# Rimsky-Korsakov Resonance factors



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2014)

Help me think this through...

According to Rimsky-Korsakov Treatist on Orchestration, the relative balances of various instruments can be viewed according to factors of resonance or loudness. For example, he states that a woodwind playing "F" or "FF" would have a resonance of 1 compared to a trumpet playing the same dynamic marking which would have a resonance of 4.

I've used this a lot in orchestration especially in live situations but even in mockups. 

I know that all 4 horns playing unis would have a resonance factor of 8 as this balances out quite nicely with 2 trumpets playing forte above and two tbones playing forte below for a chord.

My confusion is this, if I have a 4 note chord playing in the horns where each solo horn takes a different note of the chord, does the resultant resonance equal 2 or would it be 8. By ear, I know that 4 horns playing a chord where each solo horn takes up a different pitch is obviously a bit louder than 1 horn playing solo. But 4 horns playing individual notes of a chord don't quite match the power of 4 horns playing unison, so it doesn't make it quite up to a factor of 8. 

Having read the orchestration text many times, I don't think that Rimsky fully explains this phenomena.

The reason I need to clarify is this. If I have brass accompanying strings in the forte or above range the brass in my template always overpowers my strings even if I've fully balanced it according to the above. So I therefore have to lower the dynamic of the brass to let's say mf which loses power and is a tricky balance or I have to lower the faders of my brass buss, which I can't stand doing because it feels like my orchestration is off.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## ed buller (Sep 23, 2014)

Hi

I was taught that this only applies to single notes NOT chords. If you have block chords in the brass and strings the brass WILL overpower them. The trombone and trumpet are F•••ing loud. SO strings in octaves on the melody is the only way they will be heard. Horns are softer . Each player is equivalent to each section of the strings . So a four note chord in the brass will require a full string section to balance it at any dynamic above MF. 

There is also the plane of tone to consider too. Which instruments are playing the thirds for instance.


e


----------



## José Herring (Sep 23, 2014)

Hmmmm....Maybe I'm not getting across. 

The resonance factor applies to single instruments playing a single note. So if I have for example a trumpet playing a melody forte joined by vln 1+2 and using flute 1 and 2 as glue to meld the sounds together I would get a good balance of vlns and trumpet with flute not heard but softening up the sound of the trumpet, rarefying it as Rimksy puts it.

I get that, but what if the chord is made up of solo instruments from the same group. It would seem to me that each solo instrument would balance in itself of course, but that it would not be quite as loud as the group in unison, but is louder than 1 solo hrn. That's where the balance gets tricky. 

I think I just thought it through. 

For example if I used instead of the same instrument 2 hrns, 1tbn and 1 trumpet for the chord, I would consider that as a factor of 4 for horns, 4 for tbone and 4 for trumpet, putting the melody above it in vln 1+2 would balance out. But maybe I'm thinking of it wrong. Maybe the resultant brass resonance would be 12 total.


----------



## ed buller (Sep 23, 2014)

well the trumpets and trombones operate in a different "plane of tone " to the strings and horns. They would sound louder. Which notes they played in the chord would be crucial to achieving optimum balance.

e


----------



## José Herring (Sep 23, 2014)

ed buller @ Mon Sep 22 said:


> well the trumpets and trombones operate in a different "plane of tone " to the strings and horns. They would sound louder. Which notes they played in the chord would be crucial to achieving optimum balance.
> 
> e



Still not getting across. Will try again when I'm not so tired tomorrow.


----------



## clarkus (Sep 23, 2014)

Does RK talk about range was well as the instrument involved? Is this part of how he assigns a value? Otherwise it seems a bit nutty to me, frankly. I'm probably not getting the whole picture. Is this in his Orchestration book?

There are considerations in the range of a given instrument as well as the written dynamic as to what the final result will be. 

You may get a more satisfying answer from someone else here & sorry if I'm not helping you solve your puzzle. 

The fellow who wrote in who mentioned writing in octaves for str's is correct: that's a common strategy to compete with large orchestral forces. When exactly you choose to do that is in my experience (and I've written a fair amount for orchestra) a seat-of-the-pants decision. That doesn't mean that there aren't carefully calibrated decisions. I just think it's misapplied science to assign solid parameters when so many factors are at work. Assign a value to an assemblage of brass, for example, then move it up a third & see what happens. Try as that tpt. player might, he's not going to avoid dominating the orchestration if he's playing an Ab or an A above the staff.

This all gets more .. interesting ... when you're dealing with sample libraries, where you can make the low C on a flute an audible note in an orchestral setting, or turn down a strident tpt. in the mix.


