ∀œ− − − − − − œ œ œ π− − ο A. Sx. − ] Ρ ∀∀ œ− œ œ− µœ œ − ∀œ− − œ− œ œ ] ] ] œ œ œ œ œ ˙− ˙ 3 − œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ % œ 3 œ œ œ œ Ι . = Ε − œ] ] T. Sx. ∀ − œ− − − − − µœ œ− ∀œ œ− œ œ] œ ∀œ] œ œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ 3 œ ‰ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ % 3 œ Ι 3 Ι 3 3 B. Sx. ∀ ] œ] œ] œ] ] ˙ ˙ œ − − % ∀ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ ∀œ − − − œ− − œ− µœ œ ∀œ œ− Ι œ œ − 39 ο B Tpt. 1 ∀ œ] ] ] ] ] ι α % œ Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ ∀˙− œ ˙ ˙ œ œ ∀œ œ œ π B Tpt. 2 ∀ ] ] ] ] ] α % Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ œ ι‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œœ œ œ œ − − − − ] ] ] ] ] Hn. 1 œ ∀œ ι ˙− ˙ œ αœ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ % œ œ ∀œ œ œ − − − − ˙− ˙− œ œ œ œ ∀œ − − − − υ υ υ υ υ Ι π Hn. 2 − ] ] ] ] ] Œ ι ∑ % œ œ αœ Œ Œ œ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙ œ œ − − − − œ œ œ − − υ υ υ υ υ Ι π ˙− ˙− Tbn. 1 > , ] ] œ] ] ] ˙ ˙ œ − − α œ Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ ∀œ Ι œ œ − 3 3 ο ] Tbn. 2 > ] ] ] ] α œ œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ− Œ µœ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − − − œ− − œ− αœ œ œœ Ι quasi pizz. B. Tbn. > ] œ] œ] œ] ] α œ œ αœ Œ œ Œ œ Œ ∑ Œ œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − − œ ∀œ − œ œ Ρ π − œ− − − − − − œ] − − ∀˙− œ ˙ œ Euph. > œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ ] œ] œ] œ] − œ − œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 3 Œ Œ œ œ Œ ˙− œ œ ˙− œ œ α Ρ π Tuba > ] ] ] ] ] α œ œ αœ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − − œ ∀œ − œœœ œ 39 Ρ Ÿ}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} Timp. > ≥ ] ] ] ] œ œ ≥ − − α ˙− œ Œ Œ Œ− Œ œ œ œ Œ œ Œ ∑ Œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ− 39 Ρ εΨ œ π 39 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. Ψ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ψ Three Characteristic Pieces 68 F Solo ten. G θ œ œ œ œ œ , œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ Fl. œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ ∀œ α œ Œ Œ ∑ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ % . 3 . 3 ten. . Sοolo Ο π Ε œ œ œ œ θ − Picc. œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ, ∀œ œ % α 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ . . . œ ο Ο π , Solo ο Ob. œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∀œ ∀œ α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ % . œ œ ∀œ µœ 3 3 3 ˙ œ ∀œ ten. Ο . Œ Œ −π, − , − , − , θ Bsn. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − , , ∀œ œ œ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ > œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− ˙, ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ α œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ Œ ŒŒ. Œ Œ Œ Œ − − 3 − − , − , − , − , οten. − − π B Cl. 1 α ∀ œ œ œ œ θ % œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ œ œ œ − ˙− ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ . ο B Cl. 2 ∀ , œ α − − ˙− ˙− œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ % ˙ œ œ− œ− ˙ œ œ− œ− œ π π B Cl. 3 ∀ α Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ % œ ∀œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙− ˙− , œ œ œ œ ∀œ π− − − − − − π B. Cl. ∀ % Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ˙ ˙ ˙, œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ− œ œ− œ− œ , œ , œ œ π− − ο π A. Sx. ∀ œ œ % ∀ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ . œ , œ œ œ µœ œ ∀œ Ε π T. Sx. ∀ % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

B. Sx. ∀ , ˙, ˙, œ œ % ∀ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ 52 ο π B Tpt. 1 ∀ α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ % ∀˙− œ ˙ ˙ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ π π B Tpt. 2 ∀ α % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − , − , − , − , Hn. 1 œ ˙ œ ˙− ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ % ˙− œ œ− œ− ˙− œ œ− œ− ˙− ˙− œ œ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ πŒ Œ . − π− , − , − , − , Hn. 2 % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙− œ œ− œ− ˙− œ œ− œ− π ˙− ˙− Tbn. 1 , , > ˙, ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ α œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ π π Tbn. 2 > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

quasi pizz. B. Tbn. > α ∑ Œ œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ π , − − ∀˙− œ ˙ ˙ œ ∀œ œ− Euph. > − œ − œ œ µœ , − , − , − , α ˙− œ œ ˙− œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ π π Tuba > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

52 Ÿ}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} Timp. > ∑ Œ œ− œ− Œ Œ Œ œ− œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ α œ− œ− ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙− 52 π π 52 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Three Characteristic Pieces 69 H 64 Fl. ∀œ ι ∀=œ œ α Œ Œ ∑ ∀œ œ− µœ ‰ ∑ ∑ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ Œ Œ ∑ % ∀œ− ∀œ ∀œ ∀œ œ 3 . Ρ Picc. ι % α ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ρ Ob. ∀œ ∀œ ∀=œ œ α Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ Œ Œ ∑ % 3 . 3 ε− , − , − , − , ι ≥ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ Bsn. > ∀œ ∀œ œ œ ∀œ ∀∀œ ι Ι α ∑ ∀œ Ι ‰ ∀ œ ‰ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ ∑ 3 ‰ 3 Ι ∀ ˙ œ − , − , − , − , Ε Ε ο quasiΙpizz. π B Cl. 1 ∀œ œ ε =œ œ α ∀ ‹œ ∀œ œ ∀œ− ∀œ œ œ œ œ− œ % 3 ≈∀œ ∀œ− ∀œ ∀œ ∑ Œ Œ œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 3 ≈œ œ− œ œ Ε quasεi pizz. Ε B Cl. 2 ∀ α % ι‰ ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ι‰ ∀œ ∀œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ− ∀œ ∀œ ε œ œ− œ œ Ε 3 quasi pizz. Ε 3 B Cl. 3 ∀ α ι‰ ι‰ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ι‰ % ∀œ ‹œ ∀œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ Ε 3 ε quasi pizz. Ε 3 B. Cl. ∀ ∑ ≈ ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ≈ % αœ œ αœ œ œ αœ œ− ι œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ αœ− œ αœ αœ µœ − − − − œ œ Ε π Ε αœ œ− Ρ A. Sx. ∀ αœ µœ− œ αœ µœ ∀œ≥ % ∀ ∑ ∑ Ι ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ρ 3 Ε 3 T. Sx. ∀ αœ œ ≥ ∑ αœ œ ≈ œ − αœ αœ− œ αœ αœ µœ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ≈ œ % œ αœ œ Ι œ œ œ œ œ Ε Ρ quasi pizz. Ε B. Sx. ∀∀ ∀œ − − − − % ∀œ− ˙, ∀œ− ˙, ∀œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ− ˙, œ− ˙, ο Ε 64 π B Tpt. 1 ∀ α % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

B Tpt. 2 ∀ α % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − , − , − , − , Hn. 1 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∑ ∑ % œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ π− , − , − , − , Hn. 2 % ∀˙ − ˙ − ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ − œ Œ Œ ∀ ˙− ˙− ˙− œ Tbn. 1 > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

Tbn. 2 > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

B. Tbn. > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

Euph. > αœ œ œ œ ι ∀˙ ≥ − , − , − , − , œ œ ≈ œ α ∀œ Œ Œ αœ Ι ‰ ∀œ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ Œ Œ œ œ œ 3 Ι − 3 One player Ε Ρ π Ε Tuba > ∀œ α ∀œ− ˙, ∀œ− ˙, ∀œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ− ˙, œ− ˙, 64 ο Ε

Timp. > ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ α œ− 64 ο

64 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

3 Three Characteristic Pieces 70 I 74 − œ œ− œ œ Fl. ι ∀œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ− α œ œ− œ ‰ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ œ− œ µœ− œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ Ι ‰ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ % œ− œ œ œ œ 3 3 3 3 . . Ε Ρ ο Ε Picc. ι % α ∑ Œ Œ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ρ . . − Ε Ob. ∀œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ α ∑ ∑ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ œ− œ µœ− œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ Ι ‰ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ− œ œ % 3 3 3 3 œ− ο ι − , − , − , œ œ œ αœ œ αœ ∀µœ Bsn. > ∀œ œ ≥ι œ œ ∀µœ œ ∀µœ µαœ œ œ ∀µœ œ αœ µ œ œ α ∀ œ œ ‰ Œ ˙ ∀œ ‰ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ œ αœ œ Ι ˙ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ Ι . . ο quasi pizz. − , − , − , ο ο œ œ œ œ− œ œ B Cl. 1 œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ− α ∀ Ρ ο œ− œ œ− œ− œ− œ ∑ Œ Œ œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 3 3 3 3 % . . ο Ε quasΡi pizz. œ œ− œ œ B Cl. 2 ∀ œ− α % ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ . . quaΡsi pizz. Ε B Cl. 3 α ∀ œ œ− % ι‰ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ ˙ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ− œ œ œ œ . . . Ρ ο Ε B. Cl. ∀ % ι‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ− ˙, œ− ˙, œ− ˙, œ− ˙, œ ο ο Ρ œ− A. Sx. œ œ− œ œ œ≥ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀∀ œ− œ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∀œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ œ− œœ− œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ Ι ‰ Œ Œ % Ι ∀œ− ∀œ 3 Ι 3 3 3 . 3 3 . Ε Ρ ο ο T. Sx. ∀ œ œ− ι œ œ œ µœ % œ œ− œ œ œ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ µœ œ œ ∀œ ∑ Ρ ο ο B. Sx. ∀ œ % ∀ œ Œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ ˙ − ,. . 74 π B Tpt. 1 α ∀ % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ µœ ∀œ ε B Tpt. 2 ∀ α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ % œ œ ∀œ ε Hn. 1 − , ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ œ αœ % ˙ œ αœ µ œ œ ˙ . . ο − , − Hn. 2 ι , % œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ œ αœ œ ˙ Ι One player œ . . ˙ Tu−tti , − , Tbn. 1 œ œ œ œ ˙ > ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ µœ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ α . . One player ο ο Tutti , Tbn. 2 > ∀œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ µœ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ ˙ α ∑ ∑ œ œ . − . . ο ο ο B. Tbn. > ∀œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ µœ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ œ α ∑ ∑ αœ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ . − , − , − , − , − ,. . ο ο π œ œ− œ œ αœ œ œ ∀œ Euph. > œ œ− œ œ ι ∀œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ µœ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ µœ α œ ∀œ ‰ αœ œ− ˙, œ− ˙, . . . Ρ Tοutti ο ο Tuba > œ − , − , − , α œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ œ αœ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ . − , − , − , − , . . 74 ο ο π œ− ˙, Timp. > ∑ Œ Œ œ œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ α œ− 74 ο œ œ ˙ 74 ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ . B. Dr. ο ο œ ˙ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ . ο

