Do you worry about players being bored

OF COURSE I worry about the players getting bored. If they will be bored, then it is likely the audience will be bored as well.

You can have a simple or repetative part but not have it be boring by have it interact with other instruments.

Different instrumentalist have different tolerances. Brass are used to long rests. Violas are used to accompanimental figures. Study the repertoire to get a feel for these tolerance levels. It helps to look at actual parts in addition to full scores.

I do sometimes, mainly because I have had players say that their parts were boring, (mainly piano players when I write chamber music).

If they find it boring they might not play it again and tell others that it is boring which would be bad if I were to make some kind of performance out of a piece.

One more thing-- players tend to prefer slightly difficult parts than boring parts.

DONT WRITE BORING PARTS

Oi! Let's not get too far off topic here.

To Jamie: I am not sure exactly what you meant... maybe someone can shed light on my lack of understanding.

We often have something like 87 measure of rest, followed by a single hit, which could really fit anywhere in the music, so if you get off count, you're in trouble.

Or we have ridiculous instrument changes, like, play timpani in this measure, then you have a measure to run over to the xylophone, play this ridiculous run, and then go back to the timpani in the next beat, with completely different tunings. This tends to happen more in contemporary orchestral music than in anything else.

Oy! Sounds like a bad work out program... ;)

I do sometimes, mainly because I have had players say that their parts were boring, (mainly piano players when I write chamber music).

Given that most piano pedagogy focuses on solo works, it makes sense. There really are very few pianists who work well with other musicians in a musical sense; it takes a lot of un-learning for them to be competent group players.

Pianists are used to being the be-all and end-all of most music they play (or in other words, pianists are used to being the center of attention).

Given that most piano pedagogy focuses on solo works, it makes sense. There really are very few pianists who work well with other musicians in a musical sense; it takes a lot of un-learning for them to be competent group players.

That's a sort of dangerous generalization, as chamber music IS a rather large area of specialization for many pianists (and indeed, that involves playing with others.) So dunno, maybe you just haven't come across many of them, but here in Europe it's a rather important thing that pianists be able to do chamber music (hell my own piano exam involved playing with other people and I'm not a pianist by profession.)

Nevermind the thousands and millions of piano concertos/duos/trios/etc in the classical literature alone...

Pianists are used to being the be-all and end-all of most music they play (or in other words, pianists are used to being the center of attention).

Given that most piano pedagogy focuses on solo works, it makes sense. There really are very few pianists who work well with other musicians in a musical sense; it takes a lot of un-learning for them to be competent group players.

That's true - and it seems to me that most orchestral pianists come from piano soloist stock, despite the fact that most music schools offer degrees in collaborative piano. Shouldn't they be hiring them? Or are soloists generally just better musicians?

That's a sort of dangerous generalization, as chamber music IS a rather large area of specialization for many pianists (and indeed, that involves playing with others.) So dunno, maybe you just haven't come across many of them, but here in Europe it's a rather important thing that pianists be able to do chamber music (hell my own piano exam involved playing with other people and I'm not a pianist by profession.)

Nevermind the thousands and millions of piano concertos/duos/trios/etc in the classical literature alone...

I'm aware it's a bit of a generalization, but in my experience it is a valid one.

I'm pretty guilty of writing really boring inner harmony parts.

Ah, the ultimate crime...

I always feel very guilty about writing boring parts. Which is a drag, because I tend to write music with boring parts every now and then. Problem is, if you know it's boring, but you want it like that anyway, there's not all that much you can do about it.

I don't agree that boring parts equals boring music. Repetitive parts in otherwise interesting music will still be boring for the average player. All depends on the concrete player and part of course.

The vast majority of music uses repetition sparingly*... If the piece is going somewhere, I feel boredom won't set in.

Attali has some stuff on repetition that I found really interesting. It's weird and tangential, though...

_______

*or only uses minimal change... depends on how you look at it, i guess...

OF COURSE I worry about the players getting bored. If they will be bored, then it is likely the audience will be bored as well.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. Performers tend to play in a manner which makes them sound bored when they are bored - things like lack of phrasing, lack of articulation, lack of dynamic range. Also, if you can see them (i.e. it's not a recording, or you're not too far away from the stage, etc.), the facial expressions might give it away. :P

And personally, if I think I hear bored musicians when sitting in the audience at a concert, it makes me feel somewhat awkward.

It's not important if the players are bored or not. When you compose never ever change a passage just because you think that the players will get bored!

You dont compose for the players, you express yourself through music.

I play the 4. horn part since I've started half a year ago. I never get bored beacuse when I have much rests I LISTEN TO THE MUSIC so I CANT GET BORED. If you dont make many Copy&Past your players wont get bored.

I never compose for the players nor the audiance! I compose for my pleasure and that's why people can enjoy it cause I try to not force/change anything for the audiance's pleasure, I write donw my ideas and try to make them the more enjoyable to hear. If someone fear that the players will get bored it's just the lack of confidence and this cant be matchbable with composing. Never get into the trap the you suspend from your audiance when you write music NEVER! It's your own way of composing if someone not like it just wont follow...

