# Dream Orchestra



## Edward Elgar

Which instruments would you have in your ideal orchestra?
I know what I'd have;

Equal measures of violins, cellos and double basses.
Six horns, three trombones and two tubas.
Two harps, a piano, a marimba, a celesta, chromatic timps, two bass drums - loads of cymbals.
One flute and a theremin.


----------



## sebastianglabo

2 harps? thats a bit superflous!


----------



## Josef Haydn

I apologise but edward elgar suffers from a rare disease called 'Giganticus Moronicus' and sometimes is confused as to what comprises an amazing orchestra.

Equal Strings, all 20/section
3 Flutes
3 Oboes
1 Oboe D'amore
2 Bassoons
1 Contra Bassoon
2 Clarinets
Bassett Horn
6 Horns
1 Tuba
1 Wagner Horn
1 of Alto, Tenor and Bass Trombones
2 Trumpets
1 Organ
Diatonic Timps (2players) (chromatic?....you stupid boy)
The Usual Percussion section +marimba and Tubular Bells
1 Gong
1 Bass Drum

and

A ressurected Mahler to conduct!

I Thank You


----------



## Josef Haydn

Oh, and a Harp


----------



## Edward Elgar

That's just an ordinary orchestra - try to be a little more creative!

The reason I havn't included much woodwind is because you can get most emotions out of merely strings and brass - woodwind just clutter up a score. If I added a bassoon in my orchestra would you be happy?!


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

The idea of "*equal strings*" is a little bit mis-informed.

I think the word you are looking for is "balanced" strings, where the sections each have a number that creates a homogenous, even sound.

Here are the "balancings" that have become standard over time.

*Large orchestras*
16-18 first violins
14-16 second violins
10-12 violas
8-10 cellos
6-8 contrabasses

*Standard Romantic Orchestras*
12 first violins
10 second violins
8 violas
6 cellos
4 contrabasses

*Classical Chamber Orchestras*
8 first violins
6 second violins
5 violas
4 cellos
3 contrabasses

Of course there are many little variations of these numbers, depending on an orchestras budget, technical possibilities of the stage, conductors preferences and the like. But this "*inverted pyramid*" string count has been tried and tested for over a hundred years and simply works. Inversely, you simply cannot have as many cellos as first violins, it just wouldn't work in terms of balance.


----------



## Saturnus

I have often pondered about this matter (while sitting through tacets or long pause in rehearsals....)

10 first violin
8 second violin
8 violas
6 cellos
3 Contrabasses

5 oboes (1 colla parte with 1st violin)
2 oboe d'amore (1 colla parte with 2nd violin)
2 cor anglais (1 colla parte with violas)
1 Heckelphone

3 flutes (one doubbling picollo)
1 bass/tenor flute

3 bassoons (1 colla parte with cellos)
1 contrabassoon

2 Clarinets
1 Alto-clarinet
1 Bass-clarinet

no goddamn trumpets

6 french horns

4 trombones
2 tubas

2 Harps

2 Timpani
2 percussion

ps. About all this colla parte doubble reed thing, I heard a record once that had two oboes colla parte with 1st and second violins and it sounded absolutely beautiful, I couldn't exactly hear the oboes but the strings had much richer tone than usually. I made a d'amore go with the second violin because in romantic scores I have studied the 2nd violins travel often down to their deepest a and g (notes the d'amore has but oboe not)


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

First of all, I think it should be stated that in this thread, we are fantasizing as composers, not as conductors. The only decisions that conductors and orchestral GM's have to make in terms of the size of their orchestra is how many strings they "carry".

All of this said, *Saturnus*, when you talk about this _colla parte_ idea with the double reeds, are you thinking as a composer, in that you would orchestrate music in this way? If that is the case, then that's perfectly OK, as it comes down to a matter of personal preference. But I would like everyone to realize that from a conductor's point of view, these "fantasies" are relevant only in terms of the internal string ratios from string section to section, and in terms of the overall ratio of strings to winds/brass. The winds/brass orchestration is given by the specific compositions that are being played, not by the conductor's whim.

That said, Saturnus, you don't have enough strings to balance your large wind/brass section. For that type of seating, you need the *Large Orchestra* string count that I have listed above. Also, internally, 10 first violins are too few to balance 8violas + 6cellos. I encourage people to read the strings counts that I have posted above, as they have been tried, tested and true for over a hundred years.


----------



## Josef Haydn

also, this 'colla parte' idea, i'd love to hear it and im not doubting you but i think that you are rather limiting the strings OR pushing the double reeds. I have seen string parts which as a double reed player, i wouldn't fancy bashing thorugh, even the 'cellos. If a composer is to write music in a classical or baroque style, this concept would be great. However, the modern string part is far more advanced and above the heads of the average double reed player, quite frankly, i doubt they'd be able to play the part because of the speed of the notes etc.

As I said, i do see where you are coming from and i think this style could be put to great use.

P.S. where are all your strings! They need doubling atleast!


----------



## Edward Elgar

I’ve reviewed my choice of instruments and found that the sound would be lacking in some areas.

As a composer, this would be my preferred orchestra:

21 first violins
20 second violins
15 violas
20 cellos
10 double basses
1 electric guitar
1 electric violin
1 electric cello

2 pianos
4 harps

20 sopranos
15 altos
15 tenors
20 basses
5 Russian sick-*** basses
Soprano, alto, tenor and baritone/bass soloists (one of each)

3 oboes (one also playing cor anglais)
4 flutes (one also playing piccolo and one also playing bass flute)
3 clarinets in Bb (one also playing bass clarinet)
Soprano, alto, tenor and baritone saxes (one of each)
3 bassoonists (one also playing contrabassoon)
2 didgeridoos
A mouth organ

6 horns
2 trumpets
2 trombones
1 bass trombone
2 tubas

4 pedal-operated timps
2 side drums
2 bass drums
Lots of varieties of cymbals
Drum kit
Gong
Triangle

Celesta
Marimba
Vibraphone
Tubular bells

Organ
Synthesizer
Theremin


That’s only 222 players and singers!


----------



## Josef Haydn

Edward Elgar, I would love to hear a Symphony for that orchestra

however, you are an absolutle nut job lmao


----------



## Saturnus

Kurkikohtaus: 

I agree that we should be fantasizing as composers, but as a conductor I would in some cases add the colla-parte double reeds, for it was a common style at certain times to include them and not expressed the notes.

About the string section in my dream orchestra; you say that I would need a large string section. I disagree. Most of the time I listen to modern orchestras I don't like the balance, those trumpets are overwhelming and too much comes from the string section, so with my dream orchestra I don't want to have the balance that has been tried and tested over the ages (and then distorted by steel strings). It is maybe right to have a romantic string section (add 2 first and second violins, but keep only 3 Cbasses because of the 2 tubas) but I have absolutely no trumpets and a good part of the double-reed section is dedicated to strengthen the strings. 

Haydn: Some extreemly difficult passages would be simplified for the colla-parte reeds, but those players would still need posses well-above-average technique.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Saturnus said:


> ...as a conductor I would in some cases add the colla-parte double reeds, for it was a common style at certain times to include them and not expressed the notes.


Those "certain times" is really only the Baroque period, I agree that in some places it would be tasteful. In classical and romantic music, it is impossible as a conductor to add double reeds to the strings, there isn't a single professional orchestra in the world that would allow you to do that. If you insisted (as a guest conductor), you would be asked by the general manager of the orchestra to comply to the norm or forfeit your appearance with the orchestra. If you insisted (as a music director), you would last a few concerts before you would be asked by the general manager to comply to the norm or have your contract revoked or at best bought out.

In terms of your idea about string balance, I offer these 2 points:

Here is the wind and brass seating that you have, not including the double-reeds that you specify as string doublers:

*4643 - 6042 - 2T+2perc - 2Hf*
_The numbers represent Flutes-Oboes-Clarinets-Bassoons -- Horns-Trumpets-Trombones-Tubas -- Tympani + percussion -- Harps_

As ridiculous as this is, we are fantasizing as composers here, so what the hell, why not.