3 Three Characteristic Pieces J P 71

85 œ− œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ =œ œ − Fl. œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≅œ œ − − œ− œœ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ =œ œ % α 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 œ ≅œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ƒ Ρ 3 3 Picc, ε œ− Ρ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ =œ œ − Picc. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≅œ œ − œ− œœ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ =œ œ % α ∑ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 œ ≅œ œ Œ Œ ∑ Ρ 3 3 ε ƒ − Ρ − ] ] − − Ob. œ ∀˙ œ − − Œ Œ Œ− œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ − % α œ œ œ− œ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ 3 Œ œ œ ∀µ˙ Œ œ œ Œ 3 3 3 Ρ œ œ ƒ − − ] − − − µ˙ ∀œ ≅œ ε − Ρ ] œ œ αœ œ αœ µœ αœ œ − ˙] − œ − ˙ − − υ Ρ − Ρ− Bsn. ∀œ µ œ œ œ ∀ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − > ∀˙ Œ œ œ ˙ œ Œ ∀˙ Œ α œ œ − − œ œ œ œ − − Ρ − − œ œ œ œ œ εœ œ− œ ƒ− Ρ Ρ 3 3 Ρ− 3 B Cl. 1 œ œ− œ− œ− œ œ œ− œ œ = œ− œ œ = α ∀ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ − œœ− œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ œ 3 3 œ Μœ œ 3 œ Μœ œ − % 3 3 3 3 3 3 œ œ − œ œ œ œ Ρ œ ∀œ œ œ œ Μœ œ ε ƒ Ρ Ρ 3 Ρ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ− 3 3 B Cl. 2 ∀ œ− − œ− œ œ α œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ % 3 3 3 œ− œ œ 3 œ œ− œ œ ∀œ œ œ Μœ œ ε ƒ Ρ œ − Ρ B Cl. 3 œ œ α ∀ œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ ] œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ 3 Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ % 3 œ− œ− 3 3 ƒ ˙ œ− ε œ− Ρ B. Cl. œ œ ∀ ∑ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ % œ− 3 3 3 œ œ œ− ε ƒ − 3 Ρ 3 œ µœ ∀œ µœ œ A. Sx. œ− ∀∀ ∑ Œ− Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ % 3 ∀œ œ œ Μœ ε ƒ Ρ Ρ œ œ− T. Sx. ∀ œ ∀œ œ − − − œ − − % ∑ œ œ Œ− œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ ε ƒ B. Sx. ∀∀ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ− % œ− ˙, œ− ˙, œ œ œ− œ− 85 ƒ Ρ B Tpt. 1 ∀ − − œ − − − α % œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ µœ œ µœ ∀œ µœ œ œ− œ− ε ƒ B Tpt. 2 ∀ − α % Œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ ∀œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ε − − ] − − − − ƒ− − − ] − Hn. 1 − , − − ] − œ ∀˙ œ œ ˙ − − % œ ˙ œ αœ ∀µœ αœ œ œ ˙ Œ œ œ ˙ œ Œ œ ∀˙ Œ Μœ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ ∀ ˙ œ − , − Ρ − − − − − ε −ƒ ] − Ρ] − − Ρ Ρ Hn. 2 − , − , − , − ∀˙] ] − − œ ˙ œ Œ % œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ Œ Œ Œ ∀˙ œ Μœ − Ρ ˙ œ − , − , − , ƒ − Ρ − Ρ − Ρ − , − , − , − ] ] œ − ] − − Tbn. 1 > œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ µ˙ − œ œ µ˙ − œ µ˙ œ ≅œ α œ Œ œ Œ Œ Ρ ƒ Ρ Ρ Tbn. 2 ˙, ˙, œ − − œ − > ∀˙] œ œ œ ∀˙] œ œ ∀˙] œ− − α œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ − − Ρ Ρ Ρ ˙] − œ ˙] − B. Tbn. > œ œ œ œ œ− ] α œ ˙ œ ˙ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ ˙ œ Œ œ − , − , Ρ − − Ρ Ρ œ ∀œ µœ œ œ− œ œ− ˙] − œ ˙] − œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ Euph. > œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ ≅œ α 3 Œ Œ 3 3 3 Ρ ε ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ Tuba > α Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ − œ 85 œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ − − , − , − , − Ρ Timp. > ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ α œ− œ œ œ 85 ƒ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ 85 Œ ∑ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. ƒ ƒ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Three Characteristic Pieces 72

94 œ− K T œ ∀œ − Μœ œ ∀œ œ œ Fl. œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈ % α ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ Ρ ο œ− œ œ ≈ ∀œ œ− Μœ œ œ ≈ Picc. ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ % α ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ ≈ ∀œ Ρ ο œ− Ob. − − θ œ ∀œ Μœ ∀œ œ ≈ œ % α Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ− œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ œ ≈ œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ− Ρ− ο Ρ− Ρ− œ Bsn. − − − − − > œ ι ι α œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∀ œ ˙− ∀ œ ˙− œ œ − ˙− ˙− 3 3 3 3 3 3 − 3 3 − Ρ = Ρ− Ρ− − = œ π− ι B Cl. 1 œ = = œ ∀œ ≈ œ Μœ œ− − œ =− − − − − − − ι α ∀ ∀œ ≈ œ œ ≈ Ι œ œ ∀œ œ œ − œ œ µœ − œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ‰− ≈ ≈ œ ‰ 3 ‹œ µœ œ œ % θ ≈ œ œ ∀œ 3 3 3 − ∀œ− µœ− œ − œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ = = = − − 3 3 − = 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ρ ο Ρ Ρ − ƒ = − ι B Cl. 2 œ = = œ ∀œ Μœ œ− − œ =− − − − − − − ι α ∀ ∀œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ ∀œ œ œ − œ œ µœ − œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ‰− ≈ ≈ œ Ι ‰ Œ 3 ‹œ µœ œ œ % θ ≈ œ œ ∀œ 3 3 3 − ∀œ− µœ− œ − œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ = = − − = = 3 − Ρ ο 3 Ρ Ρ ƒ − ι B Cl. 3 Μœ œ− − œ =− − − − − − − ι α ∀ œ œ ∀œ œ œ − œ œ µœ − œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ 3 ‹œ µœ œ œ % 3 3 3 − ∀œ− µœ− œ − œ œ œ œ ∀œ− = − − œ − œ − − Ρ ο − Ρ − Ρ = B. Cl. = =œ ≈ œ ∀œ ∀ Œ Œ Œ Œ ‰− ≈ ≈ œ ∀œ ≈ œ Ι ‰ Œ % θ ≈ œ œ ∀œ ι ι œ œ− œ œ− œ ∀œ− œ ∀œ œ = = ∀ œ ˙− ∀ œ ˙− − 3 − 3 − = 3 Ρ 3 Ρ Ρ ∀=œ π ƒ ∀=œ ≈ œ =œ ≈ œ A. Sx. ∀ œ œ œ œ θ =œ œ ∀=œ ≈ œ Ι % ∀ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ‰− œ ∀œ ≈ œ ≈ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ 3 3 − − = Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ quasi pizz. = T. Sx. = œ ∀œ ∀ − ∀œ ∀=œ ≈ œ œ ≈ Ι % Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ ‰− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ ∀œ ≈ œ ‰ Œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Θ = œ = = Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ ∀=œ quaπsi pizz. − ∀=œ ≈ œ =œ ≈ œ B. Sx. ∀ − − œ θ = œ ∀=œ ≈ œ Ι % ∀ Œ œ Œ œ Œ Œ ‰− ∀œ ≈ œ œ ≈ ‰ Œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ− œ− œ− œ = 94 Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ π B Tpt. 1 ∀ − α % Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ρ Ρ Ρ B Tpt. 2 ∀ α % Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ Hn. 1 − − − − − − − − Œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ % œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − − − − πœ œ œ œ Ρ Ρ Ρ− − − − − Hn. 2 − − Œ % Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ − −Ρ −Ρ Ρ ˙ ˙ Tbn. 1 œ− œ œ− œ œ− > Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ α œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ π Tbn. 2 œ− ˙ ˙ > ∀œ Œ œ− ∀œ Œ œ− Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ α − − œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ π B. Tbn. œ− > Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ α œ− œ− œ− œ− œ− œ œΡ œ œΡ Ρ quasi pizz. œ œ − − œ œ œ œ Euph. > œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ α 3 3 3 3 3 3 Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ Ρ Ρ Ρ π Tuba > α Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ 94 − − œ− Ρ œ− Ρ œ− Timp. > Œ œ Œ œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ α œ œ œ œ− 94 Ρ Ρ 94 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Three Characteristic Pieces 73 L 102 œ œ œ œ − Μœ œ œ œ =− = ] œ ∀œ − Μœ œ ∀œ œ œ Fl. œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ ˙ =œ− œ ∀œ− œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈ % α Œ Œ Œ Œ ƒ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− Μœ œ œ ≈ Picc. ι ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ % α œ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ ≈∀œ ƒ − Ob. Œ œ Œ œ ] Μœ œ ≈ ≈ Œ œ œ œ ∀œ ≈ œ ≈ œ Μœ œ ≈ ≈ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ % α œ− œ œ œ ˙ œ˙ œ˙ ∀œ˙ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ− œ œ 3 − œ − Ι Ρ ƒ 3 − − − − Bsn. œ− œ œ− , ] − = = > ι ι œ œ œ , œ œ − œ œ − − œ ∀œ œ œ ∀ œ ∀ œ œ Œ 3 Œ ˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ œ œ µœ ∀œ œ− œ α ˙− ˙ 3 œµœ ˙− ˙ − 3− − Ι − − − = 3 3 Ρ 3 3 ο− ∀œ œ œ ] ƒœ ∀œ Μœ œ ∀œ œ œ B Cl. 1 − œ− œ œ œ = œ ∀œ œ œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ− œ ≈ œ − œ œ ≈ ≈ α ∀ ι ι − œ œ œ œ − − − œ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ 6 ≈ % œ œ œ œ ∀œ 3 ∀œ − œ œ œ œ − 3 œ− 3 6 œ − − − ∀œ− − œ− ‹œ− œ− − − ƒ 3 = = 3 Ρ 3 3 3 ∀œ œ œ B Cl. 2 − œ− = œ ∀œ œ α ∀ ι ι − œ œ œ œ ] œ ≈∀œ Μœ ∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ Œ œ Œ ∀œ œ ∀œ 6 ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ % œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ œ − − − œ ∀œ œ œ ‹œ œ œ − − œ œ 6 œ − − − − − − − œ œ œ 6 3 − − − − = 3 = 3 3 3 3 3 6 Ρ ƒ B Cl. 3 − œ− ] ] α ∀ ι ι − œ œ œ œ ≈∀œ œ œ ] œ œ œ ∀œ œ Œ Œ ∀œ œ ∀œ ≈ ≈ œ ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ % œ − œ œ − 3 œ œ œ œ œ Ι − − œ− ∀œ− œ− œ− ‹œ œ− œ− − œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ œ Ι − œ 3 œ œ − − , − − − Ρ ƒ = = − − − , = 3 3 B. Cl. − ] ∀ Œ œ− œ œ− œ, Œ ι‰ œ œ ‰ % ι ι œ œ œ 3 œ œ −3 œ ˙ œ œ− œ ∀ œ ˙− ∀ œ ˙ − − , − Ι œ œ∀œµœ− ∀œ 3 6 œ œ ∀œ − − = 3 Ρ œ − − = − − − œ œ − = A. Sx. œ ∀œ œ ∀œ ƒ ] ] ∀∀ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ, Œ Œ œ œ œ ∀œ ≈ œ Ι ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ ι‰ Œ % œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ 6 3 − − − œ, œ − œ ∀œ œ Ι œ œ − − − − − = Ρ œ œ 3 T. Sx. ∀ − − Ι − − µœ− ∀œ œ− % Œ œ œ ∑ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ ‰ œ ∀œ œ œ∀œ Ι ≈ œ − Ι œ− œ− − − − 3 − Ρ ƒ 3 œ B. Sx. ∀ œ œ œ œ − œ] œ − − œ− ∀=œ =œ œ % ∀ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ œ œ ∀œµœ ∀œ œ− œ Ι 3 œ− − − = 102 Ο Ρ ƒ B Tpt. 1 ∀ ι ] œ α ∑ ∑ Œ œ− Œ Œ œ− Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ œ ≈ œ ≈∀œ œ− Μœ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ % − œ œ− œ ∀œ œ ≈ œ Ο Ρ ƒ B Tpt. 2 ∀ ] ] ] α ∑ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ ι‰ ≈ œ œ ≈∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ % œ− œ ∀˙ œ Ι Ι Ο − − œ œ ƒ Ρ− ] ι ι − Hn. 1 − − − ι Œ Œ Œ ˙− ˙ ∀˙ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ œ % œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙− œ ∀˙ œ Ι Ρ − υ Ι ƒ Ι − − − − − ] ι − Hn. 2 ι ι œ œ œ % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∀˙ œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ œ − υ Ι Ι Ι Ρ ƒ 3 − ˙ ˙ Tbn. 1 > ˙ ∀˙ − œ] œ − − œ− ∀œ− œ− œ− α Œ Œ ˙− œ œ Ι ‰ œ œ µœµœ ∀œ œ− œ 3 œ− − − Ρ ƒ 3 œ Tbn. 2 > ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ − ] − − œ− ∀œ− œ− œ− α Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ µœµœ ∀œ œ− œ Ι 3 œ− − − Ο Ρ ƒ 3 B. Tbn. > − ] ι − − œ− ∀œ− œ− œ− α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ ‰ œ œ µœµœ ∀œ œ− œ œ œ 3 œ− − − Ρ − ƒ Euph. œ œ − œ− œ œ− , − œ− − ] ] > œ− œ œ− œ, œ œ œ ∀˙ − − œ œ ] œ œ Œ Œ Œ 3 Œ 3 Œ 3 ‰ œ Ι ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ Ι ‰ Œ α Θ Ι 3 3 Tuba > ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ‰ œ ‰ α ι œ œµœµœ− ∀œ ˙ œ œ œ− œ− ∀œ− − − − Ι œ− 102 Ρ œ œ − Ÿ ƒ Timp. > Ÿ}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} ι α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ = 102 Ρ 102 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Three Characteristic Pieces 74 M 110 αœ − µœ− − œ ] ] − œ− Μœ œ œ ≈ − − − œ œ œ œ œ] œ œ] œ ˙] Fl. ≈ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ αœ Ι œ] œ] œ] œ] œ] œ] œ] œ ˙] ˙− % α 3 ‰ 3 Œ Œ Ρ œ] ] œ] ] œ− ] Picc. − œ œ ] œ ] ˙ ] ι œ− œ œ− Ι œ œ] œ] œ œ] œ] œ œ ˙] ˙− % α œ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ Œ 3 œ ‰ Œ Œ 3 Ρ − − − ι ] ] ] ] ] ] − ] ] ι œ œ ] ] œ ] ] ˙ ] Ob. αœ œ µœ œ œ œ œ œ œ] œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙− % α œ− Μœ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ Œ œ ‰− µœ œ ‰− ∀œ Œ œ œ Œ µœ œ ∀˙ − œ ˙ αœ ‰ Ι œ 3 3 3 Ι Ι υ υ] υ υ υ υ − υ = , ] ] ] ] υ ]υ υ Ρ υ υ ] − − ∀œ− œ− µœ ι = ι œ œ œ ] ] ] ] ] œ Bsn. > ∀=œ =œ œ µœ αœ− œ αœ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ] ] ] ˙ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ α 3 αœ ‰ œ ‰ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ œ , ∀œ œ œ ˙ œ œ 3 Ι Ι υ υ υ υ υ υ œ œ 3 3 Ψ 3 ] υ ]υ υ υ υ − υ υ υ Μœ œ = œ ] œ ] Ρœ ] B Cl. 1 œ− œ ≈ œ ˙ − − − œ œ œ œ] ] œ œ] ] ˙ œ] œ ] α ∀ ≈ œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ] œ œ] ˙ ˙− œ 3 œ− Œ Œ % œ− − œ− µœ− 3 Ρ œ œ 3 3 3 B Cl. 2 ∀ µœ œ − ∀œ− − ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] − ] ] ] œ α − Μœ œ œ œ − œ œ œ œ % œ ≈ œ ≈ œ ˙ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ ˙ œ œ ˙ œ − − − µœ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Ρ œ œ αœ œ 3 ] 3 3 3 B Cl. 3 ∀ œ] œ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] œ− ] ] ] α œ ‰ œ ‰ ι ‰ œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ ˙ % Ι Ι ∀œ œ− µœ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ µœ− œ αœ œ− − − − œ− œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ 3 Ψ Ρ 3 3 3 B. Cl. − œ− − ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ∀ ‰ Œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ Œ œ % ∀œ œ− µœ ι 3 Ι œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ ∀œ− − µœ− œ αœ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ = = − Ψ = ] A. Sx. ∀ − œ] œ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ˙] − ∀ œ− ∀œ œ− µœ − − µœ œ œ− ∀œ− œ− œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ Œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ % œ µœ œ µœ œ 3 − − = Ρ Ρ Ψ − ] œ] ] œ] ] ] T. Sx. ∀ − − ∀œ− œ− µœ = ι µœ œ− ∀œ œ− œ œ] œ œ œ] ] ] œ œ] ] ] ] œ œ ∀œ µœ− œ αœ ‰ 3 œ ‰ Œ œ Œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ % ∀œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ 3 − − 3 Ι 3 3 Ρ Ρ 3 Ψ 3 3 3 B. Sx. œ] ] ] ] ] œ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ∀∀ − ι ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ % œ œ ∀œ ∀œ− œ µœ µœ− œ µœ œ ∀œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ µœ œ œ ∀œ = − − = − œ ˙ 110 = Ψ B Tpt. 1 ∀ − − ] ] ] α œ œ− œ− Œ Œ ‰− œ œ− Œ ‰− œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ ˙ ∀œ œ ∀˙ œ Œ Œ % œ− Θ Θ Ρ Ρ Ψ ƒ B Tpt. 2 ] ] α ∀ θ − ] ] ] ] % Œ Œ ‰− µœ œ Œ ‰− œ œ Œ œ œ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ ˙ œ œ− œ œ− − Θ œ œ− ˙ œ Ρ Ρ − Ψ ƒ − − − ] ] ] ] ] ] Hn. 1 − − ] ] ] ] ] œ œ Œ œ αœ Œ œ ˙ Œ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ œ œ ˙ % œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ∀œ œ ∀˙ ˙œ− − œ υ œ υ Œ Œ − − − − υ υ υ υ υ υ υ υ Ρ− Ρ − Ψ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] υ] ] ] Hn. 2 œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ∀œ œ ∀˙ œ œ− ι Œ Œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ % ∀œ œ ∀œ œ œ− œ αœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ∀œ œ ∀˙ − = υ υ υ υ υ υ υ υ υ υ Ρ− Ρ− − Ψ αœ− − œ] ] υ υ υ] œ] œ ˙] Tbn. 1 − − − µœ− ∀œ œ− µœ αœ− = œ ] œ œ] ˙ œ œ œ > ∀œ œ œ œ αœ œ − − œ œ] œ œ αœ œ α 3 Ι ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ 3 3 Ρ Ρ Ψ − − ] Tbn. 2 − − µœ− ∀œ œ− µœ αœ− = œ− = œ ] ] µœ] œ ∀˙ αœ œ œ œ œ > ∀œ− œ œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ − œ œ] ] ] œ œ αœ œ α 3 Ι ‰ Ι ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ ˙ 3 3 3 Ρ Ρ Ψ − − œ B. Tbn. − − œ− µœ ∀œ − µœ αœ− œ α=œ œ] ] ] ] ] œ] ] ] ] ] ] ] > ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ− Œ œ œ Œ œ œ α 3 Ι ∀œ œ− œ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ œ œ αœ Ρ Ρ Ψ œ− − œ Euph. œ− ∀œ − µœ αœ− œ α=œ œ] ] ] ] ] œ] ] ] ] ] ] ˙] œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ > œ ‰ œ− Œ Œ− œ− Œ Œ− Œ œ œ Œ œ œ ˙ œ œ α Ι œ œ œ 3 3 3 Ρ Ρ 3 Ψ Tuba > − ι ] ] ] ] ] ] ] α œ µœ ∀œ− œ µœ αœ− œ αœ ‰ Œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ ∀œ− œ− − − = œ ∀œ − œ œ 110 œ ˙ œ œ αœ Ρ Ρ 3 Ψ ˙ œ œ Ÿ}} Ÿ}}}}}} Ÿ}}}} Timp. Ÿ}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} ] ] ] > œ− œ− ˙− ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ œ Œ Œ α œ− œ− œ− ˙ 110 Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ 110 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Three Characteristic Pieces 75 121 − œ− − − œ− αœ ∀œ œ Fl. αœ − αœ− œ Τ % α Ι ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ƒ − œ− Ρ Ρ− − œ− αœ œ Picc. αœ − αœ− œ œ Τ % α Ι ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ − ƒ−ι Ρ Ρ ι − − ‰ Œ − Ob. ƒ− œ œ œ œ Τ αœ œ œ αœ ∀œ œ − % α α œ ‰ œ œ œ œ Ι− Œ œ Œ Œ Ι Œ αœ − ‰ − œ ƒ − − Ρ Ρ Ρ ι − αœ − − Bsn. ‰ Œ = Τ > œ αœ œ Œ ∑ œ œ − Œ α œ œ Ι ‰ œ œ − œ µœ− = − œ− Ρ œ Ρ− − B Cl. 1 ∀ µœ µœ− œ œ Ρ œ Τ α Ι ‰ Œ œ œ− Œ Œ % µœ− − œ ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ = B Cl. 2 ∀ − − Τ α % ι ‰ œ œ ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ œ µœ− − Ι œ œ œ− − = ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ B Cl. 3 ∀ ι Τ α % µœ œ ‰ Œ ∑ µœ ∀œ Œ œ œ œ− œ Ρ œ = Ρ = B. Cl. ∀ ι Τ % µœ œ ‰ Œ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ− œ Ρ œ = Ρ = A. Sx. − œ− Τ ∀ µœ œ− œ µœ ∀œ œ− = % ∀ ‰ œ Ι ‰ Œ Œ œ œ Œ Ι œ− − = ƒ Ρ Ρ T. Sx. ι = œ − Τ ∀ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ œ œ Œ % œ œ Ρ Ρ = Τ B. Sx. ∀∀ ι ‰ Œ Œ ∑ œ œ− Œ % œ Œ ˙ 121 Ρ B Tpt. 1 ∀ œ Τ α % ∑ ∑ œ Œ œ Œ Œ Ρ Ρ Ρ B Tpt. 2 ∀ Τ α ∑ ∑ Œ œ Œ Œ % µœ œ Ρ Ρ Ρ Hn. 1 ι Τ αœ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ Œ µœ œ Œ Œ % œ œ œ Ι Ρ Ρ Hn. 2 ι Τ Œ Œ œ œ % µαœ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ œ œ Œ Œ Ι Ρ Ρ ∀œ œ Tbn. 1 > œ Τ α Ι ‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ Ρ Ρ Tbn. 2 > œ œ œ Τ α Ι ‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ Ρ Ρ Τ B. Tbn. > ι ‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ œ Œ α œ ˙ Ρ œ− ∀œ œ Euph. > œ Τ α Ι ‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ Ρ Ρ Tuba > Τ α ι ‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ 121 œ ˙ − Ρ Τ Timp. > œ œ ≥ α ∑ ∑ Œ ˙ Œ œ Œ 121 Ρ Ρ ˙− 121 ∑ ∑ ∑ B. Dr. Ρ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 76