When composing for orchestra, I am frequently afraid and carefull. I don't like brass much - I keep it for tutti's! Bad bad bad!

It's not important if the players are bored or not. When you compose never ever change a passage just because you think that the players will get bored!

You dont compose for the players, you express yourself through music.

I play the 4. horn part since I've started half a year ago. I never get bored beacuse when I have much rests I LISTEN TO THE MUSIC so I CANT GET BORED. If you dont make many Copy&Past your players wont get bored.

I never compose for the players nor the audiance! I compose for my pleasure and that's why people can enjoy it cause I try to not force/change anything for the audiance's pleasure, I write donw my ideas and try to make them the more enjoyable to hear. If someone fear that the players will get bored it's just the lack of confidence and this cant be matchbable with composing. Never get into the trap the you suspend from your audiance when you write music NEVER! It's your own way of composing if someone not like it just wont follow...

'tis... If you compose just for yourself... Then you are not only doing everyone else a disservice, good LUCK getting a paycheck.

It's not important if the players are bored or not. When you compose never ever change a passage just because you think that the players will get bored!

You dont compose for the players, you express yourself through music.

I play the 4. horn part since I've started half a year ago. I never get bored beacuse when I have much rests I LISTEN TO THE MUSIC so I CANT GET BORED. If you dont make many Copy&Past your players wont get bored.

I never compose for the players nor the audiance! I compose for my pleasure and that's why people can enjoy it cause I try to not force/change anything for the audiance's pleasure, I write donw my ideas and try to make them the more enjoyable to hear. If someone fear that the players will get bored it's just the lack of confidence and this cant be matchbable with composing. Never get into the trap the you suspend from your audiance when you write music NEVER! It's your own way of composing if someone not like it just wont follow...

I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE

This is a disillusioned, elitist composer view... like the infamous statement "Who Cares if you listen?"

What you describe is musical masturbation.

Yes, music is about expressing yourself but you express it to others. It's a communication. And when musicians play, they are also expressing themselves... it is easier for the musicians to express themselves if they have an interesting part. They will make your expression more effective that way. Music is communication... it's about composer, performer, and audience.

I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE

This is a disillusioned, elitist composer view... like the infamous statement "Who Cares if you listen?"

What you describe is musical masturbation.

Yes, music is about expressing yourself but you express it to others. It's a communication. And when musicians play, they are also expressing themselves... it is easier for the musicians to express themselves if they have an interesting part. They will make your expression more effective that way. Music is communication... it's about composer, performer, and audience.

Sup, kid. Stop taking the TITLE of the article that Babbit himself DID NOT WRITE out of context, yea? Have you actually read the article? Really?

And, of course, communication requires there to be a message that is being communicated. That, of course, means that unless that message is actually there being communicated, it's not communication. If I write something which I totally think should communicate X, but the audience walks away having apparently received Y instead of X, that's not communication since the supposed message was totally lost. The whole "music is communication" idea sounds pretty but it's ultimately wrong. Sure, you're transmitting something just like a jar or a bunch of colors may transmit something. What people get out of it is way too abstract to be considered a real message and, of course, if other people see things differently, the entire enterprise falls apart.

Before you say anything concerning actual text in music being clear enough to actually transmit ideas and so on, I'd like to say that that's not really the music doing the communication, it's an actual language doing it. Music by itself does not function on the same level and the only time it got close to that was when there were established norms and conventions (Minor is sad, dissonances are ugly, chromatic means pain, etc), which now are all obsolete. Without that context to make clear messages out of abstract musical material, forget about transmitting any concrete meaning through music.

As for

What you describe is musical masturbation.

Oh, really? Because he puts himself in his own art before everyone else? Funny, that. I actually agree with every word Norby said, and it's a very valid view point, specially if the audience may be people who simply don't have the knowledge to deal with critically thinking about the experience in a modern/contemporary context (Babbit's entire point.)

Hell, I think a lot of musicians don't have the knowledge to deal with modern music composition either, judging from your response. Any art involves sacrifice, either of time or of effort, playing a "boring" part is part of the deal just like it may be playing an extremely technically difficult passage. Someone out there may as well think it's not boring at all, how do you know?

Only during repetitive figures. However, as a composer, you have to develop your use of rests. If everybody is playing all the time, players have nothing to anticipate.

I struggled with the middle range instruments for a long time. I used to give violas nothing but running 8th notes in my trios and quartets. I got over that. You learn to divide the action between parts so you can have a repetitive figure shared around the orchestra.

Also, I just write interesting material for most of the instruments in the orchestra. If players hear something interesting going on, it makes them want to play harmony. That is what I would expect. I'm a violist and second violinist in my school group by request.

So yeah, I used to worry about boring the players. Now I just focus on making sure my music is just right. My music has the notes I require, not more nor less.

"Maestro"

So yeah, I used to worry about boring the players. Now I just focus on making sure my music is just right. My music has the notes I require, not more nor less.

Another sound position to have. Furthermore, I don't think Maestro here is "masturbating" or any of the like given what he says (which is similar to what Norby and I've said so far.)

