Klarinet Archive - Posting 000685.txt from 1997/11

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com>
Subj: RE: Weber One
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:35:04 -0500

At 02:02 AM 11/19/97 -0600, Ed Lacy wrote:
>Prefering that a certain work be performed by the medium for which it was
>composed does not necessarily constitute looking down one's nose at
>concert bands. However, on the basis of their output, we can easily
>conclude that Mozart preferred the orchestra; Beethoven preferred the
>orchestra; Brahms preferred the orchestra; Mahler preferred the orchestra;
>Wagner preferred the orchestra; Tchaikovsky preferred the orchestra;
>Prokofiev preferred the orchestra; Shostakovich preferred the orchestra;
>Stravinsky preferred the orchestra, etc., etc., etc., etc.
>
You might want to verify this with a trip to your library, but I don't
believe concert bands existed prior to the invention of modern instruments
(valved brasses, saxophones, etc.). Therefore Mozart missed his chance to
become the greatest band composer of all time by being born too soon! The
rest of them probably preferred the orchestra because, at the time, that's
where the money was.

>On the other hand, Clifton Williams might seem to have preferred the band,
>although he said in a lecture I attended that he preferred the orchestra,
>but that he soon learned that he could make more money writing for the
>band. Perhaps Vaclav Nelhybel preferred the band, although he started as
>a composer for the orchestra, but never had much success at it. No doubt
>there are composers who prefer the band. In most cases, they have
>neglected to tell us why they have that preference.
>
Probably money. And the opportunity to have one's music performed more
frequently to a wider audience.

>Still, there is no reason why great music cannot be written for almost any
>medium, including the band. However, there is a reason why the greatest
>composers have chosen to write their most significant works for the
>orchestra. It has to do with range of expression, breadth of sonic
>resources, and variety of tone and texture. In the wind section of the
>orchestra, composers have available nearly all the resources of the wind
>band, but in addition they also have the even greater variety afforded by
>the strings, as well as many possible combinations of the two.
>
>No amount of "orchestra bashing" can in any way diminish the worth of the
>great orchestral compositions, which continue to stand the test of time.
>
I absolutely and categorically deny that I was orchestra bashing.
Orchestras are wonderful instruments to compose for, beautiful to listen
to, and great to play in. I have many, many more orchestra recordings in
my collection than band recordings. But my performance opportunities, for
various geographical and other reasons, have been primarily in bands.
That's fine with me, since, as another poster pointed out, it is more fun
to play challenging parts than to count hundreds of measures of rest.

And again, I reaffirm my unshakeable belief that music does not have to be
strictly limited to its originally specified performing group to be
effective. Transcriptions and arrangements, whether for concert band, jazz
band, woodwind quartet or whatever, enrich the lives of all of us, players
and listeners alike, whether or not they reach the ultimate heights
achieved by the originals.

Bill Hausmann bhausman@-----.com
451 Old Orchard Drive http://www.concentric.net/~bhausman
Essexville, MI 48732 http://members.wbs.net/homepages/z/o/o/zoot14.html

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is too loud.