# Composers who didn't play an instrument



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

This topic has been very briefly covered in the past:

Composers that were not highly skilled at playing piano.

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/46xq5l

I re-encountered the topic recently in a YouTube documentary (don't recall the title!!). In the doc, it was noted that William Walton was not proficient in any instrument.

Indeed, Walton himself seems to acknowledge this in his 1981 BBC documentary:









Any other examples?

Could the inability be an asset (as Walton seems to suggest)?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

_"Could the inability be an asset?"_

If I remember correctly, Berlioz felt it was an asset and could barely play the guitar. I think the lack of a reference instrument can give a special creative freedom. By contrast listen to Stravinsky, who could only seem to slavishly compose at the piano. Perhaps that's why so much of his music had a jeweler's precision, but some of his music seemed almost too well worked out and digested at the piano during his Neo-classical period, and the color of his music seems to shrink accordingly. Schoenberg, though he could play some violin, seemed able to compose away from a reference instrument and was quite proud of it, such as his _String Quartet in D Major_. While both Mozart and Schubert would compose at the piano, they also seemed capable of composing without it. I believe it requires perfect pitch and consider it a remarkable achievement.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

The American composers John Mackey is not proficient on any instrument.

Check his bio on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mackey_(composer)


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Berlioz, well noted by Larkenfield, is a good example. Apparently Wagner was even less of an instrumentalist. Although both wielded the baton on more than the odd occasion if that be considered an instrument.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

One hears conflicting stories about Berlioz. According to Wikipedia:

_He became proficient at guitar, flageolet and flute._

The article also notes:

_ He learned harmony from textbooks alone-he was not formally trained._

I wonder how the heck he went about it...

Anyway, history is replete with composers who were said not to be particularly good at playing an instrument, but "not particularly good" is in itself a relative statement. It could be Wagner would make most of our jaws drop if we saw him at the piano, but he was just not quite at concert level. It could also be he was barely above beginner level. He composed a substantial amount of piano music, including, if I recall correctly, a piano sonata. I don't know how difficult any of it is, or whether he himself could play it (apparently Schubert couldn't quite play some of his own piano music, or he could, but not very well).

But I take the notion of this or that composer "not being good at playing an instrument" with a grain of salt, because "good" doesn't really mean anything. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any who couldn't play any instrument at all.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Any great, and even not-so-great, composer had at least some musical ability on some instrument, if only the voice. Some were virtuosos like Paganini, Rachmaninoff, Mozart, Bruckner and Mahler and some were just proficient; Tchaikovsky comes to mind. I have had to play music from "composers" whose only musical ability is that they can put music into a sequencer on a computer. All they know is it sounds "cool", then send it to a typesetting program, print it and expect real musicians to play it - and it's often impossible. Wrong clef, wrong tessitura...then they get angry because they want it to sound just like the computer but they're too musically uneducated to understand the problem.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Another factor may be what I call "temporal economy". That is, where the artist invests his/her time (effort). 

Too much time with the quill ... and you may end up writing stuff that sounds poor in the real (physical) world of instruments and air and space.

Too much time at the keyboard .... and you get trapped into the world of "been-there-done-that."


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Albert Roussel comes to my mind.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Being a virtuoso served a purpose in the past, which was that the composer could make money by being a soloist and giving recitals. I have a feeling that for most this was less born out of passion and more out of necessity. Think of Liszt who retired from giving public concerts at around forty - he had piled up enough cash and got a comfortable job at Weimar - but others could not afford such a luxury (Rachmaninov and Grainger come to mind).

At some point between the early and mid 20th century, being a soloist and composing became completely separate career paths in music. I can't think of any composer today who is the equivalent of the virtuosos of yesteryear. Thomas Ades and Brett Dean are the closest that come to mind. Philip Glass has done many tours playing his own piano music. On the whole, most prominent composers today are just that, composers.

I suppose related to this are composers who straddled the divide, and orchestral playing and chamber music provided this sort of niche. Dvorak was a violist as part of an orchestra and also in chamber groups, yet he never was a soloist.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Being a virtuoso served a purpose in the past, which was that the composer could make money by being a soloist and giving recitals. I have a feeling that for most this was less born out of passion and more out of necessity.


True in the classical period (but not for Haydn). It's easy to forget that when Beethoven had to give up performing, at about the age of 38, that cost him probably half his income. That's no joke!

Rachmaninoff is a more recent example. If he had devoted himself to composing only, how much more music would be have? Shostakovich originally planned to be a professional pianist, but that didn't work out. As a result he had a very generous musical output over a 50-year span, something we're grateful for.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I'm a fan of Hindemith's music. At least some of it. But it doesn't rank high on my list of _greatest music_ or _music that I listen to quite often with great pleasure_. Yet it is said Hindemith could play anything he wrote on any instrument he wrote for. He was a virtuoso violist, by the way. Yet I find his _Der Schwanendreher_ (a concerto for viola and orchestra) one of the least interesting pieces, and I can't recall the last time I listened to it. Decades ago, I'm sure. (I am reminded by this very remark that I am due to re-hear the work -- which might possibly change my opinion, too!)

In contrast, I find Berlioz's instrumentation fascinating (though I am not a big fan of his music overall), and that of Rimsky-Korsakov fascinating, too. Yet I wonder how much of what they wrote they could play themselves? Not much, I suspect.

