Loud, Louder, Loudest

[Posaunus]

Recent post from Doug Yeo:
https://thelasttrombone.com/2020/04/18/ ... ork-times/

[Bach5G]

Great article, nice musical examples.

[paulyg]

I respect Doug Yeo immensely, and his opinions on orchestral volume excess are well-informed and articulate. We would all do well to observe his recommendations.

The article, however, is lacking in both respects: it is neither well-informed, nor particularly articulate. It seeks to limit the artistic palette of both composer and performer by cherry-picking examples of pieces that place their entire claim to fame solely on raucous dynamics, and building a case that loud passages are always to the detriment of music as art. This thesis is so easily dismissed, it is lamentable that anyone would waste the time to fully entertain the author's waffling. How would Shostakovich 7 have sounded if the composer were limited to 95dB? It would not have been as fitting a tribute to the millions fighting the worst evil the world has known- fighting for their life, and winning. I agree with Mr. Yeo, but not the author of the NY Times article. Bombast can have artistic validity.

A side note, the article took a dig at Denis Wick. He is universally acknowledged as one of the greatest trombone players of all-time. In fact, the entire London Symphony Orchestra underwent a renaissance at that time. In my opinion, it's likely that complaints about the artistry of ANY member of the group are at best nitpicks and at worst indicative of an uninformed opinion (not worthy of consideration).

[Posaunus]

A side note, the article took a dig at Denis Wick. He is universally acknowledged as one of the greatest trombone players of all-time. In fact, the entire London Symphony Orchestra underwent a renaissance at that time. In my opinion, it's likely that complaints about the artistry of ANY member of the group are at best nitpicks and at worst indicative of an uninformed opinion (not worthy of consideration).

A "dig" at Denis Wick? Certainly not personally, since he is not named in the Times article. There is a reference to the the “oxyacetylene twins” in the London Symphony trombone section in 1974 (presumably including Mr. Wick and one of his colleagues). But that quote, by the fine trumpeter John Wallace, refers only the the volume created by these trombonists, which was indeed louder than had been the custom in London (when they were using smaller-bore English trombones), not to his artistry.

Yes, Pauly, bombast has its place (from time to time). And (like many of us), I enjoy it when the conductor of a large orchestra lets out the stops. But there are limits to the sound levels we should be subjected to, especially when that compromises the music that we are listening to. I remember hearing a Chicago Symphony Orchestra concert about the same time (~1974), when they were playing in a smaller auditorium than Orchestra Hall, and the mighty brass section did not correspondingly reduce their volume to suit the environment. They played Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps. The next day, the local music critic wrote "In the hands of the Chicago Symphony brass section, a trombone can become a dangerous weapon!"

Please re-read Doug Yeo's writing to understand his point of view, rather than "nitpick" the poor newspaper reporter.

[Bach5G]

Certainly the symphony concert hall shouldn’t be the subject of an OSHA stop work order.

I didn’t understand the criticism of the Beethoven. The piece depicts a battle, not l’apres-midi d’un faune.

[hyperbolica]

Certainly the symphony concert hall shouldn’t be the subject of an OSHA stop work order.

I didn’t understand the criticism of the Beethoven. The piece depicts a battle, not l’apres-midi d’un faune.

If you've ever played that, you know it's less sophisticated than other Beethoven, and sticks out stylistically from his other work. Plus it represents a stepping stone in the progression of volume from Mozart to Tchaikovsky, who I was surprised didn't get a nod for his escalation in the number of "f" s and use of battery especially in 1812 overture.

[paulyg]

A "dig" at Denis Wick? Certainly not personally, since he is not named in the Times article. There is a reference to the the “oxyacetylene twins” in the London Symphony trombone section in 1974 (presumably including Mr. Wick and one of his colleagues). But that quote, by the fine trumpeter John Wallace, refers only the the volume created by these trombonists, which was indeed louder than had been the custom in London (when they were using smaller-bore English trombones), not to his artistry.

