Musician’s responsibility vs. Composer's responsibility

When I write something I can almost always count on one thing and that is when I show it to my instructor, he always tells me that there is not enough rest for you players to breathe. Sometimes I agree with him, especially when it comes to repeating patters played by multiple sections in unison, but when it comes to long melodic lines or phrasing, he all ways wants me to place a rest somewhere. For me I find that somewhat strange because as a performer, majority of the time I find my own places to breathe that makes since in the music unless told otherwise. A lot of it just seems to be common sense (breathe after a phrase, staggered breathe if you are in a large section, ect.) I have a friend who is a singer that agrees with me. He is also a stickler about dynamics which again I can agree on to a point. I don

Let the musicians figure it out. The conductor shouldn't even be saying anything to you. That's way way way out of bounds.

Well, exactly in this regard (breathing rests) I have recently made the experience that it can indeed be very important for a composer to set them and not just leave it up to the performer. In a piece I got performed in April I had the following passage for the two Oboes:

What you don't see in this excerpt is that the passage is marked ff and tenuto. So the plan was a rather shrill, continuous line without any interruptions (but not legato). The problem was that both Oboes breathed exactly after the first eigth of the last of these measures in every rehearsal, creating a huge gap in the line. You'd think that they should have been able to judge themselves that this was against the intention of this passage, but the fact is that in contemporary music where there's no established way of playing things, performers often have no clue about how the music is supposed to sound, so they just play the notes and leave it at that.

So, before the last rehearsal or so I included breathing signs at different places for both Oboes near the place where the gap always happened. However, by that time they had already become so used to their way of playing it, that they simply ignored it, so in the concert there still was a gap at this place. And I'm not blaming them. I have often played pieces by contemporary composers in an orchestra and often you have to concentrate on so much stuff at once that you just don't think about planning where to breathe, let alone arranging it with your register.

While this isn't about breathing -rests- per se, it still taught me that often you have to notate much more than you think is necessary, unless you really think that all ways of interpreting your score are equally valid. But if you want your piece to sound in a specific way, write it down. And as I said, you may be able to rely on musicians to play a standard classical piece "intelligently" and you can expect the same from an ensemble for contemporary music playing something new. But if you're dealing with musicians that aren't very experienced with playing contemporary music (and that even includes most symphony orchestras), you have to be very clear about your intentions.

I'm not saying you have to notate everything. Just that if it doesn't turn out like you expected and you didn't notate it, don't blame it on the performers.

A very cool question! (It rare nowadays to see an actual relevant and interesting thread)

The composer should bear in mind average technical abilities on the instrument, while also pushing the performer. It'd be hideously boring if every piece required nothing more than bare competency from the player.

In this case, I'd definitely side with you, Pluto. The performers generally know better...and while the composer should try and make the parts playable: idiomatically and technically, I don't feel the need to 'dumb down' a line, just because the player might want to breathe. Any decent musician will either: blow through it (like a man ;) ) and breathe afterwards ; or find somewhere to breathe musically within it.

With any instrument there are technical limitations that prohibit many things (you don't write bebop lines for timpani, right?), and the composer should avoid things that are simply unidiomatic for the instrument.

It's a tough question - and I think, for a composer to know the limitations and abilities of the performers is of utmost importance. For me, I'm always writing for a specific performer in a specific ensemble. I know how they play; what they're capable of, strengths, weaknesses.

Were I to have to stick within the 'acceptable average parameters' regarding range, velocity, flexibility, then it would be a bland and clinical piece.

I'll put a number on it... responsibility: 60% musician, 40% composer

:thumbsup:

I like this question...

That passage looks lush! I hope the rest of the performance went well :)

And yeah, top advice from Gardener, as usual. The composer's responsibility, as Gardner Read says in his book on notation, is to make sure that the score communicates to the players what he wants as effectively and as easily as possible. Especially with indeterminate scores you have to be careful how much liberty you give to the players, otherwise they might do more than you wanted.

I do agree with Gardener and Juji of course, but there are certain things I'd like to discuss further.

some times, extensive guidelines do not work. A composer, at least to my level, does not posess absolute full knowledge about instruments and their techniques, etc. And while it is safe to say that a composer, should know instrumentation and thus be able to write about everything, it's very often that the score is full of unidiomatic passages, which make life difficult. It takes extensive training and experience to be able to be in sync with performance problems in all instruments.

Some examples include bowing in the strings. It takes a bit more experience to put bowing to the strings. Breathing in winds. Intervals in voice. Time it takes to switch from percussion to percussion.

So, extensive guidelines, yes, as long as you know what you want exactly and know how to go about to make it happen. Otherwise it might end up in a disaster rather than a greater performance. :)

There's a fine balance to find... I don't think that every breath in a wind player's part needs to be marked- in fact, I rarely, if ever, mark breaths unless there is a specific place I want a break. But if you don't want someone to breath in a specific spot, you should indicate that (dotted slur, "no breath", something...). Your instructor is probably bringing up the issue because you're writing phrases that are either too repetitive or too long. A rest isn't always necessary... why not write in a breath mark instead?

As far as dynamics, you should have some indication of what you want. You should also indicate dynamic changes, or the musicians will just keep playing merry along. Unfortunately, I see a lot of composers here making the mistake of not notating dynamics and then saying "the players should know when to do this" - sorry, that's incorrect and just plain lazy on the part of the composer. You are the composer, you need to indicate what you want the performers to do. Otherwise, like Gardener indicated, "...if it doesn't turn out like you expected and you didn't notate it, don't blame it on the performers."

I write for singers. I don't put dynamic markings at every measure. In the last song I posted, "The Palio," I have a forte marking at the beginning of the chorus, and no other dynamics 'til the end of the chorus, when it goes back to mp in the piano and then mf when the voice comes back in. I don't expect the singer to scream the whole chorus, it's merely an indicator that we step it up a notch for the chorus, and then come back down a little for the verse. The specifics that happen in between are really up to the performer. They know not to whisper anywhere in the chorus, and a smart performer will take the hints you drop and make good choices from them. No two performers will do it exactly the same, and I'd hate it if they did, but the guidelines are there.

I've seen passages indicated in vocal music where the composer specifically wants no breath. I sang a beautiful song once where the bridge ended on a sustained note before heading back into the next verse, and it was indicated that the singer should not stop to breathe in between those notes, and when I sang it that way, I realized that it added something emotional to the song. I think that's one of those special cases where, if it's that important to you, notate it. Guide the performer where you think they can make good choices (I hate to say "the right choices") with your guidance, but be specific where it's really important to you.

After reading these comments I have to make a small amendment to my post. I do agree with the points of Robin, Nikolas, and DrPangloss. Overnotation can be harmful too, especially if you don't know the instruments you're writing for perfectly. I always find it important to leave freedoms up to the performer and I have even written very aleatoric music myself, where the outcome was very unpredictable.

But I think that as a composer you should consciously decide what freedoms to leave up to the performer. I've played pieces without any dynamic markings whatsoever, where I got the feeling that either the composer was just lazy, or he didn't even think about dynamics in the least. This is fine of course if the composer -truly- wants to leave the dynamics open to the performers. But often the composer will have an unconscious idea of how the dynamics are supposed to be and will be unhappy if the performers play it differently. And that's where it gets problematic.

After that experience I mentioned I definitely won't start writing down breathing signs and precice bowing indications in every piece I write. (The exception would be recording sessions that must work immediately without any rehearsal, where there's no time for the strings to work out their own bowing, for instance.) But I think that you should at least keep the fact in mind that winds have to breathe and strings have to change their bow direction from time to time and use that knowledge consciously where you find it important.

A wonderful example of this would be this famous "alphorn-passage" in the final movement of Brahms' first symphony:

This is a passage of the first and second horn (I just wrote this down how I remembered it, it might not be precicely like that. I also didn't remember the dynamic markings for this passage). The idea is obviously a horn solo that sounds like it's being played by one single horn with unlimited breath. If Brahms had just written it for one horn and have it play out the long notes as whole notes, the hornist would be forced to break the line somewhere to breathe, so a gap would be unavoidable, no matter how "cleverly" the hornist decides to breathe. By dividing it up like this it works perfectly and shows the understanding Brahms had of this instrument.

And of course there are other parts in the same symphony where no breathing rests or marks are indicated and it's left up to the performer. But he was aware of breathing and knew where to leave it up to the performers and where not.

The only time I really bother to notate something is when I know exactly how I want something to sound and I know that it is very likely that my group of players will gently caress it up.

Just thinking about this some more. It's really important to know who your performers are before you decide what to notate and not. I don't trust high school kids to play dynamics at the right time so I'll probably write down all the dynamics I want. If given the same piece to college seniors, I would probably just make a few notes here and there.

