Evolution of Bands -With Warlike Airs

With Walike Air and Martial Ayres

Allan Ferguson

Taken from THE SCABBARD (Journal of the MMSI) Vol. XIV 1981

Part 1

Music and war do not seem to have any relation at all to modern observers; however, any historian or military researcher will be very quick to point out that music served a vital function in the past. Musicians were not merely supernumeraries, although they were not always accorded great affection for the service they provided. The music was always in the thick of battle and war, whether in the front, beating out the call to advance, or in camp, performing the least favored duty of beating the Reveille and Taps.

The ironic part, and one of the major reasons for writing this series, is that the music does not always appear in the standard references as the necessary item it is. Very few books recount the roles of drummers, fifers, buglers and bandsmen in the War of 1812. Very few memoirs and anecdotal histories deal with the music, except for the occasional reference in general orders that the music needed to improve or the separate listings of casualties in the music. Worse yet, a recent search done by University Microfilms located only eight doctoral dissertations done in the general subject of military music – not even modern scholars are trying to bring the subject out of the dark. Paucity of information rules the study and conjecture, though totally abhorrent, must be allowed in order to make any understanding possible.

One possible explanation for this paucity of information may be explained by the notion that music was so much a part of military life that no one took the pains to write about this aspect of soldiering. This is true even today, for no one would make a point of commenting on hearing the Marines Band playing ‘Semper Felelis’ and ‘The Marines Hymn’ or a Navy choir sing ‘Eternal Father, strong to save.’ The difference lies mainly in the use; the modern band is primarily a ceremonial appurtenance, whereas the old army could not exist without its musicians.

The music to be heard was certainly variable, both in quantity and quality. There is no definite way of knowing what was played where and when, except for those rare occasions when someone felt a responsibility to write down something he felt was extraordinary or significantly. Two tunes have gained a place in the history books this way, the two tunes being Handel’s ‘Dead March’ from the oratorio Saul and ‘Yankee Doodle’ the former is reputed to have been played by Hull’s music as the troops marched from Fort Dearborn into capture and the later has been noted as having been used by three commanders in as many engagements. The first use of Yankee Doodle was a victory cry when the Canadian squadron sailed away from its abortive attempt upon Sackets Harbor on 19 July 1812; the last two recorded uses were as rallying cries. General Alexander Symth wanted to use it as the signal to attack in his November 1812 expedition, and General Zebulon M. Pike used it as a bona fide rallying cry in the April 1813 attack on York

In trying to flesh out the repertoire of the 1812 musician one discovers a great obstacle; there is little authentic and verifiable music to be found. The greatest reasons for this may be that the music itself was personal property or that the music was destroyed when it became out-dated. The result is the same – libraries such as the one kept by the Marines Museum do not have the music. One may use newspaper references to a certain degree and such a method will yield the following possible tunes: Hail to the Chief (first printed in the US in 1812); Jefferson’s March, and Landlady of France (tune used for the ballad The Constitution and the Guerriere. The definite winners in a popularity poll and by conjecture for greater use would be Washington’s March, Hail Columbia and To Anacreon in Heaven (currently the tune to The Star Spangled Banner). There are many more tunes, but many are just not that well known. If you do read music, The Company of Fifers and Drummers sells an inexpensive edition of the Martial Music of Camp Dupont. The collection of tunes purports to be the collection of music used by the troops at Camp Dupont and seems to true enough in its claim. The original dates from 1815.

In working on this series I would have liked to include a section on solider songs, the risqué and racy side to military music. Unfortunately this notion was forced to be rejected because there is no information which could be trusted. Lewis Winstock whose Songs & Music of the Redcoats answers almost all questions from the time of the English Civil War to the Boer War with regards to music, dismisses the War of 1812 in one paragraph because he lacked the information by which he could make an intelligent explanation. This covers only the British side but rest assured that the American story is no better off. The two most quoted songs post-date the war being the Star Spangled Banner and the Hunters of Kentucky. Most of the tunes reproduced in Vera Brodsky Lawrence’s Music for Patriots Politicians and Presidents deal with naval victories which could not mean much (in my opinion) to an underfed and over-worked infantryman. Soldiers may have indulged in the singing of sacred songs as was common in for hymn-singing to be considered as a proper form of social activity.

This is the introduction to the rest of the series which will contain a section devoted to the music of the United States Marines, a section to the field music and one to the bands. At no time should the discussion get so technical as to leave those of you who have tin years out in the cold with nothing to think about. Remember, the music was not just for the men in the bands but for the men who lived within the sound of them music. Thus, perhaps some of you may wish to discuss the ideas I put forth and I hope you do. It may not effect the firepower of your battalion, but it does affect morale and overall efficiency. Music is a strange and almost unaccountable force given this idea.

Part 2

The fairest way to begin the actual process of reviewing the state of music during the War of 1812 period is to look at the music of the United States Marines. The reasons should be quite clear: the Corps lays a valid claim to having the oldest continuously functioning military band in this country: it has maintained surprising good records for this early period; and it somehow managed to acquire both a band and field music during a period of limited military expenditure. In brief the music of the Marines honestly represents music in almost all phases of military music.

