# So I have this dream of playing in an orchestra...



## stringzoffury

...but I don't know what instrument I should play.

I know there's probably a million other threads like this on here so I'm gonna try and make this as short and to the point as possible. Keep in mind I'm a 20 year old electrical engineering student, so music isn't my field of study, but it is something I am passionate about.

Previous experience as a musician:
-Electric guitar: 7 years, mostly heavy metal music
-High school choir: 4 years, baritone
-University Choir: 1 year, baritone
-Piano: 3 years, but I've learned very few complete pieces as I always try to learn ones that are beyond my level of playing and didn't practice enough. I also have a hard time with multitasking in general and often freeze up while playing.

Instruments of interest: Cello and Violin

Things I like about the Cello:
- From what I've heard it's easier to learn than violin, especially for guitarists, so I'm less likely to sound like a screaming banshee.
- It has parts that sound very fun rhythmically(I always see Cellists rocking out more than any of the other stringed sections)
- More of a well rounded intermediate sound

Things I like about the Violin:
- Portable
- Lots of solo music(Even though I'm not really interested in being a soloist, there's still music I can play on my own)
- Lots of fast, "shreddy" parts

So I figure as a pianist, I'll likely never be good enough to perform with an orchestra, but I might have a better chance with a stringed instrument since it's _mostly_ one note at a time. I'm not looking to be a soloist, I just want to be a part of a solid group that makes good music. Not necessarily professionally or to be payed either; like I said I'm an engineering student and music is a hobby of mine. I've considered the viola and bass as well but I think I'm too small to play bass(5'3") and as far as I know the viola just seems to be under appreciated out of the context of orchestral music.

Any suggestions?


----------



## PetrB

stringzoffury said:


> ...but I don't know what instrument I should play.
> 
> Instruments of interest: Cello and Violin
> 
> Things I like about the Cello:
> - From what I've heard it's easier to learn than violin, especially for guitarists, so I'm less likely to sound like a screaming banshee.
> - *It has parts that sound very fun rhythmically(I always see Cellists rocking out more than any of the other stringed sections)- More of a well rounded intermediate sound*
> Things I like about the Violin:
> - Portable
> - Lots of solo music(Even though I'm not really interested in being a soloist, there's still music I can play on my own)
> - Lots of fast, "shreddy" parts.


zOMG, I hope your fantasy ambition _does not_ include playing in classical ensembles. Your comments about both instruments show you are without any idea of the rigor of playing from score, in time, accurately, with the other players and the ensemble.

The pathos of what you've described is more the divo / diva star lead performer, and even there, you notions of 'rhythmically free' will have to go out the window if you want to play with others --in any genre, at all.

Suggestions? One of those two stringed instruments, or viola, as there are more used in orchestras, the rest somewhat determined by price of the instrument, what you can afford (always rent when you begin, wait and see if you will follow through and then make the investment in owning a half-way decent instrument) -- and _don't forget lessons,_ which I can guarantee you you will need if you want to get anywhere near well-prepared enough (sight-reading is important, too) to audition for and be accepted by even a local amateur ensemble.


----------



## stringzoffury

PetrB said:


> The pathos of what you've described is more the divo / diva star lead performer, and even there, you notions of 'rhythmically free' will have to go out the window if you want to play with others --in any genre, at all.


Congratulations on managing to misinterpret every single word I wrote and on sounding like a pretentious snob as a result, I hope it makes you feel better about yourself. You mention my notions of "rhythmically free"? Really? What notion? I see you bolded part of my post but all I see is that I mentioned I found Cello parts to be rhythmically *fun* to play. So fun is now dependent on freedom, or are you just deciding to swap some of my words around? Just to clarify, what I really meant is that often times when I listen to orchestral music I find myself thinking: "This Cello part sounds like it would be fun to play!".

Now in your first paragraph, you write:


PetrB said:


> Your comments about both instruments show you are without any idea of the rigor of playing from score, in time, accurately, with the other players and the ensemble.


Oh really? Would you expect me then, to have performed in this group of musicians?





Yes you must be right. I have NO idea what I'm doing. As for my comments, they are simply how I have perceived the playing of these instruments to be; through my own experiences in listening to and watching orchestral music and from opinions given by people who play stringed instruments. Obviously they may be slightly exaggerated or be different from how YOU perceive things, that's because they are slightly subjective to my musical preferences and yours may be highly different from mine.

See, you make the assumption that I haven't the faintest idea of the rigor involved in playing music at a higher level of quality. The problem I have with this assumption is that I clearly state that I have had years of experience in both the performance and practice of classical music yet you still come at me with this condescending attitude that does absolutely nothing to help me make an informed decision.

In conclusion, if anyone else wants to help me make a decision or give me any other information that might be helpful in regards to what I want to do, I ask only a few things of you in recognition of PeterB's mistakes:

1. Don't be condescending.
2. Don't assume things about me you don't know for sure, instead ask questions that may help you better inform me.
3. If you disagree with one of my comments about these instruments or feel my perception of them is askew, feel free to explain why but remember rule #1 and give specific details
4. Don't tell me I need to be able to sight-read or practice a lot, etc., that's pretty obvious.

