Review

Ferdinand David
Concertino for No.2, Opus 12:

Arranged by Jeremy Niles Kempton


Vancouver, BC, Canada
Publisher: Cherry Classics Music
Date of Publication: 2011
URL: http://www.cherryclassics.com

Primary Genre: Solo Tenor Trombone - with piano

This work, which professes to be a concertino for trombone, is actually an arrangement of David’s Concertino for Bassoon Op.12. Differences between the notes in the versions of the work are not extensive. The opening note of the trombone arrangement is b-flat, while the bassoon original begins on d1; a section starting in measure 53 and ending in measure 59 has been slightly modified in the trombone arrangement to avoid an arpeggio down to pedal B-flat. Another sidelight on this work is the fact that a complete part, arranged for solo viola, exists and is included in the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP) reference to Op.12. This viola version is rather more ornate than either the bassoon original or the trombone arrangement. Other than simplifying the solo trombone part to eliminate trills and other difficulties, the aforementioned changes appear to be the only modifications. The title, which reads Concertino for No.2, Opus 12, contains inclusion of the word ‘for,’ an unusual error. A correction would be worth reprinting.

Much of the Op.12 Concertino is similar in style, though not in form, to the Op.4 Trombone Concertino. It is given in two movements, the first marked Andante, with an emphasis on eighth note triplets and dotted note patterns. The second movement is much longer, alla breve, marked Presto agitato. Its primary texture consists of running eighth notes, with scales, arpeggios and similar figures predominating. The mostly piano second theme is largely devoted to quarter note patterns. A più moto passage begins at letter P, measure 351, and runs to the end of the piece in eighth notes. Just previous to that point, in measure 346, there occurs the highest note in the solo part, a high d-flat2.

The list of editorial errata is too extensive for the purposes of this review; it must suffice to say that the work contains many small, but sometimes significant editorial deviations, such as accents left out or added, trills omitted, phrase markings shortened, lengthened or disposed of altogether. The number of editorial changes, the lack of documentation concerning those changes and the real origin of the music are, to my mind, causes for concern.

-Philip Brink
Mahidol University College of Music