Let us first distinguish between field music and bands. The field music is that part of martial musical establishment which is part of normal company or detachment strength, serving as a sort of musical telegraph, time keeper and morale booster. The pay for such musicians in the Marines was originally $7 per month, or exactly halfway between the payoff a private and of a corporal ($6 and $8 respectively). The band, on the other hand was almost solely a phenomenon associated with a garrison or in the Corps’ case at the Barracks, serving at the commander’s discretion. Initially the band was kept by means of a subscription fund entered into by the officers, however, this fund was eventually depleted. Standard procedure for the era allowed the band to be made up of men enlisted as rank and file, but detailed to the musick more or less permanently; such may be true for the Marines. At any rate, the band served in ceremonial functions in Washington, eventually being recognized as the President’s band as well.

The typical stations for duty for the field music included service on board the ships of the Navy, at the various navy yards, in garrison in Washington and on specific details, such as recruiting parties. Common usage called for the use of fife and drum together in equal numbers, such as the assignment of one fife and one drum to each navy yard. In 1799, Commandant William Ward Burrows asked the Secretary of Navy to increase the total quota for the music from 32 each to 40 each., the latter being the number of ships that needed music. Actually, Burrows was in more of a bind than appears evident, as the law could have been construed to limit the number to only 24 fifers and 24 drummers. In 1814 this authorized strength was increased to 46 of each instrument from 25 and this was naturally decreased after the war in 1817.

This configuration would be an example of the ‘Harmoniemusik’ arrangement that was used during the American Revolution and by most military bands at this time. The standard band had pairs of; oboes and/or clarinets, French horns and bassoons. In 1812 another request was made for instruments this time for: A Bugle-horn – if trumpet kind – 2 F Clarinets – and a pair of cymbals. Occasionally the leader was called upon to play the cymbals during the Revolution, but the Marines seems to be showing a leaning toward the Turkish Music craze that Europe had succumbed to during the Napoleonic era. The reason for this statement is grounded upon the use of the cymbals with the use of a bass drum.

Turkish music is basically the name bestowed upon a conspicuous rhythm made of: bass drum, cymbals, a kettledrum or tenor drum, tambourine and a ‘jingling johnny’. These percussion instruments were played on by blacks in
Europe, however there is nothing to suggest that this was adopted in this country. The final result is that the adding this ‘Janissary’ element to the band is that the band needs to be enlarged with melody instruments to overcome the added noise of the percussion. This may account for the request for more instruments which in itself appears to be as modest as the number of Turkish instruments named in the purchase orders (namely the bass drum and cymbals).

One quality much desired inn band musicians of the time was the ability to play upon the stringed instruments. Evidently, this is true as well for the Marines Band, for cello strings were sent to the band in 1806,a s well as a collection of sacred songs suitable for playing in church. Frankly, strings would certainly be more fitting for an officer’s mess or reception than a full band of oboes and clarinets. Versatility, both in instruments played and types of music played behooved a good band.

At some time during the War of 1812 the Marines adopted the bugle into the field music. The only letter reference to this in the form of a letter from Captain William Bainbridge to the Secretary of the Navy complaining about the failure to punish a ‘Bugleman of the Chesapeake’. The unlucky musician was sentenced to received 300 lashes which were reduced to 100 by the President; as of 6 July 1814 he had received none because he was confined to the Marines Barracks.

The Marines showed good measure of forethought in the establishment of a school to train young lads in the art of military music. The goal was to use the school for boys in the 13-16 years age bracket and then assign them as posts became vacant or were created. Do not fall for that romantic notion that young drummer boys served with their more manly compatriots; the duties of any shipboard or land-based drummer were too important to be given to a child. The school, incidentally proved to be a training ground for NCO’s as well as musicians by virtue of the fact that musicians had to be trained in almost every aspect of military duty. One example of this is to be found with the career of Venerando Pulizzi, the third drum major of the Corps. Although he was not trained in Washington as a musician, he eventually resigned his post as drum major to become a sergeant and later sergeant major in the Marines.

The uniform of the Marines music was essentially the same as that of the rank and file, with the exception that the coats were of reversed colors. These scarlet and blue coats were reported to have cost $8 each in 1812. In 1806 the plumes on the caps were made of scarlet and blue features, ‘of moderate size’, however, that may not have been true in 1812. The 1806 letter which describes the plumes also made note of a request for 20 yards of lace and two pairs of epaulettes for the drum major and sergeant major. (Please bear in mind that the drum major was an enlisted man and not any sort of officer.) The side arm for the music, as was typical for the era, was a sword carried on a shoulder belt.

One must assume that the drums were made of wood, as were most military drums in the US at this time. Captain Daniel Carmick did write to the Commandant that he had had great difficulty in obtaining brass drums in the Mediterranean in 1802. This may represent an attempt on part of the Marines to copy European conventions, but as noted in the letter, the idea was for naught. One may reconstruct the appearance of the drums through a purchase order made by Commandant Franklin Wharton in April 1814. ‘ 24 New Drums with the eagle rather smaller than is now painted so as to admit of a label or scrowl over the head of the eagle or from its beak with the Motto, United States Marines’. Since brass drums were not painted, the material must have been wood.

The band, which rarely played with the field music dates back to a purchase order of 31 August 1800 for ‘2 French Horns, 2 C clarinets, 1 Bassoon, 1 Bass Drum, 2 feet & ½ long and 2 feet in diameter.This segment, as well as the next, is devoted to the field music of the War of 1812, that portion of military music devised to wake men up, send them off to their fires to cook breakfast, dig emplacements and get water. This segment deals with the fifes and drums, usually considered the main source of music for the military for this period, while part four will deal the entire problem of bugle horns.

No one can ever deny that the military life requires strict regulation and a means to regulate the actions of the men in the ranks. The drum fills the role of a regulator well because it is eminently portable, loud enough to be heard by the entire unit and relatively easy to play. The fife, though occasionally used alone after tattoo and when the drummer was not available, primarily provided melody to the drum beat.

No fewer than four drum troops were printed in the years immediately prior to the war and as anything goes, these tutors were not identical. This created the typical American problem of confusion within the ranks of drummers as to which call was correct and necessitated the use of schools and extra practice time to straighten out the calls whenever units from two different establishments mustered together. The federal services adopted one method of beating, that of Marine Drum Major Charles S. Ashworth. This did set a standard and a sailor could understand the other’s call with no difficulty.

(1)The second volume of Military Uniforms in America contains several illustrations of musicians and let it suffice to say that almost all are in the reversed color convention normally accepted as correct. One plate does show the drum and describes it in no uncertain terms. The shell was made of white oak and varnished with ‘best Copal varnish’ and the hoops were painted with ‘best vermillion.’ The shells were emblazoned with an: eagle painted in the best manner on a blue ground with thirteen stars and thirteen stripes, the ground to extend 22 inches round the shell. (2) The dimensions of the drum were probably around 16 inches in diameter and between 12 and 15 inches in depth.

The Martial Music of Camp Dupont provides as close a view to the actual music heard in camp as is currently possible. This little volume was arranged for the piano and/or two flute, fifes or violins by R. Taylor in 1814 or 1815 and thus lacks any hint of the appropriate drum beat to accompany the melody. The following is a list of the major calls included in the book; numbering in parentheses refers to the number of melodies within that particular call.

Reveille (10) Drummer’s Call Pioneers’ March Breakfast Call Troop (with doublings) Short Troop Doctor’s or Church Call Roast Beef (Dinner) Retreat Tattoo (3) The General also lists a slow march (Slow March of Camp Dupont) and march for review (French Grenadier’s March). The slow march leaves an impression that, although it might have been used as the march to march off the guard, it might also have been an original march by Taylor. In the second section Taylor acknowledges authorship of two marches for band. Taylor omits any reference to drum beats proper except to say that there are some beats suited for the drum alone, and names them: Adjutant’s Call,
First Sergeant’s Call, Non-Commissioned Officer’s Call Water Call Whiskey Call Wood Call Assembly

These certainly were drum beats and necessary ones at that for the efficient regulation of a camp, but certainly calls are absolutely missing. Taylor gives a dead march, which is neither the famous ‘Roslin Castle’ nor the ‘Dead March’ from Handel’s Saul, but gives no ‘Rogue’s March, no ‘To Arms’ and no other specific calls. Camp Dupont may indeed be a record of the music of the Pennsylvania volunteers installation, but there are some gaps and questionable entries which make me think twice of its total truth.

Those who choose to listen to such music may pick either the Company of Military Historian’s Military Music in America Volume 2 (the War of 1812) or Colonial Williamsburg Presents the Fifes and the Band of Musik. Both were recorded under the direction of George P. Carroll, however, the Williamsburg recording does more justice to the duty portion of the field music. (This recording is not listed in the current a/v catalogs put out by that historic village. He current Musick Master, John Moore, has put out two records of which I have heard only the later. It is simply good fife and drum music, but not especially authentic or accurate to the concept of field music.) The one flaw in the Company record is the band arrangement of the ‘Ca Ira’ (Downfall of Paris), which happens to be one of Taylor’s Reveille tunes. The piano part in the book reads like a piano part and not like a simplified band arrangement thus making the bass or serpent (tuba) line very difficult. The musician who played was extremely good, but that does not account for an accurate arrangement.

I would like to close this section by harkening back to an incident that happened during the American Revolution. A Superintendent of Music was appointed to oversee and standardize the music in Washington’s army. In compliance to this duty, he called in the musicians and requested them to surrender their shrill instruments auricular pain (fifes) so that they might be pitched. The hope was to assign all instruments of like pitch to the same regiment, a feat that had been impossible when only the Quarter Master was involved in issuing fifes (3). It does not take a grand flight of imagination to see how this might have been true for the War of 1812 as well. Standards were not rigid and there was no making sure that fifes in New York sounded the same as a fife to an infantry regiment in the US Army. In brief, think of the grotesque potential of mustering twenty fifers from as many establishments and asking them to play the same note. It might take imagination to call it music.

Notes:

1.File on Marine Band Leader, from Marines Historical Center

2.MULA pp26-27

3.Raoul Camus, Military Music of the American Revolution p129

Part 4

The standard view on bugle-horns and trumpets for the War of 1812 rings like official dogma. Ask anyone who pretends even rudimentary knowledge of military music and he will tell you that bugle-horns were much more like hunting horns than modern bugles are, in respect to both sound and shape. Things should be so simple, however, because the subject of bugles really ought to be classed as ‘open’ for re-inspection.

To define things is the first order of the day. A bugle or bugle-horn is a conical length of tubing with a mouth=-piece and is folded over into one of three basic designs. Its sound is quite mellow, being much like that of the modern flugelhorn (1), and instrument currently popular with some jazz musicians (e.g. Chuck Mangione). The trumpet, however, is a cylindrical pipe of 7 feet in length with a mouth piece, and usually folded over twice into the shape still common for that instrument. Its sound is usually very bright and sharp, in contrast to that of the bugle. Do not confuse the modern ‘bugle’ with the real instrument: today’s instrument is technically a trumpet and was even designated ‘field trumpet’ at one time.

Traditionally, the trumpet has been the instrument of mounted troops with the bugle being the instrument for dismounted elites, especially light and rifle companies. Raoul Camus make the statement that during the Revolution dragoons used both instruments, following the above tradition for mounted or dismounted service (2). Brass instruments are very effective as signaling instruments for both sorts of service because in favor of such instruments for these elite corps is that two buglers (or trumpeters) could be conveniently divided if the troop or company had to be divided for special duty , whereas a normal infantry company, if divided, would have to give one half a fife and the other a drum. As of this time, there is little information available to prove whether the US Light Dragoons (1812) used which instrument, or both, since often dismounted service prevailed in some quarters and the government consistently confused the term bugle, bugle-horn and trumpet. (3)

The three shapes for the bugle provide a good bit of material for discussion. Each has its merits and weaknesses, in providing which was the ‘true’ pattern for US bugles in the War of 1812 and until an original is located, the discussion is still open.

The most familiar shape for the bugle for those who have seen H. Charles McBarron’s illustrations of US riflemen is what one author calls the ‘Hanoverian’ bugle-horn. This is indeed a strong candidate for the title of the official horn, but there are some drawbacks. This instrument, when shown in scale size, is relatively large and a bit awkward. Furthermore, the player would have to face backwards in order for the sound to carry to the front.

The hunting horn was the main candidate for bugle-horn in Harold Peterson’s Book of the Continental Soldier. His arguments are convincing within the scope of that period, but are no more convincing than the Hanoverian horn for the War of 1812. This instrument would share almost all the weaknesses of the above-mentioned horn and add on yet another. The bugle-horn is indeed a descendant of the hunting horn but by 1812 the hunting horn would have been a French horn type and thus relatively expensive to produce. It would seem to be unlikely that the Army would give out an expensive band instrument to riflemen who wanted the horn only for its signaling ability.

Figure 3 shows what Bryan Fosten calls the 1815 pattern bugle-horn (4) and is very definitely a British item. It is roughly trumpet-shaped and comparatively small, thus easy to carry around. It throws its sound forward, in the direction of the troops who are to hear its calls. The bugle had acquired this shape by 1800 in Britain and was even used as the basis for another instrument, the keyed bugle. This instrument which has keys like a saxophone was invented in 1811 in Ireland. The final argument in favor of accepting this as the US pattern comes from a Marine’s purchase order for instruments: it requested a bugle-horn ‘if trumpet kind’.

Pictorial evidence clearly straddles the fence on this question. The US Rifle Regiment cap plate in 1812 showed the Hanoverian type horn, but in 1814 showed the hunting horn. British light infantry have always used the Hanoverian shape, but the King’s Own Light Infantry today uses the hunting horn, or Roman, horn. In favor of the third shape, one can use a cartoon by Gillray (ca. 1796) which shows John Bull leading infantry troops with what appears to be short trumpet, or an 1804 watercolor of British riflemen using this shape bugle (in contrast to Hanoverian horn insignia). This sort of help does not assist in settling the matter, but merely adds fuel to the discussion at large. (5)

There is no hard evidence at all to show which pattern or patterns were in use during the War of 1812. The records show that bugles were issued the regular rifles companies (two per company) but a trumpet was issued to the First Rifle Regiment’s recruiting service in Philadelphia in August 1814. As for trumpets, the main problem is in proving whether a troop actually had the instrument. One notice of muster for the Boston Troop of Light Dragoons shows what may be taken for a trumpet, complete with banner. (6) Given the normal state of the supply system and the confused nomenclature, just about anything concerning these brass instruments is possible.

Most bugle and trumpet calls are limited to that five lower pitches of the instrument. Jack Cassin-Scott alleges that the bugle and trumpet calls were identical for the British Army, with trumpet calls sounding an octave lower. (7) That author, however, has made some comments that do not stand up well to the truth, thus making that statement and others relatively suspect. Treat it with caution.

The Company’s record of War of 1812 music contains several examples of bugle calls played upon French horns (in keeping with the hunting horn theory). The calls are drawn from Duane’s Handbook for Riflemen, which, according to the jacket notes, are very similar to British calls of the period. (Two examples from that book are included with the illustrations). That book contains 61 different signals and calls, the majority being signals, such as ‘form echelons’ and ‘enemy is cavalry’. It would be folly to say that Duane is the only source for bugle calls, especially since no seemed to have agreed upon which method of discipline was the best for US troops.

The only hint to be found in The Martial Music of Camp Dupont is in the second section, or band music section. Certain marches contain bugle solos, such as Washington Artillery’s March and March of the Riflemen. The solo part is written in the melody (fife, flute or oboe part) line and is in the same register as the melody preceding the solo. Perhaps this indicates that bugle parts were played on high pitched instruments, as Cassin-Scott says or just that it was easier to write the part in that way.

The band section also contains three marches by the arranger R. Taylor that are particularly well suited for the early style brass band. The marches for the 1st and 2nd Troops of City Cavalry may be heard on the Williamsburg recording: the ‘Flying Artillery March’ is on the Company record. Again, as in the fife and rum calls of the day, the Williamsburg record is the more convincing in portraying the music authentically. These marches, incidentally, are all very good, but one might better question the notion that these marches were actually used by the units named unless Taylor wrote the music before that summer spent at Camp Dupont.

The one assumption that may eventually gain recognition is that bugles were not rare during the War of 1812. The fact that the solos appear in Camp Dupont point that they were used, at least by state forces. Major David B. Douglas wrote in his recollections of his service as a lieutenant during the 1814 campaign that he heard the regimental drum and bugle calls. Granted, such passing references account for little in standard history but such a reference (to bugle calls) would certainly stand out as unusual in the numerous Revolution memoirs, where fife and drums predominate. If only we could find even that much about the dragoons’ trumpet!

Notes:

1.Raoul Camus, personal correspondence 11 February 1980

2. Military Music in the American Revolution

3. H. Charles McBarron, personal correspondence 8 January 1980

4. Soldiers of the Napoleonic Wars, ‘British Foot Guards at Waterloo’ Almark Publications

5. McBarron, personal correspondence

6. do

7.Military Bands and their Uniforms, Blandford Press 1978

A Essay on Old time Bands and Their Instruments
Essay by Bob Hoe
From the Heritage of the March Series records 35 / 36

It is highly probable that the full and complete story of the dates of compositions and the arrangers of the Grafulla marches on this record will never be known. Noting the year of his death as compared to the publication dates shown above will prove interesting.

To fully understand the statement made in the first sentence, one must delve deeply into the subject of the instrumentation of various types of bands from time of Grafuula was nearing the end of his life, the 1870’s and on into the early years of the 20th century.

Let us commence by considering the word ‘instrumentation’, this word connotes two basically different things. First, the actual number of each instrument existing in a given band at a given time. And, second, the printed music being used by that band. There are not mutually exclusive, not are they necessarily the same.

Most research into the subject of bands of the late 19th and early 20th centuries has dealt with the top professional bands of the era, just as examples – Sousa’s (both his professional traveling band, and the Marine band when he led it). Gilmore’s, Grafulla’s, Reeves, Brooke’s, etc. Little, if any, thought has apparently been given to the typical ‘Town Band’ of that time. There were literally thousands of them, from one end of the country to the other. Orchestras such as we know today hardly existed in the smaller communities of the country, and the professional bands (excluding the circus) until later years of Sousa’s time, were mostly confined in their appearances to the larger cities, which could produce larger crowds and hence, larger income with which to pay the players. The circus bands were generally of a very small size; it is most difficult to fit a large band on the typical band wagons on which the band played during the parade through the town.

So, let us consider just what was the instrumentation of the ‘town bands’. Basically they were mostly, in some cases completely, brass, with no woodwinds at all. In fact, very often these bands were called ‘Brass Band’ or ‘Cornet Band’. DO NOT confuse these bands with the British Brass bands of today, which are circumscribed in their instrumentation and number of players for reasons having to do with their ‘contesting’ and not because the players would not be available if desired.

The basic instrument was the cornet (trumpets as we know them today were never used, or even known). The Eb cornet was the leading instrument and Eb cornets also shared in playing the lmelodic line. Eb altos were always in evidence – sometimes little upright instruments, same as used in British Brass bands today, and later on sometimes ‘the poor mans French horn’, which variously as the ‘mellophone’ or ‘peck horn’.

Slide trombones were just coming into common use during this time and many bands had only ‘tenors’ which were not too different from the German tenor hors or the British baritone, being valved instruments. American type baritones were used, although a few bands had true euphoniums, but the same part was used by whichever instrument was present in the band. Mostly the basses (tubas) were Eb size, rather than the larger and heavier (an more expensive) BBb type.

Of course, all bands had a drum section – but the instruments played were 99% snare (side) drum and bass drum and cymbals. There was very little of the great emphasis on the other instruments that felt to be necessary to a full percussion section today. In fact, if someone had walked into the band room of a typical town band in 1900 and spoken of the ‘percussion section’ no one would have had the slightest idea what he was taking about.

