# Which instrument: does it matter?



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

When listening to orchestral music, does it matter to your "understanding" whether you know which instrument(s) are playing? Or is it only important to listen to the sounds as sounds, their timbre, texture, dynamics etc?


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

Both are important to me.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I'd say learning to recognize the timbres of instruments is one of the more basic stages of attentive listening. Apparently, that's what Britten's "Young person's guide to the orchestra" is about.

This does not mean that even quite experienced listeners can become confused by uncommon or highly original instrumentations. The bassoon in a very high register at the begining of Le Sacre du Printemps is such a case.

Some time ago I listened to Britten's "Diversion" for piano & orchestra and was rather puzzled about a wind instrument that I could not easily identify, it was probably a soprano saxophone, a rare guest in the classical orchestra.

With "mixings" in craftily orchestrated late romantic or modern music it is often even more difficult to tell who is actually playing, nothing to get hung about, I'd say


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I've been deeply into music for so long that it's really hard to remember when I couldn't identify a certain sound or instrument. I do recall having some old records which demonstrated the instruments and learned their timbre long before hearing them in person. But there have been times when a new, different sound popped up and it would drive me crazy until I could find out what it was. One of those is the sound of the bass harmonica. Film composer Vic Mizzy loved to score with it as in the old comedy "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken". Or the Cuica drum. The most unusual sound I ever heard was a late night broadcast - I tuned into the middle of something played on Glass Harmonica; learning what it was certainly made me appreciate it all the more and ruined practically every performance/recording of The Carnival of the Animals because they usually substitute a glockenspiel.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

My issue is not an inability to identify instruments which I can do well enough for most instruments, (even the glass (h)armonica and the ondes martenot!), but questioning whether it is _important _to note that at this point, the melody is carried by the flute, then by flute and oboe together, then passed round the brass. Or that it is simply a succession of sounds of different timbres and textures etc.

I like knowing which is playing what, and I dislike recordings where some instruments are pushed back in the mix or swamped (usually by the strings.) But does it matter whether I can or not?


----------



## KevinJS (Sep 24, 2021)

I have to admit to having experienced quite a shock quite recently, when I realized that, as much as I knew the music, I had no clue for the most part how it was being generated. 

I’ve always enjoyed the way the orchestra passes the theme among themselves and have detected some quite brilliant moments as a melody appears to dance in the air. Moments like that must be deliberate on the part of the composer. 

To a non-musician, it’s perhaps not essential to be able to pick out the instruments, but I think it can’t hurt to understand what is going into a performance. The greater the understanding, the greater the enjoyment?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> When listening to orchestral music, does it matter to your "understanding" whether you know which instrument(s) are playing? Or is it only important to listen to the sounds as sounds, their timbre, texture, dynamics etc?


That kind of surface preoccupation is contrary to how I listen to music. While I can easily discern which instruments, or combinations, are making the sounds, it would be a distraction to my enjoyment of the music.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> I've been deeply into music for so long that it's really hard to remember when I couldn't identify a certain sound or instrument.


Same here, my experience is very similar...
When I listen I always identify the instrument being played...I also listen to the sections - the voices within - what is the first part, second, third and so on...the 2nd clarinet was late, the third trumpet a little sharp, the 2nd violins imprecise, etc.
Suppose it just comes from years and years of critical listening...ID-ing the instruments is, to me, a very basic, essential component of listening, like understanding the meter, tonality [if there is any], tempo, etc.

The 2nd Viennese composers are interesting - esp Schoenberg and Berg - because they fragment the melodies, divvy them up among many different instruments - maybe for just a note or two, before passing it on to the next voice...Schoenberg would even place signals in the individual parts - "brackets" that alert the player that those notes are part of the main theme and must fit in with the preceding and succeeding voices.
20th century music is quite fascinating due to the extended use of the orchestra - great orchestrators like Stravinsky, Ravel, Shostakovich, Schoenberg, among many, provide a most colorful palette of instrumentation.....some of the combinations are stunningly original...


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Heck148 said:


> The 2nd Viennese composers are interesting - esp Schoenberg and Berg - because they fragment the melodies, divvy them up among many different instruments - maybe for just a note or two, before passing it on to the next voice...Schoenberg would even place signals in the individual parts - "brackets" that alert the player that those notes are part of the main theme and must fit in with the preceding and succeeding voices.


I think this might be why Webern's instrumentation of Bach's Ricercare seems to turn it into a different piece. He is not doing it like "registering" an organ but more like you describe Schoenberg's way, if I am not mistaken.


----------



## alvaro (Sep 21, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> That kind of surface preoccupation is contrary to how I listen to music. While I can easily discern which instruments, or combinations, are making the sounds, it would be a distraction to my enjoyment of the music.


Same here. It's not really important to me, to know exactly what is playing, I think that'd divert me from the music, although normally I can tell what's playing. But I don't really focus on that, I just enjoy the music and how it transports me.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Forster said:


> When listening to orchestral music, does it matter to your "understanding" whether you know which instrument(s) are playing? Or is it only important to listen to the sounds as sounds, their timbre, texture, dynamics etc?


I still, on _both_ recordings of the Tchaikovsky _Pathetique_ _and_ in concert hall hearings of the piece, take an interest in whether or not a bassoon takes on those final 4 notes at the end of the 1st movement exposition, or if a bass clarinet is substituted. Tchaikovsky specifies the bassoon in his score.

Too, I find myself watching brass instruments, especially French horns, in concerts of Classical era and early Romantic era works to see if the musicians are using valves or not. Something not so evident to my ears as to my eyes, so I don't pay particular attention to this difference when listening to recordings.

I can, at times, distinguish between the B-flat and the A clarinet. I'm intrigued by some of the uses of these two instruments.

Of course, there's a lot of differences between the sounds of early and later era flutes, and I find the timbre of these instruments worth paying attention to.

So, yes, I suspect individual instruments and their particular sounds _do_ matter to me. In all honesty, I prefer music where individual instrumental sounds cut through the mix rather than that music on which there is a kind of "gray" wash of sound, thick and homogenous. One of my objections to much of the Karajan sound (I've long not been a fan of Karajan) is that slick "sameness" in the conductor's textures. I'm sure some of you will disagree here, and that's okay.

Also, I've long collected recordings of Bach's _Brandenburg Concerti_, valuing those most on which the individual instruments (especially horns and flutes) sing out with a distinctive presence. When the horns are really "brassy" it's a real plus. (I recall a time when I collected versions of Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_ with equal relish, but stopped when I came to my senses to realize that the pure string sound didn't allow for as much variety as I experienced from the more varied orchestra of Bach's Concerti.)

And what about that clarinet at the beginning of _Rhapsody in Blue_. Does the sound of that instrument matter or not? To my ears, it's as important as that bassoon that opens Stravinsky's _Rite_.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Forster said:


> When listening to orchestral music, does it matter to your "understanding" whether you know which instrument(s) are playing? Or is it only important to listen to the sounds as sounds, their timbre, texture, dynamics etc?


As an experienced listener, I do not think that the differentiation of the various instruments causes me much trouble and the identification as such takes place more or less on the subconscious level. As a rule I listen more to the general effect (and affect) of the music and whether it appeals to me or not.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Interesting how many responses refer to the _ability_ to distinguish one instrument from another.

I should have been clearer that I was asking whether it matters to the composer that, as part of your understanding of the piece, that you are able to distinguish.

For example, I love Sibelius 7th, but it was quite a while before I noticed that the trombone solo was a thing. I knew it was a trombone playing, but analysts make much of this feature. Could it have just as easily been a French horn? Would Sibelius worry that I hadn't paid it specific attention?


----------

