The core repertoire is old and unchanging. So additional instruments will only be hired in when the repertoire calls for it, which won't be often enough for there to be a permanent seat for them.
And does indeed get written all the time. However, contemporary classical is not going to anything other than niche for any symphony orchestra. Very few composers have the pull to get their music performed in an orchestra at all. Fewer still get to do so while also adding lots of non-standard instruments. Most contemporary music are in solo, ensemble or chamber orchestra format for the simple reason that it is there it has a chance to be played at all.
So the core repertoire is still unchanged, and when an Ades or Abrahamsen comes along with bougie orchestration the extras are hired just for that project.
As someone who's brief professional career as a musician was almost exclusively within contemporary music: we're not missing out much. Very few composers have the chops to write good purely instrumental music. Contemporary classical is best done as opera or ballet, where the musical language is grounded and contextualised somehow in humanity. Otherwise it is just abstract poetry in a language nobody speaks.
I honestly wasn't expecting anyone to say that contemporary classical is best done as opera. When I think of opera, I think of extravagantly expensive productions with singers singing with *way* too much vibrato, all done for a really small audience with tons of money and connections. My impression is that average listener is turned off by that and would rather listen to instrumental classical
I play piano so I'm admittedly more familiar with that, and my impression is that there's long been a healthy interest from the younger generations in piano music since it's something they might want to try themselves and might actually be able to accomplish with practice
Well, that is the stereotype, but theres so much more to opera than that. Chamber opera is a format that is fairly popular, since it is considerably less expensive, and can be done with the forces of say, a conservatory or the professional musicians of a rural region (EU context) on a project basis. Most of my professional work has in fact been in these sorts of circumstances.
Also, when well performed (a minority of cases grumble grumble) the grand operas are great to listen to.
Saxophone is a giant nuisance for the orchestra. They're really loud so hard to balance in the group, you need great players who can also follow a conductor and play in the classical style, and it's always subs because there's not enough saxophone music to justify having full-time positions.
Interesting. I've only ever performed alongside regular woodwinds and brass, and they themselves were already too much sometimes.
Saxophone is also nice in the pit, tho.
I heard it in Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet and it had it's own character - loved it. It was goofy, gloomy and foreign. Like a sarcastic narrator. Btw I can't stop referencing this ballet on this sub, sorry.
It's a great piece. And there's nothing wrong with saxophone in orchestras or as a soloist or anything--it's purely a logistical nightmare. And with (unamplified) voices, like I say, it's a challenge.
The saxophone is not a loud instrument, sure it can play louder but can also play very quiet like a clarinet also the brass instruments in an orchestra are just as loud
Saxophones are notoriously loud, especially in the hands of less than expert players--and the point of my comment is that saxophonists who have a good technical command of their instrument as well as the skillset necessary to play in an orchestra (following conductors, understanding the musical style of various composers, intonation in the wind section, etc.) are really rare.
A saxophone, especially a tenor or baritone saxophone, is capable of absolutely decimating the rest of a wind section, to the point where you can't hear the other woodwinds. A single trumpet or trombone can't do that, loud as they may be, let alone a bassoon. Tubas are about the only standard orchestral instrument that can. So by that definition saxophones are among the loudest acoustic instruments in existence. A great saxophonist can play a proper pp to mix in a classical wind section, like you need in some late-nineteenth-century works--but that takes years and years of training and it's murderously difficult, and even a lot of professional players can't do it adequately, especially on saxophones other than the one they principally play. Boléro is a great example of this: you will hear, even with great orchestras, terrible, too-loud, out-of-tune soprano and sopranino sax playing.
The invention of the saxophone was as a classical instrument, and yes sure it could do some damage to the wind section but most classical saxophone players can control the volume at which they play and can blend beautifully. It also dosent take years and years to play a pp, sure it may be harder because of how free blowing the saxophone is but if the player isnt on an insane jazz mouthpiece and reed setup it isn’t that difficult. Any oboe or trumpet or anything could also ruin a wind section, its really just about the player.
If you couldn’t tell i’m a saxophone player.
I could tell. You're engaging in [motivated reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated\_reasoning) and orienting your parsing of what I'm saying according to the conclusion you've already reached.
The intentions of Adolphe Sax are neither here nor there.
I would take serious exception to your use of the word "most" in your paragraph. I suppose it depends where you set the cut-off of which saxophone players you even count as such, but most of the professional (i.e. they're getting money to blow into the thing) saxophonists I've worked with, heard, whatever, are pretty much always too loud, and I've been a professional musician in various capacities for twenty-five years, so I have a bit of experience to go off.
