# What does the term Standard Orchestral Repertoire mean to you?



## Truckload

Standard Orchestral Repertoire is a term I have encountered frequently over the last 50 years, but what does it really mean? Not the specific pieces to be included, but the term itself. I suppose for many aspiring instrumentalists, the term is primarily used to indicate works that they might encounter in an audition. For music directors and broadcasters it might mean works that can be programmed without risk to their reputation or audience. 

But what does it mean to you?

I have been thinking about the term this morning, because at 63, I was thinking that I wanted to make sure that I had not left any truly great orchestral music left unheard in my life. So I started trying to define the term for myself.

First to narrow things down and gain focus. Standard Orchestral Repertoire is only music for full orchestra, not chamber music, not just strings, and using modern instruments. It would not include overtures, unless they are concert overtures, and would not include concertos, unless it is a concerto in name only, like the Concerto for Orchestra of Bartok. That much is easy. Now comes the hard part, how to create a definition of what should be on the list? Timeless (as in likely to be played and enjoyed for the foreseeable future), mature master works (excluding youthful efforts or less polished compositions, i.e. Tchaikovsky or Dvorak 1st Symphonies), and well thought of by a majority of listeners, performers and academics. Of course that last bit is the toughest. Your thoughts?


----------



## arpeggio

At one time I thought I knew. Now I am not so sure. We have discussed this before in other threads and so far I have yet to see a meaningful definition.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

arpeggio said:


> I have yet to see a meaningful definition.


I agree. What would be the purpose of such a definition, anyway?

The term inevitably has blurred edges and some pieces would be accommodated within the definition (or excluded) with difficulty and on the other hand, there is the risk that pieces that I very much enjoy would be left out and might therefore be overlooked by others who might enjoy them (Havergal Brian's _Gothic Symphony_ springs to mind as something that is unlikely to appear within the term SOR, for instance)


----------



## Stirling

That point where the audience has caught to the elite, and the elite has realize the audience will never accept music will won't do.


----------



## Truckload

arpeggio and Headphone Hermit - yes it is a difficult term to define. Yes there will probably be blurred edges. I am not looking to publish a book, or start or pursue an argument. The only purpose is to have fun. And as for me, it is to help myself make sure I listen at least once to everything that is worthwhile. I suppose it is part of getting old, and seeing the end more clearly than the beginning. As as far as I can tell, there are no right or wrong answers as to what constitutes "standard repertoire". That is what makes it intriguing to me. 

I gave it a shot, of course trying to figure what would fit within the last sentence of my definition would be the tough part. How would you change the definition? Or would you not change it? Or is it simply boring to think about?


----------



## hpowders

The usual over-played, safe conservative repertoire played over and over, ad nauseum at subscription concerts so orchestras can be almost assured of not going under financially, since many of them are already hanging by a flimsy thread.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Truckload said:


> And as for me, it is to help myself make sure I listen at least once to everything that is worthwhile.


One of the great things about music is that I will never hear everything that I want to listen to - there will always be things that I get to know and there will be 'new' things to listen to. Its a very nice thought


----------



## TwoPhotons

Headphone Hermit said:


> One of the great things about music is that I will never hear everything that I want to listen to - there will always be things that I get to know and there will be 'new' things to listen to. Its a very nice thought


That's the thing that I find troubling...that I'll never be able to listen to all the music that's out there!

<insert obligatory Rachmaninoff quote about music and lifetimes>


----------



## Pugg

Truckload said:


> Standard Orchestral Repertoire is a term I have encountered frequently over the last 50 years, but what does it really mean? Not the specific pieces to be included, but the term itself. I suppose for many aspiring instrumentalists, the term is primarily used to indicate works that they might encounter in an audition. For music directors and broadcasters it might mean works that can be programmed without risk to their reputation or audience.
> 
> But what does it mean to you?


For me it is a nice night out ( when played in concert halls) 
to hear the pieces that I love , no matter how many times I heard them on CD.


----------



## dgee

Usually something I've heard on the other side of the music world. Standard rep = if this hits your stand you should know how it goes and be able to play all the well known licks

I don't think it's limited to pieces for full orchestra or orchestra without soloists at all. It is also definitely a changing body of work


----------



## dsphipps100

I pretty much agree with dgee. "Standard repertoire" means that, if you're in a top-tier orchestra anywhere in the world, you should expect to wind up performing everything in the "standard repertoire" at some point in your career with that orchestra (assuming you're with that orchestra long enough to get through the list, which would take a number of years). And if you're a subscriber in the audience to that top-tier orchestra, then you should expect to eventually hear everything on the "standard repertoire" list.

As has already been alluded to more than once in this thread, there will never be complete agreement about what, precisely, that list comprises. But I think you could find universal agreement about some of the components that belong on the list - for instance, anybody who doesn't include the symphonies of Beethoven and Brahms is a fool. Those 13 pieces are probably about as "core" as you can get regarding the standard repertoire. 

Of course, when you start getting into things that are more "fringe", like the Glazunov symphonies or Joachim's 2nd Violin Concerto (and mind you, I'm not saying anything about the quality of these pieces one way or the other), just to name two examples, then you'll undoubtedly find those who would argue they have no place in the "standard" repertoire, while others would insist they certainly do belong after all.


----------



## Truckload

dgee said:


> Usually something I've heard on the other side of the music world. Standard rep = if this hits your stand you should know how it goes and be able to play all the well known licks
> 
> I don't think it's limited to pieces for full orchestra or orchestra without soloists at all. It is also definitely a changing body of work


I agree, I was just trying to narrow things down. Some concertos might become standard repertoire because soloists love to play them. I was just trying to focus on the music itself.


----------



## superhorn

The "standard repertoire" which is not necessarily confined to orchestral music, is the canon of works which have gained a permanent place in the repertoire over the years, and which are always being played by some orchestra etc anywhere and everywhere al the time .
This standard repertoire has evolved over nearly three centuries from the beginning of the symphony orchestra as we know it , roughly from the time of Haydn and Mozart to the present day .
It is a collection of symphonies, concertos for piano, violin, cello , woodwind and brass instruments , 
symphonic poems etc , overtures to operas and so forth .
By such great composers as Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn , Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Franck, Bruckner, Mahler, Debussy, Ravel, Dvorak, Smetana,
Chopin,( his piano concertos ) . Liszt, Sibelius, Elgar, Rachmaninov, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky .
Berlioz, Bartok,Wagner(overtures & preludes etc ), Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Copland and others .
Fortunately, much,much beyond this repertoire is being performed today . These are deservedly popular works which have stood the test of time, but they are far from being the only works which deserve to be heard . Audiences love these works for a good reason . And there always some of those who are not familiar with them and may find them to be thrilling discoveries at concerts .
If you're a knowledgable and experienced classical music fan, you may not be thrilled to attend an all Beethoven concert of works which you have heard countless times. But at that concert, there may be some people, not necessarily youngsters, who are new to this music and may be filled with enthusiasm 
after attending that concert of war horses .
Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is absolutely no lack of new classical music today . Every year , X number of new works are premiered by orchestras everywhere , either world or local premieres .
Most of them will prove to be ephemeral, but this is true of the vast majority of orchestral music written over the centuries . Some critics and listeners may like a particular new work, and others may not .
Composers always divide listeners .
But one thing is certain, the repertoire of orchestral music is NOT stagnating .


----------



## GraemeG

dsphipps100 said:


> I pretty much agree with dgee. "Standard repertoire" means that, if you're in a top-tier orchestra anywhere in the world, you should expect to wind up performing everything in the "standard repertoire" at some point in your career with that orchestra (assuming you're with that orchestra long enough to get through the list, which would take a number of years). And if you're a subscriber in the audience to that top-tier orchestra, then you should expect to eventually hear everything on the "standard repertoire" list.
> 
> As has already been alluded to more than once in this thread, there will never be complete agreement about what, precisely, that list comprises. But I think you could find universal agreement about some of the components that belong on the list - for instance, anybody who doesn't include the symphonies of Beethoven and Brahms is a fool. Those 13 pieces are probably about as "core" as you can get regarding the standard repertoire.
> 
> Of course, when you start getting into things that are more "fringe", like the Glazunov symphonies or Joachim's 2nd Violin Concerto (and mind you, I'm not saying anything about the quality of these pieces one way or the other), just to name two examples, then you'll undoubtedly find those who would argue they have no place in the "standard" repertoire, while others would insist they certainly do belong after all.


This is about right. You can only really define the standard repertoire by what's on it or not; arguing about specific pieces. The margin is the tricky bit. It's like the 'light rough' or 'first cut' in golf. Brahms & Beethoven are on the fairway. Havergal Brian is well in the rough. But Glazunov symphonies are scattered across the 'light rough'. 8 might be near the fairway, with a good lie. 2 not so much...!
Graeme


----------



## Strange Magic

Question for Truckload, in that I know nothing about such sorts of classifications: Why are non-concert overtures excluded? Why also concertos, if a full orchestra plays? How about things like the Villa-Lobos BB #5 or _El Amor Brujo_? If the idea is to include music that is only, exclusively, for orchestra, I understand, but operatic overtures seem to fit that requirement. Or is it because that's just the way it has been defined? I take it tone poems are SOR.


