Talk:Orchestra/Archives/2020

Space between the 'Late Baroque orchestra' and 'Classical orchestra' sub-headings needs to be lessened
In my opinion, the space between the 'Late Baroque orchestra' and 'Classical orchestra' sub-headings in this article needs to be lessened a little as in my opinion it looks strange to have such a big space between the sub-headings. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not much wider than the space between "Classical orchestra" and "Early Romantic orchestra", both of which are much wider than the corresponding breaks between other types. If they are closed up too much, there is a danger that the reader will not notice where one leaves off and the next one begins. Surely there is a better way of captioning these sections.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Instrumentation
So my changes are consistantly viewed as vandalism I suppose.

The charts of the baroque, classical (it's LATE classical!) and early romantic orchestras are overblown monstrosities, unnecessarily complicated, and partially absurd and misleading.

There is a core late classical orchestra, it's 2222 2200 Timp strings. This is not THE classical orchestra, since most early classical sinfonies by Haydn Mozart et al did not use this large instrumentation. But it's a standard.

The addition of viola da gamba, spalla and such in the late baroque orchestra is nonsense, as was the addition of hsrp, lauttenwerck and the such before to the continuo group.

Early romantic standard orchestration is 2222 42(3)((1)) Timp (Perc) strings

The current charts are totally overblown and overly specific and are in no way a realistic core instrumentation for the periods considered.

Baroque chart should be:

sometimes 1-2 Flutes

Frequently: 2 Oboes and Bassoon

sometimes brass instruments ( 1-3 nat. trumpets, 1-2(3) nat. Horns, in some cases both) Timpani as bass of the natural trumpet section if a trumpet section is employed

violin I violin II viola Cello and double bass

Continuo instruments selected by the ensemble leader or given by the concert venue (Cembalo, pipe Organ, Theorbo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:A809:75D2:1:2:2B1C:B130 (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Classical orchestra
If "classical orchestra" is the heading, chart realistically should be

(1-2 Flutes occasionally)

2 Oboes

(2 Clarinets, not common until about 1780 1790)

1-2 Bassoons (2 obligato bassoon parts gradually becoming the standard, but not common from the start)

... etc. it is not stable. The endpoint of the development of the classical orchestra (Beethovens core Orchestra 2222 2200 timp strings) is much more of a standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:A809:75D2:1:2:2B1C:B130 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have taken action and requested verifiable sources for both this and the "Baroque orchestra" sections, which are both full of contentious claims.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem will perhaps not be resolved by a source. The addition of rare instruments to the orchestra charts makes no sense. For example: Yes of course there were viola da gambas in some late baroque orchestras. There were also about 40 other instruments of all kinds that do not show up in the old chart. But it's totally random to pick and choose the viola da gamba and add it to the baroque string section, since most late baroque orchestras had a totally normal string section with 4 voices: VI VII Va Vc+Bass. If you add the viola da gamba to the chart it reads as if there was a viola da gamba section or soloist in most baroque works, which is of course far from the truth. So it would be ok to mention the gamba, only if the additional information could be conveyed: Viola da gambas were used sometimes as bass instruments (which were all regarded as somewhat interchangeable) or in some cases 1 or 2 obligato gamba voices were added to the ensemble. That's the thing, if you just write "viola da gamba" people will get the idea that they were typical core members of the late baroque orchestra. Same problem even with the less exotic Flutes, Trumpets, Timpani and Horns. 79.232.64.35 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Charts of composition of orchestras
The whole idea of showing charts of "typical" orchestras will never succeed because nobody will agree upon what is typical. This already has been discussed above and elsewhere, but I think that the matter must be rethought from the start.

In the New Grove, first edition (1980), Eleanor Selfridge Field and Neal Zaslaw published in the article "Orchestra" a table charting "the typical composition of orchestras for which works in the present-day repertory were originally written." The table gives 39 entries, starting with Monteverdi's Orfeo, Mantua 1607, and ending with a concert of works by Boulez and Carter given in 1974 by the New York Philharmonic. In the New Grove of Musical Instrument (1984), the table has been extended to include 72 entries, starting with a "Wedding intermedio no. 1", Florence 1589, and ending with the same concert of 1974. This table apparently disappeared in the New Grove online, unfortunately. The table below reproduces the captions and the first three items of the table of 1984. The advantage of such a table is that it does not describe guesses about what a typical orchestra might have been, say, in the "late baroque" (?), but gives orchestrations as they appear in preserved score, or are documented for given occasions (identified by date and location). The caption to the table says that "the figures have been drawn from standard reference works and from specialized studies listed in the bibliography. They must be taken as indicative in only a general sense, as forces varied from piece to piece, from occasion to occasion, and from year to year, as well as from place to place." It would be much better, I trust, to produce a table of that kind, and we would do even better than the New Grove if we were able to give for each entry the particular bibliographical reference (this is not done in the Dictionary).

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are right in general, look at the german page, but I really want to disencourage you in some way. The chart you show is dubious. At least for the Monteverdi opera.


 * Apart from being far out of question regarding the time frame, Monteverdi's score does not in any way tell anything about possible doublings.


 * 4 Vl 4 Va 2 Vc 2 Cb is a double string quintet with additional contrabassi. That's the most plausible interpretation.


 * 2 Flutes? No, 2 soprano recorders, playing only occasionally, and only one recorder (probably soprano recorder) is mentioned in the instrumentation chart.


 * The enumeration used to give this chart might have been nothing more then a list of instruments to be used, not list of players.


 * Next topic: Why pair the trumpets and cornets, and not the trumpets and trombones? Cause of todays standard seperation of high and low brass, it's anachronistic. 6 Brass players can play all the parts, and the recorder parts as well, and trumpets do nothing but play the opening fanfare.


 * Multi-instrumentalists were the standard!


 * The chord-playing instruments are also in pairs, suggesting 2 orchestras of 6 strings and 2 chord playing instruments each plus a harp.


 * The gambas might have been played by ensemble members mainly playing the lute/theorbo or viola da braccio.


 * The list of instruments given by Monteverdi might not have anything to do with the required nunber of musicians- indeed i would propose about 23 musicians to play those parts- not 39 as suggested in the chart.

2A01:598:A80D:6C7D:1:2:40A4:8119 (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said, we may be able to do better than the New Grove. I didn't propose this chart as accurate for its content, I merely gave it as an accurate reproduction of a fragment of the New Grove chart. I agree that these early-date entries may be questionable, and I don't mean that we should keep them. The case of Monteverdi's Orfeo nevertheless is missing in the article in its present form: it should be mentioned as the earliest score giving a list of instruments. It must be kept in mind that this score is a remembrance of the 1607 performance, not a prescription of it – it did not require anything.
 * The New Grove chart chooses column headings that serve for the whole chart, i.e. for about four centuries of orchestration: this necessarily involves (over)simplifications. But our lists in their present version may include unnecessary complications, for instance when they mention "corno da tirarsi", or "oboe d'amore and oboe da caccia" (what with "normal" oboes?), or "pipe organ" (is a regal a pipe organ?); also, the idea that the classical orchestra should use only "natural" horns and trumpets probably is not entirely correct (what about Haydn's horn concerto?). One problem is that the time periods are not defined. What is "Late Baroque", "Classical", "Early romantic", etc.?
 * The advantage of a chart of the New Grove type is that it relies on documented occasions. Some, like the Orfeo, may be uncertain, but can be presented as such. I agree with you, though, that the figures given for this case in the columns of the chart are somewhat farfetched. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Recorder
Now, someone added the word "recorder" to the baroque orchestra. It's ugly. It is hanging there below the bassoons, as the viola da gamba below the normal string section.

Now, what about cornettos, trombones, chalumaeu, violino piccolo, viola d'amore, serpent, arpa doppia, violino piccolo, haute-contre de violon, taille de violon, quinte de violon, basse de violon, pardessus de viole, flageolet, bass recorder, ,lituus, bagpipe, hurdy gurdy, colascione, guitar, angelica, basse de cromorne, ....?

etc. etc.

Should these charts primarily tell something about a typical orchestra of the time period in question, or list all available instruments?

The recorder was a common instrument in the late baroque orchestra, but did not occur in most short works for courtly chamber orchestras or church orchestras, where all winds were more or less occasional additions (except for the very common oboes) and played by multi-instrumentialist. It did occur in many operas, but was played by ... "musicians", preliminary woodwind players, not by recorder players. The recorder was arguably more prominent than the viola da gamba or any other slightly old-fashioned instrument, so it is in principle a good addition to the current chart, but as it is, the chart can be read as "this is a standard baroque orchestra".

A standard baroque (late baroque) chamber orchestra is 4...5...7 strings and harpsichord, oftentimes Oboes, sometimes other winds and more bass instruments. Pit orchestras were larger and because of the length of an opera and the different kinds of instrumentations that were employed throughout such larger works, a large number of wind instrument players with all kinds of instruments was normal.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:90A4:A824:1:2:CF71:AC12 (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This seems to me a pointless discussion: we will never agree about which instruments or which orchestra were "typical" of any period. It seems to me that the only solution is to find scores (or possibly descriptions of performances) that can be considered more or less typical, and to list their orchestration – probably in a more or less normalized table. This is what was done in the earlier versions of the New Grove, as shown above. We could improve on that, e.g. by creating different tables for different time periods, but each entry could easily be referenced to its source. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not pointless at all in my view. Take the current baroque winds: There exists no work whatsoever, not one single example of a partitura using [2 fl/2-3 ob/ bsn/ recorder 2 corni ( n da tirarsi) 2-3 trombe] at the same time, yet there are thousands of pieces written for a standing orchestra without doublings crossing the instrument families of 2222 2-4/2-3/(3)/(1) and even many hundreds for 2222 2200. The baroque winds were flexible (musicians doubling on all woodwinds, short works never calling for all winds, long pieces rarely using all of them at the same time), yet the 2222 2200 plus x wind section was taken for granted in symphony orchestras from 1800 on.

The problem becomes worse...
I cannot understand how people working on this article can go on attempting to produce tables such as that entitled "Playing range of modern & neoclassical acoustic musical instruments". I utterly fail to see on what this is based and how this can be justified with references. The first line of this table, concerning the violin, states that "Some players can reach the note above E6 (one octave higher) on the E5 string." But the first score that I browsed to find confirmation of this, Ravel's Tzigane, reaches E7 in the violin part. So what?

I repeat that the only solution to this, in my opinion, is to quote real scores as examples, avoiding any generalization. Compare these two statements: (I suppose that a violinist playing Tzigane would play E7 on the E string, but Ravel does not even require that!)
 * Some players can reach the note above E6 on the E5 string.
 * In Tzigane, Ravel's violin reaches E7.

I am aware that people working on this article do so in good faith, and I won't destroy their work. But they might perhaps rethink this all. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, some might argue that the note in Ravel's Tzigane is for a soloist, rather than an orchestral violinist, but the same note (E7) appears in the first (divisi) violin part from the second bar in the Vorspiel to Wagner's Lohengrin, where it is played as a natural harmonic.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Seating arrangements
Perhaps we could add some information about seating arrangements, including some seating diagrams and the differences between American and European seating. Some relevant sources: 12 –intforce (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)