# Why isn't the guitar in the modern orchestra



## drankdrank

Hello, 

(Read title). Yeah so why is the guitar like almost never in a modern orchestra? I believe there are many good uses of a guitar in a orchestra.


----------



## brianvds

A modern orchestra would probably completely drown out a guitar. Better idea: put a clavichord in an orchestra.


----------



## Guest

Electric guitar.


----------



## GioCar

^^^

http://www.talkclassical.com/33975-fausto-romitelli-1963-2004-a-2.html#post736521


----------



## PetrB

Somewhere is a thread on TC with small lists or mention of contemporary classical music which uses _electric_ guitar.

There are guitar concertos (very well-known) by Joaquin Rodrigo, and several others, but primarily as said above by a number of people, it is_ just too quiet_ an instrument to make much of a difference, or any difference in the overall texture of a standard contemporary full symphonic orchestra.

Guitar concertos are carefully written, often using smaller ensembles or keeping the number of players in use while the soloist is playing to a minimum or much lower number than the whole band _tutti_ --that taking care to balance the sound so the soloist can be heard.

Acoustic or electric (chosen for timbre, not just volume) and the amplification, are where you find the guitar in the orchestra most.

One piece I recall with guitar as part of the chamber ensemble is Elliott Carter's _Syringa_ for mezzo-soprano, bass-baritone, guitar, and ensemble (1978) -- though a medium-sized ensemble, the writing is very 'chamber music,' a few players at a time as well, accompanying voice, vs. an orchestra of eighty to one hundred some players 
Elliott Carter ~ _Syringa_ 









An earlier work -- this is eccentric -- was one which used an inflatable guitar, i.e. a stiff neck through the length of the bridge but the body was of inflatable plastic, a thing of the mid-60's to early 70's of last century, which lends another meaning to "air guitar" <g>

The piece it was used in:
Lucas Foss ~ Baroque Variations


----------



## Couac Addict

The guitar isn't loud enough. It doesn't compliment the rest of the orchestra (the instruments that exist in an orchestra aren't a coincidence - centuries of tinkering were involved).....but the main reason is what would the orchestra play? The repertoire isn't large enough to justify its inclusion.

Try baroque orchestras if you're interested. You'll often find the guitar's ancestors.





..unless you're Glenn Branca.


----------



## Guest

Richard Barrett - Dark Matter

thx again lope


----------



## SuperTonic

Mahler's 7th Symphony has parts for both guitar and mandolin.
Also, Stockhousen's Gruppen uses an electric guitar.


----------



## hpowders

When the mandolin plays in the Mahler 7th, it is used as a solo instrument, otherwise it would be drowned out by the orchestra.
One of the charms of a Mahler nachtmusik.


----------



## joen_cph

Another example is Edison Denisov´s Cello Concerto. A dark work, but this is the best recording





And there´s Ruyneman´s early "Hierogyphen" (1918)


----------



## starthrower

some guy said:


> Electric guitar.


Bingo! Amplified instruments can certainly be heard with an orchestra. Maybe a lot orchestral composers don't know how to write for guitar? Schnittke did. But he was listening to Frank Zappa, who was doing it 45 years ago.


----------



## Mahlerian

PetrB said:


> One piece I recall with guitar as part of the chamber ensemble is Elliott Carter's _Syringa_ for mezzo-soprano, bass-baritone, guitar, and ensemble (1978) -- though a medium-sized ensemble, the writing is very 'chamber music,' a few players at a time as well, accompanying voice, vs. an orchestra of eighty to one hundred some players


A number of Webern's pieces, including one(?) of his sets of songs, use guitar, and I think this led to a number of the more prominent appearances of the instrument in chamber ensembles of the post-War avant garde (Boulez, 12-tone Stravinsky, etc.).


----------



## millionrainbows

Even the acoustic steel string guitar, louder than the nylon-string Spanish or classical guitar, was not loud enough to take solos in jazz bands, so a banjo was used, or the guitar was relegated to the rhythm section. Charlie Christian was the first electric guitar jazz soloist.










Dobros and National steel-bodies, i.e. resonator guitars, were developed to produce more volume, and Son House used these to cut through the noise of loud crowds in juke joints and parties.


----------



## tgtr0660

You would need a whole row of guitars and even then you wouldn't be able to listen to it. 

Electric guitars? Well, maybe. Its sound doesn't for me lend itself well to the sound of an orchestra.


----------



## hpowders

I have a theory. The guitar is not in the modern orchestra, because no modern composer ever writes a part for it?

Just a wild guess!


----------



## Jobis

brianvds said:


> A modern orchestra would probably completely drown out a guitar. Better idea: put a clavichord in an orchestra.





some guy said:


> Electric guitar.


Electric Clavichord!


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> I have a theory. The guitar is not in the modern orchestra, because no modern composer ever writes a part for it? Just a wild guess!


Mr Powders! I believe Mr *Alfred Schnittke* wrote a _Concerto Grosso_ that features an electric guitar.


----------



## hpowders

Well, Schnittke. Always had to be different!


----------



## Guest

Turning to my handy HAL 9000...

I've got the following for guitar and orchestra...

Villa-Lobos, Heitor - Introduction to Choros (1929)
Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Mario - Guitar Concerto No. 1 in D major, Op. 99 (1939)
Rodrigo, Joaquín - Concierto de Aranjuez for Guitar and Orchestra (1939)
Ponce, Manuel - Concierto del Sur for Guitar and Orchestra (1941)
Hovhaness, Alan - Guitar Concerto, Op.325 (1979)
Cordero, Ernesto - Concierto Festivo (2003)

I think it's fair to say there is a fairly substantial body of guitar concerti, particularly in Spanish and Latin classical music.

Re uses for a guitar in a modern orchestra, I believe guitars can be sat on by the shorter members of an orchestra to make them look taller! :devil:


----------



## brianvds

BPS said:


> I think it's fair to say there is a fairly substantial body of guitar concerti, particularly in Spanish and Latin classical music.


As others pointed out, guitar concertos are usually written in such a way that the guitar never has to compete with the whole orchestra. Most guitar concertos I have heard have a certain lightness to their texture, which is part of their charm. And of course, very often they cheat by discreetly amplifying the guitar. 

As for the electric guitar, please spare me. It ain't a real guitar.

_"The exhilaration (of the electric guitar) comes largely from the fact that at the flick of a knob you can positively drown out any other colleague that happens to be playing with you, not the most musical or charming sentiments, but exciting none the less. As for the sound - musical sound - I frankly find that to be the most boring, lifeless, phoney, vulgar noise that could have ever been contrived by humankind on this planet."_

--Julian Bream

I quite agree with Mr. Bream on this point.


----------



## PetrB

brianvds said:


> *As for the electric guitar, please spare me. It ain't a real guitar.*
> 
> _"The exhilaration (of the electric guitar) comes largely from the fact that at the flick of a knob you can positively drown out any other colleague that happens to be playing with you, not the most musical or charming sentiments, but exciting none the less. As for the sound - musical sound - I frankly find that to be the most boring, lifeless, phoney, vulgar noise that could have ever been contrived by humankind on this planet."_ --Julian Bream
> 
> I quite agree with Mr. Bream on this point.


GASP!

"brianvds quotes Julian Bream, speaks out bluntly about the electric guitar. Police form barrier around brianvds' house to protect him from an outraged mob made up of people who are of mixed age and race, with some as old as the electric guitar itself."


I with ya there, and with Mr. Bream. The "instrument" has but one timbre (mono-timbre = mono-tonal = monotony = _boring_), its only variation being volume, and in most contexts, it is at least 50% about distortion, as if distortion is something, like sooooo expressive, Lol.

Fretless Bass, no distortion and used discretely mixed with other instruments? Now you're getting into the area of "musical instrument."


----------



## stevens

Could be the same reasons behind: 

Why isn't the basson in the modern rockband?

Where is the clarinette in the hiphop band? 

