mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Today’s an exciting day for me here at the _floss. I’m kicking off a brand new feature called ON MUSIC, which I hope you’re gonna enjoy reading as much as I will posting.
The idea behind ON MUSIC is this: every week or so I’ll be writing about something to do with so-called “classical” music. I put it in quotes because I really hate the label. But the alternatives aren’t much better: “concert music” – “longhaired music”??
Blech.
So until we come up with something better, classical it is, and classical will be the theme of this feature. To help launch ON MUSIC, I’ll be posting one a day for the next 7 days or so. The theme of this batch will be the instruments of the orchestra.
So let’s jump right in then. The orchestra, as many of you probably know, is made up of four basic groups of instruments: strings, brass, winds, and percussion. Today we’ll be listening to some hot brass playing in an excerpt from Russian composer Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade, written in 1888 and based on The Book of One Thousand and One Nights.
Want I’d like to bring to your attention is the variety of different ways the brass section is used in this 2-minute excerpt. Listen to the punctuating flourishes that punch out the main theme in the beginning of the excerpt. Rimsky was a masterful orchestrator. He even wrote a book on orchestration techniques which composers still use in school today. Listen at around 44 seconds in for the amazing staccato triple tonguing… that rapid fire sound from the trumpets. Then at about the 1 minute mark, he uses the trombones and tubas, later adding trumpets, as well, to recapitulate the main theme in a very large way, with bravado and breadth. Three very diverse dynamic ways of writing for brass within the space of a couple minutes. If you don’t already know Scheherazade, be sure to download a copy to your iPod. I recommend the Von Karajan recording, though just about all of them are good enough to begin to get acquainted with this jewel.
Comments (23)
Comment
This is an excellent feature! I’m looking forward to many more posts like this one.
I have always preferred music with lots of brass. It’s so in-your-face and powerful.
posted by Molly on 2-8-2007 at 8:25 am
This is a great post. I would like some info on female horn players. I have a debate to settle. Thanks! I worship Mentalfloss.
posted by Jenny on 2-8-2007 at 9:03 am
Molly, Jenny, thanks. There’s a lot more ground to cover… this is just the tip of the goldberg variations.
What kind of info on female horn players are you lookin for, exactly? I dated one in music school. She had a great set of…. oh I just can’t pun there this morning.
posted by David on 2-8-2007 at 9:42 am
Alternative labels I use for ‘Classical’:
Orchestral Music, Symphonic Music
If you like bombastic, bold brass in your symphonic music, try “Night on Bald Mountain” by Mussorgsky. Mussorgsky does not employ the finesse found in “Scheherazade” but it is front-and-center. I should add that Rimsky-Korsakov and Mussorgsky were contemporaries and friends, so it is no surprise that they would use similar devices.
Anyway, both pieces are master works. I look foreword to hearing more on this subject.
posted by n2y2 on 2-8-2007 at 9:47 am
For brass writing in an orchestral context, there’s also Dvorak’s 9th Symphony (”From The New World”) and most anything that Mahler wrote. R. Strauss also used brass extremely effectively in his orchestral work.
If you’re looking for a budget way to get into Rimsky-Korsakov, my recommendation is the Sony budget recording of Sheherazade by Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra. The Philadelphia’s sound is perfect for this kind of music, and the disc is less than seven bucks at Amazon. Here’s the link: www.amazon.com/dp/B000069JJ0/
posted by Frankenstein on 2-8-2007 at 10:06 am
thanks for the labels n2y2, but what about a piano sonata by mozart? hardly symphonic or orchestral. it’s a tough spot to be in, eh?
posted by David on 2-8-2007 at 11:01 am
For the breadth of horns, including blatting rips with yer bombast and mellow constrasting sections, there’s certainly no better example than “An American in Paris” by George Gershwin. Replete with those brass instruments favored by orchestras everywhere: taxi horns! As you write, don’t stop when the calendar changes to 1901. There’s lots of great classical music (composers and compositions, orchestral and chamber) in the 20th and 21st centuries. Toss in some opera while yer at it!
posted by ld on 2-8-2007 at 11:15 am
If you want to talk American composers, Copeland really likes to blow his horn.