It has never been uncommon for a composer to know his music was good. Whatever you call "music masturbation". If I, as a composer, felt that my music was bad, why would I even bother with the whole process of going through the trouble of paying money possibly for rehearsal/performance space and paying performers, etc etc? I can't imagine people sitting for hours/days/weeks/months composing something they knew would be bad in the end.I like to believe most to all composers at some point feel their music is good. If they don't they probably scrap it and start a new. It's not 'masturbation'. It's confidence and a belief that they haven't wasted their time and have actually produced a good piece of music.

If I, as a composer, felt that my music was bad, why would I even bother?

Well, for me it's more the other way round: The fact that I'm never completely satisfied with the things I wrote keeps me writing and attempting to get closer to a music I could be satisfied with. And I'd be quite sceptical of a composer who thinks everything she or he wrote is just perfect. But I guess it's always a bit of both, and I definitely like some aspects of the pieces I've written so far - sometimes more, sometimes less. But all in all it's more the "excitement" about my future pieces that keeps me going, than the past ones.

Sup, kid. Stop taking the TITLE of the article that Babbit himself DID NOT WRITE out of context, yea? Have you actually read the article? Really?

Yes, boy. I read it. I don't care if he wrote that title or not, boy. I'm not referring to that article specifically; it's that whole philosophy that I object to... the culture of composers sitting there and saying, "I don't care about the audience or the players it's all about me, the genius, the composer. Bow down." My idea of music making involves interaction on an even playing field between composers, performers, and audience. Much of the pleasure of this interaction occurs before, during and after the concert. This is also where a lot of the communication occurs.

And one more thing about music as communication to address your point.

Mendelssohn once said that music is the most accurate of the arts. You might sounds paradoxical because as you say, different people might glean different meanings from the same music. But that is exactly what makes it accurate. Just because your interpretation is different from the composer, doesn't make it wrong. If the music honestly made you feel a certain way, then you got something out of it, and no one can take that away from you. It's still communication even if some things are lost in translation. That's what makes music so universal.

And one more thing about music as communication to address your point.

Mendelssohn once said that music is the most accurate of the arts. You might sounds paradoxical because as you say, different people might glean different meanings from the same music. But that is exactly what makes it accurate. Just because your interpretation is different from the composer, doesn't make it wrong. If the music honestly made you feel a certain way, then you got something out of it, and no one can take that away from you. It's still communication even if some things are lost in translation. That's what makes music so universal.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. So music is universal because it doesn't really matter what the "message" is because people will assume whatever they want and that's fine? Why even talk about message or communication if people are just going to make everything up regardless of what the composer intended?

And Mendelssohn isn't really much of an authority on anything, specially if he thought music was accurate because it doesn't matter what people get from it!

beeri: I don't quite understand this. Doesn't the same apply to any object or phenomenon that wasn't created with a specific purpose (such as "art" or "communication")? Can't the sight of a mountain, the smell of a city or the presence of a certain person make you "honestly feel a certain way" so that you "got something out of it, and no one can take that away from you"? The only fundamental difference to a piece of art is our knowledge that the art was (more or less) consciously created by a human being (which is a difference that does matter, but I can't really connect it to what you said).

Now, as for the actual topic:

I guess it's the same thing as any other form of artistic compromise. In principle, I find nothing wrong with completely disregarding how "comfortable" the performers may feel when playing your piece. I also find nothing inherently wrong with making some compromises, in order to get a more satisfactory performance (or even just a performance in the first place). I think we all have our limits up to where we are willing to bend our "artistic idea" a bit, and above which our ideas are so important to us that no matter of "practicality" can push them over. And of course those are usually no hard limits either, but change continously, maybe even in the process of writing a piece.

Personally, hearing live performances of my pieces -is- important to me and it is also important to me that the performers at least feel somewhat "at home" in my piece and are motivated to give their best. But I also expect a basic level of flexibility, curiosity and goodwill from my performers, i.e. I don't just want them to have "a good time" playing - I want them to take my piece seriously and contribute to it with their own "artistic intelligence". A part being a bit boring is definitely not reason enough for me to change it - a part being ridiculously hard to play while not making a huge musical difference on the other hand may be.

But I think the main key, if you are worried about such things, is an open communication with your performers. If you can explain to them what your reasons were for writing the piece the way you did, they'll also be more likely to accept a somewhat less satisfying part for the benefit of the piece as a whole. If they realise that you weren't just randomly writing down stuff but actually thought about what you did there, they will probably also be more motivated not to just randomly play around their part, but think about what they do, and how.

But of course, even then there are times when you have to decide between insisting on your ideas or changing some stuff to appease the performers - and there really isn't a recipe for that, it all depends on where you draw your line. Personally, I think that while there certainly are very "stubborn" composers out there, many also lean far too much in the direction of pragmatism and "easy solutions" for my taste. I'd rather write the piece I want to write than make a completely dumbed down version just to make it possible to rehearse it to perfection within two days and make all performers completely happy. And often I have even felt that performers are most motivated when you present them with a piece you can support with a honest enthusiasm - even if it's not a kind of music they are used to.