Solo with Orchestra - mics?

There are a lot of concertos with one solo instrument plus MASSIVE BIG MOFO orchestra, which always leaves me wondering if the soloists have to be mic'd to stand out enough.

I've been to concerts where the soloist has a mic, and ones where they don't. Is there a standard proooszhedure?

I think that depends on the solo instrument ....

Guitar for instance .... uses Micro always (Concierto de Aranjuez .... etc) because the guitar (classicaly played) does not sound loud at all

the others like violin, flauta, oboe, trumpet etc ..... they don't need micros only if is in an outdoor concert or a very large hall (with bad acoustic) ....

now if you're refering that the orchestration by itself is the reason that makes the solo suffer ..... in that case I think the concert is wrongly composed.....

I certainly would never write a concert for oboe, leaving an awesome melody for the oboe but at the same time i write some harsing chords with 6 trombones and 8 trumpets ....

come on ! ..... that would be completely wrong...

if the composer have problem with the solo instruments and those problem are due to his own orchestration, .... that composer must learn how to do it before starting such a project

like I said ... the only understandable circumstances would be an "outdoor concert" or "using an instrument that clearly lacks of power", .... (Guitar, Tenor Recorder, Harmonica, .... maybe celesta .... well .... those kind of things)

Edit: The same matter with Vocal Solists ..... (don't put a cute contralto fighting totally alone against 8 horns + 4 trombones + 6 Trumpets :D .......... oh! and Full Pipe Organ ....... :laugh:

Not too long ago I went to a concert where they played The Rite of Spring, some piece by Janacek and a violin concerto by a guy called Fraser Trainer. The violin was mic'd, but I have to say that a lot of people thought it was a cheap trick and thought that more could have been done on the electroacoustic side of things (I don't really understand this point of view though- the damn thing needed to be louder! And I must say that I couldn't hear it all that well even with amplification some of the time).

SYS65 - what precisely makes it "wrongly composed"? What if I want a massive fanfare for brass + organ + fifteen contrabassoons with a violin solo on top? Surely it isn't "wrong" if I amplify the violin to get that particular effect?

Actually, I thought for a while that it would make for a great theatrical effect to write a solo concerto, where the soloist is constantly brutally drowned out by the orchestra in the most challenging and/or fine passages. It must be awesome to watch a solo violinist straining to get an extremely virtuosic passage right, while the rest of the orchestra is quasi effortlessly blaring all over that, so one hears nothing of the violin. Power of the mass vs. those pesky conceited soloists! A communist revolution in the concert hall!

…

Anyways. Yeah, I guess it mostly depends on the concert hall etc. Personally I never like it when soloists stand out too much over the orchestra (which commonly has been the practice in older recordings) and I don't find it too tragic if the audience doesn't hear every tiniest note of the solo instrument in a tutti passage. And when you amplify the soloist too strongly and/or wrongly (i.e. not making use of the Haas effect) you have the danger of the sound localisation getting unclear (i.e. you don't hear the soloist from where he's standing anymore, but from the speakers or all over the stage), which decreases the overall transparency of the sound. That's why I'd try to stay relatively conservative, whenever possible (considering it isn't a piece written with the -intention- of these things).

But I don't find anything wrong with amplification per se. If it helps to get the sound across you want to get across, by all means: use it. And obviously, specific amplification can be a -great- tool to be consciously included in a composition by the composer too. There simply is some music that doesn't work well without it.

P.S. As an example: I find most Ennio Morricone's movie compositions very uninteresting in his concert hall versions, since this reduces them to a setting that is so much more restrictive than the edited+mixed versions for the films, in which (for example) a whistled melody can stand alongside a trumpet solo, without having to make any concessions. I think if he used amplification very consciously in the concert hall, his live versions would also have been more interesting.

P.P.S. But actually, I find this ability of consciously composing for a recording with all the peculiarities this brings one of Morricone's greatest strength - whereas many other film composers just compose their music as if it was instrumental music meant to be performed live. But I digress…

what precisely makes it "wrongly composed"? What if I want a massive fanfare for brass + organ + fifteen contrabassoons with a violin solo on top? Surely it isn't "wrong" if I amplify the violin to get that particular effect?

Well I think it would be wrong in common protocole music (classical) but it wouldn't in other kind of music ..... yes you can do it, .... it's just that the personality of a instrument includes his loudness/softness ..... if you hear and harmonica over a large brass section you listen something like "unnatural" sounds .... or how could I describe it ? ... unnatural, virtual or :hmmm: ....fixed ... synthetic .... *

and that takes the piece to a different style, different method of understanding music ..... (I don't know if I'm making myself clear) ....

but using a microphone just because the composer didn't think in the capabilities of the instrument ..... that's what I consider wrong ....

but today, you can do anything you like .....

EDIT: * "artificial" is the word I was looking for

This is an interesting topic. When my Viola Concerto was rehearsed and performed I came to the conclusion that familiarity with the solo part and the work itself probably affects perceptions of balance between soloist and orchestra, especially when there is a lot going on in the orchestra at the same time the soloist is playing. I think the ear tends to focus on a particular frequency range in the case of complex textures covering widely varied frequencies. I'd be interested to know what others think about this idea.

Perhaps I'm suggesting that amplification might be a good idea for new works, until they get familiar, although in reality it's exceptional for a new concerto to receive that many performances and get into the repertoire so that it's widely known. I suppose there's also the historical conditioning from the widely performed concerti and the type of writing they employ, but that would depend on the audience involved of course.

Viola is a problematic instrument anyway, I've heard suggestions such as any wind instruments at all in the orchestra will overpower solo viola, not that I really agree with that. There are certainly things the composer can do to help the solo come through, avoid the solo range in the accompaniment etc; but if amplification is used make sure that the sound engineer is well familiar with the sound of the real instrument; I went to an outdoor concert recently of a piano trio that was amplified for a large audience and the engineer clearly was trying to make the left hand of the piano substitute for a bass guitar. But personally I'd still want to hear the original source as the main component of the sound with only subtle reinforcement.