----------



## jamwerks (Sep 23, 2014)

Interesting subject. As you know all this depends also on the register on the instrument. And each instrument is different; oboe thins out getting way up there, where as a clarinet gets more shrill (especially the e-flat cl.)

In general according to Rimski (iinm) 1 trompet equals 2 horns equals 4 winds equals about 12 strings.

So for your 4 note chord, a slightly stronger variation would be:
1 trompet
2 horns
2 horns
1 trombone


----------



## gyprock (Sep 23, 2014)

I was taught that a chord played by horns at mf or above would have a density of 2 i.e. you need to look at the density of individual notes. To add notes to this chord in the strings in order to balance you would need an entire orchestral string section eg violins 1 or cellos for each chord tone. If you wanted to add woodwinds you would have to add 2 instruments in unison for each chord tone eg 2 clarinets to achieve balance.

For a density of 2 as above you could not add any brass at mf or above because they have a density of 4 and would overpower the other instruments.

So if you want a tutti chord of density of 1 you could only use woodwinds and divisi strings since the latter has a density of 1 compared with 2 for a full string section.

If you want a tutti chord of density 2 you could create it with 2 woodwinds playing unison for each chord note plus individual horns per chord tone plus a string section per chord note.

If you want a tutti chord of density 4 you would need 4 woodwinds per note plus 2 horns per note plus one of the brass section members per note plus, say a cello section in unison wih 2 bassoons. In this example each note adds up to a density of 4.

The above are just guidelines. For example if you wanted to have more density in the bass register at say 4 and less woodwinds, say density 2, you won't hear the individual woodwinds but there would be a hint of colour there. I've analysed a variety of tutti chords from scores and found a general agreement to the above principles but I don't think it is necessary to stick slavishly to the numbers. There are too many other factors to consider eg the range being played, the amount of movement, the amount of dissonance etc. Finally in the virtual world a perfrct balance can be solved moving some faders or playing some ensemble chords.


----------



## Arbee (Sep 23, 2014)

Does this help?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/loud.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/loud.html#c3

.


----------



## chibear (Sep 23, 2014)

RK's treatise is an excellent starting point. In fact it is still my favorite of all that I've read, but I think it will become stifling if approached like a fundamentalist treats the Bible.

One case in point pops to mind: Slow movement of the Sibelius Violin Concerto: 4 horns accompany the solo violin throughout a major portion of the movement. It is possible albeit uncomfortable for the horn players (Sibelius didn`t see fit to change it so it worked for his ear). Looking only at the numbers, this is a impossible balance.

Point being if the formula doesn't work adjust things so it does. Realistically, as has been pointed out already, you are not going to be able to accompany strings with ballzy brass. Something has to give even in mockups. If you keep the edge and lower the fader it sounds tinny and anemic. If you use a less-edgy layer it can sound full but will lack the razzle. One conductor's trick not mentioned so far is to quickly taper and brass sustains so the strings can come through. This keeps the brilliance of the brass attack while getting them out of the way of the string melody. This has to be handled precisely or it sounds like a caricature very quickly.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 23, 2014)

gyprock @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> I was taught that a chord played by horns at mf or above would have a density of 2 i.e. you need to look at the density of individual notes. To add notes to this chord in the strings in order to balance you would need an entire orchestral string section eg violins 1 or cellos for each chord tone. If you wanted to add woodwinds you would have to add 2 instruments in unison for each chord tone eg 2 clarinets to achieve balance.
> 
> For a density of 2 as above you could not add any brass at mf or above because they have a density of 4 and would overpower the other instruments.
> 
> ...



This is it right here. Glad somebody got me, it's always been a point of confusion though I live with it.

Don't get my wrong, I don' place this number system above a good ear, it just gives me a point to start with when deciding instrumentation.

Tchaikovsky symphony number 6 does this quite a bit, full orchestral tutti's with strings soaring above doubled octave below. It works out well but in my mockups I have to resort to mixing to get it which I rather rely on a better balanced template.


----------



## clarkus (Sep 23, 2014)

The "trick" for the brass is written Fp.

I keep getting reminded of why the orchestra is composed as it is. There are 2 tpts, for example, and 4 horns. If you need a horn / tpt. duet, you can pit two horns (unison) against a solo tpt. This is common wisdom. As the tpt. moves to the upper register (if you want to get reckless), all 4 horns could be deployed, though there are other solutions too, such as an added 'bone.

When I was new to this, I used to wonder "Why 2 flutes ... Why two clarinets." Besides the options for pedal in quint passages (look at scores by Sibelius, as someone recommended), you see the sense of it if a flute line needs to be heard as things in the orchestra get more robust: you can team up this effluxes for carrying power. You lose some individual character but gain force. 

And it's actually not hard to get a feel for all this if you listen to a lot of orch. music & study some scores. 

I'm interested that RK came up with this ranking system for instrumental combinations, but doubt very much that he or his student Stravinsky employed it other than as a way of thinking about the various factors. For that it may be very useful, for all I know, so I'm curious. Would still like to know if you found this in the RK Orchestration book.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 23, 2014)

clarkus @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> The "trick" for the brass is written Fp.
> 
> I keep getting reminded of why the orchestra is composed as it is. There are 2 tpts, for example, and 4 horns. If you need a horn / tpt. duet, you can pit two horns (unison) against a solo tpt. This is common wisdom. As the tpt. moves to the upper register (if you want to get reckless), all 4 horns could be deployed, though there are other solutions too, such as an added 'bone.
> 
> ...



He does use it. He has several references. Stravinsky uses it too. But, nobody is suggesting that it's used in a strict way.

It works out fabulously for balancing instruments within the same group, i.e. woodwinds, brass, strings. It even works very well balancing out in group combinations to a point. The only point I've found that it doesn't quite work out is what I've described. 

But, this method is only one method described in his book to balance out and I think it mostly just applies as was mentioned to instrument combinations on a single line or in relation to a combination as it relates to another combination playing an accompaniment line. 

But, there is something to be said about it in a chord situation as well, it just not as clear cut as the single line situation. In other words if all the brass are playing a chord, I don't care how carefully you balance it out according to these factors the brass is going to kill everything that it accompanies. So you are forced to either use less brass, mark them down a dynamic or ride the fader. In modern day Hollywood the fader riding is probably the only thing employed as careful instrumental balance on the stage is getting to be a distant memory. :lol: 

Thanks for letting me think it through. I'll work out some examples in the next few days.


----------



## clarkus (Sep 23, 2014)

Thanks. Learn something every day.

Still wondering how a numerical value can be assigned irregardless of range. Players adjust, of course, but there are intrinsic qualities / limitation on many instruments vis a vis range. But I need to dig through my copy of the RK book & see why he says about this.

Do the brass libraries people are using have include Fp articulations? Just wondering.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 23, 2014)

You guys do realize that none of this applies to sample libraries, right?


----------



## Daryl (Sep 23, 2014)

Jose, two more things to remember:

1) RK's book was written for specific styles of playing and instruments of the time. You only have to compare traditional Eastern European Brass playing with British or US playing to hear differences, so imagine what 100 years will do to that.

2) The book refers to concert music in live performance, not recorded sound for film and TV. The whole point of the multi mic system is that (particularly in resonant acoustic spaces) recordings are a poor substitute for actually being there and hearing the music first hand.

D


----------



## José Herring (Sep 23, 2014)

@ Daryl, yes that had just entered my thinking. Brass back then were a lot less powerful than they are today in the more western sense.

@ Jay, it does, if you balance your template according to principles of orchestration.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 23, 2014)

josejherring @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> @ Daryl, yes that had just entered my thinking. Brass back then were a lot less powerful than they are today in the more western sense.
> 
> @ Jay, it does, if you balance your template according to principles of orchestration.



No jose', those resonance and weigh factors that happen in a real ensemble just do not apply to sampled instruments.

If you pinch a human, he/she goes "Ow!" If you pinch a photo of a human, it does not.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 23, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > @ Daryl, yes that had just entered my thinking. Brass back then were a lot less powerful than they are today in the more western sense.
> ...



Jay, I'm sorry but you just don't happen to be correct. It has nothing to do with your personal philosophy of samples vs. live, but has more to do with the actual levels recorded if preserved correctly and what you can do to balance it again if the sample recordings were not preserved correctly. 

You can read through TJ's article if you'd like on apply principles of orchestration to samples here: http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/VI_Dec06.pdf


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 23, 2014)

josejherring @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Tue Sep 23 said:
> ...



It has nothing to do with philosophy. I have read red that article many times. Thomas speaks quite specifically to which aspects of traditional orchestration, like levels, you can smartly apply and where the paradigm breaks down e.g. "Woodwinds have a tendency to blend better in the real world than with samples."

Nowhere in that article will you see him refer to the resonances R-K refers to because as Daryl wrote, they do not apply to recordings, only in the real world.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 23, 2014)

You could be right and you may have pointed out a major flaw in my thinking. Thx.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 23, 2014)

josejherring @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> You could be right and you may have pointed out a major flaw in my thinking. Thx.



If so I am glad but understand my correction was said with the highest respect and affection for you.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 23, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > You could be right and you may have pointed out a major flaw in my thinking. Thx.
> ...



Understood, and I do appreciate it.


----------

