Do you write better for instruments you play ?

The answer to that question may seem obvious, and if it is indeed is, then I merely pose the following question.

Would it not be a very valuable use of our time as composers to learn how to play (say to an intermediate standard) as many of the main orchestral instruments as we can ?

It may seem like a tall order, but I would guess that a well trained (ie advanced) musician would develop a reasonable ability on any monophonic (not piano or guitar these take way longer) instrument after a year's worth of consistent practicing. Five years, maybe a good grasp of five instruments ?

Would that be time well spent, or would I better off just studying scores ?

Hmm, well, it WOULD NOT be a waste of time to learn those instruments (especially if it was a Heckelphone! :P) I do write for orchestra fairly often, and I am WAY to young to play some of those instruments. So I looked in orchestra books and such, and learned. Also I copied out the Sibelius 4th Symphony, and that helped me too.

So either way, it's a good option :) One just takes WAY longer than the other

Do you automatically write better for an instrument if you play it? I'm quite certain that this is not the case. Sure, what you write may be more comfortable to play, maybe more "idiomatic", but that alone doesn't make a piece good, and I think it actually can inhibit some forms of composition if you're not very conscious about what you're doing:

The problem about some instrumentalist-composers is that they seem to primarily focus on writing something that is "cool to play". That's all fine of course, but it can limit the music to a certain range, never daring to go into stuff that may sound great, but be unusual and maybe "awkward" to play at first.

There have been many great pieces written by composers who really didn't write the most "idiomatic" music, but things that might have first seemed nonsensical or even impossible to play - but once the performers mastered those things regardless, it opened up a whole new world of playing techniques that later became a standard for these instruments. There are many pieces where the performers first said "that's unplayable" and which they probably would never have written like that themselves - but which now are a standard and well-liked part of the repertoire of this instrument.

There's also another related effect: I know many composers who particularly avoid writing for their own instruments, because they feel their "performer relationship" to the instrument inhibits them when trying to compose for it. Personally I've never felt that way, but I know many composers who abhor writing for their instrument, maybe because they feel they need more "distance" to write well for an instrument.

That's the one side. The other is that a too basic practical knowledge of an instrument might lead you to taking this as a standard and not really thinking of the instrument in terms of what would be feasible for a professional performer. Again, that's not necessarily bad. Not every piece has to be hard to play. But if it leads you to forbidding yourself to ever try something else it becomes a problem.

But really, while I think these concerns are quite real, that doesn't of course mean it's not a good idea to learn the practical side of many instruments. All those problems are only problems if you let yourself be inhibited by them. But being a pianist doesn't have to mean you have to write lush chords, octaves, arpeggios and virtuoso passages all the time - it may even free you to do things that are traditionally considered "unpianistic", like only writing a melody for a single voice. As always, it's your choice of what to do with what you know.

And it's obvious that it's a very good idea to be familiar with the instruments you are writing for, their techniques, their peculiarities, be that theoretically or practically. Some may prefer to get that familiarity in a very practical sense, others prefer a more theoretical approach, maybe combined by working together with professional performers of this instrument. Both can work if you're serious about it.

You definitely don't have to be a violinist to be able to write well for the violin. It's simply a question of how you want to familiarize yourself with the instrument and its capabilities.

Personally, I've never felt particularly inhibited by playing the instruments I'm writing for. I don't think I write either better or worse for them than any other instruments - the only thing that differs is that it takes me somewhat less time to familiarize me with such an instrument before writing for it, to talk with performers, etc. When I write for other instruments (particularly in a solo/chamber piece that uses more than the most common techniques) I usually just take some time before starting to write to familiarize myself with it theoretically, then I try to discuss with people who play that instrument, optimally the ones that will also perform my piece.

The answer to that question may seem obvious, and if it is indeed is, then I merely pose the following question.

Would it not be a very valuable use of our time as composers to learn how to play (say to an intermediate standard) as many of the main orchestral instruments as we can ?

It may seem like a tall order, but I would guess that a well trained (ie advanced) musician would develop a reasonable ability on any monophonic (not piano or guitar these take way longer) instrument after a year's worth of consistent practicing. Five years, maybe a good grasp of five instruments ?

