# Does SIZE matter?



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Size of the orchestra, that is!

Composers like Strauss and Mahler were famous for using orchestras that were larger in size than traditional ones. Excluding the addition of exotic instruments (which can be added to any size orchestra), does the inclusion of more strings, more woodwind or more brass necessarily mean a BIGGER sound?

I have at least two recordings of Mahler's 8th, the so-called Symphony of a Thousand. It is well know for being scored for a huge orchestra. Listening to a recording, however, I find it more or less impossible to determine that the orchestra is any bigger, for example, than what one would find a Shostakovich symphony.

Certainly, miking and dynamics on the recording are not always the most faithful sonic reproductions. But what about in live performances? I have seen live performances of Mahler's 2nd and 6th, both require a larger-than average orchestra. I have also seen performances of other works, like Night on Bald Mountain, for example, which require a smaller orchestra. In terms of color and sonic splendour, I could not hear much, if any difference between Bald Mountain and Mahler 6. Both were layered, colorful and loud.

So, what does a larger-than-normal orchestra really accomplish?


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

It accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's a way for the composer to compensate for the size of their brain by using a gigantic orchestra. But if the composer's brain is big enough, he wouldn't need to compensate for anything. For instance, Bach's Art of Fugue is greatly superior to anything Mahler wrote. Transcribe it for even a small orchestra and it easily becomes the most profound music in existence (it already is, by the way).


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I think that in a modern concert hall, size really makes for a more intense experience. The most thrilling concerts I've been to have been Holst the Planets, Mahler's 2nd, and the Firebird Suite by Stravinsky. It really adds something visceral to the experience, but I suppose if you sit closer it doesn't matter so much.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

It's hard to tell. 

Our symphony orchestra has gotten into the annoying habit of amplifying the sound at concerts. The speaker distortion drives me nuts. I would like to hear a concert with natural sound once in a while. Then, mayble I could tell you.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> It's hard to tell.
> 
> Our symphony orchestra has gotten into the annoying habit of amplifying the sound at concerts. The speaker distortion drives me nuts. I would like to hear a concert with natural sound once in a while. Then, mayble I could tell you.


I sympathize - and wonder why the speakers distort (usually it's the amp that overloads, but anyway, what/who is the source of the incompetence?). I don't get to many symphony concerts (none so far), but I would be severely annoyed at the presence of speakers - I can get that at home.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I sympathize - and wonder why the speakers distort (usually it's the amp that overloads, but anyway, what/who is the source of the incompetence?). I don't get to many symphony concerts (none so far), but I would be severely annoyed at the presence of speakers - I can get that at home.


My guess is that they do it because the natural acoustics in various places in the auditorium are pretty bad. Now, no matter where you sit, you get the same sound. Poor.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> It accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's a way for the composer to compensate for the size of their brain by using a gigantic orchestra. But if the composer's brain is big enough, he wouldn't need to compensate for anything. For instance, Bach's Art of Fugue is greatly superior to anything Mahler wrote. Transcribe it for even a small orchestra and it easily becomes the most profound music in existence (it already is, by the way).


Why does everyone hate Mahler just because he wrote for a large orchestra?  It seems like some people think that using big orchestras is a cheap way of making music...but it's just the effect that the composer is going for.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^& I immediately become suspicious when someone says "x is superior to y," esp. if the two things are completely different. Maybe you can compare some things sensibly, but Bach to Mahler? What on earth would you do that for? (unless you're talking about, say, Mahler's arrangements of Bach's music to the originals, that would make sense) In any case, the organ is said to be the king of instruments, so if you accuse Mahler for going over the top with his huge orchestras, you may as well blame Bach for writing for the organ...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> ...Composers like Strauss and Mahler were famous for using orchestras that were larger in size than traditional ones. Excluding the addition of exotic instruments (which can be added to any size orchestra), does the inclusion of more strings, more woodwind or more brass necessarily mean a BIGGER sound?...


Perhaps not bigger but richer, in that there's more layering & richer, more diverse, textures.

& also in terms of specific things (eg. instrumental colours) a composer wants, eg. some of Mahler's symphonies using the full gamut of percussion instruments - eg. cowbells, sleighbells, or that hammer blow in the 6th. Or Janacek with all those wierd brass instruments in his _Sinfonietta_. Or modern composers like Messiean using electronic instruments like the odnes martenot in his _Turangalila Symphonie_.

As a side-note to this, a composer wanting a huge orchestra can cause all sorts of conflicts with those funding his efforts. Eg. the director Alfred Hitchcock and the composer Bernard Herrmann who wrote the scores for many of his films, actually ended their artistic partnership after the composer demanded an orchestra including something like 16 french horns for a film (apparently to give an underwater feel, it was a film with a maritime setting). Hitchcock said this would be unaffordable so Herrmann spat the dummy and they never worked together again...


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

An amplified Orchestra ye Gods the mind boggles, but the size of the orchestra should relate to what is being played, who wants to hear Haydn being played by 130 strong S.O. ?? not me. but then I am a bit of a purest,


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The only place for amplification of live concerts that I can think of is in large open-air venues where it is actually necessary to be able to hear the music in the first place (it's not just about fine tuning, etc.)...


----------



## Xytech (Apr 7, 2011)

I can't imagine amplification of orchestras/opera in a standard concert hall. The thought repulses me!!!!! Why even bother going then?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I can't either, I've been in one venue with pretty bad acoustics, but if that's the case I think it's better to put up with that than the artificial feel of amplification.

& BTW, I forgot to add that amplification is also okay if it is called for by the composer (eg. in contemporary classical, eg. electro-acoustic music)...


