How come wind bands never took off to the level of orchestras?

[Kneesks]

I've always been curious as to why wind bands never "caught up" to orchestra in terms of popularity (at least from what I can see). Was it just because orchestras we're already well established? A lack of rep or need for then?

[Burgerbob]

IMO, the colors offered by the wind ensemble are far inferior to that of an orchestra. So top composers are less incentivized to write for them.

I'd rather listen to the same piece played by a top orchestra over a top band any day of the week.

[MStarke]

I think De Meij's Lord of the Rings symphony is a good showcase for what Aidan said.
The version for symphony orchestra at least to my ears is quite a bit more exciting and colourful.

For me wind orchestra can be more fun to play as you just play much more. But while it's constantly nice and enjoyable, it never reaches the same form of climax that e g from trombonist perspective Strauss Alpine Symphony, Brahms 1st or Bruckner 8th.

The problem however with symphony orchestra is that not every program is Bruckner...

[ithinknot]

Think about why wind bands came to exist in the first place.

Then, as a contemporary question, dismal repertoire quality for the reasons Aidan mentions. (Same basic factors apply to brass bands in the UK tradition.) There's always self-perpetuating activity from within the military-pedagogical complex, and better composers don't feel the need to get involved.

[harrisonreed]

The Kosei Winds in Japan is at that level. The repertoire might not be as extensive as what orchestras have, but they certainly play the crap out of it. They've basically recorded the entire wind band repertoire at the highest level.

To tie it into trombone world, I think that the versions they recorded of the Rimsky Korsakov and Bourgeois Trombone Concertos (with Lindberg of course!) are superior to the orchestra versions. To be fair, they both were originally for wind band ... so...

[2bobone]

"Then, as a contemporary question -----------------"better composers don't feel the need to get involved."

You mean like Vittorio Giannini, Vincent Persichetti, Vaclav Nelhybel, Malcolm Arnold, Michael Daugherty and Samuel Barber ? I may be wrong, but aren't Gustav Holst, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Igor Stravinsky, Paul Hindemith, Henri Tomasi, Paul Dukas and Malcolm Arnold still considered as "contemporary" composers ?

[ithinknot]

I'm obviously making a polemical point - but of course those same people wrote enormously more orchestral music. (Persichetti aside, who I think it's fair to say was working within and for the collegiate 'industry'.)

Sure, there's the Hindemith tenor horn sonata... still the tenor horn, though, isn't it

[MrHCinDE]

Depends how you define popularity I suppose. In my area, I‘m certain there are many more musicians actively playing in wind bands (or if they want to be fancy symphonic wind orchestras) than symphony orchestras.

[robcat2075]

All of the above are plausibly likely contributory reasons for the result.

I'll add one that has not yet been offered... the pervasive exposure the populace has had to uncompelling/bad performances by wind bands at attendance-required school functions, athletic events, parades, beerfests, etc., in addition to the dismal way they have are portrayed in popular media (consider the sound of LIsa's jr. high band in the opening to "The Simpsons") has left the public with irreparably low expectations for the medium.

Aren't there bad school and amateur orchestras, too? Yes, but somehow Beethoven's appeal (acquired before they became a thing) has survived.

But it's all fighting over scraps. Classical music is barely a noticeable presence anymore in the public mind...

According to billboard/Nielsen, classical music had an overall 1% share of the market in 2019, or 12th out of 12 genres. This is the least popular music genre well behind the top four genres: R&B/hip-hop, rock & roll, pop, country, and even behind children’s music.

[JohnL]

IMO, the colors offered by the wind ensemble are far inferior to that of an orchestra. So top composers are less incentivized to write for them.

Most of the wind ensemble instrumentation is right there in the back rows of the symphony orchestra, so the composer has access to all those colors as a subset of the orchestral "palette" - but I have to think that even the most wind-centric of orchestral composers would object to being restricted to just those voices. I suspect they'd equate it to having one hand tied behind their back.

That said, there was a time when wind bands were more popular than orchestras, at least here in the USA. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, wind bands were everywhere. Thing is, it was the "popular" music of its day, and like so many popular music styles, it faded away over time and was replaced with something else.

EDIT: Good to hear from you, Robcat.

[Matt K]

Something that is likely a contributor is the fact that a huge amount of accessible repertoire is public domain for orchestra.

[BGuttman]

Something that is likely a contributor is the fact that a huge amount of accessible repertoire is public domain for orchestra.

You can buy Concert Band arrangements of a lot of contemporary music while the orchestral version is only available for rent.

[JohnL]

Something that is likely a contributor is the fact that a huge amount of accessible repertoire is public domain for orchestra.

There's a boatload of PD band literature, too, but no one plays it. It's not looked upon as being suitable for a serious ensemble (see my earlier comment about popular music).

