# Why so few Woodwind Quartets?



## Truckload

I refer to a quartet consisting of flute, oboe, clarinet and bassoon. 

I just can't find many Woodwind Quartets at all other than modernist pieces. With so many string quartets, it is baffling that more composers did not choose to write for the woodwind quartet.

Of course there are many arrangements of other works, but few original compositions.

After about 1910, lots of modernist works. There is a Woodwind Quartet by Holst that is somewhat interesting. 

I would be especially interested in any Woodwind Quartets from the middle to late romantic era if anyone knows of any.


----------



## Vasks

You are correct to note that Romantic composers did not write for just those 4 instruments. But they sure didn't write much for the standard quintet either (Danzi & Reicha being one of the few exceptions). 

My educated guess is that there were far fewer good amateur wind players to form ensembles to make it financially attractive to motivate composers to write for them


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

The french horn has been a part of the modern "Woodwind" chamber ensemble for a long long time. Why? Because it gives an extra color and depth to the overall woodwind sound, and it is also the most "subtle" of brass instruments, so it can blend with other like instruments. Woodwind quintets are pretty top heavy, flute, oboe and clarinet all being considered soprano instruments, so the french horn provides more of the middle to low range in music. The bassoon is quite at a disadvantage for being the only strong bass instrument. I have heard a quintet that substituted the trumpet for the french horn, and it was good, except I felt bad for the trumpet player since they had to hold back their sound the entire time. It's kinda unnatural for trumpet to be in that circumstance.

However, an even better instrumentation is the woodwind sextet, which has the typical quintet setting (french horn too) but an added_ bass clarinet_, which really fills out the bass. Janacek's suite _Mladi _"Youth" is such a work, and it's really great sounding from a balance perspective.

You also may be wondering, why not substitute the french horn out for an alto saxophone? I've heard of such a thing, but ironically for being a woodwind, it doesn't work as well. It's like having a trumpet in the ensemble. Saxophone is _loud _and hard to blend its very unique timbre among all the other colors.


----------



## arpeggio

^^^^
Good answer.

During my delusional composer phase when I was in college I decomposed a woodwind quintet. I originally scored it for flute, oboe, clarinet, alto sax and bassoon. It did not work so I rescored the sax part for horn. It worked better but the music still sucked.


----------



## Truckload

Huilunsoittaja said:


> The french horn has been a part of the modern "Woodwind" chamber ensemble for a long long time. Why? Because it gives an extra color and depth to the overall woodwind sound, and it is also the most "subtle" of brass instruments, so it can blend with other like instruments. Woodwind quintets are pretty top heavy, flute, oboe and clarinet all being considered soprano instruments, so the french horn provides more of the middle to low range in music. The bassoon is quite at a disadvantage for being the only strong bass instrument. I have heard a quintet that substituted the trumpet for the french horn, and it was good, except I felt bad for the trumpet player since they had to hold back their sound the entire time. It's kinda unnatural for trumpet to be in that circumstance.
> 
> However, an even better instrumentation is the woodwind sextet, which has the typical quintet setting (french horn too) but an added_ bass clarinet_, which really fills out the bass. Janacek's suite _Mladi _"Youth" is such a work, and it's really great sounding from a balance perspective.
> 
> You also may be wondering, why not substitute the french horn out for an alto saxophone? I've heard of such a thing, but ironically for being a woodwind, it doesn't work as well. It's like having a trumpet in the ensemble. Saxophone is _loud _and hard to blend its very unique timbre among all the other colors.


You make some very interesting points. I would point out that in the string quartet, the viola reaches only to the C below middle C. The Bb Clairnet reaches to the D below middle C, just a major 2nd higher than the lowest note on the viola. And the clarinet has a beautiful dark, mellow tone in it's lowest register.

However, after listening to what repertoire I can find, I think you are correct that the timbre of the combination is top heavy, unless the clarinet plays almost continually in its low register. And what clarinet player would want to do that?

And although the horn does blend far better than any other brass instrument, matched only by a well played euphonium, I am not satisfied by the typical wind quintet timbre. The idea of adding a bass clarinet is interesting. In the 19th century they would probably not have been available to typical amateurs. An english horn could add some additional middle register, but it does not reach as far downward as the clarinet. It also would be difficult to obtain by amateurs.


----------



## Truckload

arpeggio said:


> ^^^^
> Good answer.
> 
> During my delusional composer phase when I was in college I decomposed a woodwind quintet. I originally scored it for flute, oboe, clarinet, alto sax and bassoon. It did not work so I rescored the sax part for horn. It worked better but the music still sucked.


Your modesty is appreciated. It is a virtue that is often lacking these days.

But as an amateur bassoonist who remains active, do you ever wish there was additional chamber music available to you, and if so, for what instrumentation? Sadly I am no longer active in my local community band, but they would have killed for a bassoon. And possibly committed other illegal acts for more horn players. It seems decent horn players are always in short supply.


----------



## Truckload

Vasks said:


> You are correct to note that Romantic composers did not write for just those 4 instruments. But they sure didn't write much for the standard quintet either (Danzi & Reicha being one of the few exceptions).
> 
> My educated guess is that there were far fewer good amateur wind players to form ensembles to make it financially attractive to motivate composers to write for them


It is easy to forget that prior to our present age of tenured university positions and government grants, composers had to earn a living by selling their music. I expect you have really nailed it. If there was a demand for woodwind quartet music, it would have resulted in compositions being created.


----------



## arpeggio

Truckload said:


> Your modesty is appreciated. It is a virtue that is often lacking these days.
> 
> But as an amateur bassoonist who remains active, do you ever wish there was additional chamber music available to you, and if so, for what instrumentation? Sadly I am no longer active in my local community band, but they would have killed for a bassoon. And possibly committed other illegal acts for more horn players. It seems decent horn players are always in short supply.


Not really. There are plenty of great 19th century chamber works for winds.

There is the Dvorak _Serenade_. The Gounod _Petitie Symphonie for Winds_ is fantastic. Vasks mentioned Danzi and Reicha. Rossini composed a _Quartetto per flauto, clarinetto, fagotto e corno_. The problem is that most of the great 19th century wind music was composed by secondary composers.

I am going to say something again that has gotten me into trouble in the past. One of my criticisms of some TC members that they only want to listen to or talk about music that is made of gold plated marble. Not only do they thumb their noses at 99% of the music composed after the death of Mahler but they are oblivious to all of the ourstanding composers whose names did not begin with the letter B.

Spohr may not have been a Beethoven Ten but most of his music is a good solid nine. He also composed some fine chamber works for winds like the _Quintet for Piano and Winds, Op.52_

Note: I found a CD set that has recordings of Romatic wind music. Here is a YouTube sample of the Spohr:


----------



## KenOC

Vasks said:


> My educated guess is that there were far fewer good amateur wind players to form ensembles to make it financially attractive to motivate composers to write for them


Sounds right. If there were few accomplished ensembles, then there was little reason for publishers to pay for the works, engrave them, etc., a rather expensive process. Sheet music was their only business -- no CDs in those days (or even 78s!)

Though I wonder where the demand for the works of Danzi and Reicha came from -- they're certainly virtuosic enough.


----------



## Truckload

arpeggio said:


> Not really. There is plenty of great 19th century chamber works for winds.
> 
> There is the Dvorak _Serenade_. The Gounod _Petitie Symphonie for Winds_ is fantastic. Vasks mentioned Danzi and Reicha. Rossini composed a _Quartetto per flauto, clarinetto, fagotto e corno_. The problem is that most of the great 19th century wind music was composed by secondary composers.
> 
> I am going to say something again that has gotten me into trouble in the past. One of my criticisms of some TC members that they only want to listen to or talk about music that is made of gold plated marble. Not only do they thumb their noses at 99% of the music composed after the death of Mahler but they are oblivious to all of the ourstanding composers whose names did not begin with the letter B.
> 
> Spohr may not have been a Beethoven Ten but most of his music is a good solid nine. He also composed some fine chamber works for winds like the _Quintet for Piano and Winds, Op.52_
> 
> Note: I found a CD set that has recordings of Romatic wind music. Here is a YouTube sample of the Spohr:


I don't know why you should "get into trouble" for making a general comment. But in case the comment was directed specifically towards me, I would point out that while my criteria for listening to music post Mahler is more selective than yours might be, I am very open to listening to and studying music by a wide variety of composers. It is a great joy for me when I score a "find" of some piece of music that is excellent but was previously unknown to me. Of course as time progresses it becomes more and more difficult to find these, but not impossible. Just in the last few months I discovered the Joseph Suk Scherzo Fantastico, which in my view is truly Fantastic.

I spend many hours each week exploring music previously unknown to me. My favorite method is to use a site called Classical Archives. It does require a small annual subscription but it has a wonderfully large variety of works available. YouTube is great, and getting better all the time, but difficult to explore systematically.

www.classicalarchives.com

Thanks for the link to the Spohr. I have listened in the past to his orchestral works, but not his chamber music.