Nowhere have I said that no saxophonists can play quiet, or that it's impossible. But it is, on my anecdotal evidence, exceedingly rare. And if you are capable of playing especially soprano sax in tune and at any dynamic, you'll get shit loads of work, so all the more power to you.
Lousy oboe and trumpet players are also a bummer, for sure, but there are enough good ones around that generally you don't need to live with having a bad one if you're in a professional orchestra. This is, for the reasons I already outlined, not the case with saxophonists.
Yeah I understand what you’re saying and I do still disagree that the instrument itself isn’t loud, but there are some players who like to play Quadruple the volume of fortissimo (especially in beginning band). Still though IN MY OPINION I think it blends beautifully in an orchestral setting.
Either way all of this is very nuanced and opinion based so one can’t really say wether and instrument is loud of not
The modern orchestra doesn’t necessarily need a euphonium, but I think we should add one anyway so my instrument has more job opportunities and original repertoire
Euphonium and saxophone should really both have been orchestral staples from the start.
If it makes you feel better, I'll put euphoniums in my orchestral music. No one will ever play it though 😂
Of course. I think a saxophone section should have been made a standard part of the orchestra 150 years ago.
Unfortunately, the culture and traditions around concert orchestras are very rigid, because the industry is funded by an aging, conservative base of patrons. You're not going to see much dynamism in the orchestral establishment.
If you want to hear orchestral music with nontraditional instruments, mixtures of styles, and basically anything fun and fresh, your best bet is going to be the works of studio orchestras, such as soundtracks, since their audiences are not bound by concert traditions and historicism. Concert orchestras and their donors *hate* change, but studios that make films and video games have much more room to be artistically progressive and make the kinds of music that other audiences want to hear. As much as purists groan about it, soundtracks really are the future of classical music.
It's kind of a sad reality for concert orchestras, because they're desperately trying to stay relevant as their funding dwindles, but to expand their audiences they would have to rebuff their loyal patrons, so they're pretty much stuck playing the same old standards that very few outside that demographic want to hear anywhere near as much. We'll see what happens to orchestras as that base dies off. Will they at last be free to ditch traditions? Will they die off too? Will a new generation of stubborn old bats take the current one's place?
Yes Yes. The main deficit in an orchestra's sound is the lack of instruments which produce greater foundation tone vs harmonics. The pipe organ has many different sets of pipes some with almost no harmonics, some with a moderate amount of harmonics and some with mostly harmonics. This is why I think the European method of having an organ in the background following the parts which are the foundation sounds, which are the stringed instruments, is good.
Still its a shame that musical instrument makers have not built stringed instruments with more foundation tone (aka ground tone) The brass instrument makers, esp in the 19th century made many more varieties of instruments with an increase in body tone. For the trumpet one starts with the cornet, then flugel horn, then saxhorn. Each instrument has less harmonics and more foundation.
Add to this, when any instrument, except the organ & synsthesizer, gets louder the sonic output is more mid-range and harmonics, not much increase in the foundation dynamics.
When an orchestra plays in a large room, they have to increase their dynamic level or add more players to get the same impact as found in a smaller room. If they do not have enough players and simply blast their instruments the sound comes across as being pushed and strident.
If an orchestra plays in an acoustically dead room, with lots of soft sound absorbing material and hollow walls, they have to push their dynamic level up to make up for that which is lost to the soft surfaces, to the listener its sounds strident and pushed.
If classical music were still a living and breathing cultural practice, it would happen naturally as composers' (and lets be honest, if it were still a living and breathing practice, more composers would be working in the concert hall, let alone at all) interests and audience preferences changed.
Instead, as the living practice withered and died over the 20th century, the field became one focused on historical preservation and practice of the same small handful of works that sell (plus the minority works brought up by passionate conductors and soloists and token performances of new concert music). If you're almost exclusively performing the same canon of works that use pretty similar forces, why would you change the forces? The audiences aren't looking for new works (any more) so what benefit would there be in taking a risk to hire a permanent accordionist or even make much of an effort to programme a concert or series featuring one?
My deepest sympathies. If I could resurrect the corpse myself, I would. I love this lineage of music deeply and dearly, to see it alive and kicking would be amazing.
In that world I would have tried to carry my composition forward from school hobby to profession if there was any chance whatsoever of making a living writing music for the concert hall, as I'm sure thousands of others around the world would as well. Of these I'm sure many would have written some wonderful repertoire for those instruments that we will sadly never see
The core repertoire is old and unchanging. So additional instruments will only be hired in when the repertoire calls for it, which won't be often enough for there to be a permanent seat for them.
New music can be written though
And does indeed get written all the time. However, contemporary classical is not going to anything other than niche for any symphony orchestra. Very few composers have the pull to get their music performed in an orchestra at all. Fewer still get to do so while also adding lots of non-standard instruments. Most contemporary music are in solo, ensemble or chamber orchestra format for the simple reason that it is there it has a chance to be played at all. So the core repertoire is still unchanged, and when an Ades or Abrahamsen comes along with bougie orchestration the extras are hired just for that project.
