TubeNet

*Yes, I'm deliberately being contentious with this...*

Short version:
Do young musicians gain anything from playing original (non-arranged) music in full symphony orchestra versus playing in any other ensemble (wind/brass band, string orchestra, choir etc etc)?

Long version:
I work in England for a state-run 'music-service'. The primary goal of the service is to engage young people in active music making and to offer them opportunities to perform in ensemble to whatever level they may reach.

Our Wind Bands, big band, string groups and Choirs moreorless take care of themselves and the finances for these run about even. They also don't audition members and there is no cap on numbers. The general balance of the ensembles tends to work ok and in the event of a group growing too big we have split it based on ability and formed an extra group. These groups tend to play arrangements of a wide range of music from classics to pop and show music. All good.

Then we have our 'flagship ensemble' the Youth Orchestra. This aims to be a full symphony orchestra and is conducted by a former symphony pro who now freelances/teaches at conservatoire. Standards are pretty high and competition is fierce for some seats (mainly upper woodwinds). To obtain a balance we cap the number of players in wind, brass and percussion which means there are a number of talented youngsters not able to play in an orchestra of suitable level.
Currently the orchestra has NO violas (a blessing perhaps!?) and NO basses.
The conductor refuses to play an arrangements (however good they may be) so we play only original music written for orchestra. The conductor does quite a good job of keeping each section engaged but I still have concerns over the amounts of playing-time the brass & percussion get each rehearsal.
The Orchestra costs the music service a relatively large sum to keep afloat as you may imagine (like the real-world almost!).

I've been going over this situation in my head and with my bosses but they somehow see the orchestra as having a special quality unmatched by our other ensembles and therefore require special treatment (read: higher expenditure). They wont go so far as to say an orchestra is better than a wind band, yet that is the implication. There is a definite aspiration to have and maintain the full symphony orchestra despite its cost and slightly iffy inclusion policy.

Nobody turns their nose up at a string quartet - far from it in fact. Aren't the best bands and choirs as serious and competent as the best orchestras(?!?)?
To some extent I do share the aspiration to have a full orchestra but when I look at the related difficulties and cost I can't justify that expense when I consider what else the money could do. The reward for kids to outlay doesn't stack up for me.

If I could, I'd switch the orchestra to a string group and suggest all the wind, brass and percussion join their local wind band. With our reduced financial commitment we could support individuals in accessing ensembles at reduced cost etc etc.
We could also have weekend (or longer) residential courses to bring groups together to tackle full orchestra rep.

What happens in the US?
Wind bands are very common in schools right? Where do kids learn strings!?
Is it the case that community wind bands are quite present in most big towns (moreso than community orchestras?)?

Any thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Malcolm

A real quandary - and judging by your questions, I think I too would be wondering about the points you raise.

It sounds like some fine tuning of priorities in what sounds like a basically good program are in order.

Many fine players developed their skills and musicality playing "arrangements" early on. The orchestra experience would lack a bit too with missing sections.
Wind band and small ensembles a very good places to learn. Elitism can get in the way of good music and be a real burden on finances.

GOOD LUCK!!

A symphony orchestra is the best only in that it is the most historically established of the 25 person plus ensembles. Composers since Hayden have been working with a set of players that is comprised of the same core instrument groups (of course there have been some famous additions ie tuba). So the music shows off the symphony's sonic qualities. But when compared to a high level wind band, there's no piece that a wind band can't play as well (albeit rather differently). Wind groups will tend to sound a bit mushier but with proper arranging and strong ensemble work, a wind group can play just as well even on colorful pieces like those by Respighi, Ravel, or Bartok, and can even sound far better on pieces, like Bach organ transcriptions or even some tchaikovsky symphonies. the one place where wind ensembles are behind is with original music, which is often too round or too heavy or too gimmicky (insert exceptions). That is why that if you can find transcriptions that are good, you can have a very strong wind ensemble. In the states, there are plenty of places where the school will concentrate just on their wind symphony and their jazz band and send those groups to competitions and on tours. The problem with orchestras in the schools is that learning to play the violin in tune with a beautiful tone and then to get the whole 18 person section to do the same is near impossible in high school so the wind ensembles will tend to play better, and the talented string players will go to private by audition only youth orchestras.

growing up in a small town in Texas (~3,500 residents, 400 in the High School), all we had were winds and percussion. I had some friends that played strings or piano, but those were exceptions, and they had private lessons. Really, the only time that they performed were for private recitals and school talent shows. I don't know if its any different at larger schools or not.

I would think that they would get more enjoyment out of playing in a wind ensemble. I currently play in a church orechestra, and it gets boring at times having parts that are tacet, or 130 straight measures of rest.