Would that be time well spent, or would I better off just studying scores ?

I absolutely, 100% believe you would be a better composer from learning how to play each instrument of the orchestra to at least a basic to intermediate level. Instrumentation courses will teach you ranges, different ways to notate, and you might even get lucky to have an instructor who can take you beyond the textbook to teach you some of the ways to use an instrument to its greatest effect/efficiency. You can learn many important issues to overcome with some wind instruments, tuning difficulties, and so on... all of which will assist you when you're writing for ensembles of various levels of proficiency.

But you rarely, if ever, get hands-on instruction on doing basic things on an instrument in an instrumentation course. For example, I'm currently taking a brass methods class and learning trumpet for the first time. I've learned so many things in one lesson about this instrument that I never would have been able to understand about it from an instrumentation class. The hands-on understanding of the instrument is really a huge benefit, because as you're composing, you're seeing the composition from multiple frames of reference.

The only argument I've heard against requiring composition students to take instrumental methods classes (besides time) is that it might cause composers to be more concerned about what is playable rather than focusing on being creative. Personally, I think a healthy balance is more than possible. Composers are more than capable (and might even feel more confident) of asking other performers if something is possible on an instrument. Furthermore, having a basic understanding of so many different instruments creates more common ground to discuss various performance techniques and issues that need to be overcome. You can, of course, work with a performer without having played their instrument, but after having the exposure to playing the trumpet I feel like I have a LOT more to discuss with a trumpet player.

All in all, I believe instrumental methods (learning each instrument to some level of basic proficiency) provides composers with an invaluable perspective on instrumentation and performance. At the very least, composers should develop a profound level of respect for the skill level of performers they work with because they've made the attempt to play the instrument and can really appreciate the level of skill it takes to be able to play it.

You would almost certainly write more comfortably and shrewdly for the instruments. In no way would you be a better composer, though.

"Better composer" is entirely subjective... remember? Postmodernism! YAY!! :P

The composer with more knowledge and perspective has more to draw on when writing. It's in that sense that I would say to you, Nico, that I'm a better composer than you when I write for instruments I've played before that you haven't.

It doesn't mean a bunch of composers will say my 'music' is 'better' than your 'music', but that's a question of taste, not knowledge or skill. I'll be so bold to say that being a 'better composer' involves more than just the 'music' you write. The 'skill' and the 'knowledge' you possess certainly play a role... in the end, qualitative judgments of music all come down to taste, so it's a rather moot point.

I know plenty of Ethno-musicologists out there would pitch a fit at this, but hey, we all choose our own standards. If it were left up to me, my composition curriculum would include instrumental methods classes or at least incorporate 'methods' to a greater degree in instrumentation classes. In short, every composer in my studio would have experience PLAYING every possible instrument, not just looking at it, listening to it, or holding it.

I write better for string instruments, and I think that's because I play guitar/bass. But I'm mostly self-taught on those...

I write better for string instruments, and I think that's because I play guitar/bass. But I'm mostly self-taught on those...

String instruments - do you mean strictly plucked strings like guitar and bass or do you include violins, cellos, etc? Just curious.

Bowed as well, because the left hand is so similar, even if the right isn't...

Bowed as well, because the left hand is so similar, even if the right isn't...

Neat. :thumbsup:

Ya, you definitely write more idiomatically but I think that to a certain degree you also write better parts because you know which notes are louder because of how much air/bow is needed and many small details like this. With all of these points already being made, my reason for posting is that I think you're time plots are way off. In my opinion, to build up enough knowledge of the instrument it should really take less than a month of LIGHT practicing. The point of learning all of these instruments as a composers is knowing many small orchestration details and these can be found in less than a month. I personally feel VERY strongly about this topic and have actually put it to work myself, I've play guitar, bass, banjo, cello, viola, violin, trumpet, trombone, saxophone, flute, clarinet, piano, percussion and organ. Once you learn an instrument of a family, which this will take a couple weeks of regular practicing it is MUCH easier to learn enough about the others, I learned what I feel is adequate for composition on violin and viola in less than 5 hours.