I just came back from meeting with a conductor! :D A great guy! Had great fun!

And we had a little talk. About a choir piece he will premier (my piece :P)

The one thing was spelling mistakes! hahaha! I had 2 spelling mistakes! I'm an idiot!

Ok, that past, we had a talk about a few rests here and there! I did explain that I did want some phrases linked, so instead of rests he put this small tick sign ( v like ), which means a breathing point, but the score remained as it was. I did also change a tiny bit of the score to more breathing points and seperation of phrases.

I will be in the rehearsal on next sunday, so I will have further feedback and might change a few things further. Plus I will speak my mind! ;)

The issue we're talking about has to do with:

a. a delicate balance, between what the composer wants and how much freedom he wants to give.

b. the knowlegde of the medium that the composer posesses. He did mention that HIS tenors might have a bit trouble going down to Bb. I knew that, but in the choirs I've been the tenors had managed A, so it was ok. I did provide an alternative version to give a few notes to the basses and this ended the small issue.

c. We also had tea! :d

In all, knowing your performers will resolve any possible issue. But still making clear instructions to what you want and giving them in clear notation is crucial imo.

A lot of great comments here.

Not knowing what your score looks like, it sounds to me like your instructor is either going too far to teach you a lesson he thinks is important, or he's doing what a lot of directors do and being a control freak.

When my 2nd Symphony was performed a few years ago, the director (without consulting me, and in my presence) had the orchestra remove all of the mezzo-piano and mezzo-forte directions in their parts and replace them with forte and piano markings, insisting that mp and mf were not in use during the Classical period and hence were not "authentic." He was wrong, of course; while not ubiquitous, such markings became increasingly common during the second half of the 18th Century. He took several minutes of valuable rehearsal time that could have been much better used to passive-agressively mash my insistence upon authenticity in historicism in my face. I knew exactly what he was doing, and I didn't appreciate it...which is why I hesitate now when he wants to do another of my pieces, even when he offers me the baton.

If the guy is your instructor, you have little choice but to do as he says. Learn the lesson he wants you to learn, but keep reality in mind as you go forward in life.

If the guy is your instructor, you have little choice but to do as he says. Learn the lesson he wants you to learn, but keep reality in mind as you go forward in life.

VERY IMPORTANT and I keep forgetting to mention that!

Thanks for mentioning it L.!

Not knowing what your score looks like, it sounds to me like your instructor is either going too far to teach you a lesson he thinks is important, or he's doing what a lot of directors do and being a control freak.

When my 2nd Symphony was performed a few years ago, the director (without consulting me, and in my presence) had the orchestra remove all of the mezzo-piano and mezzo-forte directions in their parts and replace them with forte and piano markings, insisting that mp and mf were not in use during the Classical period and hence were not "authentic." He was wrong, of course; while not ubiquitous, such markings became increasingly common during the second half of the 18th Century. He took several minutes of valuable rehearsal time that could have been much better used to passive-agressively mash my insistence upon authenticity in historicism in my face. I knew exactly what he was doing, and I didn't appreciate it...which is why I hesitate now when he wants to do another of my pieces, even when he offers me the baton.

Old joke...

Q: What's the difference between a bull and an orchestra?

A: The bull has the horns in front and the asshole in back.

There is one simple rule to follow:

If you want your music performed a specific way, then indicate this in the score.

If a score contains no markings, then the composer can only blame himself when the performance is bland or lifeless.

If long notes are supposed to have crescendo-diminuendo effects on them, then indicate them. Don't expect the performer to think of this on his own.

If you want there to be a rit, or an accel. then mark it. Don't leave it to the imagination of the performer.

There is no justification for a score that lacks all the necessary markings for a good performance.

"Leaving it to the performer" is the poorest excuse a lazy composer can come up with.

I can give you a concrete example:

My cello sonata has a brief passage that is "a piacere", a sort of mini-cadenza. No matter how much prodding during rehearsals, I couldn't get the cellist to anything that came close to what I imagined that passage as sounding like. The cellist saw straight notes and played straight notes. She was an exceptionally musical young woman, and did marvels with the score where I had clearly indicated all expressive markings. But that one brief section, left to her own wiles, was a disaster.

Moral? Performers can't be expected to read a composer's mind. They can only read the score. Make the score as clear and close to what there is in the mind, and you'll have done your job as a composer and nobody'll lose an eye.

