Talk:Orchestra/Archives/2015

The opening and first paragraph of "Instrumentation" is the same

The part: "... string, brass, woodwind, and percussion instruments. Other instruments such as the piano and celesta may sometimes be grouped into a fifth section such as a keyboard section or may stand alone, as may the concert harp and electric and electronic instruments." is same in both places. Because I'm not very familiar and good with editing articles in Wikipedia I won't change a thing, but if someone here is more familiar and have done it before, please pay attention. Matar.maoz (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Matar.maoz: The introduction serves as a summary for the body and sentences may sometimes be duplicated. If you can improve the summary I encourage you to do so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Baroque and classical orchestra

The given lineups for these two periods seem completely random to me. In the case of the baroque string section, the number of players is without doubt heavily inflated.

1. baroque orchestra

To make any statement about a "standard" baroque orchestra is not possible for the time before 1700, since there was not even a true concept of what should be called an orchestra at that time. Furthermore, there are great regional differnces within Europe. For example, Lully's french orchestra employed 24 strings in five sections (Vl/VaI/VaII/VaIII/Bass) while italian orchestras had two Violins and 1 Viola part like modern orchestras. Winds were extremely diverse and often optional. The vast majority of performances at taht time were one-to-a-part.

Late baroque orchestras still vary too much to make a single usefull chart. If I was forced to do so, it would look like this:

2 Flutes (occasinally)

2-3 Oboes (common, several players per part in large orchestras; commonly doubling on treble recorders)

1 Bassoon (common Bass instrument, several players per part in large orchestras)

2-3 Trumpets and 1 timpani player (occasionally)

2 Horns (occasionally)

Strings: About 2-4/2-4/1-2/1-2/1-2, but anything between 4 and 25 or more players can be found

Continuo: 1-2 harpsichords or organs, occasionally 1-2 theorbos (especially in opera)

2. Classical orchestra:

Flutes and clarinets, trumpets and timpani were in no way a given for most of the repertoire, string ensembles were much smaller on average:

1-2 Flutes (occasinally)

2 Oboes

2 Clarinets (very rare in early classical works, more commen since ca. 1775-1790)

1-2 Bassoons (merely reinforcing the string bass part in many occasions)

2 Trumpets and 1 Timpani player (occasionally, more common towards the end of the period)

2 or 4 horns

Strings: About 6/6/3/2/3, but extremely varied (9-40 players; sometimes even more)

Continuo: 1 Harpsichord (secular music, gradually abandoned between ca.1780-1800), 1-2 Organs (sacred music only)

--80.187.110.224 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source or two is sorely needed in that section. Have you one you could point us to?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not pull this out of my.... but the problem is that the sources to base th claims I made here are numerous, and they are often primary sources like baroque writings about instrumentation (Mattheson, Quantz, Bach's Entwurff, employment lists of opera orchestras etc.) ore based on, for example, reading the scores of numerous baroque and classical compositions. A single glimpse on Mozart's or Hayden's orchestral catalogue of work shows that I'm right about the wind section of classical orchestras and it should not be too hard to find some scholarly writing to back it up (while the late classical works of Beethoven are well represented by the current chart).

Regular string section sizes are much harder to proof, since there were almost no norms in the 18. century and it is hard to find an article about "the average size of the classical string section" since this would not be usefull from a scientific point of view. I based my opinion on a list of classical european orchestra schedules in a musicologycal article I can provide as soon as I have a proper PC...

Less detailed accounts in encyclopedias or textbooks are almost always faulty and lacking detail in at least the same way the article is now, so it will not be possible to resolve the issue by 1 or 2 sources, I assume.

80.187.98.243 (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

One or two sources would be an improvement on the zero sources presently offered. As you suggest, a modern scholarly reference would provide a wider view than citing a dozen 18th-century sources. Any attempt at evaluating the differences among them would amount to original research as defined on Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)