Cast your vote! A poll for symphony musicians
by wijeratneworks
In immediate response to a recent article in ‘Counterpunch’ entitled ‘The Democratic Maestro: Claudio Abbado’s Return to Berlin’, in which the columnist casually referred to the Berlin Philharmonic as a ‘band’, a classical musician colleague of mine raised a point of contention that may well shake up post-concert pub talk for, oh, perhaps a few minutes.
Herbert Von Karajan: “Classical music is so cool. Can you see from where the light is shining?”.
- Michael Tilson Thomas: “Classical music is so cool. I have a parrot”.
WijeratneWorks 
THOSE ALBUM COVERS ARE FANTASTIC.
So, lots of people are picking the first option, but… why? I mean, if a band is “a group of musicians,” like Webster says, why do the majority seem to hate the word? Let’s hear what you think, folks!
i think they feel that ‘band’ has a negative connotation?
K, gonna go all logic up in this.
The only reason it could have a negative connotation is if it is often associated with something worse than an orchestra.
An orchestra is a group of musicians, so obviously, an orchestra is no worse than itself.
So what we’re getting at here is that, some groups of musicians are worse than an orchestra, since that’s the only way calling them the same thing would be considered an insult.
So now, we’ve determined that people who pick the first option feel like other kinds of non-orchestra “bands” are worse than orchestras. This may be due to the music they perform, or the instrumental composition, the lack of a similar structured hierarchy, or any number of reasons.
Anyone willing to offer thoughts on the legitimacy of that last statement?
you mean bands like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYk3lEb_fe4&feature=relmfu
seriously though, i think it might be the ‘music they perform’, as you put it? classical music has an association with formality, and so does the word ‘orchestra’.
Why is it when I read all the options, I can hear you narrating them in my head, Dinuk? haha.
Lots of jazz big bands were formally (and not always formerly) called orchestras… In my mind, the difference is in the variety of interments as well as the music that is played. A brass band or a string band implies both repertoire and specific instrumentation, whereas simply “an orchestra” implies heterogeneity of instruments, and a looser sense of repertoire. Now, “symphony orchestra” is another matter…
My question: when does an ensemble become either a band or an orchestra? Or is it merely romance vs. saxon etymology?
aha, i see. but this would be for a symphony orchestra.
the only etymology here would be the actually dictionary definition of a ‘band’ (group of musicians), which could apply to a lot of things. i supposed people resent the orchestra being called a ‘band’ for reasons of ‘romance’, as you describe it….or rather a romanticized notion of what a symphony orchestra does. apparently the word ‘band’ is too casual to associate with this notion :P
I think the word ‘band’ has a more specific meaning in common culture, when used in the context of music, dictionary definitions aside. Calling the LSO a band makes it sound like they’re being placed alongside the Sex Pistols. It’s probably that image that makes me most uncomfortable with the term.
I think it depends on formality of the group. So for example I wouldn’t ever consider calling the LSO a ‘band’, but a pit orchestra for a show, or some other random session orchestra, I wouldn’t have a problem with calling a band.
so the word is too casual, too informal? i think what’s interesting is that there is a sensitivity about classical music being perceived as such. or to put it bluntly, for a symphony orchestra to be put in the same category as a pop band.
Absolutely. I don’t think a symphony orchestra should be put in the same category as a pop band. Not out of snobbishness, but simply because they’re quite different things. I think the word ‘band’ on its own is too much associated with the idea of a pop group to not sound out of place when applied to something much more formal like a symphony orchestra.
I’m not going to lie, part of the reason I’m iffy about outsiders calling orchestra “bands” is not because of associations with pop bands, but with wind bands, my least favourite form of ensemble (ironically). Though I’m interested to hear what people think about pops shows. Does something like, say our symphony’s Pink Floyd show last season merit a temporary re-titling of the ensemble, or is the mere fact that it’s an orchestra enough to “elevate” the songs from a “pop tune” to something more, something romantic, something elitists might call “higher music.”
Not that I’d EVER say Pink Floyd needs elevation, of course, that would be blasphemy.
oooh, ‘outsiders’! i love it ;) so you are partial to the ‘clique’ mentality?
and i never thought of the ‘wind band’! definitely distinct terminology there, despite also being from a classical, non-pop genre.
I feel like there’s enough camaraderie in an orchestra to use the word “outsider” in a non-condescending sense, though this could get into a whole argument about “musicking” and what it means to be taking part in the production of music. There are scholars who argue that audience members, ticket salespeople, ushers, etc are all participants in the production of music, so I guess I have a slight clique mentality in that respect.
A wind band is also often referred to as a ‘concert band’ or a ‘symphonic band’. Both terms sound pretty ‘formal’, in my opinion…
And where does a) a gamelan orchestra, and a jazz orchestra (already mentioned) and b) groups such as ‘Electric Light Orchestra’ and ‘Trans Siberian Orchestra’ fit into this?
I’d like to throw in some words as firewood:
Concert Band
Symphonic Band
Jazz Orchestra
Pops Orchestra
Gamelan Orchestra
Electric Light Orchestra
Trans Siberian Orchestra
The Hanover Band
nice. i’d totally forgotten about the HANOVER BAND, one of the best period instrument orchestras of the world. the word ‘band’ is inextricably linked from their image and marketing strategy.
Clearly Band should pose no issue or threat, given the multiple references to its application so far in this discussion. Those who are adequately paid for their performance,and quickly enough after the ‘gig’, would surely care little about whether they were playing at a ‘Band’ gig or an ‘Orch’ gig!!! Sun Ra and his gifted ilk created yet another dimension in terminology by going so far as ‘Arkestra’, carrying, as it did, the resonance of Messianic salvation of species and interstellar-organized-sound-force being the medium. Fewer players today would be that ambitious, I dare say.
I have to admit that I have never really understood why people get hung up on terminology. If the group is great it is great, regardless of what it is called. If the group sucks, calling it an orchestra rather than a band will not make it suck less. Of course, I am primarily a band guy, so I may be on the less-caring side of this debate.
I call my school band a wind ensemble, even though many “uber band conductors” would say that we are not really a wind ensemble because we do not meet the official unofficial definition of what a wind ensemble is. I figure we are an ensemble and we have wind instruments, so off we go. The kids like it.
There is the same conflict in the bluegrass world, oddly enough. Is it a bluegrass band without a banjo, or if there is a girl singer, or if there is no mandolin? People get quite bothered about it. So classical orchestras and bluegrass bands are the same in that area. Plus, often both performers would consider the other to be playing “not music”. There is another discussion…Dinuk?
My question would be with all sincerity “why does anyone care”? At the end of the day we have many more things to worry about. The “classical” world has put so many barriers in between their ensemble and their audiences, do we really need another? If you have an entire group of people not coming to shows because they are worried about the “customs” of watching classical performances, what do we care what they call the group on stage?
They are more worried about when to clap, what to wear or whether they can enjoy a “delicious candy” during the show.
I had a discussion with a particularly pompous teacher of mine once. He was concerned that I called “classical music” entertainment. I can’t think of a time I was more entertained than when I watched the New York Philharmonic Band play Tchaikovsky 4. It was monumental.
Nathan
hi nathan,
one thing i didn’t quite get: do you mean there is a similar debate in the bluegrass world re the word ‘band’?
thanks so much for your insights. as i often straddle different genres, i believe that there are MANY things that classical music can learn from the non-classical world, to minimize the risk of alienating audiences. however, i personally don’t believe in pandering to audiences. e.g. while audiences in mozart’s day applauded and cheered as-and-when they liked during the music, it doesn’t mean this practise was necessarily the right thing to do to begin with ;)
the question ‘can art be entertaining?’ is another fascinating and fierce debate. i know a famous conductor who believes that categorically the two cannot be the same. i feel that great art can also be entertaining, but really the debate is too ambiguous since you first have to go to great lengths to get people to agree on a definition of ‘entertainment’! it becomes a semantic dispute :P
i hope your ears were burning today. skratch (bastid) and i were rehearsing in toronto and talking about you :) it is utterly fascinating to watch him problem-solve.
dinuk