Not sure that the Dvorak Serenade is exactly chamber music, as it requires such a large and varied ensemble. I don't suppose there is a hard and fast rule about the exact size limits for chamber music, but I suppose I was thinking quartet, or possibly quintet or sextet. I have the score for the Dvorak Serenade and find it a very appealing work.

Thanks for your willingness to share your views and your recommendations.


----------



## Ukko

arpeggio said:


> Not really. There is plenty of great 19th century chamber works for winds.
> 
> There is the Dvorak _Serenade_. The Gounod _Petitie Symphonie for Winds_ is fantastic. Vasks mentioned Danzi and Reicha. Rossini composed a _Quartetto per flauto, clarinetto, fagotto e corno_. The problem is that most of the great 19th century wind music was composed by secondary composers.
> 
> I am going to say something again that has gotten me into trouble in the past. One of my criticisms of some TC members that they only want to listen to or talk about music that is made of gold plated marble. Not only do they thumb their noses at 99% of the music composed after the death of Mahler but they are oblivious to all of the ourstanding composers whose names did not begin with the letter B.
> 
> Spohr may not have been a Beethoven Ten but most of his music is a good solid nine. He also composed some fine chamber works for winds like the _Quintet for Piano and Winds, Op.52_
> 
> Note: I found a CD set that has recordings of Romatic wind music. Here is a YouTube sample of the Spohr:


There seems (to me) to have been a period in North European music, between ~1800 and ~1830, when the proto-Romantics held sway, in which several good composers composed interesting chamber music, sometimes for wind/sting combinations. Their music was successful then, but didn't attract sufficient attention from Mendelssohn or Schumann

Thanks to the goddess in charge of music, who whispered in some influential ears, I have heard some of it in recordings.


----------



## Vasks

KenOC said:


> Though I wonder where the demand for the works of Danzi and Reicha came from -- they're certainly virtuosic enough.


I don't know why those two were prolific on writing wind quintets (_maybe they had a good group at their disposal?_) but *virtuostic* is an important word; because Hausmusik for good amateurs needs to be less than virtuositic and therefore we return to the lack of sellability if it's too d**n hard for many to play.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Here's the woodwind sextet I was talking about, you can be judge if the bass clarinet is a nice addition (I think it is). It's especially prominent in the 2nd movement:






One thing to note in comment to what others said earlier, it's quite common for Quintet players to double other instruments to reach different ranges, ex. flute doubling piccolo as I have done, clarinet switching back and forth between A and B flat and sometimes doubling E flat, and oboe doubling English horn.

_Summer Music_ by Barber and _Youth _by Janacek were probably the highlights of my chamber experience in undergrad. Both are seriously good pieces of music.


----------



## Vasks

Well here's a partial explanation and the fact that Reicha was a suberb flautist adds to this

http://www.idrs.org/scores/Lehrer2/Danzi/Introduction_Danzi.html

_It is significant that Danzi chose the Parisian publisher Maurice Schlesinger to present his first three quintets, for it was in Paris that Reicha's superb quintet players were in residence at several of the most prominent theatres in town._


----------



## Guest

There are, of course, tons of wind quintets. Way more than one could mention in this thread.


----------



## arpeggio

I think that Schoenberg's _Woodwind Quintet_ was his first 12-tone work.


----------



## Truckload

nathanb said:


> There are, of course, tons of wind quintets. Way more than one could mention in this thread.


Very true. The original question and subject for inquiry was woodwind quartets.


----------



## jurianbai

There are so few. Yesterday after I acquired Krommer's Bassoon quartet Op.46 No.1 & No.2, I found out they are the same pieces with Krommer's Clarinet Quartet.

The Bassoon quartet Op.46 No.1 in Bb = Clarinet quartet Op.83 in Bb
Youtube example there...

Bassoon quartet Op.46 No.2 in Eb = Clarinet quartet Op.82 in D
(can't find Youtube links)

I kind of disappointed of these transcribing exercises by Krommer, because I begin to collect woodwind quartet and Bassoon quartets is a rare find. I guess this transcribing between the two pieces must have been known by researcher.

the CD, both by CPO:


















If there are any other cases similar to this, please let me know.


----------



## Pugg

nathanb said:


> There are, of course, tons of wind quintets. Way more than one could mention in this thread.


Give us a link please......


----------



## rmatosinhos

I have composed a woodwind quartet to bring fresh ideas to this chamber music setting.
You can listen some excerpts of the music here
sheet music is available at AvA Musical Editions


----------

