The Collaborative Process: If You Play It, We Will Write.

Well it has been a while, but it isn't really collaborative if I don't write too, so here it goes. Feel free to give me hell if I don't update semi-regularly. Anyways, to the subject at hand. Chris from Iowa sent in this question:

Why are composers writing less for string orchestra, and more for band?

Well let me just do some listing of potential answers here so I don't have to come up with coherent transitions (I, like Bruckner, am opposed to transitional material):

-- There is plenty written for String Ensemble today, it is just that it is mostly educational pieces written for starter through high school groups. Which makes sense, as pure string ensembles haven't exactly been a popular medium for a long time but they are still traditionally segregated from the winds and percussion while they are learning to play. Incidentally, most of the music written for band is also educational, but unless you are a middle or high school band/orchestra teacher, you generally have no reason to keep up on this music.

-- This is purely a matter of opinion and personal experience, but many string players and string-based ensembles are more resistant to playing new music, with the exception of those that decide to focus exclusively on contemporary music. With a focused string ensemble that makes sense, as the main cannon of music for them will be late baroque / early classical music and programming a Ligeti string ensemble piece would be a little odd. The ensemble probably doesn't focus on the needed technique to pull such a piece off and programming considerations may not allow it. Some wind ensemble are starting to fall in to this mold as well, with there now being a large enough canon where they can focus strictly on "classics" if they want.

-- The Wind Ensemble is a younger group in it's modern form. As such most of the music written for it focuses on modern techniques that most modern players are currently familiar with. String ensembles on the other hand, may focus on period appropriate performance technique, which takes considerable scholarship and study to accomplish and may not allow them to also focus on the rigorous demands of much contemporary string music. With much of contemporary music exploring timbral variation, composer's may also be drawn to a more varied group of instruments than a string ensemble. Homogeneous ensembles in general do not get as much written for them (well maybe in small group, but not in large group.)

Really though all this leads to the title of the post (who would've guessed)

-- Composer's will write for what people will play. Unless you are already an established composer of X notoriety (Measured in metric notoriety units), you will write for what you think you can get performed and performed well. If more string ensembles express interest in composer's writing music for them, then rest assured that it will get written. As it stands now, the conventional wisdom among many composers is that wind ensemble is the large ensemble that has the greatest desire for new music (you'll also be competing with less historical titans focusing on wind ensemble.) Mind you, my experience may vary from many others, as I studied at programs where the wind ensembles were the premier ensembles and not the orchestras. Composer's who studied at larger institutions that attract the highest quality string students may have a different experience. Although even those schools will be more apt to focus on full orchestra over string ensemble.

Well that is my rough opinion on the matter, and as always, I have not proof read for logical inconsistencies. Feel free to bring up more questions to either Chris or myself, or to call me retarded in the comments.

email Brian: Bivdub@gmail.com
email Chris: chris@wilsonmarimba.com (look at the big man with his own domain)

The Collaborative Process: A response to a question by orchestral and jazz marimbist, Chris Wilson.

Been a while but I'm gonna try and keep on rockin out blogs as long as no one is gonna keep on reading them. Here is the latest question from C-dub for our collaborativity:

Why do you think the marimba has failed in both the symphonic and jazz settings? (this could be one for us to argue about, I have my opinions!)

I'd like to state for the record, that I have my doubts about his ability to argue or his possession of opinions. But that could be an entire blog post in itself, so I'll spare the discussion here (hint: it ends with he is a robot from the planet Marimbasly here to steal our advanced posifunkitronics technology. Boring stuff really).

Well, as an opening qualifier, I'd like to say that I think the marimba is probably gaining ground as an orchestral instrument, and possibly as a jazz instrument as well (not as acquainted with modern jazz orchestration trends), as percussion becomes a more vital role in the modern orchestra. I think it is a ways off before people need to start worrying about which principal marimbist auditions they need to fly out for, but I'd venture to say that it is being hauled out on stage in more orchestras each year.

For orchestras, I'd say once again it comes down to tradition, much the same as euphonium. The earliest significant piece I see written for Marimba is the Creston which is from 1940, about 10 or so years after orchestras started getting scared of new music by my estimation. Even if the instrument were around earlier, another issue is that it is an instrument which really has to be worked around to some degree when orchestrating. It is much like the harp in that it either woul need to be duplicated or used only in delicate passages or smaller orchestrations, lest it be lost completely in the texture of the orchestra. For many orchestras, I imagine the size of the instrument itself is something that has to be considered, since they do not always have vast stages to work with, and the marimba takes up a considerable amount of room.

Once again the issure of why it is not becoming a standard instrument is similar to the euphonium issue: Until someone writes our times canonic literature that includes the use of the marimba, orchestras don't need them. And until then, the use of it is discouraged to young composers who are often forced in to writing for "standard orchestration" (i.e. early-mid Romantic orchestration) if they hope to get works performed. Even if a competition allows non-standard orchestrations, it will often stipulate that the composer has to pay for extra performers, which is outside the means of many.

Side note: I feel that it got more of a foothold in band, because of its use in early literature, and with enough keyboard percussion it can help fill the absence of the large homogenous section that the orchestra has in the strings.

As far as jazz goes, I don't know enough about the relative progression of the vibes versus the marimba to know if there was a technical or financial reason why one would have won out. But style-wise, I think the vibes gets a clear edge in jaz because of the style of sustain that it can produce. The marimba is pretty much limited to rolling to produce any substantial sustain, which does not lend itself well to the jazz style. Think about how often you hear piano tremelos in jazz; it is just not charactersitic. The other problem is that jazz often uses large, complex chords which can be produced more easily in their entirety on a vibraphone holding the sustain down than the marimba. The marimba would have to sacrifice too many notes if it were to replace the guitar, piano, or vibes as a comping instrument, which would be its seemingly obvious non-solo function.

Anyways, I got work to do, so I'll leave it at that. Feel free to argue, Chris, if you have the ability.