by Jeffrey L. Snedeker
Hand and/or Valve: Horn Teaching at the Paris Conservatoire in the 19th Century, and the Transition from Natural Horn to Valved Horn
The transition from the natural horn to the valved horn in 19th-century Paris was different from similar transitions in other countries. While valve technology was received happily by players of other members of the brass family, strong support for the natural horn, with its varied color palette and virtuoso performance traditions, slowed the reception and application of the valve to the horn. Nowhere was this support more evident than at the Paris Conservatoire.
The traditions of virtuoso natural horn playing at the Conservatoire were established by its first teachers, in particular Frédéric Duvernoy and Heinrich Domnich, but even they presented the horn in different lights. Duvernoy was a noted soloist whose method emphasized the development of hand technique that produced even tone colors over a three-octave range. Domnich, a student of Punto, was more of a pedagogue, producing a method that was more comprehensive in support of the traditions of high horn and low horn playing as well as the development of a chromatic range covering more than four octaves. Domnich also promoted even tone colors throughout the range yet celebrated the variety of colors as a benefit to the horn’s expressive potential. The successor to both teachers was the Domnich’s former student Louis François Dauprat, who took Domnich’s ideas and expanded them. It is clear that Dauprat’s method is a significant step forward—482 pages long and divided into three large sections, it contains not only numerous exercises for technical development but also extensive written discussions on topics that range from mechanics of playing technique and horn construction to practical suggestions for performing practices (e.g., ornamentation), as well as advice to students, teachers, and composers regarding styles, taste, and performance. Dauprat’s method still casts a shadow over all method books that have appeared since it was first published in 1824. Dauprat’s two successors on natural horn, Jacques-François Gallay, who joined the Conservatoire faculty in 1842, and Jean Baptiste Victor Mohr, who was appointed Gallay’s successor in 1864, carried Dauprat’s work forward and built on it.
Valved brass instruments first appeared in Paris in 1826, and their reception was mixed. Applications to soprano instruments, like trumpets, and later to bass instruments, like tubas and saxhorns, were more readily embraced, especially in military music, but their inclusion in the orchestra and even in solo repertoire moved more slowly for a variety of reasons. The obvious advantages in applying valves to the horn, e.g., more open notes in the middle and low ranges, were countered with preferences for the variety of colors available on the natural horn that worked well with other instruments and offered opportunities for a wider range of personal expression, at least in the opinions of some commentators. The first successful application of valves to the horn in Paris involved a mixed technique that simultaneously combined hand technique with options in fingerings to encourage performers to pursue nuanced and personalized performing practices (thus, hand AND valve). The promoter of this approach, Joseph Émile Meifred, became the first valved horn teacher at the Conservatoire in 1833. His approach was embraced and supported actively by Dauprat, and Meifred continued to teach at the Conservatoire until his retirement in 1864. 1864 was also the year that Gallay died and thus a natural horn teacher was also needed.
Clearly at a crossroads, the Conservatoire administration had choices, one of which would have been to hire replacements for both teachers/classes. They didn’t. They could have looked to the future and chosen to hire a valved horn teacher and let the traditions of the natural horn fade away. They didn’t. What they did do was to hire Mohr, not only a natural horn specialist but also a former student of Gallay apparently committed to maintaining the traditional instrument. There are several possible reasons for this decision. First, of course, was budget cuts. Still, one might think that hiring a valved horn specialist who could play some natural horn (or vice versa) would make the most sense in terms of horn activity at the time. Another possibility is a strong preference for the natural horn, which was still deemed appropriate for older repertoire that was popular at the time. Still, there was plenty of new repertoire that would support looking ahead. Yet another possibility is that other studio classes might have been able to handle general valved brass study. In the 1850s, the Conservatoire had decided to pick up the musical slack from the difficulties experienced by the Gymnase de musique militaire (Military Music School) and hired additional teachers to provide instruction on “modern” brass instruments for military musicians. It is possible that valved horn could have been viewed as “close enough” to be included in those studios.
Mohr, however, was the only official horn teacher at the Conservatoire from 1864 to 1891, and it appears the natural horn was the only type of horn taught. Over the course of Mohr’s tenure, calls for valved horn teaching increased, especially as performance repertoire became more chromatic/complex and the requirement of valves in professional circles became more prevalent. As the Conservatoire administration considered a change, a commission to examine the possibility of valved horn instruction was suggested and then formed. The result, accelerated by Mohr’s unexpected passing in 1891, was the hiring of François Brémond, an accomplished performer sympathetic to the traditions of the natural horn and well versed in the advantages of the valved instrument—the perfect person to guide the transition from the past to the present. His approach, as evidenced in his method books, encouraged the study of both natural horn and valved horn but treated separately (thus, hand OR valve). The pieces promoted by Brémond for study at the Conservatoire included separate sections for natural horn and for valved horn, e.g., Paul Dukas’ Villanelle (1906). This was not the same approach as Meifred’s method of combining hand technique and valves simultaneously. Comparing the approaches of Meifred and Brémond offers interesting insights into the way two different time periods viewed the horn and its attributes.
For those who are interested in learning more about this time and place in horn history, please come to my presentation at IHS 54 where I will be discussing these two approaches to the valved horn. Here is a preview:
If you would like even more detailed discussions of both valved horn and natural horn teaching at the Conservatoire in the 19th century, please consider reading my book, Horn Teaching at the Paris Conservatoire, 1792 to 1903: The Transition from Natural Horn to Valved Horn (Routledge, 2021).
“The book is very well researched, very well written, and will be a substantial contribution to the history of the horn. In structure and scope, this book goes deeper into the history of the horn in France in the nineteenth century than anything written previously. Highly recommended.” Professor Richard Seraphinoff, IU Jacobs School of Music, USA
Dr. Jeffrey Snedeker has taught in the Music Department of Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Washington, since 1991. Jeff is active in several national and international organizations, having served on the Advisory Council of the International Horn Society (including three terms as President), the Board of Directors of the Historic Brass Society, and the Washington Music Educators Association Advisory Board (elected to two terms as Higher Education Curriculum Officer). Jeff currently serves as Principal Horn with the Yakima Symphony. Jeff has published over 50 articles on a variety of musical topics in scholarly and popular journals, including seven entries in the second edition of The New Grove Dictionary/Grove Music Online.
