What is the most versatile ensemble?

I was just wondering-

What chamber ensemble of instruments is the most versatile? By that I mean, what chamber ensemble can effectively play the most styles and moods.

Comments are appreciated.

Well, I don't know about chamber ensembles, but when it comes to different moods and colors, I don't think the concert band can be topped.

The String Quartet, probably....

I'm sure there's a reason why it's been a staple in many composer's repertoires since it was invented.

I think you probably get the most versatility for the number of musicians out of a piano trio. Personally, I like the piano quartet even better...

Probably concert band.

I reckon it's probably the Piano Quintet (i.e Piano and String Quartet)

Listen to Brahm's Piano Quintet. It's so good.

string quartet, plus all variations on it.

I think you probably get the most versatility for the number of musicians out of a piano trio. Personally, I like the piano quartet even better...

Definitely (for me) the piano trio. And not necessarily a Violin-Violoncello-Pianoforte trio, but other combinations as well (Clarinet-Cello-Piano / Flute-Cello-Piano). And not just versatile, but delicious as well...

I was just wondering-

What chamber ensemble of instruments is the most versatile? By that I mean, what chamber ensemble can effectively play the most styles and moods.

Comments are appreciated.

The question is entirely subjective.

It ranks up there with the "greatest concertos" question.

Everything depends on your definition of versatility, and even then requires too much subjective input in the analysis of the words effective, styles and moods.

Any ensemble can play ANY mood or style.

Any ensemble can play ANY mood or style.

Yes, but can they play it well?

Brass bands are extremely versatile, and play huge chunks of the repertoire arranged for brass band, and also much music created for brass band. However, they are infamous for being bad at playing jazz music.

In the same way, a piano trio is never going to be able to put across many of the brass band "moods"/sounds etc.

Yes, but can they play it well?

Brass bands are extremely versatile, and play huge chunks of the repertoire arranged for brass band, and also much music created for brass band. However, they are infamous for being bad at playing jazz music.

In the same way, a piano trio is never going to be able to put across many of the brass band "moods"/sounds etc.

All things being equal, and this is the only way to discuss this subject, other than volume or specific technical issues, all ensembles are equally capable of "moods", since the very concept of "mood" is entirely subjective.

obviously, music that is written for a very specific instrumental effect (ie: the rapid pizzicato section in that Tchaikowski symphony, I always forget which one) should not be taken into consideration, as that is instrument specific.

I think it would be incredibly stupid to say that music for the harp is not suited to the brass band, and expect people to say "oh, really? why?". That's one major D'UH.

I stand by my statement that all instrumental ensembles share the same degree of versatility in expression.

Don't you see how pointless the question really is?

Obviously 76 trombones, leading the big parade, have more volume than a recorder duet. Does that make it more versatile? After all, the recorder duet can play considerably softer than the 76 trombones, meaning it has a foot up on the brass in that respect. Each has a unique capability that can not be compared.

String instruments have the capability of playing arco, pizz, col legno, sul ponticello.. making them basically 4 different instruments in one. Does that make them more versatile? Maybe, and if we were comparing that aspect of it, then probably any pure string ensemble would take it over any other homogenous ensemble.

But what if we say a group of mixed brass, woodwinds, percussion and strings? Then obviously, THAT would be "more versatile" than a straightforward string endemble, or brass ensemble, or woodwind ensemble.

How exactly does one draw the line that divides versatility among all the possible permutations of instrumental ensemble?

Any homogenous grouping of instruments lacks something that could be brought to it by the addition of an instrument (or instruments) from one of the other groups.

So by definition, the most "versatile ensemble" would need to include instruments from each and every instrument family.

It depends if we're just going to talk about instruments in themselves, or actually include performing traditions.. when I say brass bands are bad at jazz, obviously it is not the instruments themselves, many of which are ideal for jazz...

string quartet

Good question!

I think it should be an ensemble with both: bowed strings, winds and percussion, including an harmonic instrument. All this because of the different articulations they do, as to be versatile.

Piano is a percussion instrument and at the same time is able to support a lot of harmony. Adding any combination between a string quartet is good (I consider violoncello the most "echonomical" and versatile one, because of its wide range). A few winds are also necessary and, depending on the mood of the piece, you can combine woods and/or brass. In the case of brass, maybe a trombone is more versatile for the wide range, its glissandi, etc. In the case of woods, I'm not sure, maybe a flute, oboe, clarinet, or every one of them.

A symphonic orchestra maybe?

With tons of percussion and at least a couple of laptops here and there?

And maybe all ethnic instruments around?

That should cover ALL possible genres. :glare:

...the most "versatile ensemble" would need to include instruments from each and every instrument family.

It depends if we're just going to talk about instruments in themselves, or actually include performing traditions...

So, the 'most versatile ensemble' would contain great numbers (ideally, an infinite amount) of every instrument (yes...EVERY single one).

Also, within these great numbers would need to be performers skilled in EVERY musical style and performance practice. Baroque string players, jazz bassoonists, rock & roll oud...hell, you'd need hip-hop sitarists, classical conga players, and a timpanist capable of playing bebop.

SO: you want to write for 83 tubas, jazz piccolo and 2 snare drums - no problem! You want the beautiful sounds of baroque strings with tabla and turntables - done! How about a lovely 24 theremin choir with alto trombone soloist playing christmas tunes in a reggae style - Okay! Or perhaps 392 oboes in unison with 12 soprano saxes, pipe organ, and a clarinetist (tuned a quarter-tone sharp) - Fun!

Anyway - the most versatile ensemble encompasses anything and everything...

*rubs hands with anticipation of amassing this terrifying ensemble*

That said - I don't believe any instrument can be considered more versatile than another...

oboes in unison

:P

oboes in unison

:P

you mean bagpipes?

what was that joke again?

Q: how do you get two oboes to play unison?

A: Shoot one of them.

But if I recall correctly, the original poster DID ask for a versatile chamber ensemble, no? So no question of using a super-duper-massive-all-inclusive-poly-philharmonic-symphony orchestra.

A massive chamber?

Yes - bagpipes... the perfect description.

What worse than two oboes playing in unison?

Two bagpipes playing in unison :P

Not much of a joke, but comes from recent personal experience.... Dear God was it harsh on the ears..

Up here we have to endure bagpipes way more than is humane, everyone seems to want them at their weddings/funerals/christenings(???)

*shudders*

Q: what's perfect pitch with bagpipes?

A: tossing them into the very middle of a bonfire.

Heheh. Why are the bagpipes so universally hated? They're hardly ever used in any music anyway!

And coming back to the overtones of argument that were springing up earlier, this question is subjective. It's just opinions; I don't think anyone's expecting a definitive answer, only a bit of fun and a chance to learn more about other people's tastes.

Up here we have to endure bagpipes way more than is humane, everyone seems to want them at their weddings/funerals/christenings(???)

*shudders*

Man, you should listen to Greek folk instruments. They're more painful to hear than dental surgery. :P

So, the 'most versatile ensemble' would contain great numbers (ideally, an infinite amount) of every instrument (yes...EVERY single one).

Also, within these great numbers would need to be performers skilled in EVERY musical style and performance practice. Baroque string players, jazz bassoonists, rock & roll oud...hell, you'd need hip-hop sitarists, classical conga players, and a timpanist capable of playing bebop.

SO: you want to write for 83 tubas, jazz piccolo and 2 snare drums - no problem! You want the beautiful sounds of baroque strings with tabla and turntables - done! How about a lovely 24 theremin choir with alto trombone soloist playing christmas tunes in a reggae style - Okay! Or perhaps 392 oboes in unison with 12 soprano saxes, pipe organ, and a clarinetist (tuned a quarter-tone sharp) - Fun!

Anyway - the most versatile ensemble encompasses anything and everything...

*rubs hands with anticipation of amassing this terrifying ensemble*

That said - I don't believe any instrument can be considered more versatile than another...

And an infinite number of monkeys, clicking away at an infinite number of copies of Finale or Sibelius, for an infinite amount of time, will eventually write Beethoven's 9th.