Plan B Forum

Ok, so for like the last decade or so I've been going on and on about how Hilary Hahn is the world's greatest violinist, probably the greatest talent of the last hundred years, and now Brett and Eddy show you exactly why:



I mean, there are other great violinists out there, even some whose performances of certain works I may like more than Hilary's. But for sheer all-around go-to excellence, no one is better, especially at voicing multiple melodic lines, so it sounds like there is more than one player. And when she is really on it her playing is truly transcendent.

OK no argument. But I quibble. There is Hahn, She is One, maybe even the GOAT, but there are thousands of lesser musicians out there holding fiddles under their chins and making sounds that end up on records of great orchestral music. Why do violins dominate orchestral music, at least it seems that way to me? I much prefer the sound of reeds or brass or even the bigger fiddle family, the cellos and bass. My dream string quartet would be Hahn and YoYo Ma and anybody else those two would find acceptable.

When I hear the oh-so-familiar sound of Vivaldi's 4 Seasons, I leave the room. Am I a musical philistine? The most honored composers seem to get the most of the stuff recorded when it is written for lots of violins, and most of the rest of the orchestra has supporting roles. Maybe JS Bach and his famous decendant PDQ Bach are noted exceptions. Perhaps that is why I love both of them. Who else has the sackbut as a featured solo instrument?

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:50 pm

Why do violins dominate orchestral music, at least it seems that way to me? I much prefer the sound of reeds or brass or even the bigger fiddle family, the cellos and bass.

Well, historically winds, brass and especially percussion were relatively late additions to the orchestra as it evolved over the 17th and 18th Centuries. Early on and until the turn of the 18th Century the most popular instruments were viols (violas da gamba in treble, tenor and bass ranges), lutes and recorders. The "modern" violin, viola and cello weren't even invented until the mid-1500s, but they caught on relatively quickly, notwithstanding the fact that they were still undergoing substantial design modifications well into the 19th Century. And with the simultaneous development of moveable-type printing for publishing music, the availability and range of repertoire increased exponentially.

So from the Renaissance through the Baroque periods, where ensemble music could be supported it was primarily in the form of string "chamber orchestras," with the addition of winds and brass (and harpsichord) in the later years. Think of the varying instrumentation of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos; some have flutes/recorders, some have horns and double-reeds, and number 6 doesn't have any violins (or winds & brass) at all.
From my perspective, a lot of great orchestral music is rather heavy on winds and brass, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, as symphony orchestras got bigger and composers pushed the limits of what each section of the orchestra could do. Off the top of my head I'd put in that class the later Beethoven symphonies, Berlioz, Brahms, Mahler, Dvorak, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok, and literally all the Americans. (We're doing American in Paris this season and it's practically all winds and brass, strings are mostly supporting parts.)

If you like cellos, there's a ton of repertoire, from Bach to Beethoven, Dvorak, Elgar, Lalo, and one concerto I recently came across and totally love by Unsuk Chin (it just sucks you in and before you know what's even happening you're on another planet; I was on the edge of my seat wondering what was coming next). Believe me, apart from violin, I listen to a lot of cello because there's comparatively little viola repertoire, and cello is the next closest thing.