Peach wrote: What happens in the US?
Wind bands are very common in schools right? Where do kids learn strings!?

Most high schools (typ. grades 9-12) have (wind-) bands. In many cases, the high school band is also a marching band; they often play at sports games (typ. football), for the national anthem before the game, as a "pep band" in the stands to cheer on their team, and with complicated marching routines for halftime entertainment. Often, the marching band is a competitive school team of its own, and participates in marching band competitions. The quality of high school bands ranges from the "good try" euphemism (meaning they sound ear-splittingly horrible), to very very good, approaching adult bands.

Obviously, there is a huge range of funding, teacher involvement and community support. It goes from schools with no music program at all (happens all to often in poor areas, a shame), to a person who comes in for a few hours per week and is aided by a few parent volunteers, and on the other extreme there are schools that have half a dozen full-time music instructors for about 1000 students.

Some high schools also have string orchestras; sometimes this starts as early as 4th or 5th grade. The better ones can even have string instructors that work 1-on-1 with students. In some cases (not very common), they form a complete symphony orchestra by combining the string orchestra with members of the wind band. Google for "Saratoga high school symphony orchestra symphony 4 tchaikovsky", to see an example (probably a pretty extreme example). My son's middle school (6th to 8th grade with about 900 students) has neither strings nor a choir, but that's by choice: our one full-time band instructor choses to invest all his effort into a curriculum of wind bands, and doesn't even bother with marching. A neighboring middle schools has two part-time instructors, and choses to have a small string orchestra. Our principal has promised that next year, we'll hire an additional half-time instructor, hoping to start both a choir and a marching band (enough to get the school represented in Christmas and Memorial Day parades, but not fancy marching routines). Of the two high schools my son is considering, one has 1.5 full-time music instructors for 1400 students (but they chose to only do wind band and percussion ensemble), the other is the Saratoga high school I mentioned above, with a fabulous wind/marching band, and a full symphony orchestra.

Now, in the more upscale areas (well-funded schools and families), most students who are in an ensemble at school are also taking lessons from a private instructor. This is more common among higher grades, among strings (you don't learn the violin well enough for a Tchaikovsky Symphony in a group lesson with 80 students), and in wealthier areas. In my son's 8th grade band, about 15 or 25% of the students have private teachers (including, obviously, a well-known TubeNetter). Many percussion players in school bands are kids who have a private piano teacher, but switch to percussion in school (as there is very little room for keyboard skills in school bands). Some of the flute or clarinet players in his band are actually serious string players, who select some wind instrument to have fun in school. I hate to reinforce prejudices, but that's somewhat common for girls who have to learn violin at home (read the book "Battle Hymn of a Tiger Mom", to get a heavy dose of stereotypes, which actually often match reality).

In addition to school music, most bigger urban areas also have youth orchestras. The San Francisco bay area (with a population of ~6 million people spread over a 50 km radius) has at least a half dozen non-school youth orchestras (more likely many more I've missed), of varying levels.

So to answer your question: Where do kids learn strings? From their private teacher for the most part, or sometimes in school. For wind instruments (and percussion), the balance is the opposite, more often from their school band teacher.

Is it the case that community wind bands are quite present in most big towns (moreso than community orchestras?)?

It's hard for me to give an accurate estimate, but I would say that there are probably 5x as many community bands as there are community orchestras. There are also lots of community choirs (in my office, three colleagues out of a department of 60 sing in the local amateur/semipro choir, which often performs with our professional symphony). I've not lived in remote and rural areas, but I would guess that in most places you can find a local community band, and finding an amateur symphony orchestra is a bit unusual.

A friend in the KC area, at his HS for 20 years + now, has something like 450 in his senior high strings program, grades 9-12. It's been a while since we talked, so I'm not sure of the numbers right now. What that really means is that his feeder program teachers are doing an amazing job.

What would concern me in the OPs situation is the lack of violas and basses. Something is fundamentally wrong with that situation. Since the orchestra really can't play with those shortcomings, why try to do a full orchestra at all? If some could be recruited to switch, I agree that playing the original charts is an amazing thing. Still, that's not always practical with kids, no matter what the instrumentation. The object should be to expose them to the music, develop their skills...not throw them into situations they may not be able to perform to the best of their abilities.

Thanks for the detailed replies. Makes a change from piston v rotary...

Seems like a good application of common sense is needed in my situation. I'm stuck behind the weight of tradition sadly. If we were starting with a blank canvas we'd probably do things differently.

Sounds like American school programmes are making economic choices which we all face in education. No point starting kids off on strings in a feeder school when the high school doesn't have a strings programme.