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

How on earth would you amplify each individual instrument, even with multi microphones it would be unreal


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

A huge orchestra in a big hall can be a thrilling experience but so can a chamber orchestra in a small hall.
It more to do with the music and interpretation rather than just sheer noise volume.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

Xytech said:


> I can't imagine amplification of orchestras/opera in a standard concert hall. The thought repulses me!!!!! Why even bother going then?


On that point I went to a popular classical concert at the Royal Albert hall last year with the family. 
I only half enjoyed it because amplification was used. It was unnecessary.
The string section was amplified and fed back down to us via speakers from the roof, it sounded dreadful!
The whole effect of the climaxes were somehow flattened out, the dynamic range of the very quiet string passages and loud brass/ timpani were lost so the works subsequently lost most of their excitement. 
You cant beat honest natural acoustic sound in a fine hall with a fine orchestra.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

..........................


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

presto said:


> A huge orchestra in a big hall can be a thrilling experience but so can a chamber orchestra in a small hall.
> It more to do with the music and interpretation rather than just sheer noise volume.


*Absolutly presto *I go to my chamber concerts at one of the best acoustic hall in the country it can hold approx 300 but you can hear a pin drop.
*String Quartets for ever*


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

For any given piece of orchestral music, merely expanding the size of an orchestra without changing its composition in terms of instruments can't change the type of sound it produces. It will sound louder the bigger is the orchestra but this will only be noticed in a concert venue. In a home listening environment no difference would be noticed because all that would happen is that the volume level would be reduced by the listener.

However, the fixed instrument proportionality assumption is not valid, since a larger orchestra allows for a more varied mix of instrumentation compared with smaller ones. For example, as the 19th century progressed, the Beethovenian model of instruments gave way to larger and more varied forces mainly under the influence of Wagner and his operatic requirements. Wagner greatly expanded the brass, and wind and percussion sections in relative to strings, and also called for new instruments altogether. Verdi was doing similar things, and Mahler continued the process. 

The effect of these scale and compositional instrumentation changes was to produce a bigger, richer sound, with greater timbral variety than was possible with earlier orchestras. But it's a matter of "horse for courses". If you use a big orchestra to play, for example, Schumann, it won't sound right, since the original compositions called for a smaller orchestra.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I think the composer often knew best when it came to the size of the orchestra for orchestral works, and this was especially the case with works the further back in time we go. Mahler would not have asked for the gigantic forces without at the very least "orchestrated the parts in his head" thinking how it would have sounded like when performed.

Going back further, we have written proof by the composer himself in the case of Handel's _Music for the Royal Fireworks_, where he protested against the master of ceremony (representing the king for the outdoors fireworks event) who requested for a very large orchestra consisting of only wind instruments, without any strings. Following the king's wishes, the outdoor event was first performed with 24 oboes, 12 bassoons, 1 contrabassoon, 9 trumpets and 9 horns, and several pairs of drums. This wind version using a large band has been recorded a couple of times today (on period instruments), which I have on recording, and without a doubt, while sounding rich and suitably militaristic for the outdoor event, Handel's letter of protest and all subsequent performances were much, much more well suited to a more "normal" Baroque orchestra consisting of strings and wind. So, here we have proof that composers wrote music knowing full well what the sounds would sound like when performed, and simply changing and or enlarging the size of orchestra did not always necessarily mean a "better sound". (The normal orchestral version is the one often recorded and performed today).

In the case of Mozart's symphonies for example, there were numerous examples of 1st and 2nd violins taking "musical conversations" with each other, and this would have easily been lost under a less than lean orchestra and with the wrong proportions of wind and strings. These talented folks didn't write music without knowing how the parts would have sounded like when performed. It almost certainly was not a case of "quill to paper" only romantic type impulse.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I think the composer often knew best when it came to the size of the orchestra for orchestral works, and this was especially the case with works the further back in time we go.


This must be correct. If a piece was written for a "large" orchestra, or one with an unusual structure, it will generally sound better than if it were performed on a smaller orchestra which lacks some of the instrumentation only available with a larger orchestra. That's all that I was saying in the post above yours.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

The only thing that matters is the size of the room. Seeing a Mahler concert in a symphony hall is much more overwhelming then seeing a Haydn Symphony in the same venue. But take the Haydn Symphony into a small chamber hall, and it can be just as moving. 

Size of the ensemble shouldn't matter either way. If Mahler wants to write for a thousand players, fine with me. If Haydn wants to write for 25, that's alright as well.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

From an orchestrator's point of view, a larger orchestra makes it much easier to keep balance between the groups. Having a string section that's double in size of a normal string section means that it will still be loud enough compared to the winds when you split it up. Can you imaging trying to split the combined violins into 8-part polyphony with an average-sized string section? Even if you tell them to play louder, they could still be drowned out by the brass and woodwinds, and telling them to play too loudly would just make them sound horrendous! The size of the orchestra _does_ matter. The orchestrator must take the size of the orchestra into account when doing the orchestration.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

It must matter in terms of how I tend not to like the "late romantics" who use humungous orchestras. Even with Mahler, I like his _Symphony #4_ more than the others which I've heard, it's for a orchestra that's standard size, or near that. I don't like R. Strauss' tone poems much but I like his smaller scale works. Same with Wagner, I prefer his _Siegfried Idyll _over his operas. So size of an orchestra must matter, if I'm turned off by a huger one but turned on by a standard or chamber one. It's also a matter of style, I don't like the heavily upholstered "late romantic" style that much. Eg. The c20th modernist composer Edgard Varese's _Ameriques_ in it's original version is for like 150 players & I like that quite a bit, but it is very intense...


----------

