Lately, I’ve been looking at some of my scores to investigate the possibility of adapting them to brass and saxophone quartets. It’s far easier to sell such arrangements if they’re part of a collection or series.
Some are adapting easily but others require considerable rewriting. The tendency for small band parts to switch suddenly from a background to a foreground role can be tolerated up to a point and the lack of a rhythm section can be compensated by ingenuity in the writing. This may involve a vamp, rhythmic bass part, andante voicing with even note durations, or ‘oompah’ figures. I’ve used ‘bell’ effects (staggered entrances) occasionally. These, too, require faking a bit to compensate for the lack of voices in five or six part harmonies, but it can be done (it’s done by the best).
You can’t always write for a small band with a rhythm section and then take the rhythm section away. The whole thing often changes.
Players need to drop out for a rest occasionally and this has to be built in, whilst providing contrast and relief in the process. This is especially true of the trumpet/cornet part in the brass quartet. This instrument can’t be expected to play the lead part all night. There have been times when I’ve played one of my own arrangements with a band and only then have I realised what a strenuous part I’ve written. Pianist* arrangers take note. Slow arrangements with lots of sustained notes are the killers, not the percussive types, even if they are loud and high.
*Pianist/arrangers also need to bear in mind that trombone players need both hands, so please leave enough time for inserting mutes.
Players also have to breathe and circular breathers are still in the minority.
Open harmony quartet voicings can create a surprisingly big sound. Nevertheless, I’ve decided some of my compositions would sound weak without the scope of the large ensemble and they’ve been put back in the cupboard. I put one away believing it wouldn’t adapt but took it out again shortly afterwards. With some careful work and a little ingenuity it just might work.
Something else that has taken me by surprise, even after all these years, is the extent to which ideas change along with the lineup. More than once, when checking over an old score, I’ve found myself thinking ‘Oh no! Why did I do that?’ And then I realise that I was thinking orchestrally and now I’m thinking quartetwise. Unison countermelodies that stretch the rules to the limit and come dangerously close to interfering with the melody or clashing with the background will sometimes work in cases where a single instrument, lacking the ‘inertia’ of doubled-up parts, will sound wrong. (Difference in orchestral tone colour and volume also assist separation, along with contrast in the treatment of rhythms.) We only have one of each instrument in a quartet, which is the main reason small ‘front lines’ are so enjoyable for blowing musicians; every part really means something.
So these quartet adaptations are not as straightforward as I’d hoped.
A ‘short score’ sketch will suffice before producing the final score on computer and extracting the individual band parts. I’m working on six together, picking each one up in turn and doing a little more. This is another technique to guard against tricks of the mind, as things start to go stale. Score pages are being assembled two-up, one above the other, on an A4 sheet of paper (297mm x 210 mm)** so that two x four stave quartet scores, A5 size ‘landscape’, can be produced at a time. I also get two score covers out of each sheet of thin card I use for the covers and the plastic comb binders are also cut in half.
**In publishing, there was an understanding in many quarters that you put the depth first when stating dimensions but the growing use of computers, where some programs do it the other way round, has confused the issue.
One of the pieces in my embryo catalogue, a mini suite in 3 parts, has been especially composed for quartet. The other adaptations are concise, tuneful arrangements of around two and a half choruses plus intro, modulation and coda. The original full band versions were ideal for light entertainment in the park, not for setting the world on fire. They will all be playable by musicians of average ability.
I’ve written some brass quartets for Bb cornet, Eb tenor horn, euphonium and Eb tuba. The so called tenor horn is really an alto horn (which is what they call it in the USA). This is not the ‘regular’ brass quartet instrumentation, which tends to be two trumpets/cornets, trombone and euphonium, so I’m not making life easy for myself here. It’s just that the instrumentation I’ve chosen is very flexible and capable of providing a variety of textures.
Now it so happens that the brass quartet instrumentation is similar to the sax quartet of Bb soprano, Eb alto, Bb tenor and Eb baritone. Only in one case so far have I decided to change the key. This was because the alto sax finds it easier than the horn to go way above the stave and the soprano sax isn’t too happy on its lowest notes. In theory, the written parts for transposing instruments should always represent a similar level of difficulty. This doesn’t always work in practise. Eb horn players who can play around their written top C all night are rare and the instrument’s low register is best forgotten.
The computer changed the key automatically but it was necessary to correct some of the crazy accidentals the program came up with. (My latest notation program doesn’t have this problem.)
So, if you’ve written brass quartets, they can be changed very simply to sax quartets, or vice versa. I can’t believe I’ve only just realized the commercial potential of all this after so many years in the job. Obviously, quintet and sextet arrangements might be capable of similar adaptation, depending on the instrumentation.
Finally, check, check and check again. The current brass band test piece I’m rehearsing has so many errors it’s difficult to forgive, even on the ‘oh well, we’re only human’ basis. But more on that another time…