Of course, pianists like Chopin and Rachmaninov seem to be able to write well for their instruments. And though Chopin may be less skilled at orchestrating, Rachmaninov certainly was not.

I greatly admire several orchestral works by William Walton, especially the First Symphony. And I feel that his Viola Concerto blows away anything Hindemith wrote for the instrument. So, who can say?

Some composers write well for certain instruments or combinations of instruments. Some produce great musical ideas that rise above any single instrument (I'm thinking of Bach's music for undesignated resources). Some music interests me and some doesn't. I prefer to let the music speak rather than worry about the instrumental skills of the composer.

Then there is the issue of Rodrigo's guitar concerto, the_ Aranjuez_. I don't know if Rodrigo played guitar, but I do know he was blind. Yet I can't think of a more visually alive piece of music than the _Aranjuez_. I can never listen to it without "seeing" images of Rodrigo's homeland.

Such is the wonder of music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

SONNET CLV said:


> I'm a fan of Hindemith's music. At least some of it. But it doesn't rank high on my list of _greatest music_ or _music that I listen to quite often with great pleasure_. Yet it is said Hindemith could play anything he wrote on any instrument he wrote for. He was a virtuoso violist, by the way. Yet I find his _Der Schwanendreher_ (a concerto for viola and orchestra) one of the least interesting pieces, and I can't recall the last time I listened to it. Decades ago, I'm sure. (I am reminded by this very remark that I am due to re-hear the work -- which might possibly change my opinion, too!)
> 
> ...
> 
> I greatly admire several orchestral works by William Walton, especially the First Symphony. And I feel that his Viola Concerto blows away anything Hindemith wrote for the instrument. So, who can say?.


Hindemith premiered Walton's Viola Concerto after Lionel Tertis rejected it. Walton also admired Hindemith, dedicating a set of orchestral variations to him. I think there are parallels between these two composers, although I too think highly of Walton's concertos - all three of them - Schwanendreher is more a suite of folk-inspired pieces so I would hesitate to make a direct comparison. I don't know Hindemith's Viola Concerto but I think that his Violin Concerto is equal to Walton's effort in the genre.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> True in the classical period (but not for Haydn). It's easy to forget that when Beethoven had to give up performing, at about the age of 38, that cost him probably half his income. That's no joke!


Certainly not, and what a tragedy for Beethoven his situation was, effecting so many aspects of his life and work.



> Rachmaninoff is a more recent example. If he had devoted himself to composing only, how much more music would be have? Shostakovich originally planned to be a professional pianist, but that didn't work out. As a result he had a very generous musical output over a 50-year span, something we're grateful for.


Rachmaninov was not one to churn out music but in his case, exile due to the events of 1917 meant that he had to start his career from scratch in America. At home he was like a jack of all trades, and able to earn a living comfortably from playing, conducting, composing and teaching. He also could turn an income from the family estate. Like Stravinsky, his copyrights where effectively became invalid once he lived abroad. He also sold the rights to the Prelude in C # minor which became a best seller for the publishers, the royalties from that alone would have supported him and his family for the rest of his life.

Once in America, Rachmaninov started to give recitals and play as soloist. His own established pieces (eg. Piano Concertos 2 and 3) where the drawcard, but every year he laboriously took on new repertoire by other composers during his break from the concert season. He had one big hit during his post-Russia years, which was the Paganini Rhapsody. Other pieces like the Piano Concerto #4, Symphony #3 and Corelli Variations failed to gel with audiences and critics, while the Symphonic Dances fared a bit better.

He didn't enjoy living in America but that was his bread and butter, so he set up a second home in Switzerland. Reading his letters and other documents which have survived (eg. interviews) its a sense of stoicism which comes through. He was made weary and jaded by the concert circuit and would have liked to devote more time to composition, but unlike other composers inspiration did not arrive according to scheduled breaks. Even then, he had to practice for the next gig.

As a side note, Rachmaninov and Shostakovich shared the ability to write out all parts of compositions fully without need for an instrument. Of course, revisions could be made later. This is how Shostakovich composed the massive Symphony #8, at a table in a small room in Eastern Russia. He had a piano but didn't need it.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

KenOC said:


> True in the classical period (but not for Haydn). It's easy to forget that when Beethoven had to give up performing, at about the age of 38, that cost him probably half his income. That's no joke!
> 
> Rachmaninoff is a more recent example. If he had devoted himself to composing only, how much more music would be have? Shostakovich originally planned to be a professional pianist, but that didn't work out. As a result he had a very generous musical output over a 50-year span, something we're grateful for.


Yes Haydn wasn't any shakes as a performer of any instrument, except the voice (in his youth). No doubt he conducted efficiently though. Shostakovitch doesn't seem to have been on a virtuoso level, which means that a career would be impossible in a place like Russia with its superabundance of pianistic talent.


----------



## Submediant (Jun 8, 2021)

Eusebius12 said:


> Berlioz, well noted by Larkenfield, is a good example. Apparently Wagner was even less of an instrumentalist. Although both wielded the baton on more than the odd occasion if that be considered an instrument.


 But both Berlioz and Wagner could actually play instruments to a “reasonable” standard. There are many anecdotes of Wagner playing his operas (admittedly with lots of wrong notes) to demonstrate them before performance. How many people could do that? As far as I know there are NO great classical composers who did not play at least one instrument passably. It seems that the skills of composing and performing are inextricably linked.


----------