Why isnt there a tuba in the typical electro/house/rave/ibiza band? (did I say band? I mean cd)


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> [...] I with ya there, and with Mr. Bream. The "instrument" has but one timbre (mono-timbre = mono-tonal = monotony = _boring_), *its only variation being volume, and in most contexts, it is at least 50% about distortion, as if distortion is something, like sooooo expressive*, Lol. [...]


Well, ...


----------



## norman bates

brianvds said:


> As others pointed out, guitar concertos are usually written in such a way that the guitar never has to compete with the whole orchestra. Most guitar concertos I have heard have a certain lightness to their texture, which is part of their charm. And of course, very often they cheat by discreetly amplifying the guitar.
> 
> As for the electric guitar, please spare me. It ain't a real guitar.
> 
> _"The exhilaration (of the electric guitar) comes largely from the fact that at the flick of a knob you can positively drown out any other colleague that happens to be playing with you, not the most musical or charming sentiments, but exciting none the less. As for the sound - musical sound - I frankly find that to be the most boring, lifeless, phoney, vulgar noise that could have ever been contrived by humankind on this planet."_
> 
> --Julian Bream
> 
> I quite agree with Mr. Bream on this point.


I guess that even a great guitarist like Bream probably didn't have a great knowledge of what an electric guitar can do, if his idea of an electric guitarist was basically Nigel Tufnel. To make an example, techniques like harp harmonics and chime chords make a sound that is absolutely gorgeous.










and obviously there are tons of techniques that one can use, slide, effects, tapping, whammy bar... 
I wonder why a lot of people think still in terms of "classical guitar". Why not an amplified acoustic guitar played in the style of Michael Hedges? Why not a dobro? Why not an electric guitar used with a computer, like Fennesz?


----------



## BurningDesire

The orchestra really hasn't changed much in a standard way since the late 19th Century, so I think it would do well to make a few things more standard. I think making at least one or two keyboardists (with multiple keyboard instruments) standard, as well as having guitarists who double electric and acoustic guitars, and bass guitar (a doublebassist could also double that). I also think saxophones should be a standard section, because they fill out a missing section of colors. Also, this is kind of an aside, but amplification is something that may be a good idea to implement in the ensemble completely, because then there is no longer this worry of parts being drowned out. A nylon-stringed guitar can be heard in a full orchestral tutti when everything is amplified and run through a mixing board, and brass and percussion wouldn't have to hold back so that a woodwind instrument could be heard.


----------



## Jobis

I liked the electric guitar in the soundtrack for Aguirre: The Wrath of God. It was subtle. I can imagine it working well in that kind of way in classical music, as a continuo, not really riffing around.


----------



## Jos

I'm glad Norman Bates mentioned Fennesz. Laptopguitarist that makes "serious" music, well, at least to my ears. It is music with some incubationtime, like some (contemporary) classical music. At first listen it's just static, but beyond the static you discover more and more interesting things, and sometimes pure beauty. 
Can easily be dismissed by the label "ambient" and electronic gimmickery, but not by me.....

Here's another example, one of my favs. ; "a year in a minute"






Cheers,
Jos


----------



## MoonlightSonata

brianvds said:


> As others pointed out, guitar concertos are usually written in such a way that the guitar never has to compete with the whole orchestra. Most guitar concertos I have heard have a certain lightness to their texture, which is part of their charm. And of course, very often they cheat by discreetly amplifying the guitar.
> 
> As for the electric guitar, please spare me. It ain't a real guitar.
> 
> _"The exhilaration (of the electric guitar) comes largely from the fact that at the flick of a knob you can positively drown out any other colleague that happens to be playing with you, not the most musical or charming sentiments, but exciting none the less. As for the sound - musical sound - I frankly find that to be the most boring, lifeless, phoney, vulgar noise that could have ever been contrived by humankind on this planet."_
> 
> --Julian Bream
> 
> I quite agree with Mr. Bream on this point.





PetrB said:


> GASP!
> 
> "brianvds quotes Julian Bream, speaks out bluntly about the electric guitar. Police form barrier around brianvds' house to protect him from an outraged mob made up of people who are of mixed age and race, with some as old as the electric guitar itself."
> 
> 
> I with ya there, and with Mr. Bream. The "instrument" has but one timbre (mono-timbre = mono-tonal = monotony = _boring_), its only variation being volume, and in most contexts, it is at least 50% about distortion, as if distortion is something, like sooooo expressive, Lol.
> 
> Fretless Bass, no distortion and used discretely mixed with other instruments? Now you're getting into the area of "musical instrument."


I agree - the sound is not particularly nice, and is often extremely loud. 
Forgive me if I am the only one who finds distortion even worse than excessive vibrato.
And I hate excessive vibrato.
Acoustic guitar though - the only thing stopping it from having a place in th orchestra is the volume, or lack of it. Maybe this problem could be overcome by having multiple guitars?


----------



## norman bates

MoonlightSonata said:


> Acoustic guitar though - the only thing stopping it from having a place in th orchestra is the volume, or lack of it. Maybe this problem could be overcome by having multiple guitars?


or with a thing called amplifier, considering that we're in the 21th century... 
I don't know why many persons have a sort of fear of that. A couple of years ago I was at a concert of a classical guitarist in a church, and I was at maybe 30 meters from him and I didn't hear anything. After the concert I was talking with him and I asked him why he didn't use a microphone but for him it was a sort of blasphemy... yes, it's better if the sound is drowned by every other noise around


----------



## tdc

norman bates said:


> or with a thing called amplifier, considering that we're in the 21th century...
> I don't know why many persons have a sort of fear of that. A couple of years ago I was at a concert of a classical guitarist in a church, and I was at maybe 30 meters from him and I didn't hear anything. After the concert I was talking with him and I asked him why he didn't use a microphone but for him it was a sort of blasphemy... yes, it's better if the sound is drowned by every other noise around


I agree with what you're getting at. While in general I'm not a huge fan of distorted guitars, and I love the sound of acoustics in smaller intimate settings, in larger settings a mic'd classical guitar just sounds way better than non-mic'd.

In the past I noticed that a couple of my favorite versions of certain classical guitar pieces were live versions that were mic'd. Using a microphone just enhances the sound. Since one already needs to use a mic to make a recording, I don't really understand this "moral dilemma" so many guitarists seem to have with using them live.


----------



## KenOC

norman bates said:


> or with a thing called amplifier, considering that we're in the 21th century...
> I don't know why many persons have a sort of fear of that. A couple of years ago I was at a concert of a classical guitarist in a church, and I was at maybe 30 meters from him and I didn't hear anything. After the concert I was talking with him and I asked him why he didn't use a microphone but for him it was a sort of blasphemy... yes, it's better if the sound is drowned by every other noise around


I've always thought that an electric guitar would make a wonderful solo vehicle for a really big concerto. Free tone-bending throughout, and imagine the special effects, overdrive and distortion, at the climaxes! Enough watts and if the orchestra gets in the way, we just blow it aside.

We already have well-known concertos for electric violin and electric cello, so where's the guitar?


----------



## PetrB

MoonlightSonata said:


> I agree - the sound is not particularly nice, and is often extremely loud.


Even what I, or anyone thinks of as 'a nice sound' is wholly subjective.

For those who like / love the instrument, I maybe should have further qualified with an acceptable, individual point of view which nonetheless has nothing to do with being rational, i.e. made mellow by filtering the waves, editing or real time alterations, and 'quiet' -- "I just can't stand it."


----------



## norman bates

KenOC said:


> I've always thought that an electric guitar would make a wonderful solo vehicle for a really big concerto. Free tone-bending throughout, and imagine the special effects, overdrive and distortion, at the climaxes! Enough watts and if the orchestra gets in the way, we just blow it aside.


well, try to open the two links I've posted in my previous post, you could have a great surprise discovering that there's life beyond Spinal tap (or Dave Mustaine ). 
Anyway, even a hyper distorted guitar could be absolutely great, I love things like this: 



 (and this is also a reason for the relative absence of electric guitar in classical music: it could be very difficult to write on a score something like this in terms of sound)
as the strangulated noises of Albert Ayler or the music of Edgar Varese or a lot of electronic music. It's a bit strange to see everybody becoming conservative if the argument is a guitar. I can't imagine what would you think of composers who dare to make electronic music.


