|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.192.111.143
In Reply to: RE: Wind - String Balances posted by Mike Porper on March 24, 2011 at 13:03:23
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying regarding the string/wind relationship in Beethoven's time, but if you claim that the TYPICAL balance was equivalent to the 20th/21st century large orchestra, i.e., 60/30, or approx. 2 to 1 (with doubled woodwinds and single brass), I doubt if you'll find a single authority who will back you up. Maybe Carse does (I don’t have a copy), but that book is now rather out of date, and not considered authoritative.
Here are four sources that basically contradict what you seem to be saying, and more or less corroborate my assertion:
Orchestra article in New Grove: The Classical Orchestra (1740-1815)
N. Zaslaw: "Mozart's European Orchestras" in Musicology Australia, 1994.
E.K. Wolf: "On the Composition of the Mannheim Orchestra, c.1740-1778", 1993.
C.Brown, "The Orchestra in Beethoven's Vienna", Early Music, 1988.
There are many more.
While there were indeed large orchestras in England, France and Vienna (mostly for special occasions like festivals), these were the exception rather than the rule. Mozart's and Haydn's symphonies were routinely performed with ensembles of 30 to 40 players, and both composers were apparently satisfied with that. With a wind complement of 8 woodwinds and 4 brass, or 7 brass in Beethoven’s Fifth or a late Schubert, that’s a little less than 50-50--OK, so my math is off.
It's funny that you say, "Once Beethoven heard a big orchestra, he never went back", since by the time of the Second Symphony he was completely deaf! Sorry-just had to mention that.
BTW, I never said that the wind parts "were equivalent" to the string parts--that's putting words into my mouth. Of course the string parts are of primary importance to the music--only a simpleton would think otherwise. (BTW, you would be well advised to skip the lecturing next time--I happen to have a degree in music and know precisely what voice-leading is) The point is--and let me be very clear about this--the wind parts need to be heard, to be part of the orchestral fabric. In my ever so humble opinion, most modern-day performances fail to get this right, even some on period instruments. The clearest example of this, I feel, are the trumpet parts in the examples I've outlined in this thread, but there are plenty more examples involving the other winds.
We can argue about historicity all day, but my perspective is one of aesthetic. To me, a string-centered performance of Beethoven is less interesting that one that allows the winds parts to be heard, as I believe the composer intended.
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
Follow Ups:
interesting perspective on trumpet parts. But...
"Mozart's and Haydn's symphonies were routinely performed with ensembles of 30 to 40 players, and both composers were apparently satisfied with that."
This is simply false. There is a letter from Mozart written in the mid 1780s in which he states that his favored performance forces for orchestral works numbered about a hundred players. Smaller performance forces were dictated by economics and not by artistic intentions.
Once again, I fall back on my own artistic inclinations, as limited as they may be. History being what it is, I think a modern-day 100-piece band is simply wrong for Mozart, and I say that from the standpoint of a player, and also as a erstwhile conductor.
I'm not aware of a letter of Mozart in which he states that he prefers "about hundred players". Can you provide a reference?
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
citation, but the letter (which I believe was written to Haydn) dates from the mid 1780s and is quoted/cited in Rosen's "The Classical Style." If you have that book handy, you should be able to find it pretty easily.
I have no quibbles with your personal preference. I actually find the transparency that conductors such as Zinman and Maag have brought to Beethoven to be a welcome development. One major piece that I think suffers from cluttered orchestration is the 4th piano concerto (Beethoven's to be clear) and I am curious to hear that Bronfman/Zinman recording. Generally, I love many HIP and many non-HIP performances.
BUT if believe the position is supported by personal preference and not historical accuracy.
that nobody has mentioned. Even though all these composers had "pipe dreams" of mega-ensembles, their music (at least Mozart's and Haydn's) was almost always composed with the sound of smaller ensembles in mind. And at the world premieres, performed that way. Mozart's symphonies and piano concertos, for example, are replete with woodwind writing (solos) that can get lost in the context of a 100-piece orchestra. Thankfully, many conductors nowadays pare down the strings when performing these works. Benefits the balance of soloist to orchestra, too.
Obviously, this is a tenet of the period instrument crowd, but I think the concept is equally valid on modern instruments--from an artistic/musical perspective. I'm more interested in the musical results, rather than what pleases the historians.
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
There's existing correspondence of Beethoven's, around and after the 5th Symphony, of him inquiring into the number of musicians [and quality] available for concerts of his symphonies, and demanding larger numbers. Goes flat against HIP conclusions, but, HIPpers would have to destroy the letters. Daniel Koury, a known authority, in his authoritative book on the development of the orchestra points this out.