Now as to the woodwinds – the basic instrument which was felt to be a real necessity (and relatively inexpensive) was the piccolo. Flutes were unheard of, as was the more ‘strange instruments’ such as the saxophones, and alto and bass clarinets. The oboes and bassoon were out of the question, no such were ever seen.

The other two woodwinds used were the Eb clarinet and the Bb clarinet, but they existed in very limited quantities in those days. If a town band had one clarinet that was fine, if somehow they managed to scrape up both an Eb and Bb or two, that put them in a special class, bigger and maybe better than the band in the town down the road. Such bands were often referred to as ‘brass and reed bands’.

It must be remembered that every musician was expected to buy and own his own personal instrument and if nobody wanted to play clarinet, well, the band got along without any.

Now it is obvious, since the great numbers of this type of band provided a large and lucrative market to publishers of music, that they would attempt to satisfy the needs of them. However, to sell these bands required music that was not too difficult,a nd that was ARRANGED in such a manner that it ‘sounded good’ no matter how many clarinets a band did or didn’t have, etc.

In order to achieve this result it was necessary to write into the printed music much ‘doubling of parts’. A composer or arranger might devoutly wish that a certain passage be played on a bassoon, but if the great majority of bands had no bassoon, what was the poor man to do? He could either leave out the particular passage, or have it published (printed) in such a way that it could be played by the instrument in common use, nearest in sound to the bassoon (in that case it would be the baritone-euphonium). There fore a great deal of ‘cross-cueing’ was necessary, or in the very simplest of arrangements, where no part at all was printed for the bassoon, it was given to the baritone without further ado.

As a result of this particular market problem, the various publishers of the day standardized their own ‘sets of parts’ (what parts were printed) without any regard for what other publishers were doing. It is most interesting to trace the evolution of ‘saxophone parts’, probably the first to print them was the firm of Carl Fischer, who began to do so about 1900. Concurrently Barnhouse was not printing any sax parts at all. Not many years alter Barnhouse editions showed in the upper righ corner of the Solo Bb cornet part (which was also the conductor’s part) a basic price of 40 cents (WOW) for a set of parts, and a note that sax could be had for 10 cents extra. A few years later the price went to 50 cents and sax parts were included I the standard set of parts.

In 1930 most of the leading bandmasters of the day reached the conclusion that in time when a standard set of parts must be furnished all ALL publishers. This led to the formation of the American Bandmasters Association by such men as Sousa, Pryor, Simon, Bert Meyers, Goldman, Harding and many others. They worked with publishers and came up with what is considered to be an adequate set of parts to be furnished to a buyer. In actual fact, the ‘standard set of pars, problem continues to this day, especially as regards the QUANTITY of each part to be included in the ‘standard set.’

The great proliferation of flutes, for example, in high school bands makes it an open question how many of this part should be included in a ‘standard set’. Is five enough? In many cases this is claimed to be insufficient. However, we must not be sidetracked, but must continue to investigate the band of yesteryear.

The average player in a town band, of the type that existed around the turn of the century, most assuredly ;came to play NOT to sit around waiting for his turn to come. He wanted to play most of the time, and demanded music that gave him the opportunity to do so. Admittedly some strange sounds came from these town bands, but everyone both in the band and in the audience was having a good time, and what more could anyone ask?

What has all this got to do with the music of Grafulla on this record? Well, one must go further in to the investigation to come to this problem. The top bands of the 1880’s, most particularly those of Gilmore and Reeves and the Marine Band, included nearly all the instruments used today in bands. Therefore it stands to reason that the composers of the time knew what these instruments were, what they sounded like and wrote for them WHEN THEY KNEW THAT THE MUSIC WOULD BE PLAYED BY SUCH A BAND. And the publishers occasionally put out sets of parts including all these instruments.

A fine example of this is Coleman’s edition of Sousa’s International Congress, published in 1887. Here is the list of the parts that were included:

Piccolo in C
Flute in C
Oboe
Bassoon 1
Bassoon II
Eb Clarinet
1st Bb Clarinet
2nd Bb Clarinet
3rd Bb Clarinet
4th Bb Clarinet
Alto Sax
Tenor Sax
Baritone Sax
Eb Cornet
Solo Bb cornet
1st Bb cornet
2nd Bb cornet
3rd Bb cornet
1st and 2nd Eb horns
3rd and 4th Eb horns
1st trombone – printed in both clefs
2nd trombone – printed in both clefs
3rd trombone printed in both clefs
Euphonium (and that is what the part was titled – NOT Baritone) printed in both clefs
Basses – first and second on one part
Small drum
Bass drum and cymbals
There could be no more positive proof that this list of instruments for which parts were printed. In addition, manuscripts of Sousa in the library of the Marine Band, written before this date, also included ALL the instruments.

Why is it then, that published editions of marches and waltzes and overtures and other standard band music included only a limited number of parts? The answer lies in the economics of the publishing business; the publishers would have had a great difficulty in finding a large market for sets of parts that included the saxes, when no band had them, etc.

