The answer is really quite obvious if you've ever heard a British brass band live - even the relatively small brass section in a symphony orchestra can completely dominate in terms of volume. It was established in Goldscheider v Royal Opera House that a typical brass section can achieve peak sound pressure levels of 137dB(A) without any special effort.
If a brass section give it the beans, then it's literally like standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier for anyone sat in front of them. You can feel your eyes vibrating in your head. You need a lot of string players to even hope to keep up with that.
Related - why are there no saxophones in the orchestra? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsfPS7pXg1E
do British brass bands use a specific layout compared to brass bands from other countries? But we all know from experience that brass sections can be really loud with almost no effort involved
It's a specific type of ensemble, consisting of ~28 players with a standard instrumentation. Many international bands are based in the British tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_brass_band#Instrumenta...
Anthropologists believe that the enlarged strings sections of symphonies were used to demonstrate fitness for sexual reproduction with other large ensembles. This view is controversial, however: others believe string sections may have played a role in religious ceremony.
Neurology has shown that a lesion of the string section induces a local dispersion response, therefore we propose to rename this area the cohesion promoting region, replacing the previous name of tan-ish matter, which was based on outward appearance of the structure.
The divisions are also interesting.
You've typically got something like a group of 16 violins for the first section, then another group of 16 for the second section.
Each section has a "1st chair" which is the violinist sitting at index 0. Typically the best players are at the lower indices.
Violin[0][0] is the "concertmaster," who gets to come out to applause and then play an "a" at 440 Hertz to tune up the orchestra. When a part of the composition is marked "solo" in the score-- say, a challenging or lyrical melody to be played by a single violin-- the concertmaster is the one who plays it.
As far as I know, there's no standard way for the composer to notate a solo for, say, violin[1][15] (or, to use a safer Javascript notation to cover cases of smaller orchestras, violin[-1]). Instead, the violins typically get divided in the score into groups of 2 or 4, or possibly more for modern compositions.
I'm not a violinist, but I've always wondered about violin[0][1]-- first section second chair-- vs. violin[1][0]-- second section first chair. I think I'd rather be the latter and be in charge of the second section. Being second chair of the first section seems like you'd just end up envying all the solos that the concertmaster plays. (Edit: and also having to practice all those solos in case the concertmaster gets sick.)
I’ve been both concertmaster and second chair in younger orchestras. They both are great roles but very different.
Concertmaster has a similar level of pressure to the conductor. You’ve got more attention on you and the audience takes more queues from how you play, so you’re a kind of soloist all the time. Many violinist prefer not to be directly in the spotlight all the time so, while there is competition for the role, generally there’s some relief knowing you can count on the best player to lead.
The concertmaster is also the right hand of the conductor. Thats why they come out just beforehand and tune the orchestra. They will also remind the orchestra with subtle queues on any recent instructions from the conductor, especially on pace/timing. If there are soloists performing, the concertmaster works extra closely with them (often including more practice sessions).
Once the hierarchy is settled generally the envy dies down, though inevitably there’s politics as others in the orchestra have their own opinions on who is best/who should lead.
A second chair does need to be able to step up if the concertmaster gets sick. The surprise factor here is definitely challenging but, having played first chair a few times because of it, I had fun getting the spotlight and the opportunity to audition for the future first chair role through my performance.
Concertmaster is similar to a lot of leadership demands - you both have to be an outlier top tier in individual performance and perceived as a good leader by the rest of the orchestra. Other instruments already feel violins get all the attention and that violinists are oblivious to the privilege, so it goes a long way to demonstrate your respect and support for the other first chairs. I personally found a strong relationship with the first chair cellos was key.
I did play a piece where parts of a solos were distributed throughout the orchestra. We all had a lot of fun with that, quite the challenge to make it feel seamless. Dvorak and Brahms both used the mechanic to create unique instrumental voicing.
Some notes here. The concertmaster is the leader of the orchestra (the conductor is not a member of the orchestra and good orchestras typically work with many different conductors) so they will usually decide or advice the conductor who is best suited to play a particular solo.
That the most experienced/best player sits at chair 1 of a section is just a convention that was established over time but not a hard requirement.
> As far as I know, there's no standard way for the composer to notate a solo for, say, violin[1][15]
Because the composer doesn't notate who plays what. The performers decide this. Writing "Solo played by violin[1][15]" makes as much sense as writing "Solo played by Tim from accounting".
I have seen orchestras rotate the solo part through the different nights to give more people a chance to play it but that was an amateur performance and is rare for professional orchestras that rely on perfect deliveries.
It’s quite common for the first oboe to play the tuning pitch.