Thanks.


----------



## arpeggio

*It is harder than you think.*

I am an amateur bassoonist who plays with several amateur groups.

PetrB may have been condescending but he is correct.

It will take a tremendous amount of work and lessons to built up your skills to play with even a basic amateur orchestra. And securing a decent instrument can be very expensive. I have no idea what a good cello would cost but a basic bassoon that musicians play with the groups that I play with would cost about $10,000.

The one statement you made that made me roll my eyes were your comments concerning the viola. For a person like yourself the best instrument would be the viola. Good cellists and violinists are a dime a dozen. Even with an amateur group, finding a good violist is difficult.

I am sorry if you consider my comments discouraging but I have known many individuals like yourself who have tried to learn and master an instrument at your age. I only know of a handful who learned the instrument will enough to play with an amateur orchestra. Even with your background it will be very challenging.

The most successful ones are those who learned how to play a recorder. One can find recorder ensemble to play with. The most successful gentleman that I knew started on the recorder when he was in his thirties. He eventually got good enough to play the recorder in one of the Bach _Brandenburg_ Concertos with an orchestra that I play with. He also played with a recorder ensemble.

Note: I just thought of a person that I met here at TC who took up the double bass. He use to play electric bass in a rock band and it still took him a few years and he plays with one of the groups that I play with.


----------



## PetrB

stringzoffury said:


> Congratulations on managing to misinterpret every single word I wrote and on sounding like a pretentious snob as a result, I hope it makes you feel better about yourself. You mention my notions of "rhythmically free"? Really? What notion? I see you bolded part of my post but all I see is that I mentioned I found Cello parts to be rhythmically *fun* to play. So fun is now dependent on freedom, or are you just deciding to swap some of my words around? Just to clarify, what I really meant is that often times when I listen to orchestral music I find myself thinking: "This Cello part sounds like it would be fun to play!".
> 
> Now in your first paragraph, you write:
> 
> Oh really? Would you expect me then, to have performed in this group of musicians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you must be right. I have NO idea what I'm doing. As for my comments, they are simply how I have perceived the playing of these instruments to be; through my own experiences in listening to and watching orchestral music and from opinions given by people who play stringed instruments. Obviously they may be slightly exaggerated or be different from how YOU perceive things, that's because they are slightly subjective to my musical preferences and yours may be highly different from mine.
> 
> See, you make the assumption that I haven't the faintest idea of the rigor involved in playing music at a higher level of quality. The problem I have with this assumption is that I clearly state that I have had years of experience in both the performance and practice of classical music yet you still come at me with this condescending attitude that does absolutely nothing to help me make an informed decision.
> 
> In conclusion, if anyone else wants to help me make a decision or give me any other information that might be helpful in regards to what I want to do, I ask only a few things of you in recognition of PeterB's mistakes:
> 
> 1. Don't be condescending.
> 2. Don't assume things about me you don't know for sure, instead ask questions that may help you better inform me.
> 3. If you disagree with one of my comments about these instruments or feel my perception of them is askew, feel free to explain why but remember rule #1 and give specific details
> 4. Don't tell me I need to be able to sight-read or practice a lot, etc., that's pretty obvious.
> 
> Thanks.


My more standard response to dream ambitions in music is this:
1.) Wake up! It is right now only a dream.
2.) Go about finding out all and everything one needs in order to learn and acquire along the way toward actually achieving that dream.
3.) Get to it!

Now, you rather did go on about if not about rhythmic freedom, the general fun of it (yes, playing well is really really fun) but the tone did sound to me rather like imagined scenarios about violinists playing fast and 'shredding,' the viewpoint I thought, teenish (that is not criminal, but  -- _and you gave no other real background other than what on face value describes a dilettante who has dabbled in this, dabbled in that, and did not remain with any of those choices long enough to really follow through, with applied discipline, to anything._ The one constant there, a good sign, is it was all music and music performance.

That was how you presented yourself, and without further history or any demo of 'what you have done / can do,' what kind of advice would you have given, eh? That 'just follow your dream,' without any of the particulars re: my standard response gone at with any constancy or discipline? Now that would be not only condescending, but dismissive.

So, with what you have so far, find out all that is really required to realize your ambition, assess any holes or gaps, methodically go at it, and pursue your ambition. (I maintain that if yours was a true ambition, it would need no encouragement, the innate drive of _needing to do it_ would already have you busy, both having made the choice of instrument and getting on with it vs. skating about from one instrument to the next, with time gaps in between.)

As it was, you presented the proposition more as if you are thinking of yourself in a role (like an actor playing a part) vs. a person who actually _does,_ and in my experience, those who state their ambitions as if to be a noun vs. a verb usually just don't follow through.

Maybe the time has now come where you have that inner drive and will follow through. If you can not settle for yourself which instrument, that is more discouraging than encouraging.