I beleive that at the time of the 2nd, Beethoven wasn't completely deaf. I beleive that total, utter deafness came later. In any case, whether he heard or felt or was inspired in some way, he apparently was in the presence of a larger orchestra, and liked it enough to want it going forward.
But, even if he was utterly, insensibly deaf by the time of the 2nd sym, how can you, or anyone, conclude that his aural imagination was limited to some tiny orhestra? Especially when we're talking about a genius of Beethoven's calibre? Just knowing how he treated the pianos of his day tells us something about his desire for massive sonorities, when called upon.
Large orchestras weren't limited to festivals, although huge forces were assembled for such occations. But, as Koury points out, and as I stated, the size of ensemble was flexible, and dependent on the finances available - not on some artistic preference of the composer. To say that Mozart & Haydn were satisfied with smaller forces is to subtly distort history. If that's all they had available, then they were happy to get a performance off the ground. Certianly, the quality of ensemble would've been their first concern. But, the further distorsion of historic fact exists when we look at Haydn's reaction to the Paris orchestra. A large orchestra, as is well known. Did Haydn stamp his foot, throw a fit, and enraged, demand - demand! - that they cut their forces down [with no more thatn 2 celli] - because, otherwise, they were violating his principles of orhestral sound?
Instead, he delighted in the large orchestral forces. He loved it. Furthermore, while there are large quantities of books on various musical topics, especially theory, from the time of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, there's not one - not one - on orchestra size or proportions. Bottom line, there was no hard and fast rule governing orchestral proportions, and no such asthetic such as that developed by late 20th cent HIPs.
You may prefer a wind dominated sonority. That's fine. That doesn't make it historically accurate. It may or may not be. And surely, you mean winds dominating during tuttis, since every good orchestra plays all of the parts, and whenever the voice leading goes to the winds, they play, and you can hear them. It's not as though modern orchestras deny wind parts.
Finally, I didn't mean to lecture you, nor anyone. Indeed, I respect the many opinions and information you've posted here, including this one [thanks for the references; I'll be avidly seeking them and reading]. If there's any tone of sarcasm, it's directed rather at the HIP establishment and conductors such as Norrington, who always proclaim that they've conducted "research", yet neither published any such research, no provided any proof of their 'discoveries', other than to state that they've said it must be so. No disrespect toward you, nor anyone else here.
"I beleive that at the time of the 2nd, Beethoven wasn't completely deaf. I beleive that total, utter deafness came later. In any case, whether he heard or felt or was inspired in some way, he apparently was in the presence of a larger orchestra, and liked it enough to want it going forward."
That is correct, and is true of the 5th symphony as well. Beethoven would have been described as hard of hearing through the mid 1810s, at which time his functioning deteriorated.
Again, I don't wish to argue the historical aspect, because as you rightly point out, there is very little hard and fast evidence, and in any case, orchestral size varied considerably depending on location and occasion.
I never said there was a "rule" (at least I don't think I did), but I do think there are artistic considerations at work that many conductors seem to be missing.
You missed my point completely--I don't prefer a "wind dominated sonority"--what I want is for the winds to be heard as part of the orchestral fabric, with the parts coming to the fore or receding as the score dictates.
I've played in many amateur orchestras, and I'm always struck by how in larger groups, say 40+ strings, the conductor often has to go to great lengths to insure that the winds are not buried. This is usually not necessary with a smaller string complement.
I'm talking here about passages other than loud tuttis, although as I've tried to point out, even in those cases there can be wind parts that are MIA.
In large professional orchestras, the standard remedy is to double the woodwind, but this is only a partial solution, since the horns are usually left one on a part. Since the horns are often called on the fill out the woodwind, this can make for strange balances.
My own instrument, the bassoon, is another good example. Beethoven often asks the bassoon section to provide important harmonies, harmonic fill, if you will. But since bassoon sound is easily covered (by cellos and violas, among others), you really have to blow hard to make the notes heard.
So forget the historical aspect--I think a smaller string group (but not necessarily a chamber orchestra) does wonders for Beethoven. And Mozart and Haydn. And as a wind player, it's a lot more fun to play in a smaller group. As a record collector, I prefer those recordings that allow the winds to shine, where I'm not straining to hear them. Big Band Beethoven, such as Karajan and the BPO, or Bernstein and NYP, doesn't cut it for me.
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
C.B.: As I'm sure you know, from an acoustic point of view, doubling the number of instruments does not double the sound output in terms of decibels. I once attended a performance of Respighi's "Pines of Rome" given by our local Oakland East Bay Symphony combined with the Oakland Youth Orchestra - I would guess there were more than 80 strings on stage! The woodwinds and brass were doubled too. What a magnificent sound! And what made it magnificent was not the loudness, but rather the wonderful tone qualities achieved by the use of the additional instruments. I'm sure Respighi would have loved it! :-)
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: