 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Heather
Date: 1999-04-22 21:43
Okay okay... I have never known the difference between an orchestra and a symphony.
Today I finally get up enough nerve to ask someone and the didn't even know!!! So could someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joris van den Berg
Date: 1999-04-22 21:52
I'm dutch so i don't know the exact american words for each typ of orchestra, but i do know the difference between a symphony and an orchestra.
The most important difference is the occupaciancy of instruments. an orchestra (as far as i know equal to a wind orchestra) has no violins in it, it does have flute clarinet oboe, horn, saxophone, tuba, bass tuba, occasionally a string bass, trombones, trumpets and the complete rythm section a symphony has, but it hasn't got most of the string instruments a symphony has.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-04-22 23:04
In America, at least, there's no discernable difference that I know of between a symphony orchestra and an orchestra (in my Websters a symphonic orchestra is defined as a large orchestra, and the definition for orchestra points to symphonic orchestra!). Smaller groups do have names that distinguish the type of ensemble (wind ensembles, string orchestras, chamber orchestras, etc.) but even they can vary greatly in their makeup.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brent
Date: 1999-04-23 02:02
Color me dense if you will; I thought a symphony was a piece of music played by an orchestra. Symphony would in that case be used as an adjective used to describe the word "orchestra" (although the latter sometimes seems to be implied).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 1999-04-23 03:15
Per my Alfred's Pocket Dictionary of Music
Symphony: A composition for an orchestra
Orchestra: A large ensemble of instruments consisting of four main sections (strings, woodwinds, brass, & percussion)
Band: Any group of woodwind, brass, & percussion instruments such as symphonic band, concert band, or jazz band. Can apply to even more specialized groups such as a brass band.
Of course in common, every day speech an orchestra is often referred to as a symphony or an orchestra may use the word symphony as part of its name but technically speaking, it really refers to a musical composition.
Isn't English grand!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Craig1
Date: 1999-04-23 03:16
I agree with Brent. An orchestra is a multi-instrument group,
and a symphony is a piece of music designated by the composer as a symphony. It can also be an adjective describing a particular orchestra.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 1999-04-23 03:43
Now that my brain has had a little time to rummage through its collection of miscellaneous info.
Not only is a symphony a composition for an orchestra but it is a certain type of composition subject to specific rules. It is basically a large composition in the sonata form (ternary ABA form consisting of exposition, development, and recapitulation and may have an introduction and coda). Symphonies often have several movements. There are some more rules about this but I never got quite that far into theory.
There are many compositions for orchestra that are NOT symphonies such as tone poems, fantasies, rhapsodies, overatures, etc. They do not follow the structural rules for symphonies.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Daniel
Date: 1999-04-23 04:01
Dee wrote:
-------------------------------
Per my Alfred's Pocket Dictionary of Music
Band: Any group of woodwind, brass, & percussion instruments such as symphonic band, concert band, or jazz band. Can apply to even more specialized groups such as a brass band.
Hmmm.. how do you explain the Hanover Band then? (they're actually an orchestra) In actual definition, band can basically mean any group of people who play together. In elementary school i was tought to think of comparing it to a rubber band. Everyone works together to make the music as all side of a rubber band work to hold something together. I think the word band has just been applied to Wind Ensemble nowadays to simply differentiate between orchestra abd band classes in schools and has spread to other areas of the musical world too.
Afterall, the Hanover Band has been around for a very long time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 1999-04-23 10:42
Daniel wrote:
-------------------------------
Dee wrote:
-------------------------------
Per my Alfred's Pocket Dictionary of Music
Band: Any group of woodwind, brass, & percussion instruments such as symphonic band, concert band, or jazz band. Can apply to even more specialized groups such as a brass band.
Hmmm.. how do you explain the Hanover Band then? (they're actually an orchestra) In actual definition, band can basically mean any group of people who play together.
-------------------------------
Common usage is often a bit different than being technically correct. I remarked on that aspect of the language in my post. If an orchestra can call itself a symphony, they can certainly call themselves a band. Plus band also has non-musical meanings. A band can be any group of people engaged in any group endeavor, i.e. a band of pioneers heading west. So the Hanover Band could be a group or band of musicians and in this case the make up of the group results in an orchestra.
Such discrepancies between technical accuracy and commom usage occur in almost every field of endeavor not just music and are not a modern phenomenon. And are NOT wrong. However when someone asks the difference between terms, then you often need to fall back to the technical usage to adequately explain the difference.
An example of such a discrepancy is the usage of the word "theory". To a scientist, a theory has been tested to the extent possible and "proven" to explain a given phenomenon. In other words, to the best of his knowledge and ability to test, it is the correct explanation for the phenomenon. If it is an untested guess or supposition, it is a "hypothesis". Well in common, everyday usage, people use the term "theory" when they are talking about what a scientist calls a "hypothesis". Common usage applies the term "fact" where science would apply the term "theory." Science limits the term "fact" to observable data not the explanation of the data. Common usage is that a fact is both data and what people believe to be true about the explanation of that data.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 1999-04-23 11:41
Now that we are getting some clarity on orchestra and sympony, how about "Philharmonic"?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick2
Date: 1999-04-23 13:52
A Philharmonic Orchestra is an orchestra that plays only harmony and plays only in Philadelphia.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: George
Date: 1999-04-23 15:08
This is the Hanover Band from Hanover, Germany? In that case, the language is German, not English, and "Band" probably has its normal German meaning of "a collection of people with a common cause."
Daniel wrote:
Hmmm.. how do you explain the Hanover Band then? (they're actually an orchestra) In actual definition, band can basically mean any group of people who play together. <snip>
Afterall, the Hanover Band has been around for a very long time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 1999-04-23 15:48
Golly, Rick, we have a good one in Tulsa, OK ! While the above has well explored language peculiarities, I suggest consideration of the suffix IC [as in symphonic] to make an adjective from a noun for clarification. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Justice
Date: 1999-04-23 17:17
The terms; orchestra, symphony, band, and philharmonic are all interchangable with each other.
Duke Ellington had an Orchestra with only one string instrument in it. Stan Kenton had and orchestra where you often could not even hear the only string instrument in it, he also had a Neophonic Orcheatra wich had several traditional string instruments in it. Count Basie had an orcheatra, which was often refered to as a band. And, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra does not only play symphonies, nor does the Dallas Wind Symphony.
If you want to be technical about it, you should call them all ensembles, because that is what they are.
Justice
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 1999-04-23 17:58
Justice wrote:
-------------------------------
The terms; orchestra, symphony, band, and philharmonic are all interchangable with each other.
Duke Ellington had an Orchestra with only one string instrument in it. Stan Kenton had and orchestra where you often could not even hear the only string instrument in it, he also had a Neophonic Orcheatra wich had several traditional string instruments in it. Count Basie had an orcheatra, which was often refered to as a band. And, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra does not only play symphonies, nor does the Dallas Wind Symphony.
If you want to be technical about it, you should call them all ensembles, because that is what they are.
Justice
-------------------------------
Calling them all ensembles is insufficient. There is a necessity to have different names for different types of ensembles so that we can communicate with each other without having to list in detail the actual instrumentation of the ensemble under discussion. After all cats, dogs, and bears are all carnivores and actually fairly closely related yet they are all different so we need different words to clearly indicate which one we are talking about.
The terms you list are interchangeable only in ordinary speech and in coming up with catchy, memorable titles for groups. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with this. However as musicians, we need to strive for understanding of the terms in their technical applications. There is a very good reason to attempt to retain accurate descriptions. That reason is clarity of communication. While it is the nature of a language to grow and change, we still need to strive for clear communications particularly when we get into the technical aspects of any subject including music.
For example, if an instructor asks you to describe the structure of a symphony, you'll get an F if you say it's an orchestra as he's looking for the musical composition. In order to understand and answer the question, the student MUST be familiar with the technical definition of the word. How it is misused in common speech is of no use to him.
If we permit these words to become interchangeable, then we will have to come up with yet more new words or phrases to accurately designate and differentiate the different types of ensembles.
Despite its name and the fact that it was indeed a wonderful group, Duke Ellington's ensemble was not an orchestra. An orchestra has a string section NOT a single individual string instrument (as any band might add for certain effects). If a person went to see Duke Ellington and his Orchestra play the William Tell Overature, the effect would be quite different than hearing the New York Philharmonic playing the Willian Tell Overature. Duke Ellington's group would not have the necessary instrumentation to play it as originally written. Even though it was not an orchestra, if he wanted to use the term in the name of the group that's OK. He probably wanted to convey the professional nature of his jazz group. This is done all the time in every area of advertising. It doesn't change the technical meanings of the words.
Just because groups use terms in their names in different ways than is expected, it doesn't change the original meaning of the word. There is a laundry soap name TIDE but that doesn't change the definition of the word tide to mean laundry soap.
Although misuse of terms in music is not going to do any one any great harm, many of the griefs and miseries of people in this world stem from misunderstandings due to the sloppy and inaccurate use of words.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Justice
Date: 1999-04-23 19:10
Dee wrote:
<Calling them all ensembles is insufficient.>
I believe that it is, it's all about the music, not the instrumentaion. All of these groups are made up of musicians, and should be recognized as being on the same musical plain. Calling the Chicago Symphony an orchestra and calling the Ellington, and Kenton Orchestras bands puts the CSO on a higher musical plain than the others, eventhough the musicianship of the Ellington and Kenton Orchestras was just as high as the CSO.
<...Duke Ellington's ensemble was not an orchestra.>
Yes it was and still is.
<If a person went to see Duke Ellington and his Orchestra play the William Tell Overature, the effect would be quite different than hearing the New York Philharmonic>
Because the NY Phil cannot swing.
<...playing the Willian Tell Overature. Duke Ellington's group would not have the necessary instrumentation to play it as originally written.>
And the NY Phil would not be able to play Duke's *Black, Brown and Beige* because they do not have the right instrumentation. It's a mute point.