----------



## stringzoffury

I know it will be challenging and a lot of work. That's not what I came here to talk about. When I was first looking at universities I would ask people what my chances of getting accepted at my schools of interest were. I had a 2.7 GPA in high school because I had no real solid idea of what I wanted to do during that time, and as a result slacked off a lot. At the end of my high school career I had at least figured out I wanted to study something within computers or electronics; at that time, it was Computer Science. 

Many people told me that with a 2.7 GPA, I shouldn't even bother going to college because I would likely fail and waste money, especially in a Computer Science program. Funnily enough, here I am about 3 years later at one of the best engineering schools in the world with almost straight A's. When I really want something, I will do whatever is required to get it; that's just the kind of person I am.

Okay, so I'm questioning which instrument I want to play and simply stating my ambitions rather than immediately going after them, you're right. However that's mainly due to the cost of this hobby, which can be quite high if you get serious about it, as others have mentioned. In addition to the monetary cost, if I'm going to spend a lot of time practicing an instrument, then I'd darn well better like it. I don't want to spend a bunch of time on an instrument and give up on it wishing I'd played something else instead. I kind of did that with guitar and piano. I rarely play guitar any more because once I started learning piano I realized I wished I had played that in the first place and now that's pretty much all I play, even thought I'm not as good at that as I am at guitar.


----------



## Jaws

stringzoffury said:


> ...but I don't know what instrument I should play.
> 
> I know there's probably a million other threads like this on here so I'm gonna try and make this as short and to the point as possible. Keep in mind I'm a 20 year old electrical engineering student, so music isn't my field of study, but it is something I am passionate about.
> 
> Previous experience as a musician:
> -Electric guitar: 7 years, mostly heavy metal music
> -High school choir: 4 years, baritone
> -University Choir: 1 year, baritone
> -Piano: 3 years, but I've learned very few complete pieces as I always try to learn ones that are beyond my level of playing and didn't practice enough. I also have a hard time with multitasking in general and often freeze up while playing.
> 
> Instruments of interest: Cello and Violin
> 
> Things I like about the Cello:
> - From what I've heard it's easier to learn than violin, especially for guitarists, so I'm less likely to sound like a screaming banshee.
> - It has parts that sound very fun rhythmically(I always see Cellists rocking out more than any of the other stringed sections)
> - More of a well rounded intermediate sound
> 
> Things I like about the Violin:
> - Portable
> - Lots of solo music(Even though I'm not really interested in being a soloist, there's still music I can play on my own)
> - Lots of fast, "shreddy" parts
> 
> So I figure as a pianist, I'll likely never be good enough to perform with an orchestra, but I might have a better chance with a stringed instrument since it's _mostly_ one note at a time. I'm not looking to be a soloist, I just want to be a part of a solid group that makes good music. Not necessarily professionally or to be payed either; like I said I'm an engineering student and music is a hobby of mine. I've considered the viola and bass as well but I think I'm too small to play bass(5'3") and as far as I know the viola just seems to be under appreciated out of the context of orchestral music.
> 
> Any suggestions?


Have a go at the viola. There aren't really enough viola players for community orchestras so you have a much better chance at getting a place. You will need to find a viola teacher and go for regular lessons. The teacher will advise on what sort of instrument to hire to start on. Think in terms of 8 years of lessons to get the stage where you can play in the average community orchestra. Professional playing takes more practice time than you as an engineering student will be able to give it so forget about playing professionally. Learning to play an instrument takes a lot of time.


----------



## dgee

You've played guitar, right? Why not try bass - the strings are in fourths at least. I realise you are "not tall" but basses come in differnet sizes and dimensions so you could talk to a bassist first before writing it off. 

I'd reiterate that this is a many-year project requiring lessons (so you can make consistent progress) and accepting that baby-steps is what is on the cards. You ain't doin nothin coolon your new orchestral axe for a LONG TIME. First step is talking to teachers! Also, consider visitng a local community orchestra to see up close what is involved - it's a lot different to choir and rock band


----------



## arpeggio

*Playing as an Enemble*



Jaws said:


> Have a go at the viola. There aren't really enough viola players for community orchestras so you have a much better chance at getting a place. You will need to find a viola teacher and go for regular lessons. The teacher will advise on what sort of instrument to hire to start on. Think in terms of 8 years of lessons to get the stage where you can play in the average community orchestra. Professional playing takes more practice time than you as an engineering student will be able to give it so forget about playing professionally. Learning to play an instrument takes a lot of time.


I do not know where the gentleman is from, but the viola phenomenon is true here the states as well.

I also sensed another problem. As dgee mentioned above, playing in an orchestra is not the same as singing in a chorus (I had experience singing in a chorus when I was in high school and college) or playing in a rock band (I did that too). Playing in an orchestra is like playing on a football (soccer) team. Only one player at a time can have the possession of the ball. His teammates are usually running around the field in a supporting role. When playing in an orchestra you are a part of an ensemble. Every once and a while a section has a melody but most of the time you are in a support mode. And when you have the melody you have to pass it off to somebody else. No matter how many instrumentalists are on the stage you have to play as if it is a single instrument. With a chorus one may have between four and eight lines. With an orchestra one frequently has over twenty. When reading the OP it appears that he does not understand the ensemble part of playing with an orchestra. This is critically important when playing in a string section. One may be playing with five or more cellist in even a small orchestra. They still have to sound like one cello.

Jaws, I know you are a player as well. Probably more advance than I am. Any problems with what I have just stated?


----------



## senza sordino

Your background sounds similar to mine. I picked up the violin at 32 because I too wanted to play in an orchestra. The advantage of playing the violin is that you don't need to be that good. And here's why:

You can sit at the back of the second violins and follow along. This is how I first began. Viola would also be a good option because orchestras usually need violas. Bass would be a good option too, and as mentioned, a bass is tuned in fourths.

You could learn a brass or woodwind instrument but I think it would be more difficult to get into an orchestra. 

I took lessons and played in a student orchestra first, along with children 1/2 my age. We have an excellent music camp for adult amateurs here in my part of the world, which I attended. Then I got into a bigger adult orchestra. 

I suggest you do some research to find local amateur orchestras. There are at least six in my part of the world. Two play at a very high level. 

I can tell you from personal experience that it is possible to play in an orchestra.


----------



## arpeggio

senza sordino said:


> Your background sounds similar to mine. I picked up the violin at 32 because I too wanted to play in an orchestra. The advantage of playing the violin is that you don't need to be that good. And here's why:
> 
> You can sit at the back of the second violins and follow along. This is how I first began. Viola would also be a good option because orchestras usually need violas. Bass would be a good option too, and as mentioned, a bass is tuned in fourths.
> 
> You could learn a brass or woodwind instrument but I think it would be more difficult to get into an orchestra.
> 
> I took lessons and played in a student orchestra first, along with children 1/2 my age. We have an excellent music camp for adult amateurs here in my part of the world, which I attended. Then I got into a bigger adult orchestra.
> 
> I suggest you do some research to find local amateur orchestras. There are at least six in my part of the world. Two play at a very high level.
> 
> I can tell you from personal experience that it is possible to play in an orchestra.


Excellent advice from someone who has actually done it. Congratulations. I know of very few people who have accomplished what you have done. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

senza sordino said:


> Your background sounds similar to mine. I picked up the violin at 32 because I too wanted to play in an orchestra. The advantage of playing the violin is that you don't need to be that good. And here's why:
> 
> You can sit at the back of the second violins and follow along. This is how I first began. Viola would also be a good option because orchestras usually need violas. Bass would be a good option too, and as mentioned, a bass is tuned in fourths.
> 
> You could learn a brass or woodwind instrument but I think it would be more difficult to get into an orchestra.
> 
> I took lessons and played in a student orchestra first, along with children 1/2 my age. We have an excellent music camp for adult amateurs here in my part of the world, which I attended. Then I got into a bigger adult orchestra.
> 
> I suggest you do some research to find local amateur orchestras. There are at least six in my part of the world. Two play at a very high level.
> 
> I can tell you from personal experience that it is possible to play in an orchestra.


YAY! The long haul done, willing to be the old coot sitting in with people half your age who can play circles around you, and a success story!

If the OP wants this, this is likely 'how it will go,' and I hope the desire / ambition is for the remainder of a near lifetime of it... it will take quite some time to get 'there,' get in a group who will be happy with you (and vice versa) and if that is done, I can pretty much assure you a lifetime of working pleasure outside of your profession.

But, man, the past is a lot about this, that, and at least vacillation: remember you can rent instruments, find a teacher, and then know better, directly, if this is for you. You seemed to me soooo ambivalent it might be worth your while to do just that, rent an instrument, take several months of lessons, and then do the same with the other instruments you are wondering about choosing. But, hobby though it may be, this is still an endeavor of earnestness and commitment, and that can not begin until you are fully committed to an instrument!


----------



## PetrB

My response to yet another 'Which instrument should I choose,' question. It is just as valid in the case of you, the OP as it is for the OP of that other thread.

_"These "Which instrument should I choose?" conundrums always have me nonplussed.

Surely, one of those has a stronger pull or appeal to you. If not, then you really must make a somewhat arbitrary choice in order for you 'to get on with it.'

No one can give you input enough of any sort to sway your innermost voice, and that is what you have to find, listen to, and rely upon. There are no 'plan B's' if you want to really become good at playing an instrument, or any other profession for that matter.

Reassurance, encouragement, or suggestions from total strangers who have never heard you play anything is surely worth -- nothing."_


----------



## stringzoffury

arpeggio said:


> I do not know where the gentleman is from, but the viola phenomenon is true here the states as well.
> 
> I also sensed another problem. As dgee mentioned above, playing in an orchestra is not the same as singing in a chorus (I had experience singing in a chorus when I was in high school and college) or playing in a rock band (I did that too). Playing in an orchestra is like playing on a football (soccer) team. Only one player at a time can have the possession of the ball. His teammates are usually running around the field in a supporting role. When playing in an orchestra you are a part of an ensemble. Every once and a while a section has a melody but most of the time you are in a support mode. And when you have the melody you have to pass it off to somebody else. No matter how many instrumentalists are on the stage you have to play as if it is a single instrument. With a chorus one may have between four and eight lines. With an orchestra one frequently has over twenty. When reading the OP it appears that he does not understand the ensemble part of playing with an orchestra. This is critically important when playing in a string section. One may be playing with five or more cellist in even a small orchestra. They still have to sound like one cello.
> 
> Jaws, I know you are a player as well. Probably more advance than I am. Any problems with what I have just stated?


Actually I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you, because with my experience in choirs, my choral directors have ALWAYS focused on those qualities you mentioned which you think differentiate the orchestra from the choir. Obviously you know there is sections in choirs as well and just as you mention with the orchestra, different sections have the melody at different times and they all take turns with it just as you said.

The same goes for sounding like one instrument. If everyone isn't blending with each other, using the correct vowels, consonants, etc., it's just going to sound pretty awful especially if you have a choir the size of my university's with about 200 singers, and Carmina Burana was a good example of the importance of "ensemble unity" because of the variety of text in a foreign language with so many different pronunciations. I remember one time in high school we were singing an 8 part arrangement of Shenandoah by James Erb and our teacher just kept beating it into our heads how important it was for each section to sound like one person, especially in the opening melodies.

Essentially, everything you mentioned about the orchestra applies very much to a choir as well, it's just the instrumentation is different, in the case of the choir you obviously use your voice, but it's still an instrument. Obviously there are going to be differences, but personally I'm just not convinced the ones you mentioned are any of them.


----------



## senza sordino

I might be the exception to the rule, but I started playing in the student orchestra within six months, and the adult orchestra six months after that. I took to the violin well, it suits me. I already knew the music, it was a question of learning to play along. As I said, you don't need to be that good to sit at the back of the second violins in a second rate amateur orchestra. 

Now I play in a bigger orchestra a step or two above the first ones I played with. I can't play every note, I fake some of the challenging passages. There are others around who usually can play those tricky bits. We play for friends and family and the local community, we don't pretend to be the Berlin Phil. I don't expect to play with the professionals. I don't expect to be the concertmaster for my local orchestra.


----------



## arpeggio

stringzoffury said:


> Actually I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you, because with my experience in choirs, my choral directors have ALWAYS focused on those qualities you mentioned which you think differentiate the orchestra from the choir. Obviously you know there is sections in choirs as well and just as you mention with the orchestra, different sections have the melody at different times and they all take turns with it just as you said.
> 
> The same goes for sounding like one instrument. If everyone isn't blending with each other, using the correct vowels, consonants, etc., it's just going to sound pretty awful especially if you have a choir the size of my university's with about 200 singers, and Carmina Burana was a good example of the importance of "ensemble unity" because of the variety of text in a foreign language with so many different pronunciations. I remember one time in high school we were singing an 8 part arrangement of Shenandoah by James Erb and our teacher just kept beating it into our heads how important it was for each section to sound like one person, especially in the opening melodies.
> 
> Essentially, everything you mentioned about the orchestra applies very much to a choir as well, it's just the instrumentation is different, in the case of the choir you obviously use your voice, but it's still an instrument. Obviously there are going to be differences, but personally I'm just not convinced the ones you mentioned are any of them.


I am a lousy singer (I am not that great a bassoon player either). I can barely carry a tune. The reason they liked to use me in my college choir is because I could sing in tune and I had a strong voice. I was just talking about my personal experiences since I had done both. I am sure that there are other real musicians out the there who have sung and played in orchestras who disagree with me. I was just reacting to the tone (no pun intended) of your OP.

The best advice is from 'senza sordino'. He trumps anything I have said. Wish you luck. And do not rule out the viola. It is a fine instrument.


----------



## stringzoffury

arpeggio said:


> I am a lousy singer (I am not that great a bassoon player either). I can barely carry a tune. The reason they liked to use me in my college choir is because I could sing in tune and I had a strong voice. I was just talking about my personal experiences since I had done both. I am sure that there are other real musicians out the there who have sung and played in orchestras who disagree with me. I was just reacting to the tone (no pun intended) of your OP.
> 
> The best advice is from 'senza sordino'. He trumps anything I have said. Wish you luck. And do not rule out the viola. It is a fine instrument.


Of course, of course. Every group operates a little differently and has different expectations. I know the tone of my OP came across as very casual, and thus was probably misleading, but that's just how I've connected myself with classical music, being that my first experience with playing music was playing Metallica on the guitar.

The comments I made weren't meant to be taken literally, it's just that I used to idolize certain guitarists who might be referred to as "shredders" because of their "virtuosity". Once I started chorus in high school and was more exposed to classical music, I'd listen to Vivaldi and Bach and I realized that they, among many other composers and the modern day performers who play their music, are the real virtuosos/"shredders".

I started to idolize them for their precision, balance, and overall organization of their music, and another one of my dreams, that isn't likely to be fulfilled by myself, is for metal music as a whole to adopt the standards, including but not limited to, the rigor and precision of classical music. Maybe THEN, the genre will have more respect in the musical community. I just really like trying to link genres together in anyway possible, especially metal music and classical music, such as finding classical pieces and turning them into metal arrangements, as there are many intense classical pieces that in my opinion, work well for this. I think going the other way around as well, can have good results.