> As far as I know, there's no standard way for the composer to notate a solo for, say, violin[1][15]
Because it doesn’t make sense. You don’t know who sits there. You just want the sound of a solo violin, and the first chairs have gotten to their position because they can deliver.
There are all sorts of weird annotations in scores though, so if you think that one part sounds best when played from the last row, you can just say so in the score.
I saw a concert with a small regional orchestra recently. The first violin stood which triggered the tuning, but she did not join in playing until a handful of instruments were already in the chorus. I don’t know who started but I’m willing to believe it may have been the oboe.
Tuning typically follows a little ritual, where (1) the concertmaster stands to indicate that tuning should begin, (2) the oboe gives the 440 Hz A tone, which by the way, they normally have an electronic tuner these days to help them nail that pitch, (3) the brass and winds tune off the oboe, (4) the concertmaster tunes her violin off the oboe, (5) the concertmaster plays the A for the strings, who tune their open A string off that note, (6) the strings tune their other three strings to their A, usually by ear.
Source: Me, playing in amateur orchestras for twenty-plus years.
Sidenote: I find the sound of an orchestra tuning to be a deep joy! All those instruments sliding into place is just delightful
Believe it or not...
As a regular orquestral concert goer (I would say I average a concert a week per year at least) reading your description of the tuning process gave me goosebumps.
It really is one of the best sounds on the world! The tension! The anticipation! And then seeing and hearing a well rehearsed group of people move from casual conversation mode into serious business mode in a few seconds. And from chaos comes order. And then the silence, only broken by the applause when the maestro and soloist(s) arrive.
One of life's biggest pleasures if I may say so.
> I find the sound of an orchestra tuning to be a deep joy!
I love it as well. But at the same time it makes me feel like an idiot because all I can think about is the PS3 menu sound when you power it on...[0]
> (or, to use a safer Javascript notation to cover cases of smaller orchestras, violin[-1]).
I believe you either meant `Python notation` or `violin.at(-1)` with https://github.com/tc39/proposal-relative-indexing-method
I go to DCI shows because I prefer horns to strings. A skilled horn line at max volume will change your life.
That said, I’ve been going less because the compositions have gotten way too “artsy.” Let’s play a bunch of discordant chords and unresolved runs, because we’re artists, not entertainers. In fact, we would prefer if most people didn’t like it!
I'm reminded of Stravinski's Rite of Spring, the first performance.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_Spring#First_p...
> The complicated music and violent dance steps caused some to boo. They started to shout and whistle. They argued, and other people who liked it argued back. Then some people started to fight. In the end the police were called. Stravinksy was very upset and ran out of the theatre. The performance was a scandal, but this actually made people curious and soon the ballet became very famous. It was performed six times that season, and there were no more interruptions during the other performances.
I had a similarly negative reaction when I listened to it for the first time, but over time it turned into the opposite, it's addictive and I have to go back and listen to at least parts of it once in a while.
Still, just because this performance caused some violent negative reactions does not mean anything that is at first rejected is good. If it still sounds unappealing the second and third time, it's probably not for you unless your taste changes a lot.
Recommendation (a truly excellent free course for the interested non-music-professional "HarvardX: First Nights - Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring: Modernism, Ballet, and Riots"): https://www.edx.org/learn/music-arts/harvard-university-firs...
You have to listen to the notes they're not playing.
This immediately made me think of outrage clickbait.
So much stuff is wrapped in the veil of shock/outrafe now, that maybe people even think it creative?
When I look youtube, even quality videos about "how to dig a trench for a sump pump" often have a preview showing some horrible thing happening, or the guy with an anguished look on his face, and a title of "don't let this happen to you!"
What if the height of creativity is now "we shocked/annoyed you".
Wasn't always this way -- see this historic reconstruction of a Baroque orchestra https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNqJ8mED1VE (Handel, Music for the Royal Fireworks on period instruments)
Down on the lowest level of the stage we find a small string orchestra, but then behind it on risers there are something like 18 oboes(!!), 10 bassoons, 9 horns, 9 trumpets.
<sings>
Seventy-six trombones led the big parade
With a hundred and ten cornets close at hand
(I have no idea why that's still in my head, I probably haven't heard it for 40 years or more... https://genius.com/Cast-of-the-music-man-seventy-six-trombon... )
That's an amazing performance, thanks for sharing! (Is it just me or the brass instruments are slightly out of tune? Though gives it a special charm since all of them are out of tune the same way)
I've always wondered that myself, especially why all the focus and acclaim for the violinists over and above the other musicians. I'm sure it's pretty difficult to play the French horn or the clarinet, so why is it always a bozo with a violin that takes the bow with the conductor?
