Jazz for aficionados

Rok,

1) No. Although there are traditional seating arrangements for certain sections, certain instrument sections may be positioned differently according to the particular orchestra's traditions, a particular conductor's wishes, or a particular work's requirements per the composer. Although as concerns a particular work's requirements (usually a modern work) "all bets are off", orchestral seating arrangements that seldom change are:

- 1rst violins: left/front
- woodwinds: center/ front to back with horns usually closer to center behind woodwinds
- brass: right/rear
- percussion across the left to right/ rear

Seating for 2nd violins, violas, celli and basses can vary. In opera orchestras, because of the shallowness of most "pits" seating varies even more.

2) Most members are permanent. "Auxiliary" instruments (bass clarinet, piccolo, harp) in major orchestras, with a few exceptions (saxophone), are also permanent. In orchestras with smaller budgets they are not.

3) Given the amazing level of proficiency in today's orchestras there is little chance of an unusually technically demanding work not being executed to near perfection (technically); and, it certainly would not be acceptable if that were the case. That wasn't always the case with earlier recordings of the modern repertory on which one can sometimes hear the players struggling with difficult passages. However, it is not clear from the "every note heard" comment wether the reviewer refers to the execution of the parts or (more likely) to wether that particular recording or performance includes a passage or section of music that, either because of traditional performance practice, or the composer's designation as "optional".

BTW, was I pulling your leg? :-)

The Frogman:

Thanks for the info. If I run across the magazine with the 'all the notes' thingy I will let you know.

I called my personal Physician today. She is a Jazz lover also. Told her I had absorbed a full dose of European pseudo-Jazz. She said the best antidote is to immeediately listen to the real deal.

She prescribed 'Oscar Peterson Trio at The Concertgebouw', with Herb Ellis on guitar. And, if needed, Wes Montegomery's 'Smokin' at the half note'

Didn't need Wes. Brother Herb was the cure. :)

Cheers

"Take two back-beats and call me in the morning" :-)

Today's listen:

Benny Goodman -- BENNY GOODMAN LIVE AT CARNEGIE HALL

2cd Set. Recorded in 1938. The liner notes say this is one of the most important Jazz concerts ever. Sort of like a coming out party for Jazz in the presence of Polite Society and at a big time venue. Not to mention that it seems to have been a totally integrated affair. Not a trivial thing in 1938. Goodman was courageous that way.

A lot of big time players here. The Goodman Band, parts of the Basie and Ellington Bands.

Some of the more notables include:
Goodman, Basie, Teddy Wilson, Lionel Hampton, Johnny Hodges, Cootie Williams, Lester Young, Buck Clayton, Harry James, Gene Krupa and others.

The music is good and played with enthusiasm. The entire effort is let down by the recording. It's uneven. Not much noise, but the volume seems to come and go at random, and sometimes the soloists fade.

A later reissue on CD brings out the music a little better, but more noise along with it. I guess we can say it would be the 'audiophile' edition.

All great tunes. My favorites were 'bei mir bist du schon', 'sing sing sing' and 'honeysuckle rose'. Krupa shines on Sing Sing sing.

It's a shame events like this were let down by the technology of the day.

It was a significant event, and I am glad I have it. Jazz lovers into more modern sounds, and not that much into the history of the music, can probably pass.

Cheers

Rok, the Oscar Peterson at the Concertgebouw album is a good one, if you are not familiar with it already. I would definitely second that recommendation.

Frogman definitely answered your orchestral questions very nicely. I would agree with his speculation about #3 having to do with optional passages, or more likely, actual cuts in the music that were NOT specified by the composer. Another even stronger possibility would be repeats designated by the composer that were not observed, thus messing with the form of the work. Many, in fact most conductors often omit some repeats in Classical era symphonies, for example, which would have horrified the composers of these works - Mozart has some hilarious comments on the subjects in his letters. Frankly, I agree with him. In my opinion, it does mess with the intended form and balance of the composition, and I personally believe all of those repeats should be observed, as they were back in the day. When they are not, for instance in the symphonies of Brahms and others in the Romantic era, the audience is literally not hearing some of the notes he wrote that are played only if the repeat is going to be made, but are not played in the continuation. That's maybe not very clear, but hopefully you get the meaning. I think that this is what the reviewers are most likely referring to, and that it has nothing to do with the technical ability of the players, but with the choice of the conductor not to observe a repeat.