----------



## spradlig

Shostakovich used some sort of electric Hawaiian slide guitar in a pop piece he wrote for small orchestra. I don't remember which piece exactly, maybe "another" _Jazz Suite_ (not that one)?

Whether such an instrument is "a real guitar" is subject to debate.


----------



## Guest

With reference to the OP, I must report a happy coincidence : last night I attended Strasbourg's closing concert of the contemporary music festival *Musica*; first piece on the programme was *Gérard Grisey's* _Transitoires_ (written in 1980-81 for the Venice _Biennale_), scored for full orchestra and ... *electric guitar*! The guitar was at times played using a violin bow. Good piece, by the way, you can check it out on YouTube.

[For those interested, the rest of the concert (with The Luxemburg Philharmonic Orchestra) was: 
*Philipp Maintz*, _Concerto pour piano et grande orchestre_ (world premier);
*Ondřej Adámek*, _Dusty Rusty Hush_;
*György Kurtág*, _Stele_.]


----------



## Art Rock

KenOC said:


> I've always thought that an electric guitar would make a wonderful solo vehicle for a really big concerto. Free tone-bending throughout, and imagine the special effects, overdrive and distortion, at the climaxes! Enough watts and if the orchestra gets in the way, we just blow it aside.
> 
> We already have well-known concertos for electric violin and electric cello, so where's the guitar?


Here's one for two electric guitars and orchestra.


----------



## mtmailey

I guess because most composers write music for a traditional orchestra.But putting a guitar in a orchestra is great idea also there are guitar concertos out there you know.A guitar concerto sounds great to me.


----------



## norman bates

Jos said:


> I'm glad Norman Bates mentioned Fennesz. Laptopguitarist that makes "serious" music, well, at least to my ears. It is music with some incubationtime, like some (contemporary) classical music. At first listen it's just static, but beyond the static you discover more and more interesting things, and sometimes pure beauty.
> Can easily be dismissed by the label "ambient" and electronic gimmickery, but not by me.....
> 
> Here's another example, one of my favs. ; "a year in a minute"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jos


I missed your comment, anyway yes, Fennesz (as My bloody Valentine just to name another band) are a demonstration of the richness and diversity of the sound that an electric guitar can produce. 
I mean, the guitar concerto, the virtuoso who tries to be Paganini... it can be done but it's a very limiting idea, guitars can be used in more interesting ways.


----------



## Badinerie

> As for the sound - musical sound - I frankly find that to be the most boring, lifeless, phoney, vulgar noise that could have ever been contrived by humankind on this planet."
> 
> --Julian Bream


Saucer of milk...table one! :lol:


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> GASP!
> 
> "brianvds quotes Julian Bream, speaks out bluntly about the electric guitar. Police form barrier around brianvds' house to protect him from an outraged mob made up of people who are of mixed age and race, with some as old as the electric guitar itself."
> 
> 
> I with ya there, and with Mr. Bream. The "instrument" has but one timbre (mono-timbre = mono-tonal = monotony = _boring_), its only variation being volume, and in most contexts, it is at least 50% about distortion, as if distortion is something, like sooooo expressive, Lol.
> 
> Fretless Bass, no distortion and used discretely mixed with other instruments? Now you're getting into the area of "musical instrument."


How much electric guitar have you heard Petr? XD I ask only because of all instruments, electric guitar has one of the greatest varieties of timbres, second only really to synthesizers and samplers. Even running a guitar through a clean signal, you can alter the timbre by plucking the string at different points on the string, just as on other stringed instruments. Harmonics have a different timbre. Plucking them with different implements produces different sounds. Different pick-up combinations and placements alter the sounds. Of course, alot of this stuff is pretty subtle, but so are alot of the sounds on most acoustic instruments (effects devices like mutes excluded), and we wouldn't say those only have a single timbre, right?


----------



## clavichorder

brianvds said:


> A modern orchestra would probably completely drown out a guitar. Better idea: put a clavichord in an orchestra.


Quit stealing my ideas!

Oh well, nobody has yet tried the 1000 piece clavichord ensemble, I think. I'll check in with CoAG to make sure.

And there's always the sonata for clavichord and timpani.


----------



## clavichorder

Jobis said:


> Electric Clavichord!


That's one of the nicest electric clavichords I've seen. It is modeled to be more like an electric guitar, less like one of those clavinets.


----------



## senza sordino

There are probably a few reasons why the guitar isn't part of a modern orchestra.

1) As mentioned already, a guitar would be completely drowned out by a big orchestra.

2) Orchestras are extremely conservative. It's still revolutionary to include saxophones.

3) Guitars and pianos are not really ensemble instruments in the same way the other instruments of an orchestra are. Please spare me the counter examples (I know them all). You don't see / hear a piano _that_ often in an orchestra. (And I'm not talking about concerti) Guitar and piano work well without accompaniment. (I know all about the solo cello, violin, clarinet pieces) I think a guitar is not really well suited for accompaniment within a large ensemble.


----------



## brianvds

BurningDesire said:


> How much electric guitar have you heard Petr? XD I ask only because of all instruments, electric guitar has one of the greatest varieties of timbres,


And all of them sound like a cat being tortured to death...


----------



## BurningDesire

brianvds said:


> And all of them sound like a cat being tortured to death...


No they don't

.................................


----------



## MoonlightSonata

senza sordino said:


> There are probably a few reasons why the guitar isn't part of a modern orchestra.
> 
> 1) As mentioned already, a guitar would be completely drowned out by a big orchestra.
> 
> 2) Orchestras are extremely conservative. It's still revolutionary to include saxophones.
> 
> 3) Guitars and pianos are not really ensemble instruments in the same way the other instruments of an orchestra are. Please spare me the counter examples (I know them all). You don't see / hear a piano _that_ often in an orchestra. (And I'm not talking about concerti) Guitar and piano work well without accompaniment. (I know all about the solo cello, violin, clarinet pieces) I think a guitar is not really well suited for accompaniment within a large ensemble.


I agree especially with 3.


----------



## norman bates

brianvds said:


> And all of them sound like a cat being tortured to death...


you're confusing guitars with violins.


----------



## norman bates

senza sordino said:


> There are probably a few reasons why the guitar isn't part of a modern orchestra.
> 
> 1) As mentioned already, a guitar would be completely drowned out by a big orchestra.
> 
> 2) Orchestras are extremely conservative. It's still revolutionary to include saxophones.
> 
> 3) Guitars and pianos are not really ensemble instruments in the same way the other instruments of an orchestra are. Please spare me the counter examples (I know them all). You don't see / hear a piano _that_ often in an orchestra. (And I'm not talking about concerti) Guitar and piano work well without accompaniment. (I know all about the solo cello, violin, clarinet pieces) I think a guitar is not really well suited for accompaniment within a large ensemble.


I think that the second is the only real reason.


----------



## BurningDesire

senza sordino said:


> There are probably a few reasons why the guitar isn't part of a modern orchestra.
> 
> 1) As mentioned already, a guitar would be completely drowned out by a big orchestra.
> 
> 2) Orchestras are extremely conservative. It's still revolutionary to include saxophones.
> 
> 3) Guitars and pianos are not really ensemble instruments in the same way the other instruments of an orchestra are. Please spare me the counter examples (I know them all). You don't see / hear a piano _that_ often in an orchestra. (And I'm not talking about concerti) Guitar and piano work well without accompaniment. (I know all about the solo cello, violin, clarinet pieces) I think a guitar is not really well suited for accompaniment within a large ensemble.


I won't bring up examples, because its unnecessary. All instruments are ensemble instruments, and all are solo instruments. All instruments are capable of pretty much limitless potential roles in music, of limitless possible modes of expression. Of course different instruments have different capabilities, but its kinda totally absurd to say that only some instruments are capable of being part of ensemble playing, or even the specific ensemble of an orchestra. Just because guitar and piano do work well on their own because they are capable of generating multiple lines at once doesn't really play into their appeal in ensemble use.