Three Characteristic Pieces, Op. 10 No. 1 ~ Mazurka

Sir Edward Elgar (1857-1934) ~ Transcribed for wind ensemble by Ryan Czekaj (b. 1997)

Final Transcription

© 2017. Ryan Czekaj, State College, PA. All Rights Reserved. 77 Score Three Characteristic Pieces I. Mazurka Edward Elgar (1857-1934) Arr. Ryan Czekaj (b. 1997) A q = 132 ι œ Ÿ œ œ = = ∀œ Flute I ˙− =œ œ œ % α 32 Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙

Flute ε ο Ρ Ÿ ∀œ Flute II/Piccolo ι = = =œ 2 œ œ œ œ % α 3 ˙− œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ

ε a2 Ρ ι Ÿ = = = œ− œ Oboe I, II œ œ 2 œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ % α 3 ˙˙− ˙ œ œœ œ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ ε − = == = = (pizz.) a2 ο = = = ι Bassoon I, II =œ ∀œ œ œ − œ ≈ œ œ œ œ > 2 œ œ θ θ œ œ θ œ œ ≈œ ≈œ œ ≈œ ≈œ ˙ œ α 3 ∑ Œ œ ∀œ œ ‰ Œ œ ‰ ≈ œ œ ≈∀œ œ ‰ ≈ œ ≈ œ ‰ ≈ œ ‰ ≈Θ ‰ ≈Θ Ι − ε = = = ο Ρ Clarinet in B 1 = = = = α ∀ œ œ œ ∀œ % 32 œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ = = œ œ œ ε = = = Ρ Ÿ ο Clarinet in B 2 ι α ∀ 2 œ œ œ % 3 ˙− œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ œ = = = œ œ œ Ρ ε = = = ο Clarinet in B 3 ∀ α 2 Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ‰ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ % 3 ˙− œ œ ∀˙− œ ∀œ = Θ = = œ œ œ (pizz.) ε = = = ε Bass Clarinet ∀ œ œ œ œ œ œ = = = 2 ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ ‰ ≈ ≈ ‰ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈œ œ ≈œœ ≈œ ≈œ œ ≈œœ ≈œ % 3 ∀œ œ θ œ ≈∀œ θ œ œ θ œ ˙ ε œ = = œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ = ο Ρ Alto Sax I, II ∀ œ œ œ œ œ œ = = = œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ % ∀ 32 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ‰ ≈ Θ ε ε Tenor Sax ∀ œ œ œ œ œ œ = = = 2 ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ‰ ≈œ œ ≈ œ ≈œ ‰ ≈œ œ ≈ œ ≈œ ∀œ % 3 œ œ œ œ œ ˙ = = = Θ Θ ε (pizz.) ο Ρ Baritone Sax ∀ = ∀ 2 ∑ ∑ ∀œ œ Œ ‰ ≈ θ œ ≈∀œ ‰ ≈ θ œ ≈ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ % 3 œ œ− œ œ œ œ ε= = ο Trumpet in B 1 = α ∀ ∀œ % 32 ∑ œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ = = ε ο Ρ Trumpet in B 2 α ∀ ∀œ % 32 ∑ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ = = = œ œ œ ε======Ρ Horn in F I, II œ œ = = = 2 ∑ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ œ % 3 œ ∀œ œ œ œ ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ ∀œ = = = ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙ ε ο Ρ = = = Horn in F III, IV = = = 2 ∑ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ % 3 œ œ œ = = = ε = ∀=œ =œ = Trombone 1 > œ =œ =œ œ =˙ =˙ = œ α 32 ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ˙ ε ο Ρ = ∀=œ =œ Trombone 2 > œ = =œ =œ =˙ =˙ = œ α 32 ∑ Œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ˙ ε ο Ρ Bass Trombone > = =˙ =˙ = œ α 32 ∑ ∑ œ ∀œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ˙ ε= = ο Ρ Euphonium > = =œ =œ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈œœ ≈œ œ œ ≈œœ ≈œ α 32 ∑ ∑ œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ ‰ ≈Θ ‰ ≈Θ ˙ œ ε (pizz.) ο Ρ Tuba = > 2 ∑ ∑ œ Œ θ ≈ θ œ ≈ œ Œ α 3 œ ∀œ œ ‰ ≈ œ œ ∀œ œ ‰ ≈ œ œ Œ Œ ˙ Œ = = − = ˙ ˙ ε ο ο = = œ Timpani Ρ > 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ ι‰ Œ ι‰ Œ α 3 ˙ œ œ œœ. ˙− ˙− ˙ œ ε Ρ ο Cym. Ρ œ Bass Drum & 2 œ Crash Cymbals 3 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ B.D. Ρ 2017RyanCzekaj Three Characteristic Pieces 78 A , 10 œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ , œ œ œ œ, œ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈ ≈∀œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ œ =œ− = œ œ ≈∀œ Fl. ≈ œ œ ˙ =œ− ∀œ− % α Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ Ρ ƒ Ρ œ œ Ρ œ Ρ œ œ, ƒ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ− œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ, = œ œ ∀œ Fl. II/Picc. œ ≈ œ− œ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ œ− œ œ ≈œ = œ− ∀œ µœ œ ≈ Θ ≈ œ ˙ œ− œ Ι Θ % α Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ Œ Œ Œ Œ 3 ‰ Œ ‰ ≈ Ρ ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ ι a2 − Ob. œ θ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ ≈œ ˙ Œ œ Œ œ ] œ ‰ Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ œ ≈∀œ œ œ ≈ œ− ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ Œ œ œ œ ∀œ ≈ œ ≈ œ % α Ι œ œ− œ− œ˙ œ˙ ∀œ˙ œ œ œ œ 3 − œ − Ι Ρ ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ − − − Ρ ƒ − − − − œ− − , Bsn. > , , , œ œ œ œ , œ œ œ œ = œ] œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ œ Œ œ Œ 3 Œ ˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ Œ α œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 Ι − − − − œ − − − 3 Ρ ε − − 3 Ρ Ρ œ ∀œ œ œ , , ∀œ, œ ] œ ∀œ B Cl. 1 œ ≈ œ− ≈ œ œ ≈ œ − œ œ , − œ œ œ, ∀œ − œ œ ≈ œ ≈ α ∀ œ Θ œ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ − œ − − − − œ ≈ œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ œ ∀œ , 3 % œ ˙ œ œ œ 3 ∀œ œ − − − œ− 3 Ρ Ρ 3 Ρ ƒ Ρ 3 3 Ρ ƒ B Cl. 2 α ∀ œ ≈∀œ œ œ ] œ ≈∀œ % œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ ≈ œ œ− œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ ≈ Œ œ œ Œ œ ∀œ ∀œ, ≈ œ œ ≈ œ Θ œ− ∀œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ˙ œ œ ∀œ œ, , , œ Ρ Ρ œ− œ œ− − œ− ∀œ − ƒ Ρ Ρ 3 3 3 Ρ ƒ B Cl. 3 ∀ ] α % œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ι‰ Œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ ∀˙ œ œ œ 3 œ œ − − , − − − − − − , Ρ B. Cl. ε − ] ∀ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ− œ œ− œ, Œ ι‰ œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈∀œ % œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ −3 œ ˙ œ œ , œ , œ , œ − œ œ − − , = œ − ε − − − − − ε 3 3 3 Ρ Ρ ι − − − , Ρ ƒ A. Sx. − œ , , ∀œ, œ ∀∀ œ œ− − œ− œ ˙ œ œ œ œ, œ ∀œ Ι ι % Œ Œ ∑ ‰ Œ œ ‰ Œ ‰ ∀œ ˙ Œ œ œ œ Œ œ ∀œ œ 3 ‰ œ ∀œ ‰ Œ œ− − 3− − − − − œ, œ− − œ− ∀œ , ε Ρ œ, œ, œ, œ, − œ, œ œ T. Sx. ∀ ι ι ι ι œ − − ι = ι œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ ∀œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ, Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ Ι ‰ Œ % œ, Ι Ρ ƒ Ρ Ρ œ B. Sx. ∀ , , , − œ œ œ œ − œ] œ % ∀ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ Œ œ− œ− œ− œ− œ− œ− Ι 10 Ρ ε Ο Ρ B Tpt. 1 α ∀ œ , , ι ] œ ≈∀œ % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ œ ≈ œ = Ρ Ο Ρ Ρ ƒ B Tpt. 2 ∀ œ ι ] α % Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ Œ œ, œ, = Ι Ρ Ο Ρ Ρ , , , , − − , ] ι Hn. œ ι‰ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ ˙− ˙ ∀˙− œ œ ‰ Œ % œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ ˙ œ œ œ Ι , , , , − , ˙− œ ∀˙− ƒ − . υ Ι Ρ , , , , − − , Ρ] Hn. œ œ œ œ ι Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ ‰ Œ % œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀˙− œ ∀œ , , , , − − , . υ Ι ,ƒ , , , œ œ− ∀œ− ˙ Ρ Tbn. 1 > œ œ œ œ ˙ ∀œ = œ] œ α Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ˙− œ ˙ Ι ‰ Œ ƒ . Ρ − œ Tbn. 2 > , , , − œ− œ œ œ œ œ ] ι α œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ µ˙ ‰ Œ œ− œ− œ− œ− = œ œ Ρ ε Ο . Ρ B. Tbn. > , , , − = ] ι α œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ˙ ‰ Œ œ− œ− œ− œ− œ− œ− œ œ Ρ ε . Ρ − − − − œ Euph. − − − œ œ œ œ, œ− œ œ− œ] œ œ ≈∀œ > œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ, Œ Œ ∀˙ ‰− œ− ≈ α 3 3 3 Θ Ρ ε . Ρ ƒ Tuba > ι α Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ œ, œ, œ, œ œ ˙ . 10 Ρ œ− ε œ− œ− œ− − œ− œ− = Ρ Timp. > ι α œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ− œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ˙− œ œ ‰ Œ = 10 Ρ ε Ε . Ρ B.D. & Cym. œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ρ Three Characteristic Pieces 79 B C − , αœ, ] œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ− œ− ∀œ œ œ œ œ] œ œ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ ∀œ ≈ œ Fl. ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ œ] œ] œ œ ≈ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ % α Ι ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Ρ Ρ ο œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ Fl. II/Picc. ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ % α Ι ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ ≈∀œ Ρ Ρ ] ] ο , , , œ ] ] ] œ ∀œ œ œ Ob. œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈ œ ˙ αœ œ œ œ œ œ œœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ α œ− œ œ ≈ − ≈∀œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ ≈ œ Œ œ œ˙ œ µœ œ œ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈∀œ ≈ ∀œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ % αœ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ υ υ υ œ Ρ − Ρ − Ρ − = , − ] ] ]υ ]υ ι ο quasi pizz. = = − − ] ∀œ œ œ − − Bsn. > œ = œ = œ œ œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ œ œ µœ − œ œ α œ œ œ œ Œ Œ µœ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ œ œ − œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ œœ Ι − œ œ œ Œ œ Œ œ υ υ υ υ υ quasi pizz. − = = = 3 = œ œ = , œ] ] − − ο B Cl. 1 œ− ≈ œ œ ≈ œ − œ œ , − − − œ œ œ œ] ] ] − œ − œ α ∀ œ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − − œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ 3 œ− ‰ Œ œ œ Œ Œ % œ ˙ œ− − œ− µœ− Ι œ Ρ Ρ 3 qοuasi pizz. Ρ , B Cl. 2 , − − − œ œ ] ] ] ] ] α ∀ − œ œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ − œ ι % œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ ≈ œœœ 3 œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ œ œ œ œ− ∀œ œ œ œ ∀œ ˙ − − − µœ− œ œ − œ − œ − œ − œ− œ − − − œ− œ− − − œ− œ− Ρ Ρ ο quasi pizz. Ρ − B Cl. 3 ∀ œ ] ] ] ] α ∑ ∑ œ− ∀œ œ œ œ ι‰ Œ ∑ œ % œ µœ œ œ − − œ− ∀œ− ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ ƒ œ− − œ− − − − ο B. Cl. ∀ œ ∀œ œ ≈ œ œ − œ− œ œ− ] ] ] ] ] œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ− œ ≈ œ œ œ αœ œ Œ 3 œ ‰ ι‰ Œ ∑ ∑ % œ œ− œ œ − Ι ,œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ Ρ Ρ Ρ One player A. Sx. − − , ] ∀∀ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œœ− µœ œ, − ∀œ− − œ− œ œ ] ] ] ] − − % Œ Ι ‰ Œ Ι ‰ œ ∀œ ˙ 3 œ− œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ˙ ˙ − − 3 Ι Ρ Ρ π , ] T. Sx. ∀ µœ, − ∀œ− − œ œ ] œ] ] ] ι ι Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ œ ‰ œ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∀ œ ˙− ∀ œ ˙− % œ− œ− œ− œ− œ− ˙ 3 Ι Ι ƒ π B. Sx. ∀ = = − ] œ] œ] œ] ] % ∀ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ œ− œ− œ− œ− œ µœ œ− ∀œ œ− Ι 20 B Tpt. 1 ] ] ] ] α ∀ œ ∀œ œ ≈ œ œ − − œ ] ι % œ− œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ− œ ‰ œ ‰ œ Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ œ− Ι Ι œ Ρ Ρ Ρ B Tpt. 2 ∀ ι ι ] ] ] ] ] α % ι‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ ‰ ι‰ ι‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ œ ι‰ Œ ∑ ∑ œ œ œ− − œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− Ρ − œ− Ρ , , − − − − − − ] ] ] ] ] Hn. œ , ∀œ ι Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ œ ˙ αœ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ % œ œ œ ∀œ ˙ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙− ˙− , , − − − υ υ Ι ˙− ˙− ƒ − a2 − − , υ υ υ , , ] ] ] ] ο Hn. œ œ − ] ι Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ − Œ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ % œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ œ œ , , − υ υ υ υ υ Ι ƒ Tbn. 1 > − − − , − ] ] œ] œ] ] α Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ ∀œ− œ Œ Œ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ Ι ƒ ] Tbn. 2 > ] ] ] ] α Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ− Œ µœ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ œ− œ− − œ− œ αœ œ œ œ Ι ƒ − B. Tbn. > = = − ] œ] œ] œ] ] α œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ− Œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ œ− œ− œ− œ− œ αœ œ− Ι œ œ œ] œ Euph. œ− œ œ œ ≈ ∀œ ≈ œ− œ œ œ− œ œ αœ − œ− ] ] ] œ] > ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈ œ œ Œ ∀œ Œ œ œ œ Ι ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ α Ρ Ρ Ρ Tuba > ] ] ] ] ] α Œ Œ Œ Œ ι‰ Œ ∑ ∑ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 20 = œ− = œ− − œ− œ− œ αœ œ− ∀œ œ− Timp. > ] ] ] ] = œ œ œ œ α œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ− Œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ˙ Œ ˙ Œ œ œ œ Ι 20 ο B.D. & Cym. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Three Characteristic Pieces 80 , D 30 , œ œ œ œ, œ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ =œ− = œ] œ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ ∀œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ Fl. ≈œ œ œ œ =œ− ∀œ− ≈ ≈œ œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈œ œ % α Ι ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ to Piccolo ο Picc. ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ Fl. II/Picc. ι ≈œ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ ι % α œ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ ≈∀œ œ ‰ Œ Œ , ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ , , Ob. Œ Œ œ Œ − ] œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈œ œ ι œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ ∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ % α œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ ≈œ œ œ ‰ œ˙ ∀œ˙ œ œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ− œ ≈ ≈ œ− œ ≈ œœ ∀œ œ œ œ a2 3 œ˙− œ Ι Ι − ƒ Ρ − − − − − Ρ= − = − Ρ − − Bsn. − − œ− œ − , ] > œ , œ œ œ œ, œ œ œ ˙ =œ œ œ œ = œ = œ œ α œ œ œ− œ œ Œ 3 Œ ‰ Ι ‰ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − œ − œ − 3− − Ι œ Œ œ Œ œ œ − − 3 Ρ− = = Ε , ∀œ œ œ ] œ ∀œ = œ œ = B Cl. 1 , − œ œ = œ ∀œ œ œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ− ≈œ œ ≈ œ − œ œ α ∀ œ œ − œ − − − − œœ œ œ ≈∀œ œ ≈ œ œ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ 6 ≈ œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ % œ œ œ 3 ∀œ œ − − − œ− 3 6 œ œ Ρ Ρ Ε 3 Ρ− ƒ ∀œ œ œ Ρ B Cl. 2 = œ ∀œ œ ] α ∀ ∀œ œœ œ œ ≈∀œ − œ œ % Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ ∀œ œ 6 ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ œ 6 œ ∀œ œ œ− œ œ ∀œ œ − − − 6 Ρ − 3 3 3 6 Ρ ƒ Ρ Ρ B Cl. 3 ∀ œ ] α Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ − ≈ ι‰ Œ ∑ ∑ % œ œ œœ œœ œ œ œ œ− œ ∀œ quasi pizz. œ œ œ œ− − œ− œ, œ œ− œ ∀œ œ ∀œ Ρ − − − −3 − œ, − − Ε = B. Cl. − ] œ ≈ ∀ œ Œ œ− œ œ− œ, Œ ι‰ œ œ ≈ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ ≈ œ ≈ ≈∀œ œ œ− œ œ ‰ Œ % − œ œ− œ œ 3 œ ˙ œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ − 3 − , − Ι − − − − Ε 3 6 Ρ Ρ œ− œ− œ, − − − a2 3 ƒ Ρ Ρ ο ‰ œ ∀œ − A. Sx. ∀ ι œ œ œ , − œ œ œ œ œ % ∀ ˙− œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ Œ œ ∀œ œœ œ ‰− ≈œ Ι ‰ Œ Œ Ι ‰ Œ Ι ‰ œ ∀œ Œ Œ − 3− − − − − œ, œ− − œ− ∀œ œ Θ − − Ε = Ρ Ρ œ] œ T. Sx. ∀ ι ι , = ∀ œ ˙− ∀ œ œ œ ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ− % Ι , Ι œ− œ− Œ œ− œ− quasi pizz. Ρ ƒ œ− − œ B. Sx. ∀ œ , œ œ œ œ − œ] œ = = − % ∀ ∑ œ Œ Œ ˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Ι œ− œ− œ− œ− 30 ο Ο Ρ B Tpt. 1 ∀ , ι ] œ œ ≈ α ∑ ∑ Œ œ Œ Œ œ, Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ œ ≈ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ ≈∀œ œ œ− œ œ− ‰ œ− ‰ % − œ œ œ− œ Ι Ι Ο Ρ ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ B Tpt. 2 ] α ∀ ι ι ι % ∑ ∑ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ ι‰ ι‰ Œ ι‰ Œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ ‰ ‰ ι‰ , œ, ∀˙ œ œ œ œ− œ œ − − œ− œ Ο Ρ− Ρ − ] ι Ρ , , − − − Hn. œ ι‰ Œ ˙− ˙ ∀˙− œ œ ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ œ % ˙− œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ˙ œ œ ˙− œ ∀˙− Ι , , − − − Ι υ ƒ − ] , , Hn. ι œ œ % ∑ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∀˙− œ ∀œ ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∑ υ Ι , , ] ƒ Tbn. 1 > ˙− ˙ ∀˙ = œ œ − − − α ∑ ∑ œ œ Ι ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ ∀œ− Ρ œ ƒ Tbn. 2 œ œ = ] > ∑ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ− ∀œ α Ι œ− œ− − Ο Ρ ƒ B. Tbn. > − ] ι = = − α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ ‰ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ− œ− œ− œ− Ρ − − − − œ œ œ Euph. − − − œ œ œ œ, œ− œ œ− œ] œ œ ≈∀œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ ∀œ ≈ œ− œ œ œ− > ∑ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ, Œ Œ ∀˙ ‰− œ− ≈ ≈œ œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈œ α 3 3 3 Θ ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ Tuba > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ι‰ Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ œ œ œ 30 Ρ œ œ = œ− = œ− − œ− œ− Timp. > œ œ œ œ ι α ˙ Œ ˙ Œ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ = 30 ο Ρ B.D. & Cym. œ ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ π Three Characteristic Pieces 81 E 39 ] αœ, œ− µœ− œ− œ, œ œ] ] œ] œ] œ Fl. − œ µœ Τ ι œ ˙ œ αœ Ι Ι Ι œ œ œ œ œ œ , α ‰ 3 ‰ ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ œ œ ‰ Œ ˙− ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙− % Ι Ι . œ ΟFlute ] to Flute ο œ, œ œ] Fl. II/Picc. œ] œ] œ] œ Τ œ œ œ œ œ œ , α ∑ ∑ œ Ι ‰ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙− % Ι . œ − ] ] Ο − − œ ] ] ] ι Ob. ˙ œ œ œ œ Τ œ œ α Œ αœ œ œ µœ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ, œ % œ˙ œ . œ œ œ ˙− 3 3 αœ˙ œ œ œ ten. υ υ υ Ι Ο œ − − − − − − − − ] ] ]υ ]υ ι ] οι − œ Bsn. œ œ œ œ µœ ∀œ œ œ Τ Œ Œ œ œ œ , , > œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙− ˙, ˙ ˙ œ œœ œœ œœ α œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ Œ œ Œ œ µœ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ Ι Œ Œ 3 3 υ υ υ υ υ − − − − − 3 Solo − ten. − − − , œ] ] ο B Cl. 1 , − − − œ œ œ œ] ] ] Τ ι α ∀ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ − œ œ œ œ œ − œ œ œ œ œ − % ˙ œ œœ 3 œ Ι ‰ Œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − − − µœ− . 3 ο œ œ, B Cl. 2 ∀ µœ œ, − ∀œ− − ] ] ] ] ] Τ , α œ œ œ− œ œ ι‰ Œ ˙− œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ % œ œ− œ µœ− 3 œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− ˙ − − π − − − − œ − B Cl. 3 ∀ − œ œ] ] ] ] ] Τ α % œ ∀œ œ œ œ ι‰ Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ µœ œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− ˙− , œ œ œ œ 3 3 π − − − − B. Cl. − œ− − ] ] ] ] ] Τ ∀ Œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ % 3 œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙, œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ Ι , œ∀œ∀œ − œ − − œ , œ , œ − − ∀œ − − − − − − œ œ œ π− − ο − A. Sx. − , ] Ρ Τ ∀∀ œ− œœ− µœ œ, − ∀œ− − œ− œ œ ] ] ] œ œ œ œ œ ˙− % ˙ 3 œ− œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 Ι . œ , œ œ Ε , − , œ] ] T. Sx. ∀ − œ− − − − − µœ œ− ∀œ œ− œ œ] œ ∀œ] œ] œ Τ œ œ œ œ œ αœ 3 œ ‰ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ % 3 œ Ι 3 Ι 3 3 B. Sx. ∀ ] œ] œ] œ] ] Τ , ˙, ˙, œ − − % ∀ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ ∀œ − − − œ− − œ− µœ œ ∀œ œ− Ι œ œ − 39 ο B Tpt. 1 ∀ œ] ] ] ] ] ι Τ α % œ Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ ∀˙− œ ˙ ˙ œ œ ∀œ œ œ π B Tpt. 2 ∀ ] ] ] ] ] Τ α % Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ œ ι‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œœœ œ œ − − − − ] ] ] ] ] Hn. ∀œ ι Τ ˙ αœ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ˙ œ ˙− œ % ˙ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ− œ− ˙− œ œ− œ− ˙− ˙− œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ − − − − υυυυ υ Ι π Hn. − ] ] ] ] ] Τ Œ ι ∑ % œ œ αœ Œ Œ œ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙ œ œ − − − − œ œ œ − − υ υ υ υ υ Ι π ˙− ˙− Tbn. 1 > , ] ] œ] ] ] Τ , ˙, ˙, œ − − α œ Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ ∀œ Ι œ œ − π ] Tbn. 2 > , ] ] ] ] Τ α œ Œ Œ ∑ Œ− Œ µœ ∀œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ Ι 3 3 B. Tbn. > ] œ] œ] œ] ] Τ − − α œ œ− œ œ œ œ αœ Œ œ Œ œ Œ ∑ Œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − − − − − œ ∀œ − œ œ − Ρ π − œ− − − − − − œ] − − ∀˙− œ ˙ œ Euph. > œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ ] œ] œ] œ] Τ − œ − œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 3 Œ Œ œ œ Œ ˙− œ œ ˙− œ œ α Ρ π Tuba > ] ] ] ] ] Τ α Œ Œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œœœ œ œ œ 39 − œ− αœ œ ∀œ œ− Ρ Τ Timp. > = ] ] ] ] œ œ = − − α ˙− œ Œ Œ Œ− Œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ Œ ∑ Œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − 39 Ρ π B.D. & Cym. œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ψ Three Characteristic Pieces 82 F Solo ten. G θ œ œ œ œ œ , œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ Fl. œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− œ ∀=œ α œ Œ Œ ∑ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ % . 3 . 3 ten. . Sοolo Ο π Ε œ œ œ œ θ − Fl. II/Picc. œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ, ∀œ œ % α 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ . . . œ ο Ο π , Solo Ε Ob. œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∀œ ∀=œ α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ % . œ œ ∀œ µœ 3 3 3 ˙ œ ∀œ ten. Ο . Œ Œ −π, − , − , − , θ Bsn. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − , , ∀œ œ œ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ > œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ ˙− ˙, ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ α œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ Œ ŒŒ. Œ Œ Œ Œ − − 3 − − , − , − , − , Sοolo − ten. − π B Cl. 1 α ∀ œ œ œ œ θ % œ œ œ œ ˙− œ œ œ œ œ œ − ˙− ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ . ο B Cl. 2 ∀ , œ α − − ˙− ˙− œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ % ˙ œ œ− œ− ˙ œ œ− œ− œ π π B Cl. 3 ∀ α Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ % œ ∀œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙− ˙− , œ œ œ œ ∀œ π− − − − − − π B. Cl. ∀ % Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ˙ ˙ ˙, œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ− œ œ− œ− œ , œ , œ œ π− − ο π A. Sx. ∀ œ œ % ∀ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ . œ , œ œ œ µœ œ ∀œ Ε π , T. Sx. ∀ ∀˙− œ ˙ ˙ œ ∀œ œ− % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ ∀œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ο π B. Sx. ∀ , ˙, ˙, œ œ % ∀ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ 52 ο π B Tpt. 1 ∀ α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ % ∀˙− œ ˙ ˙ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ π π B Tpt. 2 ∀ α % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − , − , − , − , Hn. œ ˙ œ ˙− ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ % ˙− œ œ− œ− ˙− œ œ− œ− ˙− ˙− œ œ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ πŒ Œ . − π− , − , − , − , Hn. % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙− œ œ− œ− ˙− œ œ− œ− π ˙− ˙− Tbn. 1 , , > ˙, ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ α œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ π π Tbn. 2 > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