As to whether a full orchestra is 'better' than anything else who knows.
I do know where kids are concerned I'd rather have a process which can support all comers without a cap on numbers AND support playing music which engages more players more of the time.

Does a young musician get more from playing the original parts to a Tchaik symphony vs a well crafted arrangement for wind band?
What proportion of players coming through a programme go on to study music/work as a pro? Does that matter?

Not really expecting answers - more discussion...

Thanks,
M

Malcolm, it is noteworthy (sorry) that there are now at least two Universities in the US with school-accredited British-type brass bands, and those are considered highly desirable (even elite) ensembles for which to win seats.

Interesting conversation. In my little corner of the world:

Creswell, OR (pop 5,031 per the sign) with a HS enrollment under 300, a middle school with about the same, and an elementary school of about 650 has: A choir program at the elementary school taught by someone that I don't know who has some training in that area, and has received some regional recognition for his work at the school; a middle school beginning band, advanced band, and jazz band taught at a 1/2 time position, and a choir taught by someone, quite possibly the same guy who teaches the elementary kids but I don't know that; a high school concert band, jazz band and choir taught at a 1/2 time position by the same person as the middle school whose training is as a band director. The district had a vocal music director who was full time, split 50/50 with the HS and MS, but his position was eliminated two years ago in financial cuts. Sandi Green (the band director) has her kids march in two parades, and combines the MS and the HS for those events, takes at least one of her jazz bands to area competitions (they won the competition in Reno NV a couple years ago, and she is planning on taking the MS jazz band to a competition in WA next spring) and really does a good job of teaching music to those kids, several of whom have gone on to major in different components of music over the past several years. (I am the daytime cop in town, and manage to drop in on one of the bands at some point during each week; I have also sat in with the pep band on a couple of occasions with my sousaphone)

In Springfield, OR (pop about 60K with two high schools and several middle schools) there is a strong band program; all I know of the orchestra program is that the guy who directs the Springfield Community Concert Band has moved from one of the high schools to one of the middle schools and is teaching 3 periods each of band and orchestra.

In the Willamette Valley, I know of: Springfield Community Concert Band (non-audition), One More Time Marching Band (non-audition), Eugene Community Orchestra (non-audition), Willamette Valley Orchestra (unk), Eugene Symphonic Band (audition), Riverside Chamber Orchestra (auditions) and New Horizons Band (over 40 beginning band; non audition). Further up the road, Corvallis has a community band, and I believe an orchestra, but I know nothing about them. This does not include the Eugene Symphony, which is our resident symphony orchestra, and is audition only and highly competative, but doesn't fall into the realm of "Community Group".

One major difference between orchestra and band is the level of confidence required to play in a section where the scoring is one per part. This happens mostly in high level wind ensembles, jazz bands, and orchestras. This valuable skill is not exclusive to orchestra, but given the delicate nature of orchestral music (quiet string sections, blending requirements), often a lighter touch is required to excell at performing. I have found that dynamic mastery of brass and woodwinds is developed among only the most advanced students in youth ensembles, warranting some exclusivity. It is always good to have an ensemble to strive for, even if it means you count many rests.

I would opine that a full symphony orchestra is desirable, but not necessarily the 'best' ensemble. The best ensemble for music education is one in which a situation exists where that the students are actively engaged, and being artistically challenged. The best ensemble also has a reasonably good balance of instruments, unlike the symphony orchestra with no violas or basses.

As a tuba player, the greatest musical (and accompanying technical) challenges for me in an ensemble have always come from band and brass ensemble playing. I understand how much this differs for different instruments, as I find it to be a really tough workout to meet the technical and musical challenges of playing string bass in an orchestra, whereas playing tuba in an orchestra is where I learned to count many measures and play in-tune on a cold instrument.

I hope that the board of directors for the music service can discern between the genuine musical education benefits of a well-balanced ensemble that will engage the students and challenge them to grow and develop, and hanging-on to an old model that is failing, no matter how much money is pumped into it. Orchestra is important, and there is a place for it in music education, but we must be smart about what we fund, and how we fund it.

No violas or basses? Best to have a full ensemble using the instrumentalists you have.

Totally agree with you.

Sounds like you are 'delivering' but the string department needs a push if they want a full orchestra.

http://www.gtcys.org/" target="_blank

I started out in the Greater Twin Cities Youth Symphonies in 1974. According to the website (see above) that was the 3rd year, and they had 6 large and balanced groups by then. I got in according to a desperate need for tubas, and it rocked my world permanently.

It appears they are going strong in the same format (six groups) in a population center of two million. Maybe they are worthy of a study.

As to the question in the topic, the orchestra has a desirable repertoire working in it's favor.

