Re: Shostakovich's 8th symphony?


Michael Schaffer wrote:
jrsnfld@xxxxxxx wrote:
Michael Schaffer wrote:
I have Jansons. The performance is well prepared and musically
interesting, but the PSO simply doesn't have enough sound and impact
for this music.

What do you think is the cause of that? Are they too small an
orchestra? Does their recording venue have anything to do with it? The
engineers of the recordings there?

Dunno. They play very well, but they just don't have a very impactful
sound. I heard them in Berlin playing Mahler 5 with Jansons which was a
good concert. They have a precise ensemble and pleasant sound which is
fairly lucid and transparent, kind of like the SFS, but less colorful.
But rather bass light. I enjoyed that concert and, to a degree, the
Sibelius symphonies they recorded with Maazel (although they are not
exactly the greatest Sibelius recordings out there, hard to believe
this is the same conductor who did those phenomenal recordings 25 years
earlier. Well, in a way, he wasn't anymore).

The latter-day Maazel Sibelius is something I've only dabbled in,
mainly to hear the orchestra...his Vienna set was so good I didn't feel
a great urge to hear him try again, even though I love the way
Pittsburgh plays. I suppose my initial resistance to multiplying
recordings by the same conductors of the same pieces has broken down
over time that I will finish hearing this series on Sony.

Generally, I agree with what you're saying (on CD, that Mahler 5 is
stunning, though.), and am always puzzled by how "bass light" San
Francisco sounds to me compared to my favorite orchestras (I think
anyone with a taste for Furtwangler eventually likes to hear lots of
bass; but to correct the Pittsburgh problem, all you really need to do
is buy a pair of Grado headphones just for their CDs).

I don't really see it as a "problem". It is a different sound and
playing style. Yes, sometimes they lack some weight and depth, but a
very precise lean bass sound can have some merits too.
This is caused by a number of factors. The choice of instruments,
obviously, the playing style of the bass players, the preferences of
the conductors who shape the sound of the orchestra.
The main "problem" is that the majority of bass sections in American
orchestras still play on 4-string instruments, usually with a
mechanical extension for the notes below E. Most 4-string instruments
are smaller and easier to play (especially to play *in tune*) and they
also can have a leaner, brighter sound which may or not project better,
or let's say, easier, in higher registers. But they generally lack the
depth and width of tone you only get from big-bodied 5-string
instruments with long string lengths. Also, the extension is a
practical device to add some low notes to a 4-string instrument, but it
is a bit awkward to play. Some fast passages don't work on the
extension at all, and generally, the low notes do not sound as full and
organ-like bwwwoooom as on a 5th string. The 4th string actual gets a
little too long when you play the extended notes, so the string gets a
little too slack and the tone is rather slack too.
In Germany, Austria, Czechia etc, it is customary for the entire
section to play on big 5-string instruments. There is also a strong
tendency in other countries to go that route. Some time ago, several
major orchestras, like the Philharmonia, Orchestre de Paris, and
Orchestre National de F, have bought complete sets of 5-string
instruments for their bass sections, with a very noticeable difference.
These are all new matched instruments from the workshop Pöllmann in
Cologne which are solid, decent instruments, if not exactly the same
thing as old noble master instruments from Italy, Tyrolia, Southern
Germania, or Bohemia as as owned and played by the BP, for instance.
Their instruments are also all *very* and have a very dark, boomy
sound. Or like the very fine Austrian and Hungarian basses owned by the
Wiener Philharmoniker. A lot of the Czech instruments have a "rough",
grainy sound which provides a very strong and punchy, if less rounded
off, basis for their sound.
However, the most important element, as always, is the playing style.
As you probably know, there are two different styles of bass bows,
usually called French (held from above, like the cello), and German
(held from the side, like the viola da gambe), although they are
actually from neither country. They basically come from the violin and
viola da gamba families of string instruments. The French bow is
usually heavier and shorter, the German longer and lighter and the frog
is taller to fit in the palm of the hand.
You can play very nicely with both types, but there is a playing style
cultivated especially in Germany which is characterized by longer
bowings and the occasional use of the entire length of the bow even in
loud and fast passages. This is an area where you can't quite go with
the French bow.
Finally, another very important element is timing. When you listen to
older recording like, e.g. Furtwängler, you will hear that the sound
is usually build up from the bottom and the basses often play a
fraction ahead, drive the sound from below. Tutti chords are often
begun from the bass and almost "arpeggiated" upwards. Same about
pizzicati. This is very important for the development of a bigger,
rounder sound since the lower notes take more time to develop in the
room.