This may have the answer though - pure musical chauvinism - "The board of the Philadelphia Orchestra allegedly said the winds "weren't busy enough to put on a good show."
It's pretty difficult to play any classical instrument at the level required for elite philharmonic/symphony orchestras. It's why musicians all have to min-max on that instrument from an early age and go through many years of coaching and practice.
Playing the violin at an elite level seems to require a much earlier starting point, so I think that signals a higher level of difficulty. The range of possible sounds while being an incredibly unforgiving instrument in terms of sound quality add to this.
But I believe its stardom comes from its versatility and timbre.
Versatility: It can play any key naturally. Its relatively small size allows for fast passages to be played relatively easily. It can play two notes at a time, and even three or four in quick succession to simulate a chord. It is expressive in a way a tuba isn't.
Timbre/Expression: The Western classical tradition valued the Soprano voice as the "main" voice for melodies. The violin was more or less designed to emulate this voice and the characteristic agility, lightness, and clarity that defined any melody line given to it. So, composers would reach for the violin and make it the star of their compositions. As time went on, the tradition stuck, the virtuosity increased, and the ensembles grew ever larger and larger so the violin sections grew larger and larger.
For whatever reason, the Western Classical Tradition doesn't quite like the sound of, say, a French Horn, dominating the melody line the same way violins do.
What leads me to believe this is all the musical traditions that started off with violins and then quickly ditched them once an instrument that provided the needed versatility and timbre the tradition demanded. Here, I'm mostly thinking of Jazz. Jazz violin was common during the early days of the genre, but quickly fell out of favor in comparison to the guitar, the trumpet, the saxophone, and the piano. For many of the same reasons the violin became the star of the Classical world.
It's also why violins don't really go with rock music. The guitar has the versatility required and the vocal expressiveness that suits the genre.
> It's also why violins don't really go with rock music.
As a lover of violins in metal, I disagree, heavily. They are very common in folk metal (e.g. Isenmor with 2 violinists [0]), but also many other genres, including more underground ones (e.g. Exulansis where the violin is the focus [1]) use them. Even when there’s no violinist, there are quite a few bands that add them synthetically.
[0]: https://isenmor.bandcamp.com/track/drink-to-glory
[1]: https://bindrunerecordings.bandcamp.com/track/of-nature-hatr...
Every modern symphonic instrument (except some percussion) can play any key naturally.
If you play a chromatic scale on a valved brass instrument, played with no pitch adjustments via embouchure, you end up with a series of pitches that are of questionable temperament, since some intervals are achieved by jumping between registers which utilizes the harmonic series (integer multiples of frequency) while others are achieved through valves which don't necessarily utilize integer ratios. [0] To make unoptimized keys sound good, the player can sharpen or flatten with their mouth and I suspect this is considered unnatural.
Contrast with instruments that don't use the harmonic series and are always in equal temperament, like woodwinds and keyboards. Also contrast with fretless stringed instruments, for which there is no inherent temperament whatsoever if you avoid open strings, since the tuning of each note occurs by normal fingering, which I suppose is considered natural.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/trumpet/comments/1zy0w8/trumpet_phy...
Slightly adjusting intonation is no problem at all for trained wind players, "played with no pitch adjustments via embouchure" is just not something that happens. Much less difficult to learn than learning to play the violin at all, if Quartesixte's description is anything to go by. Not being able to play all 12 notes with natural tones does not in any way result in a lack of versatility for wind instruments in a modern orchestra setting.
PS woodwinds aren't "always in equal temperament" either, the player has to adjust for tuning compromises in these instruments as well. Not that being in equal temperament is even something an orchestra aims for.
This is mostly due to historical reasons and the way Western music has been written.
The hierarchy in a symphonic orchestra is highly structured. Each section (a group of musicians playing the same instrument and part) has a leader, who usually plays the solo part (hence the title "solo violin" or "first chair"). The leader of the first violin section is the "concertmaster," typically seated next to the conductor and responsible for leading the entire string section. In orchestras without a conductor, the concertmaster often assumes that role.
Each string player follows their section leader, who, in turn, follows the concertmaster, who follows the conductor. This is why they are seated at the front.
When the conductor and the violin take a bow the brass section could make some fart sounds. That'll show 'em.
That would be the concertmaster. When music was often played without a conductor, it was the concertmaster who would lead the ensemble. They serve, musically, and sometimes organizationally, as the head or representative of the orchestra. In modern symphonic ensembles they come on stage separately to tune the ensemble. I'm guessing it's just tradition at this point.
As to why the focus and acclaim, I think it's a combination of a few things. The first is a very, very high skill ceiling. I've heard that French horn can be harder to play, but violin is definitely considered to be among the hardest. Then there's also repertoire. While there were early concerti for most instruments, it was even as early as Vivaldi where virtuosic violin rep started to appear. Then came Paganini and it was game over for the rest of the instruments. The sheer volume of pieces is why violin dominates over, say, cello. There may also be a physical size factor. You just can't cover the range of a cello or bass as fast as a violin, though I've seen some insanely impressive low string players.
People really underestimate the difficulty of playing a violin well.
The instrument is held in a quite unnatural position. Beginners must learn to become comfortable with the contortions necessary. You hold the violin up by squeezing it between your collarbones and your chin. Your hands/arms are to NOT provide any support.
You have no frets on the fingerboard with mere centimeters or millimeters of gap between notes. You must be absolutely precise in your placement at all times at all tempos to make sure you are in tune. Due to the nature of most classical music, you are constantly shifting your hands up and down (forward and backward) on the fingerboard, thus eliminating the ability to "anchor" in one place. Only hours of dedicated practice can develop the muscle memory for such precise placement.
These placements must be done very quickly. A full 4/4 measure of sixteenth notes at 120 bpm means you are placing a finger down approximately once every 0.125 seconds.
Now, while all of this is going on with your left hand, your right hand is manipulating the bow to draw the sound out of the violin.
You must, at all times, draw the bow across the string with the exact amount of pressure, speed, and angle to produce a clear sound. If you are playing a full 4/4 measure of sixteenth notes at 120 bpm all separated (so a different stroke for each note), you are also moving your bow every 0.125 seconds. At the exact pressure, speed, angle and position on the violin. Be wrong in any of these and you will not produce the desired sound.
Often times, due to the rhythm of the piece, you will be moving your bow hand in a pattern very different from the left hand. So you are effectively doing two very different things at the same time. For example, if in that 4/4 measure described above, every group of 3 notes were to be played by a single stroke before changing directions, you are now taking an action every 0.125 seconds on the left hand and an action every 0.375 seconds + one extra 0.125 second stroke at the end.
Now do this while reading sheet music, listening to your fellow ensemble mates to balance sound, watching a conductor to match tempo, express emotionally the intent of the piece.
So then, one must commit enough practice to make all the necessary motions to produce good sound an act of muscle memory. So that there is no conscious thought put into expressing anything the music needs. Thousands upon thousands of hours of drills so the cognitive focus can be on musical expression. To make it as effortless as speaking.
Only then can one sing with the violin. Child prodigies aside, it seems like it takes approximately 3 - 5 years of consistent training before one plays at a level considered "adequate". Elite orchestral players require nearly over a decade of training just to be basic orchestra members. Virtuosos and stars report practicing every day for 4+ hours and will note that any extended break will result in rapid degradation of sound quality and motor skills.
It is a very difficult instrument with an incredibly high skill ceiling and a very long tradition of virtuosity.
I've seen this recently - it was a smaller orchestra without a conductor, and the lead violinist was moving upper body a lot in patterns resembling what a conductor does with a stick.
Yup! Rehearsals also help to make sure everyone has a mutual understanding of the general tempo.
But good musicians will quickly fall into the correct tempo when playing with each other.
Maybe that’s why there’s so many wind instruments in jazz, and rockabilly. I’ll show you busy.
This makes a lot of sense when it comes to vibrating large volumes of air in a concert hall.
But something in this realm that also surprises me is how a small amount of strings can sound like a much bigger ensemble through composition and arranging techniques. For example I’m always amazed at how full Mozart’s string quartets sound.
It’s also interesting how early game systems had to make use of these techniques since their synth chips had limited voices. Sometimes just three waveforms and a noise wave form (for ‘percussion’)
Check out the scherzo of Schubert’s string quintet.
Obligatory video showcasing this: https://youtu.be/WyvfKFVRqVs
The rule of thumb for an orchestra is n double bass, n+2 cellos, n+4 violas, n+6 2nd violins, n+8 1st violins. Usually n ranges from 4 to 8.
> The violin is a comparatively quiet instrument
I knew it!
Part of it is volume. You need 30-50 violins to get the same amount of sound that comes out of a single tuba.
Part of it is tradition/history. Orchestral music is written with the assumption you’ll have a specific proportion of the various instruments, concert halls are constructed with acoustics that assume you’ll have the same proportions, etc.
Nobody is going to stop you from having fewer violins in your orchestra, but to do that you’re going to have to take on work that other orchestras don’t have to take on.
Yes, violins are the largest section in the orchestra to balance the sound of louder instruments like brass and to create a rich, full texture in the music.