Yes, Pauly, bombast has its place (from time to time). And (like many of us), I enjoy it when the conductor of a large orchestra lets out the stops. But there are limits to the sound levels we should be subjected to, especially when that compromises the music that we are listening to. I remember hearing a Chicago Symphony Orchestra concert about the same time (~1974), when they were playing in a smaller auditorium than Orchestra Hall, and the mighty brass section did not correspondingly reduce their volume to suit the environment. They played Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps. The next day, the local music critic wrote "In the hands of the Chicago Symphony brass section, a trombone can become a dangerous weapon!"

Please re-read Doug Yeo's writing to understand his point of view, rather than "nitpick" the poor newspaper reporter.

Yeah.. I'm very familiar with Mr. Yeo's writing. He has great points. I understand that orchestra performances reached a breaking point in terms of ear-splitting dynamics.

That's not really the point of the article though. The author of the article is focused primarily on the use of expanded orchestral forces and loud dynamics by COMPOSERS. The article laments the development of larger/better brass instruments (and steel strings and metal flutes) simply because those innovations have expanded the palette available to composers. The author uses "Ride of the Valkyries" as an example of how the brass can bury the strings. If the author had any musical druthers whatsoever, they'd be familiar with the acoustics of any opera orchestra pit (especially Bayreuth): though it gets QUITE loud in the pit (leading to OSHA concerns, justifiably), the effect in the audience is well-balanced. The author's criticism seems borne out of a retrograde, ultra-conservative idea that only the members of the classical symphony orchestra may carry the melody, and should be the only ones to be heard. I'm glad that the brilliance of Berlioz and Wagner so greatly outshines the author's.

The author, at the very beginning of the article, draws a comparison between the expansion of the orchestra and loudening of dynamics to rock concerts. They do not draw this comparison charitably- rather, in the author's view, the shift signified a new populism in art music. If the author is to be believed, this was to the ultimate detriment of the artistic quality of the music and performances. If the author wants to listen to every Haydn symphony on a loop, let them. For the rest of the world, we have the entire literature at our fingertips, to be performed without temperance, without revision, and WITH abandon. And yes, let's use some common sense and avoid making our audiences deaf- if that happens, they'll stop coming to the concerts.

[sungfw]

The article, however, is lacking in both respects: it is neither well-informed, nor particularly articulate. It seeks to limit the artistic palette of both composer and performer by cherry-picking examples of pieces that place their entire claim to fame solely on raucous dynamics, and building a case that loud passages are always to the detriment of music as art.

I don't see anything in the essay that even remotely suggests that Fonseca-Wollheim claims that "loud passages are always to the detriment of music as art." If that's what you took from the article, you either seriously misread it or stopped reading before the part where the author wrote:

To be sure, there can be dramatic reasons for swamping certain voices. Consider the “Dies Irae” of Verdi’s Requiem, especially in a blistering rendition like that conducted by Toscanini in 1951. The movement features a cast of hundreds, but at moments, for example at 3:20 in this YouTube video, the brass trumps everything.

The fact that you can barely hear the chorus, singing full throttle — let alone the strings and winds — evokes the apocalyptic image of sinners being pulled under in a caldron of noise. Only the shrieking piccolo peeks out, like a terror-gripped face in a painting of the Last Judgment. Live, the visual spectacle of human effort rendered powerless by overwhelming force speaks volumes.

In fact, the antepenultimate and penultimate paragraphs make exactly the opposite point: that, in some musical contexts, loudness is necessary to convey the composer's artistic vision:

Still, to some composers, loudness remains elemental. Orchestras stocked with electric guitars and other amplified instruments create new sonic hybrids in the music of Louis Andriessen. The decibel burn of the hammered chords at the opening of his “De Materie” is not a side product of the music; it’s essential to conveying the sheer materiality of sound.

Works by Phill Niblock require extreme dynamics — sustained at a rock concert-like 120 decibels — because only when played at high volume do seemingly static chords reveal a dazzling spectrum of overtones, interacting in complex rhythms. In a video accompanying a 2014 performance, Mr. Niblock explained how expanding the volume and duration of a sonic event affects a listener’s perception. “To lose yourself in a piece,” he said, “is partly losing yourself in time.”

As to Fonseca-Wollheim "cherry-picking" loud pieces to illustrate her thesis, well … duh. Did you expect her to pick pieces like Mendelssohn's Notturno, Humperdinck's Abends will Ich schlafen gehen, and Saint-Saëns' Le Cygne?

[LeTromboniste]

The article laments the development of larger/better brass instruments (and steel strings and metal flutes) simply because those innovations have expanded the palette available to composers.

That is not remotely true. We need to do away with this idea that larger is inherently better, or that modern instruments are "better" — there are trade-offs to any development. Louder doesn't mean the palette is expanded, it means it's shifted towards the loud end.

If our only way to offer a wide palette of options to composers resides in the ability to play louder, that's a sad testament to our imagination and musicality...

* * *

Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner, Stravinsky; none of them wrote for a modern .547 large bore trombone with a heavyweight bell and a toilet bowl-sized mouthpiece (or metal flutes, or steel strings, for that matter). Their music doesn't require that equipment, and that equipment doesn't make it inherently easier to perform their music (if anything it makes it harder to perform it the way they envisioned it).
What it does make easier is to perform it in the way it is customarily played today (which is as much a reason for needing the instruments as it is a result of their use). Questioning those customs and today's performance practice isn't out of line, nor is it a dig at anyone. It's just an important discussion to have. Accepting some of our colleagues losing their hearing and their career as just the cost of doing business and flatly refusing to reexamine our practice and or role in that is irresponsible.

I personally have no problem with health regulations being applied to concert halls. Mostly that would mean ensuring proper space in front of/around loud instrument and/or using sound screens. But if it means brass sections have to bring it down a notch, then so be it. If it means different orchestras playing in different acoustics use different instruments, and the result is a widening of the (currently extremely narrow) palette of what is considered an appropriate trombone for an orchestral player, that would hardly be a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, I still love hearing modern orchestras, and I would say yes to any gig playing my 42 in a symphony orchestra (which I dearly miss). But if I've learned anything by playing period instruments, it's that modern instruments aren't inherently better than instruments of the past, they are just different, and offer different possibilities. There is no particular reason to justify constant growth or why modern instruments of the future couldn't or shouldn't be smaller and not quite as loud.

[Posaunus]

... modern instruments aren't inherently better than instruments of the past, they are just different, and offer different possibilities. There is no particular reason to justify constant growth or why modern instruments of the future couldn't or shouldn't be smaller and not quite as loud.

[BGuttman]

If you want to experience LOUD, go to a rock concert. People who go to these concerts don't feel they have gotten their money's worth if they aren't shell shocked.

It used to be that an orchestra concert was the definition of loud. Now unamplified concert music is considered too tame.

[paulyg]

There is no particular reason to justify constant growth or why modern instruments of the future couldn't or shouldn't be smaller and not quite as loud.

Yes, and in past years, a trend is taking hold towards lighter instruments, with more color to the sound, and less emphasis on producing the loudest possible FFFFs. Still more than adequate to portray the bustle of an excited crowd at the Trevi Fountain, at Noon.

I'm not advocating for the continual pushing of the boundary, dynamic-wise. I agree with Mr. Yeo, in that it's likely certain orchestras have gone too far. However, I stand by my previous point. The expanded dynamic ranges of all instruments (not just brass) have been exploited to great artistry by composers of great renown, whose opinion matters far more than anyone talking here.

Mr. Yeo is advancing the current state-of-the-art. There is a path forward, towards greater artistry- retreating to a time hundreds of years ago, and writing off centuries of progress, is NOT that path.