The ‘Rodeo Suite’ leans heavily on the brass. And while simple, the ‘Fanfare for the Common Man’ should only be attempt if you have a top-notch trumpet section; they are naked and the slightest mistake goes under the microscope.
posted by n2y2 on 2-8-2007 at 11:40 am
This is amazing! There are so many different composers that would be incredibly interesting to analyze in terms of orchestral repertoire, but my personal favorites are the Frenchies (such as Ravel or Debussy) and Brahms. Being a member of an orchestra, constantly rehearsing and witnessing the varieties of textures makes me appreciate such music so much more. I really could ramble forever about this topic…
posted by Jen on 2-8-2007 at 12:44 pm
Whenever I think of brass in classical music, the first piece that comes to my mind is the first part of Resphighi’s Pines of Rome…
posted by Jason! on 2-8-2007 at 1:57 pm
MARS! & Jupiter! (Holst)
Berlioz’s “Requiem” — big brassfest there! (4 full brass band sections, lots of percussion, enormous choir, and some strings and winds too, here and there)
posted by mr k on 2-8-2007 at 2:16 pm
Hey, Karalia Suite, Sibelius
posted by Maria on 2-8-2007 at 4:11 pm
I find it interesting that the instruments of the symphony orchestra image includes the saxophone…rarely used in most orchestras, unfortunately. My poor instrument is shunted.
This is a great feature to add in though, I look forward to seeing more of it. I’ve always loved Korsakov’s stuff too, so this made me happy.
posted by Sam on 2-8-2007 at 6:19 pm
I’m so glad to see topics on music! There is so much to explore, this should be a great topic.
posted by Alyssa on 2-8-2007 at 10:15 pm
in re: triple tongue brass …
the intro to the chorale in Finlandia always got me focused.
posted by Dennis M on 2-9-2007 at 1:02 am
If you want to hear some more great brass moments, the Santa Clara Vanguard Drum and Bugle Corps performed this as their 2004 program entitled ‘Attraction: The Music of Scheherazade’. Simply powerful arrangement for both brass and percussion. A personal favorite of mine!
posted by Charlie on 2-9-2007 at 1:42 am
Oh my gosh. You people just highlighted two of my favorite pieces of orchestral music.
What about Dvor[zh]ak? New World symphony anyone? And why it’s labeled the “5th” instead of the “9th” on some recordings?
posted by Liz on 2-9-2007 at 9:05 am
To Sam: But, but, you have Ravel! And if no one’s playing Heckelphone that day - you have Holst to live by too!
And Milhaud every once in a while. . .Who needs anything more?
posted by Liz on 2-9-2007 at 9:06 am
I don’t see any problem with the term “classical”. I frequently play and listen to classical music and pretty much divide all music into the two large categories of “classical” and “popular” (pop).
Classical includes anything for orchestra, concert band (aka symphonic band, wind symphony, wind ensemble, etc.), chamber music, opera, most choral stuff, solo works for voice and instruments, and about any combination of these.
While there is some overlap, pop is pretty much everything else. People who like country get offended when I refer to it as pop, but the reality is that anything on a country station shares more with boy bands than it doesn’t. Not trying to pass judgment, just stating fact.
The biggest real difference between classical and pop is who is seen as the primary creative force behind the piece. Classical strives to play the piece as the composer had intended it to be played. Although there is always room for interpretation, there are also definite rights and wrongs.
In pop, the performer is seen as the primary artist and is invited drastically change a piece that they often did not write in an effort to “make it their own”.
posted by Aaron on 2-9-2007 at 9:07 am
Thanks Liz! Never been called “You people” before, but I’ll take the compliment nontheless…. heh. heh.
posted by David on 2-9-2007 at 9:21 am
I too hate the name Classical to describe the music that people have labelled ‘Classical’, that term truly should only be used for music composed after 1750 to approx 1830. A better term would be ‘Western Art Music’, which can cover everything from Medeival to Contemporary.
posted by Paul on 2-9-2007 at 11:02 am
I say we use capital C Classical to refer to the specific Classical time period, and lower case c classical to refer to… well, the kind of music we’re discussing here. I know it’s not accurate, but it’s what most people are used to calling it. By choosing more appropriate (but obscure) terminology, I think you risk alienating the folks who don’t know what you’re talking about. No matter what you call it, everyone should be encouraged to appreciate this music. And I think if you get too elite with fancy terms, you might scare away the people who haven’t gotten into it yet. Just my two cents!
posted by Molly on 2-9-2007 at 3:09 pm
You’re probaby right Molly, Western Art Music does sound a bit pretentious, even if it is more accurate, it’s a little too late for it to catch on, ‘classical’ already has a pretty firm grip on the entire genre.
My degree is in Music history, so I’m probably more of a stickler than most. In a perfect world, chronologically speaking Western Art Music would be broken down to Medeival, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, 20th C and Contemporary, and each genre certainly could be broken down in to sub-genres.
posted by Paul on 2-9-2007 at 5:56 pm