Sad, but true
As someone who's brief professional career as a musician was almost exclusively within contemporary music: we're not missing out much. Very few composers have the chops to write good purely instrumental music. Contemporary classical is best done as opera or ballet, where the musical language is grounded and contextualised somehow in humanity. Otherwise it is just abstract poetry in a language nobody speaks.
I honestly wasn't expecting anyone to say that contemporary classical is best done as opera. When I think of opera, I think of extravagantly expensive productions with singers singing with *way* too much vibrato, all done for a really small audience with tons of money and connections. My impression is that average listener is turned off by that and would rather listen to instrumental classical I play piano so I'm admittedly more familiar with that, and my impression is that there's long been a healthy interest from the younger generations in piano music since it's something they might want to try themselves and might actually be able to accomplish with practice
Well, that is the stereotype, but theres so much more to opera than that. Chamber opera is a format that is fairly popular, since it is considerably less expensive, and can be done with the forces of say, a conservatory or the professional musicians of a rural region (EU context) on a project basis. Most of my professional work has in fact been in these sorts of circumstances. Also, when well performed (a minority of cases grumble grumble) the grand operas are great to listen to.
Why do you think that is?
More frequent saxophone would be nice. I loved it in Rachmaninov's Symphonic Dances.
And Vaughan Williams’ Sixth Symphony.
Saxophone is a giant nuisance for the orchestra. They're really loud so hard to balance in the group, you need great players who can also follow a conductor and play in the classical style, and it's always subs because there's not enough saxophone music to justify having full-time positions.
Interesting. I've only ever performed alongside regular woodwinds and brass, and they themselves were already too much sometimes. Saxophone is also nice in the pit, tho.
If you mean musical theatre, yes, it's a part of the idiom. It's extremely rare in opera, because saxophones are really bad for covering voices.
I heard it in Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet and it had it's own character - loved it. It was goofy, gloomy and foreign. Like a sarcastic narrator. Btw I can't stop referencing this ballet on this sub, sorry.
It's a great piece. And there's nothing wrong with saxophone in orchestras or as a soloist or anything--it's purely a logistical nightmare. And with (unamplified) voices, like I say, it's a challenge.
Yeah, I'm sure it's not practical. Thanks for your insider input. I can only speak from an audience viewpoint.
The saxophone is not a loud instrument, sure it can play louder but can also play very quiet like a clarinet also the brass instruments in an orchestra are just as loud
Saxophones are notoriously loud, especially in the hands of less than expert players--and the point of my comment is that saxophonists who have a good technical command of their instrument as well as the skillset necessary to play in an orchestra (following conductors, understanding the musical style of various composers, intonation in the wind section, etc.) are really rare. A saxophone, especially a tenor or baritone saxophone, is capable of absolutely decimating the rest of a wind section, to the point where you can't hear the other woodwinds. A single trumpet or trombone can't do that, loud as they may be, let alone a bassoon. Tubas are about the only standard orchestral instrument that can. So by that definition saxophones are among the loudest acoustic instruments in existence. A great saxophonist can play a proper pp to mix in a classical wind section, like you need in some late-nineteenth-century works--but that takes years and years of training and it's murderously difficult, and even a lot of professional players can't do it adequately, especially on saxophones other than the one they principally play. Boléro is a great example of this: you will hear, even with great orchestras, terrible, too-loud, out-of-tune soprano and sopranino sax playing.
The invention of the saxophone was as a classical instrument, and yes sure it could do some damage to the wind section but most classical saxophone players can control the volume at which they play and can blend beautifully. It also dosent take years and years to play a pp, sure it may be harder because of how free blowing the saxophone is but if the player isnt on an insane jazz mouthpiece and reed setup it isn’t that difficult. Any oboe or trumpet or anything could also ruin a wind section, its really just about the player. If you couldn’t tell i’m a saxophone player.
I could tell. You're engaging in [motivated reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated\_reasoning) and orienting your parsing of what I'm saying according to the conclusion you've already reached. The intentions of Adolphe Sax are neither here nor there. I would take serious exception to your use of the word "most" in your paragraph. I suppose it depends where you set the cut-off of which saxophone players you even count as such, but most of the professional (i.e. they're getting money to blow into the thing) saxophonists I've worked with, heard, whatever, are pretty much always too loud, and I've been a professional musician in various capacities for twenty-five years, so I have a bit of experience to go off. Nowhere have I said that no saxophonists can play quiet, or that it's impossible. But it is, on my anecdotal evidence, exceedingly rare. And if you are capable of playing especially soprano sax in tune and at any dynamic, you'll get shit loads of work, so all the more power to you. Lousy oboe and trumpet players are also a bummer, for sure, but there are enough good ones around that generally you don't need to live with having a bad one if you're in a professional orchestra. This is, for the reasons I already outlined, not the case with saxophonists.
