# A plea to modern composers:



## PWCom

Please, be unconventional. 

Before you begin your next violin or piano concerto, try composing one for harmonica, or guitar, or sax, or any other uncommon classical instrument. Why? Because there are thousands of violin concertos, but you may be the first composer to write a concerto for harmonica. Maybe others will follow your lead, and the age of the harmonica in classical music will dawn. Or maybe you will stand as the only composer to write a concerto for harmonica. Either way, someone will take notice. 

Before you write your next string quartet, why not try a piano quartet, or perhaps a sax quintet, or even a trombone choir piece. Why not? Heck, why not something that's never been done before, like a guitar nonet piece (probably done), or a bagpipe ensemble, or any of a thousand other instruments/combos that haven't been written for. 

And when you have know idea what to use for your second movement, why not put something completely different? Try swinging the 8ths, bringing in saxophones, and reinstating the melody through an almost jazzy sort of way?. Or maybe have it start with a single electronic instrument (theremin anybody?), building a looping track before adding the orchestra. 

My point is this: Classical music cannot change unless we change what we write. If Beethoven hadn't innovated, he would not have been as great a composer as he was. Same with any other of the "greats". So how you can you expect to be different from the crowd unless you write differently?


----------



## Sid James

Just try listening to the music of Hindemith, Martinu or Villa-Lobos. They composed chamber music for many odd combinations, the problem is that these pieces rarely get played, because they are so (comparatively) unconventional...


----------



## dmg

Villa-Lobos wrote probably the most famous harmonica concerto. There are others as well.






I want to write a concerto for chimes. I love the sound of the chimes - so bold & majestic. Problem I have: Would anyone be able to play it? Are there virtuoso chime players to consult? Would they have the strength & energy to play what I intend to write? That's the problem with unusual instruments - there aren't a whole lot of virtuosic performers out there. Violin players, however, are a dime a dozen...


----------



## Art Rock

In a previous incarnation of my blog I had a series on unusual concertos - I came to 40 in total, just from my own collection, including such rarities as sitar, alp horn, bird song and erhu. No chimes though.


----------



## Earthling

PWCom said:


> but you may be the first composer to write a concerto for harmonica.


*Ralph Vaughan Williams* (in the 1950s IIRC)



> or even a trombone choir piece.


*Stuart Dempster* in the early 1990s



> Heck, why not something that's never been done before, like a guitar nonet piece (probably done)...


Oh yes, more than nine... *Glenn Branca*.

...And *Steve Reich *using electronic samples (_Different Trains_ and a few other pieces)


----------



## Weston

I agree with the sentiment. I would like to see a serious concerto for electric guitar, surely the most expressive instrument outside the human voice. It doesn't_ have _to sound like a metal shred fest.


----------



## Earthling

Check out *Glenn Branca*. Also, there's *Steve Reich* _Electric Counterpoint _for several guitars (12? I forget) and also his Electric _Guitar Phase_ (where the guitar is actually distorted-- its a beauty-- its based on his 1967 _Violin Phase_, but I think the _Electric Guitar Phase _has clearer articulation-- sounds wonderful LOUD).


----------



## Petwhac

The trouble with many of the instruments mentioned is that of lack of tonal range, dynamic range, ability to blend into a texture etc.
Yes the electric guitar is one of the most expressive instruments after voice, strings and piano but for live performance there is the issue of amplfication.
In the right hands, great music can be written for any instruments but obviously the creative juices may not be inspired to flow to the same extent.


----------



## Aramis

Trying to be innovative at all cost is main reason why much of contemporary music is so poor. How is writing harmonica concerto innovative, Tubin proved that you can write concerto for anything by writing one for balalaika. But it's hard to enjoy this concerto, balalaika just doesn't fit orchestra, you see. 

Your post makes me wonder what do you know about contemporary music? Not that I would be expert, but people have just proved you that most of those things that you would like to be written were written quite long time ago.


----------



## PWCom

And does that make my point any less valid? The idea is to create a true breadth of literature for instruments other than violin and piano, in a larger amount of styles.

Travel back in time. The violin was just replacing the viol as the predominant string instrument. Would it be ok if after one violin concerto was produced, they said it was ok, that innovation was finished and that we should go back creating viol works because a violin work had already been produced? What about if we only ever created a single piano concerto? String Quartet? It just doesn't make sense.

Let's look at the number of concertos for trombone. I can name about 7 or 8 of the top of my head, so there is a much larger number of trombone works than, for instance, harmonica concertos. _I don't think that a single one of them measures up to the creativeness of one of the top teir violin concertos_. Is that surprising? Not at all, because there are a huge number of violin concertos. There are bound to be gems. Maybe if people keep writing works for trombone, one of them eventually measures up in ingenuity to of those great violin works. If people say "Rimsky-Korsakov wrote a trombone concerto, so I guess that genre is done", then we lose the chance to maybe find something great.

Everything starts as unconventional. Everything. That included violins and pianos, viols and harpischords before them, and et cetera until we first banged a bone against a stone to create the first "instrument". If you write for only what's conventional now, then what is conventional will stay conventional, and what isn't, never will become. Always.


----------



## dmg

Aramis said:


> but people have just proved you that most of those things that you would like to be written were written quite long time ago.


I think the point is that many of these instruments were not a part of the music scene a 'long time ago'. It seems to me that people back in those days did not have the qualms about writing for new instruments as they do today. Back then, it seems as though people embraced the piano or the violin or the tuba or whatever new instrument came along. They even invented new instruments for the sake of writing new music (see the Wagner tuba or the bass clarinet). Now days, people look at new instruments and say 'that's not a classical instrument' and leave it to contemporary folk or popular artists to create music for it. When people try to break an instrument into a more 'classical' setting, they're just 'experimental artists' and the music isn't worth getting in to - the classical 'snobs' turn up their collective nose at it.


----------



## Aramis

PWCom said:


> The post


Didn't you think that the most obvious reason is that some instruments fit some forms better that others? Piano sonatas are probably most numerous in sonata genre because solo piano can do things that other instruments can't. I own and play harp myself and I know that it gives much less possibilities to composer, there are not much diffrent playing technics.

And bassoon - isn't it instrument with long, long beard? And yet bassoon sonata or concerto is much more rare than piano one, despite the fact that piano was invented after bassoon. It's simply because bassoon has less attractive sound.

Many new instruments were adopted in classical music very fast, some were pushed in by some determinated freaks in vain. I belive that modern composers have no prejudice against new instruments, it's just that we still have to wait for as spectacular invention as piano was. Count me as frist to write concerto for something new that will develop such unique and beautiful voice as piano.



> Now days, people look at new instruments and say 'that's not a classical instrument' and leave it to contemporary folk or popular artists to create music for it.


I belive that it's quite contrary.

The thing is that music is no longer as transparent as it was before. Piano became beloved instrument because composers like Ludwig Van and Chopin wrote such works as Quasi Una Fantasia or Heroic Polonaise. But can you say that any work written by modern composers for unusuall instruments is so stunning and inspiring from the first listen to ear of young composer? Can it make him think: "that's my instrument!"?


----------



## PWCom

The piano can do things that virtually every other instrument cannot. It can play harmony and melody, at the same time. It can play bass and treble. Only the organ can do more. 

But if technicallity is the reason behind composition, then why aren't there nearly as many sonatas and concertos for guitar, one of the few instruments that is also capable of playing melody and harmony?

Why are electronic instruments blacklisted, even though they have the ability to have unrivalled technical prowess?

And yes, I can think of one such instrument. The electric guitar. More people have been moved to write for it than ever thought of writing for piano, and more people play it and the acoustic guitar than any other instrument. But of course, you only meant in the classical context. Oh well.

(Oh, and the bassoon and piano were actually developed around the same time period, the early 18th century)


----------



## dmg

Aramis said:


> But can you say that any work written by modern composers for unusuall instruments is so stunning and inspiring from the first listen to ear of young composer? Can it make him think: "that's my instrument!"?


Yes, I believe it can. I personally think the banjo sounds fantastic with an orchestra, for example. It just needs to fall in the hands of a capable composer and there has to be willing and capable musicians available to perform it. Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin were very capable composers for that particular instrument (piano).