--- BUT ---

Compare the orchestration of large Mahler works:
_Symphony No. 1_ -- *4443 - 7431 - T+3 - Hf*
_Symphony No. 8_ -- *6565 - 8871 - T+3 - 2Hf - cel,pf,org*

These ensembles are not too different from yours. The 1st symphony can be performed with as little as standard 16-14-10-8-6 string count. The 8th however, cannot. You simply put as many strings on stage as your orchestra can afford, 20 1st violins being the minimum. Anything less than that and you may as well have no strings at all, as they will not be heard when the full orchestra plays.

I cannot accept your argument about "too much coming from the string section". A string section needs a certain minimum number of players in a given piece to achieve a the desired homogeneity of their internal sound and the right balance with the rest of the orchestra.

If your argument is coming from listen to recordings, then I'm afraid it is irrelevant. If it is coming from your experience in live performance with a specific orchestra, then I believe you, but in that case, it is a question of what the conductor is asking for in rehearsals, the accoustics of the hall, and perhaps the qualities of individual players.

Bottom line is that you simply cannot put *10-8-8-6-3* strings on stage with the wind/brass section that you have listed, and the "strengthening" lent by the double-reeds will do absolutely nothing against the power of the large band behind them.


----------



## The Mad Hatter

sebastianglabo said:


> 2 harps? thats a bit superflous!


Not really. Harps can't play chromatically, so you need two to cover all the notes in more complex music. Wagner and Mahler occasionally used 6+.

As for my ideal orchestra...what instruments...er...all of 'em?

I dunno, it depends on the piece. Nothing like composing with limitations, though.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Josef Haydn said:


> you are an absolutle nut job


For my ambitious thoughts or lust for sound?


----------



## Saturnus

Kurki: My listening experience is coming partly from record experience and partly from live experience (both as an audience and as a part of an orchestra). I admit that I've heard the worst balance on records but never in my (short) life I have experienced the woodwind outblowing another section! 
As a conductor I would, of course, only add colla parte to baroque/early classical music.

You state that these fantasies are ridiculus, and they truly are, I think I would never like to set that thing on stage, this orchestra merely states my most appreciated orchestral colours.
That said, there is one thing I should have mentioned earlier. I wouldn't write a single _ff_ for the brass, and use _f_ sparely, I got rid of the trumpets to get rid of that extremely loud and crude brass sound those instruments are capable of producing. I know that the french horns can blow really loud sounds but they are much more smooth. Still, I would use those sounds sparely. The _p_ tone from the french horns is what I would have them for and the high number is only for more complicated chords, I'd use them mainly like Sibelius did in the beginning of the second movement of his first symphony, and for solos. 
Having 40 strings against 17 woodwinds and 12 brass never playing _ff_ are almost too many string players.

But I would like to see your dream orchestra. It must be rather boring replying to nonsense threads without making any nonsense.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

The issues of layered dynamics you raise is a good one, showing that you are truly thinking as a composer and in that case your orchestral fantasies are legit. You may have a problem finding an orchestra that large to play your works, but that is a discussion that belongs elsewhere.



Saturnus said:


> But I would like to see your dream orchestra. It must be rather boring replying to nonsense threads without making any nonsense.


Well said, politely said. In other words, I'm sitting on the fence taking shots at people without actually putting my own ideas on the line. I have to admit that because I'm a conductor, I am very well aware of the balance issues that are standard fare in each and every orchestra, given that most of the time, orchestras play music that is orchestrated in a way similar to Beethoven-Brahms-Tchaikovsky. And when they play bigger things like Mahler and Strauss, there simply are never enough strings.

So sorry to disappoint you, but my "dream" orchestra (from a conductor's point of view) is a real one, the standard romantic orchestra of:

*2222 - 4331 - T+2 - 16-14-10-8-6 strings*

I don't even like when composers call for the *3rd woodwind instruments *(piccolo, english horn, bass or Eb clarinet, contrabassoon) as a _separate_ part (_giving *3333 *winds or *3322 *or any combination that you may think of_). The reason for this is that introducing 1-4 extra wind players leads to an internal inbalance within the woodwind section and immediate tuning issues arise. For an orchestral wind section to play comfortably and naturally with _more _than paired woodwinds, it needs to be a huge orchestra that almost _always_ plays that way. Most orchestras play at least, _at least_ 50% of their pieces *2222 *or *3222 *(with piccolo), and adding that extra player to the mix usually results in a tuning nightmare.