Well, I was debating whether to jump in with my $0.02, but now that I see that my avatar has been purloined, I might as well put in my opinion, too!

I think that in an abstract sense, the orchestra is crucial to a program. The greatest composers of the world, past and present, composed for that ensemble. That genre of music really represents the best of what music has to offer.

As good & challenging as wind ensemble can be, you can't put Van Der Roost & Sibelius in the same category (and I like Van Der Roost's stuff very much!).

The business of not having a balanced ensemble is real world consideration, though.

bloke wrote:Any ensemble where developing young musicians spend very little time sitting idle while others are active, probably, is the best type of learning ensemble.

Amen to that. My son spent two weeks in a summer camp, playing with a full symphony orchestra (he was the only tuba in the symphony, but in the band they had three tubas, and he was first chair). This was a middle-school group, ages about 11 to 14. Because the kids are young, they have not mastered the mechanics of playing their instruments. That's to be expected. Unfortunately, it means that a lot of time is spent tuning strings. My son claims that about half the time in orchestra was spent tuning the violins. Of the remaining half, they spent about half rehearsing the string-only chamber orchestra pieces. So he was mostly very bored during symphony rehearsals.

On the other hand, playing the tuba part in Scheherazade or the last movement of Tchaikovsky's 2nd symphony (even in a version that has been simplified for youth orchestras) makes up for all that waiting. But he really did like the wind band more, since there he got to play most of the time.

Every type of ensemble provides a valuble and educational experience. If the student is in college it is a great idea to emerse yourself in as many different playing situations as possible. Orchestra is a traditional ensemble that many players can be hired for out of college and therefor provides the bulk of the "tuba" jobs in this country. But to rule out wind ensemble, brass bands, quartets, ect, would be a major mistake in one's learning as a tubist. I have played in so many different types of ensembles for tuba I would be writing a novel to list all of the experiences. Each ensemble provides a new fascet to what your (tuba's) job is and how you fit into the ensemble. Orchestra is exposed yes, but so is quintet, the bass part in dixie group, or tuba quartet. If you want to learn how to gain more independance as a player, any ensemble that leaves you the only chair will help you gain confidence. Wind ensembles, british brass bands and concert bands often have more than one player and now you must work together to get the ideal sound. Is it any less challenging......NO. For example: high caliber brass band music often has the two parts (Eb and Bb) split into 4 separate parts at times with the solo Eb on the top note and Low Bb with tons of pedal notes often a wide range apart. There are also 2 parts in the middle and they also must be on their game. Dixie and doubling the bass part in jazz combos allows you a whole new door of music entirely with jazz and swing. So to answer your question, if you want to be a great tubist play in EVERYTHING... just my 2 cents.

tank wrote: Orchestra is a traditional ensemble that many players can be hired for out of college and therefor provides the bulk of the "tuba" jobs in this country.

Hmmmmmm. Don't know about that. I would expect there are more full time band jobs than orchestra. Of course you have to join the military to get one.

ANY ensemble is good for kids if the person IN FRONT understands that their primary reason for being there IS THE EDUCATION OF THE KIDS IN FRONT OF THEM AND TRYING NOT TO LOOK GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE BEHIND HIM. That being said a dynamic educator who is also a dynamic musician will make ANY ensemble worthwhile for anyone in their formative years, and I daresay well into their college years.

Chuck"who strives to fulfill these requirements on a daily basis"Jackson

One thing speaking for the orchestra as educative ensemble is the repertory. Better music by better composers.

Brass instruments, other than horns, have less playing time and more rest counting in the orchestra, but what they do takes more responsibility and quality, because you can’t hide yourself among strings and WW.

On the other hand playing with two important sections unmanned is no better than doing adequate adjustments to the instrumentation, also called arranging. I have done lots of such instrumentation adjustments to make music playable, but the sample I will mention are not from my own toolbox, but something others have done.

Rewriting the viola part for a section of 3rd violins.

I think it was Honegger who in one score replaced the violas with an alto saxophone. Clarinets may be even better and these winds have ranges quite congruent with that of the viola.

Even top range orchestras supported their double basses with a tuba when recording techniques were young. Selectively rewriting the double bass part for a section of bass and contrabass tuba, may add dimensions of depth to the student orchestra.

Klaus

imperialbari wrote: Even top range orchestras supported their double basses with a tuba when recording techniques were young. Selectively rewriting the double bass part for a section of bass and contrabass tuba, may add dimensions of depth to the student orchestra.

Klaus

I would it does. Performing the string bass/contra-bassoon for Beethoven 5 was an interesting experience for me. Playing in the sectionals of the string basses and bassoons provided a different way to look at the music.