Khora

The overtones blend differently the further from the bell you get.

When you listen to an orchestra live from the house, you get a blend of sounds which have already merged before they get to your ears. You hear the whole orchestra as one sound source. If there is one mic, near the conductor, you get a good approximation of this.

When the mics are right in front of each player or section, the blend is manipulated by the engineer, not by the natural acoustics of the space. Also, the mic will pick up a different set of overtones up close than far away, so the material the engineer is working with is also less blended.

Think about a pointilist painting. If you see it from across the room, you see the whole picture. If you stand up close, you see a bunch of dots. If you put on colored glasses to filter out certain colors, you lose both the picture and the nuances. A mic in the bell is acting like a filter. The engineer then gets to reconstruct the picture the way he/she wants - which might have nothing to do with the original.

rowuk

High frequencies (like overtones) decrease in strength because the "resistance" of the air filters them. There is a formula that determines how much - for now it is sufficient to say that it is quite a bit. Play duets in a practice cell, then the same in a good acoustic space. Pretty big difference, eh?

The conductors sonic view is generally not good enough as the purchasing public wants more reverb and blend. The projection of various instruments makes a good acoustical blend in a good room start at about 50-60 feet away from the front of the orchestra. At that distance, it is not possible to create the stereo image that most large companies think their customers want. That is why there is so much close miking. The engineer can place each instrument and doctor the sound up.

The conductor only has a limited amount of influence in the final sound. The producer is the bottom line.......................

My son has done several interesting experiments recording various concerts that I have played. We are getting pretty close to a sound that I think sounds like me.

ecarroll

TMers,

Ok. . . let's step away from recoding techniques for a bit (I agree that recording have impacted orchestral sound in a huge way. Note the change especially in many French, Italian, and middle European orchestras).

What about the rapid spread of principles of playing, from Jacobs, Stamp, and Caruso, to Thibaud, etc.?

Has instrument manufacture played a part?

I have strong feelings about both but am curious to know what you think before adding my voice.

Best and watching here,
EC

TrentAustin

I think the "Bach Standard" and the "orchestral mouthpiece" standard have changed the way people approach tone production. The fact that many orchestra sections want people to play Bach 229s or equivalents with a 1C mouthpiece really do homogenize the sound of a great deal of players.

I know when I got Phil Smith's CD in college I tried to sound exactly like him on every excerpt. (uh, did I mention I focus mostly on jazz now... no way I could come close to sounding like Phil!). Having that "solid" sound model has probably influenced a great deal of players.

Perhaps the easy access to recordings (ITunes, etc) allows players from all over the world to hear what the "standard" sounds are.

Perhaps we're all too scared we'd not make it past a round of auditions with a "personal" sound.

thoughts?

ecarroll

Trent,

Perhaps. . . then again it might be what turns the committee on (?) One thing that isn't standardized is the personality of various orchestra committees.
Cheers,
EC

Khora

EC-

I'm not sure - I think Trent is too close for comfort. I've been told after several auditions that the woodwinds and strings on the committee loved my sound and style, but the brass didn't. More brass on the committee for a trumpet audition, so I was out.

Maybe woodwinds and strings listen to (or don't have any) different idol orchestras than brass players? (Or they are secretly hoping to be able to change what is coming from the brass section - who knows what hidden agendas are going on behind the screen?!)

I don't know whether it is so much that there are 'standard' recordings as that a lot of players find it easier to learn something if they listen first. They ask for advice on which recording is 'the best' and then imitate that.

"The Chicago sound" certainly fueled a lot of folks in my generation, and still does to this generation. Now some of those folks are sitting in the major seats in other orchestras. How much of that have they carried over into their own playing, just on a subconscious level? How much are they passing on to their students and current listeners?

I suspect it has more to do with listening habits than equipment, but what do I know!

rowuk

Wow, this is so multi faceted!

The universal player is of course fed by the universal method of instruction. "Tight corners", long tones, lip slurs were always there, but I think there is a much greater emphasis on CHOPS than there ever was before. Arban and St. Jacome do not have a chapter on "embouchure" for instance. Clarke also wrote great chop builders but provided no visualization.
The generation around Stamp, Irons and Caruso actually lay out a blueprint for success. Depending on the method, the proportion of lip to tongue to air can also be standardized.

The manufacture of instruments of course plays a big role. The basic "sound" is perhaps not critical, but the dynamic behaviour of the instrument sure is. At what volume does the sound develop an edge? How well does the sound project at low volumes, how "dense" is the sound. They all influence how well we are heard and how stressful that is for the rest of the band. I have found that many string players confuse volume and density. They assume if they cannot hear themselves, then we are too loud. It is possible to "mask" their sound without even playing loudly!

I think that the audience would be VERY tolerant regardless of what horn, sound or embouchure method chosen. They pay to have it sound "good" and that is not owned by ANY specific concept!!!!!!!!

mrtrpt

I don't know about you guys, but when I listen to NY, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, Phili, etc. I can tell a difference....

Maybe that difference isn't as big as it used to be...? Maybe I'm too young to know (late 20's).

A friend and I do the modern day drop the needle... he just sits at his computer and picks from a library of thousands of pieces and is like "who is this?" It's fun to listen to Chris play something and then a second later hear Phil and Mike play the same thing... there's definitely a difference (do you want the blonde supermodel or the brunette? we always joke... :) And it's not just the trumpets. It's the whole orchestra. Like sometimes when you hear the same section back to back with different orchestras you're like "man those strings are great there!" or "man, the low brass are amazing!"

I've heard Phil Smith, Chris Martin, Dave Bilger, Tom Rolfs, and Mike Sachs all play in person and I think that they are all very different...

I also think that trumpet playing has just flat out evolved very quickly in the past 20 years... I was showing my girlfriend a video of Hakan a month or so ago from the ealry 90's and was like "he is really great, but that's not his sound anymore..." she thought I was nuts. Then we went to his website and listened to a recent clip and she was like "that's that same guy?! he sounds [even more] amazing!" I was just like "exactly....." Things change, even the same people 15 years later...

Listen to recordings of the same great player 20 years apart and you hear differences, growth, maturity [obviously]. You can't be a young player and come in with an attitude of "I'm totally an individual, I'm going to do it my way" You have to show respect for the generations that came before you; show that you know the traditions, that people have worked their whole lives to shape and develop the art. It is possible to do this while still being yourself...

You see it in sports. When some hot shot kid comes out of college and is like "I'm going to do it my way, I'm awesome, I don't care how many greats came before me" and we all hate that guy... why is there a desire for that in the music world!!??

And one more sports analogy. For every player you see in professional sports there are hundreds of guys who didn't make it. Who went to training camp and got cut, who didn't make the cut in the first place, who get injured, who screw up their chances by not playing within the team system, etc. There are scouts out there constantly looking for the next superstar at pee-wee games, high school games, college games, everywhere. What makes us think that the process is going to be any easier?? Filling a spot in a major orchestra is not like filling some 9-5 desk job opening...

I think the players today are much more "individual" than we give them credit for...the players who actually HAVE the jobs. This notion that "in the past" there were more "individuals" is a little lop sided because it seems we're always comparing the people who show up at auditions today to the people who actually HAD the jobs back then. Is the implication that everyone who showed up at an audition back then was great?? The only players you can compare to all the past legends are the players who actually have those jobs today. And I think that they are doing one hell of a job...!

I'm interested in the repsonse this gets...

MR

mazzrick

Two things to mrtrpt...

Have you ever read Crime and Punishment? There's a great conclusion that Raskolnikov draws that history is always made in the perception of the victors. Had the American Revolution failed, it would be written and studied as a small insurrection in the 1770's. I like the idea that the Chicago style and the American, French, Spanish style were only the styles of those who made it onto CD are still widely listened to today.

The 2nd, can anyone accurately give Jim Thompson's international style spectrum. I can't remember it exactly, but it went something like (left being long and dark to right being bright and short) German, American, Scandinavian, Russian, British, French. Please correct me if it's at all wrong.

We only really consider the top orchestras when we do this drop the needle test. Maybe we should be trying to hear a difference in sounds of the Boston Philharmonic and the Vienna Symphony and the Bamberg Philharmonic and the American Symphony and the other orchestras of a slightly lower stature. There are some really great players in smaller orchestras too. Hakan supposedly says the best trumpeter in the world is Assistant Principal Trumpet in Monaco or something like that and that he married a beautiful Mediterranean French woman when he was 20ish and stayed there on the French Riviera ever since. Maybe not such a bad trade-off.

Matt

mrtrpt

Yea, this really supports my point that there are a lot of great players out there today but all we ever hear is people complaining about the "lack of 'xyz'" that is out there because of who we hear at the first round of some auditions...

but when you look at the guys who are actually out there playing the jobs, there are a lot of extremely talented players out there...!

There is way more talent out there than most people care to realize... just because they don't make it to a certain audition doesn't mean they're not out there. Just because a certain job opens up doesn't mean that everyone wants it...maybe they found their beautiful French bride...

MR