As for the brass, I like the *3rd trumpet *as used by *Bruckner *and *Sibelius*. These 2 composers basically write 2 standard trumpet parts, and then the *3rd trumpet* doubles the *1st trumpet *an octave lower. What this does is it allows the 1st trumpet to play *Softly*. The *3rd trumpet *is the "_*real*_" part, while the *1st trumpet *is just a *soft colouring *an octave higher. For this effect to be achieved, you obviously need good players and a conductor who realizes that this is the *organ-like *effect that the composers are going for. But when done correctly, it gives Bruckner's works a very smooth texture, much like the organ sound that he obviously had in his inner ear.

And as for that standard boring string count, when playing large romantic works in a hall that seats over 1000 people, anything less than this in my experience ends up sounding like a Band. I am willing to take that count down to *12-10-8-6-4* given the size of the concert hall and the piece being played (Beethoven, Schubert, maybe even Dvorak).

Hope I answered your questions, at least a litte!


----------



## Saturnus

You have always replied me with well-made posts that answer my questions! I am thankful for that.
This 3rd trumpet idea appeals good to me (especially when used right). I probably sound like I have got too many trumpet notes fresh out of the bell straight into my ear, but I am extremely tired of trumpeters playing roughly and loud. 
You are clearly against bigger woodwind section (you don't like e-horn, piccolo or bass clarinet as an extra instrument). But consider this; chamber pianists I have talked to say that the violin is louder than the oboe, brass instruments are definately louder than any woodwind, and with woodwind as the smallest section (like in the romantic orchestras) it is the very weakest of the four (string - woodwind - brass - perc.), adding woodwinds to make the four sections equal might not be fitting for what Brahms or Beethoven were aiming for, it would be more classical than romantic.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Saturnus said:


> This 3rd trumpet idea appeals good to me (especially when used right). I probably sound like I have got too many trumpet notes fresh out of the bell straight into my ear, but I am extremely tired of trumpeters playing roughly and loud.


First of all, yes, it is almost 100% a question of the players involved and what the conductor is asking for. Secondly, I forgot to mention the advantage of having the 3rd trumpet there as opposed to just *2* trumpets. When there are 2 trumpets in a _Romantic_ orchestra and they are *not* playing in octaves, they often sound way too loud because the 1st trumpet player feels he has to blare just to be heard against 4 horns and 3 trombones. Then the 2nd trumpet player raises his sound to support the 1st... and there you have it. With the *3* trumpets, a sensitive 1st player will realize that he doesn't have to blare.



Saturnus said:


> You are clearly against bigger woodwind section (you don't like e-horn, piccolo or bass clarinet as an extra instrument).


For the sake of clarity, let me just qualify that statement a little, I wasn't absolutely specific in the post above. I _do_ like all the secondary woodwind instruments, but I generally do not like when composers _add_ the instruments to the standard pairs, making 3 players per woodwind instrument. I like when the 2nd players _double_ on the secondary instruments.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Can I ask what may sound a stupid question? - but I must know; what's the difference between a symphony orchestra and a philharmonic orchestra? Is it differences in their repetuoir, or instrumentation?


----------



## Morigan

Let me answer you by quoting Wikipedia:

"A full size orchestra (about 100 players) may sometimes be called a "symphony orchestra" or "philharmonic orchestra"; these prefixes do not necessarily indicate any strict difference in either the instrumental constitution or role of the orchestra, but can be useful to distinguish different ensembles based in the same city (for instance, the London Symphony Orchestra and the London Philharmonic Orchestra). A symphony orchestra will usually have over eighty musicians on its roster, in some cases over a hundred, but the actual number of musicians employed in a particular performance may vary according to the work being played, and the size of the venue. A leading chamber orchestra might employ as many as fifty members; some are much smaller than that."