How will performers and music creators like Bela Fleck (banjo) or Joe Satriani (electric guitar) be viewed centuries from now? Perhaps the snobbery seen with instruments like these is a contemporary thing? Maybe the same thing was going on in Beethoven and Mozart's times, but it just disappeared as time went on?


----------



## Aramis

> But if technicallity is the reason behind composition, then why aren't there nearly as many sonatas and concertos for guitar, one of the few instruments that is also capable of playing melody and harmony?


Can't tell you why piano is more popular, but you can't say that guitar is rare instrument in classical music, there is very wide repertoire from most of periods.

The electric guitar and electric anything is another subject. First of all, how do you imagine score for electric guitar? One can't just score music for it because electric guitar has not one common tone, composer would have to consider all the rest of equipment, from amplifier to effect boxes (not sure how it's called in english, I'm used to "roast" nickname). And in that case, be aware of that, composition for electric guitar with all those setting would get old and unactual in very short time. And don't compare it to evolution of fortepiano from hammerklavier and stuff, it's completely diffrent and less complicated.



> It just needs to fall in the hands of a capable composer and there has to be willing and capable musicians available to perform it.


I see, but that is what I was reffering to - not the possibility, but the facts and existing works. Personally, I can't think of any such concerto/sonata written in recent times.


----------



## Argus

In art, being unconventional has become convential. Both paths lead to same destination. In this situation, I think it's better if the artist just does what the hell he wants to.

However, I don't really get your criticism. If you've listened to a fair sampling of modern composers you'll realise that there are plenty of people trying new things and being unconventional.

But in terms of new timbres and possibilities for the composer, I believe electronics are the present and the foreseeable future in music. Advances in technology will only open up these possibilities. If you look at the history of electronics and audio synthesis in music its amazing how quickly it's gone from avant-garde serious composers experimenting with big machines through prog and Krautrock to synth-pop and to the present day where pretty much all modern pop is created by computers.

Not to say new acoustic instruments won't have a place but investing all that time and money in designing and building something that is only capable of a fairly limited timbral range seems a backward step in sound production. I'm sure if someone like Harry Partch had todays technology he would have used it rather than having to personally build his own instruments.


----------



## Petwhac

Argus said:


> In art, being unconventional has become convential. Both paths lead to same destination. In this situation, I think it's better if the artist just does what the hell he wants to.
> 
> However, I don't really get your criticism. If you've listened to a fair sampling of modern composers you'll realise that there are plenty of people trying new things and being unconventional.
> 
> But in terms of new timbres and possibilities for the composer, I believe electronics are the present and the foreseeable future in music. Advances in technology will only open up these possibilities. If you look at the history of electronics and audio synthesis in music its amazing how quickly it's gone from avant-garde serious composers experimenting with big machines through prog and Krautrock to synth-pop and to the present day where pretty much all modern pop is created by computers.
> 
> Not to say new acoustic instruments won't have a place but investing all that time and money in designing and building something that is only capable of a fairly limited timbral range seems a backward step in sound production. I'm sure if someone like Harry Partch had todays technology he would have used it rather than having to personally build his own instruments.


The trouble with electronic instruments (as opposed to electronically amplified instruments-guitar for example.) is that they are actually less expressive than acoustic instruments.
If the future of music is going to be more in the line of 'sound design' (zzzz) than pieces written for and performed by people, maybe you have a point.

I remember hearing a concert in the late 70s in which the composer had painstakingly been manipulating various wave forms using oscillators, filters and envelope generators, then layering them to tape. Then in the early 80s Yamaha brought out the DX7 and hey presto, what took that poor deluded composer weeks or months to create could be done faster and better and by anyone with £1000.00 and the inclination.
Then came the Fairlight and then Ensoniq's affordable Mirage and the rest is (sampling) history.
The interesting thing about the use of synths in pop music is that, with a few exceptions, the synths are just taking on the roles of the traditional acoustic instruments in the arrangement. What would have been a string section is now a 'pad', brass section became 'stabs' or 'hit's' etc.

Another thing is that limitation is good. Personally the thought of writing something for violin to be played by a great virtuoso is far more liable to get the ideas flowing than to be confronted with a literally unlimited palette of sounds.