The only element where you have a point is the practicality of using a nylon-stringed acoustic guitar in a large orchestra, but really in modern times this doesn't hold any water anyway, because now there are very high-quality, sophisticated methods of amplifying instruments, and a nylon-guitar (and other quieter instruments) can easily be heard even in loud, thick textures when they are amplified, especially if one brings amplification to the entire ensemble and one can utilize live mixing. Even going back to no electronic equipment, the composer simply must take this into account and orchestrate accordingly, as is done in guitar concerti. There is also the other option of just including a number of guitarists playing the same part, as is the method of making the bowed strings loud enough.


----------



## dgee

norman bates said:


> I think that the second is the only real reason.


No. Because music is generally played for the instruments it is written for. Blame composers. Number one comes closest to a reason

Just puttin it out there: mandolin in don giovanni. Please explain


----------



## sharik

drankdrank said:


> Yeah so why is the guitar like almost never in a modern orchestra?


because it wouldn't add anything to an orchestra and would be redundant there.


----------



## BurningDesire

sharik said:


> because it wouldn't add anything to an orchestra and would be redundant there.


Except it totally would. There's nothing in the standard orchestra that sounds like a guitar, especially when we get into others besides the nylon-string version. The closest is harp, which isn't exactly standard itself, and its really not the same thing at all in terms of capabilities and timbre. To say it is redundant is to not understand what that even means.


----------



## sharik

BurningDesire said:


> Except it totally would. There's nothing in the standard orchestra that sounds like a guitar, especially when we get into others besides the nylon-string version.


the harp sounds better than any guitar; also the brass section excels any overdriven electric guitar sound.



BurningDesire said:


> The closest is harp, which isn't exactly standard itself, and its really not the same thing at all in terms of capabilities and timbre. To say it is redundant is to not understand what that even means.


i myself play electric guitars, so i do know what it means.


----------



## norman bates

sharik said:


> the harp sounds better than any guitar;


better for what?



sharik said:


> also the brass section excels any overdriven electric guitar sound.


That's like say that a piano excels a violin: it's true considering the harmonic possibilities, it's false in terms of dynamics and sustain. Different instruments have obviously different qualities and limitations.


----------



## sharik

norman bates said:


> better for what?


for an orchestra.



norman bates said:


> That's like say that a piano excels a violin


the piano excels a clean sound electric giutar, the violin excels a distorted one.


----------



## hreichgott

After having spent more hours than I intended watching L'Arpeggiata videos the other night, I must ask: Why isn't the THEORBO in the modern orchestra??


----------



## Mahlerian

hreichgott said:


> After having spent more hours than I intended watching L'Arpeggiata videos the other night, I must ask: Why isn't the THEORBO in the modern orchestra??


After listening to Monteverdi, I feel the same way.


----------



## BurningDesire

hreichgott said:


> After having spent more hours than I intended watching L'Arpeggiata videos the other night, I must ask: Why isn't the THEORBO in the modern orchestra??


My only reasoning would be that it is a fairly obscure instrument compared to something like the guitar, which is one of the most ubiquitous instruments in the world. Not that it shouldn't be used, but its the same reason that things like bass trumpets and basset horns and other such instruments are seldom used, despite having very beautiful sounds and unique capabilities and colors.


----------



## sharik

norman bates said:


> You know, you can play harmonics, bendings, palm mutings, slide, percussive sounds on a guitar


for that an orchestra has flutes, violin glissandos, sring pizzicatos, orchestra instruments passages, cello and double bass bow hits performed on muted strings etc.


----------



## Piwikiwi

I´m glad that it isn't. Pop, Rock and Metal are already completely dominated by guitars and jazz is getting increasingly dominated by it. I quite like guitar but it is insanely overrated as an instrument and I just like a bit more diversity.


----------



## BurningDesire

sharik said:


> for that an orchestra has flutes, violin glissandos, sring pizzicatos, orchestra instruments passages, cello and double bass bow hits performed on muted strings etc.


None of those things sound like the sounds guitars make.


----------



## Piwikiwi

BurningDesire said:


> None of those things sound like the sounds guitars make.


Is that supposed to be a bad thing?


----------



## sharik

BurningDesire said:


> None of those things sound like the sounds guitars make.


because they sound way better and richer than guitars.


----------



## norman bates

sharik said:


> for that an orchestra has flutes, violin glissandos, sring pizzicatos, orchestra instruments passages, cello and double bass bow hits performed on muted strings etc.


Different instruments produce different nuances of sounds, exactly like a clarinet and a violin. but maybe for you just because two instruments can produce the same note means that one of the two is unnecessary.
And anyway, there are a lot of things that you can do on a guitar that you can't do with any other instrument in the orchestra. But this is true for many other instruments. It's difficult to understand why in the year 2014 the instruments employed are basically those employed in the eighteen and nineteen century. 
Considering timbre it seems that rock is much more advanced and progressive than classical music.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> It's difficult to understand why in the year 2014 the instruments employed are basically those employed in the eighteen and nineteen century.


Well, because it's simply not true.



norman bates said:


> Considering timbre it seems that rock is much more advanced and progressive than classical music.


False.


----------



## norman bates

aleazk said:


> Well, because it's simply not true.


I know that there are concertos for many different instruments, but it seems that the "orchestra" usually means always the presence of violins and cellos, oboe, clarinets etc.



aleazk said:


> False.


Oh, that's ABSOLUTELY true, like the fact that classical music is more complex in terms of harmony or forms, rock is often more imaginative in terms of timbre and there are also reasons for that. Even Boulez recognized it.


----------



## sharik

norman bates said:


> Different instruments produce different nuances of sounds, exactly like a clarinet and a violin. but maybe for you just because two instruments can produce the same note means that one of the two is unnecessary.


every instrument an orchestra already has is necessary, so there's no need to spoil it with guitar sound.



norman bates said:


> Considering timbre it seems that rock is much more advanced and progressive than classical music.


not at all; a rock band is merely a cheap version of an orchestra.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> I know that there are concertos for many different instruments, but it seems that the "orchestra" usually means always the presence of violins and cellos, oboe, clarinets etc.


Well, they also have to play baroque music after all, don't they? Also, why would you abandon those great instruments. Have it all, I say. 



norman bates said:


> Oh, that's ABSOLUTELY true, like the fact that classical music is more complex in terms of harmony or forms, rock is often more imaginative in terms of timbre and there are also reasons for that. Even Boulez recognized it.


They certainly use interesting timbres in some cases, but it's all pure coloration in most cases, there's not a dialectics and profound thinking of timbre behind it, like in, say, spectralism.

Second, a lot of that comes from the influence of people like Stockhausen, Varese, etc.

I don't consider their conception of timbre more advanced, really.

What I can concede to you is that classical musicians are certainly more reluctant to add new sounds sometimes, while in popular music they simply do it. But that's a different thing, it has nothing to do with their conception of timbre. It's because of a question of not subscribing to aesthetic notions that become outdated too quickly. That's why classical musicians think twice before adding the last technological device. Remember those Yamaha synthesizers from the 80s, ubiquitous in pop music and science fi movies? who use those sounds now? nobody...


----------



## norman bates

"a cheap version of the orchestra"





I wonder what "richer" instruments in the orchestra can produce this kind of combination of whammy bar and distorted sound that produce a haze like a William Turner painting. If we consider the chords, those are certainly dull, but obviously that's not the point.


----------



## norman bates

aleazk said:


> Well, they also have to play baroque music after all, don't they? Also, why would you abandon those great instruments. Have it all, I say.


in fact there are economics reasons; but those reasons imply many limitations in terms of choices.



aleazk said:


> They certainly use interesting timbres in some cases, but it's all pure coloration in most cases, there's not a dialectics and profound thinking of timbre behind it, like in, say, spectralism.


just because in rock the approach is less academic doesn't certainly mean lack of "profound thinking". I'm referring above all to the experimental kind of rock music, not to the mainstream. And an academic approach is a great limitation because you have to write it on a score. 
In rock music the use of effects is systematic, and it can be used to make "loud music" as to achieve subtle effects.



aleazk said:


> Second, a lot of that comes from the influence of people like Stockhausen, Varese, etc.


like a lot of cinema comes from Birth of a nation. And we could add Xenakis, Penderecki, Ligeti, Partch, Parmegiani, Schaeffer, etc as other influences.



aleazk said:


> What I can concede to you is that classical musicians are certainly more reluctant to add new sounds sometimes, while in popular music they simply do it. But that's a different thing, it has nothing to do with their conception of timbre. It's because of a question of not subscribing to aesthetic notions that become outdated too quickly.
> That's why classical musicians think twice before adding the last technological device. Remember those Yamaha synthesizers from the 80s, ubiquitous in pop music and science fi movies? who use those sounds now? nobody...


Actually I think that classical composers are often the first to use many technological devices: one of my favorite was the ANS synthesizer used by Schnittke, Gubaidolina, Artemiev etc. Were they using it just because it was trendy or because it offered great and unexplored possibilities?


----------



## sharik

norman bates said:


> "a cheap version of the orchestra"


yes that is.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> in fact there are economics reasons; but those reasons imply many limitations in terms of choices.


It has nothing to do with economics, it's about tradition. If you negate the past, you deny the tradition in which you pretend to be working. It's like the growth rings of a tree, as time passes, new rings are added and this makes the trunk thicker and more robust.



norman bates said:


> just because in rock the approach is less academic doesn't certainly mean lack of "profound thinking". I'm referring above all to the experimental kind of rock music, not to the mainstream. And an academic approach is a great limitation because you have to write it on a score.
> In rock music the use of effects is systematic, and it can be used to make "loud music" as to achieve subtle effects.


The 'conservative academics' vs 'wild and experimental non-academics' is a cliché notion, not worthy of discussion... profound thinking implies a better understanding of the ideas, and this implies a more effective use of the ideas, and this a magnification of their effects.

Also, I think that improvisation is actually a limitation when compared to written music. Check the discussion of this topic we had here.



norman bates said:


> like a lot of cinema comes from Birth of a nation. And we could add Xenakis, Penderecki, Ligeti, Partch, Parmegiani, Schaeffer, etc as other influences.


And Debussy, and Ravel, and Stravinsky, and Schoenberg, and Webern, Scelsi, jeez, classical music is so 'unprogressive' in terms of timbre...  LOL: they actually invented the notion of being progressive in timbre...



norman bates said:


> Actually I think that classical composers are often the first to use many technological devices: one of my favorite was the ANS synthesizer used by Schnittke, Gubaidolina, Artemiev etc. Were they using it just because it was trendy or because it offered great and unexplored possibilities?


At the beginning, yes, they were impressed by the new possibilities offered by the new developments (which also adds to my previous point, in fact). But later they became quite disenchanted when they saw the limitations and low points, related to how quickly the technology becomes obsolete. Check Grisey's comments here*. I guess you are not going to call Grisey 'unprogressive' in terms of his conceptions about timbre...  Ligeti also abandoned it. Again, considering that after that he went on to revolutionize texture and timbre, I think it was not because of his 'unprogressive' ideas that he abandoned it.

* _Do you make use of those tools?

GG: Very little with computer and electronics. I think there are mainly two reasons. The first is one is personal -- I'm not very talented in the use of computers and digital electronics. But of course, I could have an assistant or get help one way or another. But the second one is much worse than that. It's that all of the pieces I have written that have implied electronics have to be revised constantly because of the change of technology. The technology of new instruments, of synthesizers or whatever, is not done for us. It's done for the business. Therefore, every other year, the whole system changes. And I see around me all composers running, literally running after new technology that's going to be better in a few years. As soon as you buy an instrument, they tell you, "Wait! Next year is going to be better." And this is not the way to be an artist. You can't go like that. Always learning the new. And so therefore, if you write a piece for electronics, you're constantly forced to renew the system to make it still available for the concert hall. And I hate going back to old pieces -- unlike Boulez who always comes back and does it again over and over. For me, that belongs to the past. I very rarely listen to it. And I think it's the best way to go forward. Technology forces me to go back and work over again. A new tape. Changing from a tape to computer. And then from computer to a new type of computer. Or from one synthesizer to a new type. And it's endless._


----------



## norman bates

aleazk said:


> It has nothing to do with economics, it's about tradition. If you negate the past, you deny the tradition in which you pretend to be working. It's like the growth rings of a tree, as time passes, new rings are added and this makes the trunk thicker and more robust.


I remember someone who wanted to burn down the opera houses... before he was recognized as a great director of old ballets. Do you really think that economic reasons haven't a role in this story?



aleazk said:


> The 'conservative academics' vs 'wild and experimental non-academics' is a cliché notion, not worthy of discussion...


but the fact is that an approach that does not imply a written score has a lot of advantages.
Even the fact that a lot of modern composers struggle to achieve new way to notate certain things says a lot about that.



aleazk said:


> I
> And Debussy, and Ravel, and Stravinsky, and Schoenberg, and Webern, jeez, classical music is so 'unprogressive' in terms of timbre...  LOL: they actually invented the notion of being progressive in timbre...


I know, and Messiaen with the Onde Martenoth, and Hindemith with the trautonium... I mean, I may not have a great knowledge but I'm aware of those things. As I'm aware of what has been done in rock music.



aleazk said:


> At the beginning, yes, they were impressed by the new possibilities offered by the new developments (which also adds to my previous point, in fact). But later they became quite disenchanted when they saw the limitations and low points, related to how quickly the technology becomes obsolete. Check Grisey's comments here. I guess you are not going to call Grisey 'unprogressive' in terms of his conceptions about timbre...  Ligeti also abandoned it. Again, considering that after that he went on to revolutionize texture and timbre, I think it was not because of his 'unprogressive' ideas that he abandoned it.


I will read the article you've posted a bit later (I promise), but I wouldn't certainly call Grisey or Ligeti unprogressive (in fact Ligeti is one of my favorite musicians ever). I don't think that things are black or white obviously.


----------



## tdc

Well Penderecki and Stockhausen (among others) have used electric guitar in compositions. So clearly there is no rule stating it cannot be used. Its fair to say the instrument hasn't been explored to its fullest, but the same can be said of other instruments and methods of sound production too - the electric guitar is but one of many. Luckily for fans of guitar there happen to be tons of artists currently exploring its sound possibilities in other genres.


----------



## norman bates

aleazk said:


> GG: Very little with computer and electronics. I think there are mainly two reasons. The first is one is personal -- I'm not very talented in the use of computers and digital electronics. But of course, I could have an assistant or get help one way or another. But the second one is much worse than that. It's that all of the pieces I have written that have implied electronics have to be revised constantly because of the change of technology. The technology of new instruments, of synthesizers or whatever, is not done for us. It's done for the business. Therefore, every other year, the whole system changes. And I see around me all composers running, literally running after new technology that's going to be better in a few years. As soon as you buy an instrument, they tell you, "Wait! Next year is going to be better." And this is not the way to be an artist. You can't go like that. Always learning the new. And so therefore, if you write a piece for electronics, you're constantly forced to renew the system to make it still available for the concert hall. And I hate going back to old pieces -- unlike Boulez who always comes back and does it again over and over. For me, that belongs to the past. I very rarely listen to it. And I think it's the best way to go forward. Technology forces me to go back and work over again. A new tape. Changing from a tape to computer. And then from computer to a new type of computer. Or from one synthesizer to a new type. And it's endless.[/I]


the fact that companies that produce electronic devices want to earn money from that and that this imply that a composer have to learn to use new hardware and software doesn't certainly mean that what is produced with those devices has not artistic value. Am I missing something? Onestly I don't understand what you wanted to demonstrate with that.
I mean, the sound produced a synthesizer made ten years before is old, isn't it also true of a violin produced centuries ago, if we want to reduce the value of a piece of music considering his newness?


----------



## sharik

tdc said:


> Well Penderecki and Stockhausen (among others) have used electric guitar in compositions.


to no avail whatsoever.


