Having just returned home from PASIC 2009 in Indianapolis, I was inspired by Chris Deviney’s terrific symphonic clinic titled, “The Mahler Hammer, The Glass Harmonica, and Other Peculiar Percussion Instruments I’ve Played In The Orchestra.” I am reminded of similar occurrences in my own experience with the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra. Having to deal with instruments and sounds I was never taught to play was an ongoing (if not ever increasing) part of playing in the orchestra, especially in pops concerts, but certainly in classical concerts as well. It’s a subject that is really only encountered after one is in an orchestra and confronted with necessity.
Beginning around 1988, a wonderful new world of possibilities in meeting such necessities emerged through the technology of digital sampling - recorded acoustic sounds that could then be manipulated and easily reproduced. In the standard orchestra repertoire, there are works calling for all sorts of sounds to be made by acoustic instruments which are frequently very difficult or costly to obtain. This can be a serious problem for orchestras on tight budgets and for percussionists trying to search out and obtain the required instruments and sounds. Digital sampling provided a relatively workable and low cost means to solve the problem.
First however, it became necessary to address colleagues’ concerns about the threat of replacing real live players with electronic devices. My argument was that the electronic sounds would only be played by a real live musician performing on an electronic keyboard instead of on an unobtainable acoustic instrument. No musicians would ever be replaced by my use of digital sound samples.
Secondly, there were the conductors’ concerns about the use and quality of the electronic sounds in place of the acoustic sounds. Several arguments were effective in resolving these concerns:
1) Given the reality that certain instruments are either unobtainable or too costly, the music would be better served by accurate sampled sounds than by using substitute acoustic sounds, which could be quite different in character from the intended sounds.
2) For those acoustic instruments that would normally require amplification, the audience would still hear exactly the same resulting vibration of the electro-acoustic loudspeakers, but the sampled sounds would also be controlled - in volume, balance, register, voicing, etc. - much more effectively. Again, the music could be better served.
3) The sound samples would be of the highest quality available and as accurate a reproduction of the original acoustic sounds as possible. The sounds would not be synthetic - not like the sounds made by analog synthesizers.
4) The loudspeakers would be placed in the percussion section - not overhead or to the sides of the stage, making as close to an overall approximation of the acoustic sound within the orchestra ensemble as possible. It is important to note that having high-quality speakers is critical; these are the devices which actually make the sounds. The sounds produced by the speakers will only be as good as the entire system - not just the digital samples, but also the keyboard device, the amplifier, the processors (equalization, reverberation, etc.), the cables, and the speakers themselves. The entire system would be controlled by me from the stage, with only the AC cable running to an offstage electric outlet.
5) Wherever a visual effect (as if playing the acoustic instrument) is preferred, it could be mimed, if possible, by one of the percussion players. This would be nothing new. For example, in Leroy Anderson’s “The Typewriter” it is a widely accepted practice for someone - either the conductor or a percussionist - to mime at a real typewriter while the percussion section actually makes the sounds - tapping on a wooden plate, striking a small bell, and scraping on a guiro.
Here is a listing of some sampled sounds that I have used in orchestra concerts.
Symphonic Pops Concerts
Anderson, “The Waltzing Cat” (meow sounds, dog barks, cat hissing sounds)
Anderson, “The Typewriter” (typewriter keyboard, carriage return, and bell sounds)
The Beatles/arr. Wayland, “Yellow Submarine” (engine sounds, bubble sounds)
Grofe, “Grand Canyon Suite” (wind sounds, thunder sounds)
Rogers/arr. Bennett. “Victory At Sea” (surf sounds)
Sousa, “The Crystal Lute” (glass harmonica sounds)
Tchaikovsky, “1812 Overture” (cannon sounds, Kremlin bells)
Classical Subscription Concerts
Berlioz, “Symphonie Fantastique” (low C-nat. and G-nat. bell sounds)
Mussorgsky, “Pictures At an Exhibition” (low Eb bell)
Ives, “New England Holidays” (church bells, jaw harp in F, Ab, and A-nat.)
Khachaturian, “Piano Concerto” (flexitone, musical saw sounds)
Schnittke, “Violin Concerto” (flexitone, musical saw sounds)
Cowell, “Concerto for Percussion and Orchestra” (5 tabla sounds)
Strauss, “Don Quixote” (wind sounds)
Mahler, “Symphony No.6″ (stereo herd bells, distant bells)
Satie, “Parade” (organ diapason sounds, flaques sonores [puddle] sounds)
This last piece, a musical curiosity composed by Erik Satie, deserves some further comment, because it demonstrates very well the way in which sampled sounds can ideally serve the music in a live performance by an orchestra. One of the problems faced by a percussionist in realizing a performance of this piece is the composer’s requirement for “flaques sonores” - the sound of a puddle. Normally, this might be done by two players, one with an empty pail bucket and the other with a bucket half-full of water; they could simply pour the water back and forth. It would require two players; it’s messy and potentially disastrous.
After some experimentation, it was determined that a sound sample would be created by recording the sound of two pennies dropped simultaneously into a bucket of water. This made a good “plop” sound with the pitch rising slightly after the initial attack. Two such unprocessed (ie. no equalization or reverb) samples were digitally recorded. Then the sounds were voiced by the sampler (computer):
a) the two samples were layered together, so that both would sound (slightly separated) when only one key was pressed, thereby creating a more complex final sound.
b) the layered sample was transposed down one octave by the computer
c) the layered, transposed sample was then copied over a range of a major-sixth by the computer.
The samples were still dry sounding, but when played back through a loudspeaker in performance, the sound could easily be processed to suit the acoustics of the concert hall.
The technique used on a MIDI piano keyboard to trigger the “flaques sonores” in performance was somewhat unorthodox. A flat opened hand was rolled downward, from the palm of the hand on the highest notes to the fingertips on the lowest notes. This produced a full and complex “sploosh” sound, which could be completely controlled in volume, equalization, and reverberation. Furthermore, since the sound recurs every two bars, it is possible to vary the sound of the puddle slightly each time by starting or ending on a neighboring key, making the effect more alive and less monotonous through the fifteen repetitions of the sound. The sampled “flaques sonores” in performance was realized with an accuracy and a quality of sound that would otherwise have been nearly impossible. The music was served very well, and the listeners - audience, musicians, and conductor - were enchanted and delighted.
Of course, there are many more possibilities for the use of sampled sounds in the orchestra, opera, and chamber music repertoire. It will likely become the responsibility of percussionists to serve the requirements of the music by realizing such sounds - including many, many sounds we were never taught to play.
4 Comments
Why not simply hire a glass armonica or musical saw player, etc., in stead of having the percussionist try to learn to play such instruments in a hurry? There is no way a percussionist could learn to play such instruments PROFESSIONALLY in a short time, even if the percussionist did have access to the instrument. Why replace a live musician with a sampled sound, in stead of giving work to a fellow musician? Plus, sampled instruments never sound as good as live ones. Especially a musical saw - how do you control the sliding from note to note, when you play a sampled sound on a keyboard? There are enough specialty instrumetalists out there who would love to play with an orchestra. Of the top of my head, there is Cecilia Brauer http://www.gigmasters.com/armonica/index.asp who plays glass armonica and Natalia Paruz http://www.sawlady.com who plays the musical saw with many orchestras.
Dear Michelle,
Your comments and questions about the blog posting “Sounds We Were Never Taught to Play” have been received and they deserve responses.
[Why not simply hire a glass armonica or musical saw player, etc., in stead of having the percussionist try to learn to play such instruments in a hurry?]
There is no doubt that the best scenario would be to have live acoustic instruments. The problem for most orchestras, however, is both practical and financial. Most orchestras, except for a few of the major orchestras (and today, even many of these) are perpetually strained by finances. Tough decisions involving cost control are the only responsible way for orchestras to insure their survival and to continue to serve their communities by delivering music for a wide range of tastes. It’s understandable that a conductor might prefer to hire more violins for an entire concert rather than a specialist on the musical saw for a small part in one piece.
Orchestras frequently play jazz and popular pieces without hiring extra jazz musicians. Also, especially with mid-sized and small orchestras, not all concerts are presented in major halls for large audiences. There are school concerts and various types of community concerts in small venues for which the cost of even one extra musician, especially one from out-of-town (with travel, hotel, meal expenses, not to mention taxes, union dues, etc.) is simply not a practical consideration.
[There is no way a percussionist could learn to play such instruments PROFESSIONALLY in a short time, even if the percussionist did have access to the instrument.]
Actually, percussionists are routinely expected to play specific parts on unfamiliar instruments (steel drums, musical saw, glass harmonica, Hungarian cimbalom, other ethnic instruments, and more). Learning a specific part or a passage within a piece is a challenge, but it’s not at the same level of difficulty as learning to play a large body of music, as a specialist would be able to do. Learning a specific part is routinely done by percussionists, and it not only suffices, it works well.
