Things you've always wanted to know about orchestral instruments but were too afraid

[Samulis]

(07-28-2019, 08:58 PM)Nayrb Wrote: I have another question for our resident brass expert. What's a cimbasso for? I've found it has the range of a tuba but is a bit closer in timbre to a trombone, with a meatier low end. I used it rather often in the past as a sort of bridge between the tuba and the bones, but began to phase it out as my stuff became more "proper." I'd like to bring it back, though. I'm guessing it plays a large role in the "BWAAAAAM" ensemble.

Cimbassos are more or less bass valve trombones, in F I believe.

Back in the 19th century, there was a short 'war' between proponents of (traditional) slide and (newfangled) valve trombones. As valved instruments tend to be more flexible, they were popular in military bands, folk, and opera uses where fast melodic lines were common. However, lacking the portamento/legato nature of the slide trombone, they were found by many to be the inferior choice and are generally forgotten/ignored today.

Musicians throughout Italy, Germany, Austria, and the Balkans had a rather strong interest in valve trombones, which work well in the context of their traditional music, and are relatively easy to learn to play. As such, the Cimbasso, originally as just a bass valve trombone, likely found its way into Italian opera, and from there managed to solidify a small but interesting part in the modern musical landscape. While its role today is more as a 'color' (or a hackish gag in the case of 'bwams'), its true nature was as a bass instrument replacing or reinforcing tubas.

While the bass slide trombone in F died out by the middle of the 20th century, replaced by modern "bass" trombones, the bass valve trombone in F, in the form of the cimbasso, exists today.

Functionally, a Cimbasso plays a fourth below the range of a (Bb) tenor trombone, in the same fundamental pitch as the F of a horn or the F trigger on a modern orchestral tenor or bass trombone. Valves tend to add a bit of impedance to the air flow, giving the instrument a bit rounder of a tone than a 'true' F bass slide trombone as would have been used in most orchestras of the 19th century. If my memory serves me correct, most cimbassos feature a fourth valve which drops their pitch by a fourth (in the same way an orchestral tenor trombone has an F trigger to drop their pitch down a fourth). This is typically used to allow the instrumentalist access between the pedal tones and the lowest tones of the 2nd partial.

Compared to a tuba, cimbassos are pitched a fourth above the C orchestral tuba, or a fifth above the concert band Bb tuba. There are tubas in F and Eb, as there are contrabass trombones in Bb (same fundamental pitch as the Bb tuba), so there's some variable mix to the potential blend.

(note that tubas and trombones are almost always non-transposing instruments, due to their origins as accompanists for choirs)

[Nayrb]

(07-29-2019, 01:07 AM)Samulis Wrote: Cimbassos are more or less bass valve trombones, in F I believe.

Back in the 19th century, there was a short 'war' between proponents of (traditional) slide and (newfangled) valve trombones. As valved instruments tend to be more flexible, they were popular in military bands, folk, and opera uses where fast melodic lines were common. However, lacking the portamento/legato nature of the slide trombone, they were found by many to be the inferior choice and are generally forgotten/ignored today.

Musicians throughout Italy, Germany, Austria, and the Balkans had a rather strong interest in valve trombones, which work well in the context of their traditional music, and are relatively easy to learn to play. As such, the Cimbasso, originally as just a bass valve trombone, likely found its way into Italian opera, and from there managed to solidify a small but interesting part in the modern musical landscape. While its role today is more as a 'color' (or a hackish gag in the case of 'bwams'), its true nature was as a bass instrument replacing or reinforcing tubas.

While the bass slide trombone in F died out by the middle of the 20th century, replaced by modern "bass" trombones, the bass valve trombone in F, in the form of the cimbasso, exists today.

Functionally, a Cimbasso plays a fourth below the range of a (Bb) tenor trombone, in the same fundamental pitch as the F of a horn or the F trigger on a modern orchestral tenor or bass trombone. Valves tend to add a bit of impedance to the air flow, giving the instrument a bit rounder of a tone than a 'true' F bass slide trombone as would have been used in most orchestras of the 19th century. If my memory serves me correct, most cimbassos feature a fourth valve which drops their pitch by a fourth (in the same way an orchestral tenor trombone has an F trigger to drop their pitch down a fourth). This is typically used to allow the instrumentalist access between the pedal tones and the lowest tones of the 2nd partial.

Compared to a tuba, cimbassos are pitched a fourth above the C orchestral tuba, or a fifth above the concert band Bb tuba. There are tubas in F and Eb, as there are contrabass trombones in Bb (same fundamental pitch as the Bb tuba), so there's some variable mix to the potential blend.

(note that tubas and trombones are almost always non-transposing instruments, due to their origins as accompanists for choirs)

Good to know I was on to something, at least, with cimbasso as a supplement to the tuba. Interesting, too, to know that it is limited in terms of legato / portamento capabilities.

The "arms race" of instruments is fascinating. I suppose to an extent a lot of older music as it is performed and interpreted today isn't exactly what it was back when it was written, even stuff from the last 150 years or so, given the evolutionary aspect of the very instruments used to perform said music. I recall in a music appreciation class (a class in which I received one of my only Bs in college because I slept through a test on accident) we were shown a video of a Monteverdi opera in which only reconstructions of period instruments were used. That was pretty cool.

[Samulis]

(07-29-2019, 01:45 AM)Nayrb Wrote: Good to know I was on to something, at least, with cimbasso as a supplement to the tuba. Interesting, too, to know that it is limited in terms of legato / portamento capabilities.

What the cimbasso loses in terms of portamento/legato, it makes up for in mobility. F bass slide trombones have such a long slide that a handle is necessary, making them rather cumbersome to play at any sort of speed. This, when combined with the 20th century laser-focus on "virtuosity", is probably why the bass slide trombone died out in favor of the modern "bass" trombone. Although acoustically less ideal, the modern bass trombone is massively easier to play and considerably more flexible as well. I've even heard of some guys playing 1st and 2nd trombone parts on bass trombones.

(07-29-2019, 01:45 AM)Nayrb Wrote: The "arms race" of instruments is fascinating. I suppose to an extent a lot of older music as it is performed and interpreted today isn't exactly what it was back when it was written, even stuff from the last 150 years or so, given the evolutionary aspect of the very instruments used to perform said music. I recall in a music appreciation class (a class in which I received one of my only Bs in college because I slept through a test on accident) we were shown a video of a Monteverdi opera in which only reconstructions of period instruments were used. That was pretty cool.

Very true. Not only have major changes occurred in the way instruments are designed, but also the way they are held, taught, and orchestrated for.

Ultimately, it is the performer, not the instrument, which makes the music work. In the hands of a capable professional, even a somewhat decrepit instrument can emit the most impressive sounds. Many intermediate and beginner performers see their instrument as the issue, when in most cases, it is fundamentals which hold them back. Yes, a better, bigger, or fancier instrument will make you sound better or bigger or fancier, but only to a certain extent.

With that in mind, it's particularly strange that many performers do not study the practices of the period of music for the piece they are playing. While historically informed instrumentation is valuable, historically informed pedagogy and performance are even more crucial in my opinion. A modern trombone quartet could play on perfect replicas of 16th century sackbuts, but that wouldn't make their performance any more historically informed than if they played it on comparatively-massive modern trombones.

Ultimately, there is a balancing act between the original artistic intention of the composer/creator, the artistic intention of the performer, and the artistic intention of the instrument designer. It is possible to play and enjoy Bach on a Yamaha grand piano, just as much as it is possible to arrange Bach for a jazz trio, just as much as it is to play Bach on the same organ at the same pitch in the same city in the same church as Bach did when he wrote the original thing. Deciding which one of those is more 'valid' is a question which transcends musicology and honestly probably deserves to rest in the eyes and ears of each and every listener individually.

[Nayrb]

(07-29-2019, 03:59 AM)Samulis Wrote: I've even heard of some guys playing 1st and 2nd trombone parts on bass trombones.  

The infallible Internet has led me to believe that the bass trombone often comprises one part of the three trombone section. As such, I've begun to try to build any divisi parts around this idea.

[Mattias Westlund]

(08-02-2019, 11:33 PM)Nayrb Wrote: The infallible Internet has led me to believe that the bass trombone often comprises one part of the three trombone section. As such, I've begun to try to build any divisi parts around this idea.

A number of years ago I tried setting up a template that had only multiples of solo brass and winds samples, to facilitate arranging properly for the sections instead of having them play in unison all the time. From what I can recall it sounded very impressive, but added a layer of complexity and extra work that I wasn't prepared for at the time. And I also recall I didn't have enough solo instruments of high enough quality to make this work as well as I wanted. I think I should try this again, since I feel I'm becoming kind of lazy and complacent.

Still, there's the matter of combining solo brass into ensembles where you'll run into a lot of phase issues. Add enough of them together and you'll have a sound more reminiscent of Van Halen's Jump than an actual real life brass section.

[Nayrb]

(08-03-2019, 12:29 AM)Mattias Westlund Wrote:

(08-02-2019, 11:33 PM)Nayrb Wrote: The infallible Internet has led me to believe that the bass trombone often comprises one part of the three trombone section. As such, I've begun to try to build any divisi parts around this idea.

A number of years ago I tried setting up a template that had only multiples of solo brass and winds samples, to facilitate arranging properly for the sections instead of having them play in unison all the time. From what I can recall it sounded very impressive, but added a layer of complexity and extra work that I wasn't prepared for at the time. And I also recall I didn't have enough solo instruments of high enough quality to make this work as well as I wanted. I think I should try this again, since I feel I'm becoming kind of lazy and complacent.

Still, there's the matter of combining solo brass into ensembles where you'll run into a lot of phase issues. Add enough of them together and you'll have a sound more reminiscent of Van Halen's Jump than an actual real life brass section.

Yeah, I suppose it sort of defeats its own purpose if you turn your brass samples into a synth patch!

For my part, I'm only using this approach when I'm working with intervals within a section. I'm not trying to build sections out of solo patches to play unisons. Maybe for a part where three bones could be playing only a two note part; but in those cases I've had just as much luck "cheating" and playing it with the section patch, with care. Sections made of solo patches might be a cool frontier for samples in the future, but like you, I just can't get anything with the samples I have that sounds as impressive as the basic section patches.

[Mattias Westlund]

(08-03-2019, 01:20 AM)Nayrb Wrote: For my part, I'm only using this approach when I'm working with intervals within a section. I'm not trying to build sections out of solo patches to play unisons. Maybe for a part where three bones could be playing only a two note part; but in those cases I've had just as much luck "cheating" and playing it with the section patch, with care. Sections made of solo patches might be a cool frontier for samples in the future, but like you, I just can't get anything with the samples I have that sounds as impressive as the basic section patches.

That's kind of what I meant: solo instruments can't easily be combined into unison sections, at least not with brass. If you play the same note with e.g. three sampled solo trumpets it's going to sound all phasey and weird. So if you want to use actual recorded section samples along with solo samples for in-section chords and harmonies, you better make sure those solo samples go well with the ensemble sound or you'll have some frustrating times ahead of you. That was the "layer of complexity and extra work that I wasn't prepared for at the time" I was referring to, and not the actual arraging of the different solo instrument voices (though that played a part as well, of course).

[Nayrb]

(08-03-2019, 01:41 AM)Mattias Westlund Wrote:

(08-03-2019, 01:20 AM)Nayrb Wrote: For my part, I'm only using this approach when I'm working with intervals within a section. I'm not trying to build sections out of solo patches to play unisons. Maybe for a part where three bones could be playing only a two note part; but in those cases I've had just as much luck "cheating" and playing it with the section patch, with care. Sections made of solo patches might be a cool frontier for samples in the future, but like you, I just can't get anything with the samples I have that sounds as impressive as the basic section patches.

That's kind of what I meant: solo instruments can't easily be combined into unison sections, at least not with brass. If you play the same note with e.g. three sampled solo trumpets it's going to sound all phasey and weird. So if you want to use actual recorded section samples along with solo samples for in-section chords and harmonies, you better make sure those solo samples go well with the ensemble sound or you'll have some frustrating times ahead of you. That was the "layer of complexity and extra work that I wasn't prepared for at the time" I was referring to, and not the actual arraging of the different solo instrument voices (though that played a part as well, of course).

Ah, yes. I see what you mean. Have you noticed the same with winds? I'm striving to enhance my understanding and use of winds, but I'm not always sure I'm accomplishing what I intend. I often think I need to layer two of the same instrument in unison to get the volume and clarity I'm after, but to be honest I don't always know for sure that what I'm doing is necessary.

There's anther question relevant to the thread: What's the primary purpose of a section of, say, two of every wind instrument in an orchestra? Is it for harmonies or for volume, or both?

[Samulis]

(08-03-2019, 02:57 AM)Nayrb Wrote: There's anther question relevant to the thread: What's the primary purpose of a section of, say, two of every wind instrument in an orchestra? Is it for harmonies or for volume, or both?

That is the entire subject of orchestration pretty well summed up. 

By the dawn of the 19th century, composers began seeking new textures and a period of orchestral non-conformity began as new woodwind and brass instruments were tried, tested, and eventually either kept or abandoned. As the 19th century progressed, orchestras continued to grow larger. Composers such as Wagner and Berlioz (among many others) were proponents of large, complex orchestras with a wide range of timbres to draw from, not to mention larger concert halls with more seats, and so the orchestra as a whole grew louder... a process which continues uninterrupted to the present day.

For the most part, the number of woodwinds (single, double, triple, or quadruple) is generally tied to two things- skill and finances. Only the most experienced (or ambitious) composers tended to work with quadruple winds, with triple being a generally agreed value required to play many late-Romantic works, which tend to require a large orchestra. Double winds is perhaps on the small side, getting closer to the realm of a chamber or classical orchestra in scope, but much more manageable for the composer.

You will find all orchestration texts discuss using woodwind families in tutti or divisi as both valid. Historically, I would suggest the majority of cases call for 'divisi' writing, one line per part, allowing families to play harmony. Doubling parts across families (e.g. unison bass clarinet and bassoon) is widely used too. In general, the perceived increase in loudness from the addition of additional instruments is a diminishing scale, so doubling parts is almost more useful as its own color than it is as a method to compete with louder instruments. An entire section playing a line in unison is a powerful, evocative sound, almost no matter what section it is.

Ultimately, it is up to you as the composer/orchestrator to determine how many woodwinds to use and how to use them.

[Nayrb]

(08-03-2019, 05:16 AM)Samulis Wrote:

(08-03-2019, 02:57 AM)Nayrb Wrote: There's anther question relevant to the thread: What's the primary purpose of a section of, say, two of every wind instrument in an orchestra? Is it for harmonies or for volume, or both?

That is the entire subject of orchestration pretty well summed up. 

By the dawn of the 19th century, composers began seeking new textures and a period of orchestral non-conformity began as new woodwind and brass instruments were tried, tested, and eventually either kept or abandoned. As the 19th century progressed, orchestras continued to grow larger. Composers such as Wagner and Berlioz (among many others) were proponents of large, complex orchestras with a wide range of timbres to draw from, not to mention larger concert halls with more seats, and so the orchestra as a whole grew louder... a process which continues uninterrupted to the present day.

For the most part, the number of woodwinds (single, double, triple, or quadruple) is generally tied to two things- skill and finances. Only the most experienced (or ambitious) composers tended to work with quadruple winds, with triple being a generally agreed value required to play many late-Romantic works, which tend to require a large orchestra. Double winds is perhaps on the small side, getting closer to the realm of a chamber or classical orchestra in scope, but much more manageable for the composer.

You will find all orchestration texts discuss using woodwind families in tutti or divisi as both valid. Historically, I would suggest the majority of cases call for 'divisi' writing, one line per part, allowing families to play harmony. Doubling parts across families (e.g. unison bass clarinet and bassoon) is widely used too. In general, the perceived increase in loudness from the addition of additional instruments is a diminishing scale, so doubling parts is almost more useful as its own color than it is as a method to compete with louder instruments. An entire section playing a line in unison is a powerful, evocative sound, almost no matter what section it is.

Ultimately, it is up to you as the composer/orchestrator to determine how many woodwinds to use and how to use them.

Thanks again, Sam. Winds are still an area where I often find myself balked by my own uncertainties. I often worry that I'm doing unrealistic things with just one wind instrument against a backdrop of, say, loud brass and percussion; but then I'll listen to a recording and hear a single clarinet or a flute merrily chirping away, completely audible amongst the rest of the instruments. It's probably got a lot more to do with arrangement and "carrying power" than it does with actual decibels. Kind of like how a tamborine can be heard in some unlikely places. More and more my ears are beginning to pick up on the nice textures created by blending winds, and as you say, their ability to stand out seems to rely quite a bit on that. I suspect I've begun obsessing rather than using my ears... I don't think I'm even interested in total, absolute, "realism" because I'm often throwing in weird instruments and things that don't really fit in a traditional orchestra.

Lately I'm finding myself referencing soundtracks for my own music. Not so much the modern, hybrid, ones, but the sound of the late 70s through the 90s (so yeah, Star Wars, Conan, etc.). Dynamics and realistic orchestration are still there, but there's some "studio magic" gluing it all together. And there's still room to throw in something exotic and different.

I've learned a lot listening to classical recordings, including that even those are often processed in some way to achieve a certain effect. My copy of Scheherazade is the Telarc one from the late 80s and the dynamics are pretty wild . I suspect they were exaggerated to prove a point during an era when people still needed to be sold on digital recording. I don't think that emulating that in my own VO setup would be of value or even successful.