# Balance of instruments depending on dynamic markings



## Aries

How does the overall dynamic level (ppp to fff) affect the relative difference in sound volume of instruments in an orchestra?

Instruments have different minimum and maximum sound volumes, so I think differences like ff versus fff, doesn't make a big difference for some instruments but a big difference for others. How is it dealt with?

I searched a bit and found some data: 
- https://books.google.de/books?id=OL...YaqvNgLgP&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
- https://books.google.at/books?id=srApJp3nP4wC&lpg=PP1&hl=de&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false

But it is a bit surprising and questions remain.

I expect that brass instruments and timpani are capable of louder sounds than strings and woodwinds. So far so good.

I also expect that strings in total are capable of louder sounds than woodwinds. But the data tells something different. Single woodwinds are capable of louder sounds than single strings. This raises the question how the number of instruments affect the sound volume of instrument groups.

Lets talk about an orchestra with:
- 2 flutes
- 2 oboes
- 2 clarinets
- 2 bassons
- 4 horns
- 3 trumpets
- 3 trombones
- 1 tuba
- 1 timpani
- 30 violins
- 12 violas
- 10 cellos
- 8 double bass

If a single violin is capable of 99 dB and a single clarinet is capable of 106 dB, what does this mean for 30 violins and 2 clarinets? Does doubling the number result in +10dB or is it less because of a some merging of sound waves maybe?

Another thing that I expected is that high instruments like trumpets and violins are capable of louder sounds than low instruments like trombones and cellos. But the data tells something different again. But maybe we have to distinguish between physical sound and prominence of tones. Maybe higher instruments just sound more prominent, even tough they are objectively not as powerful. Maybe there is also a difference between human hearing and measurement by some technical tools.

When all brasses "battle", which instrument is dominant at fff, and wich is dominant at ff? Is there a difference?

What is the highest dynamic marking up to which woodwinds are good audible? They are probably dominant compared to strings at ppp but they seems really secondary at fff especially compared to brass.

Its overall complicated and maybe I didn't include all of my thoughts in this post, but I hope some can help my with this topic.


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> How does the overall dynamic level (ppp to fff) affect the relative difference in sound volume of instruments in an orchestra.


Huge subject of utmost importance in music performance....balance between and within sections is crucial to the clarity and transparency of the texture...Great composers master the art of orchestration but musicians and conductors must devote the most attention to this issue..
Dynamics are relative, so individual decibel levels are not really so important....and of course, individual musicians vary a great deal in how much sound they can produce...multiply that by 80+ and you're going to get a wide dynamic variation between orchestras as a whole.....
The musicians must determine whether their part, at any given time is foreground [theme, main idea], middle ground [counter melody, important, but not primary] or background [accompaniment, harmonic]...the conductor must correct the balance if it is faulty...the great conductors devote significant time getting this crucial aspect right...


----------



## Enthalpy

In short: at intermediate loudness, musicians can adjust their playing for the music's needs. But at the extremes, there is no solution.

If the trumpets and trombones must play seriously loud, you won't hear the harp, the alto flute, the célesta, and many more. Unless you amplify them.

Some instruments can't play pp easily: the saxophones, the bassoon at low notes, allegedly the oboe at low notes... but this is more a worry at staccato notes, and for chamber music. In a symphonic hall, the minimum volume of these instruments is a rather decent pianissimo, except with amateur musicians.

On the flutes, low notes are very soft, little usable, while high notes can be loud or very loud. In a forte tutti, only the third octave or the piccolo make sense.

The tuba's maximum loudness depends essentially on the breath' duration and the pitch. Ask for 5s legato at low notes and you won't get more than mezzopiano.

The violin's maximum loudness depends on how short the bow strokes are - the longest of them. But the E string is louder, A too. Double stops are louder, and dissonant intervals louder than consonant ones. Also, soloist instruments (notably the old Italian instruments) sacrifice tone quality to loudness, and so do the soloists themselves, playing almost always sul ponticello and with much pressure for a given bow speed. Strings too are unequal, some louder (or more brilliant) and others sounding better.

==========

2 instruments are 3dB louder than one, 10 are 10dB louder, 100 (=10*10) are 20dB (10dB+10dB) louder. But for our ears, 3dB isn't much.

The dB is a comparative unit. It becomes an absolute one, often written dBa, if using some reference for 0dB. Alas, several references exist, and you're lucky if it's indicated.

In physics, the reference of 0dB is 20µPa whatever the frequency.

Other usual conventions put 0dB at the (averaged) sensitivity of human ears, which depends on the frequency. Though, musical sounds contain overtones which are often the best perceived part, so the fundamental frequency doesn't determine the 0dB reference. It becomes a mess, and these dB make little sense then.

==========

We do perceive (not too) high notes better, but not so much, among others thanks to the overtones of low notes. The instruments emit high notes more efficiently, this matters more than our perception.

Symphonic orchestras are unbalanced, with many more soprano instruments than bass and contrabass, and at woodwinds no tenor at all. Bands do that better. Two permanent bass clarinets, a pair of saxophones, a euphonium or two would improve. But we can't find enough bow contrabass players to balance an orchestra, and no loud and nice contrabass fits in the woodwind section. We need something like a CB sarrusophone with sweet tone or an improved CB clarinet with sweet low notes.


----------



## mbhaub

This is so all over the place that commenting is hard.

This is one reason why good conductors are important and rare. They must decide if the "fff" means everyone, or is it for the whole orchestra? and then do the balancing from there. If every instrument played fff at his highest loudness it would sound awful - like a lot of amateur orchestras. Some composers will write different dynamics for different groups and that helps, but there are so many variables (string section size, hall acoustics, player ability, etc) that those marks are just a start. I remember playing a modern symphony by a composer who was a moron when it came to instrumentation. He had the melody in the contrabassoon (me) marked mp. The accompanying instruments: all four horns, trombones, violas, cellos, basses - all marked mp. There is no way I could be heard above them. It wasn't like Hollywood where you can spot mike things. That's what the conductor is for: someone has to hear and change things so important lines are audible.

Symphonic orchestras are not unbalanced: they've gone through two hundred years of evolution and the standard orchestra is very well balanced. Tchaikovsky and Brahms dealt with basically the same orchestra and had no trouble with balance. Brahms like a deeper, more solid bass and included contrabassoon in most of his orchestral works. Some orchestras may be unbalanced. One group I play with has 10 basses, 12 celli, and trust me, we have a solid low end. But you're right about one thing: the euphonium. That single instrument is one reason why bands play marches better than orchestras and why transcribing a band march for orchestra is so difficult. The orchestra has nothing like a euphonium - that tenor/baritone register than can really be heard. Holst knew what he was doing when he included it in The Planets. There have also been composers who include contralto, contrabass clarinets and such to solidify the low winds, but it's quite uncommon.

For the best explanation ever of how to mix instruments in terms of volume, power and brilliance, the old book on orchestration by Rimsky-Korsakov is great.


----------



## Knorf

This post started out ok, but then this happened:



Enthalpy said:


> Symphonic orchestras are unbalanced, with many more soprano instruments than bass and contrabass...


Ok, this is sort of true, but so what? Who thinks an orchestra inherently sounds bad?



> ...and at woodwinds no tenor at all.


What the hell garbage is this?

First of all, the bassoon includes an excellent tenor voice, both in range, projection, and quality. You have two bassoons, usually, and the first is typically a tenor or alto range part and the second a bass or baritone part.

Second of all, the clarinet also can cover the tenor range more than adequately.



> Bands do that better.


And it gets worse. Oy veh. If only three hundred years of orchestral composers had had you to expose their flaws. 



> But we can't find enough bow contrabass players to balance an orchestra...


This is only limited by stage space. Or, I suppose, and an orchestra's budget.

But it'll be news to hundreds of years of orchestral composers and musicians that we've never ever had enough basses! :lol:



> ...and no loud and nice contrabass fits in the woodwind section.


What the f-? What, you're hating on the contrabassoon, now?   

No, I don't want to know.



> We need something like a CB sarrusophone with sweet tone or an improved CB clarinet with sweet low notes.


It's called a contrabassoon.

No, I don't want to know why you reject it. But you're wrong to do so.


----------



## Enthalpy

Some woodwinds do attain some tenor notes, but this doesn't make them tenor instruments, capable of the range of a tenor. The bassoon won't play high enough for the range of a musical phrase meant for a tenor, the clarinet won't play low enough. Also, the timbre of an instrument changes over its range: high on the bassoon makes a clear sound, low on the clarinet a dark one, while a tenor would sound differently. It would take an alto clarinet or a baritone oboe, but these are quite rare in orchestras. Bands do have adequate instruments.

I like the contrabassoon but it isn't loud enough, by far. One single clarinet is much louder, and then you have several clarinets, oboes, flutes... making the contrabassoon inaudible. That was one justification for the sarrusophone, but alas, it didn't sound as nicely.


----------



## mbhaub

Every instrument has its tonal deficiencies. I assure you that a contrabassoon can roar like a lion - in the proper register and no single clarinet will drown it out. The refinement of the modern orchestra took hundreds of years and in the hands of a skilled orchestrator the deficiencies are not there. You should have been as lucky as I to have taken a seminar class with legendary bass clarinet player, orchestrator, composer and conductor Lucien Cailliet. He pleaded, cajoled and begged band directors, publishers and composers to standardize - and enlarge - the clarinet section in bands. And then went on to explain why the wind section is orchestras is so nearly perfect. He explained in simple terms why saxophones are not desirable in orchestras. 

The contrabassoon is indeed an imperfect, flawed instrument. It's not acoustically solid - for many technical reasons. The dimensions are wrong, etc etc. But it sure plays better in tune than a sarrusophone. It doesn't have the power of the serpent which it replaces, but it also doesn't have the serpent's crudity. In recent years, Guntram Wolf has created the Contra Forte - a total redesign of the contrabassoon. It has a remarkably even scale, tremendous power in all registers (the contrabassoon has a pathetic upper octave), fingerings that are more logical, and a price tag that's out of the reach of most players. And a lot of conductors are skeptical. The main concern is that it doesn't sound exactly like a contrabassoon, which is a really asinine point of view. My German made contra sounds different from a French contra basson made by Buffet and it's even a different sound than an American made Fox contra. So "nice" is hard to pin down.


----------



## mikeh375

Enthalpy said:


> Some woodwinds do attain some tenor notes, but this doesn't make them tenor instruments, capable of the range of a tenor. The bassoon won't play high enough for the range of a musical phrase meant for a tenor, the clarinet won't play low enough. Also, the timbre of an instrument changes over its range: high on the bassoon makes a clear sound, low on the clarinet a dark one, while a tenor would sound differently. It would take an alto clarinet or a baritone oboe, but these are quite rare in orchestras. Bands do have adequate instruments.
> 
> I like the contrabassoon but it isn't loud enough, by far. One single clarinet is much louder, and then you have several clarinets, oboes, flutes... making the contrabassoon inaudible. That was one justification for the sarrusophone, but alas, it didn't sound as nicely.


The bassoon has a very large range and can play _beyond_ the average tenor range so I'm not sure what you are getting at. There aren't many tenor singers who go up to, never mind beyond, the first note of the 'Rite'. You'll know that auxilliary instruments extend ranges for a family of instruments defining timbre as well as the notes. In practice this means that a clarinet's general family tone for example, actually can traverse a wide range as heard in many scores. A typical case of an instrumental families extended range via auxiliary instruments being utilised is in in 'Daphnis and Chloe'. At rehearsal mark 187, the flute sections climactic scalic run down dovetails from piccolo to flute, to flute 2 and then to alto flute. When played well, it can fool the listener into thinking it is played by one instrument.

Yes, timbre does change for instruments over varying range and dynamics, as does carrying power depending on the surrounding score. Some instrument ranges also have some technical limitations of which I know you'll be aware. Players even out these differences where possible for a seamless musical sound and line. But these quirks generally speaking are not such an issue for a well written score and are in fact, in the case of timbre particularly, valued for their musical and expressive properties.

More importantly, the importance of appropriate scoring that takes into account such variances and limitations and knows how to exploit or manage them in ensemble, tutti and solo orientated orchestration is where some of the real skill in scoring lies. To the OP, theoretical approaches that involve decibels for determining balance are only of limited value practically speaking imv. There are also humans who physically and inventively, create and/or play the music.

Given the infinite possibilities regarding combinations of instruments, their spacing, dynamics, range etc., general rules and practice (based on proven historical success and know-how), can also underpin imaginative approaches to scoring that sometimes on paper may look odd but work very well in practice thanks to player and conductor musicianship.

Scoring is as much an art as it is artifice, perhaps more so.


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> .....I remember playing a modern symphony by a composer who was a moron when it came to instrumentation. He had the melody in the contrabassoon (me) marked mp. The accompanying instruments: all four horns, trombones, violas, cellos, basses - all marked mp. There is no way I could be heard above them.


Exactly - you may have a solo marked _p or mp_ - but the accompaniment is so thick that you have to blast it to project it thru the muddy texture....you may succeed, but the tone will be pushed, may be harsh, strident - hardly a dolce, cantabile _mp _quality....this is lousy orchestration, and/or crappy conducting - failing to create the proper balance so that inner, softer voices may be heard.



> Symphonic orchestras are not unbalanced: they've gone through two hundred years of evolution and the standard orchestra is very well balanced. Tchaikovsky and Brahms dealt with basically the same orchestra and had no trouble with balance. Brahms like a deeper, more solid bass and included contrabassoon in most of his orchestral works.


This is true, and supported by the great clarity that some composers and conductors achieve....Great orchestrators like Ravel, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Beethoven achieve a clear texture that is very transparent - often at maximum or minimum dynamic levels. The greatest conductors work tirelessly to achieve proper balance between and within sections...it's a major function of a conductor - getting the balance right - Toscanini, Mravinsky, Reiner, Szell, Solti, Walter, Stokowski, Monteux, etc all spent large amounts of rehearsal time to achieve this.

In the 20th century, some composers began to assign the bass choir [lower register instruments] with much more melodic importance - Prokofiev, Sibelius and Vaughan Williams spring to mind...they do this very skillfully, still preserving a clarity to the sonic texture. This is treacherous ground for composers, because the bass choir can very quickly become overly thick....excessive bass, low mid-range sound produces a thick, impenetrably muddy texture that obscures so much of importance [dare I say - Rachman'ff?? :devil:]


----------



## mbhaub

I don't remember who said this, but the most important instrument in the orchestra is the SECOND BASSOON! One of the lowest voices. If the 2nd player is out of tune, the whole wind section is going to either adjust and try to tune to him, or not and sound like crap. If the winds are not in tune, there goes the string section which depends on the winds for tuning. The brass will be forced to match the winds, too. So...when hiring a second bassoon, make sure it's Bernard Garfield!


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> I don't remember who said this, but the most important instrument in the orchestra is the SECOND BASSOON! One of the lowest voices. If the 2nd player is out of tune, the whole wind section is going to either adjust and try to tune to him, or not and sound like crap. If the winds are not in tune, there goes the string section which depends on the winds for tuning. The brass will be forced to match the winds, too. So...when hiring a second bassoon, make sure it's Bernard Garfield!


What you say is largely true - the 2nd bassoon will generally have the roots of the chords - if the pitch wanders off, everything falls apart....if the woodwinds go sharp - [pitch always rises as the instruments warm up, the hall becomes warmer with all of the people, and the energy being produced] - things come unglued....the woodwinds have to then hold it firm, and not escalate in pitch...the strings will adjust...the strings can play as high as you want to go - the woodwinds cannot.

I had a personal experience with this that was agonizing and unpleasant....Mozart Sym #38 "Prague" - wonderful piece....I was hired as a ringer for one of the conservatory orchestras - the students were playing principals, I was hired to play Bssn II. 
Well, the kids get excited, and the pitch starts going up, and up....I keep sounding the chord roots down to pitch, I'm guessing A = 442-443 or so...and I'm getting left in the dust - these people are going sky-high - so high, that they start cracking notes by the basketful - cracked entrances, broken slurs, etc - awful!! - woodwind instruments will not play that high - the instrument does not want to produce a clear note at A=447 or 448!! it's out of the "window". The first bassoonist, a kind of pushy, arrogant type - tells me - "you have to bring the pitch up, you're too flat!!"
I responded "You're way too sharp - your pitch is way too high, no way can I play that sharp!!" [iow - f*** you, a--h*le!!]
Icy silence ensues...lol....the stridently out of tune, broken sounding performance persisted to the conclusion. poor Wolfgang, not a career highlight.


----------

