Re: Shostakovich's 8th symphony?


jrsnfld@xxxxxxx wrote:
Michael Schaffer wrote:
jrsnfld@xxxxxxx wrote:
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.

A lot of people are blowing that horn. I am not saying you are, but
many others are, including in ngs like this one. For them, everything
has to be bigger and louder and it is a given fact that only the way
American orchestras play "really loud", especially the often
hagiographed CSO brass - which I find impressive for their technical
quality, but not particularly well sounding, and often one-sidedly
brass heavy at all costs. But I am not saying you are one of those.

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...

Distinctive they are in the sense that you can tell them apart, but
overall, the range of variations and colors and playing styles is not
that big among American orchestras. That is not a bad thing and can be
easily understood because they come from the same country and all look
up to the same gods (mostly the CSO when it comes to brass playing).
But you have got to be kidding when you say you don't hear how distinct
the playing styles of such orchestras as the Concertgebouw,
Staatskapelle D, Czech P, or WP are, especially when it comes to the
quality of the string sound.


We agree that the European orchestras are distinctive, and I think I
see now that you agree that American (and I do include Canadian)
orchestras are distinctive as well. The variation is not as wide, but
the distinctiveness is there and it is significant. That wasn't he
message I took from your earlier post.

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.

I was talking about music, not choreography. In fact, as you noticed
yourself, these players move a lot when playing. Some people even say
they get "seasick" when they watch them.
What I was talking about was not choreography, but a harmony of the
overall optical appearance where the orchestra is set up symmetrically
and all the stands are lined up nicely. I think it is very important to
have this harmony and simplicity so that it doesn't distract from the
music making. I wasn't surprised at all when I read in an article about
Mariss Jansons that he often goes on stage before a concert to check if
all the stands are lined up nicely. For the same reason, I also a big
supporter of formal concert dress although in "normal life", I couldn't
care less about dress codes. I also think it is very important that
people really play together in string sections rather than everybody
just doing their own thing. That does not only mean organized bowing -
and that subject is a whole new discussion, because there are actually
also good arguments for staggered or even free bowing in some
situations -, but also such things as setting up the sections
symmetrically and in a way that players can see other, and most
importantly, the first desk.


I didn't catch that at all from your post, but I figured that we
weren't getting into a discussion of free bowing. Thanks for the
explanation--points we can all agree on (the regularity of the spacing
and sightlines both enhance one's playing abilities); having played in
a marching band, I am a stickler for spacing!

I'm not sure what to say about dress code. One of the best concerts I
ever heard was when the Orchestre de Paris played (for Barenboim) in
their own street clothes because the truck with their formal wear never
arrived (this was a tour concert).

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.

The simple answer to this is that it doesn't really matter that much in
general when you play the bass if you sit or stand. That sounds like a
big contradiction to what I said earlier, so let me explain that
further.
There are a lot of bass players who make a science out of whether they
sit or stand when they play. Typically of these players is that they
assume a fixed and rather inflexible position when playing. Some of
them have very strange technical concepts so that they can actually not
play very well at all when they don't sit or stand (whatever their
normal playing position is like). Why should that be a problem? Isn't
the most important thing how they can play best, in whatever position?
Not really. Because these people also often tend to be very inflexible
when it comes to playing with others and in musically flexible moments.
You often find that they can come on stage, assume their position and
then mechanically go through whatever solo repertoire and orchestral
excerpts they have mechanically practiced ad nauseam, but when it comes
to playing together flexibly in a section, they often fail miserably
because they are so "mechanized". So it is always a good sign when a
player can play more or less equally well standing or sitting. I am
saying "more or less" because when you play a really big instrument
such as is suited best to generating a lot of sound for the orchestra,
and especially when it comes to really loud and fast passages in on the
lower strings, it is really better to play sitting because the thing
becomes a little unwieldy when you have to balance and hold it. So it
is better to sit down with it, lean back and throw all your arm and
upper body weight fully into the instrument rather than balancing it
while standing.
Plus, like I said earlier, it makes a calmer and less distracted
athmosphere if everybody is sitting instead of some people sitting and
some standing. What would it look like if the third trombone or second
clarinet would be standing next to their sitting colleagues? Plus they
would be at completely different eye and upper body levels and in those
moments when it is a good idea to move and or breathe together, the
contact isn't there as much, or maybe not at all.

I can understand all these points, but the underlying assumption that
people who are standing (when others are sitting) is that they were
told to sit and they said they couldn't. I'm not sure we can make the
leap into everything you said without knowing more about the culture
and the motivations. Certainly, in an orchestra that demands unanimity
of posture and position, someone who refuses to play that way has got
important flexibility issues and won't help the section optimally.

--Jeff

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?

As I tried to explain, it is actually much more disruptive to the
"corporate sound" than playing on bigger instruments which may be more
difficult to play in tune. Because these instruments also have a bigger
sound and so contribute much more to the "corporate sound". That they
are also a little more difficult to play in tune doesn't play any role
at all. Because if you can't cope with that, then it means you can't
play the instrument well enough to be in a good orchestra to begin
with. When I subbed in symphony orchestras as a student, I would play
all day on my own (smaller 4-string) instrument for the solo studies,
then in the evening go to the theater, warm up on the big 5-string I
was expected to play, and then play the performance on that. If I
hadn't been able to play well on the orchestral intrument, I wouldn't
have been asked back. Some other students actually weren't, and among
those were some who could rattle off their solo program nicely on their
instrument but then failed completely at sight reading or playing
flexibly with the section or who couldn't handle the bigger instrument.
But that's what an orchestral musician is expected to do. The solo
studies are not what they get paid for.

Perfectly understandable point. Anyone at that level ought to be able
to do these things, including play in tune. Many people win auditions
but are not hired permanently because they are rejected during the
probationary year for subtle reasons of ensemble fit.

The differences in approach to intonation do seem audible, however, in
the ways you've described, and I suspect the instruments have something
do with it, just as reeds have something to do with it in wind playing.
Not "yes or no" differences in intonation, ultimately; rather,
differences in the approach to that intonation and the effect you get
when the intonation is secure. This is apparent in (and caused by)
differences in the overall sound. This is too big a subject to go into
here.

--Jeff

Only to make a very small point and, not regrettably, directly to
Shostakovich 8. I think that there are all around the world great
brass sections obviously including the great American players and have
been for *many* decades.

A disclaimer: some of my best friends are brass players - must be the
proximity:):) Well, they usually have the same daft sense of humour
(humor) anyway!

But lest great brass sections of the past be forgotten (wherever they
are) could I nominate whoever made up the brass section of the Vienna
Philharmonic for Furtwangler's recording of Bruckner Symphony No 8 live
on October 17 1944 and in particular IV: Finale: Feierlich, nicht
schnell?

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: 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 ... Francisco sounds to me compared to my favorite orchestras (I think ... playing style. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: OT: Is the BP twice as good as the SFS?
    ... sound one might hear in a hall. ... in the metronomic sense they may play. ... But that specific element of ensemble culture ... It's not in the orchestras, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Who still live at Leeds
    ... we are Cream @ the Royal Albert Hall (unless we are playing Red House, ... Cream was the ultimate proof of that. ... isn't about the notes you play, it is about the notes you DON'T play. ... The wall of sound has its place, but if they can't ever do without it then ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Shostakovichs 8th symphony?
    ... but the PSO simply doesn't have enough sound and impact ... Does their recording venue have anything to do with it? ... Francisco sounds to me compared to my favorite orchestras (I think ... playing style. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)