B. Tbn. > ∑ Œ œ− œ− Œ Œ Œ œ− ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ α œ− œ− π − − ∀˙− œ ˙ ˙ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ Euph. > − œ − œ , − , − , − , α ˙− œ œ ˙− œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ π π π Tuba > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

52 Timp. − − − > ∑ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ α œ− œ− ˙− ˙− ˙− ˙− 52 π π B.D. & Cym. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Three Characteristic Pieces 83 H 64 Fl. ∀œ ι ∀œ œ α Œ Œ ∑ ∀œ œ− µœ ‰ ∑ ∑ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ Œ Œ ∑ % ∀œ− ∀œ ∀œ ∀œ œ 3 Ρ ε Fl. II/Picc. ι % α ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ρ Ob. ∀œ ∀œ ∀œ œ α Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ Œ Œ ∑ % 3 3 a2 a2 ε − , − , − , − , = ι ≥ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ Bsn. > ∀=œ ∀œ œ œ ∀œ ∀∀œ ι Ι α ∑ ∀œ ‰ ∀ œ ‰ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ ∑ 3 ‰ 3 Ι Ι ∀ ˙ a2 œ , , , , Ε ο Ι − − − − ε ε π B Cl. 1 ∀=œ œ ≥ =œ œ α ∀ ‹œ ∀œ œ ∀œ− ∀œ œ œ œ œ− œ 3 ≈∀œ ∀œ ∀œ ∑ Œ Œ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 3 ≈œ œ œ % − ∀œ Ι − œ Ε Ρ ε B Cl. 2 α ∀ ι % ι‰ ∑ Œ Œ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ι‰ ∀œ ∀œ ∀œ œ− ∀œ ∀œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ Ε 3 Ρ Ε 3 B Cl. 3 ∀ α ι‰ ι‰ Œ Œ Œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ι‰ % ∀œ ‹œ ∀œ œ œ ∀œ œ ι œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ ∀œ = œ œ œ œ = Ε 3 Ρ quasi pizz. Ε 3 B. Cl. ∀ αœ œ− αœ ≥ % ∑ αœ œ œ œ ≈ œ αœ− œ αœ αœ µœ ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ œ œ ≈ œ = αœ Ι œ− œ− œ− œ− = œ œ œ Ε ε π Ε A. Sx. ∀∀ ∑ ∑ αœ œ− ι‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ % αœ µœ− œ αœ µœ ∀œ ε 3 Ε 3 T. Sx. ∀ αœ œ− αœ ≥ % ∑ αœ œ œ œ ≈ œ αœ− œ αœ αœ µœ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ ≈ œ = αœ Ι = œ œ œ Ε ε quasi pizz. Ε B. Sx. ∀∀ ∀œ − − − − % ∀œ− ˙, ∀œ− ˙, ∀œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ− ˙, œ− ˙, ο Ε 64 π B Tpt. 1 ∀ α % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

B Tpt. 2 ∀ α % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ − , − , − , − , Hn. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∑ ∑ % œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ π− , − , − , − , Hn. % ∀˙ − ˙ − ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ − œ Œ Œ ∀ ˙− ˙− ˙− œ Tbn. 1 > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

Tbn. 2 > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

B. Tbn. > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

Euph. > α=œ œ œ œ ι ∀˙ ≥ − , − , − , − , =œ œ ≈ œ α ∀œ Œ Œ αœ Ι ‰ ∀œ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ Œ Œ œ œ œ 3 Ι − 3 a2 One player Ε ε πquasi pizz. ε Tuba > ∀œ ˙ ∀œ ˙ ∀œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ− Œ Œ œ− Œ Œ œ− Œ Œ œ− Œ Œ œ ˙ œ ˙ α − , − , ∀œ − , − , 64 ο π Ε Timp. > α ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 64 Ο B.D. & Cym. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

3 Three Characteristic Pieces 84 I 74 − œ œ− œ œ Fl. ι ∀œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ− α œ œ− œ ‰ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ œ− œ µœ− œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ Ι ‰ŒŒ ∑ ∑ ∑ % œ− œ œ œ œ 3 3 3 3 . Ε ε Εto Piccolo Ε Fl. II/Picc. ι % α ∑ ŒŒ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ε − Ob. ∀œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ α ∑ ∑ œ− œµœ− œ ∀œ œ œµœ− œ œ− œ œ− œ µœ− œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ Ι ‰ŒŒ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ− œ œ % 3 3 3 3 œ− . Ε Ε ι − , − , − , αœ αœ µœ Bsn. ≥≥ œ µœ œ µœ αœ œ µœ œ œ œ œ ∀ œ > ∀œ œ ι œ œ ∀ œ œ ∀ œ µ œ œ œ ∀ œ œ αœ µ œ α ∀ œ ‰Œ ˙ ∀œ ‰ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ œ αœ œ . Ι ˙ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ Ι ο ο − , − , − , οœ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ B Cl. 1 ∀ ε≥ ο œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ− α ∑ ŒŒ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ− œ− œ− % Ι 3 3 3 3 . Ρ Ε Ε B Cl. 2 α ∀ ι % ∑ ŒŒ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ρ B Cl. 3 α ∀ œ œ− % ι‰Œ ŒŒ ι‰ ∑ ∑ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ ˙ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ− œ œ œ . . œ ο Ε Ρ B. Cl. ∀ œ œ− ≥ % œœ− œ œ œ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ι œ− ˙, œ− ˙, œ− ˙, œ− ˙, ε ο ο − A. Sx. œ œ− œ ≥ − œ œ œ ∀∀ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ − œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ Ι Ι ‰ ∑ ∑ œ − œ ∀œ œ œ 3 Ι ‰ŒŒ ∑ œ 3 3 3 ‰ŒŒ % ∀œ 3 3 Ε ε Ε T. Sx. ∀ œ œ− ι œ œ œ µœ œ ∀œ % œœ− œ œ œ œ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ ε ο ο Ε B. Sx. ∀ œ % ∀ œ Œ œ ŒŒ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ ˙ − ,. 74 π B Tpt. 1 α ∀ % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ µœ ∀œ Ε B Tpt. 2 ∀ α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ % œ œ ∀œ Ε Hn. − , œ œ œ % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ ˙ œ ŒŒ ∑ ∑ Œ αœ œ ˙ œ αœ µ œ . ο − ,, π− Hn. ι , % œ œ ‰Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ œ αœ œ ˙ Ι œ . ο ˙ − ,, π− , Tbn. 1 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ > ∑ ∑ ∀œ œ ∀œ ∀œ µœ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ µœ œ œ ∀œ ∀œ α . . ο Ο Ε π , Tbn. 2 > ∀œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ µœ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ ˙ α ∑ ∑ αœ œ . − . ο Ο π B. Tbn. > α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ − , − , − , − , − ,. ο π π œ œ− œ œ αœ œ œ ∀œ Euph. > œœ− œ œ ι − , − , − , œ œ µœ α œ ∀œ ‰ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ œ αœ œ ˙ œ ˙ . − , − , . ε ο ο ο Tuba > œ Œ œ ŒŒ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ α œ œ ˙. 74 π− , Timp. > α ∑ ŒŒ œ œ œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 74 Ο œ œ ˙ B.D. & Cym. ∑ ∑ ŒŒ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ ˙ . ο ο

3 Three Characteristic Pieces J P 85

85 œ− œ œ œ œ− , œ , œ œ œ, œ œ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ =œ œ − Fl. œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≅œ œ − − œ− œœ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ =œ œ % α 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 œ ≅œ œ Œ Œ ∑ 3 3 Picc.ε œƒ− Ρ Ρ œ œ− , œ , œ œ œ, œ œ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ =œ œ − Fl. II/Picc. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≅œ œ − œ− œœ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ =œ œ % α ∑ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 œ ≅œ œ Œ Œ ∑ 3 3 ε ƒ− Ρ] − Ρ ] − − − Ob. , œ ∀˙ œ − − Œ Œ Œ− œ œ œ œ− , œ , œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ∀œ œ % α œ œ œ− œ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ 3 Œ œ œ ∀µ˙ Œ œ œ µ˙ Œ ≅œ 3 3 3 œ œ ƒ ] − − ] − − − − − ε − Ρ Ρ ] œ œ αœ œ αœ µœ αœ œ − ˙ − œ − ˙ − − υΡ − Ρ Bsn. ∀œ µ œ œ œ ∀ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − > ∀˙ Œ œ œ ˙ œ Œ ∀˙ Œ α œ œ − − œ œ œ œ − − − − œ œ œ œ œ εœ œ− œ − Ρ Ρ Ρ 3 3 Ρ− 3 B Cl. 1 œ œ− œ− œ− , œ œ œ− œ œ = œ− œ œ = α ∀ , œ , œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ − œœ− œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ œ 3 3 œ Μœ œ 3 œ Μœ œ % 3 3 3 œ− œ œ 3 3 3 œ œ− œ œ ∀œ œ œ Μœ œ Ρ Ρ Ρ œ ε ƒ ƒ 3 3 Ρ 3 B Cl. 2 ∀ α % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ œ− œ œ œ œ− œ œ ∀œ œ œ Μœ œ Ρ ƒ œ − Ρ B Cl. 3 , œ œ α ∀ œ œ œ œ− , œ , œ œ œ œ ] œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ 3 Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ % 3 œ− œ− 3 3 ƒ ˙ œ− ε œ− Ρ B. Cl. , œ œ ∀ ∑ œ œ− œ œ œ, œ œ œ, œ œ œ œ− Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ % œ− 3 3 3 œ œ œ− ε ƒ − 3 Ρ 3 A. Sx. œ− ∀∀ ∑ œ µœ ∀œ µœ œ Œ− Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ % 3 ∀œ œ œ Μœ ε ƒ Ρ ƒ Ρ œ œ− T. Sx. ∀ œ ∀œ µœ œ ∀œ µœ − − − œ − − % œ œ Œ− œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ ƒ B. Sx. ∀∀ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ− % œ− ˙, œ− ˙, œ œ œ− œ− 85 ƒ Ρ B Tpt. 1 ∀ − − œ − − − α % œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ µœ œ µœ ∀œ µœ œ œ− œ− ε ƒ B Tpt. 2 ∀ − α % Œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ ∀œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ε − − ] − − − − ƒ− − − ] − Hn. − , − − ] − œ ∀˙ œ œ ˙ − − % œ ˙ œ αœ ∀µœ αœ œ œ ˙ Œ œ œ ˙ œ Œ œ ∀˙ Œ Μœ œ− œ œ− œ œ œ ∀ ˙ œ − , − − − − − − ε − Ρ] − Ρ] − − Ρ Ρ Hn. − , − , − , − ∀˙] ] − − œ ˙ œ Œ % œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ− ˙ œ Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ Œ Œ Œ ∀˙ œ Μœ ˙ œ − , − , − , Ρ − Ρ − Ρ − Ρ − , − , − , ] ] œ − ] − − Tbn. 1 > œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ µ˙ − œ œ µ˙ − œ µ˙ œ ≅œ α œ Œ œ Œ Œ Ρ Ρ Ρ Ρ , , Tbn. 2 ˙ ˙ œ ] œ− ] œ− œ œ− ] > ∀˙ Œ œ œ ∀˙ Œ ∀˙ œ− Œ œ− α œ− œ− œ œ œ Ρ Ρ Ρ ˙] œ ˙] Ρ B. Tbn. œ− œ œ− ] > Œ Œ Œ œ œ− ˙ Œ α œ− ˙, œ− ˙, œ œ œ œ− œ− ƒ Ρ Ρ Ρ Ρ œ ∀œ µœ œ œ− œ œ− ˙] − œ ˙] − œ− œ œ− œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ Euph. > œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ− œ ≅œ α 3 Œ Œ 3 3 3 ε Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ Ρ Tuba > α Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ − œ 85 œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ − − , − , − , − Ρ Timp. > ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ α œ− œ œ œ 85 Ε œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ B.D. & Cym. œ ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ Œ ∑ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ B.D. ƒ ƒ Three Characteristic Pieces 86

