# What makes one orchestra superior to another?



## David58117

Perhaps superior is the wrong word to use, but when people say one particular orchestra has "spectacular strings" - *why* would it have that attribute versus another orchestra? Would it be more attributed to recording technique/technology (what you hear on the CD), or does it boil down to the actual musician playing the instruments a particular way, and if so...what about it?

I know conductor/location will affect the sound, but what other factors are there within an orchestra?


----------



## webfreak

I don't have much expertise in this area, but I think that this would be a case where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts -- seeing the different ways how musicians complement and strengthen each other.

Now, in the major symphony orchestras of the world, virtually all of the musicians are virtuosi, so I doubt there would be any significant difference in technical ability. Not having played in one, I can't say for sure, but I'd guess that it's a combination of factors like how well the orchestra members interact, caliber of section principals (in more ways than simply being virtuosic), and the relationship between the conductor and the rest of the orchestra.

Call out people who tell you that one orchestra has particularly _spectacular_ strings. Like you're doing now, ask them _what_ made it so good.


----------



## david johnson

our preferences have much to do with this.

dj


----------



## Aramis

I was thinking about creating thread like this recently. The question that I was trying to answer myself was - how can I distinguish work of orchestra and work of conductor? The latter has impacct on everything - so if we like way orchestra plays something, how can we tell if it's orchestra's accomplishment or conductor's?


----------



## David58117

Okay Aramis, you seem to suggest that an orchestra can have their own noticeable attributes outside of a conductor, what I don't get is - *what* are they?

As Web said, when you get to the world class orchestra level, you would think that every member would be a phenomenal player, more than capable of understanding phrasing, proper technique, interacting with other musicians, etc etc, and that they would be in possession of top of the line instruments.

Unless the conductor doubles up parts, I just don't get how one string section (as an example) can be described as "shimmering" or more "full" than another string section with the same number of players.

I can only think of:

A. Location. 
B. Recording technique.
C. Speakers/headphones the listener is using.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but are there any other *tangible * distinctions between (world class) orchestras?


----------



## tgtr0660

As with any other group of people (and a HUGE one at that), differences in skill and the ease with which all members integrate with each other will play a big role in the final result of the group's work. Even though it's a safe assumption that in world-class orchestras all players have tremendous skills, we're still talking about human beings, not machines. They will still differ in several several ways, not just in skills and technique but also in other less-obvious ways as how well they get along with each other, psychological factors that may affect each and every one, and many more. Hell, I'm sure even how much a musician is PAID affects the quality of his/her performance. If we can agree that in a team sport one team can be better than another, we can certainly see it as possible than in a much more precise and skill demanding-task as the playing of music, there can be differences between groups of people.

I have seen weak orchestras and good orchestras. I have heard (live) orchestras that sounded like my ear was broken and other ones that sounded so pure, just like (or better than) in a disc.

The conductor has such a strong influence. It's him who can detect the most minimal difference or that can make all the players play just the way it's supposed to (according to his vision). Even with an orchestra has all the best musicians, it takes a firm hand to make them actually produce something fantastic _as a group._ Skill by itself doesn't do much if every musician is playing for himself more than for the team (another sports analogy I guess...).

Those three factors David58117 mention are extra-musical. You can judge the quality of an orchestra seeing it play live, with no studio or recording aids. Of course, number 3, location, can affect the sound (I'm sure the hall of the Berlin Philarmonic is acoustically-perfect). If we're judging an orchestra from what we hear on a disc, it'll be more difficult and recording might have more of an influence.


----------



## shsherm

The relationship between the orchestra and the conductor does not always influence the quality of the performance. The musicians of the Chicago Symphony disliked Fritz Reiner but their recordings which are more than fifty years old are some of the most highly regarded of any orchestra. Even with the limited accoustics of Orchestra Hall, the live performances were spectacular.


----------



## hankz

In my view, the really GREAT orchestras have at least some of the following characteristics:

1. Great leadership (conductor; heads of sections).
2. Very high standards of required performance skill by the players
3. A DESIRE to be on top
4. A commitment to be the best
5. Ability to perform as a team, rather than as a bunch of Prima Donnas


----------



## David58117

tgtr0660 said:


> If we can agree that in a team sport one team can be better than another, we can certainly see it as possible than in a much more precise and skill demanding-task as the playing of music, there can be differences between groups of people.


Probably not the smartest thing to say here, but I don't think playing in an orchestra is anywhere near demanding as performing on a competitive level sports team. What you seem to be saying is, is that the psychological factors between musicians are creating "fuller" and more "lush" sounding strings, and various other adjectives that people attribute to specific orchestras or sections of orchestras (I mainly read CD reviews, so that's where I'm getting them). How many times have we (or I atleast) heard - "They had good strings that year!" Is it really just psychological factors between the musicians creating that?

Not to sound robotic, but - what the performer plays is written out precisely - there's a meter telling them what to play, when to play it, and at what dynamic level to play it. If a certain section is legato/staccato, it's there on the sheet for them to play. Unless the conductor sees fit some change, of course, but even then...how does that effect the quality of a particular instrument section?

I don't know, I guess I just don't understand where good chemistry between musicians comes into play when they're performing something that is explicitly written. For Jazz or improvisation I can understand completely, but...when what they play is written exactly as they play it? That I don't get.

Does anyone have any examples of what they consider above average sounding sections, or orchestras?


----------



## Artemis

From the tone of your replies, I would guess that you are not amenable to any answers to your questions, except possibly one which conforms with your apparent view that it is not possible to say what makes one orchestra superior to another (assuming we are talking about generally good and well-considered orchestras and not the rubbish).

Perhaps surprisingly, in fact I partly agree with you but here's my fuller view on this.

Suppose we could take Gramophone's top 10 orchestras in the world and get them each to play six x 10 minute samples of some well-known pieces under suitable test conditions (use of each orchestra's main conductor, same recording process, same sound engineers and placement of microphones, etc). We would then have 10 CDs by a different orchestra/conductor, each of which is nominally the same in terms of musical material.

Now ask 3 questions:Q1. Having been told what the 10 orchestras are, I bet that the vast majority of classical music fans would be completely unable to identify all of the orchestras in the correct order, using only their standard home hi-fi system. They might be able to pick out a few in the correct order but not all 10. The odds of getting all 10 in the correct order by chance alone are infinitesimally small.

Q2. Now ask the same people to rank those CDs according to which they liked best, again using only their home hi-fi systems. I strongly suspect that very many people would struggle to rank them at all after maybe the first three to four. But obliging them to complete the task, however uncertain the lower rankings may be, I bet that the vast majority of people would not duplicate those same results if asked to come back a week later and re-assess their preferences.

Q3. The last question is very fanciful but bear with me. Assume that it would be possible to attend the actual concerts when the 10 recordings were made, but without knowing which orchestra was which (suppose you were blindfolded). I bet that a large number of people would have far less difficulty ranking the orchestras, at least up to about half way. If the same test were repeated a week later the chance of duplicating the same results would be much higher than in the case of Q2. ​The broad conclusions I draw from this are (i) in normalised conditions there is little difference between the main orchestras when listening to CDs on standard home systems. Even far more expensive systems aren't much better despite the wildly exaggerated claims made by section of the hi-fi business sector and their many gullible customers; (ii) on the other hand a live experience of the same material at the real concerts should show up differences in the orchestras which should enable most people to decide which they like the best. The sound is far superior to any hi-fi system. Moreover, at such high standards of orchestral performance, the perceived differences in quality will be entirely personally based, and only by looking at the overall rankings of a large number of observers would it be possible to consider making any value-judgements about which orchestras are the "best" or superior to others. Such a comparison would defy quantifiable analysis on purely musical aspects, and would be opinion-generated only.


----------



## trumpeter

There are different sound and stylistic traditions between orchestras as well as differences in standards.

On my own instrument, the trumpet, for example, the French sound is much brighter and the tradition tends to be to use more vibrato. Whereas players from Germany tend to aim for a darker sound with little to no vibrato. This is an important difference and a trumpet section's ability or inability to adapt their natural playing style for a work written by a composer of a different nationality or stylistic era might be one criteria by which their quality might be assessed.

Then, of course, there is the difference in skill, musical interpretation, their ability to blend and expression. Obviously in world class orchestras one wouldn't expect such basic things as intonation and cleanness of articulation to be much of a variable. But a section's ability to blend more perfectly, it's collective tonal quality, phrasing, expressive quality, and these same standards as applied to sectional soloists are important for making an assessment.

I use the example of a trumpet section here, but by extension, these criteria can be applies to each section and to the orchestra as a whole.

Of course, subjectivity also plays a role.


----------



## Lukecash12

Aramis said:


> I was thinking about creating thread like this recently. The question that I was trying to answer myself was - how can I distinguish work of orchestra and work of conductor? The latter has impacct on everything - so if we like way orchestra plays something, how can we tell if it's orchestra's accomplishment or conductor's?


Try reading the score. Simple enough.


----------



## GraemeG

David58117 said:


> Probably not the smartest thing to say here, but I don't think playing in an orchestra is anywhere near demanding as performing on a competitive level sports team.


Disagree. It's not as brutal, and requires a different sort of stamina. You play first horn or trumpet in Mahler 5, you learn about stress. Play Meistersinger four times in a week, learn about stamina. Visit the orchestra's physio and find about about injuries. Every bit as demanding, I reckon.



> Not to sound robotic, but - what the performer plays is written out precisely - there's a meter telling them what to play, when to play it, and at what dynamic level to play it. If a certain section is legato/staccato, it's there on the sheet for them to play. Unless the conductor sees fit some change, of course, but even then...how does that effect the quality of a particular instrument section?


 If I say this is a breathtaking display of ignorance, I hope you won't be offended. There are many different staccato's. There are upbows and down bows. Heard of phrasing? Think the wind and brass just breathe whenever they like? Good luck finding a metronome marking in Brahms, because there aren't any. 
_Andante. Poco a poco accelerando_ ...for 10 bars, then _Presto_. What are your starting & finishing tempos, and how are you getting from one to the other, Mr Conductor? The strings are marked _p_, the woodwind _f_. Is one too soft, one too loud? Take a look at some orchestral parts - they are usually covered with extraneous markings to indicate all sorts of things that aren't printed in the parts.



> I don't know, I guess I just don't understand where good chemistry between musicians comes into play when they're performing something that is explicitly written. For Jazz or improvisation I can understand completely, but...when what they play is written exactly as they play it? That I don't get.


You write like someone who's composed on a computer and never played an instrument in an ensemble. What'as written on the page is only the bare bones of what gets played - even in something so intricately detailed as a Mahler symphony. Go and hear your local professional symphony ortchestra rehearse, if you can. Then you might understand.

regards,
Graeme


----------



## Lukecash12

David58117 said:


> Perhaps superior is the wrong word to use, but when people say one particular orchestra has "spectacular strings" - *why* would it have that attribute versus another orchestra? Would it be more attributed to recording technique/technology (what you hear on the CD), or does it boil down to the actual musician playing the instruments a particular way, and if so...what about it?
> 
> I know conductor/location will affect the sound, but what other factors are there within an orchestra?


The end product. Yes, you want musicality, virtuoso musicians, a master conductor; It's a given fact. But you can judge which is better and which is worse by clarity, confident entrances, and uniform tone and dynamics within the sections.

For example:

Magnificent Orchestra- 




Less Desirable Orchestra-


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> From the tone of your replies, I would guess that you are not amenable to any answers to your questions, except possibly one which conforms with your apparent view that it is not possible to say what makes one orchestra superior to another (assuming we are talking about generally good and well-considered orchestras and not the rubbish).
> 
> Perhaps surprisingly, in fact I partly agree with you but here's my fuller view on this.
> 
> Suppose we could take Gramophone's top 10 orchestras in the world and get them each to play six x 10 minute samples of some well-known pieces under suitable test conditions (use of each orchestra's main conductor, same recording process, same sound engineers and placement of microphones, etc). We would then have 10 CDs by a different orchestra/conductor, each of which is nominally the same in terms of musical material.
> 
> Now ask 3 questions:Q1. Having been told what the 10 orchestras are, I bet that the vast majority of classical music fans would be completely unable to identify all of the orchestras in the correct order, using only their standard home hi-fi system. They might be able to pick out a few in the correct order but not all 10. The odds of getting all 10 in the correct order by chance alone are infinitesimally small.
> 
> Q2. Now ask the same people to rank those CDs according to which they liked best, again using only their home hi-fi systems. I strongly suspect that very many people would struggle to rank them at all after maybe the first three to four. But obliging them to complete the task, however uncertain the lower rankings may be, I bet that the vast majority of people would not duplicate those same results if asked to come back a week later and re-assess their preferences.
> 
> Q3. The last question is very fanciful but bear with me. Assume that it would be possible to attend the actual concerts when the 10 recordings were made, but without knowing which orchestra was which (suppose you were blindfolded). I bet that a large number of people would have far less difficulty ranking the orchestras, at least up to about half way. If the same test were repeated a week later the chance of duplicating the same results would be much higher than in the case of Q2. ​The broad conclusions I draw from this are (i) in normalised conditions there is little difference between the main orchestras when listening to CDs on standard home systems. Even far more expensive systems aren't much better despite the wildly exaggerated claims made by section of the hi-fi business sector and their many gullible customers; (ii) on the other hand a live experience of the same material at the real concerts should show up differences in the orchestras which should enable most people to decide which they like the best. The sound is far superior to any hi-fi system. Moreover, at such high standards of orchestral performance, the perceived differences in quality will be entirely personally based, and only by looking at the overall rankings of a large number of observers would it be possible to consider making any value-judgements about which orchestras are the "best" or superior to others. Such a comparison would defy quantifiable analysis on purely musical aspects, and would be opinion-generated only.


I am pretty much in agreement with all of that.


----------



## Zanralotta

I've played in orchestras since I was 14.
I've worked with 25 (26 according to my desk neighbour) conductors in 13 different orchestras.

Trust me, there are things within an orchestra that neither conductor, nor composer, have any influence over. No influence what-so-ever.

I've experienced my fair share of situations where the conductor suggested something and was shot down. 
I've witnessed entire "rebellions" by orchestras who were dissatisfied with the directions the conductor wanted to take. I've been part of reprimands (occasionally even during concerts!) against cocky conductors.

Conductors don't create sound, they tweak what an orchestra delivers.
As one of the 25 conductors I've worked with liked to say, "A baton doesn't make any music!"

I can't speak for winds, but in a string orchestra, two of the areas over which conductors have basically zero influence are fingering and bowing.
Bowing is almost always decided by the concert master (unless there are solos for a group, then the authority is the principal of the leading section). 
Fingering is always the decision of the principal (even then, it's generally a suggestion, unless you play in a very good orchestra that decided to have uniform fingering).

In case you wonder, yes! there is a difference between up-bow and down-bow, and yes, you can hear it. 
And, yes! there is a difference in sound between playing something in the 4th position on the g-string and 1st position on the d-string.

There are, of course, other things that determine the quality of an orchestra. 
On a piano, there might be only one way to play a _staccato_, but even a casual glance at Sevcik's School of Bowing Technique will show you that there are, literally, hundreds of ways to tackle it on a violin. 
It's generally not the conductor who decides where to play a _staccato_ (at the tip of the bow, in the middle, or at the frog); if it's played _spiccato_ or _martelé_ or _detaché _ or _ricochet_ or _saltando_ or _portato_ (and these are only different bowings for _staccato_ notes!)...

I understand that for a layman the difference between _spiccato _and _saltando_, or _portato_ and _ricochet_ might be blurred. It's, nevertheless, noticeable for someone who knows their stuff (_ricochet_ is, by far, the most difficult of bowing techniques among those I mention, so orchestras who attempt a unified _ricochet_ always get bonus points from me, just to give an example).

Perhaps one of the most obvious markers of quality (if you really want to compare orchestras) is the _tutti pianissimo_. The quieter it is, generally, the better the orchestra. It's very, very difficult on any instrument, to play a really quiet tone. 
This, alone, will be a good starting point to distinguish good from excellent orchestras.


----------



## Sorin Eushayson

David58117 said:


> What makes one orchestra superior to another?


Let me simplify it:

Tier 1 - period instruments.
Tier 2 - no period instruments.