----------



## flash_fires

My instrument would be

1 piccolo in C
2 flutes in C
1 Alto flute in G
1 tenor flute
1 bass flute
1 contrabass flute
1 hyperbass flute
1 hyper contrabass flute
1 oboe
1 cor anglais
1 english horn
2 clarinets in Bb
1 clarinet in Eb
1 clarinet in A
1 clarinet in C
1 bass clarinet in Bb
1 contrabass clarinet in Eb
1 contrabass clarinet in Bb
1 sopranissimo saxophone in Bb
1 sopranino saxophone in Eb
1 soprano saxophone in Bb
1 alto saxophone in Eb
1 tenor saxophone in Bb
1 baritone saxophone in Eb
1 bass saxophone in Bb
2 trumpets in Bb
1 cornet in Bb
2 horns in F
1 horn in A
1 horn in Bb
1 horn in C
1 trombone in C
1 bass trombone in C
1 contrabass trombone in C
1 tuba in C
1 tuba in EEb
1 bassoon in C
1 contrabassoon in C
2 violins
1 viola
1 violoncello
1 doublebass
1 four part choir (SATB)
1 chromatic timpani set
1 full percussion line
1 orchestral harp
1 harpsichord
1 pipe organ
1 reed organ

this is all at the bare minimum.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

*flash_fires*, I know that this is a fun thread and I don't want to sound like a party pooper, but your list makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Simply to list every instrument ever made does not take too much thought and the result produced has absolutely nothing to do with the thoughts and concerns of a composer when considering orchestration, namely balance and colour.

Furthermore, there are a few blatant problems:

Your list of flutes is ridiculous. It looks like you opened Wikipedia and copied all the flutes that are there
Cor anglais and English horn are the same instrument
There's really no such thing as a Clarinet in C. Also, no piece calls for clarinets in Bb and A, it's one or the other depending on the key of the piece
The various tunings of the horns is redundant. In the 20th century, all horn parts are in F. The various tunings from the Romantic and Classical eras are meant for natural horns. Modern players simply transpose these parts in their head and play on F horns.
Your trombone seating doesn't work. You need a minimum of 2 tenors and 1 bass (standard) + the extra basses if you wish.
For and orchestra this big you need 2 harps.

Again, sorry if this sounds too nit-picky but I'm just trying to keep this thread intelligent and relevant.


----------



## Josef Haydn

i agree

your 'string section' is pityful, its more of a windband than an orchestra.

i would actually hate to have to compose something nice for all those instruments, it just woudn't work


----------



## Josef Haydn

and...

there is no need to state the key of the bassoon cos there is no transposing bassoon or contrabassoon worth its salt on this earth


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

flash_fires said:


> 2 violins
> 1 viola
> 1 violoncello
> 1 doublebass





Josef Haydn said:


> your 'string section' is pityful, its more of a windband than an orchestra.


I think he means 2 violin _*parts*_, 1 viola _*part*_ etc., each with multiple players.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Kurkikohtaus said:


> I think he means 2 violin _*parts*_, 1 viola _*part*_ etc., each with multiple players.


I sincerely hope so! LOL


----------



## flash_fires

Each instrument is a part, I forgot to add that in.

The Cor Anglais and the English horn are not the same thing. The Cor Anglais is the alto voice of the Oboe Family, the English horn is the bass voice. The setup is as follows.

S = Oboe
A = Cor Anglais
T = Hecklephone
B = English horn

I do understand that all the transpositions of the instruments does seem a bit upsurd (I'm taking out the Clarnet in A), but I find you can get more use out of each section if you have transposed instruments. For example, if you need your clarinet section to play certain low notes, that none of the Bb or C clarinets can hit, then you employ your Eb clarinets to hit those notes.

The large flute section results for my personal liking of very low flute sounds. I enjoy listening to their mellow tones, and usually use them with the flute section or Horn section.

The Horns' transpositions are for the same reason as the clarinets.

The trombones in the list are the parts, multiple players on each part.

I will add in the second harp.

I've had people think that the Bassoon and Contrabassoon were pitched in all sorts of weird keys, so I just wanted to make sure everyone knew.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

flash_fires said:


> The *Cor Anglais *and the *English horn *are not the same thing. The Cor Anglais is the *alto voice *of the Oboe Family, the English horn is the* bass voice*.


That is *absurd*.

"Cor Anglais" is french for "English Horn", and they are the exact same instrument.

