Nonsensical Dynamics (pardon the rant, please)

[JohnL]

OK, I'm just a community band guy. No one pays me to play; in fact, I usually end up paying to play (in the form of dues), so maybe I don't have a right to complain about this, but here goes...

Why do arrangers mark parts that are being played under a solo as forte?!

Yes, I know it's all about listening and adjusting, but wouldn't it make more sense to mark the part mp or p so there isn't that moment of "whoops! gotta get under the solo" on the first read-through? The sections I play in are both pretty good about making those adjustments - but then we still have to suffer through the conductor stopping the band and explaining (yet again) to certain other sections (looking at you, woodwinds) that there's a solo going on someplace.

There. I feel better now.

[officermayo]

My biggest beef is unnecessary accidentals. My eyesight is poor, so when I see an unneeded natural sign I think it's a flat. As a teacher I feel they are a crutch and a detrement to music education.

[Posaunus]

Why do arrangers mark parts that are being played under a solo as forte?!

Gotta agree with JohnL. (We play in some of the same groups.)

I also play in several big bands. Another arranger gripe that I've encountered on too many charts:
Leaving enough time to insert or remove mutes (quietly and safely).
When allotted insufficient time, we'll often just skip the mutes. No unnecessary noise from mute drops, and no bell dings.

[brassmedic]

One of my favorites.

cresc.jpg

[AndrewMeronek]

Wow, there's a lot going in in those 2 measures!

[Digidog]

There could be many explanations as to why an arranger puts loud dynamics behind a soloist. I agree that it's most often sensible and sensitive to write backgrounds soft and quiet, but not always, and when there is an exception, I think it should be noted in both the solist's part and the score.

For instance it could be that the composer/arranger intend the solo to be a part of a song's climax - that some part of the solo (mostly the ending) marks the part of the song with the most intensity, complexity and where it's the loudest. If I write such a piece, I'd notify the soloist to increase the solo's intensity, and note in the score where the build-up and the song's maximum is.

Another, though rare, occasion, is that the writer wants to create a tension between the soloist and the surrounding instruments. This is most pronounced if the band and the soloists are trading bars, but if carefully written can come by more subtly; giving the soloist incentives to build his/her lines a little more piecemeal. This should also be notified in both the soloist's part and the score.

To add: I often miss out on making these notifications in my scores, but I promise to do better next time.

[JohnL]

I suppose I should have made it clearer...
This is in the context of a amateur concert band; soloists are typically not mic'd. You wind the whole band (or even a significant portion thereof) up to a forte and the soloists are going to get covered up.

A big band with full sound (or even just a few solo mics) is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

[Posaunus]

A big band with full sound (or even just a few solo mics) is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

One of my big bands employs a (very good) female vocalist. In rehearsals we (especially our sax section) often drown out the vocalist, even though she is (appropriately) amplified with mic and speaker. We then have to interrupt and remind everyone that they must play softer under the vocalist, no matter what dynamic (explicit or implied) is written on the chart. This process gets old. Fortunately, we usually calm down at gigs (with reminders from the leader) and the balance is better. I guess our guys are imagining they're playing with Maynard Ferguson.

[hyperbolica]

-

[officermayo]

A big band with full sound (or even just a few solo mics) is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

One of my big bands employs a (very good) female vocalist. In rehearsals we (especially our sax section) often drown out the vocalist, even though she is (appropriately) amplified with mic and speaker. We then have to interrupt and remind everyone that they must play softer under the vocalist, no matter what dynamic (explicit or implied) is written on the chart. This process gets old. Fortunately, we usually calm down at gigs (with reminders from the leader) and the balance is better. I guess our guys are imagining they're playing with Maynard Ferguson.

I play in a big band (with a guy and girl vocalist). Our "sound man" wants to mic every single instrument. I'm a purest
when it comes to vintage Swing bands and hate all those mics. Heck, most big band guitarists didn't even use amps. One mic for the vocalists and/or announcer is ALL YOU NEED.

[AndrewMeronek]

A big band with full sound (or even just a few solo mics) is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

I'm critical of a lot of big band arrangements, too. Way too many of them have loud brass hits or even complex loud lines in a "background" where the vocalist is articulating lyrics, and it's just a tornado of loudness with no clarity.

This is a problem for A LOT of big band vocal arrangements, even from great writers who should otherwise know better. Someone who had it actually figured out: Nelson Riddle. Finding a random clip on Youtube:



I am not familiar with this tune. On first listening, it's not "perfect" in terms of balance. But right away, it seems pretty obvious to me that Riddle timed his double-tongued brass hits to fall in-between Sinatra's quick lyric punches in this arrangement, and Frank is reasonably easy to understand. Riddle knew how to generate an exciting dramatic arc in a chart and to still get out of the way of the vocalist. Frank, of course, also knew how to craft his delivery to the arrangements.

[sungfw]

I suppose I should have made it clearer...
This is in the context of a amateur concert band; soloists are typically not mic'd. You wind the whole band (or even a significant portion thereof) up to a forte and the soloists are going to get covered up.

As it should be! When my family and friends come to my community band's concerts, they want to hear ME, not that no-talent, spotlight hogging,"HEY! EVERYONE LOOK AT ME, ME, ME" prima donna wannabe string/woodwind/high brass hack serving up clam chowder.

[Ozzlefinch]

My favorite is when the composer marks an accent or crescendo on a multi-bar rest. I'll be sure to play that rest passage with extra emphasis!

[Olofson]

My biggest beef is unnecessary accidentals. My eyesight is poor, so when I see an unneeded natural sign I think it's a flat. As a teacher I feel they are a crutch and a detrement to music education.

Yes! That is really irritating. Even when subbing in a band with with unneeded sharps or flats are penciled in.

[Trombonjon]

How about when the part is written in tenor clef and the previous performer (who does not read tenor clef) pencils in every single pitch instead of getting another copy written in bass clef?

[BGuttman]

How about when the part is written in tenor clef and the previous performer (who does not read tenor clef) pencils in every single pitch instead of getting another copy written in bass clef?

One better: the positions or notes written in are WRONG.

I had one player (in his defense he had no previous contact with tenor clef) who just read it as if it were bass clef and wondered why it didn't seem to fit.

[baileyman]

OK, I'm just a community band guy. No one pays me to play; in fact, I usually end up paying to play (in the form of dues), so maybe I don't have a right to complain about this, but here goes...

Why do arrangers mark parts that are being played under a solo as forte?!

Yes, I know it's all about listening and adjusting, but wouldn't it make more sense to mark the part mp or p so there isn't that moment of "whoops! gotta get under the solo" on the first read-through? The sections I play in are both pretty good about making those adjustments - but then we still have to suffer through the conductor stopping the band and explaining (yet again) to certain other sections (looking at you, woodwinds) that there's a solo going on someplace.

There. I feel better now.

Yes, should be mf or mp but usually mf. And that means, play your supporting parts so as to be heard in good style, but make sure you can also hear the solo.

Heard in good style means, especially in a swing chart, the section is swingin', and you hit the accents. As background you're driving the chart. If you throttle back, it sounds like a wimpy mess. But you still have to hear the solo! And "hit the accents" means, hit them as if there is no solo, because accents will never cover the solo. But if you don't hit them, wimpy mess again.

[Kbiggs]

A long time ago, I remember reading some photocopied parts from a Las Vegas show. Some of the trombone parts had "Under Soloist" printed on some of the pieces when the soloist played. At other times "Play Out" and "Shout!" were written. Made it nice and clear.

I believe the Western art music tradition assumes people have those skills. Still, it's convenient when reading big band charts to have some extra instructions in there, especially when subbing and sight-reading.

It's easy to not pay attention to the music, not listen to others, and just focus on playing/reading the part. Playing well, reading well, and listening to the music (not the voices in your head ) is a skill that has to be taught, encouraged, and learned, like all the other stuff musicians have to know.

[imsevimse]

Nuances seem to be nonsential in other parts when there is a trombone solo or nuances are nonexistent, especially in sax parts. Saxes play anything loud but think they play soft. I don't understand this phenomen. They also insist on having one mic each on gigs (Argh...)

I like instructions like "Solo", "Soli", "Bring out", "Belt it" etc. Forte as an instruction to me is more about character of sound and not volume. It's not all about volume. To play with a forte-sound isn't always what's appropriate for a solo. I think nuances like mp and mf would be more the nuance for a simple melody. Forte or fortissimo could be what you want in the trio of a march and then it's motivated.

/Tom

[Posaunus]

Saxes play anything loud but think they play soft. I don't understand this phenomen. They also insist on having one mic each on gigs (Argh...)
/Tom

I have the same observation as Tom. The sax sections in the big bands that I play in really like to belt it out. Once pointed out that they are drowning out the other sections (or worse yet a soloist) they may drop down from f to mf, but it's hard to get them any softer. Is this an issue with the instruments or the players (who are mostly quite talented)?

[BGuttman]

I think the problem may be partly inherent in the instrument. Remember, they are trying to vibrate a rather large and stiff reed to make the sound. Getting it vibrating requires a fair amount of air. Trying to keep up the vibration at the low air flows required for soft playing is very difficult.

[TomWest]

I think the problem may be partly inherent in the instrument. Remember, they are trying to vibrate a rather large and stiff reed to make the sound. Getting it vibrating requires a fair amount of air. Trying to keep up the vibration at the low air flows required for soft playing is very difficult.

You’re right, sax players are often too loud. Many hobby players just don’t understand dinamics, so they don’t really understand mp from mf. Sort of soft vs sort of loud doesn’t compute. In the community band I play in I have found people with mouthpieces that are too open and reeds that are too hard. I try to get them to play with a softer reed. I’m also not afraid to tell somebody to lay out at times as needed. That tends to get the massage across,
“You honk, you don’t play”. Suddenly they understand pianissimo.

[Wilktone]

Composers/Arrangers can have two different schools of thought regarding how they mark their dynamics. One way is to consider dynamics as being *relative* to each other and the performers will need to listen and adjust. The other extreme is that dynamics are *absolute* and should be considered, more or less, fixed. If you're thinking of big band charts many of the arrangers write background figures assuming the soloist is going to have a mic. And some arrangers add dynamics as an afterthought.

As an aside, I'm seeing more arrangers using an absolute approach to marking their dynamics these days. They are the same people who also often notate their music in odd ways to make it sound good when played back on their computer, but read very weird. Marking your dynamics in such a way that it is balanced on the computer playback is not always going to lead to the same result when played by live musicians. Sometimes a "forte" on the computer on the saxes is much louder than a "forte" on the computer playback for trombones, for example.

Regardless, as performers we always need to listen and adjust to what's going around us. If you're playing 2nd trombone and you have a soli section marked "forte" you're not going to burry the principle trombone. The same applies across the entire ensemble, listen to what's going on around you and make an effort to adjust accordingly.

Remember, what you hear inside the ensemble isn't going to be a completely accurate picture of the overall sound in front of the ensemble.

I know from personal experience how frustrating is is to perform with a group that doesn't blend and balance with each other. It's much more common with amateur musicians or "weekend warriors," but it can happen with some professional groups too.

[JohnL]

I think it's important to make a distinction between dyanamics and balance. They're two different, though inextricably linked, things - and balance ALWAYS takes priority.

[AndrewMeronek]

I have the same observation as Tom. The sax sections in the big bands that I play in really like to belt it out. Once pointed out that they are drowning out the other sections (or worse yet a soloist) they may drop down from f to mf, but it's hard to get them any softer. Is this an issue with the instruments or the players (who are mostly quite talented)?

I think this has something to do with where saxes usually sit in a big band, being in front of the brass. Consider a thought experiment: switch the saxes and trumpets in position, so the trumpets are in front. Would the trumpeters change from being the nuanced, sensitive, dynamic players that trumpet players always are to being "pound plenty" players?

[afugate]

I think this has something to do with where saxes usually sit in a big band, being in front of the brass. Consider a thought experiment: switch the saxes and trumpets in position, so the trumpets are in front. Would the trumpeters change from being the nuanced, sensitive, dynamic players that trumpet players always are to being "pound plenty" players?

Ummmm.... What band is this?

--Andy in OKC