----------



## Truckload

Strange Magic said:


> Question for Truckload, in that I know nothing about such sorts of classifications: Why are non-concert overtures excluded? Why also concertos, if a full orchestra plays? How about things like the Villa-Lobos BB #5 or _El Amor Brujo_? If the idea is to include music that is only, exclusively, for orchestra, I understand, but operatic overtures seem to fit that requirement. Or is it because that's just the way it has been defined? I take it tone poems are SOR.


It was just my own way of trying to narrow things down. Overtures, unless it is a concert overture, are really intended as the introduction to a larger work. They may function well on their own, but not always. Concertos are often primarily intended as a vehicle to showcase the talent of the soloist. So by eliminating those types of works, I was just hoping to focus exclusively on complete orchestral compositions.

Yes there are numerous Tone Poems that would likely be thought of by most as being part of the SOR. Some of the them are multi-movement works that seem very much like symphonies, such as Scheherazade.


----------



## hpowders

Let's play word association:

Standard Repertoire? Boring!

Thank the Lord for music by Bach that very few folks even know exists; for composers like Ives, Schuman and Persichetti.

You can have the Standard Repertoire.


----------



## Strange Magic

hpowders said:


> You can have the Standard Repertoire.


Thank You! I'll Take It! (People say the darnedest things....). Truckload, thanks for your reply.


----------



## Guest

Standard repertoire is what gets listened to most in my house. No doubt everyone else has their own, BUT mine's the right one.


----------



## hpowders

I'll trade away the entire standard repertoire for another piano concerto by Schoenberg.

Standard repertoire is what I listened to at 15 when I didn't know any better.

I like the enlightened version of hpowders much, much better.

Schuman, Persichetti, Ives, Shostakovich 4, the Bach works that practically nobody even knows exists.


----------



## hpowders

How many times can the same old farts attend the same concerts featuring nothing more adventurous than Beethoven and Brahms, spending most of that time coughing, rustling their programs and snoring.

Worst of all, these damn basic repertoire concert goers are armrest bullies. They come early. Stake their claims to the bloody armrest and refuse to ever yield them to folks on either side.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> Question for Truckload, in that I know nothing about such sorts of classifications: Why are non-concert overtures excluded? Why also concertos, if a full orchestra plays? How about things like the Villa-Lobos BB #5 or _El Amor Brujo_? If the idea is to include music that is only, exclusively, for orchestra, I understand, but operatic overtures seem to fit that requirement. Or is it because that's just the way it has been defined? I take it tone poems are SOR.


I think dgee nailed it above. As he points out, it can definitely include solo concertos and non-concert overtures. For example, there are overtures from Verdi, Rossini, and Mozart operas that are standard rep. Just to amplify what dgee said: One can also speak of standard rep for particular instruments, which would mean the excerpts that anyone auditioning for an orchestra gig on a particular instrument damned well better know. Defined this way, the list will be a little broader. Bassoonists might, for example, be expected to know Shostakovich 9, even though that work is currently on the fringes (at best) of standard rep.


----------



## Blancrocher

Minimum 3 recordings, one of which was from the last 5 years (excepting extraordinary circumstances).


----------



## Kevin Pearson

In pop music the word standard is used for things like "American" standards, which are songs that have stood the test of time and have been accepted by a large audience. To me the same is true in classical music. Pieces that are "standard" repertoire are works that have stood the test of time and are well received by general audiences. All of us have opinions about pieces we feel should be in the standard repertoire but for various reasons they have not been able to acquire status. Occasionally things do change and pieces eventually work their way in. Much of Sibelius and Mahler were not considered as standard repertoire not that long back and because of the embrace by certain conductors they are now well entrenched. 

Kevin


----------



## realdealblues

My definition of "Standard Orchestral Repertoire" would be "Orchestral Works that are most frequently performed".

Obviously there's no list per say but if I was really curious as to what a modern standard orchestral repertoire was I would look up the concert schedule from various Symphony Orchestras from small local ones to large International ones and see what works appear most frequently performed this year. Take 100 performing Symphony Orchestras far and wide and whatever works appear the most I would then consider those the current Standard Orchestral Repertoire.


----------



## gardibolt

Stirling said:


> That point where the audience has caught to the elite, and the elite has realize the audience will never accept music will won't do.


Or one could say, things that the audiences like, the elite scoff at as rubbish, and the orchestras play all the time because the big donors like them too.


----------



## Gordontrek

Whatever makes ultra-conservative concertgoers happy.


----------