In all friendlyness, please check and double check your information before making statements like that in a forum where there are bound to be experts.
_____________________________________

Furthermore, I still take issue with your concept of this orchestra.

No composer has ever written music for an orchestra like this, namely because it is impossible to achieve any type of balance and consistant intonation within and across the different sections, not to mention logistical issues.

So what is your purpose in putting this type of orchestra together? Do you _really_ need all those extra colours? If everybody is playing together or even a few sections playing with a few other sections, the extra colours will be lost in the goulash. If you plan on using the extra colours in a chamber-like context the way Mahler does in (for example)_Das Lied von der Erde_, you would need a 5 hour long piece to use and highlight each one, and then your piece becomes an overview of the history of instrument manufacturing and not music in and of itself.
____________________________________________

And as a *parting shot*, I offer this:

Anytime you put *Saxophones* in an orchestra, you are asking for trouble.


----------



## Josef Haydn

i agree, the use of saxophones stops at glen millers orchestra and the odd doubling of the 2nd or 3rd clarinet part, a constant saxophone section


it makes me shiver

and sopranissimo, do those things actually sound nice cos the image i'm gettign is an instrumetn that specialises in the squeeky notes of a clarinet


----------



## Morigan

Kurkikohtaus said:


> If everybody is playing together or even a few sections playing with a few other sections, the extra colours will be lost in the goulash.


Hahahahaha!! Is that an idiom you acquired in Eastern Europe, M. K.?


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

While Hungary is the true home of goulash, the Czechs have several varieties as well, the onion-filld *Chebský guláš* from West-Bohemia being my personal favourite.

This goulash sounds like Bizet after too many Bírz.


----------



## Saturnus

Well, I am an oboe player and I assure you the list is like this:

Sopranino: Musette
Soprano: Oboe
Alto: Oboe d'Amore
Tenor: Cor Anglaise / English horn (the same instrument!)
Bass: Bass oboe / Heckelphone (the same instrument except that Heckelphones have wider bore and produce louder (and rougher) sound).


----------



## Edward Elgar

Saturnus said:


> Well, I am an oboe player and I assure you the list is like this:
> 
> Sopranino: Musette
> Soprano: Oboe
> Alto: Oboe d'Amore
> Tenor: Cor Anglaise / English horn (the same instrument!)
> Bass: Bass oboe / Heckelphone (the same instrument except that Heckelphones have wider bore and produce louder (and rougher) sound).


All my annoying little queries about oboes have been answered in this one post!
Thank you Saturnus!


----------



## tutto

Edward Elgar said:


> Can I ask what may sound a stupid question? - but I must know; what's the difference between a symphony orchestra and a philharmonic orchestra? Is it differences in their repetuoir, or instrumentation?


philharmonic society,with 100, 200, 300 years of tradition has a simphonic orchestra,called philharmonic orch. old stuff.

on the other hand, there are younger radio-tv like orch., also simph.,usually doing modern music

not to forget boston pops


----------



## Toddlertoddy

More than 8 violas, which is a fantasy.

5 clarinets in B flat and A
2 clarinets in E flat
2 bass clarinet
5 oboes
2 english horns
4 flutes (1 piccolo)
1 alto flute
4 bassoons (2 contrabassoons)

8 horns
4 trumpets
4 trombones
2 tubas (1 euphonium/baritone)

others (who cares about strings?)


----------



## Klavierspieler

*Strings:*

1 first violin
1 second violin
20 violas
5 cellos
37 contrabasses
15 guitars
1 erhu
8 tromba marinas
2 rebecs
59 lutes
3 banjos
1 zither
42 harps
48 mandolins

*Woodwinds:*

90 piccolos 
1 flute
2 alto flutes
5 tenor flutes 
87 bass flutes
20 clarinets
21 bass clarinets
1 oboe
23 oboes d'amour
49 heckelphones
57 bassoons
134 contrabassoons
78 Great Highland pipes
244 Uilleann pipes
4062 penny whistles (various sizes)
807 Hümmelchen
1 panpipes
1 accordion
1 harmonica

*Brass:*

22 horns
1 trumpet (one is enough)
39 trombones
101 tubas
87 alphorns
3 euphoniums

*Percussion:*

20 sets of timpani
40 Bodhrans
A bunch of triangles
87 cymbals
904 gongs
Knock on wood.

*Conductors:*

Beethoven
Mahler
Schumann
Ligeti
John Smith
Julius Caesar
Napoleon
Wikipedia
Carmen
Figaro
Hypothetical Chinese Composer
Alexander the Great
Gerard Schwarz
The Seattle Symphony
My dog

I'm done now.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Klavierspieler said:


> 90 piccolos


----------



## SuperTonic

This thread reminds me of an excerpt from Hector Berlioz's Treatise on Orchestration where he outlines his dream orchestra (some of these instruments I've never even heard of and I'm guessing are obsolete now):



> 120 Violins divided in two, three, or four parts;
> 40 Violas divided optionally into first and seconds, at least ten of which would at times play the viola d'amore;
> 45 Cellos, divided into first and seconds;
> 18 Double-Basses with 3 strings tuned in fifths (G, D, A);
> 4 Octo-Basses;
> 15 Double-Basses with 4 strings tuned in fourths (E, A, D, G);
> 6 Flutes;
> 4 Flutes in E flat, incorrectly known as Flutes in F;
> 2 Piccolos;
> 2 Piccolos in D flat, incorrectly known as piccolos in E flat;
> 6 Oboes;
> 6 Cors Anglais;
> 5 Saxophones;
> 4 Tenoroons;
> 12 Bassoons;
> 4 Clarinets in E flat;
> 8 Clarinets (in C, B flat or A);
> 3 Bass Clarinets (in B flat);
> 16 Horns (6 of them with valves);
> 8 Trumpets;
> 6 Cornets;
> 4 Alto Trombones;
> 6 Tenor Trombones;
> 2 Bass Trombones;
> 1 Ophicleid in C;
> 2 Ophicleids in B flat;
> 2 Tubas
> 30 Harps;
> 30 Pianos;
> 1 very deep Organ, with at least sixteen foot stops;
> 8 Pairs of Timpani (10 players);
> 6 Drums;
> 3 Bass Drums;
> 4 Pairs of Cymbals;
> 6 Triangles;
> 6 Sets of Bells;
> 12 Pairs of Antique Cymbals (tuned to different pitches);
> 2 Large and very deep Bells;
> 2 Gongs;
> 4 'Jingling Johnnies'
> 
> 467 Instrumental players
> 
> 40 Sopranos (children, first and second);
> 100 Sopranos (women, first and second);
> 100 Tenors (first and second
> 120 Basses (first and second
> 
> 360 Choristers


That's 827 performers on stage. He actually goes into quite a bit of detail as to how one could make such an ensemble work.

http://www.hberlioz.com/Scores/BerliozTreatise.html#Orchestra


----------



## LordBlackudder

1 slide whistel
1 comb thing that you blow
a ruler and desk
big drum
2 horn things
1 symbol
marimba
that tube with bumps in it that you scratch


----------



## drpraetorus

This is the large orchestra I usually write for. As you can probably tell, I don't get many performances. Musicians are not cheap. 
Standard strings, perhaps expanded to balance the rest of the group. Forgive my spelling it's late.
Piccolo
2 Flutes
1 alto Flute
1Bass Flute
2 oboes
1English Horn
3 Bb Clarinets (A sometimes)
1 Bass Clarinet
1 Contrabass clarinet
3 Bassoons
1 Contrabassoon
The occaisional bariton or bass sax
3 Bb trumpets
3 flugelhorns
4 F horns
2 wagner tubas (bass)
2 Euphoniums
2 tenor trombones
2 bass trombones
1 tuba
Percussion as needed
Almost always timpanni
Bass drum
Gong
Snare drum
Crash and suspended Cymbols
At least 2 harps.


----------



## Krisena

Edward Elgar said:


> Which instruments would you have in your ideal orchestra?
> I know what I'd have;
> 
> Equal measures of violins, cellos and double basses.
> Six horns, three trombones and two tubas.
> Two harps, a piano, a marimba, a celesta, chromatic timps, two bass drums - loads of cymbals.
> One flute and a theremin.


The Orchestra of the Extreme Registers ™


----------