Soli 94 œ− K T œ ∀œ − Μœ œ ∀œ œ œ Fl. œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈ % α ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ Ρ SΟoli œ− œ œ ≈∀œ œ− Μœ œ œ ≈ Fl. II/Picc. ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ % α ∑ ∑ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ ≈ ∀œ Ρ Ο − − − Soli Ob. œ θ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ− Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ œ ≈∀œ Μœ œ ≈ ≈ ≈ ∀œ œ ≈ œ % α − œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ− œ œ − − Ρ− Ο Ρ Ρ œ Bsn. − − − − − > œ ι ι α œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∀ œ ˙− ∀ œ ˙− œ œ − ˙− ˙− 3 3 3 3 3 3 − 3 3 − Ρ = Ρ− Ρ− − = œ π− ι B Cl. 1 œ = = œ ∀œ ≈ œ Μœ œ− − œ =− − − − − − − ι α ∀ ∀œ ≈ œ œ ≈ Ι œ œ ∀œ œ œ − œ œ µœ − œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ‰− ≈ ≈ œ ‰ 3 ‹œ µœ œ œ % θ ≈ œ œ ∀œ 3 3 3 − ∀œ− µœ− œ − œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ = = = − − 3 3 − = 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ρ = ο Ρ Ρ − ƒ = œ − ι B Cl. 2 œ = = œ ∀œ ≈ œ Μœ œ− − œ =− − − − − − − ι α ∀ ∀œ ≈ œ œ ≈ Ι œ œ ∀œ œ œ − œ œ µœ − œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ‰− ≈ ≈ œ ‰ 3 ‹œ µœ œ œ % θ ≈ œ œ ∀œ 3 3 3 − ∀œ− µœ− œ − œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ = = − − = = 3 − Ρ ο 3 Ρ Ρ ƒ − ι B Cl. 3 Μœ œ− − œ =− − − − − − − ι α ∀ œ œ ∀œ œ œ − œ œ µœ − œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ 3 ‹œ µœ œ œ % 3 3 3 − ∀œ− µœ− œ − œ œ œ œ ∀œ− = − − œ − œ − − Ρ ο − Ρ − Ρ = B. Cl. = =œ ≈ œ ∀œ ∀ Œ Œ Œ Œ ‰− ≈ ≈ œ ∀œ ≈ œ Ι ‰ Œ % θ ≈ œ œ ∀œ ι ι œ œ− œ œ− œ ∀œ− œ ∀œ œ = = ∀ œ ˙− ∀ œ ˙− − 3 − 3 − = 3 Ρ 3 Ρ Ρ ƒ = =œ π A. Sx. = ∀œ ≈ œ ∀∀ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ − θ =œ œ ∀œ ≈ œ Ι % œ 3 œ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ Œ Œ ‰ ∀œ ≈ œ ≈ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ œ œ œ œ œ− œ− œ = Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ = T. Sx. = œ ∀œ ∀ − ∀œ ∀=œ ≈ œ œ ≈ Ι − − − − % Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ ‰− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ ∀œ ≈ œ ‰ Œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ Θ = œ = = Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ π − ∀=œ ≈ œ =œ B. Sx. ∀ − − œ θ = œ ∀=œ ≈ œ Ι − − − − % ∀ Œ œ Œ œ Œ Œ ‰− ∀œ ≈ œ œ ≈ ‰ Œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ− œ− œ− œ = 94 Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ π B Tpt. 1 ∀ − − − α % Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ρ Ρ Ρ B Tpt. 2 ∀ α % Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ Hn. − − − − − − − − Œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ % œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ − − − − πœ œ œ œ Ρ Ρ Ρ− − − − − Hn. − − Œ % Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ − −Ρ −Ρ Ρ ˙ ˙ Tbn. 1 œ− œ œ− œ œ− > Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ α œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ π Tbn. 2 œ− ˙ ˙ > ∀œ Œ œ− ∀œ Œ œ− Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ α − − œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ π B. Tbn. œ− > Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ α œ− œ− œ− œ− œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ , œ , œ − − œ− œ− œ− œ− Euph. > œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ α 3 3 3 3 3 3 Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ Ρ Ρ Ρ π Tuba > α Œ Œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ 94 − − œ− Ρ œ− Ρ œ− Timp. > Œ œ Œ œ œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ α œ œ œ œ− 94 Ρ Ρ B.D. & Cym. œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ƒ Three Characteristic Pieces 87 L 102 œ œ œ œ − Μœ œ œ œ =− = ] œ ∀œ − Μœ œ ∀œ œ œ Fl. œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ ˙ =œ− œ ∀œ− œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ œ ≈ ≈ % α Œ Œ Œ Œ ƒ œ œ ≈∀œ œ− Μœ œ œ ≈ Fl. II/Picc. ι ≈ œ œ œ− œ œ œ ≈ œ % α œ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰ ≈ Θ ≈∀œ ƒ

Ob. Œ œ Œ − ] Μœ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ Μœ ∀œ œ ≈ œ % α œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ ˙ Œ œ˙ ∀œ˙ œ œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ œ ≈ œ 3 œ˙− œ œ œ− a2 − Ι ≈ Œ οƒ 3 − − − − Bsn. œ− œ œ− , = ] − − − − > ι ι œ œ œ , œ œ œ œ − − œ ∀œ œ œ ∀ œ ∀ œ œ Œ 3 Œ ˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ œ œ µœ ∀œ œ− œ α ˙− ˙ 3 œµœ ˙− ˙ − 3− − Ι − − − 3 3 3 3 Ρ− ο− ∀œ œ œ ] ƒœ ∀œ Μœ œ ∀œ œ œ B Cl. 1 − œ− œ − œ œ = œ ∀œ œ œ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ− œ ≈ œ − œ œ ≈ ≈ α ∀ ι ι − œ œ œ − œ − − − − œ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ− œ œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ 6 ≈ % œ − œ œ − 3 œ− 3 3 − − œ− ∀œ− œ− œ− ‹œ œ− œ− − 6 œ 3 − ƒ = 3 = 3 3 3 Ρ− ∀œ œ œ B Cl. 2 − œ− = œ ∀œ œ α ∀ ι ι − œ œ œ œ ] œ ≈∀œ Μœ ∀œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ Œ œ Œ ∀œ œ ∀œ 6 ≈ œ œ ≈ œ œ− œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ % œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ œ − − − œ ∀œ œ œ ‹œ œ œ − − œ œ 6 œ − − − − − − − œ œ œ 6 3 − − − − = 3 = 3 3 3 3 3 6 Ρ ƒ B Cl. 3 − œ− ] ] α ∀ ι ι − œ œ œ œ ≈∀œ œ œ ] œ œ œ ∀œ œ Œ Œ ∀œ œ ∀œ − ≈ ≈ œ ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ % œ − œ œ − 3 œ œ œ œ œ Ι − − œ− ∀œ− œ− œ− ‹œ œ− œ− − œ œ œ− œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ œ ∀œ œ œ Ι − œ 3 œ œ − − , − − − Ρ ƒ = = − − − , = 3 3 B. Cl. − ] ∀ Œ œ− œ œ− œ, Œ ι‰ œ œ ‰ % ι ι œ œ œ 3 œ œ −3 œ ˙ œ œ− œ ∀ œ ˙− ∀ œ ˙ − − , − Ι œ œ∀œµœ− ∀œ − 3 6 Ρ œ œ ∀œ − − − − − 3 œ− − − − − œ ∀œ ƒ A. Sx. ∀ œ œ œ , − ] ] ι % ∀ ∑ Œ Œ œ Œ œ œ œ Œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ ‰− ≈ œ Ι ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ ‰ Œ 3 − − − œ, œ− − œ− ∀œ œ Θ Ι œ œ − − − = œ œ 3 T. Sx. ∀ − − − = Ι − − µœ− ∀œ œ− % Œ œ œ ∑ Œ œ Œ Œ œ Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ ‰ œ ∀œ œ œ∀œ Ι ≈ œ − Ι œ− œ− − − − 3 − Ρ ƒ 3 œ B. Sx. ∀ − − œ œ œ œ − œ] œ − − œ− ∀œ− œ− œ− % ∀ Œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ ‰ Ι ‰ œ œ ∀œµœ ∀œ œ− œ Ι 3 œ− − − 102 Ο Ρ ƒ B Tpt. 1 ∀ ι ] œ α ∑ ∑ Œ œ− Œ Œ œ− Œ ∀˙ œ ‰ œ œ ≈ œ ≈∀œ œ− Μœ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ œ ≈ % − œ œ− œ ∀œ œ ≈ œ Ο Ρ ƒ B Tpt. 2 ] α ∀ ] œ ≈∀œ œ œ ] % ∑ ∑ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ ι‰ ≈ œ Ι ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ − œ− ∀˙ œ œ œ Ι Ο Ρ− ƒ ] ι ι − Hn. − − − ι Œ Œ Œ ˙− ˙ ∀˙− œ œ ‰ Œ ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ œ % œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙− œ ∀˙− Ι υ Ι ƒ Ι − − − − ] ι − Hn. ι ι œ œ œ % ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∀˙− œ ∀œ ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ œ υ Ι Ι Ι ƒ 3 − ˙ ˙ Tbn. 1 > ˙ ∀˙ = œ] œ − − œ− ∀œ− œ− œ− α Œ Œ ˙− œ œ Ι ‰ œ œ µœµœ ∀œ œ− œ 3 œ− − − Ρ ƒ 3 œ Tbn. 2 > ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ = ] − − œ− ∀œ− œ− œ− α Œ Œ Œ ˙ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ µœµœ ∀œ œ− œ Ι 3 œ− − − Ο Ρ ƒ 3 B. Tbn. > − ] ι − − œ− ∀œ− œ− œ− α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ ‰ œ œ µœµœ ∀œ œ− œ œ œ 3 œ− − − Ρ − − − ƒ Euph. œ œ − œ− œ œ− , − œ− − ] ] > œ− œ œ− œ, œ œ œ ∀˙ − − œ œ ] œ œ Œ Œ Œ 3 Œ 3 Œ 3 ‰ œ Ι ‰ Œ œ œ ‰ Œ Ι ‰ Œ α Θ Ι 3 3 Tuba > − α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ι‰ œµœµœ− ∀œ œ ≈ ˙ œ œ œ œ− ∀œ− œ− − − Ι œ− 102 œ œ − − Ρ ƒ Timp. > ι α ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ = 102 ο Ρ B.D. & Cym. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Three Characteristic Pieces 88 , M 110 αœ, − µœ− − œ ] ] − quasi pizz. œ−Μœ œ œ ≈ − − − œ œ œ œ œ] œ œ] œ ˙] Fl. ≈œ œ ˙ œœœ αœ Ι œ] œ] œ] œ] œ] œ] œ] œ ˙] ˙− αœ % α 3 ‰ 3 Œ Œ Ι ‰ŒŒ ε Ρ quasi pizz. , œ] ] œ] ] œ− ] Fl. II/Picc. − œ œ ] œ ] ˙ ] ι œ− œ œ− Ι œ œ] œ] œ œ] œ] œ œ ˙] ˙− αœ % α œ ‰ŒŒ ∑ ŒŒ 3 œ ‰ Œ Œ Ι ‰ŒŒ 3 ε Ρ − − − ι ] ] ] ] ] ] − ] ] − − ι œ œ ] ] œ ] ] ˙ ] ι ƒ− − Ob. αœ œ µœ œ œ œ œ œ œ] œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙− αœ œ œ % α œ−Μœ œ ≈ œ ≈ œ Œ œ ‰−µœ œ ‰− ∀œ Œ œ œ Œ µœ œ ∀˙ − α œ ‰ œ œ œ œ ˙ αœ ‰ Ι œ 3 3 3 quasi pizz. αœ Ι Ι υ υ] υ υ υ υ − Ι Œ , − ε ] ] υ υ υ Ρ υ υ υ ƒ− − − − œ = ι = ι œ œ œ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ι‰Œ Bsn. − − œ− µœ ∀œ −µœ αœ− œ αœ œ œ œ œ œ ] ] ] ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ > ∀œ œ œ ‰ œ ∀œ ‰ Œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ αœ œ Œ α 3 αœ œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ œ œ Ι ‰ , œ œ ˙ 3 3 3 Ι Ι υ υ υ υ υ œ œ quasipizz. Ρ Ρ 3 ] υ ]υ υ υ υ υ− υ υ υ Μœ œ = , εœ ] œ ] Ρœ ] B Cl. 1 œ− œ ≈ œ ˙ , − − − œ œ œ œ] ] œ œ] ] ˙ œ] œ ] α ∀ ≈œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ œ œ] œ œ] ˙ ˙− µœ œ 3 œ− Œ Œ Ι ‰Œ œ % œ− − œ− µœ− µœ− − 3 ε Ρ ƒ , 3 3 3 quasi pizz. B Cl. 2 , − − − œ œ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] − ] ] ] α ∀ −Μœ œ µœ œ œ ∀œ œ − œ œ œ % œ ≈ œ ≈ œ ˙ œœœ 3 œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ Œ ˙ œ œ ˙ ι‰ œ œ − − − µœ− œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ µœ− − ε œ Ρ œ œ αœ œ œ œ− − 3 ] 3 3 3 ƒ B Cl. 3 ∀ œ] œ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] œ− ] ] ] ι α œ ‰ œ ‰ ι ‰ œ œ, œ œ Œ œ œ Œ ˙ œ ‰Œ % Ι Ι ∀œ œ−µœ − µœ œ, œ ∀œ œ œ œ œ œ œ µœ µœ œ αœ œ− − − − œ− ε œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ œ œ 3 Ψ Ρ 3 3 3 B. Cl. ∀ œ− œ− œ− ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ι ‰Œ 3 œ ‰ Œ œ Œ œ œ ‰Œ % ∀œ œ−µœ ι Ι œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ µœ ∀œ œ œ ∀œ− − µœ− œ αœ œ , œ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ œ œ − − − Ψ = ε quasi pizz. Ρ Ρ ] A. Sx. ∀ , − , œ] œ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ˙] − œ− ∀ œ− ∀œ œ−µœ − −µœ œ œ− ∀œ− œ− œ œ œ ŒŒ ŒŒ œ œ œ ∀œ œ Œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ µœ ‰ œ− % œ µœ œ µœ œ 3 œ − − = Ι œ− − Ρ Ρ Ψ ε ƒ , − ] œ] ] œ] ] ] T. Sx. ∀ − − ∀œ− œ−µœ = ι µœ œ− ∀œ œ− œ, œ] œ œ œ] ] ] œ œ] ] ] ] œ ι œ ∀œ µœ− œ αœ ‰ 3 œ ‰ Œ œ Œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ ‰ŒŒ % ∀œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ 3 œ − − 3 Ι 3 3 ΡΡ 3 Ψ ε 3 3 3 ] ] ] ] B. Sx. ∀ ∀œ− œ− ι œ œ] ] ] œ œ] ] ] ] ] ι % ∀ œ ∀œ ∀œ œ−µœ µœ− œ µœ ‰Œ œ ŒŒ ŒŒ œ œ Œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ µœ œ œ ‰ŒŒ − − − = œ ∀œ − œ ˙ œ œ œ 110 Ρ Ρ Ψ B Tpt. 1 ∀ , − ] ] ] α œ œ− œ− ŒŒ ‰− œ œ, Œ ‰− œ œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ŒŒ œ ˙ ∀œ œ ∀˙ œ ŒŒ ∑ % œ− Θ Θ Ρ Ρ Ψ ƒ B Tpt. 2 ] ] α ∀ θ , ] ] ] ] % ŒŒ ‰−µœ œ Œ ‰− œ œ Œ œ œ ∑ ∑ ŒŒ œ œ ˙ ∑ œ œ− œ œ− , Θ œ œ− ˙ œ ΡΡ − Ψ ƒ − − − ] ] ] ] ] ] Hn. − − ] ] ] ] ] ι œ œ Œ œ αœ Œ œ ˙ Œ ŒŒ œ œ œ œ œ ŒŒ œ œ ˙ αœ ‰ŒŒ % œ œ œ œ œ ∀œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ∀œ œ ∀˙ ˙œ− − œ υ œ υ ŒŒ œ − − − − υ υ υ υ υ υ υ υ Ι Ρ− Ρ − Ψ , ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] υ] ] ] Hn. œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ∀œ œ ∀˙ œ ι œ− ι Œ Œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ŒŒ œ ŒŒ αœ ‰ŒŒ % ∀œ œ ∀œ œ œ− œ αœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ∀œ œ ∀˙ µ œ − = , υ υ υ υ υ υ υ υ υ υ Ι Ρ− Ρ− − Ψ αœ, , ε œ] ] υ υ υ] œ] œ ˙] Tbn. 1 − − − µœ− ∀œ œ−µœ αœ− = œ ] œ œ] ˙ œ œ œ > ∀œ œ œ œ αœ œ − − œ œ] œ œ αœ œ œ α 3 Ι ‰ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ŒŒ ∑ 3 3 Ι ‰ŒŒ Ρ Ρ Ψ − , ] Tbn. 2 − − µœ− ∀œ œ−µœ αœ− = œ, = œ ] ] µœ] œ ∀˙ αœ œ œ œ œ > ∀œ− œ œ œ αœ œ ∀œ œ − œ œ] ] ] œ œ αœ œ œ α 3 Ι ‰ Ι ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ ˙ 3 3 3 Ι ‰ŒŒ Ρ Ρ Ψ − − œ B. Tbn. − − œ− µœ ∀œ −µœ αœ− œ α=œ œ] ] ] ] ] œ] ] ] ] ] ] ] > ∀œ œ œ ‰Œ ŒŒ Œ− Œ œ œ Œ œ œ ι‰ŒŒ α 3 Ι ∀œ œ− œ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ œ œ αœ œ Ρ Ρ Ψ œ− − œ Euph. œ− ∀œ −µœ αœ− œ α=œ œ] ] ] ] ] œ] ] ] ] ] ] ˙] œ œ œ œ œ œ αœ œ œ > œ ‰ αœ, Œ Œ− œ, Œ Œ− Œ œ œ Œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ‰ŒŒ α Ι œ œ œ 3 3 3 Ι ΡΡ 3 Ψ Tuba > − ι ] ] ] ] ] ] ] α œ µœ ∀œ− œ µœ αœ− œ αœ ‰Œ œ ŒŒ ∑ ∑ ŒŒ œ ι‰ŒŒ ∀œ− œ− − − = œ ∀œ − œ œ 110 Ρ Ψ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ αœ œ Ρ 3 ˙ Timp. > − − ] ] ] α œ œ ˙− ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙ œ œ œ Œ Œ ∑ œ− œ− œ− ˙ 110 Ρ Ρ Ρ ƒ B.D. & Cym. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Three Characteristic Pieces 89 122 − œ− − − œ− αœ ∀œ œ Fl. − αœ− œ Τ % α œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ƒ − œ− Ρ Ρ− − œ− αœ œ Fl. II/Picc. − αœ− œ œ Τ % α œ Œ Œ Œ Œ − ƒι Ρ Ρ (pizz.) œ ‰ Œ − Ob. œ œ œ œ Τ α œ αœ Ι Œ œ Œ ∀œ œ − Œ % − ‰ œ − − Ρ Ρ Ρ− αœ − (piz−z.) Bsn. > = œ œ Τ α ∑ œ œ œ − Œ − œ µœ− = (pizz.) − œ− Ρ Ρ œ Ρ− − B Cl. 1 ∀ − µœ− œ œ œ Τ α % œ Œ Œ œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ (pizz.) B Cl. 2 ∀ − − Τ α % œ ‰ Œ Œ œ Œ œ œ Œ Ι œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ (pizz.) B Cl. 3 ∀ Τ α % ∑ µœ ∀œ Œ œ œ− = Ρ Ρ (piœz− z.) B. Cl. ∀ Τ % ∑ Œ Œ œ œ œ− = Ρ Ρ (piœz− z.) A. Sx. œ− Τ ∀ µœ ∀œ œ− − % ∀ Ι ‰ Œ Œ œ œ Œ = Ρ Ρ (pizz.) T. Sx. ∀ = œ œ− Τ % ∑ Œ œ Œ œ− Ρ Ρ (pizz.) B. Sx. ∀ − Τ % ∀ ∑ Œ ˙ œ œ Œ 122 Ρ (pizz.) B Tpt. 1 ∀ œ Τ α % ∑ œ Œ œ Œ œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ (pizz.) B Tpt. 2 ∀ Τ α % ∑ Œ œ Œ µœ œ œ− Ρ Ρ Ρ Τ Hn. ∑ Œ Œ µœ œ Œ Œ % œ œ Ρ Ρ Τ Hn. Œ Œ œ œ % ∑ œ œ Œ Œ Ρ Ρ (pizz.) ∀œ œ Tbn. 1 > − Τ α ∑ Œ Œ œ Œ

Ρ Ρ (pizz.) Tbn. 2 > œ œ − Τ α ∑ Œ Œ œ Œ

Ρ Ρ (pizz.) B. Tbn. > Τ α ∑ Œ ˙ œ Œ œ Ρ (piz−z.) ∀œ œ Euph. > − Τ α ∑ Œ Œ œ Œ

Ρ Ρ (pizz.) Tuba > Τ α ∑ Œ Œ œ œ 122 ˙ − Ρ Τ Timp. > œ œ − α ∑ Œ ˙ Œ œ Œ 122 Ρ Ρ B.D. & Cym. ˙− ∑ ∑ Ρ 90

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Battisti, F. L. (2002). The winds of change: The evolution of the contemporary American wind

band/ensemble and its conductor. Milwaukee: Hal Leonard Corporation.

Bish, D. E. (1988). Transcription techniques for the concert band: 1900-1950 (Doctoral

dissertation, Boston University).

Czekaj, R. M. (2018). Three characteristic pieces [recorded by the Penn State Invitational Wind

Ensemble]. Unpublished recording.

Elgar, E. (1922). Fantasia and fugue in C minor, BWV 537 [recorded by the Hallé Orchestra].

On Elgar: A self-portrait [CD]. Great Britain: New Studio Recording (2005).

Elgar, E. (1899). Mazurka for the pianoforte. [Score]. London: Novello and Company.

Elgar, E. (1899). Three characteristic pieces. [Score]. London: Novello and Company.

Elgar, E. (Composer). (2015). Three characteristic pieces [Score]. In D. Lloyd-Jones (Ed.),

Elgar complete edition, series 4, vol. 23. Amersham: Elgar Works.

Elgar, E. (1899). Three characteristic pieces [recorded by the English Symphony Orchestra]. On

A portrait of Elgar [CD]. Herefordshire, England: Nimbus (1996).

Fiese, R. K. (1987). College and university wind band repertoire 1980-1985. Journal of Band

Research, 23(1), 17-42.

Fonder, M. (2003). Ostling’s criteria for choosing fine music for all ensembles. The

Instrumentalist, 68(1), 40-46.

Grassi, D. J. (2010). An analysis of three choral transcriptions for winds by Eric Whitacre.

(Master's theses, San José State University, 2010). ProQuest, 3763. 91 Gregory, E. S. (1982). Mark H. Hindsley: The Illinois years (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, A716.

Holovik, K. M. (1970). An emerging band repertory: A survey of the members of the College

Band Directors National Association. Journal of Band Research, 6(2), 19-24.

Hopwood, B. K. (1998). Wind band repertoire: Programming practices at conventions of the

College Band Directors National Association (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State

University).

Hornig, R. O. (1972). How about transcriptions? The Instrumentalist, 27(2), 74.

Hornyak, R. (1982/85). The repertoire of the college and university band 1975-1982, parts 1, II,

and III. Unpublished manuscripts, Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music, Cincinnati,

OH.

Kennedy, M. (2004). The life of Elgar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kish, D. L. (2005). A band repertoire has emerged. Journal of Band Research, 41(1), 1-12.

McVeagh, D. M. (1955). Edward Elgar: his life and music. London: Dent.

McVeagh, D. M. (2001). Elgar, Sir Edward (William). Grove Music Online. Retrieved from

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/

Moore, J. N. (1999). Edward Elgar: a creative life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Nowlin, R. (2017). Fantasia and fugue in C minor, BWV 537 [recorded by the The President’s

Own Marine Band]. On Arioso [CD]. Washington: United States Marine Band. (2017).

Ostling, A., Jr. (1978). An evaluation of compositions for wind band according to specific

criteria of serious artistic merit. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1978.)

Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 3215.

Paul, T. A. (2011). Pac-Ten wind ensemble programming trends. Journal of Band Research, 92 47(1), 49-55.

Paul, T. A. (2012). Programming practices of Big Twelve university wind ensembles. Journal of

Band Research, 47(2), 11-26.

Peercy, H. K. (1958). 75 favorite college band compositions. The Instrumentalist, 13, 72.

Powell, S. R. (2009). Recent programming trends of Big Ten university wind ensembles. Journal

of Band Research, 44, 1-12.

Reynolds, R. (2000). Repertoire is the curriculum. Music Educators Journal, 87(1), 31-33.

Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest

com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/62252885?accountid=13158

Rockley, C. J. (1997). Guidelines for effective transcription for wind band: An analysis of the

orchestration techniques used in Keith Wilson's transcriptions of Hindemith's

“Symphonic Metamorphosis”. University of Arizona.

Skeat, W. J., & Clarke, H. F. (1938). The fundamentals of band arranging: a text-book for

students. Cleveland: Sam Fox Pub. Co..

Urniežius, R. (2017). The possibilities of transcribing orchestral works subject to essentiality of

their original orchestration. Musicologica Brunensia, 52(2), 85-93.

Wacker, A., & Silvey, B. (2016). Programming trends of Southeastern Conference wind

ensembles 2009-2014. Journal of Band Research, 52(1), 29-43,66-67.

Wiltshire, E. S., Paul, T. A., Paul, P. M., & Rudnicki, E. (2010). Programming practices of

Atlantic Coast Conference wind ensembles. Contributions to Music Education, 37(2),

45-63. Academic Vita of Ryan M. Czekaj [email protected]

Bachelors in Music Education, 2019, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Capturing the Characteristic: Transcription in the Modern Wind Band

Thesis Supervisor: Dennis R. Glocke

Teaching Experience: Greater Latrobe Senior High School, January – March 2019, Latrobe, PA Latrobe Elementary School, March – April 2019, Latrobe, PA Penns Valley Area High School, August – December 2018, Spring Mills, PA Bellefonte Area High School, September-November 2018, Bellefonte, PA State College Area High School, July 2017, State College, PA Central Oak Heights Music Camp, August 2016 – August 2018, West Milton, PA

Grants and Awards: Rodney A. Erickson Discovery Grant, April 2018 Arts and Architecture Alumni Scholarship, March 2018 Undergraduate Jury Honors, December 2017 Music Activities Scholarship, May 2015 – May 2018

Performance Experience: Senior Clarinet Recital, November 2018 Junior Chamber Music Recital, March 2018 Penn State Symphonic Wind Ensemble, January 2016 – December 2018 Penn State Clarinet Choir, August 2015 – December 2018 Penn State Marching Blue Band, August 2015 – December 2016 Penn State Glee Club, January 2016 – May 2016

Additional Experience and Professional Development: Region III Coordinator, Pennsylvania Collegiate Music Educators Association, 2017 – 2019 Executive Chair, Encore Benefitting THON, 2018 Treasurer, Penn State Clarinet Club, 2018 Treasurer, Nittany Band Association, 2018 Active Memberships: National Association for Music Education, The Elgar Society