Spanish Hall - Winter Gardens, Blackpool
TIMINGS FOR THE SENIOR TROPHYTIMINGS AS CONFIRMED BY THE BRITISH OPEN COMMITTEE
Please note some of the times may change on the day DRAWS: Location: Floral Suite - Draw 1: 10:00, Draw 2: 12:00 CONTEST: Location: Spanish Hall - Doors: 10:30, First Band: 11:00 RESULTS: Location: Opera House - from 18:00 |
WHO IS IN THE SENIOR TROPHY?FINAL LIST OF COMPETING BANDS - SENIOR TROPHY
(As confirmed by the British Open Committee) Blackburn & Darwen Band - Daniel Thomas Boarshurst Silver Band - Jamie Prophet Brass Band of Central England - Stephen Cooper Brunel Brass - Daniel Hall Dalkeith and Monktonhall Brass Band- James Chamberlain Easington Colliery Brass Band - Graeme Tindall* East London Brass - Jayne Murrill Eccles Borough Band- Mareika Gray Enderby Band - Michael Fowles Goodwick Brass Bandd- Stephen Sykes Longridge Band - Mark Peacock Newstead Brass - Martin Heartfield Parc & Dare Band - Dewi Griffiths Pontardulais Town Band- Paul Jenkins Roberts Bakery Band - Mike Jones Roche Brass - Matthew Green Tyldesley Band - Neil Samuel Unite Scotland Kinneil Band- Allan Ramsey Woodfalls Band- Joshua Ruck Yorkshire Imperial Band - Stephen Malcolm *Acceler8 Band have withdrawn and has been replaced by Easington Colliery Tongwynlais Temperance are now to play in the Senior Cup |
|
DRAWS AND RESULTSSENIOR TROPHY - FANTASY FOR BRASS BAND - MALCOLM ARNOLD
ADJUDICATORS: LT COL LAUREN PETRITZ-WATTS & MORGAN GRIFFITHS VENUE: SPANISH HALL DRAWS: 10:00 and 12:00 DOORS OPEN: 10:30 - FIRST BAND: 11:00 RESULTS: From 18:00 (Opera House) |
The draw information will be listed here on the day. Results willl follow the announcement.
|
WHAT IS THE TEST PIECEFantasy for Brass Band (Op.114) by Malcolm Arnold
Having listened to the piece a number of times, I offer my views of the piece, it's structure, and potential pitfalls. |
FANTASY FOR BRASS BAND - ALTERNATIVE SCORE REVIEW
NOTE: With all test pieces, I have included the conductor's notes from the score. However, for 'Fantasy for Brass Band', I have ben uable to find any such notes. However, I have haf the pleasure of finding and reading the review from acclaimed Musical Journalist and Digital Manager and Photographer at the Hallé Orchestra - ALEX BURNS MA (Musicology); BMus (hons).
I am extremely thankful to Alex for giving me the permission to directly quote and publish her comments and would highly recommend a review of her website: https://www.classicalexburns.com.
I am extremely thankful to Alex for giving me the permission to directly quote and publish her comments and would highly recommend a review of her website: https://www.classicalexburns.com.
FANTASY FOR BRASS BAND - REVIEW BY ALEX BURNS (www.classicalexburns.com)
Context
Composed between 1973-74 for England’s 1974 National Brass Band Championships, Malcolm Arnold’s Fantasy for Brass Band proved to be a hit with bands across the nation. The Cory Band, then conducted by Major H. A. Kenney, are said to be the band that premiered the work at the event, but of course preceding that came another 18 high-quality performances of the work. The 10-minute work has been used in other contests, as well as being played at concerts and other events. Most recently, Fantasy for Brass Band has been chosen as the Senior Trophy test piece at the annual Spring Festival.
The Music
Fantasy for Brass Band is actually split into five sections, all of which run into each other to create one 10-minute piece of music.
The opening Prelude section is a series of fanfares, first heard in the upper band, but which is also heard in the lower band as a form of call and response. This bold opening showcases Arnold’s unapologetic bold sound for brass. As the climax is reached the dynamic quickly drops as the next section ensues. A flugelhorn solo emerges as the section moves onwards. A reprise of the opening fanfare leads into the much darker dance section. Arnold’s use of chromatic movement and dissonance highlights the upper band’s close-knit parts.