I think the most important thing you learn from learning an instrument (on the composer's side) is the timbre of the instrument in the different ranges you learned them in. You get a feel for the different registers of the given instrument you learned.

I do not feel that the difficulties of an instrument you are learning is a good thing however. I found that I had a mental block while writing for violin, since it was hard for me, it must be hard for other people too. So it was hard for me to write beyond my level, till I looked at scores and saw how insane some songs were. On clarinet, that break around the b/bflat area above middle C, was hard for me when I tried to do runs and other beginners. But good clarinetists don't give a crap.

So it depends. I'd say in the end though, learning the instrument will be beneficial no matter what.

I think that a few examples here might help to make my point.

If you play strings (a little) how much easier is the task of writing in slurs in your orcherstral parts. There is nothing better than trying out bowing to see if a run of notes fits comfortably under the bow. I don't think you can develop a "feel" for owing just by studying scores. And I do believe that a professional score must indicate slurs (but not normally bow direction).

Also, would people be confident writing double-stopped parts if not string players, aside from the most basic examples. I tend to see very little double stopped parts (which is of course a useful but occasional technique) on amateur composers.

Other stuff too that makes your writing more interesting - like harmonics. Much better to actually know what is possible and be confident in doing so.

You don't have to be a player to write well for an instrument, but to write truly idiomatic parts that are comfortable to play and fit under the fingers I think that a few months to a year on each instrument is a really good use of a composer's time. If I had more time (and self discipline) I would do so myself.

Sure, what you write may be more comfortable to play, maybe more "idiomatic",

But maybe not musically inspired in itself...is I presume what you are saying.

But wouldn't it be fair to say that the most treasured pieces in any instrument's repertoire are those which are both musically inspired and also idiomatic for the chosen instrument.

Although Piano is perhaps the most extreme example (so hard to write for a polyphonic instrument without actually playing it), you could never imagine the works of Chopin or Rachmaninov coming from the pen of a non-pianist.

But you are right to say that a non-player can occasionally push out the boundaries to good effect. Rodrigo's guitar concerto was considered unplayable by some when first published as for much of the guitar's history, fast arpeggios were considered playable, but fast scales were not. Now it's become a standard work (but still fiendishly difficult).

If you play strings (a little) how much easier is the task of writing in slurs in your orcherstral parts. There is nothing better than trying out bowing to see if a run of notes fits comfortably under the bow. I don't think you can develop a "feel" for owing just by studying scores. And I do believe that a professional score must indicate slurs (but not normally bow direction).

Also, would people be confident writing double-stopped parts if not string players, aside from the most basic examples. I tend to see very little double stopped parts (which is of course a useful but occasional technique) on amateur composers.

Other stuff too that makes your writing more interesting - like harmonics. Much better to actually know what is possible and be confident in doing so.

Sure, those are all elements of knowledge that may separate the "professional" composer from a beginning "amateur". But any professional composer, even without ever having played the violin, would be expected to know how harmonics work, how to make use of double stops, and how to write reasonable slurs - and if they are unsure, to research the topic and find out what they need to know. You are right that things like bowing may be much easier to imagine if you understand the movement in a very physical sense - but I don't think this is limited to actually playing the instrument. Once you've watched and heard enough violinists play, written enough for them, studied them and music written for them, you will get a feeling of how much will fit under one bow, which things are more likely to be played on an upbow and which on a downbow and so on. In the end it's just a question of a clear and careful imagination. And when in doubt (which may often be the case), the key element is communication with people who really know the instrument.

Although Piano is perhaps the most extreme example (so hard to write for a polyphonic instrument without actually playing it), you could never imagine the works of Chopin or Rachmaninov coming from the pen of a non-pianist.

Definitely. There are some typical works by some composers for their own instruments that work so well because of that fact. Chopin's piano music is great, hands down. But "instrumentalist approaches" also often tend to follow a certain way of writing, which may not be all there could be to it.

Example: Sch

I play both piano and violin but I find it much easier to compose on my violin. For some reason I just feel more inspired on that instrument than on the piano.

I play both piano and violin but I find it much easier to compose on my violin. For some reason I just feel more inspired on that instrument than on the piano.

That's interesting, I usually get it on piano first. But sometimes it comes on violin, depending on many things :P

I'm a horn and flute player and I find it so much more fun to write for flute.

I'm not really sure why, though.

I'm a bassoonist and you should see my bassoon parts. Playing modern French and German repertory has made my parts horribly awkward for the average bassoonist (I like leaps of 10ths to 17ths and sometimes 23rds)

I believe a composer should understand the basics of every instrument of the orchestra and should at least have a chance to give them a play even if they suck at it. I think the more you know the instrument, the more interesting your part will be.

hOwever, if you play a weird instrument like Heckelphon (WHICH IS SO BADASS) you get a hard part no matter what :P

Sure, what you write may be more comfortable to play, maybe more "idiomatic", but that alone doesn't make a piece good, and I think it actually can inhibit some forms of composition if you're not very conscious about what you're doing...

I find it's the opposite: I try hard to write idiomatic music for the instruments I don't know (winds and brass). For example my horn parts stay within the staff for 90%+ of the notes.

I am more worried about writing something that sounds well (= is orchestrated clearly) than giving the players a big challenge, so my scope of writing is pretty narrow for these instruments.

For the strings, as a cellist I know very well what is within their capabilities so I can be more adventurous.

BTW once you know one string instrument well, you "get" them all, not sure if it's the same for the other families. ;)

Well, to some degree that's actually what I mean. With "idiomatic" I don't mean "easy to play", but "rewarding" from a player's perspective (or, one might say, "fun to play"). That may often actually be very hard things, but which still allow you to show off your instrument's capabilities. It may exactly be considered "unidiomatic" to write with a "narrow scope" for certain instruments, if those instruments were capable of much more.

Repeating the same note in mezzoforte a comfortable register for two minutes might not be "hard" for most instruments at all, yet almost no performer who sees that part would likely go "wow, I'm looking forward to playing that!". That's why such a part would be typically more likely to be written by someone who doesn't play that instrument. Likewise, someone who doesn't play the instrument might also write something rather awkward and uncomfortable to play, while it looks and sounds very easy and doesn't leave an impression of a "virtuoso passage" to the listener, which again is something many composers would avoid for their own instrument.

But the point is that even such boringly easy or awkwardly uncomfortable parts may exactly be the thing the composition "requires" for that passage for musical reasons, so the instrumentalist-composer might actually avoid certain musically very interesting parts, simply because she or he "wouldn't want to play them".

And as you say: "As a cellist I know very well what is within their capabilities" - which can exactly be the problem, since you have a quite secure idea of what is "possible" and what isn't - but that may not be ultimately true and people might learn over time to cope with "impossible" things.

Of course, all of those concerns are not universally applicable. There are tons of instrumentalist-composers who effortlessly ignore those hinderances and manage to write well for any instrument. And there are huge personal differences how people approach such a thing personally.

I, for one, have actually often made the experience that I have much less second thoughts about writing "ridiculously easy" stuff for my own instruments than for others, maybe because there I don't feel I have to "explore the instrument" or "prove" anything to the performers (which is a quite silly notion, I know). I'd be almost "ashamed" writing a simple melody without any variations in sound/dynamics/articulation/polyphony/etc., whereas I have done the very same several times for the piano (even just a simple single voice for one hand). I know that's something I have to get over with time and feel free to write stupidly simple stuff for other instruments as well, but as it is, I do feel that way.

I'm a bassoonist and you should see my bassoon parts. Playing modern French and German repertory has made my parts horribly awkward for the average bassoonist (I like leaps of 10ths to 17ths and sometimes 23rds)

HOLY.. that's insane! :horrified:

hOwever, if you play a weird instrument like Heckelphone (WHICH IS SO BADASS) you get a hard part no matter what :P

I hope you mean that in a good way :shifty:

I hope you mean that in a good way :shifty:

I don't think it was. :dry: