The 'fastest' instrument

geppino12575 wrote:

And yet no, because among the various parameters there is also the sound production mechanism, which in a bass tuba is certainly less immediate than in a piano.

Exactly: therefore your answer is a non-answer, because among monophonic instruments quite a few distinctions must be made and the doubt of the person who formulated the question remains. Furthermore, they were asked what type of passage they should write, and the trill is only one of the myriad possibilities and examples that can be made. Moreover, the piano is to be considered entirely exceptional as an "orchestral instrument" and the trill is one of the least conclusive elements regarding the speed of this instrument, which remains in any case one of the fastest instruments.

geppino12575 wrote:

And anyway, to confirm what I am saying, all wind instrumentalists know that a trill obtained by operating a single piston is easier than one for which two pistons must be operated alternately. Let's try to make a soprano sax and a piano perform a trill, let's see who "goes faster...."

This is evident, whereas the equivalence of pistons = piano keys is not (because it doesn't exist) (and you spoke of that in your first intervention), because pistons do not have double escapement, but piano keys do. And even wind instruments that do not have a piston mechanism, if they have to use two keys to perform your blessed trill, cannot be as fast as the piano. But you were the one who spoke about the trill, I would like to remind you of that, and I really don't understand why...

Ah, mine is a non-answer... and what is yours? You are only good at finding flaws in others' answers, but you propose nothing. We have the talking cricket here....

geppino12575 wrote:

Ah, mine is a non-answer... and what is yours? You are only good at finding flaws in other people's answers, but you don't propose anything. We have a talking cricket here....

Mah, I thought I had replied immediately (like on May 1st?), but perhaps there is another Carlos writing instead of me...

I am not interested in "finding flaws," but generally I only participate in discussions where I know the subject well, so if something doesn't convince me, I say so. That's all. The purpose? To help whoever asked the question, because your answer changes nothing for me: I know exactly where and what is right and wrong, but the person who asked for help probably does not.

Carlos wrote:

Furthermore, the piano should be considered quite exceptional as an "orchestral instrument"

To me, it seems to be the opposite; are you referring to a contemporary repertoire or to that which precedes the great wars?

If GianBurrasca thought about using strings, he had better be careful which strings the cellist on duty has to use to play passage X or Y. Among the possibilities, he can even indicate strings other than those naturally intended for a certain purpose, if he believes they increase the agility of a passage (it's better to have a cellist tell him this, though)

JamSession wrote:

...sorry, and the percussion, faster than those?

Which passage are we talking about?...and even if it were melodic, there is tuned percussion

...true, I hadn't thought of that

Carlos wrote:

Fast instruments are more than one, but it depends on how the fast passage is written (arpeggios, scales, leaps...) because there are instruments that are amazing in some of these patterns, others less so... For example, an arpeggio pattern sounds very good on the clarinet (in almost all keys, although there are some uncomfortable ones), less so on the flute, where instead scale-rich patterns sound very good (even on the clarinet, to be honest). Oboe and, above all, bassoon are less fast. However, I repeat, one should know how the passage is written, also because I am deliberately omitting strings, which would deserve a chapter of their own

Thank you for your reflections, since Talentuoso also brought up the subject of strings ... what were you thinking of?

CromaDiBrera wrote:

e, in jazz, they can be extremely agile instruments that are not considered as such in classical music, like the trumpet... In short, as others have already said, it all depends on what needs to be done and the phrase to be executed.

If it holds true for Jazz, it also holds true for contemporary music ... right?

Frank wrote:

To answer the topic title, I'll say it with a joke (but not even that much) ... electronic sounds

...but damn it, you all have all the ideas. But I wouldn't know where to start with electronics

geppino12575 wrote:

Under equal conditions (register convenience, passage convenience, convenience of sound production mechanisms, etc...) monophonic instruments are faster, because with a single movement two sounds can be emitted, one in the attack movement and one in the release movement; that is, in practice, one sound when a key is pressed and another sound when it is released without necessarily having to press another one; it is very convenient, for example, to perform a trill this way, something that does not happen, for instance, on the piano, where to play two notes one must make two movements. After all, just try an electronic keyboard with a mono- sound compared to a polyphonic sound, and you will notice that with the mono instrument you are much "faster."

In effect, even strings played in legato, with a single bow stroke, fall into the type of description I made above.

Thank you too Geppino12575, the issue is very interesting (as is your subsequent follow-up post).

Talentuoso wrote:

If GianBurrasca thought about using bows, he had better be careful which strings the cellist in question has to use to play passage X or Y. Among the possibilities, he can even indicate strings other than those naturally intended for a certain purpose, if he believes they increase the agility of a passage (it's better to have a cellist tell him that, though )

...I suspect I would be better off listening to a cellist ...before doing "damage"

Talentuoso

Carlos wrote:

Among other things, the piano should be considered quite exceptional as an "orchestral instrument"

Talentuoso wrote:

It seems the opposite to me; are you referring to a contemporary repertoire or to that which precedes the great wars?

I can't manage multiple quotes

I say it depends on how the pf is used; a modern orchestra cannot do without a massive use of percussion, and the percussive effect of the piano is unique and very important, and I remind everyone that there is both the possibility of indirect percussion (traditional, which involves the pianist) and direct... when the strings inside are struck, in an orchestra that work is entrusted to the percussionist.

Frank, you beat me by a hair

The piano, understood as a percussion instrument, is often used in the orchestra to give greater vigor to chords.

For those curious, obtain the beginning of Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms (1930), in which the 2 pianos create a particular sonic atmosphere, similar to that of the definitive version of Les noces (1923), in which the orchestration includes a complex of 4 pianos and various percussion instruments.

Another beautiful example is the Suite for Orchestra (1923), where Bartok uses the piano to emphasize moments of tension and more delicate atmospheres.

Tanto more so today, the piano is a precious asset for the orchestra

Talentuoso wrote:

I find the opposite to be true; are you referring to a contemporary repertoire or to that which precedes the great wars?

By "exceptional" I mean both that the frequency of the piano in the orchestra is to be considered statistically much lower compared to other instruments, and that the use of this instrument is, even where it appears integrated into the orchestral texture, very particular. There are certainly many cases that can be remembered, from Petrouchka to Shostakovich's symphonies, from Respighi's symphonic poems to Ives' music, but I am nonetheless convinced (despite coming from a piano background) that the piano in an orchestra cannot "replace" any other instrument and can only be added to a palette that is already rich in itself. I don't know if I am making myself clear

Carlos wrote:

By "exceptional" I mean both that the frequency of the piano in an orchestra is to be considered statistically much lower compared to other instruments, and that the use of this instrument is, even where it appears integrated into the orchestral texture, very particular. There are certainly many cases that can be remembered, from Petrouchka to Shostakovich's symphonies, from Respighi's symphonic poems to Ives' music, but I am nonetheless convinced (despite coming from a piano background) that the piano in an orchestra cannot "replace" any other instrument and can only be added to a palette that is already rich in itself. I don't know if I am making myself clear

Crystal clear, I agree 1000 per 1000 !

Carlos wrote:

I don't know if I can explain myself

Of course, forgetting about the soloist function, the pf can also be used for its timbre (and in the 2 modes I was describing, thanks Eagle for the integration) and therefore as an element of the orchestra that does its part to enrich the palette. I also believe it is irreplaceable for certain things, as is the case with any other instrument