I'm glad for the descriptions and information. We've been over this
before and it's useful to remind everyone of the technical factors
involved in the sound. In a way, though, as you note, generalities in
equipment can be overcome by one factor or another by specific players
or styles, etc. I still am not sure how to explain what I hear in some
orchestras, like Pittsburgh, based on what you are saying, because
other American orchestras as diverse as Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston,
Milwaukee, New York, Washington DC, LA Phil, the MET, Dallas, etc.
choose to have more impact, or more darkness or richness from their
basses. Which of these orchestras play with 5-string bases regularly?

None really. I think there may be a tendency towards more 5-strings,
but none of these orchestras has more than a very few, many of them
still have none and play relatively small instruments with extensions.
I know this is a taboo subject for Americans, since you all think that
in America everything must be and is bigger, faster, louder, but
unfortunately no orchestra in the New World, as technically
accomplished as they are, has a string sound as distinctive as such
ensembles as the KCGO, ONF (few people think of that since French
orchestras in general are rarely seen as true top ensembles, but the
French string sound is absolutely marvelous), BP, SD, SOBR, WP, CP,
StPP, to name just a few. The unity of tradition which makes a great
and unmistakeable string sound is simply not there. It even noticeably
begins to fade when you get to England. Many wonderful and highly
accomplished players, nice sound, but nothing distinctive.

First, Americans do not think everything must be bigger, faster,
louder...even despite the individual needs in individual halls or for
balancing the peculiar sounds of these highly distinctive orchestras in
the US. Generally, musicians I know judge orchestras by their ability
to play softly with exquisite projection and tone and precision, etc.
You must have met a very unusual set of Americans, or you must be
surprised that in addition to working in large and sometimes unhelpful
acoustics, many American players are also used to obsessing about
purity of tone at big volumes. They demand good playing at all volumes.

Second, I haven't heard any orchestra from Europe with more distinctive
characteristics than Philadelphia or Chicago or Los Angeles or...well,
obviously what is distinctive to my ear isn't distinctive to yours. I
don't know any orchestra in Europe that plays the way we've described
Pittsburgh plays, for instance. That defines "distinctive" well enough
for me. So what if Cincinnati or Atlanta may at times sound similar...

Third, no one disagrees that unity of tradition helps produce a "great
and unmistakable sound", yet it is worth remembering that Boston,
Philadelphia, LA, Cleveland and more, under multiple conductors each,
all have produced "great and unmistakable" sounds. So, if these groups
lack "unity of tradition," or if they continue to remake themselves in
striving for new levels of excellence, then there's something else--a
more important factor than tradition--in producing greatness.

It was very interesting for me to be able to compare the BP and CSO
literally back-to-back when they came to Berlin for several concerts
and I could hear one orchestra in rehearsal during the afternoon, then
the other in concert at night, and the other way around, for nearly a
week. I had a concert project with a chamber ensemble that I managed at
that time going on at the same time in the chamber music hall, so I
could wander over to the large hall and sit in their rehearsals from
time to time.
The CSO definitely has one of the best American bass sections. They
impress with a very high degree of precision and clarity, work a lot
with the bow fairly close to the bridge in forte and the sound projects
very well but doesn't have the "hum" and the weight which the BP basses
have which in their turn can sound a little too dark and diffuse
sometimes. A huge difference is also in the pizzicato sound: the CSO
pizz is very percussive and penetrates the texture very clearly but is
a little dry while the BP pizz is very round and swings like a bell and
seems to lie under the orchestral textures like logs rather than
penetrate them.
It was also very interesting for me to spend some time one afternoon
with a bass player from the CSO who after the orchestra had left stayed
behind for a few weeks to play as a guest with the BP. They had given
him two of their instruments (5-strings of course) to chose from. One
was a Bohemian instrument with a very sinewy, dry, but strong sound,
the other an Italian bass with a very rich, smooth, creamy sound.
His playing style was very precise with a clear, focused tone and
extremely well articulated. He played the opening arpeggio of "Ein
Heldenleben" across all strings with all notes sharply defined. The
traditional German style is to play this extremely legato and even
slide up the G string all the way to the high G of the first phrase.
He played both instruments and then asked me to play both for him so
that he could hear what they sounded like from a few feet away.
Needless to say, he dug the Bohemian instrument more because it suited
his sharply outlined playing style better than the very dark and
"hummy" Italian instrument. But I suggested that the latter might still
be a better choice for him because the result would get him closer to
the tarditional style. He liked that idea and was very happy playing
the Italian instrument.

Nice story, particularly because it shows that a team attitude matters
most at elite levels of musicianship, especially when people of
heteorogeneous training work together.