One more reason that concertos for piano, violin and cello are more common is that there are more great pianists, violinists and cellists around. Why? for the same reason, those are the most attractive instruments to devote the many years of study to because they are the most rewarding and expressive ( human voice too).

Anyway music should really be about_ conten_t not primarily the _medium._


----------



## jurianbai

I also wish more serious repertoire to exploit instrument outside the classical tradition. There are still many available instrument as in

1. Far east Asia instrument (Chinese,japan, korea) : Erhu, Guzheng, Pipa, Taiko etc.
2. Indian and Middle east : sitar
3. South East Asia (Javanese, Bali,) : gamelan, angklung etc.
4. Pop , Jazz, Electronic : electric guitar, drum set, DJ mixer 
5. Europe Folk : big pipe, ocarina, balalaika, banjo, medieval dulcimer
haven't mentioned endless from Africa and Oceania region.

So far the trend to do eccletic instrument more popular in New Age music.


----------



## Earthling

This version is for cello, glockenspiel, vibraphone, electric bass, soprano saxophone, pipa, chimes, marimba, piano, violin, electric guitar, clarinet. A nice eclectic mix (my personal favourite recording of _In C_).

For other "exotic" instruments used in classical music, see also: *Lou Harrison* (1917-2003). Oh, yes, and *John Cage*.


----------



## Kopachris

jurianbai said:


> I also wish more serious repertoire to exploit instrument outside the classical tradition. There are still many available instrument as in
> 
> 1. Far east Asia instrument (Chinese,japan, korea) : Erhu, Guzheng, Pipa, Taiko etc.
> 2. Indian and Middle east : sitar
> 3. South East Asia (Javanese, Bali,) : gamelan, angklung etc.
> 4. Pop , Jazz, Electronic : electric guitar, drum set, DJ mixer
> 5. Europe Folk : big pipe, ocarina, balalaika, banjo, medieval dulcimer
> haven't mentioned endless from Africa and Oceania region.
> 
> So far the trend to do eccletic instrument more popular in New Age music.


You want me to do a sitar concerto? Or maybe an erhu concerto? Perhaps an ocarina concerto. Let me know, and I'll see what I can do. Even though I really don't think it would work, I'd still do my best.

(I really disagree with doing any concerto for an electronic instrument, even the electric guitar, so I won't do one for any of those. I don't really like the bagpipes, either. Just about anything else that's not unpitched percussion is okay.)


----------



## jurianbai

LOL, you are a composer then.

This remind me about Yo Yo Ma and the Silk Road Ensemble who perform in Singapore Esplanade a while ago. Here the article, The Silk Road Project, and videos :
















QUite an eccletic with Persian, Chinese influence. But the music is more in New Age style than classical.

For Erhu concerto just search the most popular, Butterfly Concerto.


----------



## Kopachris

jurianbai said:


> LOL, you are a composer then.


Not a very good one (yet ), but yes, I am a composer.


----------



## Kjell

I for one would like to see more vuvuzuelas in modern classical music. 


Joking aside though I'd like to see more experiments with music, but not neccessarily by adding or removing instruments.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

PWCom said:


> ... or even a trombone choir piece.


I've been sent a CD for review entirely of music for trombones played by the Chicago Trombone Consort. Everything from baroque arranged for trombones to contemporary pieces (commissions?) such as _Shock and Awe for Trombone Quartet_ (alas, the title is the most imaginative thing about it). Particularly odd is an arrangement of Strauss's Alpine Symphony for trombones (cut down to 10:42)

Listening to the CD gets dreary - unrelieved trombones have a unremittingly smooth, bland sound and after a while you yearn for the bite that trumpets would bring. I think this illustrates the point that others make: that the most frequently written for combinations are such for a reason.


----------



## PWCom

What is the oldest musical ensemble in America? If you guessed a trombone choir, you cheated. If you guessed anything else, you were wrong. Does that mean that it is the most sucessful, or better than any of the string quartets or similiar ensembles because it came first?

I know that trombones can have a bland sound. However, saying they can't have bite is wrong. To use a non-classical piece: 



. This is an ensemble predominately composed of trombones (mostly untrained musicians, that can't read music). The reason behind the instrumentation? The trombone sounds similiar to the human voice, making the sound similiar to a church choir, and the tuba/baritone mellow the sound a little.

The problem with trombone choir pieces is that most are not written for bite, and most classically trained trombonists are trained to get rid of any bite (any reduce it further by using a much larger horn than is popular in other genres of music).

The reason I included the trombone choir in my orignal post is not because there isn't a fair amount of literature for it, but because most of that literature semi-deliberately creates that overly bland sound, does not exploit the instrument well, and could simply be better. A larger variety would at least lessen the odds of homogeny, along with using soprano and alto trombones, instruments pitched in Eb and Bb (same as a trumpet) which create a more complete sound and some of that trumpet bite you longed for.

I'm guessing that the sound from your CD is largely full of works that sound like this:




, with some sounding more like this recording of Bach's Toccata & Fugue in D minor 




.


----------



## maestro267

Weston said:


> I agree with the sentiment. I would like to see a serious concerto for electric guitar, surely the most expressive instrument outside the human voice. It doesn't_ have _to sound like a metal shred fest.


That would be nice. There is an instrumental by David Gilmour (Pink Floyd guitarist), called 'Castellorizon', the second half of which is an electric guitar solo backed by a string orchestra. It shows how, if played well, an electric guitar can sound melodic with an orchestral backdrop.


----------



## 151

If you think outside of the box, you're trapped in one. 

You certainly won't catch me waiting for any instrument to be legitimised by a genre, there's plenty of music with any instrument you can think of, timbales, scrap metal, kazoos, synthesisers and beyond. I never really liked the bombastic wall of sound usually played by Classic.fm anyway. Terry Rilen In C, as pictured above, is something I can get down with.


----------



## Petwhac

151 said:


> I never really liked the bombastic wall of sound usually played by Classic.fm anyway.


To what are you refering?


----------



## 151

Petwhac said:


> To what are you refering?


Here, take a look for yourself.

http://www.classicfm.co.uk/on-air/playlist/


----------



## Wumbo

This displays such ignorance of the creative process it's laughable. As if simply changing instruments makes something suddenly new and innovative. "Do this same old thing except for this other instrument.' Thanks for the advice.

Yes, any artist worth his salt wants to create something new that no one has seen before, but I think audiences can tell when something is a gimmick and when there's an actual reason. What you're suggesting is a series of gimmicks. BE THE FIRST TO DO THIS. It's like people who want in the book of world records, but have no skills, so instead they do something that no one is competitive at, like eating peanut butter off popsicle sticks. You know who the guy was who first did that? Neither do I. Cause he's just some idiot who didn't bring anything interesting to the table.


----------



## Polednice

Wumbo said:


> This displays such ignorance of the creative process it's laughable. As if simply changing instruments makes something suddenly new and innovative. "Do this same old thing except for this other instrument.' Thanks for the advice.
> 
> Yes, any artist worth his salt wants to create something new that no one has seen before, but I think audiences can tell when something is a gimmick and when there's an actual reason. What you're suggesting is a series of gimmicks. BE THE FIRST TO DO THIS. It's like people who want in the book of world records, but have no skills, so instead they do something that no one is competitive at, like eating peanut butter off popsicle sticks. You know who the guy was who first did that? Neither do I. Cause he's just some idiot who didn't bring anything interesting to the table.


You beat me to it. My thoughts exactly.

How about we just write music for the instruments that are best capable of expressing an idea?


----------



## Iveforgottenmyoldpassword

PWCom said:


> Please, be unconventional.
> 
> Before you begin your next violin or piano concerto, try composing one for harmonica, or guitar, or sax, or any other uncommon classical instrument. Why? Because there are thousands of violin concertos, but you may be the first composer to write a concerto for harmonica. Maybe others will follow your lead, and the age of the harmonica in classical music will dawn. Or maybe you will stand as the only composer to write a concerto for harmonica. Either way, someone will take notice.
> 
> Before you write your next string quartet, why not try a piano quartet, or perhaps a sax quintet, or even a trombone choir piece. Why not? Heck, why not something that's never been done before, like a guitar nonet piece (probably done), or a bagpipe ensemble, or any of a thousand other instruments/combos that haven't been written for.
> 
> And when you have know idea what to use for your second movement, why not put something completely different? Try swinging the 8ths, bringing in saxophones, and reinstating the melody through an almost jazzy sort of way?. Or maybe have it start with a single electronic instrument (theremin anybody?), building a looping track before adding the orchestra.
> 
> My point is this: Classical music cannot change unless we change what we write. If Beethoven hadn't innovated, he would not have been as great a composer as he was. Same with any other of the "greats". So how you can you expect to be different from the crowd unless you write differently?


sounds like you've got a lot of ideas... why dont you start composing yourself?

personally the reason that i write for the violin is because im a violinist and want to write pieces that i can play, but perhaps in years to come when i actually get some education and direction in terms of composition i will be the first to use a banjo as the soloist in one of my concertos or something to that effect, but for now im happy with my meager violin solo pieces.


----------



## Comus

Guitar in general is difficult to compose for unless you play it or collaborate with someone who does.


----------



## danae

If I expected to be innovative with my works, if I thought composing would mean something only if I could produce the _Rite of spring_ of the 21st century, then I wouldn't be able to compose a single page of music...


----------



## Delicious Manager

Happily, there have been many concertos written in recent times for unconventional instruments. One of the problems for composers, however, is that many of their compositions are written as a result of a commission to do so. The commissioner holds the purse strings and, therefore, the bargaining chips. If an orchestra want to commission a new concerto for a future season for a big-name soloist to play, therefore attracting many 'bums on seats' (and, therefore, income) and favourable media coverage, they are likely to do that before asking for a nose-flute concerto for an obscure musician to play which will attract little audience and precious little press coverage. I exaggerate to make a point, obviously.

Sadly, classical music is not immune to being driven (at least in part) by market forces. That's why live concert programmes are usually so boring and unadventurous. If an orchestra plays to an empty hall often enough, it will go bust quite quickly (especially in these straitened times). Therefore, we will continue to see more pieces written for 'conventional' instruments than for unusual ones.

That having been said, check-out the superb concertos for tuba and contrabassoon by Finnish composer Kalevi Aho (available on a Bis CD).


----------



## Argus

The OP didn't even name any unconvential instruments.

Here's some nice ones:

Musical Saw





Cristal Baschet





Steel Cello





Ondes Martenot





Waterphone




(The lick at 0:45 in this clip is the lietmotif for the naked Indian in Waynes World 2)

Balloon (and, ahem, vibrating mechanisms)





Conch Shells





Thinking about it, though, I think you're far more likely to find bizarre and rare instruments being employed in classical music than any other single genre. However, that may be more due to the broad array of styles the term 'classical' now encompasses.


----------



## Petwhac

All those waterphones and steel cellos etc may be interesting sound generating devices for film 'composers' (I use the term advisedly) but there _is_ a reason why most composers, when they want to get 'serious' opt for piano, violin, viola, or cello.( limitless in their expressive capabilities)
Especially in this age of sampling, digital audio manipulation and such, interesting sounds are two a penny.
All sauce and no meat. (sorry to the veggies):lol:


----------



## Aramis




----------



## demiangel

Wumbo said:


> This displays such ignorance of the creative process it's laughable. As if simply changing instruments makes something suddenly new and innovative. "Do this same old thing except for this other instrument.' Thanks for the advice.
> 
> Yes, any artist worth his salt wants to create something new that no one has seen before, but I think audiences can tell when something is a gimmick and when there's an actual reason. What you're suggesting is a series of gimmicks. BE THE FIRST TO DO THIS. It's like people who want in the book of world records, but have no skills, so instead they do something that no one is competitive at, like eating peanut butter off popsicle sticks. You know who the guy was who first did that? Neither do I. Cause he's just some idiot who didn't bring anything interesting to the table.


Consider that most innovation in an individual artform like music (microcosm) has correspondences in the macrocosmic (the world as a whole), new ideas, attitudes and zeitgeists come into being and grow in the minds not just composers, but in philosophers, painters, sculptors and others who create. One can weed out what is a gimmick by seeing if there's any new in the essence of the music; one can see if there's anything new being communicated through the music rather than just the ways its communicated being changed on a superficial level. What's needed is new ideas, theory, philosophizing about music, new things to communicate THROUGH music.


----------