I know most of this doesn't really pertain to the original topic, but it is a major interest of mine musically, and makes me bring up a few questions(some of which I may have already answered):

- Why is it that most well known and respected metal musicians don't have the same level of proficiency at their instruments when compared to classical musicians?
- What can we(metal musicians) do to remedy this?
- Why are the cultures surrounding the two genres so different, and what would happen if we tried to change that?

So I guess basically my involvement in classical music is also part of a much broader experiment in a sense, to see what happens when you apply the standards of rigor and quality of classical music to metal, or any other modern genre of music for that matter that might be viewed as sort of "raw". In order to do this however, I think it's essential for one to have adequate experience in both styles. It makes me think about early music before the days of Bach, and the standards of modern harmony, and modern musical notation were adopted, and how it evolved from simple chanting to something like a Bach fugue. It also makes me wonder if we apply these standards, what sort of phenomena would arise in terms of musical forms, typical ensemble sizes and instrumentation, or anything else you could or couldn't possible think of. After all, it's not as if composers back in the day just sat down and said: "From now on we're going to write harmonies this way!".

I'm sorry for going on a bit of a tangent if you don't find this sort of this interesting or if you think it's pointless, but like I said, it's a major interest of mine musically. I definitely am inspired by those of you who were in similar situations and have had success, and thank you for your feedback.


----------



## arpeggio

You should read a biography of the composer Eric Whitaker and his initial exposure to classical music. You may find it interesting. It is similar to William Schuman's.

I hesitate to mention Whitaker because many here have a very low opinion of him.


----------



## Jaws

stringzoffury said:


> Of course, of course. Every group operates a little differently and has different expectations. I know the tone of my OP came across as very casual, and thus was probably misleading, but that's just how I've connected myself with classical music, being that my first experience with playing music was playing Metallica on the guitar.
> 
> The comments I made weren't meant to be taken literally, it's just that I used to idolize certain guitarists who might be referred to as "shredders" because of their "virtuosity". Once I started chorus in high school and was more exposed to classical music, I'd listen to Vivaldi and Bach and I realized that they, among many other composers and the modern day performers who play their music, are the real virtuosos/"shredders".
> 
> I started to idolize them for their precision, balance, and overall organization of their music, and another one of my dreams, that isn't likely to be fulfilled by myself, is for metal music as a whole to adopt the standards, including but not limited to, the rigor and precision of classical music. Maybe THEN, the genre will have more respect in the musical community. I just really like trying to link genres together in anyway possible, especially metal music and classical music, such as finding classical pieces and turning them into metal arrangements, as there are many intense classical pieces that in my opinion, work well for this. I think going the other way around as well, can have good results.
> 
> I know most of this doesn't really pertain to the original topic, but it is a major interest of mine musically, and makes me bring up a few questions(some of which I may have already answered):
> 
> - Why is it that most well known and respected metal musicians don't have the same level of proficiency at their instruments when compared to classical musicians?
> - What can we(metal musicians) do to remedy this?
> - Why are the cultures surrounding the two genres so different, and what would happen if we tried to change that?
> 
> So I guess basically my involvement in classical music is also part of a much broader experiment in a sense, to see what happens when you apply the standards of rigor and quality of classical music to metal, or any other modern genre of music for that matter that might be viewed as sort of "raw". In order to do this however, I think it's essential for one to have adequate experience in both styles. It makes me think about early music before the days of Bach, and the standards of modern harmony, and modern musical notation were adopted, and how it evolved from simple chanting to something like a Bach fugue. It also makes me wonder if we apply these standards, what sort of phenomena would arise in terms of musical forms, typical ensemble sizes and instrumentation, or anything else you could or couldn't possible think of. After all, it's not as if composers back in the day just sat down and said: "From now on we're going to write harmonies this way!".
> 
> I'm sorry for going on a bit of a tangent if you don't find this sort of this interesting or if you think it's pointless, but like I said, it's a major interest of mine musically. I definitely am inspired by those of you who were in similar situations and have had success, and thank you for your feedback.


It is to do with how the sound is "made." Metal requires amplification. So you are limited to the quality of the microphones and the the quality of the speakers to produce the sound. Classical music is acoustic so you can get all the different types of sound usually referred to as colours that any player can produce some are very subtle. So you can't really compare the two. Numbers and speed of notes is just that. Music is how you play the notes. If you are limited to microphones and speakers there aren't as many variations that are possible for the equipment to reproduce.


----------



## stringzoffury

Jaws said:


> It is to do with how the sound is "made." Metal requires amplification. So you are limited to the quality of the microphones and the the quality of the speakers to produce the sound. Classical music is acoustic so you can get all the different types of sound usually referred to as colours that any player can produce some are very subtle. So you can't really compare the two. Numbers and speed of notes is just that. Music is how you play the notes. If you are limited to microphones and speakers there aren't as many variations that are possible for the equipment to reproduce.


If anything I think amplification expands the possibility of sounds. In electrical engineering we have to study signal processing which can be applied by analyzing Fourier transforms produced by a real instrument and modelling them using algorithms and micro controllers, and you can manipulate those sounds or even synthesize new sounds entirely. Furthermore, the technology is getting better to the point where in some cases it may be hard for the average listener to differentiate a synthesized instrument which is trying to model a real one. We may rely on the quality of our amplification, but classical musicians rely on the quality of their instruments. You might as well consider amplification and signal processors as our instruments in addition to our guitars.


----------



## PetrB

*Reading notation considerations:*

...to add to that mix of 'what you will need / want to have.'
For these instruments, fluent reading needs knowing:

Violin: Treble Clef only
Viola: Alto and Treble clefs
V'Cello: Bass, Tenor and Soprano clefs
V'Bass: Bass clef only (perhaps soprano with contemporary solo rep)


----------



## Jaws

stringzoffury said:


> If anything I think amplification expands the possibility of sounds. In electrical engineering we have to study signal processing which can be applied by analyzing Fourier transforms produced by a real instrument and modelling them using algorithms and micro controllers, and you can manipulate those sounds or even synthesize new sounds entirely. Furthermore, the technology is getting better to the point where in some cases it may be hard for the average listener to differentiate a synthesized instrument which is trying to model a real one. We may rely on the quality of our amplification, but classical musicians rely on the quality of their instruments. You might as well consider amplification and signal processors as our instruments in addition to our guitars.


That is the whole point. You can study how to change the sounds. Then you have an idea how to do it. You can't do this on a violin for example until you have very high skill levels. Getting to the skill level needed could take 20 years.


----------



## JeffD

stringzoffury said:


> I know most of this doesn't really pertain to the original topic, but it is a major interest of mine musically, and makes me bring up a few questions(some of which I may have already answered):
> 
> - Why is it that most well known and respected metal musicians don't have the same level of proficiency at their instruments when compared to classical musicians?
> - What can we(metal musicians) do to remedy this?
> - Why are the cultures surrounding the two genres so different, and what would happen if we tried to change that?
> 
> .


You have doubtless heard of these guys:


----------



## JeffD

Or this:


----------



## Pugg

I have only two dreams, conducting Don Carlo by Verdi and as performer playing Beethoven piano concertos 3 & 5 ( with interval.)


----------



## KenOC

My dream is triggering the artillery battery in the 1812. Only it's not cannons, it's tuned tactical nukes.

Sadly, that's not likely to be realized in my lifetime.


----------



## Jeanette Townsend

I'd go with the viola or cello. The viola is basically a cross (so it's portable like the violin but has a deeper string) but fewer people play it, meaning you'll have more opportunities. Or go with the cello and it will be the same.
When you first start on an orchestral stringed instrument, you'll basically sound like variants of a screaming banshee. It doesn't matter which instrument.
Hope this helps.


----------



## adrien

I know some people who play violin in an amateur orchestra who only started learning as an adult.

Things to keep in mind.

There will be twice or three times as many (at least) violin places in an orchestra than cello or viola. However as has been mentioned the viola is often hard to find players. 

In general viola parts are less demanding in traditional classical music than violin or cello, however cello and violin do tend to often get more rewarding parts to play.

The cello is a more natural left hand and arm position to play than a violin or viola, and especially if you have larger hands, the extra space you get between notes on a longer string will make life a bit easier. I think you're less likely to have OOS / RSI issues on a cello than a violin. However there are much fewer openings in an orchestra.

In any case, if you're determined, get yourself a good teacher and don't be put off by any posters here. You don't want to learn things (in technique) that you later need to unlearn.

Adults in many ways are much better students, they can be much more motivated to practise, and understand things more easily. You will probably be able to derive some personal gratification from any of those instruments if you put some regular effort in in just a couple of years and go from there.


----------



## Larkenfield

I can entirely understand your desire to play in a group. It can be thrilling and satisfying and you can make friends. Since you have a seven-year background with guitar, it might be wise to consider playing a string instrument, such as the violin, viola, or cello. But they’re expensive instruments and there’s the rub. Nevertheless, you could still give it a try by finding a live teacher who could evaluate your progress. I might be wrong, but it doesn’t sound like you’ve have that much formal training, and to play in an orchestra would require that. But the interest is there and you sound like you have some measure of musical talent. Good luck. If not a stringed instrument, then the piano might be your best bet. I would also suggest spending time with other instruments, perhaps rent a trumpet for a month and play with that, etc., and perhaps go more deeply into what instrument you enjoyed hearing in the orchestra. Mine was the clarinet. I was fascinated with its sound and so that’s what I studied, then later saxophone and flute.