One publisher who seems to have aimed particularly a the ‘town band’ was the JW Pepper, also of Philadelphia. Strangely enough, Pepper put out some extremely difficult music (Some of the marches of Grafuula on this record are good examples) in the 1880s, but then as time went on, into the 1900s, published practically nothing but very easy band music, with only an occasional piece of even moderate difficulty in his catalog. It would appear that Pepper discovered that the money lay in; easy arrangements-easy compositions’ and took the road to which this discovery pointed. Many other publishers of the time did not ‘write down’ to the lesser competent bands. For example, the earliest publications of the Church Company, when they were still in Cincinnati, were of considerable difficulty, and at no time did Church lower their standards.

In about 1903 the Coleman firm was sold to Carl Fischer and much of the music previously published by Coleman was ‘re-issued’ by Fischer. In the process, it was necessary to make it conform to the ‘standard instrumentation’ (what instruments parts were pointed for) that Fischer was using at the time. Among other things, this means the addition of Sax parts. Some of the most valuable of the Coleman copyrights at the time included a number of Sousa marches; Washington Post, High School Cadets; Semper Fidelis, among others.

Fischer soon made these available to the music buying public in ‘new editions’ including sax. Also, in many cases, the horn parts were changed and other things done. It is anyone’s guess what exact process was followed by Fischer in doing all this. It might be an interesting project for a researcher to study with great care the ORIGINAL manuscripts of these marches (of which a few, or portions of a few) seem to be available at the Library of Congress and compare them with the editions as published by Coleman and as later revised and re-issued by Fischer. Did the original manuscripts of Sousa himself include parts for the instruments later published by Fischer? Or did Coleman’s edition conform exactly to what Sousa wrote? If that is the case, then who wrote the changes that showed up in the later Fischer publications? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Sousa himself was paid by Fischer to revise and add parts to the Coleman for them to print.

Part two

To think even more deeply about the subject, let us consider the writing of Semper Fidelis by Sousa. At the time he wrote it, he was director of the Marine Band. There are two possible hypotheses that come to mind as to the exact circumstances under which Sousa wrote it. I do NOT refer to the fact that he set out to write a march for his beloved Marine Corps and Band and that he had the melody, and most of the harmonization in mind BEFORE he ever set pen to write a score. That goes without saying. The question devolves to these alternatives: 1 – did he FIRST, before writing anything, contact his publisher, Coleman, in Philadelphia and day to him “I am about to write a march for the Marine Corps, dedicated to them, and I think it is going to be a fine march, and how would like me to instrument it?’ or 2 -did he compose the march and instrument (arrange) it with the instrumentation of his Marine Band in mind? If he did the latter, then he wrote parts for ALL the instruments, including several that Coleman did not include in his ‘standard set of parts’ at the time. It is much more probable that this is the way Sousa went about writing Semper. So, having written it for the Marines to play and finding it satisfactory, it can be safety assumed that he then took it to Coleman and said ‘How about publishing it? How much will you give me for it (in money)?’

At this point the ‘reduction of instruments’ begins. In actual fact, Sousa surely knew, since he had previously sold many marches to Coleman, exactly what instruments Coleman wuld include in the printed set. In keeping with the stories Paul Bierley has unearthed, it is most likely that Sousa himself made the reduction arrangement for Coleman, leaving out what he had to, and possibly adjusting some of he other parts to cover what was left out.

All the above applies in far more extreme terms to the Sousa marches issued by Pepper, who published a much smaller set of parts than Coleman did. There is a great mystery about how it happened that two competing Philadelphia publishers BOTH put out a certain few Sousa marches. The most reasonable explanation is that Sousa originally sold them to Coleman and then Pepper came along and bought the rights from Coleman to issue them in a somewhat simplified edition.

To illustrate this point, ere is the list of parts as published by Coleman of Sousa’s Espirit de Corps in 1878:
Db Piccolo
Oboe
Bassoon
Eb Clarinet
1st Bb clarinet
2nd Bb clarinet (and it was very different from the 1st clarinet part
Eb cornet
Solo Bb cornet
1st Bb cornet
2nd and 3rd Bb cornets
1st and 2nd alto Eb
3rd and 4th Alto Eb
1st and 2nd trombone (but both played exactly the same part, there was no division in it)
3rd Trombone
Baritone
Eb bass
Drums
Here is the list of parts printed by Pepper to the SAME march a few years later in 1893:
Db Piccolo
Eb clarinet
Bb clarinets (only one part for all clarinets and there is no place in which it is divisi – in other words, at all times all clarinets in the band are to be playing exactly the same thing.)
Eb Cornet
Solo Bb cornet
1st Bb cornet
2nd Bb cornet
Solo Eb alto (and this part is a melody par NOT an accompaniment part)
1st Eb alto
2nd Eb alto
1st trombone
2nd trombone
3rd trombone
Baritone
Eb bass
Drums
So, what are the major differences, and how do they tie into the market for which Pepper was shooting? Well, only one part for all clarinets would certainly indicate that the bands which bought his publications didn’t have any, if any, clarinets. Pepper had one less cornet part, and no oboe or bassoon.

Not only were these instruments changes made, but the introduction was changed and other melodic and harmonic changes made in the Pepper edition.

It has been necessary to lay some ground work preliminary to further discussion, by bringing Sousa into this essay. Primarily this was done because Sousa’s works and the details of his composing and arranging are far better authenticated than those of any other composer or arranger of the time.

We are now ready to discuss the meaning of the statement at the start of this essay, the very first sentence. Keep in mid that Grafuula led a band of rather smaller size than the Marine band of Sousa, and also quite a lot smaller than Gilmore’s of Reeves.

Until this record was made by the Coast Guard band, the only work of Grafulla’s that has been known and played IN MODERN INSTRUMENTATION is of course, Washington Greys. The edition used by nearly all bands is one published by Fischer in 1905 and under the composer’s name is the notation ‘re-arranged by GH Reeves’ (that was a pen name of Laurendeau).The point is that the original arrangement of Washington Greys has not been seen, is not available, and there is no way to ascertain how much of the published version is really Grafuula and how much is Laurendeau’ own ideas. (Lest the reader of this essay feel that ‘arrangers’ are ALWAYS faithful to a composer’s intent, a later record of this series will give a magnificent illustration of the fallacy of this assumption).

Several of the works of Grafulla, both originals and arrangements of tunes by others, as contained in the famous ‘Port Royal Band books’, found in the Library of Congress years ago, have been recorded – but INVARIABLY by bands using Civil War type instruments, and of course these were very small bands by today’s standards.

The comment of a world famous bandsman, player, arranger, composer and conductor is most appropriate here ‘Hearing Civil War music on Civil War instruments is interesting for abut ten minutes and then you fervently wish they would all drop dead because the intonation and tone quality is so bad it makes the composer sound like an idiot’ It is for this reason, basically that a major decision was taken by Commander Stauffer and myself, when the Navy band started to make the first records in the Heritage series. After much consideration and debate we decided that all music would be played by the FULL NAVY band as it exists today.

A few minor concessions were made, particularly inn German marches, saxes were not used. But generally, every instrument in the Navy band played at all times. The same procedure was followed by all the other bands in the Heritage of the March series and also on the Marines-Sousa series.

Study of the published set of parts of the Pepper edition of Espirit de Corps will show that some adjustment had to be made. It has been a practical impossibility to add parts for the various instruments that exits in these bands of today. Time and talent to do this were not available. The standard practice has been that the director of each band, and this includes the college and school bands on the Heritage Letter series as well, has had to take a view as to what parts to give to which instruments. The practice limits of the ‘fixing up of the parts to be played by a modern band’ has consisted almost entirely of two things. If the band (and virtually NO piccolo players today use it) did not have a Db piccolo, the part was re-written to C piccolo (no change in the sound). The other change was of course to use French horns in F for the Eb alto parts. If the horn players were able to do so, and most all of them are, the parts did not have to be re-written for them, but they transposed.

Of course, the cornet parts in most cases (not the Navy and Marines but almost all other bands) were played by trumpets, with consequent slight change in the brilliance of sound. The oboes generally played from the second or third clarinet part, transposing and the bassoons used the third trombone part.

Sometimes saxes are not used. For example, in the Coast Guard Band, which is rather smaller than some of the other bands that have recorded on the Heritage series, the sax players, being professional musicians and capable of doing so, ‘doubled’ and played clarinets. If saxes were used, it was up to the director of the band what parts they played. Often he tried them playing one part and either told them to play, or used a different part. Alto saxes often used En alto horn part, tenor saxes played the baritone part and baritone saxes the third trombone or tuba part.

The result has been to put on these records the sound of a modern fully instrumental band playing the old time marches.

Who would question that if any of the composers used on the Heritage series were writing marches (and other music) today, for today’s bands, he would write for ALL instruments of the band. All we have actually done within the limits of available time, is to have the music sound as closely as possible to what they would have done.

Back to Grafulla. Nearly all the published editions used to make this record had parts printed the same as the list of parts of the Pepper edition of Espirit de Corps. It is very possible that Grafulla wrote his original marches for more OR less instruments than were published by Pepper, Brophy an Schott. The one march Skyrocket, shows an arranger, Henneberg, but there is no way to tell if he used a piano edition of the march to work from, or had a set (partial, full of just what) of band parts of Gratfulla’s own to start with.

The point is that it is not possible to accurately ascertain if the printed sets truly represented Grafulla’s ideas of what a band should sound like or not. Most likely they did, but he also lead an orchestra in New York and it is conceivable that some of these marches were written for that use of that orchestra, and had to be ‘re-arranged’ for band by someone else after his death. One very reasonable conclusion is that Grafulla himself did not prepare them exactly for the publishers, since the dates are mostly several years after his death.

It is hoped that this essay will give a better idea to the young musicians of today that ‘sets of band parts weren’t always the same as they are now’. Experience has shown that many young band directors, confronted with a set of parts printed in the times with which this essay deals are confused, lost and don’t know what to do with it. A careful reading of the above will explain much of the problem, and perhaps when such music is found, they will be better prepared to deal with it, and use it.

Posted in Altissimo News, Evolution of Bands-With Warlike Ayrs, Historical Notes | No Comments »