Timeline for Is it "legal" for a conductor to reduce number of instruments in a piece?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7 at 19:00 | comment | added | musicamante | @phoog He would've probably asked to extend the stage and push players more closer ;-) The fact is that his requirements, while sometimes "bombastic", were perfectly justified for proper equilibrium between sections and to get the proper sound from the strings: 16 musicians are a lot less, and requires the remaining to "force" some aspects, possibly having a quite different result; so, he wouldn't have probably considered that venue fit for that piece: a performance of the Alpensinfonie was planned during his life, but had to be changed with the Domestica also due to the large orchestra. | |
| Feb 7 at 16:22 | comment | added | phoog | @musicamante thanks for these additional insights. I find myself wondering how absolute Strauss would have been about those numbers: suppose the stage could only fit 48 strings instead of 64; would he have accepted that, or would he have maintained that the hall was not an appropriate venue for the piece? | |
| Feb 7 at 7:25 | comment | added | musicamante | @phoog An interesting fact about that and absence due to strikes: I don't know about other countries, but in Italy there are specific "national job contracts" for art workers (orchestra, dance, opera, etc) in important and renown workplaces that specifically forbid hiring another artist/technician if the ones permanently employed are under strike. Even temporary substitutions with existing employees are forbidden: for instance, if the first trumpet is on strike, nobody can replace it, not even the second trumpet player in a piece where only the first is required. | |
| Feb 7 at 7:02 | comment | added | musicamante | @phoog Michael Seifert got me before I was able to reply, and, interestingly enough, when I read your comment my first thought went exactly to Strauss. Besides, even if my point (as you've already found) wasn't about that, the conductor doesn't always have full power about the instrument "count", strings section included: they may have some leverage, but the final decision is always up to the production/administration, which may or may not allow more freedom depending on various aspects, mostly based on budget and public image of the orchestra and [host] conductor, but not only. | |
| Feb 6 at 13:00 | comment | added | Laurence | @Peter On the London professional scene at any rate, Ophicleide sightings are becoming quite common! | |
| Feb 5 at 21:42 | comment | added | Michael Seifert | @phoog: See this answer for some pieces that specify minimum numbers of string players in each section. Richard Strauss seems to have done so particularly frequently, but he wasn't the only one. | |
| Feb 5 at 19:04 | comment | added | PLL | To expand on the last paragraph here — In amateur/community settings, playing with some parts omitted or combined (by e.g. two players covering three or four parts) is very common indeed. | |
| Feb 5 at 14:24 | comment | added | Andy Bonner | "Student or community orchestra" reminds me of the strings-only community orchestra I was in in my youth, which aspired to play Beethoven symphonies, but had the winds filled in only by a piano. It made the 3rd mov of the Pastoral Symphony amusing, in which you have long horn passages interrupted by three-note asides from the strings. | |
| Feb 5 at 14:17 | comment | added | Peter | There are substitutions that are routinely made in modern performances by some professional orchestras. Examples that come to mind are the tuba for the ophicleide in music of Berlioz, and the contraforte for the contrabassoon. | |
| Feb 5 at 12:59 | comment | added | phoog | @psmears good catch, thanks. Even as I was writing that I had in mind rarer situations such as having two or more solo parts in a divided string section -- but practically speaking, any orchestra that would program such a large work would be exceedingly unlikely to do so without having at least a few ripieni in addition to the specified soloists. I mean, suppose there's an orchestral work that has two independent solo parts in each of the two violin sections; a music director probably wouldn't program it for an orchestra with 4 violinists, much less for one with fewer. | |
| Feb 5 at 10:30 | comment | added | psmears | @phoog: FWIW that sentence is broken over two comments: "that much, in some cases it's acceptable to do that even for solo parts" i.e. the assertion is that it's acceptable (sometimes) to remove solo parts, not that there's a taboo against reducing the size of a large string section :) | |
| Feb 5 at 8:22 | comment | added | phoog | @musicamante excellent points, but, in response to "while it's obvious that removing a violin or two in a section of ten doesn't matter that much, in some cases it's acceptable": are you aware of any orchestral work that specifies the number of strings in a section? I am not. The size of the string sections is understood to be the director's choice. Changing it doesn't require rewriting or rearranging the music (as one might rearrange this symphony for a single pair of valved horns). The change of texture is within spec, as it were, unlike omitting an instrument that isn't marked "ad lib." | |
| Feb 5 at 1:35 | vote | accept | brilliant | ||
| Feb 5 at 1:35 | comment | added | brilliant | Yes, my bad. There are all four of them there. | |
| Feb 4 at 22:45 | comment | added | musicamante | » to do that even for "solo" parts, especially if the instrument is not a fundamental element or it's always doubling another part. For instance, it's not uncommon to remove certain percussion instruments (if not all!) in opera recitals or programmes with excerpts from that repertoire, because the cost of having some musicians (and large/costly instruments) that may just be needed for one piece and a couple of notes may not be worth the difference. | |
| Feb 4 at 22:36 | comment | added | musicamante | Other (uncommon, but not so rare) cases for removed instruments, even at professional level: unexpected absence of a musician (due to illness, unexpected events, and even strike) that didn't allow time for substitution; limited size of the performing stage; acoustic choices/requirements; costs (!) especially for large/uncommon/historical instruments that are expansive to rent. It obviously depends on the situation and repertoire (and specific role of that instrument): while it's obvious that removing a violin or two in a section of ten doesn't matter that much, in some cases it's acceptable » | |
| Feb 4 at 17:30 | history | edited | phoog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 178 characters in body
|
| Feb 4 at 17:19 | history | edited | phoog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 203 characters in body
|
| Feb 4 at 17:14 | history | edited | phoog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 203 characters in body
|
| Feb 4 at 17:08 | history | answered | phoog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |