# Louis Moreau Gottschalk - a Night in the Tropics (1859)



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

I've always been fascinated by this piece, ever since I first heard the Utah/Abravanel performance (part of that old Vanguard twofer with piano works played by Eugene List).
The piece seems so completely out of place in the middle of the 19th century, sounding like something Darius Milhaud could have written 60 years later.

The problem with this "symphony" is all the different versions circulating. Apparently, the original score, written for a huge orchestra with additional bands - a la Berlioz - survived but with the ending missing, which had to be reconstructed from the versions for two pianos.

Still, most (or all) versions you listen to on YT or get on disk seem to be arrangements, including the acclaimed Richard Rosenberg recording on Naxos. He claims he reconstructed the original score, but his performances on youtube are with relatively small forces, and they sound more "thinned out" than Abravanel, who's still unbeatable in my view. But how close to the original is he? And are there any recordings at all that use the original instrumentation?

It would be great if someone could shed some light upon this.

Enjoy!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Well here I go. I love this music and I have for over 50 years. I love it so much that when I was in college I transcribed the whole thing for concert band using the original score, except for the last section where I had to go from the piano reduction. Four years ago I was contracted to conduct a pops concert with a local orchestra and used my arrangement - the audience reception was amazing. The problem with the work is the scoring. Not so much the first movement, which goes pretty easily. The second movement though...what a challenge. In the original performance, Gottschalk used for some 650 players, 120 of them in the percussion section. In addition to the standard orchestra there were parts for instruments like ophicleide, several E flat clarinets, saxophones, etc. There has never been a recording of the original orchestration, but one did come closer than any other: Igor Buketoff with a pick up orchestra in Vienna on the Vox label. Buketoff was a fine arranger/composer and did a bang up job restoring the score. He made a decision in changing a rhythm in the lost section that was in the piano arrangement, and I think he was right. Listening to his recording you can tell he had a massive orchestra honking along. I've tried to access his arrangement, but his heirs were uncooperative. That's why I did my own.

Every version recorded has compromises and problems. The Abravanel is very slick, and Hatton's arrangement is very good. It still requires odd things, like a bari sax, baritone horn, etc. But certainly playable with only a few added parts. The Rosenberg is very good, too and closer to the original. Even Gunther Schuller made an arrangement, but it's never been recorded. When I made my orchestral adaptation my goal was simple: score it for a standard romantic orchestra that Tchaikovsky would have recognized. It works pretty well; someday I'm going to put it all up on IMSLP.

You're right about this music: it was way ahead of its time. Not harmonically, but the use of Latin rhythms, that "doo-dah" were Gottschalk originals. Here's another work that should be much better known, played much more often and be a standard part of the pops repertoire. Same with his Grand Tarantelle and the Cakewalk Ballet.

Anyway, if you can find it, Igor Buketoff is the best we'll ever have and the closest there will ever be to the original:


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> Well here I go. I love this music and I have for over 50 years. I love it so much that when I was in college I transcribed the whole thing for concert band using the original score, except for the last section where I had to go from the piano reduction. Four years ago I was contracted to conduct a pops concert with a local orchestra and used my arrangement - the audience reception was amazing. The problem with the work is the scoring. Not so much the first movement, which goes pretty easily. The second movement though...what a challenge. In the original performance, Gottschalk used for some 650 players, 120 of them in the percussion section. In addition to the standard orchestra there were parts for instruments like ophicleide, several E flat clarinets, saxophones, etc.


Thanks for the great reply!
I wonder, is there anything like official "Urtext" editon of the original score? If so, why the need for arrangements? I can imagine it's a bit impractical to gather the numbers of players that Gottschalk used for the premiere - but I'm guessing that the score doesn't specify 120 separate percussion parts, and there must be a lot of doubling in the wind parts too. So it must be not too hard to thin out the numbers effectively and still perform the piece according to the original score?



> There has never been a recording of the original orchestration, but one did come closer than any other: Igor Buketoff with a pick up orchestra in Vienna on the Vox label. Buketoff was a fine arranger/composer and did a bang up job restoring the score. He made a decision in changing a rhythm in the lost section that was in the piano arrangement, and I think he was right. Listening to his recording you can tell he had a massive orchestra honking along. I've tried to access his arrangement, but his heirs were uncooperative. That's why I did my own.


I just listened to it on YT. It certainly sounds more "authentic" than Abravanel, but also a lot slower and messier. Those wind solos in the first movement, ouch.
Now listening to his 2nd symphony (but not really) "A Montevideo", which seems much less problematic, written for a standard orchestra. Nice to be able to follow the music with the score:






But it's a much less interesting piece than "Tropics".



> Every version recorded has compromises and problems. The Abravanel is very slick, and Hatton's arrangement is very good. It still requires odd things, like a bari sax, baritone horn, etc. But certainly playable with only a few added parts. The Rosenberg is very good, too and closer to the original. Even Gunther Schuller made an arrangement, but it's never been recorded. When I made my orchestral adaptation my goal was simple: score it for a standard romantic orchestra that Tchaikovsky would have recognized. It works pretty well; someday I'm going to put it all up on IMSLP.


Looking forward to that!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

As you put it, every arrangement thins it out and tries to make it practical. In the original manuscript there are lots of doublings that can be safely taken out. For me the biggest challenge was dealing with several very high clarinet parts. Leaving it in the B flat instrument was risky as playing up that high is difficult and not all players can do it. But then writing for two or more E flat clarinets is risky because getting those instruments in anything but a professional group is difficult. If I remember correctly, in the score it called for Bamboula and then (12 players) or whatever the number was. In practical performance I used one. Yes, that Buketoff is rough - sloppy playing and some sour intonation. But Buketoff wasn't a great conductor known for precision - those 1/8th after beats in the string a minute or so in are just awful. Another recording worth checking out is the Virgina Symphony with Joann Falleta. We haven't had a new recording of the work in some time now, Rosenberg being the latest. It's time for a new one and I want to hear the Schuller version!


----------