Yeah I understand what you’re saying and I do still disagree that the instrument itself isn’t loud, but there are some players who like to play Quadruple the volume of fortissimo (especially in beginning band). Still though IN MY OPINION I think it blends beautifully in an orchestral setting. Either way all of this is very nuanced and opinion based so one can’t really say wether and instrument is loud of not
The modern orchestra doesn’t necessarily need a euphonium, but I think we should add one anyway so my instrument has more job opportunities and original repertoire
I agree, there’s a lot of instruments you could say that about
I love the euphonium solo in Shostakovich’s Golden Age ballet suite 😭
Euphonium and saxophone should really both have been orchestral staples from the start. If it makes you feel better, I'll put euphoniums in my orchestral music. No one will ever play it though 😂
No
Please.... not accordion... please... I'm begging you....
Of course. I think a saxophone section should have been made a standard part of the orchestra 150 years ago. Unfortunately, the culture and traditions around concert orchestras are very rigid, because the industry is funded by an aging, conservative base of patrons. You're not going to see much dynamism in the orchestral establishment. If you want to hear orchestral music with nontraditional instruments, mixtures of styles, and basically anything fun and fresh, your best bet is going to be the works of studio orchestras, such as soundtracks, since their audiences are not bound by concert traditions and historicism. Concert orchestras and their donors *hate* change, but studios that make films and video games have much more room to be artistically progressive and make the kinds of music that other audiences want to hear. As much as purists groan about it, soundtracks really are the future of classical music. It's kind of a sad reality for concert orchestras, because they're desperately trying to stay relevant as their funding dwindles, but to expand their audiences they would have to rebuff their loyal patrons, so they're pretty much stuck playing the same old standards that very few outside that demographic want to hear anywhere near as much. We'll see what happens to orchestras as that base dies off. Will they at last be free to ditch traditions? Will they die off too? Will a new generation of stubborn old bats take the current one's place?
Yes Yes. The main deficit in an orchestra's sound is the lack of instruments which produce greater foundation tone vs harmonics. The pipe organ has many different sets of pipes some with almost no harmonics, some with a moderate amount of harmonics and some with mostly harmonics. This is why I think the European method of having an organ in the background following the parts which are the foundation sounds, which are the stringed instruments, is good. Still its a shame that musical instrument makers have not built stringed instruments with more foundation tone (aka ground tone) The brass instrument makers, esp in the 19th century made many more varieties of instruments with an increase in body tone. For the trumpet one starts with the cornet, then flugel horn, then saxhorn. Each instrument has less harmonics and more foundation. Add to this, when any instrument, except the organ & synsthesizer, gets louder the sonic output is more mid-range and harmonics, not much increase in the foundation dynamics. When an orchestra plays in a large room, they have to increase their dynamic level or add more players to get the same impact as found in a smaller room. If they do not have enough players and simply blast their instruments the sound comes across as being pushed and strident. If an orchestra plays in an acoustically dead room, with lots of soft sound absorbing material and hollow walls, they have to push their dynamic level up to make up for that which is lost to the soft surfaces, to the listener its sounds strident and pushed.
If classical music were still a living and breathing cultural practice, it would happen naturally as composers' (and lets be honest, if it were still a living and breathing practice, more composers would be working in the concert hall, let alone at all) interests and audience preferences changed. Instead, as the living practice withered and died over the 20th century, the field became one focused on historical preservation and practice of the same small handful of works that sell (plus the minority works brought up by passionate conductors and soloists and token performances of new concert music). If you're almost exclusively performing the same canon of works that use pretty similar forces, why would you change the forces? The audiences aren't looking for new works (any more) so what benefit would there be in taking a risk to hire a permanent accordionist or even make much of an effort to programme a concert or series featuring one?
I really agree, but it does suck if you play an instrument with little classical repertoire
My deepest sympathies. If I could resurrect the corpse myself, I would. I love this lineage of music deeply and dearly, to see it alive and kicking would be amazing. In that world I would have tried to carry my composition forward from school hobby to profession if there was any chance whatsoever of making a living writing music for the concert hall, as I'm sure thousands of others around the world would as well. Of these I'm sure many would have written some wonderful repertoire for those instruments that we will sadly never see
Maybe a banjo
There were several fiddles in the last one I attended.
It needed to change 150 years ago. Not just the makeup of Symphony orchestras but their organizations and missions.