----------



## David58117

Thanks especially to Zan, Trumpeter, and Graeme for giving *concrete* examples of how musicians will affect their orchestra. That's exactly the sort of information I was curious about,,,something specifically within the orchestra that could differentiate one from another, and make a saying such as "They had a good string section that year" make sense.


----------



## ForAlMighty

I believe that the performance of an orchestra greatly influenced by the conductor because it is him who supervises the color and emotion of a piece of music.

The techniques of players also contributes to the overall performance. We appeal the violin playing of BPO, because it really heard different from others, its texture, glory, sustainability, etc.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Zanralotta said:


> It's generally not the conductor who decides where to play a _staccato_ (at the tip of the bow, in the middle, or at the frog); if it's played _spiccato_ or _martelé_ or _detaché _ or _ricochet_ or _saltando_ or _portato_


Well I would hope that the composer would decide to some extent, and as a composer I certainly do mention the above terms where I can.


----------



## Zanralotta

emiellucifuge said:


> Well I would hope that the composer would decide to some extent, and as a composer I certainly do mention the above terms where I can.


Don't count on it. Even writing specific bowing into the score is no guarantee that anyone pays any attention. 

Famous example: Paganini's Caprice No 5.
Paganini specifically wrote down that the sixteenths after the first runs are all supposed to be played 3 _ricochet_ + 1 _martelé_, approximately like this.

But no one seems to care much.
(Or rather, most are sane enough not to attempt it...)

And wow! *is scared by Kavakos' rendition*

edit to link to a better video of Markov


----------



## Sid James

I'd like to add that the breadth of repertoire that an orchestra is able to perform is also a mark of it's quality. The best orchestras are able to perform alot of the repertoire from the Baroque to the present. I think that seeing or hearing this breadth of skill & knowledge is the most important for me as a listener. I think that a good chief conductor will have the knowledge & experience to take a big part in selecting repertoire from the past few hundred years to perform & record. I assume that others have a say in this as well, but s/he takes a big part in developing the orchestra in the directions that it will take, and commitments that it will tackle. For example, here in Sydney with our symphony orchestra, Vladimir Ashkenazy has committed to performing live the Mahler cycle in the next few years. I think it's vision like this that can distinguish one orchestra from others...


----------



## Air

Andre said:


> I'd like to add that the breadth of repertoire that an orchestra is able to perform is also a mark of it's quality. The best orchestras are able to perform alot of the repertoire from the Baroque to the present. I think that seeing or hearing this breadth of skill & knowledge is the most important for me as a listener. I think that a good chief conductor will have the knowledge & experience to take a big part in selecting repertoire from the past few hundred years to perform & record. I assume that others have a say in this as well, but s/he takes a big part in developing the orchestra in the directions that it will take, and commitments that it will tackle. For example, here in Sydney with our symphony orchestra, Vladimir Ashkenazy has committed to performing live the Mahler cycle in the next few years. I think it's vision like this that can distinguish one orchestra from others...


Nice to know that the SSO now has one of the greatest living musicians in the world at its helm. I wonder if Ashkenazy holds many concerts in your area? As Vlad is one of the greatest pianists alive, I would not hesitate to hear him play any one of his specialties... Shostakovich, Rachmaninov, Mozart, Prokofiev, Bartok, etc., especially since you are so into the C20th repertoire. Kind of like how I take advantage of MTT's Mahler concerts...

Prokofiev's 2nd Piano Concerto with Ashkenazy. Now *that* is _truly_ something.


----------



## thatperson

First of all, a recording of an orchestra is completely different than the live performance.
For example, I have a recording of Mahler 6 by the Vienna Phil. with boulez conducting.
The Vienna phil. being known for light strauss music at the beginning of each year, I thought that it would be really light compared to other recordings.
I was utterly wrong.
It was as heavy and depressing as any other interpretation of the Mahler 6.
Anyway, I think that each section of the orchestra determines the quality of the orchestra.

The strings determine the inner core of the sound, and provide a central sound even when the dynamics are as soft as hell. Of course, this kind of changes as modern music develops, but this is prevalent in a lot of music.
For example, the opening of dvorak 7, 8 and,9, played by the cellos, basses, and violas, are not too loud, but at the same time, have a centralized sound.

Woodwinds and sometimes the horns are the support and the outer layer for the sound of the strings.
E.g. In Dukas the sorcerer's apprentice, the opening theme is played by the flutes and violins, with the flutes supporting the violins, and therefore adding a different kind of texture to the theme.
E.g. The second movement of Schumann's symphony 3 opens with a bassoon - cello section melody. 

Brass and the horns (most of the time) expand the volume and grandness of the sound.
E.g. In Barber's Second essay, the horns add a heroic quality to the second theme played by the cellos and timpani.
E.g. In Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, the tubas play the melody of the witches in the 5th movement, and then the horns are added to supplement that melody with a grand choir.

Percussion have many different roles in the orchestra:

Some common instruments and their roles:

Timpani: the timpani are mainly a way of reinforcing the tonics and dominants of the music, prevalent in Beethoven. As time progressed, the timpani eventually became an instrument that could have a whole melody line on itself, as shown in the rite of spring, shostakovich 1, barber essay #3, and even the elgar enigma variations (troyte).

Cymbals: these are, similar to the timpani, reinforcements of important beats. Modern music provided the cymbals to have more than just crashing notes from time to time by using suspended cymbals, sizzle cymbals, and even cymbals on a timpani to create a special effect.

Bass drum: It was almost always used with the cymbals in the Romantic era. Soon enough, it became an instrument that was used for things other than keeping rhythm. In Tchaikovsky's The Tempest, the bass drum was used to act like a great surge of water. Mahler and Barber used it to create an earthshaking sound, in the symphonies, and second essay, respectively.

Snare drum, field drum, and tenor drum: They are mainly sources of military-like sound and a strict rhythm-keeper.
E.g. La gazza ladra overture, Bolero, Barber's second essay, rienzi overture

Triangle, glockenspiel, celesta, and antique cymbals are all instruments that add a tinkling and somewhat magical sound to the music.
E.g. Neptune from the Planets, Dvorak carnival overture, Rite of Spring, Mahler 6, Shostakovich 5

Tam Tam: In a few words, it can create a huge sound that would signify terror, or a mystical whisper.
E.g. Francesca da rimini, Barber second essay, 

Marimba, Vibraphone: a jazzy element in the orchestra
E.g. Bernstein Symphonic dances from west side story

Bongos, congas, taiko drums, guiro, whip, vibraslap, maracas, castanets, tambourine, hammer, cannon, etc... are all instruments that either diversify or reinforce the rhythm and texture.


My point is that the sound and quality of the orchestra depends on the orchestration of the music, the people playing in the orchestra, the forces of the orchestra used, and how the forces of the orchestra are balanced out. I may be completely wrong, but this is what I think.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

David58117 said:


> Perhaps superior is the wrong word to use, but when people say one particular orchestra has "spectacular strings" - *why* would it have that attribute versus another orchestra? Would it be more attributed to recording technique/technology (what you hear on the CD), or does it boil down to the actual musician playing the instruments a particular way, and if so...what about it?
> 
> I know conductor/location will affect the sound, but what other factors are there within an orchestra?


I think you are asking two different, though somewhat related questions. First one, is what makes an orchestra "great" or at least in the sense that it communicated the music effectively to your ears. The second question is perhaps what makes a recording great.

The first question to me, is primarily the leader/conductor of the orchestra/ensemble. You can have the same orchestra with its players play one particular piece under the direction of one conductor versus another conductor, and it could sound significantly different. I have recordings of The English Concert under Trevor Pinnock playing Baroque music sounding first class, and with a consistency, such that I could recognise it is Pinnock directing the English Concert. But under the direction of another, it sounds like another band altogether.

Then there is the science and art of producing a great recording for any given stature of an ensemble and conductor. I have badly balanced recordings and other recordings that sound like it was recorded using a karaoke microphone. Appalling. I also have small HIP ensembles playing a grand Barqoue opera seria, though small in player numbers, the recorded sound was intimate and big. Under the same sound engineer with his/her team of a particular recording label, you usually get a consistent recorded sound, whatever the orchestra. Change the team, despite the same orchestra and same recording label, you can sometimes pick up differences.


----------