The dark mood of this section follows into the Elegy, which is set as a chorale. Arnold’s rich textural writing for the band here is showcased, as the instruments intertwine, and their sounds merge together. Soloists also emerge here, with the solo horn and cornet taking extended melodic passages. This melancholy section brings the mood right down, which makes the next section even more of a surprise.
A fiery scherzo fills the sound after the Elegy, with fast tonguing and quick movements adding to the drama. The flurry of the sound here creates a chaotic atmosphere as the trombones take the main theme. This frantic section is then interrupted by the Postlude. The opening fanfare returns in a new form, which then leads into the final ‘Vivace’ section that wraps up the work in style. A reprise of themes past rear their heads one last time before Fantasy for Brass Band concludes with a thrilling flourish of notes.
Ⓒ Alex Burns
Once again, my huge thanks to Alex for giving permission to include the review as part of the Spring Festival Site.
Composed between 1973-74 for England’s 1974 National Brass Band Championships, Malcolm Arnold’s Fantasy for Brass Band proved to be a hit with bands across the nation. The Cory Band, then conducted by Major H. A. Kenney, are said to be the band that premiered the work at the event, but of course preceding that came another 18 high-quality performances of the work. The 10-minute work has been used in other contests, as well as being played at concerts and other events. Most recently, Fantasy for Brass Band has been chosen as the Senior Trophy test piece at the annual Spring Festival.
The Music
Fantasy for Brass Band is actually split into five sections, all of which run into each other to create one 10-minute piece of music.
The opening Prelude section is a series of fanfares, first heard in the upper band, but which is also heard in the lower band as a form of call and response. This bold opening showcases Arnold’s unapologetic bold sound for brass. As the climax is reached the dynamic quickly drops as the next section ensues. A flugelhorn solo emerges as the section moves onwards. A reprise of the opening fanfare leads into the much darker dance section. Arnold’s use of chromatic movement and dissonance highlights the upper band’s close-knit parts.
The dark mood of this section follows into the Elegy, which is set as a chorale. Arnold’s rich textural writing for the band here is showcased, as the instruments intertwine, and their sounds merge together. Soloists also emerge here, with the solo horn and cornet taking extended melodic passages. This melancholy section brings the mood right down, which makes the next section even more of a surprise.
A fiery scherzo fills the sound after the Elegy, with fast tonguing and quick movements adding to the drama. The flurry of the sound here creates a chaotic atmosphere as the trombones take the main theme. This frantic section is then interrupted by the Postlude. The opening fanfare returns in a new form, which then leads into the final ‘Vivace’ section that wraps up the work in style. A reprise of themes past rear their heads one last time before Fantasy for Brass Band concludes with a thrilling flourish of notes.
Ⓒ Alex Burns
Once again, my huge thanks to Alex for giving permission to include the review as part of the Spring Festival Site.
FANTASY FOR BRASS BAND - MY OVERVIEW OF THE PIECE
Fantasy for Brass Band is by far the oldest, and shortest test piece at this year’s Spring Festival. Composed between 1973 and 1974, it was performed at the National Championships of Great Britain (Championship Section) on 5th October 1974 (winners: Cory). It has since been used as a set test piece on ten more occasions, before being included in this year’s festival — including in the Nationals (First Section) on 22nd September 2001 (winners: Asda Stocksbridge).
This is a test piece of its era, has proved popular over the past 50 years, and is a classic example of Arnold’s work. As with all other test pieces on show, there are no ‘movements’, however there are 5 clear sections (Prelude, Dance, Elegy, Scherzo, and Postlude). No tempi are too rapid, however the composer’s use of semiquavers is to be noted (particularly in the opening, closing, and scherzo sections). Furthermore, whilst there are ‘solo’ sections, no solo is too expressive, too challenging, or should run the risk of clipped/split notes.
Of particular note is the overall scoring, which is typical of the time. Huge swathes of the piece are in unison — either simply rhythmic parity, or both rhythm and pitch (albeit with octave variances across the sections). In addition, the extremely sparing use of percussion is reminiscent of an era where bands were tested on brass playing alone (percussion only being formally allowed into major competitions around 10 years prior). This is what makes Fantasy for Brass Band slightly unusual in the current era.
PRELUDE: Quite simply a fanfare call and answer. The upper sections of the band ‘call’ the fanfare, and the lower end respond with descending ‘answers’ (replaced by ascending answers at A). It’s strong, it’s an opening, and by the time we reach 3 bars before B, the piece has well and truly opened. With a flurry of sextuplet semiquaver runs, we’re into B — a quiet, exposed, soloistic section on flugel, followed by a tutti section on horn and baritone, with the bass line providing a wholly contrasting accompaniment. Whilst many would suggest this is a sixth section, that was not the composer’s intention — it is simply the cantabile/trio section of the opening. There is no change in tempo, just in feel. Indeed, by the end of C, a significant flurry of sextuplet runs brings the fanfare back with aplomb, before fading away — in tempo and dynamic — into the...
DANCE: A light-hearted, flowing, waltz-like affair commencing with a single solo cornet, before being repeated by all cornets and repiano, with the soprano taking the lead for the upper sections. In the lead up to G, the style changes — still in ‘waltz time’, but more a sarabande or polonaise — as the bass section takes the lead, before reprising the opening ‘dance’ motif. Whatever the views on the dance style, this really is light, with very precise accompaniment, precision timing, and retaining the lower end of the dynamic scale throughout... until shortly before the...
ELEGY: Quite honestly, this is haunting, it is moving, it sends shivers down the spine, it’s a lament — it does exactly what it says on the tin. If ever there were a section in a test piece that could be used for Remembrance Day, VE Day, or any day of reflection... this is it. The tune commences as a moving solo horn passage, replaced by an equally haunting cornet melody, later picked up by euphonium. Perhaps one feeling of slight disappointment is that it is simply too short — it leaves you begging for more. Alas, it’s over too soon, replaced by a complete inversion of style as we reach...
SCHERZO: From the Italian word meaning "joke," this is a playful section with a buoyant feel across all sections. It has the perfect mix of ‘fat’ notation in the tune, light — in style, not in volume — semiquaver passages, and fast unison runs passing between the upper and mid-to-lower lines. In complete contrast to the Elegy, this is a bit of fun — fun for the audience, fun (yet complex) for the band, and clearly fun for the composer. This is truly the section to cheer up those forlorn feelings of just a few bars earlier. It leads perfectly into the...
POSTLUDE: Exactly what it needs to be — a strong, definitive close. There is no ‘new’ writing here. It opens with a soft reminder of the Prelude before repeating it with a reverse echo, then throws the listener back into the Scherzo. From R onward, the piece builds in character, body, and dynamic before a final race to the end in the last 7 bars. The final triplet quavers are reminiscent of so many endings... however, I would have hoped for something slightly more unique. It’s almost as if the composer, after 271 bars, opted for a 'lived happily ever after' or 'it was all a dream' type of ending!
OVERALL: This is a classical test piece of its era. It’s surprising it’s never been used at the Spring Festival or British Open. It has pace, excitement, grief, and jollity — from an era where test pieces were both challenging and pleasing to the ear. It’s a testament to the brass band movement that a piece written for the Championship Section National is now played in the fourth tier of the British Open.
The key takeaway? This piece should stir the emotions: grandeur in the Prelude, joy in the Dance, sadness in the Elegy, fun in the Scherzo, and excitement in the Postlude. I would question anyone who could listen to this and describe it purely as a technical exercise without immense character!
This is a test piece of its era, has proved popular over the past 50 years, and is a classic example of Arnold’s work. As with all other test pieces on show, there are no ‘movements’, however there are 5 clear sections (Prelude, Dance, Elegy, Scherzo, and Postlude). No tempi are too rapid, however the composer’s use of semiquavers is to be noted (particularly in the opening, closing, and scherzo sections). Furthermore, whilst there are ‘solo’ sections, no solo is too expressive, too challenging, or should run the risk of clipped/split notes.
Of particular note is the overall scoring, which is typical of the time. Huge swathes of the piece are in unison — either simply rhythmic parity, or both rhythm and pitch (albeit with octave variances across the sections). In addition, the extremely sparing use of percussion is reminiscent of an era where bands were tested on brass playing alone (percussion only being formally allowed into major competitions around 10 years prior). This is what makes Fantasy for Brass Band slightly unusual in the current era.
PRELUDE: Quite simply a fanfare call and answer. The upper sections of the band ‘call’ the fanfare, and the lower end respond with descending ‘answers’ (replaced by ascending answers at A). It’s strong, it’s an opening, and by the time we reach 3 bars before B, the piece has well and truly opened. With a flurry of sextuplet semiquaver runs, we’re into B — a quiet, exposed, soloistic section on flugel, followed by a tutti section on horn and baritone, with the bass line providing a wholly contrasting accompaniment. Whilst many would suggest this is a sixth section, that was not the composer’s intention — it is simply the cantabile/trio section of the opening. There is no change in tempo, just in feel. Indeed, by the end of C, a significant flurry of sextuplet runs brings the fanfare back with aplomb, before fading away — in tempo and dynamic — into the...
DANCE: A light-hearted, flowing, waltz-like affair commencing with a single solo cornet, before being repeated by all cornets and repiano, with the soprano taking the lead for the upper sections. In the lead up to G, the style changes — still in ‘waltz time’, but more a sarabande or polonaise — as the bass section takes the lead, before reprising the opening ‘dance’ motif. Whatever the views on the dance style, this really is light, with very precise accompaniment, precision timing, and retaining the lower end of the dynamic scale throughout... until shortly before the...
ELEGY: Quite honestly, this is haunting, it is moving, it sends shivers down the spine, it’s a lament — it does exactly what it says on the tin. If ever there were a section in a test piece that could be used for Remembrance Day, VE Day, or any day of reflection... this is it. The tune commences as a moving solo horn passage, replaced by an equally haunting cornet melody, later picked up by euphonium. Perhaps one feeling of slight disappointment is that it is simply too short — it leaves you begging for more. Alas, it’s over too soon, replaced by a complete inversion of style as we reach...
SCHERZO: From the Italian word meaning "joke," this is a playful section with a buoyant feel across all sections. It has the perfect mix of ‘fat’ notation in the tune, light — in style, not in volume — semiquaver passages, and fast unison runs passing between the upper and mid-to-lower lines. In complete contrast to the Elegy, this is a bit of fun — fun for the audience, fun (yet complex) for the band, and clearly fun for the composer. This is truly the section to cheer up those forlorn feelings of just a few bars earlier. It leads perfectly into the...
POSTLUDE: Exactly what it needs to be — a strong, definitive close. There is no ‘new’ writing here. It opens with a soft reminder of the Prelude before repeating it with a reverse echo, then throws the listener back into the Scherzo. From R onward, the piece builds in character, body, and dynamic before a final race to the end in the last 7 bars. The final triplet quavers are reminiscent of so many endings... however, I would have hoped for something slightly more unique. It’s almost as if the composer, after 271 bars, opted for a 'lived happily ever after' or 'it was all a dream' type of ending!
OVERALL: This is a classical test piece of its era. It’s surprising it’s never been used at the Spring Festival or British Open. It has pace, excitement, grief, and jollity — from an era where test pieces were both challenging and pleasing to the ear. It’s a testament to the brass band movement that a piece written for the Championship Section National is now played in the fourth tier of the British Open.
The key takeaway? This piece should stir the emotions: grandeur in the Prelude, joy in the Dance, sadness in the Elegy, fun in the Scherzo, and excitement in the Postlude. I would question anyone who could listen to this and describe it purely as a technical exercise without immense character!
FANTASY FOR BRASS BAND - MY UNEDUCATED COMMENTS AND PERSONAL THOUGHTS
Fantasy for Brass Band is fairly typical of Malcolm Arnold. His use of the cornets to act as fanfare trumpets, and purveyors of the tune, is matched quite clearly with the use of lower brass to add emphasis and power in mutual support. It is a technical piece, but also a melodious one, and any band should seek the medium between approaching this as a study – in fingering, tonguing and dynamics – and the overall performance of a concert composition.
Whilst important (specifically in the Elegy), the lyrical, exposed and solo sections are minimal, and whilst they need to be played with passion, they are relatively straightforward. In contrast (and indeed in contrast to the pieces in the other tiers/sections), the strong, and often rapid, fanfares, Scherzo, and dances are a key pressure point.
That said, from a percussion perspective... there isn’t much of one — which, in reality, makes the need for the band to apply greater levels of concentration even more relevant. I certainly can’t see any band needing a van to bring an array of kit for Saturday morning practice!
There is little opportunity to take any artistic liberties with timing or style in this piece. Every section — even the Elegy — is in strict time, and whilst there are a few notes for ritardando and accelerando, all other parts should be as written in the book! Indeed, fanfares, dances, and the 'jest' of the Scherzo would be lost if the speed adopted is either too rapid or too slow.
The composer has been relatively sparing in his use of articulation marks – somewhat different to more modern compositions. However, that was the style at the time... a fanfare would be played ‘as a fanfare’, triplets would have a slight leading edge, etc. That said, where articulation is marked — it is clear the composer wanted it! Indeed, as was also typical of the era, articulation marks were often included specifically to highlight points where the expected style might not be obvious. The key issue remains: what does the adjudicator want in relation to general articulation — is it how Cory played it in 1974?
In contrast to the articulation, the composer has been exceptionally pedantic in relation to dynamics.In the fanfare sections, fp-crescendos need to be perfectly gauged. The sudden drop to p at B needs careful control — particularly in the cornet/trombone backings. Throughout the piece, there are some huge crescendos which require the correct starting point (often a new dynamic) and must resolve exactly as stated. In solo sections, allow the soloist to shine — but don’t leave them exposed. As for pp markings (which today might be marked ppp), the intention for delicacy still stands. All of the above said, much of the piece is written at ff — particularly in the tutti sections — which can very easily become a ‘wall of noise’. Careful management is required — it should be a full sound, not a forced one, and the listener should be able to hear the BBb bass clearly underneath the higher-pitched instruments (the cornets and sop will cut through anyway).
In terms of accuracy, I believe this piece is deserving of forensic treatment. The work is not overly challenging, but the recurring use of tutti semiquaver runs, the stark fanfares, and the passing of phrases throughout the band cover the majority of the piece. It’s all about the band playing together — every single semiquaver must be in perfect time, the final note in a phrase must lead directly onto the first note in the next, and the unison movement in the slower sections must leave no room for variation. Indeed, when considering the piece overall, any band that is slightly out of time, any syncopation that is imprecise, or any error (for example, in the fanfare where the cornet and bass don't align), may see considerable deductions.
For solos, they are nice, they are expressive (cantabile = singing style), they are important — and they need to be extremely moving, especially in the Elegy. However, they are not as technically challenging as many pieces. The solos are simply a vocalist telling a story — not a diva making a huge statement. Compassion and passion are the order of the day. I will, however, be paying specific notice to the whip solo! If you have a spare percussionist (which you almost certainly will), this is their moment to shine.
Aside from a couple of top Ds, there shouldn’t be much to worry about where intonation is concerned. However — and this is the whole issue — there is little excuse for poor intonation and tuning. Exceptional attention must be paid to the unison and tutti parts — especially in the slower sections — which should simply sound like a single voice (unison) or a very close harmony choir (tutti). Furthermore, given that much of this is scored at ff, I would expect adjudicators to look closely at intonation. Don’t be tempted to blow out of tune — a band playing at f+½ in tune is much better than one blowing the cobwebs out with wild variations!
To round off. I feel this is a good choice for the Senior Trophy. I do not believe it should over-face any band in principle. The solos are simple enough — and sparingly used. Much of the phrasing is standard (e.g. the fanfares could have been lifted from many a period piece). There are some tricky runs (sextuplets) which hold huge potential for error — particularly when a passage is played by one instrument and picked up by another. However, in general, the rhythms are sound and should not cause too much worry. In brief, all I would wish to hear is a band who can play this cleanly (perfection), adhere to the dynamics, observe the written and 'unwritten' articulation, and provide all of the feelings I want to experience: grandeur, dance, sadness, and fun!
Where Will It Be Won?
Quite simply, I feel this will be won by the band who delivers a clean, accurate, and moving performance. Solos aren’t likely to cause any overexcitement — however, being able to put a cigarette paper between the band parts in the tutti sections will prove essential. Realistically, all I would say is: stick to the script, follow the dynamics and tempi, and — if you can cause the audience to feel shivers running up and down their spine in the Elegy — that would be an added bonus!3
Whilst important (specifically in the Elegy), the lyrical, exposed and solo sections are minimal, and whilst they need to be played with passion, they are relatively straightforward. In contrast (and indeed in contrast to the pieces in the other tiers/sections), the strong, and often rapid, fanfares, Scherzo, and dances are a key pressure point.
That said, from a percussion perspective... there isn’t much of one — which, in reality, makes the need for the band to apply greater levels of concentration even more relevant. I certainly can’t see any band needing a van to bring an array of kit for Saturday morning practice!
There is little opportunity to take any artistic liberties with timing or style in this piece. Every section — even the Elegy — is in strict time, and whilst there are a few notes for ritardando and accelerando, all other parts should be as written in the book! Indeed, fanfares, dances, and the 'jest' of the Scherzo would be lost if the speed adopted is either too rapid or too slow.
The composer has been relatively sparing in his use of articulation marks – somewhat different to more modern compositions. However, that was the style at the time... a fanfare would be played ‘as a fanfare’, triplets would have a slight leading edge, etc. That said, where articulation is marked — it is clear the composer wanted it! Indeed, as was also typical of the era, articulation marks were often included specifically to highlight points where the expected style might not be obvious. The key issue remains: what does the adjudicator want in relation to general articulation — is it how Cory played it in 1974?
In contrast to the articulation, the composer has been exceptionally pedantic in relation to dynamics.In the fanfare sections, fp-crescendos need to be perfectly gauged. The sudden drop to p at B needs careful control — particularly in the cornet/trombone backings. Throughout the piece, there are some huge crescendos which require the correct starting point (often a new dynamic) and must resolve exactly as stated. In solo sections, allow the soloist to shine — but don’t leave them exposed. As for pp markings (which today might be marked ppp), the intention for delicacy still stands. All of the above said, much of the piece is written at ff — particularly in the tutti sections — which can very easily become a ‘wall of noise’. Careful management is required — it should be a full sound, not a forced one, and the listener should be able to hear the BBb bass clearly underneath the higher-pitched instruments (the cornets and sop will cut through anyway).
In terms of accuracy, I believe this piece is deserving of forensic treatment. The work is not overly challenging, but the recurring use of tutti semiquaver runs, the stark fanfares, and the passing of phrases throughout the band cover the majority of the piece. It’s all about the band playing together — every single semiquaver must be in perfect time, the final note in a phrase must lead directly onto the first note in the next, and the unison movement in the slower sections must leave no room for variation. Indeed, when considering the piece overall, any band that is slightly out of time, any syncopation that is imprecise, or any error (for example, in the fanfare where the cornet and bass don't align), may see considerable deductions.
For solos, they are nice, they are expressive (cantabile = singing style), they are important — and they need to be extremely moving, especially in the Elegy. However, they are not as technically challenging as many pieces. The solos are simply a vocalist telling a story — not a diva making a huge statement. Compassion and passion are the order of the day. I will, however, be paying specific notice to the whip solo! If you have a spare percussionist (which you almost certainly will), this is their moment to shine.
Aside from a couple of top Ds, there shouldn’t be much to worry about where intonation is concerned. However — and this is the whole issue — there is little excuse for poor intonation and tuning. Exceptional attention must be paid to the unison and tutti parts — especially in the slower sections — which should simply sound like a single voice (unison) or a very close harmony choir (tutti). Furthermore, given that much of this is scored at ff, I would expect adjudicators to look closely at intonation. Don’t be tempted to blow out of tune — a band playing at f+½ in tune is much better than one blowing the cobwebs out with wild variations!
To round off. I feel this is a good choice for the Senior Trophy. I do not believe it should over-face any band in principle. The solos are simple enough — and sparingly used. Much of the phrasing is standard (e.g. the fanfares could have been lifted from many a period piece). There are some tricky runs (sextuplets) which hold huge potential for error — particularly when a passage is played by one instrument and picked up by another. However, in general, the rhythms are sound and should not cause too much worry. In brief, all I would wish to hear is a band who can play this cleanly (perfection), adhere to the dynamics, observe the written and 'unwritten' articulation, and provide all of the feelings I want to experience: grandeur, dance, sadness, and fun!
Where Will It Be Won?
Quite simply, I feel this will be won by the band who delivers a clean, accurate, and moving performance. Solos aren’t likely to cause any overexcitement — however, being able to put a cigarette paper between the band parts in the tutti sections will prove essential. Realistically, all I would say is: stick to the script, follow the dynamics and tempi, and — if you can cause the audience to feel shivers running up and down their spine in the Elegy — that would be an added bonus!3