A very good balance between dark, rich, and focussed is the LA bass
sound which is very sonorous. On the opposite end of the spectrum is
the Philadelphia sound which is pleasant and dark, but doesn't have
much weight at all.
When I heard the SFS in Davies Hall, I could hardly hear the basses
even though I sat very close to the orchestra. That may also be in part
due to the less than ideal acoustics of the hall. One thing "shocked"
me a little: one or two of the bass players were actually standing!
That is a big nono in German orchestras, because it destroys the
optical harmony of the section and also because you can weigh into the
instrument much better when you sit down, and then lean back and pull
all your arm and upper body weight into the instrument. A lot of
players actually prefer to stand when playing solo or chamber music
(myself included), but big orchestra playing is a very different
matter. That may in part answer your question: some of these orchestras
simply have no grown orchestral sound tradition. Their individual
members may be highly virtuoso players who can wizzard thtugh the most
dazzling solo pieces, but good orchestral sound needs a much earthier
approach.

Davies has some terrible seats, and most halls have terrible seats down
low near the stage, as you know. I heard Berlin Phil in Davies:
wonderful concerts, and I wouldn't say they projected much better, if
at all, than the hometown orchestra. They did have a lovely and
distinctive sound that was easy to hear, but not particularly due to
weight at any volume level. The home orchestra has many lovely colorful
characteristics that are also easy to hear in that hall in the decent
seats. I wouldn't "fiddle" with their balance or weight without
sacrificing some of their world-renowned flexibility and color.

Now, the Mariinsky orchestra under Gergiev? That orchestra put a
premium on weight and it showed, in Davies.

No, I didn't pay any attention to "optical" harmony when Rattle and his
orchestra were in town. (A number of people here commented on the lack
of optical harmony in the Berlin orchestra. We liked the fact that part
of the "show" was the way the musicians moved about, sometimes
together, sometimes in a confusion of individuality.) I watched a bit
and then closed my eyes, as I often do when listening.

Would the SFS have better sound if everyone stood or everyone sat? I
doubt it, but can't really say. I do know that in wind playing, you can
see some disturbing variations in mechanics in the great players. Great
players can accomodate and adjust and compensate for physical
differences among them. Forcing identical mechanics on them would be
detrimental. I would assume string players are the same way, even
though the demands of section work require tremendous "unity". Unity in
mechanics has a purpose only up to a point.

Something about your notion of teamwork and "earthiness" seems foreign
to me. Are we talking about choreography or music? I'm sure every bit
of likeness makes unanimity easier, but if you demand unanimity in
excessive detail for people you do not necessarily make them a good
team. It isn't logical to assume that different people, with different
bodies and brains, perform as a unit best unless their mechanics are
different enough to compensate for all these other differences.

You mentioned, for instance, that four string basses play more easily
in tune. I have noticed this difference without realizing the
instruments were part of this phenomenon. Why would any section want to
play on instruments that are harder to tune, since intonation is a huge
factor in producing a good corporate tone? Because it provides other
benefits. So, why can't one also be free to stand or sit, making
unanimity ever so slightly harder in this one way, if this produces
other benefits to the corporate tone given the individual differences
in the players? It is perplexing to me that one might find the
mechanics of sitting or standing to be intolerable, yet find the
intonation problems of a particular style of instrument to be
tolerable. To me this freedom to play standing or sitting seems a
logical way to ensure the best possible teamwork and tone, despite the
minor drawbacks.

As your helpful discussion above pointed out, no single bass section in
the world is perfect--they all make tradeoffs given choices of
equipment and other traditions. So why is standing v. sitting any worse
a tradeoff than the others you describe, when it is not necessarily
more disruptive to corporate sound possibilities than the other
tradeoffs made by other great orchestras?

--Jeff

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: digitals in ...acoustics out?
    ... If you play both often enough you figure out they are different instruments. ... Even if they sound the same to the average listener, ... piano reminds me that it is not the same thing. ...
    (rec.music.makers.piano)
  • Re: Shostakovichs 8th symphony?
    ... but the PSO simply doesn't have enough sound and impact ... They play very well, but they just don't have a very impactful ... playing style. ... the conductors who shape the sound of the orchestra. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: How is a mic able to handle so many sounds?
    ... >LP and see that all of the sound is ... >the individual instruments can still be distinguished. ... >orchestra, as well as your date whispering to you, etc. and have it all be ... C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: HvKs Sibelius 2nd Reissued
    ... Not an orchestra you've heard. ... still play regularly but also "only" in a community orchestra, ... they run out of bow all the time and that breaks up the section sound. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: HvKs Sibelius 2nd Reissued
    ... Not an orchestra you've heard. ... still play regularly but also "only" in a community orchestra, ... they run out of bow all the time and that breaks up the section sound. ... principals for each wind section, so even though Galway was principal ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)