----------



## Polyphemus

I don't have a problem with guitars (presumably electric) in music but if they start with wah wah pedals and feedback then I must protest.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> the fact that companies that produce electronic devices want to earn money from that and that this imply that a composer have to learn to use new hardware and software doesn't certainly mean that what is produced with those devices has not artistic value. Am I missing something? Onestly I don't understand what you wanted to demonstrate with that.
> I mean, the sound produced a synthesizer made ten years before is old, isn't it also true of a violin produced centuries ago, if we want to reduce the value of a piece of music considering his newness?


Nobody said anything about 'artistic value'. I was trying to exemplify that, sometimes, when composers seem to be behind popular music regarding the acceptance of new developments that often expand the variety of sounds available, that's not because they are unprogressive, but because of other practical (like Grisey mentions) or perhaps even aesthetic reasons.

Regarding the aesthetic reasons, that's one of the main issues here. As you know, in classical music there's a certain idea about the durability and how a piece survives the passage of time. Some composers want their pieces to have 'universal' appeal, in time included. Of course, this is illusory at some point, since everything, style, rules, etc., sooner or later becomes outdated. Nevertheless, it's something that exists in classical music. And in this way, some composers simply prefer not to take the risk of using some instrument that they suspect it will end associated with a very particular and narrow period of history. It has nothing to do with the artistic value of the pieces composed for those instruments, it's simply an aesthetic decision.

So, that's why the process of incorporating new instruments to the orchestra can be a very slow thing. The instrument has to demonstrate certain durability both in the practical sense and in the aesthetic sense. Instruments like the violin simply fulfil this trivially because they are based on very elementary ways of producing sound, ways that will always be present in music in one way or another. That's why more or less all cultures developed, e.g., instruments based on plucked strings, and still use them. It's true that, even accepting that, the election of the violin seems still to have arbitrary elements. But that's because of practical reasons. It was decided that once and for all, the standard bowed string instrument in western music will be the violin. That's indeed arbitrary, but behind that, there's an element that it is not so, since it's the universal quality of bowed string instruments I mentioned.

With synthesizers, we start all of the process again. The idea to incorporate new ways of producing sound through technology is certainly a very good one. But exactly by which instrument and by which process is something more complicated. It's a complex historical dynamics, that involves practical reasons, aesthetic reasons which are particular to classical music, etc.

In popular music, they don't care very much about this considerations. And so it may appear, superficially more colorful because of that. But, as I told you, this is not because they are more progressive than classical music in terms of timbre, i.e., if you analize those examples you think, I don't think you will really find more advanced ideas on timbre than in classical music (at best, they would equal; just think about the history of timbre in classical music, it's a concept that has been really investigated profoundly by the composers mentioned before). What you may find is that their music is perhaps more colorful, but the answer to that is in the process I explained.

In fact, to some extent, you can't compare the two things, since they are moved by different goals.


----------



## norman bates

aleazk said:


> Nobody said anything about 'artistic value'. I was trying to exemplify that, sometimes, when composers seem to be behind popular music regarding the acceptance of new developments that often expand the variety of sounds available, that's not because they are unprogressive, but because of other practical (like Grisey mentions) or perhaps even aesthetic reasons.
> 
> Regarding the aesthetic reasons, that's one of the main issues here. As you know, in classical music there's a certain idea about the durability and how a piece survives the passage of time. Some composers want their pieces to have 'universal' appeal, in time included. Of course, this is illusory at some point, since everything, style, rules, etc., sooner or later becomes outdated. Nevertheless, it's something that exists in classical music. And in this way, some composers simply prefer not to take the risk of using some instrument that they suspect it will end associated with a very particular and narrow period of history. It has nothing to do with the artistic value of the pieces composed for those instruments, it's simply an aesthetic decision.


And isn't more daring to use an instrument just because one likes its sound than because one is aware that the sound of an instrument like a cello is accepted and considered "timeless"?



aleazk said:


> In popular music, they don't care very much about this considerations. And so it may appear, superficially more colorful because of that. But, as I told you, this is not because they are more progressive than classical music in terms of timbre.


it appears more colorful exactly because it is usually more progressive. I mean, you are answering to yourself saying this: "Some composers want their pieces to have 'universal' appeal, in time included. Of course, this is illusory at some point, since everything, style, rules, etc., sooner or later becomes outdated. Nevertheless, it's something that exists in classical music. And in this way, some composers simply prefer not to take the risk of using some instrument that they suspect it will end associated with a very particular and narrow period of history"

the risk of the avantgarde has always been that of sound like just as pioneristic experiments that will be used by later artist in more satisfying way.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> And isn't more daring to use an instrument just because one likes its sound than because one is aware that the sound of an instrument like a cello is accepted and considered "timeless"?


Concepts and ideas are daring, and you have these daring timbral ideas in classical music. In classical music they are aware of what's daring, they only prefer to be more cautious, since the dynamics here is different than the one in popular music. You seem to refuse to see this and thus create an artificial problem based on a flawed comparison.

They know what's daring, they just don't want to sound cheap and easy in their implementarion of these things 

(edit: misinterpreted something)


----------



## norman bates

aleazk said:


> Concepts and ideas are daring, and you have these daring timbral ideas in classical music. In classical music they are aware of what's daring, they only prefer to be more cautious, since the dynamics here is different than the one in popular music. You seem to refuse to see this and thus create an artificial problem based on a flawed comparison.
> 
> They know what's daring, they just don't want to sound cheap and easy in their implementarion of these things
> 
> This answers the rest of your comment also.
> 
> "_the risk of the avantgarde has always been that of sound like just as pioneristic experiments that will be used by later artist in more satisfying way_"
> 
> Please, stop with the clichés...


a risk is a clichè?
And by the way, a lot of early electronic music in the classical world sounds cheap, as if one looks now at Birth of a nation without putting it in his historical context is outdated and even grotesque in the glorification of the KKK.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> a risk is a clichè?
> And by the way, a lot of early electronic music in the classical world sounds cheap, as if one looks now at Birth of a nation without putting it in his historical context is outdated and even grotesque in the glorification of the KKK.


To be honest, I avoid the early electronic pieces by Stockhausen, as well as George Antheil's Ballet mecanique. I see them as things of historical importance, but I don't listen to them in the same sense in which I listen to Ligeti's Atmospheres and I still enjoy it. Natural outdating is fine, extreme outdating in a very brief time shows a lack of interest from the part of the composer in this aspect. Classical music pretends to be the epitome of aesthetics considerations, then this is questionable.


----------



## norman bates

my notion of the avantgarde is that of progressive music, withouth aesthetic considerations. 
Sometimes it produces a timeless masterpiece, but often it produces things that, using something new tend to produce things that in the future can be seen more easily as naif and not sophisticated compared to later developments, like in any other field.


----------



## aleazk

norman bates said:


> my notion of the avantgarde is that of progressive music, withouth aesthetic considerations.
> Sometimes it produces a timeless masterpiece, but often it produces things that, using something new tend to produce things that in the future can be seen more easily as naif and not sophisticated compared to later developments, like in any other fields.


Well, but in that case we agree to some extent. Only that I think the best way to be avant-garde and progressive without falling into naif things is by suplementing it with certain aesthetic considerations that serve as security device. I don't think this makes you more conservative. It certainly makes the process slower, though, as I have been admiting.

Take Ligeti, for example. In his avant-garde periods, he produced very few naive things. He had a very good nose for that, and he truly regretted of some of his naive pieces. The same with Boulez, and some others.

btw, I know you said that more to attack the notion that classical music carries the torch (that's why I misread it initially), so to speak, but it actually goes to the core of what I'm saying. And, of course, what I'm saying also applies to classical composers as well, and sometimes they also failed to fulfil this criterium.

And, in any case, I think most of these colorful things you find in rock music are, from the point of view of classical music, naive things with which classical composers themselves also experimented but ultimately were discarded long time ago.

So, I ask you again: do you really think that progressive people like Ligeti, Grisey, etc., didn't use all of those 'glowing' to you resources found in rock music according to you because they were some arch-conservatives that didn't know what was new and what was not new?

I'm even making the concession that it's possible that they are not using all the resources available and that in rock perhaps they use them. But to conclude from that that they were not the most progressive (when the consensus is that they were in fact one of the most progressive) is a very long shot. And, as I told you, the actual answer to this issue is quite more nuanced and complicated than you pretend.


----------



## Mahlerian

aleazk said:


> Take Ligeti, for example. In his avant-garde periods, he produced very few naive things. He had a very good nose for that, and he truly regretted of some of his naive pieces. The same with Boulez, and some others.


Boulez did produce a few pieces that he later withdrew as being failed experiments, but only after he had proven himself as a composer with his Sonatas and Visage Nuptial.

I think there needs to be a finer distinction here between timbre in terms of the sounds used (synthesizers, electronic effects, other new instruments, etc.) and timbre in terms of the way sounds are used. The fine combinations of sound achieved by varying playing technique, mixtures of instruments, etc. are something that don't exist in the same way outside of classical for the most part.


----------



## aleazk

Mahlerian said:


> Boulez did produce a few pieces that he later withdrew as being failed experiments, but only after he had proven himself as a composer with his Sonatas and Visage Nuptial.


Well, nobody is perfect  but many of those were simply juvenilia, like Ligeti's early hungarian pieces. I simply don't count them since the risk is much more obvious and expected.

As for mature pieces. Keep in mind that Boulez is arch-critic with everything he does and constantly revises. But I would say he's proud of more or less most of his mature pieces. Even Structures, which marked the change in his style after he criticized himself the lack of possibilities in that realm. Of course, also when we listen to these pieces we find them quite acceptable in terms of the aesthetic criteria I mentioned earlier.

In any case, he effectively withdrew most of what he considered failed.



Mahlerian said:


> I think there needs to be a finer distinction here between timbre in terms of the sounds used (synthesizers, electronic effects, other new instruments, etc.) and timbre in terms of the way sounds are used. The fine combinations of sound achieved by varying playing technique, mixtures of instruments, etc. are something that don't exist in the same way outside of classical for the most part.


Yes, that's very true. And I had that in mind when I said that classical music has a very solid history in thinking about timbre. It's also an obvious counterexample to those saying that the violin is fossilized. I took the electronics effects/new instruments because it seemed the obvious weak point as per the classical music position (since composers considered progressive, like Ligeti, made zero use of them in their mature styles*, when it's ubiquitous in rock music and other genres)

*I don't count his two (or three, I think) electronic pieces!


----------



## Mahlerian

aleazk said:


> Yes, that's very true. And I had that in mind when I said that classical music has a very solid history in thinking about timbre. It's also an obvious counterexample to those saying that the violin is fossilized. I took the electronics effects/new instruments because it seemed the obvious weak point as per the classical music position (since composers considered progressive, like Ligeti, made zero use of them in their mature styles*, when it's ubiquitous in rock music and other genres)
> 
> *I don't count his two (or three, I think) electronic pieces!


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there's nothing inherently wrong with those kinds of electronic/synthesized sounds that some consider outdated, and that the main problem is more our associations with their cliched use in popular music than the sounds themselves. I think that a lot of those 80s synths sound pretty good simply as sound, and that they could certainly be employed in interesting ways by composers who don't think about them in terms of "the way they were used" at the time.

Much the same could be said of the electric guitar and the many timbres it has produced. It doesn't have to sound like rock or metal, even when distorted.


----------



## aleazk

Mahlerian said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there's nothing inherently wrong with those kinds of electronic/synthesized sounds that some consider outdated, and that the main problem is more our associations with their cliched use in popular music than the sounds themselves. I think that a lot of those 80s synths sound pretty good simply as sound, and that they could certainly be employed in interesting ways by composers who don't think about them in terms of "the way they were used" at the time.
> 
> Much the same could be said of the electric guitar and the many timbres it has produced. It doesn't have to sound like rock or metal, even when distorted.


To some extent you are right, we could do that. But keep in mind that our aesthetics notions and ways of appreciation are in part constructions (though very deeply ingrained in our subjectivity, to the point in which it's even difficult to make the difference) and history is an important part. I actually don't think they can be dissociated in the clear and objective way you propose. If this were the case, I assure you these resources would be more widely used. I like Stockhausen Oktophonie, but good god! if you get what I mean 

I think that what makes classical music special and different is that we actually think aesthetics in those finer terms, everything is examined, and to try not to repeat it or avoid easy solutions to the aesthetic problems faced by the composers.

Anyway, I don't close the door. After all, the Harpsichord has been used successfully by Ligeti, Carter and others, and in new ways. I think part of this success is because the baroque is so far away. I think we will have to let some time pass in order to let things about rock, science fi movies, etc., to settle down in order to revisit some of these things.


----------



## Taggart

Members are reminded that they should



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.


Do not make personal comments. If you feel a post is offensive, please report it. Do *not* reply to it.

A number of posts have been removed because they breach the ToS. Any further comments may result in the thread being closed.


----------



## stevens

"Why isn't the guitar in the modern orchestra"

One possibility:
Its not because of the guitar. Its because of the guitarrists


----------



## stevens

"Why isn't the guitar in the modern orchestra"

-Because modern orchestras play pieces which contains more than three chords 

(sorry I cant resist)


----------



## BurningDesire

aleazk said:


> Well, they also have to play baroque music after all, don't they? Also, why would you abandon those great instruments. Have it all, I say.
> 
> They certainly use interesting timbres in some cases, but it's all pure coloration in most cases, there's not a dialectics and profound thinking of timbre behind it, like in, say, spectralism.
> 
> Second, a lot of that comes from the influence of people like Stockhausen, Varese, etc.
> 
> I don't consider their conception of timbre more advanced, really.
> 
> What I can concede to you is that classical musicians are certainly more reluctant to add new sounds sometimes, while in popular music they simply do it. But that's a different thing, it has nothing to do with their conception of timbre. It's because of a question of not subscribing to aesthetic notions that become outdated too quickly. That's why classical musicians think twice before adding the last technological device. Remember those Yamaha synthesizers from the 80s, ubiquitous in pop music and science fi movies? who use those sounds now? nobody...


The only music that has a "profound thinking" about timbre is stuff like spectralism (I'm taking that to mean that it is being analyzed in a technical sense). Spectral music also tends to be boring because they come up with an interesting sound through complicated means, and forget that its also good to try and write music with that interesting sound.

You seem to have this preconception that rock music composers do things in a totally braindead and arbitrary manner, like "who cares what interesting things they've done with orchestration, they aren't 'classical' so they don't really know what they're doing so its invalid". In fact, rock music composers, like many others, like to experiment with things, try various things with the tools they have. All you need to do is study the writing process the Beatles or Brian Wilson used on some of their projects, or research some of this music and you will see a spirit of exploration that is quite comparable to composers like Varese, and in many of the better ones there is alot of attention to detail in terms of timbre and color, considerably more-so than many classical composers even give any thought. There is heavy experimentation and utilization of many techniques in the composition process, taking advantage of the fixed medium of recording, and of the many idiosyncracies of electric technology. Its extremely interesting, I think more so than a composer having 50 flutes playing slightly out of tune with one another to produce a few chords and textures that go nowhere.


----------



## sharik

BurningDesire said:


> All you need to do is study the writing process the Beatles or Brian Wilson used on some of their projects


could they write an orchestral score?


----------



## BurningDesire

sharik said:


> could they write an orchestral score?


That has nothing to do with anything, but for the record Brian Wilson could and does notate and orchestrate his scores, and Paul McCartney, has composed orchestral works. And of course there is Frank Zappa.

But since when is writing for orchestra the thing that validates a composer's work? What about the composers who solely or primarily excelled in composing solo or chamber music? I guess Chopin doesn't matter right?


----------



## sharik

BurningDesire said:


> for the record Brian Wilson could and does notate and orchestrate his scores, and Paul McCartney, has composed orchestral works.


and how do these rate among classical composers'?



BurningDesire said:


> What about the composers who solely or primarily excelled in composing solo or chamber music? I guess Chopin doesn't matter right?


he did write for the orchestra.


----------



## BurningDesire

sharik said:


> and how do these rate among classical composers'?
> 
> he did write for the orchestra.


He wrote mediocrely for the orchestra. If all he had written where his pieces with orchestra, he would be an obscure Romantic composer, not one of the most prominent. And how do they rate to whom? I don't rate composers. How about you actually go out and listen to some of their work instead of judging it without.


----------



## aleazk

BurningDesire said:


> The only music that has a "profound thinking" about timbre is stuff like spectralism (I'm taking that to mean that it is being analyzed in a technical sense).


Not really, it goes back to the very notion of orchestration. The late romantics were quite good at that. Not to mention the guys that came after... 



BurningDesire said:


> Spectral music also tends to be boring because they come up with an interesting sound through complicated means, and forget that its also good to try and write music with that interesting sound.


I prefer to be more inclusive instead to reduce spectralism to the IRCAM based composers like Grisey, and the related well known techniques.

This is boring? I don't think so...



BurningDesire said:


> You seem to have this preconception that rock music composers do things in a totally braindead and arbitrary manner, like "who cares what interesting things they've done with orchestration, they aren't 'classical' so they don't really know what they're doing so its invalid". In fact, rock music composers, like many others, like to experiment with things, try various things with the tools they have. All you need to do is study the writing process the Beatles or Brian Wilson used on some of their projects, or research some of this music and you will see a spirit of exploration that is quite comparable to composers like Varese, and in many of the better ones there is alot of attention to detail in terms of timbre and color, considerably more-so than many classical composers even give any thought. There is heavy experimentation and utilization of many techniques in the composition process, taking advantage of the fixed medium of recording, and of the many idiosyncracies of electric technology. Its extremely interesting, I think more so than a composer having 50 flutes playing slightly out of tune with one another to produce a few chords and textures that go nowhere.


Show me something that equals the mastery of orchestration of this and I will believe you.

And, actually, I was addressing norman bates' comment about rock being more progressive than classical in timbre. I wonder where I said it was braindead. In fact, I actually recognized it can be colorful.


----------



## sharik

BurningDesire said:


> He wrote mediocrely for the orchestra.


compared to whom?.. certainly not to Paul McCartney. Franz Liszt would be that.



BurningDesire said:


> And how do they rate to whom? I don't rate composers.


you just rated Chopin.


----------



## tdc

sharik said:


> to no avail whatsoever.


Actually I thought both those composers used the instrument quite successfully. _Gruppen_ is widely considered one of Stockhausen's better works. But admittedly they certainly weren't overly ambitious in using a variety of different timbres with the instrument - all though I'm not sure that would have enhanced those particular pieces in any way. I think whatever serves the music and purpose of the composer is more important than showcasing all the different sound capabilities of a given instrument.


----------



## sharik

tdc said:


> I think whatever serves the music and purpose of the composer is more important than showcasing all the different sound capabilities of a given instrument.


well, if we take for example how Morricone does it, maybe then i'd have to agree.


----------



## dgee

stevens said:


> "Why isn't the guitar in the modern orchestra"
> 
> -Because modern orchestras play pieces which contains more than three chords
> 
> (sorry I cant resist)


But what about good guitarists? This is like saying "why isn't the organ in modern orchestras?" Because you need a sense of rhythm to play with others TURBOLOLs

But seriously, let me reiterate the number one reason is that composers haven't written for it. There are loosely two reason for that: doesn't achieve musical effect desired AND/OR not available/practicable. All your sub-reasons can fit under this logical framework


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> That has nothing to do with anything, but for the record Brian Wilson could and does notate and orchestrate his scores, and Paul McCartney, has composed orchestral works. And of course there is Frank Zappa.
> 
> But since when is writing for orchestra the thing that validates a composer's work? What about the composers who solely or primarily excelled in composing solo or chamber music? I guess Chopin doesn't matter right?


Paul McCartney sings, whistles, plays on a guitar or a keyboard, 'what he wants,' to assistant composers who notate and orchestrate it (_Liverpool Cantata_... something only a wealthy musician who near prides himself on not being able to read or notate music can afford to do. It is possible that post Liverpool Cantata, he has availed himself of software, but he would still require assistants to put that into notation.


----------



## Tricky Fish

I think the original question has been well answered by others. I lean towards the unamplified volume and traditional issues.

But as a guitarist, the more interesting question to me is: why isn't the guitar used more in chamber music and small ensemble work?

It is a brilliant instrument for accompaniment and is less effected by its volume limitation is small group settings.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Tricky Fish said:


> I think the original question has been well answered by others. I lean towards the unamplified volume and traditional issues.
> 
> But as a guitarist, the more interesting question to me is: why isn't the guitar used more in chamber music and small ensemble work?
> 
> It is a brilliant instrument for accompaniment and is less effected by its volume limitation is small group settings.


That's a very interesting thought. The character of the instrument would perhaps lend itself well to woodwind accompaniment - maybe a trio for guitar, flute and clarinet.


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> Paul McCartney sings, whistles, plays on a guitar or a keyboard, 'what he wants,' to assistant composers who notate and orchestrate it (_Liverpool Cantata_... something only a wealthy musician who near prides himself on not being able to read or notate music can afford to do. It is possible that post Liverpool Cantata, he has availed himself of software, but he would still require assistants to put that into notation.


First, I'd like some source for those claims. Plus, that is completely irrelevant to his works that are just him and his voice and "rock" instruments, which still involves colorful and creative, inventive uses of sound.


----------



## Tricky Fish

MoonlightSonata said:


> That's a very interesting thought. The character of the instrument would perhaps lend itself well to woodwind accompaniment - maybe a trio for guitar, flute and clarinet.


Agree, but I would add a cello or double bass to the trio to make a versatile quartet


----------



## sharik

BurningDesire said:


> that is completely irrelevant to his works that are just him and his voice and "rock" instruments


and his record company's production team, yeah.


----------



## norman bates

Tricky Fish said:


> I think the original question has been well answered by others. I lean towards the unamplified volume and traditional issues.


but if it's a modern orchestra why the amplification should be an issue? Forgetting for a moment that even an unamplified guitar can have a louder sound, using for example flamenco or gipsy techniques, but if for some strange reason one thinks that only nylon strings are acceptable (that is completely absurd, but anyway) there are also instruments like this:


----------



## BurningDesire

sharik said:


> and his record company's production team, yeah.


nuh-uh

.........................................


----------



## BurningDesire

norman bates said:


> but if it's a modern orchestra why the amplification should be an issue? Forgetting for a moment that even an unamplified guitar can have a louder sound, using for example flamenco or gipsy techniques, but if for some strange reason one thinks that only nylon strings are acceptable (that is completely absurd, but anyway) there are also instruments like this:


And there are microphones. Some people think that microphone technology hasn't evolved since the 1930s, but you can amplify instruments to immense volumes without losing the original character of the sounds anymore.


----------



## aleazk

This piece by Takemitsu shows that the guitar can be integrated to the orchestra to very convincing results:

*Takemitsu* - _Textures_

This other piece shows that the distorted electric guitar can also be implemented (piece discovered by @violadude) succesfully into a (contemporary) classical piece:

Ken Ueno - _...blood blossoms..._

While the effects are evidently taken from rock music, they are handled in a different way, more proper of classical music (particularly in the second part), giving the timbres a very rich and consistent musical narrative.


----------



## Guest

As Julian Bream said, the repertoire for the guitar is pretty lightweight overall. A few great composers have written concertos for the guitar. The most well-known, of course, is the Aranjuez. Check out the Villa-Lobos, too! 

I studied classical guitar for many years and still play, but would rather play the piano now. Simply because most of the guitar repertoire is non-native to the instrument, or written by lesser composers, or very folk-like.


----------



## norman bates

I've just discovered Sinfonity. I've heard many other times guitarists playing classical and baroque music on electric, usually with awful results. I'm not sure what to think of the sound, but it's definitely a lot better than the vast majority of those experiments, and these guys are doing it in a very professional way.






What you think of it?


----------

