Standard Instrumentation

[BKhon]

Taking Davydov's suggestion, I've decided to make a new thread aimed to solve the controversial issue of instrumentation in the work info/general information field. What are your thoughts? Mine are the following:

Davydov's general ideas: The tagging system assumes that the singular form of the instrument means 1 by default (e.g. "violin" is just 1 violin, "clarinet" is 1 clarinet, "piano" is solo piano, etc). It's usual practice for songs to be listed as 'Voice, Piano', rather than the slightly ridiculous '1 voice, 1 piano'. We need to try to find something that's standard for both vocal and instrumental music.

The ideas of having "1 flute" "1 piano": Music written in the baroque period have to specify exact numbers, even if there's only one instrument. This is because many works were published as 'Sonata for Flute'), mean for flute and continuo. To make an unambiguous distinction from the cases where there really is a work for solo unaccompanied flute, I prefer to number it. Of course, this could also be fixed by always giving 'Flute, Continuo' where applicable, but there still may be room for ambiguity when the listing reads merely 'Flute'.

My thought is that the number should always be listed, except where it's complete clutter (e.g. 1 flute, 1 trumpet, 1 violin, 1 viola, 1 cello, 1 bass, 1 timpani).

Basically we need to establish something concrete so the long discussions and debates can be over, and something can be applied.

Ideas?

[steltz]

I would love to see this standardized, though there's one caveat -- the site was set up to make it easy to upload things, so there is supposed to be minimal complexity. This has meant that people can add whatever in fields like instrumentation, and it is up to others to standardize (and correct). If someone doesn't know the original instrumentation of what they are uploading, that is OK, someone else will hopefully know or find it. So herewith my 2 cents:

1) The instrumentation field is for the original instrumentation; arrangement instrumentation will get picked up by the arrangement header.
2) Piano reductions of solo + orchestra works are dealt with as an arrangement (unless the piece was originally with piano and later orchestrated), so only the orchestral instrumentation should go in the instrumentation field.
3) The instrumentation field can only have two separate instrumentations if a piece was conceived for two versions originally. In this case, something like:
"Version A: castanets, zither<br>
Version B: trumpet, harp"
4) Instruments should be spelled out, separated by commas(I know some people prefer 2/2/2/2 2/3/3/1 etc., but not everyone immediately knows what
that means, especially amateurs). (Discourage use of "&"?)
5) We have discussed numbers in another post, my vote is for not using "1" -- it clutters the page, and the singular/plural noun should make it obvious.
6) For large works, If the uploader knows the orchestration, it is better to put the orchestration in, rather than just "orchestra". We have to tag differently
for string orchestra as for full orchestra, so it's best to know. Also, people looking for repertoire might want to see how large the orchestra is before
downloading.
7) Order of instruments:
Orchestral pieces: solo instrument(s), woodwinds, brass, percussion, harp/piano, strings (with score order within those groupings) [N.B. this is slightly
different than pure score order; normally the real score has the solo instrument in the middle, but for a listing, it's better to see immediately what the
solo instrument(s) is (are).
Vocal/choral pieces: voices first, then instruments in score order or orchestra as above.
All others: score order, e.g. "violin, viola, cello, piano" or "flute, oboe, clarinet, horn, bassoon" (this last one might be a bit controversial -- in a
woodwind quintet the horn isn't the bass instrument, so bassoon is most often last).
Doubling instruments: if an instrument is in brackets, it means it is within one of the other parts, if it is not in brackets it is a separate part on its own,i i.e. "2 flutes (piccolo)" means 2 players, not 3. "piccolo, 2 flutes" means 3 players. (sorry, can't get rid of the happy face, it's supposed to be the number 8 followed by a right parenthesis.)
9) It is helpful to know the keys of certain instruments, e.g. Bb clarinet vs. A clarinet, but beware: a lot of symphonies use different keys in different
movements. If you're not sure, or don't have time to go through the entire symphony, rather leave the key out. This will apply to horns, trumpets and
saxophones as well. Format as follows: "2 clarinets (in Bb and A)"
10) A cello part that follows the bass line of the keyboard part is a continuo part, and shouldn't be listed as separate to the continuo. In this case, a piece
for 2 violins, cello and harpsichord would be "2 violins, continuo". If, on the other hand, the cello part is more soloistic, and is separate from the
harpsichord part, it would be "2 violins, cello, harpsichord" or "2violins, cello, continuo". If you're not sure, put it in and someone else can check it.
11) If the orchestra is very large, it might look nicer to put families on their own lines separated by <br>, but this is purely aesthetic.

This is a start, just to get the ball rolling.

[BKhon]

1). I agree, I think the original instrumentation should be listed, and the arrangements on the header.
2). I get the idea that this is really just a continuation of number 1
3). I agree, except what if there were 3 or 4 original conceptions, as is the case with many works by Pleyel?
4). Completely agree! Should be separated by commas, and no dashes. The & sign is absolutely not acceptable, IMO. I think something about spacing should be mentioned, too, even though it's trivial.
5). The issue of numbers is complex, and I think sometimes it is necessary, and other times it isn't. Refer to my first post for more detail.
6). Isn't this sort of a sub-part of number 1? (maybe 1A, or 1B?). Maybe not, though.
7). Listing of instruments should be score order. Only thing I would change is "Piano/Harps". Probably should be "Keyboard Instruments" and "Plucked Strings"
9). I agree that key should be mentioned, but I think the key should be in {{ }} in order for the symbol to appear.
11). Aesthetics are important! But what defines a large orchestra?

