orchestra brass balance

[peterbas]

...

[Jim Williams]

A number of years ago I was asked by a software developer to do an update article to the Rimsky-Korsakov orchestration book that many owners of the sound library in question used as a guide. The content of my update revolved around the increase in bore size of brass instruments over time, especially the trombones and tubas, the use of larger mouthpieces, etc. I had many discussions with Harvey Phillips over time in which he lamented that increase in bore size and the resultant increase in sound to the point that some orchestras had to put shields in front of the brass per ruling of OSHA.

My questions for orchestral veterans are:
*Which came first...conductors expressing a desire for more sound from the brass (and others), or players showing up with 8/4 thermonuclear tuba devices, tenor trombones larger than earlier generation of bass trombones (instead of the .500-bore tenors of earlier), and large-bore trumpets with drilled-out mouthpieces? I'm not sure how much bigger the horns became.

Was there a similar increase in size among the woodwinds? I assume there are no 7/4 bassoons, but I'd think manufacturers over time have been able to coax more volume out of traditional-sized woodwinds. I can't imagine that a change from Albert-system to Boehm system clarinets made much difference in volume.

So did conductors and/or audiences want more volume, which led to bigger brass and woodwinds, or did the players simply show up with larger cannons, causing audiences and conductors to capitulate?

Lastly...I've heard many recordings of bands and orchestras where the tubist was playing a Holton 345-style instrument, yet I hear none of the edge and harshness I often hear today live and in recordings. Is that due to earlier players being more blend-oriented...or modern teaching that encourages edginess...or better recording techniques that pick up what the tuba really sounds like whereas older techniques were not sophisticated enough to detect the edginess of the earlier players?

FWIW, I heard Harvey many times in many contexts from orchestra to jazz quintet. He always blended perfectly in any context with his little four-valve Conn CC.

[bloke]

Mr. Phillips demonstrated to me - in 1975 - that a "small bore" and not-big tuba could be heard (if properly operated) over a VERY large concert band - chocked full of fine players...as I heard him play the Vaughan Williams Concerto in the Interlochen Bowl (with very little acoustical help, offered there).

I've bought/sold/replaced several tubas built in C.

(Yes, I'm on the front end of "old", but besides that) I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to be swapping this one out (as it's beginning to actually "age gracefully", finish-wise), as it offers easy intonation, clarity, flexibility, and the widest dynamic range (including a very easy "fade-to-nothing": a characteristic that I use a thousand times more often than it's ability to easily produce an "11" volume level in all pitch ranges) - and with the least amount of work: never leaving a venue with the least bit of perspiration related to "playing") of any tuba I've every owned.
A few have berated this model, and (sure) more-than-a-few tend to berate most things.
Living in the gig economy, my finances - via the panicdemic - have taken a lickin'...but I can still buy any tuba that I really would like to have; I have it already, though.

[UncleBeer]

My questions for orchestral veterans are:
*Which came first...conductors expressing a desire for more sound from the brass (and others), or players showing up with 8/4 thermonuclear tuba devices, tenor trombones larger than earlier generation of bass trombones (instead of the .500-bore tenors of earlier), and large-bore trumpets with drilled-out mouthpieces? I'm not sure how much bigger the horns became.

I said this in a different thread, but I think it bears repeating: you can get far more audible 'wattage' out of a smaller instrument than a larger one. Yes, it's a different timbre, but if it's about pure noise-making, always go with the smaller axe.

FWIW, I heard Harvey many times in many contexts from orchestra to jazz quintet. He always blended perfectly in any context with his little four-valve Conn CC.

Well, the tuba in an orchestral setting is occasionally expected to make an amorphous string bass type sound. Not sure that's in those little Conns.

[kingrob76]

Fascinating thread.

As a listener in my earlyish 50's, I've always wanted my recordings to present the sound as close to what I would hear live in a given hall as possible. I always had more of a need for the reference material in that context than anything else. I rarely listen to music for just plain enjoyment, never have, so when I listen a lot of times it's to increase my understanding of the piece (often as a player).

Clearly, brass instruments have continued to be refined in terms of their design over the past 75 years or so, whereas other instrument families haven't changed anywhere near as much. I played 30 years in a local orchestra and was always comfortable playing louder or softer - whatever the MD preferred - with a characteristic sound because I had equipment that allowed me to do so. I'm also with Joe in this regard: when evaluating an instrument I care first about how well it plays softly, and low. If I'm not happy with THAT part of the experience I'm not going to like the horn, but I digress.

I'm left wondering if this isn't a chicken and egg situation - did the sound change because the instruments got better, or, did the instruments get better to change the sound? I like the larger bore trombone sound more than the smaller bore in an orchestral setting but for tubas it isn't as critical to my ears. It's also situational - jazz music to me sounds better on smaller bore trombones.

So in the context of orchestral balance, I'm left with one overriding thought: It's whatever the guy on the podium wants and it's his decision. It's my job to be able to provide that in either direction. I have wondered what composers who haven't lived in 75 years would think of their works and they way they are performed today. I suspect some would be happy and some not, and I suspect most would want to make edits of some sort to their works.

I've always attributed the recording quality differences from an old to a new recording of the same work as limitations of the technology used to make the recording than a conscious decision to make the brass louder, but perhaps this isn't the case.

[matt g]

The evolution of brass instruments in the orchestra is interesting, for sure.

A trumpet player I know once studied with Vacchiano when he was in high school and told me about how Vacchiano was convinced that orchestral trumpet playing would eventually shift to D trumpet. Interesting.

I do think the shift to “brighter” sounding “jazz” (piston valve) trumpets in American orchestras and trickle down effects to horns and then trombonists using (effectively) bass trombones on tenor parts has skewed what works best for the tuba player.

[ProAm]

A trumpet player I know once studied with Vacchiano when he was in high school and told me about how Vacchiano was convinced that orchestral trumpet playing would eventually shift to D trumpet. Interesting.

I have heard something like that but couldn't find the quote I was looking for. I have heard that Vacchiano advocated the D trumpet for principals because it would extend their career by a number of years. He believed the D trumpet made the job of playing those higher parts that much easier.

The use of Eb trumpets on principal parts is becoming more common these days, especially for the more demanding music like modern movie scores.