MENU — TRACKLIST p.4 ENGLISH p.6 FRANÇAIS p.19 DEUTSCH p.32 Recording: Liège, Salle philharmonique, April 2015 Artistic direction, recording & editing: Jérôme Lejeune Cover illustration: Patrick Wibart with his ophicleide Gautrot-Couesnon Photo: © Jean-Baptiste Millot English translations: Peter Lockwood Deutsche Übersetzungen: Silvia Berutti-Ronelt Booklet illustrations p. 1: Th e ophicleide player in Méthode complète d’ophicléide par F. Berr et Caussinus © Paris BnF p. 16: Ecole française, XIXe siècle, Jeune musicien à l'ophicléide Photo © Paris - Musée de l'Armée, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Emilie Cambier p. 18: Lucie Sansen, Photo: © Jean-Baptiste Millot p. 29: Edmond de Boislecompte, Le lutrin d'Aulnay-les-Bondy Senlis, Musée d'Art et d'Archéologie Photo © Senlis, Musée d'Art et d'Archéologie p. 31: Patrick Wibart, Photo © Jean-Baptiste Millot p. 46: Adrien Ramon, Photo © Jean-Baptiste Millot p. 44: Caricature of Berlioz in Wiener Th eaterzeitung, 1846 © Akg-images, Paris p. 48: Trio ÆNEA: Photo © Jean-Baptiste Millot THE VIRTUOSO Menu OPHICLEIDE TRIO ÆNEA Patrick Wibart: ophicleide Adrien Ramon: cornet Lucie Sansen: piano with the participation of Corentin Morvan: ophicleide Oscar Abella Martín: ophicleide Jean-Yves Guéry: gregorian chant Jules Demersseman (1833-1866) 1. Grande Fantaisie dramatique pour ophicléide et piano 7'34 2. Fantaisie sur Le Désir de Beethoven pour ophicléide et piano 4'49 Victor Caussinus (1806-1899) 3. Troisième duo pour deux ophicléides (Allegro moderato) 4'17 Mikhaïl Glinka (1804-1857) Trio pathétique (transcription for cornet, ophicléide and piano) 4. Allegro 4'43 5. Vivacissimo 3'02 6. Largo 4'51 7. Allegro con spirito 2'08 Claude Philippe Projean (fl . 1843) 8. Kyrie eleison pour trois ophicléides 3'23 Gilbert Duprez (1806-1896) 9. Agnus Dei 1'19 10. O Salutaris 2'35 (transcription for 3 ophicléides) Gaspard Kummer (1795-1870) 11. Variations pour l'ophicléide op. 62 6'36 Menu Hyacinthe Klosé (1808-1880) 12. Air varié pour ophicléide et piano op. 21 9'23 Albert Corbin (?-1893) 13. Teutatès, Fantasie mystique pour cornet et ophicléide 5'43 Th e instruments: Patrick Wibart: ophicleide in b fl att, 11 keys, Gautrot-Marquet et Couesnon & Cie à Paris Corentin Morvan: ophicléide in b fl att, 11 keys, Müller à Lyon Oscar Abella Martín: ophicleide in b fl att, 10 keys, Leconte & Cie à Paris Adrien Ramon: cornet, Lefèvre à Paris Lucie Sansen: piano quart queue Erard, model n°0, 185 cm, parallel srings (Paris, 1904) Th anks to Michaël Grailet for the loan and the tuning of the piano. (www.artisandupiano.be) FR DE THE VIRTUOSO OPHICLEIDE Th e 19th century was a period of invention and of technological and industrial innovation: musical instruments and their manufacture were naturally also subject to this phenomenon. On the one hand, instruments that were already fi rmly established in the musical practice of the time underwent countless modifi cations and improvements that allowed them to fulfi l every new demand made of them: their lower and upper ranges were extended, all the notes of the chromatic scale in equal temperament were made available, and they were given more volume so that they could be played in larger and larger halls; for soloists this meant that they could stand up to orchestras that were continually increasing in size. On the other, imaginative instrument makers vied with each other to create new types of instruments: these were made in their dozens, although the inexorable choices of history played their part and very few of these instruments enjoyed a great and lasting success. Th e saxophone was unique amongst these inventions, although the fi eld in which it would fi nally establish itself many decades after its invention — jazz — was very far from Adolphe Sax’s original purpose for the instrument. Paradoxically, it is interesting to note that the idea of the saxophone originated with the ophicleide: one of Sax’s fi rst experiments was to put a clarinet mouthpiece on an ophicleide to see how it would aff ect the sound of a metal instrument with a conical bore. Instrument makers were particularly concerned with the development of the lowest instruments of the brass family, the so-called instruments à embouchure, during the beginning of the 19th century. Th e bass trombone was of course able to fulfi l this function, although its extremely long slide made it unsuitable for passage-work; as Berlioz himself remarked, it was rarely played because of the intense fatigue its use created in even the strongest of its players. Two wooden instruments that used a mouthpiece similar to that of the brass were the serpent and the Russian bassoon; both of these had a range that was