In Reply to: Big Bore posted by Severius! Supremus Invictus on April 15, 2005 at 22:23:41:
Sorry Sev, but I'm going to have to contradict you on this one. Even in the last 20 years we in the performing world have seen a drastic increase in the size of brass instruments, not to mention the changes in our current performance practice of selecting instruments. The Edwards tenor trombones commonly used today are much larger than the tenor trombones used even 30 years ago. In fact, they approach the size of bass trombones from 50-75 years ago. There has been an entire size CATEGORY of tubas invented since about 1930 - and now virtually every pro-tubist is playing one of these monstrosities. To borrow one of your points, what I'm talking about is within living memory. There are people who played these smaller, less efficient instrument WHO ARE STILL PLAYING, only now they play more modern equipment.Let me be clear though, I'm not talking about sackbut to trombone here - I'm talking about changes in trombones. This means, quite simply, that players are showing up to rehearsals and concerts with equipment that is designed, produced, configured, and played drastically differently from the equipment of a generation before. This makes a HUGE difference in the sound of an ensemble, even before considering two other relevant points.
First, instruments are not only bigger, but they are more efficient. One can (and nearly always does) player louder without breaking the sound up on a large Edwards tenor trombone than is possible on a small Conn from 40 years ago. The same is true of the new Engleberg-Schmidt horns as compared to the Conn 8D that was previously in use in NY (both of which are unreasonably large instruments for most rep, and require a special expertise to handle).
Secondly there are still regional differences in instrument choice that vary significantly. Players in NY are using huge instruments to get the largest sound they can. I'm referring specifically to trombones, bass trombones, tubas, and horns here.
What's more, they tend to use the same equipment on 90% of repertoire. The Bruckner symphonies were written to be played on Alto, Tenor and Bass trombones. It STILL says this on the top of the parts. However, hardly any American orchestra would use the alto trombone, and today's tenor trombones are the size of Bruckner's bass trombones. The tuba parts in Bruckner's symphonies specifically ask for bass and contrabass tubas (keys of F and C or Bb, respectively). Once again, the parts STILL use this nomenclature. However, the performance practice in the US is such that virtually no perfomances of Bruckner symphonies take place with a tuba player using a bass tuba (the smaller on in the key of f).
These instrumental choices, which aren't documented add up to have a large impact on the sound of an orchestra. Balances are different. Timbres are different. Dynamic ranges are different. These are facts. And what this means is that what Bruckner intended when he wrote his symphonies CAN NOT possibly be what you hear on modern CD or in preformance. That isn't to say that today's ways are musically inappropriate or that Bruckner wouldn't piss his pants in delight, but I think hearing performances played on the orginal type of instruments can be quite informative, and is very valuable.
If you want to hear what I am talking about, check out recordings by the NY Philharmonic under Bernstein in the 60's, Mehta in the mid-80's and Masur in the mid-late 90's. There are three distinct sets of instruments being used in this orchestra (none of which correspond to instruments from the first decade of the 20th century), and the difference in the sound produced by the brass section is striking. I don't know enough to cite examples, but I suspect a similar evolution has taken place in the woodwind and percussion fields.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Big Bore - ubertuber 07:50:06 04/16/05 (25)
- Can you summarize the big bore sound? - Bambi B 08:59:28 04/17/05 (5)
- Yes, but with disclaimers - ubertuber 14:54:18 04/17/05 (4)
- Thanks! - Bambi B 08:10:12 04/18/05 (0)
- Oh, and by the way. - markrohr 05:18:44 04/18/05 (1)
- All true, good post. - markrohr 05:01:15 04/18/05 (0)
- Great post - David Aiken 17:50:31 04/17/05 (0)
- Let's Be REALLY Clear - Severius! Supremus Invictus 22:46:21 04/16/05 (5)
- Did you even read his post? - D Harvey 09:29:15 04/17/05 (3)
- Read This - Severius! Supremus Invictus 10:25:26 04/17/05 (2)
- Already did. - D Harvey 10:53:39 04/17/05 (1)
- Re: Already did. - ubertuber 12:10:28 04/17/05 (1)
- SPL, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...... (n/t) - gd 09:14:33 04/17/05 (0)
- Setting the record straight on Big Bore (long)... - C.B. 10:19:36 04/16/05 (6)
- Bigger Bore - Severius! Supremus Invictus 23:10:56 04/16/05 (4)
- Well, OK... - C.B. 07:46:29 04/17/05 (3)
- Natural Horn vs Valved - Severius! Supremus Invictus 10:36:09 04/17/05 (2)
- What ARE you talking about? - C.B. 11:27:03 04/17/05 (1)
- So it's still pick-and-choose intelligently, pretty much as I was saying. nt - clarkjohnsen 10:42:25 04/17/05 (0)
- Re: Setting the record straight on Big Bore (long)... - ubertuber 11:24:41 04/16/05 (0)
- Thanks, always glad to have my opinion backed up by facts. - gd 09:25:16 04/16/05 (1)
- Read Groves Online (or Uber [nt] - Severius! Supremus Invictus 23:12:25 04/16/05 (0)
- Re: Big Bore - markrohr 09:22:26 04/16/05 (1)
- Re: Big Bore - ubertuber 11:34:41 04/16/05 (0)
- Re: Big Bore - ubertuber 07:56:13 04/16/05 (1)
- Quite (nt) - Severius! Supremus Invictus 10:26:31 04/17/05 (0)