PS: Or plan B, if all else fails, play/direct/! the damn thing yourself. If you want something done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself.

PS: Or plan B, if all else fails, play/direct/! the damn thing yourself. If you want something done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself.

But then there are all these composers who always insist on conducting their own pieces without realizing what absolutely horrid conductors they are :P I've experienced it :( They'll wave their baton about wildly, full of emotion, yet the beat just can't be seen. And then they complain that the music isn't together...

And in reply to QCC: Good points, and I think what you said in your last paragraph is often the case. Many excellent "classical" musicians aren't very used to playing very freely, even less so when they're in a musical environment they're not perfectly used to, i.e. in contemporary music. But of course the other side also exists. A piece for bass clarinet I wrote (I posted it on this forum) originally contained a single dynamic marking in the beginning: "pp sempre". The score was extremely sparse, basically just consisting of notes, rhythms and slurs. Yet, the performer played it wonderfully, much better than how I would have imagined it to sound, with tiny variations in dynamics, articulations, phrasing etc. now and there, but very musically and very appropriately for the music. So we probably should go with what Nikolas said: "In all, knowing your performers will resolve any possible issue."

Only a little to add and much to reiterate -- the best solution whenever possible is to get as much experience working with performers playing a wide variety of instruments. Also, it is a healthy challenge to write for a variety of skill levels.

One of the "hardships" for a composer is to get that experience without going broke (hey, performers have to make a living so you can only get so many "quick" questions answered). One thing which this forum can assist but never replace --- private instruction with a professional composer who has written for a variety of ensembles and hearing your piece in the draft and final stages. Plus a willingness to make mistakes doesn't hurt.

Lastly, the question of how clear should you make your notation is something which composers deal with throughout their careers. A fair amount of you are students so some of you must have been surprised how much time you spend on explaining/ clarifying your notation. Some people looking at Gardner's sample may say -- well why didn't he write it in a triple meter and then switch to a duple meter and some note values could be simplified -- but it is evident this how Gardner heard his musical conception, his only responsibilities are to substantiate this if challenged, present meticulously clear, correct scores and only make modifications if this is beyond the performers abilities and this is the only recourse. The performer has the responsibility to ask appropriate questions, be at rehearsal and learn your piece to his/her best ability. Check the New Music Box site which has some good adcice over in the chatter section (although some of the well meaning advice did cause a big ballyhoo).

Finally, composers (esp concert/classical) may value the notated page a bit too dearly. Once in awhile, I have attained better results than intended because of a performer's misinterpretation of my score (eg mistake) -- which I promptly marked as a revision to make. Hey, my priority is to create great music not picture perfect scores!

PS, QCc and SSC - nicely said. I have had cases where the performer wanted less markings as well as your experience QCC. In one piece I had indicated to the cellist to play cadenza like but it sounded far too free for my tastes but I kept my mouth shut as she did as I indicated. I wish I had written out my accel, and rits etc more specifically.

There is no justification for a score that lacks all the necessary markings for a good performance.

"Leaving it to the performer" is the poorest excuse a lazy composer can come up with.

In principle, I disagree with this statement. Early music (before 1800) is full of examples where there are few if any indications of composers' intentions in their scores; much was left to the performer, and it was assumed that performers were sufficiently aware of style and intuitive enough to understand what the music called for in most cases. Laziness had nothing to do with it.

In reality, today, I have to concede that this is good advice, and I admit that I am indicating more in my scores these days. I thought that since it's obvious my music is historicist in nature, performers would perform it as they would any other Classicist; but not so, and I'm not interested in any more wooden performances. People are very visual now, and they don't seem to think or feel much.

insisting that mp and mf were not in use during the Classical period and hence were not "authentic."

This conductor is either horribly informed, or an idiot. Mozart is practically famous for his mfs and mfps etc.

Anyway, under your own directorship, I would definitely go for any future chance of a performance.

Early music (before 1800) is full of examples where there are few if any indications of composers' intentions in their scores; much was left to the performer, and it was assumed that performers were sufficiently aware of style and intuitive enough to understand what the music called for in most cases.

But keep in mind that most of the music they played was in the same style, with much the same technical/musical/emotional demands, and in many cases was (to our modern standards), well, simple®. I can imagine that after 10, 20 years of playing music that follows the same forms, the same key structures, the same tonal relations, the same figured clich