# What's next for acoustic orchestral music?



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

For centuries the greatest composers changed the rules of the game with amazing innovations.

Part of it relied on the fact that instruments became more advanced over time and enabled composers to give more complex parts to them or achieve novel colours.

1. *Can a significant contribution that will be comparable with those of past composers still be made in the field of introducing new (acoustic) instruments? *
I don't mean "innovation" in the form of inviting ocarinas and tribal drums to the concert. Politically catchy phrases like "exploring the inclusion of traditional Latin American and African instruments" do not exactly result in music that I would put next to Furtwängler recordings, if you know what I mean. I mean significant instruments with potentials and versatility (comparable to those of a clarinet or a french horn) that will feel like a logical extension of existing orchestral traditions.

*2. How about orchestra sizes and the choice of instruments within them? Can great innovations be done here?*
Unique set-ups are possible, but I wouldn't call them a field to make _significant _contributions anymore. No matter the number of existing instruments in a hypothetical set-up, the sound that would be achieved has likely already been pioneered by someone.

*3. Now, let's consider harmony and counterpoint. Has enough been achieved that nothing new can be "game-changing" anymore? *
From the most minimalist to the most dense, I believe we have heard enough to make it hard for anyone to truly transcend his/her predecessors.

It is frequently said that no modern composer can match the greats of the past, because all the greats made major innovations. *If we assume that classical music has come close enough to its peak, can such argument (of a lack of significant innovation) be officially retired?*

In such case what would only matter is how do the new composers use what has already been achieved by the previous generations. Harvest time, celebration time. Young Mozart and young Beethoven of today or tomorrow would be judged by their effect, not their innovation---which might not be possible anymore at all. Instead of twisting themselves into weird shapes, composers would be freed to be more conservative without getting fingers of shame pointed in their direction.

I believe we already _are _in such era, and we have been for quite some time.

But to play devil's advocate:

I. I could see violas replaced by a better instrument, for example. One that can hold it's own against other instrument groups in terms of beautiful leading in the main melody line.

II. Something could also be done to improve the force of the string section, to make it possible to decrease its numbers / make it more flexible for other instrument groups to be amplified / diversified on the same budget as today's orchestras.

III. There have been many brass instrument concepts, but possibly there is still place for a chord-playing brass instrument with multiple timbres possible.

But in general I think we have reached an era where innovation needs not apply.

What do _you _think? Has classical music reached a peak, where innovation is not a significant criterion, or are great discoveries that will put someone into the top 5 or top 3 of the greatest composers _of all time_ still possible?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

No, its a mature art form that has largely run its course. Not to say that interesting new music will not be created, but the circumstances that gave orchestral music its prominence in the 18th-20th centuries are gone. As far as your points I-III the question is who would care? The audience primarily wants canonical works and new music is a very small niche. Violas, or any other instrument, are not going to be replaced because they are needed for established repertoire.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I agree with Mwv 1080 - after centuries of refinement, development and trying new things, the orchestra, it's instruments, it's repertoire are pretty much set in stone. There are attempts made, to be sure. It seems like every year some new gadget comes out that's going to make bassoons sound better: a new synthetic reed, some weird thing that attaches the bocal to the body, a new fingering system to eliminate flicking and other ideas. They are all niche items, the vast majority of players stick with what's worked for a long, long time. No doubt other instruments have similar items foisted on them. (Although, it has struck me odd that no one else has adopted the German system trumpet used in Berlin, Leipzig, Vienna and such. Those instruments really do make playing high notes easier and much, much more secure than the standard 3-valve instrument.)

There is one area though where new ideas are having more acceptance: the electronic keyboard is finally getting recognized as a legitimate tool. My main orchestra now uses one to replace the celesta, the harpsichord, and when useful, the organ. The technological improvement of these devices has been astonishing and can replicate sounds so well that it's hard to tell the difference between it and the real thing. A real celestra is extremely heavy to move. A real harpsichord is always out of tune. They're great and also a budget saver. But I do draw the line at using the harp patch - the real thing sounds so much nicer.


----------