<Just because groups use terms in their names in different ways than is expected, it doesn't change the original meaning of the word.>
This is how the meaning of words change over time. Languege is directly linked to culture, and cultures are always growing and evolving, thus the languege will change over time. A culture that does not change is one which had already died.
This whole idea of using one word to describ the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and using a different word to describe Duke Ellington's Orchestra is asinine. Calling Duke's Orchestra a "band" puts it on a lower level than the one that Chicago is on.
Admit it or not, this is what the "meaning" of the words "orchestra" and "band" do to musicial ensembles. They are all groups of musicians who unite under the common goal of creating music. It should be the end product that we refer to the different ensembles as and not who walks through the door to the rehearsal room.
Justice
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ?
Date: 1999-04-23 19:25
it's MOOT point... not MUTE point.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 1999-04-23 20:10
Justice wrote:
<Calling the Chicago Symphony an orchestra and calling the Ellington, and Kenton Orchestras bands puts the CSO on a higher musical plain (sic) than the others...>
Does it? Only if you consider orchestral music a higher art form than jazz. Calling the Chicago Symphony Orchestra an orchestra only says that it comprises strings, winds and percussion in a particular mixture. Whether it is named the "Chicago Symphony Orchestra" or the "Chicago String Band," it is still an orchestra by definition. Likewise, whether Ellington's ensemble was named the "Duke Ellington Orchestra," the "Duke Ellington Combo" or "Microsoft Corporation," it was still a jazz band. And that is not a put down, just a technical description.
Words like "orchestra" and "band" have commonly accepted meanings. If we blur them to mean the same thing, then we have to start adding qualifiers to convey the type of music they play or their instrumental composition. ("My kid plays in the school orchestra." "Really? Is it the string orchestra or the wind orchestra?" "Neither, she plays in the jazz orchestra.")
Names are often meaningless. In our city we have a "symphonic band" that I doubt plays too many symphonies and a "municipal band" that is not officially linked to the city (municipality). (We also have a symphony orchestra that plays symphonies and a philharmonic orchestra that, I assume, loves harmony.)
Although names are often meaningless, we should try to maintain whatever meaning specific words have. I grant that the meanings of words get blurred, but let's not purposely do it just because someone thinks bands are less worthy than orchestras.
------------
Back to the original subject, with regard to the word "symphony" when used in the context of "symphony orchestra," doesn't that define its size so as to distinguish it from, say, a chamber orchestra, with the implication that the former has the instrumentation to play symphonies whereas the latter does not?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William Fuller
Date: 1999-04-23 20:44
I believe that a "symphony" is a form of composition and the "orchestra"is a group of musicians (usually) that play symphonic works by old, dead (usually) composers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don
Date: 1999-04-23 23:29
Dee,
A Piano is Grand... English is a language.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick2
Date: 1999-04-23 23:57
I believe in Tulsa you would have a Tulsharmonic orchestra, yes?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick2
Date: 1999-04-24 00:04
>>English is a language.
As well as a horn, leather, and a muffin.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 1999-04-24 03:13
Punny and punchy I think.
But to the symphonic orchestra vs chamber orchestra distinction. Yes a symphonic orchestra has the size and instrumentation necessary for a typical symphony (although they play lots of other things) whereas a chamber orchestra is geared towards a smaller size to play standard chamber works (the term derives from the fact that chamber orchestras played in smaller rooms or chambers than standard orchestras).
Bands and band music are not lesser entities than orchestras and symphonies. They are merely different. Band music can be marvelous. Try Holst's Second Suite in F for Military Band sometime. And jazz music is extremely demanding. I can happily tackle Mozart but am intimidated by such pieces as "Sing, Sing, Sing."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 1999-04-24 15:08
Well said, Dee, I have been hoping someone would arrive at the term Symphonic Orchestra. Yes, Holst is challenging, and Rick, how about an OKharmonic orch!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Craig1
Date: 1999-04-26 14:34
Before Harry James added strings, his group was referred to as "Harry James and his Orchestra " or "Music Makers". The name did not change after he added strings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paul
Date: 1999-05-03 16:47
Interesting discussion above. My pro tutor resided with a large city symphony orchestra. He and his peers always critiqued themselves and their performances. For the most part, they sounded like a typical midwestern large city symphony - it was okay, but not stunning. Though the audience never noticed, they did. When all of the magic was there (typically only once a season), the evening's performance would be up to world class level and they would pat themselves on the back for sounding like a philharmonic orchestra. No, it had absolutely no basis in proper technical terms. Rather, it was a sign of the highest respect for the most skilled in the business. These folks knew where they were in the pro "pecking order". They also knew when they had that almost magical thing or things done to perfection that made them sound and feel like the very best.
Based on that "definition", I would say that a symphonic orchestra is very good and highly professional, but a philharmonic orchestra is at the pinnacle of the business. It's not scientific. It's not technically accurate. It's highly subjective. As I understood, this was how the pros graded themselves against a standard of perfection.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Connie K
Date: 1999-05-06 19:48
Paul: That's an interesting distinction that I had not heard before. Would that imply that the Tulsa Philharmonic (no disrespect intended) is more "professional" or polished than the London Symphony (Orchestra)?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