very similar to the bass trombone’s. Th e serpent had primarily been used to accompany Gregorian chant in churches since the 17th century; after the secularisation of the Church’s property during the French Revolution, it found new employment in military bands. Th e fi ngering that it used allowed it to play a complete chromatic scale and gave Menu it much greater agility than the bass trombone, as can be seen from the several schools of serpent playing that were published during the fi rst years of the 19th century. Th e strange shape of the serpent encouraged instrument makers (presumably at the request of its players) to attempt to modify it. One of these ideas was to fold the instrument in two, somewhat like a bassoon. Th is folded serpent was invented by a certain J. J. Régibo, a musician of the collegiate church of Saint-Pierre in Lille in 1789. Like the bassoon, it was constructed in three sections, a butt and two joints; the crook and mouthpiece are attached to the smaller joint, whilst the larger joint terminates in a bell. Th e name of the instrument comes from a distortion of one of the fi rst makers of the instrument, a bassoon maker from Lyon called Rust: the basson Rust soon became the basson russe. Many of these instruments have survived, although with countless variations in shape and design: some have sections in both metal and wood, whilst others have bells shaped like dragon’s heads like the buccin and much more besides. Th e instrument could be found in almost every European military band. Berlioz, who seems to have been the fi rst to use the term basson russe, dismisses it completely: “It could be amputated from the wind family without doing any damage to the art of music whatsoever”. Berlioz, however, remained doubtful about these two instruments, if not even hostile: “Th e essentially barbarous sound of this instrument would suit the blood-soaked ceremonies of the Druids much more than the rites of the Catholic faith […]. Th e only exception to be made for the serpent’s use is in the Requiem Mass, when it should double the frightening plainchant of the Dies Iræ. Its cold and abominable yowling is clearly suited to that. " Th is was the context in which a new instrument appeared: the ophicleide. Th e ophicleide, usually made of metal but sometimes of wood, was clearly inspired by the line of development from the serpent to the bass- horn via the Russian bassoon. Nonetheless, when Halary created this instrument in 1817 he gave it the conical bore and fl ared bell of a bass bugle; the instrument’s name is derived from two Greek words meaning key and serpent. As is also the case with the bugle, the ophicleide’s holes are quite large and are therefore closed by keys of the same proportions. Its sound, range and tuning were a great improvement over its antecedents and the ophicleide rapidly became accepted as the bass instrument of the brass section in the orchestra. Berlioz used the instrument in several works and even required two of them for the Symphonie fantastique in 1830. He also states that a few of these instruments can also produce the low notes — C, B fl at and A fl at — that make its range similar to the stringed double bass: “Th e timbre of these low notes is rough, but it can work miracles in certain cases, when used underneath the massed brass section. Its higher notes possess a wild character that is possibly still to be turned to good account”. Berlioz’s enthusiasm for the instrument was, however, temporary: “Th ere is nothing more coarse, I would even say more monstrous and less suited to blending with the rest of the orchestra, than the various passages in more or less rapid tempi that were composed as solos for the ophicleide in various modern operas: it is as if a bull has escaped from its barn and come to frolic in the middle of an elegant drawing-room”. Despite this rather damning opinion, the ophicleide enjoyed a great success as the bass brass instrument in not only French but also Italian and German orchestras. Berlioz himself, however, complained that none were available for concerts in which he was involved in Germany; he had to be satisfi ed with a serpent. It is more than likely that he convinced his friend Mendelssohn to procure an ophicleide for his orchestra after these concerts in Leipzig, for Mendelssohn was later to use the instrument particularly eff ectively. Th e ophicleide also began to be used in ensembles of wind instruments that performed outdoors; the alto ophicleide now made an appearance and this instrument too is described by Berlioz: “Th ey are used in various military ensembles to fi ll out the harmony […] although their sound is generally disagreeable and hardly noble”.