Bruckner 9th with a completed Finale

[barry guerrero]

Re: Wuhan tam-tams

At least partly thanks to Fred Beckman's efforts in the 1970s, Wuhans are now "the regular" tam-tams in American, Japanese, Dutch, German, and Scandinavian orchestras. The British and the French still hold on to their Paistes. Wuhans and Paistes are complete polar opposites in sound and playing characterists, and I'm generally in the Wuhan camp.

Paistes use steel in their alloy, which lends a sort of metallic "whang" to the sound. Typically, Paistes are slow to speak, and then want to ring on forever. Wuhans speak immediately (they need no priming, which the Paistes do need), but the tone dies out much quicker than with a Paiste. Generally speaking, Wuhans have a darker tone quality than Paistes. Paistes are good when you want a bright, "splashy" sound that keeps on ringing. If played well, Paistes can be effective in "La Mer" and Mahler 8.

For my money, the L.S.O. (London Symphony) plays their Paiste about as well as one can possibly be played. Wuhans work extremely well in the finale of Mahler 7; Rite Of Spring; Wozzeck; Salome; the end of M3/I and M3/III - any place where you need a gong to speak quickly, and where a deep, profound type of sound is desireable.

The problem with Wuhans is that because they have such a dark and profound type of tone quality, they generally sound much louder back in the percussion section than they do out in the hall. As a result, many percussionists misjudge and under-play them. Some orchestras, such the Vienna Phil., sometimes use mallets that are too light or too soft for such a heavy gong. I no longer own a 40" (100 cm) Wuhan tam-tam, but I still own three different mallets to use on one: a small but very hard mallet for soft strokes; a bigger one for everything between mezzo piano and forte; and a big "bomber" - which has a big playing surface - for fortissimo smashes. Believe it or not, mallets can make a huge difference in the results.

You do see some other makes other than Wuhans and Paistes, but they're greatly in the minority. The Concertgebouw used to use an Italian made tam-tam called a Uffip (or some such thing). They weren't bad, but they were much lighter sounding than the Wuhans they use now. You'll still see the occassional Zildjian, which was the type of tam-tam that Shostakovch liked for his symphonies. They're generally very bright and very "crashy" sounding - almost like a giant cymbal. Zildjians are good for the type of terror that Shostakovish was trying to evoke or convey.

Sabian - an excellent manufacturer of cymbals - makes tam-tams that sound and act very much like Paistes. But they also have a line that are copies of Wuhans. In fact, I think that what those really are, are Wuhan's rejects sold cheaper to Sabian, and then with the Sabian name stenciled on the front. In other words, they sound like poor cousins to the very best Wuhans.   

Well, all of this is a lot more than you probably ever wanted to know. To further complicate things, the Wuhan people do not refer to their instruments - available in every possible diameter imaginable, by the way - as tam-tams. The Chinese instrument people I've spoken with aren't even familiar with that term. Instead, they call them "Chau Gongs". This gets some people all flustered because in western orchestral nomenclature, a "gong" is an instrument with a specific pitch - a tuned gong, or "nipple" gong as they're often times refered to. Some people call them Burmese gongs, but tuned gongs can be found all over southeast Asia and Indonesia.

Anyway, the bottom line is this: if you're seeing/hearing an orchestra from the U.S., Canada, Japan, Holland, Germany, or somewhere in Scandinavia, there's about a 90 or 95 percent chance that you're hearing a Wuhan. If it's a British, French, or Italian orchestra, there's probably an 85 to 90% chance that it's a Paiste. In Russia, they use whatever they can get their hands on. 

[waderice]

Quite a bit of information here!  The one thing I might take away from this is that musicians would have to decide what type of sound from a tam-tam a particular composer might prefer in a given work.  That would necessitate knowing what sort of tam-tams were in use back at the time a work was composed, and how those tam-tams sounded.  The works you cite for a particular sound (dark or bright) make sense.

2 humorous tam-tam stories:  The first one was from a now-deceased musician I knew who one time was involved in helping move instruments from the parking garage at the Kennedy Center up to the Concert Hall.  While waiting for the elevator, the tam-tam sitting in the glass-enclosed elevator waiting area got whacked numerous times during the wait, producing quite a racket in the parking garage, not to mention the elevator waiting area.  The second was years ago, which involved conductor Fritz Reiner in a rehearsal for a Wagner concert, when the tam-tam itself fell off its stand, producing quite a ruckus.  Reiner kept on conducting, as if nothing had happened.  At the rehearsal break, Reiner said to the percussionist:  "Vas very good!  Can you do that at the concert tonight?"

Thanks for all the tam-tam information.

Wade

[barry guerrero]

What you say in your first paragraph would make good musical sense, but rarely is that much thought and/or effort put into tam-tams. Most percussionists - even the pros! - like to stick with what they're most comfortable with, and don't like schlepping around more heavy equipment than they need to. There's also the consideration of space out on the stage. I have, on occasion, seen both a Paiste and Wuhan out on the stage at the same time. But that's more the exception than the norm. What I do think is true, is that really good players know to use different mallets, and know where different "sweet spots" are located on their gongs. That way, they can good results regardless of what instrument they're using. That's why I own three mallets. But in general, I find the Paistes to be more difficult to deal with than the Wuhans. You have to really, REALLY warm up (prime) a Paiste if you want to try to get it to speak quickly. l don't like the "whangy" metallic overtones either.

[Leo K]

I have been listening with interest to the Layer, Harnoncourt and Eichhorn recordings. I've heard the complete performance of the Layer four times, and have heard Eichhorn once.

I have to say, hearing the music to the Bruckner 9 finale is an absolute revelation. To my mind, the music fits into the sound world of the B9, and is as important to the history of music as the M10 music. Attempts to perform it make sense. In some ways, the Harnoncourt disk is the best way to hear this fragment. The music is pretty powerful without an editor to shape it, for a performance. ON the other hand, I can't deny the majesty, and heartbreaking power of the Friedmann Layer recording. This is because the finale is heard in the proper context, so I experienced a "WOW" factor during my first and subsequent hearings.

Between the Layer and Eichhorn, I prefer the edition Layer uses. 
 

[John Kim]

Todd,

I am glad you appreciate the Finale movt. of B9th. For me the Eichhorn recording works better because of conductor's broad view, his daring decision to make the whole symphony sound like the Finale driven. It's the grandest Bruckner Finale I can imagine.