[Why replace a live musician with a sampled sound, in stead of giving work to a fellow musician?]
As was indicated in the blog posting, no musician was replaced. There is no limit to the work that could theoretically be opened up to more musicians - more violins, more of everything. In reality, while it might be possible to augment musicians for specific concerts, there may simply not be enough financial resources to accomplish this for every concert.
[Plus, sampled instruments never sound as good as live ones.]
As was mentioned in the Satie example in the blog posting, sampled sounds can often be BETTER than acoustic ones in certain instances. In those cases where acoustic instruments would be preferred (such as the glass harmonica, as you indicated), nevertheless, where cost restraints make the preferred option unworkable, sampled sounds can be a practical and acceptable substitute.
[Especially a musical saw - how do you control the sliding from note to note, when you play a sampled sound on a keyboard? There are enough specialty instrumentalists out there who would love to play with an orchestra. Off the top of my head, there is Cecilia Brauer who plays glass armonica and Natalia Paruz who plays the
musical saw with many orchestras.]
Electronic keyboards have the ability to make sliding sounds. In the case of some of the musical saw parts mentioned in the blog posting, an acoustic musical saw would need to be amplified anyway, so that the audience would actually be hearing only the sound of the loudspeaker in exactly the same way they would hear sampled sounds.
In conclusion, I fully understand and appreciate your concern. When possible, specialists on acoustic instruments would be preferred. When such is not possible because of budgetary or venue limitations, the options mentioned in the blog posting can be good, reasonable, and workable alternatives.
Best wishes,
Bill Cahn
I have many thoughts about this, but I’ll just state one question: Why are parts for non-standard instruments always given to the percussion section without a second thought? Musical (i.e., non-sound effect) slide whistle parts should be given to the trombone section, musical saw parts should be given to the cello section, bowed pitched flexatone parts should be given to the violin section. Those instruments relate much more naturally to those players than to percussionists. Nothing in orchestra percussionists’ contracts forces them to agree to play a non-percussion instrument. Try asking the concertmaster to play a sarangi part. As I’ve indicated in other articles, it would be like telling the orchestra pianist, “OK, next week you play harp in the Debussy.”
Bob,
Your point is well taken, and the reasons that percussionists are routinely responsible for unusual instrumental sounds are varied, though I realize they may not fully satisfy your concerns. For example:
COMPOSERS - Many of the unusual sound requirements are placed by the composer in the score on the percussion staves. This is the case with Satie’s “Parade.” The percussion parts contain the unusual sounds along with the standard percussion instruments, and it can therefore rationally be assumed by composers, librarians, conductors, etc. - that the percussion section will deliver the goods. In the case of the roulette wheel - also in “Parade” - the assignment is sometimes even given to non-musicians (patrons, board members, community personalities) instead of the percussion section, because the required technique is minimal, though they may need to be given very obvious entrance cues.
ORCHESTRAS - Of course, all orchestras are not the same. Organizational cultures vary, sometimes widely, from orchestra to orchestra. The big budget orchestras are more likely to hire specialists. The musicians in these orchestras have historically had considerable bargaining clout over work rules, and they may be more inclined to draw lines in the sand about what instruments they will and will not play. By contrast, orchestras with lesser means simply have to be more flexible and creative. For many of these orchestras flexibility is a necessity for survival, while still trying to serve a community with varied repertoire presented within available means. It’s a balancing act. Even so, if the percussion section is unable or unwilling to cover the unusual sound requirements, alternatives can usually be found by using substitute instruments (eg. using a prepared piano in place of a cimbalom in Kodaly’s “Hary Janos;” I have heard this done several times). A reasonable argument can be made that using a digital keyboard with good cimbalom samples is more true to the music than using a prepared piano.
PERCUSSIONISTS - Many percussionists, myself included, can view unusual sound requirements as a challenge - a problem to be solved - with the attendant satisfaction to be gained in finding a solution. That being said, each and every percussion section generally has the ability to set its own standards for what musical responsibilities are acceptable. It comes down to the individual player. No master contract that I know of can force a player to play an instrument that he/she doesn’t know how to play. It is not the point of my article to suggest in any way that the percussion section SHOULD be given such a responsibility. However, I also don’t know of any contract that prevents any player from making music on any instrument, as long as it is acceptable to the conductor.