----------



## Jeanette Townsend

Sorry for not being particularly informative wih my previous reply.
I have absolutely no experience with playing in an orchestra. I'd be going for it if there was one in my area, but where I live it's pretty musically dead except for folk and blues. I have played with friends, but it has never really gone well.
It's great that you have this aspiration. Don't let others get in the way of that. Music is about having fun, no matter what genre you're in. 
It's also wonderful that you already have experience with ensemble playing. That will help a lot. In fact, you probably won't really need to worry much about learning to listen to the other players and focus on yourself and all of that.
I don't think that your dream is too out of the question. It's a realistic goal to have, and a good one. And you already know it will take time and effort.
I apologize for suggesting the viola after knowing you didn't want that one. But it does seem like a good choice. It's a gorgeous instrument and a relatively inexpensive. An entry-level cello is so much more expensive. Whatever you decide, rent first. If you don't like the instrument, you can always take it back and try another.
I'd reach out to the community orchestra. Maybe someone will give you advice.

Please don't take offense to this. What I say below is expressed as my own personal opinion which reflects fifteen years of living in a household where rock, metal and pop are enjoyed (as opposed to classical; I'm the only one in my family who enjoys and prefers classical; incidently, I'm also the only musician), my experience of listening and playing classical, and my experience with dabbling in other genres for violin and piano.
I don't really think that the reason metal musicians can be mediocre in comparison to some classical virtuosos (no offense) has to do with the amplification. In my personal opinion, I just think it's because artists of many other genres really don't care about technique as much as classical musicians do. Most don't seem to care much for musical integrity, as long as it's catchy and it sells. I know a lot of rock and metal artists help each other out, which is great. But whenever I hear that kind of music and others, I kind of just think of how in modern painting, people think throwing splotches of paint on a canvas is good enough. And maybe it is for some, but aren't the paintings that are so perfectly detailed, that have taken much more skill to create, and more time to learn how to do it...aren't these paintings so much more stunning than a few spots of color?
Modern stuff seems to just be more repetitive and lacking in creativity and innovation. But a lot of them are self-taught (which is great, too, I'm not saying it isn't; it takes a lot more patience and diligence to self-teach than it does to have an experienced teacher...but it's also more difficult and it raises the possibilty of wrong technique, posture, etc, which could easily be remedied), don't read sheet music (also not a terrible thing), and haven't a clue about dynamics, articulation, or anything else. How many of them study music and composition thoroughly?
Even in folk, no one seems to care much about technique. I started out with fiddle before switching to classical violin. And the only techniques fiddle really uses are grace notes, vibrato, double stops, and dynamics. That's about it. Occasionally, there's someone who can do more. In classical, the list of violin (and other instruments of its family) techniques are seem endless. Pizzicato, col legno, sul ponticello, sul tasto, richochet, flying spiccato, and so many more. I mean, I love Ashokan Farewell, but it isn't the greatest piece ever composed. It's beautiful, but it's extremely repetitive. When a classical piece is repetitive, it's usually done intentionally because it's a Rondo.
In opera and choral, technique for voice seems so much more advanced than in other genres. 
Some songs in other genres have truly meaningful and emotional lyrics, but lack in musical range. They just repeat the lyrics in the same musical sequence, with perhaps a slight alteration. They might give the song an okay guitar/keyboard solo for variation, but then otherwise it just repeats itself.
In classical, most of the time musicians are supposed to go off to some music university to study for a few years. That's after years of taking lessons and perfecting their playing, practicing, and performing. 
I think that is going to reflect back on their playing, composing, and songwriting. In classical and jazz, musicians tend to care a lot more about music theory and musical integrity. That's what we're trained to do. And there are also many more instruments in classical than in other genres, which will obviously lead to more of a rich diversity.
I'm not just saying this about metal/rock, I'm talking about modern genres in general. Pop, rap, country, blues, rag, and everything in between.
I know some musicians in other genres are truly skilled. I especially think of jazz with that statement. I also can appreciate what I've heard of Elton John. But generally speaking, I just think that in classical, there will be more virtuosos and more diverse, complex music because that is what we are trained to care about. That's where the image of strict, sophisticated classical musicians comes from. It's a misconception, but somewhat true. In comparison to the goals for other genres, classical kind of takes on more than just making it sound good. So some other musicians and artists may seem extremely relaxed in comparison, and in turn making us seem so "sophisticated" or whatever because "having fun" sometimes comes second to technique. And in other genres, they want to have fun. All in all, music should be fun, but also rich in technique and complexity, creativity and innovation.
I don't think genres should be combined. Country and pop, rock and hip hop, classical and metal? I don't think any of those do well together on a general basis. They kind of seem like oil and water: vastly different and won't mix too well.
"Why are the two culturally different, and what can we do to change that?"
Classical is primarily European and Russian, metal is primarily American. Of course they'll be culturally different.
Look, I'm not into metal. So maybe I don't have a clearer idea as you do, but isn't it kind of flourishing? I mean, some people think it's the devil's music, but isn't it pretty popular? I don't think it needs any other boosters. Maybe you want to combine them and have them at the same level because you like both genres, but they shouldn't be. Metal would ruin classical, and I'm sure metal fans wouldn't appreciate Clair de Lune in the midst of Slipknot. Combining them will, in my opinion, just cause more stereotypes and more problems in the industry than there are. Maybe it's best left alone.


----------

