The Orchestra being a Dinosaur

Hello,

This is a thread idea sparked by the previous one, about young composers writing for big symphonies. Now, I've been doing a lot of reading, and I'd like to get what people think of this concept: "The orchestra is a dinosaur."

In other words, do you feel that it is old-fashioned, or do you feel that there are still possibilities to be exploited? Do you find that the orchestra is unwieldly and unnecessary, or do you feel that only works for the grand symphony orchestra are what make composers great?

I personally feel indifferent towards the orchestra. Like, I'll write for it, if I feel inspired, but I don't see it as a diety, as a weapon of awe and sonic terror. In fact, I'm more personally impressed with the sounds of wind ensembles, their greater flexibility and fresher sound. But that's just my upbringing speaking, perhaps. I grew up with bands, and have a Charles Ives mentality in that regard. I've played with a couple orchestras, on a couple occassions, but I feel that orchestrating for orchestra to be a far easier task than "orchestrating" for symphonic band or wind ensemble.

I mean, for those, you can range from one instrument per part, to twenty trumpets, eight flutes, sixteen clarinets, a couple bassoons, three trombones, tuba, and it can be pretty imbalanced on the surface, but a skilled arranger can bring magic to any situation.

I also agree that the skill of a composer is just as equally expressed in the solo repertoire as it is for orchestra. Look at Berio's numerous Sequenzas, for example. Masterpieces that only the best can play.

Popular music ensembles, from rock bands to jazz bands, can also test the skills of an arranger. Stage music, music for theatre, where the ensembles are very eclectic, maybe keyboard, trumpet, generic wind instrument dude, violin, how can an arranger make this group sound convincing?

With an orchestra, you have, the winds, with very unique colors, but obvious enough that one can quickly figure out how to apply them for their piece. Same for the brass, and the strings as well. But for a brass band, on the outset, yes, they're all made of brass, and they do have similar timbres, but how can you make a flugelhorn, repiano cornet, and Bb horns sound convincing, how would you space them among tenor horns, the soprano cornet, and the trombones? It's not easy at all, and takes an incredible amount of skill.

I notice that a lot of music orchestration courses on the university level emphasise the orchestra. Why? For one, there aren't as many orchestras as we wish there are, and even fewer who would give the time to play your music - maybe the Esprit orchestra, or the American Composers Orchestra, but usually THEY ask for you to write a piece for them, not the other way around.

How many school bands are there? Better question, how many different skill levels of school bands are there, and community bands? Why not try writing some pedagogal music that's brilliant and fun to listen to, but actually does something useful, like teach, say, extended techniques, or polytonality. An example would be, Robert Schumann's "George Washington Bridge."

Is the string quartet a dinosaur? Is it a hearse? No it isn't, and it's just as challenging to write good chamber music. How can you make good, intimately comforting and/or challenging chamber music?

Why stick with tried and true ensembles? Why not try nonettes. Like my White Fang composition. Flute, Clarinet, Oboe, Bassoon, French Horn, Trumpet, Trombone, Tuba, Percussion. One player per part. Why? Because I wanted each unique sound to be as clear as possible, democratic, and a challenge.

Why not experiment with aleatoric music? Why not compose something for orchestra, but don't assign each instrument a specific part, but do it randomly. See what happens, or what I Ching dictates.

I saw this one composition recently, which was awesome, for orchestra and string quartet, where the string quartet gets up and wanders around with the audience. Brilliant piece.

Try unique combinations of instruments. What about a concerto grosso for English Horn, Clarinet, and Harpsichord? People still do play harpsichords, and many compositions are written today for harpsichord. Charlie Brown's Theme, by Vince Guaraldi, was composed for harpsichord.

Hell, why not research an exotic instrument, like a Persian nei, and compose something for that.

You know what's daring? Percussion ensemble music. At the University of Western Ontario, the percussion ensemble concerts are always popular. Other ensembles, like Nexus in Toronto, are amazing. Listen to Edgar Varese' "Ionization".

All I can say is, if you feel like writing for an orchestra, that's great, it's a challenge, go for it, but try to be creative also, and try other forms of expression which are just as valid. Know a friend who plays flute, and three clarinetists? Create a unique woodwind quartet for them. Compose for brass band, mariachi band, gamelan ensemble, synthesizer.

Go into the forest with a tape recorder and create a splice CD of different bird songs.

Just don't think that the orchestra is the be all and end all.

Now, I should stop right there, but here's another thing. Opera. If you want to write an opera, understand first of all that opera is not just Wagner, nor is it just Verdi. There are chamber operas, operettas, broadway operas a la Kurt Veil, and Italian is not the only language. Write it in English, Cantonese, Hindi, French, Polish, Hungarian. Just be creative. Is it really necessary to write another opera about somebody losing their mind in Italy for a seventy piece orchestra? Is that really all you can express? I doubt that.

Why not write an opera on a new theme, like, a Ghanese general for a United Nations peace keeping mission, and the events that unfold. If you're into mythology, why stick to Ancient Greece? Research the world. Why not do one on Ameterasu, the Japanese sun god, or the legends of Anansi the Spider, Bre'r Rabbit? I want to see an opera on Beowulf, done in Old English. Who care's if the audience won't understand. I mean, there's such a thing as superitles, and even if your not into that, you can't tell me that when you saw Turandot, you actually understood what they were saying. You can't say that.

Expand your horizons. Listen to music eclectically. Broaden your interests. Compose.

Look at this for example: The first opera written in Cree:

TheStar.com | entertainment | Soundstreams premieres first Cree opera

I don't know where any forests are.

...

This post makes me very happy, and I can address some of your concerns from the "American" composer's perspective.

In other words, do you feel that it is old-fashioned, or do you feel that there are still possibilities to be exploited? Do you find that the orchestra is unwieldly and unnecessary, or do you feel that only works for the grand symphony orchestra are what make composers great?

It really depends on the composer, especially nowadays. I'll give you a great example, Steve Reich, a celebrated composer known for his chamber music and definitely not for his orchestral music.

I personally feel indifferent towards the orchestra. Like, I'll write for it, if I feel inspired, but I don't see it as a diety, as a weapon of awe and sonic terror. In fact, I'm more personally impressed with the sounds of wind ensembles, their greater flexibility and fresher sound. But that's just my upbringing speaking, perhaps. I grew up with bands, and have a Charles Ives mentality in that regard. I've played with a couple orchestras, on a couple occassions, but I feel that orchestrating for orchestra to be a far easier task than "orchestrating" for symphonic band or wind ensemble.

What did Charles Ives write for band? I don't think he wrote anything for band, that I'm aware of. If you're talking about Variations on America, that was written for organ and orchestrated by Schumann for orchestra and then band.

Now as far as bands, I don't think it's very fair at all to compare them to orchestras. Bands are horribly cumbersome ensembles to write for, you don't have the color of the string section which adds so so so much to the aural potential of an ensemble as we all know. Composers don't really want to write for them (me included) because of the repertoire of the groups and just simply how bands sound. And listen, I've played in bands for years, you're not going to convince me that anything Holst wrote for band can compare with Brahms, or even John Adams, just to knew a couple of powerhouse orchestra writers. Bands really just don't have the sound that some composers are looking for. You CAN achieve that "sound" when you slim down the size of the band to one on a part, like Schwantner does however.

As to your comment about orchestrating, it's hard to orchestrate WELL for any ensemble, I don't care what it is. Anyone can take a textbook approach and those pieces are always stale, solely because of the orchestration.

How many school bands are there? Better question, how many different skill levels of school bands are there, and community bands? Why not try writing some pedagogal music that's brilliant and fun to listen to, but actually does something useful, like teach, say, extended techniques, or polytonality. An example would be, Robert Schumann's "George Washington Bridge."

There are plenty of mediocre band composers writing mediocre pieces for bands, and that's precisely the reason why band literature is so god damn terrible and orchestras have HUNDREDS of years of great, fantastic art works created for it. I've played way too much hideously bad band music to accept that anymore. Except for Schwantner and a couple of other composers, wind ensemble music is several notches below the worst of film music (Hans Zimmer).

By the way, it's William Schumann, not Robert.

Why stick with tried and true ensembles?

Personal taste, I have no desire to write a Concerto for Cellphone, Garbage Can and Sax quartet.

Why not experiment with aleatoric music? Why not compose something for orchestra, but don't assign each instrument a specific part, but do it randomly. See what happens, or what I Ching dictates.

So are you more interested in creating music, or just being clever so you can write some nifty 50-page long program notes?

I saw this one composition recently, which was awesome, for orchestra and string quartet, where the string quartet gets up and wanders around with the audience. Brilliant piece.

So was the piece brilliant for the music, or because the string quartet did something "novel" and "clever"?

All I can say is, if you feel like writing for an orchestra, that's great, it's a challenge, go for it, but try to be creative also, and try other forms of expression which are just as valid. Know a friend who plays flute, and three clarinetists? Create a unique woodwind quartet for them. Compose for brass band, mariachi band, gamelan ensemble, synthesizer.

I definitely agree with this, people need to compose for what they have available to them and for things they will KNOW will get performed. There's one kid here who was talking writing a symphony for a Wagner sized orchestra, and I just laughed.

Sorry for quasi-ripping your post apart.

Personally I enjoy the colour you can get out of an orchestra. That is the only reason I write for larger orchestra as opposed to a smaller chamber orchestra.

In fact, I'm more personally impressed with the sounds of wind ensembles, their greater flexibility and fresher sound.

A large orchestra has a wind ensemble in it already. It also has String Quartet, a string ensemble. An octet of a combination of string and wind. it has a brass chorale. Define flexibility? do you mean in the colour you can get out? Virtuosity? Variation? I assure you, an orchestra has much more options for colour, and variations and that Piano and Violin are more virtuosic than Clarinet.

With an orchestra, you have, the winds, with very unique colors, but obvious enough that one can quickly figure out how to apply them for their piece. Same for the brass, and the strings as well. But for a brass band, on the outset, yes, they're all made of brass, and they do have similar timbres, but how can you make a flugelhorn, repiano cornet, and Bb horns sound convincing, how would you space them among tenor horns, the soprano cornet, and the trombones? It's not easy at all, and takes an incredible amount of skill.

That is falacious, for who are you to say that band arrangers have to be more skillful and imaginative than an orchestral arranger? It takes just as much and more to be an orchestrator for you have to pay the same amount of detail as someone would for an octet to an 400 piece orchestra. Mahler, Wagner, Strauss, Rimsky, Berlioz. They all put as much effort one each instrument as any band orchestrator, but they have to do it for even more instruments.

To say that it is easy to orchestrate for an orchestra is wrong. It is easy to orchestrate badly for an orchestra but it is extremely difficult to orchestrate well.

How many school bands are there? Better question, how many different skill levels of school bands are there, and community bands? Why not try writing some pedagogal music that's brilliant and fun to listen to, but actually does something useful, like teach, say, extended techniques, or polytonality.

Because maybe, not everyone wants to be a pedagogue? I don't like writing etudes.

Your missing the main point and that although it is more difficult to write for chamber in one sense, it is more difficult to write for orchestra as well as chamber.

Why not experiment with aleatoric music? Why not compose something for orchestra, but don't assign each instrument a specific part, but do it randomly. See what happens, or what I Ching dictates.

Because aleatoric music is a poor excuse for composition.

I saw this one composition recently, which was awesome, for orchestra and string quartet, where the string quartet gets up and wanders around with the audience. Brilliant piece.

OBVIOUSLY the music that is attractive in that....

Try unique combinations of instruments. What about a concerto grosso for English Horn, Clarinet, and Harpsichord?

Those instruments are present in an orchestra.

Just don't think that the orchestra is the be all and end all.

Neither, but your arguments haven't said anything. They just dismiss the orchestra for no reason what-so-ever.

No man, you see, what we gotta do is scrap orchestras and replace with dijeridoos and amplified condoms.

No man, you see, what we gotta do is scrap orchestras and replace with dijeridoos and amplified condoms.

:D:D

:D:D

This is precisely why I hated high school

Here's a math problem for y'all.

Take the number of orchestras in any given country.

Take away those who are incomplete (lacking full instrumentation).

Then take away those who don't perform regularly.

Then take away those who aren't willing to learn and perform music from a non-dead composer.

Small number.

Then take away those whose audiences aren't willing to listen to music from a non-dead composer without the work being sandwiched between 'Classical Top 40' warhorses on the first half of a concert so that most of the audience actually comes back after the intermission.

Tiny, tiny number.

That, colleagues, is why I consider the orchestra a dinosaur.

So?

WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T WRITE FOR ORCHESTRA BECAUSE.... ALTHOUGH IT IS A WORTHY ADDITION TO SOCIETY, PEOPLE WON'T PLAY IT WITHIN THE NEXT 10 YEAR!!!!!!!

Forget about the future. live for now..........

....

So?

WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T WRITE FOR ORCHESTRA BECAUSE.... ALTHOUGH IT IS A WORTHY ADDITION TO SOCIETY, PEOPLE WON'T PLAY IT WITHIN THE NEXT 10 YEAR!!!!!!!

Forget about the future. live for now..........

....

So many composers in America, HEAVYWEIGHT composers here, have pretty much thrown in the towel with orchestras. Composers that already have their name out and are quite successful can't deal with writing for orchestra because of the lack of rehearsal time and the general disinterest. MANY are turning to wind ensembles and champion this.

The orchestra and the orchestral sound is... a tool, a medium.

You don't write for the orchestra but for the CD in the end. Too bad that 99.9% of the composers don't realise that! ;)

It may seem outdated and I do agree to a certain extend, but its' not the orchestra that matters, or the insturments, or whatever. It's more what you say and what filers you have as a composer.

And in the end of things, 70% of film music is with orchestra, even in the most hi tech movies. It's rather funny that such an outdated medium is used to such a hi tech... media. And computer games, if you think about it.

hehe...

Go figure...

Why do you need a professional orchestra anyway? Perth has 4-6 Student Semi-Professional orchestras and the pro one (WASO). When I get my orchestral piece played for my honours, I sure as hell won't be approaching WASO, rather, I will approach the others. And they are actually likely to do it. One of the student/semi-pro orchestras has an 84 piece orchestra and an 80 piece choir. There are options.

linky: Western Australian Charity Orchestra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Becasue a professional orchestra will:

* give you a better performance

* give you a faster performance (as regards to how many rehearsales you need, etc)

* will give you a better recording

All these probably, of course, nothing is certain. But since LSO can record 5 minutes of excellent quality of music in an hour, it costs greatly and is hugely professional. If you go to some county in Russia, you'll get cheap prices (I've checked), but they're likely to do 2.5 minutes per hour. So you waste twice the time, if not more. And it may very well be that the recording won't be as good.

Then again someone starting out won't have such opportunities really, or the budget as well.

How many here are actually professional composers, who's pieces are good enough for Vienna Philharmonic, and can afford to pay? It really isn't important to have an impeccable performance if you are a student.

If you jump to high and miss the platform, it's a big fall.

OMG! How could anyone argue that the orchestra is getting old!!!!

We are in an age where we are able to create new colors in the orchestra and add instruments that arnt in the orchestra!! ahh The orchestra is where its at!!

I mean look at what John Adams, John Corigliano, Chris Rouse, Steve Mackey, Philip Glass.... so on and so on ...have done!

You can't see issues as being black and white.

I want to recant what i meant by saying its easy to orchestrate for an orchestra. What I meant was is that there is so much material out there on HOW to orchestrate, there is more EMPHASIS on how to orchestrate for an orchestra, I would just like to see some more emphasis where the soil is still very dark.

I want to write for orchestras, if I have the desire, if I think that it will do what I want.

I will write for piano four hands, same thing.

You can't say that one should throw in the towel. That's cutting yourself off from an excellent medium. The orchestra is a brilliant tool.

My only fear is that some composers might feel that the orchestra is the ultimate boon at the end of things, and that a composer should be, for his own health, be as variable as possible in terms of what ensembles he or she writes for.

By the way Gwhatever, you didn't rip my post, but I'm curious to know what made you happy?

And I feel that aleatoric music is just as valid an expression of ideas as the most rigorious thing Babbit would ever do. What's wrong with this concept for a composition. It's my concept, I created it. "Take any instrument, now play three blind mice, and get a friend to harmonize it on a keyboard instrument with a Bach chorale determined by the rolling of a dice." Now, some might say, that's stupid, but then again, isn't it just as "stupid" as, say, inventing "quasi-P between PP and P so that one can serialize dynamics based on a logarythm of pi?"

And also, let's not get angry please. We're all hopefully mature enough to not offend others, and if we do offend others unintentionally, let us know, because this is an intellectual debate that was sparked simply by my curiosity of other people's opinions.

I think theres so much emphasis put on the orchestration because orchestration is kinda difficult. And it really affects the way a composition sounds. Compare one of Mussorgsky's original pieces with one of his pieces orchestrated by Rimsky-Korsakov. Large difference isnt there? Want to have even more fun, compare both of those with one of the orchestrations by Shostakovich. Orchestration is just as important as harmony and melody. Maybe even more in some cases.

I've always held the opinion that a composer's work should be across all the genres, chamber music, operas, and large orchestral works. All say something different. I think a lot of composers may view the symphony as the ultimate medium because of the rich history it has. Who doesn't want to be compared or compete with Beethoven or Mahler? Not saying everyone does, but a lot of composers do.

And aleatoric music is an interesting thing. I love John Cage and Henry Cowell, but I personally look at strict aleatoric procedures like I look at strict serialism procedures, it turns the music into a procedure, a puzzle for the composer or the listener. That I do not, nor will I ever, agree with. A composer should write down what's going on in their head, not what some dice are telling them. In my opinion of course.

if people would've always done what's inside their head, and never throwing a dice, we'd still be hunting for bisons or mamouths.

How many here are actually professional composers, who's pieces are good enough for Vienna Philharmonic, and can afford to pay? It really isn't important to have an impeccable performance if you are a student.

If you jump to high and miss the platform, it's a big fall.

You asked why use a pro orchestra. I replied.

You go on about something different then! It has nothing to do with being good or whatever, nor a student or whatever. Your question was plain and simple.

And as a matter of fact, I'm a pro, certainly Vienna Philharmonic won't touch my works (I would be insane to think so), but if the budget of the next game I work allows it I will hire an orchestra. And if things go according to plan maybe one day I might even hire LSO. It's about money and nothing else really. LSO won't say "hey mr. your piece sucks! I won't take

About Aleatory music?

So are you more interested in creating music, or just being clever so you can write some nifty 50-page long program notes?

Because aleatoric music is a poor excuse for composition.

I LOL'd. Kids think they know what music is.

Oh wow, haha.

Other than that, I think orchestra is a fun thing to write for if you're in the mood, but I really don't care for the orchestral "sound" much in the way it's presented through Mozart-Beethoven-Brahms-Mahler etc, though they're very different from eachother, it's still produces a similar result in the end.

I'm more of a Berio Sinfonia kind of guy. That's what I'd like my orchestrations to sound like. Or Ligeti's atmospheres, or Schnittke's first symphony. Or, what, Reich's variations which I'm almost is for orchestra, but not sure.

I just make instruments sing how I want them to sing, and hear what I want to hear, doesn't matter what methods I use or which tradition I just ran over to do it.

About Aleatory music?

I LOL'd. Kids think they know what music is.

Oh wow, haha.

Other than that, I think orchestra is a fun thing to write for if you're in the mood, but I really don't care for the orchestral "sound" much in the way it's presented through Mozart-Beethoven-Brahms-Mahler etc, though they're very different from eachother, it's still produces a similar result in the end.

I'm more of a Berio Sinfonia kind of guy. That's what I'd like my orchestrations to sound like. Or Ligeti's atmospheres, or Schnittke's first symphony. Or, what, Reich's variations which I'm almost is for orchestra, but not sure.

I just make instruments sing how I want them to sing, and hear what I want to hear, doesn't matter what methods I use or which tradition I just ran over to do it.

Don't lump me in with Yagan, we have COMPLETELY different ideologies. If anything, SSC, I have more similar tastes to you than most anyone else on this board. Anyway, I would never say anything so ignorant about aleatoric techniques, or agree with someone that spouted something like that. A technique is a technique. Lutoslawski isn't exactly what I would call a "hack" or somehow a lesser composer (and listen Yagan, I've listened to your music, you seriously need to drop the attitude a bit sometimes, we're all still youngsters here, though some of us may be slightly older..) But seriously, between Lutoslawski, Cage, and Corigliano, you've got 3 completely different composers, all of which used or still use aleatory aspects in their music. Oh yeah, Joseph Schwantner does as well. That's 4 very fresh creative minds in the field of composition today, to say it's a poor excuse for composition is pretty much the height of ignorance.

If you ask me, I think clinging to elementary common practice techniques is a poor excuse for composition. I mean, technically, you're shitting on everything that the composers so called "traditionalists" worship. I find myself in the middle, I would never consider anything I write avant-garde, but I still write very much in the modernist vein. In the sense that people aren't writing Doo-Wop songs anymore, now are they?

Then, uh, I don't understand what your post meant... And. uh... What do you know about my tastes, eh? Lack of taste I'd say!

When I have an idea that I want to make into sound, I open Sibelius and have a fairly standard ensemble that I start with. This includes most of the instruments in an orchestra. The piece may turn out to be a Piano solo or a string quartet, I rarely know for sure until I get partway into it. Then towards the end I remove the instruments I don't use.

My favorite composers on this site have pieces that range from solos to full blown orchestras. I believe that in the creative process, the piece decides the instruments, not the composer. You can make Moonlight Sonata into a orchestral piece, but it works right as a solo.

Orchestras are popping up all over to fulfill the demand that there is out there.

So no, the orchestra is not dead, it is alive and growing.

I compose my music so that I will be famous within 400 years, not next week or next year or even next century.

Ron

Don't lump me in with Yagan, we have COMPLETELY different ideologies. If anything, SSC, I have more similar tastes to you than most anyone else on this board. Anyway, I would never say anything so ignorant about aleatoric techniques, or agree with someone that spouted something like that. A technique is a technique. Lutoslawski isn't exactly what I would call a "hack" or somehow a lesser composer (and listen Yagan, I've listened to your music, you seriously need to drop the attitude a bit sometimes, we're all still youngsters here, though some of us may be slightly older..) But seriously, between Lutoslawski, Cage, and Corigliano, you've got 3 completely different composers, all of which used or still use aleatory aspects in their music. Oh yeah, Joseph Schwantner does as well. That's 4 very fresh creative minds in the field of composition today, to say it's a poor excuse for composition is pretty much the height of ignorance.

If you ask me, I think clinging to elementary common practice techniques is a poor excuse for composition. I mean, technically, you're shitting on everything that the composers so called "traditionalists" worship. I find myself in the middle, I would never consider anything I write avant-garde, but I still write very much in the modernist vein. In the sense that people aren't writing Doo-Wop songs anymore, now are they?

Ha. Think more.

I compose my music so that I will be famous within 400 years, not next week or next year or even next century.

Exactly my point. I don't want to be rich of my music. The only thing I want is to be able to make a living off something to do with music.