One thing that's missing is the issue of capitalization.

Anymore thoughts/ideas?

[Davydov]

Thanks for that very comprehensive start, Steltz, and to Ben too for getting the topic off the ground.

I'd like to throw in a few more suggestions:
a) The names of the instruments should always be given in English
b) We should consistently use "English horn" (not Cor Anglais), "horn" (not French horn), "piano" (not "Pianoforte") and "cello" (not Violoncello), as in the tagging system
c) The names of the oboe d'amore and viola d'amore should always include the apostrophes (something not yet possible in the tagging system for technical reasons), and take the plural forms oboes d'amore, violas d'amore
d) Choruses should always be described as mixed, male, female or children's choruses as appropriate, with their composition shown in brackets using the standard abbreviation, e.g. "mixed chorus (SATB)", "mixed chorus (SSATTBB)", "male chorus (TTBB)", "female chorus (SSA)", unless they're in unison ("children's chorus")
e) The term "voices" should only be used for solo vocalists, and never applied to choral parts.
f) instruments that are offstage or optional should be listed last, thus: "(+ ad lib.: 2 clarinets (B{{flat}}), tuba)", or "(+ offstage: 2 trumpets (C), trombone, tuba")

No doubt other people have lots of suggestions as well, and it would be good to hear from as many contributors as possible on the whole subject...

[steltz]

@BKhon: my numbering will kind of include some sub sections, but I think if a paragraph is excessively long, it is difficult to read. Perhaps 1, 1a, 1b, etc. with some indentation might help keep things together.

I don't know what to do with Pleyel but if we have to choose one over the others, who or what decides what was the "original" original? We may have to just list all 4 original conceptions if they were truly all original. Can you give us an idea of how complex will this be? For example, duets and trios might not involve too much confusion.

6) isn't a specific syntactical rule, so it probably needs to be separate. It really is a plea (after having to download countless things in order to tag them) for people to remember that "orchestra" as it stands is pretty useless . . . . . we can't tag, and people looking for repertoire have to download too much just to find out it's not suitable for them.

7) I'm not sure what you mean by this -- as a name for a family, it makes sense to me in order to place it in its order, i.e. "put your list in the following order: solo instruments, woodwinds, brass, percussion, plucked strings (e.g. harp), keyboard, strings." Have I understood you correctly?

[BKhon]

@

7) I'm not sure what you mean by this -- as a name for a family, it makes sense to me in order to place it in its order, i.e. "put your list in the following order: solo instruments, woodwinds, brass, percussion, plucked strings (e.g. harp), keyboard, strings." Have I understood you correctly?

I meant to place it in order. You had said "Piano/harp" in the first post. I was just correcting it to say "plucked strings" and "keyboard instruments" as a category.

In some of Pleyel's concertantes and symphonies there are various revisions and orchestrations, but all original. A lot of other baroque/classical composers did that, too.

[vinteuil]

I again note my template "I" which can be used to save time in many cases...

[BKhon]

But might also not follow what will (maybe) soon become a new set of rules. I'm actually not familiar with the template, could you direct me to it?

[KGill]

http://imslp.org/wiki/Template:I

[pml]

The ideas of having "1 flute" "1 piano": Music written in the baroque period have to specify exact numbers, even if there's only one instrument.

Really? Isn’t this a rather prescriptivist view of what the performers are actually at liberty to choose to do with the music? Particularly with continuo, the sky’s the limit if you want to employ every possible flavour of continuo instrument in whatever combination you care to devise that is permitted by perfomance practice: choose from bass recorder, bassoon, zink, sackbut, trombone, harp, lute, theorbo, vihuela, regal, organ, harpsichord, virginal, spinnet, viol, cello, violone, double bass, ...

[steltz]

I'm also not quite sure why we need "1" for baroque music. "flute, continuo" is perfectly clear to me. Can you please explain further?

[vinteuil]

I'm also not quite sure why we need "1" for baroque music. "flute, continuo" is perfectly clear to me. Can you please explain further?

1 Continuo

[pml]

Perlnerd, I see your smiley, but I refer you to my post: 1 continuo is an undefined number!

Best regards, PML

PS (Potential sub-thead derail) When are we going to see some of your own work?

[steltz]

1 continuo is an undefined number!

On top of that, it seems to me that if a continuo is a set of whatever you prefer, be it a single cello or a harpsichord with a double bass, then "continuo" singular is still that set. If, for some reason, two sets of whatever you prefer are needed, "2 continuos" would indicate that.

I still don't see why "continuo" doesn't imply a single set.

[vinteuil]

Perlnerd, I see your smiley, but I refer you to my post: 1 continuo is an undefined number!

Best regards, PML

PS (Potential sub-thead derail) When are we going to see some of your own work?

At some point hopefully soon. I still need to find a scanner