# Symphonies suitable for amateur orchestra



## Agnes Wood (Mar 26, 2019)

Our orchestra is having problems with finding music to encompass the competent wind and brass section(including trobones) and the weaker string sections. We have played Borodin 2 Brahms 2 and 4 and most recently Suk 1. These have been challenging for all but some of the string players are really struggling.
Has anyone had similar problems Any suggestions on how to resolve the mismatch with those who are keen for a challenge and those who feel that they are being ignored by the repertoire. Any suggestions on repertoire also welcomed.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Suk 1! Bravo. Great choice.

I play in several amateur groups, conduct sometimes, and help with repertoire. Here's the problem: there are many symphonies that less-than-great groups can play credibly, the problem is that the players really want to play (and usually wreak havoc on) the great masterworks. But most of the great works are simply beyond the ability of amateurs - and it's not just the strings! Here are some of the symphonies I've been part of that are more reasonable:

1. Vassily Kalinnikov: two symphonies. Audiences enjoy them and they're fun to play, too.
2. Robert Volkmann: two symphonies
3. Anton Rubinsten: symphony no. 5
4. Vaughan Williams: symphony 2 (much easier than people think!)
5. Rimsky-Korsakov: symphony 3
6. Ferdinand Ries: symphony 2
7. Edvard Grieg: symphony in C. Nothing like you would expect.

Unfortunately for amateurs, the big symphonies of Brahms, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Glazunov, Elgar and the gang are just out of reach. Hasn't stopped groups from playing them; they just shouldn't unless they have sufficient rehearsal time to make a decent presentation.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I seem to remember that Roy Harris' 3rd may be appropriate then came across this quote:

_"Together with "the Second Symphony by Howard Hanson, [and] the Third by Robert Ward ... the Third of Roy Harris" is one of those American symphonies which "are within the capabilities of our [American] community orchestras"_ (Van Horn 1979, 74).


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> I play in several amateur groups, conduct sometimes, and help with repertoire.


mbhaub, It's too bad that instrumentalists are so hung up on the greats, when there is a lot of other music suited to their abilities. Speaking of which, how are preparations for your concert in Arizona including "neglected composers" going? It sounded like a great project!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Concert this coming Sunday. The Reinecke 2nd is a lot of fun to play, but frankly lacking in those special qualities to make it memorable. Still, a rare performance at least in the US. The Bruckner no. 0 is at least better known, and come to think of it could easily be played by amateurs.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Concert this coming Sunday. The Reinecke 2nd is a lot of fun to play, but frankly lacking in those special qualities to make it memorable. Still, a rare performance at least in the US. The Bruckner no. 0 is at least better known, and come to think of it could easily be played by amateurs.


Congratulations! It's great that you're doing these works and I hope your players appreciate the idea of introducing pieces like the Reinecke 2nd that are seldom heard live. Please let us know how it goes.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Agnes Wood said:


> Our orchestra is having problems with finding music to encompass the competent wind and brass section(including trobones) and the weaker string sections. We have played Borodin 2 Brahms 2 and 4 and most recently Suk 1. These have been challenging for all but some of the string players are really struggling.
> Has anyone had similar problems Any suggestions on how to resolve the mismatch with those who are keen for a challenge and those who feel that they are being ignored by the repertoire. Any suggestions on repertoire also welcomed.


Speaking as a largely incompetent cellist in my local community orchestra, there are quite a few options, but it depends on how forgiving your music director and audience are.

These are some of the pieces that we've played over the past several years:

Haydn 45, 60, 103 and 104
Arriaga
Schubert 4, 6, and 8
Beethoven 1, 2, 7, and 8 (and the conductor is planning to do 5 next season)
And we're playing Mehul 1 in May (first rehearsal tonight, so we'll see...)

I can't speak to the difficulty of the violin parts, but the cello parts have been manageable. There are parts that are certainly a struggle for my 61 year-old fingers, but as long as I find the time to practice....


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

For a while I too was a largely incompetent cellist who played in a community orchestra.

The manageability of parts, while important, is not the crucial factor. It is *intonation*. With amateur orchestras even playing passages where the parts are very simple, i.e., passages at slow tempi with long note values, sustained pitches, etc., the result is usually bad because of poor intonation...and it only takes a few players to be out of tune to ruin the sound.

I had a certain amount of enjoyment playing in the orchestra but I would never do it again. Out-of-tune playing is unbearable for me to listen to.

That said may I suggest Vaughan Williams' Concerto Grosso for string orchestra? The orchestra is split into three sections based on skill: Concertino (Advanced), Tutti (Intermediate), and Ad Lib (Novice) which only plays open strings.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The Beethoven First is not only playable, but will be a joy to do so -- even for your undermatched wind players.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Haydn70 said:


> The manageability of parts, while important, is not the crucial factor. It is *intonation*. With amateur orchestras even playing passages where the parts are very simple, i.e., passages at slow tempi with long note values, sustained pitches, etc., the result is usually bad because of poor intonation...and it only takes a few players to be out of tune to ruin the sound.


Intonation is the bane of bad orchestras and even good ones. Hearing a good orchestra - any of the dozens of second tier ones in the US - and then a great one, say Cleveland and the most striking thing is the absolute precision of tuning from the Clevelanders. Being able to play flawlessly in-tune takes a long time, and a great conductor, to achieve. It's not a matter of using electronic tuners, either. I think those things have ruined player's hearing. What it takes is a conductor who knows how to build a string section. The best conductor I ever worked with who knew how to solve the problem did it the old-fashioned way: for several years a substantial amount of Haydn and Mozart - composers who knew how to write for strings. It demanded close listening and continual adjusting. Lots of Schubert & Mendelssohn, too. Playing the loud Romantics like Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, etc didn't allow time for the ears to develop. We still play those old classics from time to time and also several works for strings only - just to keep the hard work from falling away. When you play in tune not only does it feel great, but it also doubles the amount of sound an orchestra can deliver. With a crappy group that plays out of tune, they can play loudly but all you hear is musical muddle. Inner voices are lost, balance is gone - it's just noise.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> Intonation is the bane of bad orchestras and even good ones..


Even as a kid, hearing my high school "orchestra" playing the overture to Iphegenia in Aulis, or (with the chorus) Brahms' German Requiem, I developed the ability to listen around bad intonation and wrong notes and enjoy the gyst of the music as best I could. I don't recommend it as something one ought to seek outm but it is a useful trait. 

(PS: I really enjoy having a few real orchestral players here as regulars. It's refreshing to hear the opinions and experiences of those who have been in the trenches, and aren't just dilettantes, like me.)


----------



## Agnes Wood (Mar 26, 2019)

Thank you for this response. I will copy to our conductor


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)




----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

The local amateur orchestra with which I play has performed over the years: Sibelius 1, 2 and 5, Dvorak 7, 8 and 9, Brahms 2, Tchaikovsky 3 and 4, Beethoven 3, 6, and 9 (with a local choir), Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, Mozart 40. There have been other symphonies that I haven't performed. We hire a good player for our concertmaster and hire a professional conductor. We rehearse for 2 1/2 hours once a week. We rehearse for about 10 weeks and then perform once. We always have a sectional rehearsal where the strings, woodwinds and brass rehearse separately. We have four performances per year. 

It's a fairly big commitment. I have not performed in every concert over the past twenty years, I take the occasional break. And I do miss the occasional rehearsal though still perform. 

We do also perform other pieces: overtures, shorter pieces and concerti when we bring in a local professional who wants to perform the solo part. But you asked about Symphonies. 

There are three big local amateur orchestras here, and each perform at a different level. My orchestra is considered to be the bottom of the three.


----------

