What the difference between a jazz big band and jazz orchestra?

[Hardbopjazz]

To me there is no difference. Here's an example. At the Jazz Standard in NY, there is the Mingus Big Band and the Mingus Orchestra. I've seen both and to me there's no difference. This isn't exclusive to the Mingus band, I've seen it elsewhere. Is there a difference between the two? 

[Milestones]

I may not be the best guy to comment, since I tended to give fairly little attention to big band/orchestra--other than Ellington.

But I would say this.  In the golden age of the big band, there seemed to be a pretty standard setup--4 or 5 saxes (with some doubling on clarinet), 3 or 4 trumpets, 3 trombones, guitar (though not always), piano, bass, drums.  You usually had 15-19 musicians.  This has not even changed much, generally speaking.  But you did get smaller groups like the Davis Birth of the Cool nonet and some of the early Gil Evans albums, such Gil Evans & Ten.  Such ensembles were not just smaller, but generally more unusual in instrumentation--tuba, french horn, flute, violin, extra percussion, etc.  We've some pretty notable bands of this sort, such as those by Carla Bley, George Gruntz, and for that matter the Mingus Orchestra.  These better fit the concept of "orchestra."

In addition, you have all those string orchestra albums; many of them seem entirely like mistakes, but there are some genuine classics too.

Another variation is how the big band (however it is composed) is used to back a single soloist--such as Gil Evans with Miles and Cannonball Adderley and the band behind Coltrane on Africa/Brass.

  

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Milestones

[Rooster_Ties]

Where do university-level ensembles (jazz orchestras vs. big bands) fit into this?

By which (I suspect) where there are universities with jazz orchestras (if any), if so then I'm sure there's probably a bit of a more distinct distinction -- though I'm not knowledgeable enough to guess precisely what that difference is.

With NON-collegiate groups, though, I'm sure there are marketing considerations at play -- as in the demographics of target audiences, and such.

[sonnymax]

I think the term "orchestra" was often used in jazz to lend more credibility to an ensemble, rather than an indication of its size or instrumentation. Ellington's earliest orchestra had 10 members, increasing to 14 in the early 30's and 16 by the mid-40's. In contrast, (Charles and Burton) Fischer's Jazz Orchestra and "Illinois Jacquet and His Orchestra" were actually septets. 

[JSngry]

Marketing, essentially.

[John Tapscott]

No difference.

[JSngry]

Marketing and expectations. If you go to hear a "big band", you're probably expecting a program of swinging standards and blues and originals, nothing else. If you go to hear a "jazz orchestra", you're probably expecting less emphasis on standards, more original material, and an engagement with different compositional conceits that just 4/4 swing.

But, really, the same players can and do usually play both gigs without blinking. So it's really about marketing the image to who the target audience is going to be.

[Milestones]

It is largely semantics.  It's funny how so many of the classic big bands were actually dubbed as orchestras--everything from Count Basie to Glenn Miller.  I think there is a considerable element of pretension here.  A truer hybrid of jazz and classical came much later, and some are quite interesting and successful--as I pointed out in my first response.  Also, these groups and works ARE rather different from "big band."

Or what do you make of something like Steve Turre's Rhythm Within, with most tracks featuring 12 players including a lot of guys on trombones and/or "shells" and lots of percussion.  I see virtually no resemblance to big band music as it is usually conceived.  What of Gunther Schuller's giant ensemble playing Mingus' Epitaph?

[Patrick]

Agree with the semantics/expectations point(s). To be clear, Maria Schneider conducts a jazz orchestra, not a big band.

[Rooster_Ties]

Other than Maria Schneider's, aren't (and haven't) true jazz "orchestras" been more of a European thing?? -- thinking back as far as the 1960's.

(Owing surely to better state-support of the arts on the other side of the pond.)

Edited November 8, 2018 by Rooster_Ties

[uli]

i like arkestras

 

[JSngry]

[Chuck Nessa]

Pardon my ....

[Larry Kart]

As Stan Kenton 

20 minutes ago, Chuck Nessa said:

Pardon my ....

As Stan Kenton used to say: "THIS is an orchestra!"

[JSngry]

[Big Beat Steve]

23 hours ago, JSngry said:

Marketing and expectations. If you go to hear a "big band", you're probably expecting a program of swinging standards and blues and originals, nothing else. If you go to hear a "jazz orchestra", you're probably expecting less emphasis on standards, more original material, and an engagement with different compositional conceits that just 4/4 swing.

 

Was the underlined word INTENTIONAL?

Or just a Freudian lapse?

As for semantics, I have always read and understood "orchestra" in a jazz context to be a synonym for a "big band" if used correctly.
Your "today's" distinction between "big bands" leaning a bit more towards older styles and "orchestras" being anything else as well, including more experimental forms of jazz, makes sense.

BUT - from the 20s classic jazz period up to R&B combos and elsewhere through the decades there have always been bands labeled as "orchestras" that were maybe a bit larger than the typical 4-5-6 piece combo ("small band") but certainly not big enough to be considered a REAL "big band" or "orchestra". Sometimes this actually sounded a bit pretentious. So once you are aware of this the terms become interchangeable and not quite that meaningful again and may just as well be just a marketing gimmick.

[JSngry]

5 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Was the underlined word INTENTIONAL?

Or just a Freudian lapse?

I don't understand the question.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conceit

1a(1) : a result of mental activity : thought

(2) : individual opinion

b : favorable opinion especially : excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue … the landlord's conceit of his own superior knowledge … — Adam Smith

2 : a fancy item or trifle Conceits were fancy desserts, made either of sugar … or pastry.— Francie Owen

3a : a fanciful idea

b : an elaborate or strained metaphor The poem abounds in metaphysical conceits.

c : use or presence of such conceits in poetry

d : an organizing theme or concept … found his conceit for the film early …— Peter Wilkinson … the historian's conceit that the past is forever prologue …— Leon V. Sigal

[Big Beat Steve]

Well, I think you do understand after all, and I know too that it all amounts to one single letter, but aren't "conceit" and "being conceited" a bit too (linguistically) close for comfort here? ... hmmm ...
"Concept" would have done the trick and served its purpose of getting the message across, unless it is a matter of showing off linguistically (in which case ... but oh well ... talk about coming full circle and so on ... )

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conceited

So back to the question on hand ...

Edited November 8, 2018 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

I still don't get it. It's a word that has that meaning, and I used it with that meaning. I don't see how that's "showing off" or anything. It's somewhat common usage in my world.

I think your conceit is silly.

 

 

[Big Beat Steve]

Like I said, "concept" would have done the trick. In a very straightforward manner. No linguistic meandering. That's all.

And like I said too, points exchanged and taken, so on with the ACTUAL subject.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

Oh, I see. You're vocabulary-shaming on behalf of your local vocabulary police. Charming!

I don't think Angela would do something like that, but she's leaving, right? Is this what's coming next?

 

[Big Beat Steve]

A bit touchy today, maybe? Maybe time to moderate yourself? (You're on the verge of getting political.)

So everybody can get back to counting band members (and/or assessing theire repertoire) to decide if they are rightfully "orchestra" members or not, etc ...

 

[aparxa]

And when in doubt, use both.

[JSngry]

"Count Basie and his Jazz Orchestra" would have been pretty redundant.

I also noticed that it's called "The Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra, which is all about branding marketing.

Now, we did have the "National Jazz Ensemble" under the direction of Chuck Israels, but that never really got off the ground. Who cares about an "ensemble" anyway?

I do see that there is something called the "National Youth Jazz Orchestra", which should probably apply hyphenation because I'll be damned if I can confidently glean what those four words in that particular order really mean.

"Big Band" has a pretty fixed meaning these days. It's something that would they ever come back and then they sorta did and now you can find them pretty much anywhere there's enough players, without enough gigs, to form one.

"Jazz Orchestra" is....not going to be that.

2 minutes ago, aparxa said:

And when in doubt, use both.

There you go.

[mikeweil]

Maybe it's just the way the name sounds: Try exchanging "orchestra" and "big band" in the following;

Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Jazz Orchestra

Kenny Clarke / Francy Boland Big Band

The other version sounds not right - and I think it's more than what we are used to.