[sungfw]

"Then, as a contemporary question -----------------"better composers don't feel the need to get involved."

You mean like Vittorio Giannini, Vincent Persichetti, Vaclav Nelhybel, Malcolm Arnold, Michael Daugherty and Samuel Barber ? I may be wrong, but aren't Gustav Holst, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Igor Stravinsky, Paul Hindemith, Henri Tomasi, Paul Dukas and Malcolm Arnold still considered as "contemporary" composers ?

Twentieth century composers, yes; but contemporary? Correct me if I'm wrong, but--excepting Daugherty--aren't all of them DEAD, and many, if not more, for at least half a century? Have any of them—again excepting Daugherty--composed ANYTHING in the last quarter century?

[Matt K]

There is PD repertoire for band but the volume of orchestral rep goes back hundreds of years. Id be interested to see what the ratio is if PD wind vs orchestra. I bet there’s a lot more orchestra. And a LOT from heavyweights.

[harrisonreed]

"Then, as a contemporary question -----------------"better composers don't feel the need to get involved."

You mean like Vittorio Giannini, Vincent Persichetti, Vaclav Nelhybel, Malcolm Arnold, Michael Daugherty and Samuel Barber ? I may be wrong, but aren't Gustav Holst, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Igor Stravinsky, Paul Hindemith, Henri Tomasi, Paul Dukas and Malcolm Arnold still considered as "contemporary" composers ?

Twentieth century composers, yes; but contemporary? Correct me if I'm wrong, but--excepting Daugherty--aren't all of them DEAD, and many, if not more, for at least half a century? Have any of them—again excepting Daugherty--composed ANYTHING in the last quarter century?

Eric Ewazen, Johann De Meij, and John Mackey have written a lot of wind ensemble material. Do they count?

[EdwardSolomon]

I think it's worth recalling that before the age of the gramophone recording, the overwhelming majority of people first heard orchestral music in brass or wind band transcriptions performed by brass or military bands on the bandstand. There is a huge volume of 19th and early 20th century transcriptions of orchestral music that would have been very popular back in the day. Easy access to recorded music changed all that.

[Trombonjon]

There are some contemporary composers that written pieces for band that are quite nice. Robert W. Smith, Julie Giroux, and Samuel Hazo, to name a few. John Mackey has also written a few "modern" pieces although, honestly, I don't really care for any of them.

[Burgerbob]

There are some contemporary composers that written pieces for band that are quite nice. Robert W. Smith, Julie Giroux, and Samuel Hazo, to name a few. John Mackey has also written a few "modern" pieces although, honestly, I don't really care for any of them.

And personally... I don't care for much of the works those first three have written either.

[JohnL]

There is a huge volume of 19th and early 20th century transcriptions of orchestral music that would have been very popular back in the day.

Sadly, most of what I've seen doesn't have a full score, which makes it a non-starter for a lot of conductors today.

[timothy42b]

Think about why wind bands came to exist in the first place.

There's always self-perpetuating activity from within the military-pedagogical complex, and better composers don't feel the need to get involved.

Military bands are/were MTOE units in the Army and authorized 40 people for a small, 66 for a large (that may have changed recently) But in 30 years on Army bases I rarely saw a full wind band play except maybe the Christmas concert. Even General Officer changes of command usually used a quintet in recent years and pretty much all other events used smaller ensembles.

It seems to me that full wind bands serve pretty much a musician training function from high school through college, right? What could replace that, for the volume of students a music university needs?

[JohnL]

...in 30 years on Army bases I rarely saw a full wind band play except maybe the Christmas concert. Even General Officer changes of command usually used a quintet in recent years and pretty much all other events used smaller ensembles.

I've seen that with performances for the public, too. Jazz combos, rock bands, quintets, NOLA-style brass bands - even for big events like LA Fleet Week. I figure there's multiple factors at work:

1. A lot of venues just don't have space (and/or the desire to deal with the logistics) for a 30+ piece ensemble or even a 17-piece big band (this was definitely the case at Fleet Week this year),
2. It's far less expensive to move 5-8 people rather than 17 or more
3. There's an impression (likely correct in many cases) that the smaller ensembles have more appeal to the general public.
4. The need to cover multiple services at the same time - a particular issue around patriotic holidays like Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Independence Day.

[bbocaner]

1. wind bands as we know it now are an American invention. Of course, it's spread worldwide by now, but at the beginning of the 20th century when they were at their most popular it was almost exclusively American. So at the time that the big-name European composers of the serious chunk of classical repertoire was being created, wind bands were more of a provincial thing.
2. Wind bands were insanely popular at the beginning of the 20th century. But that was popular music as opposed to the "high society" music from orchestras.

[jph]

Timothy42b’s observation is spot on :”It seems to me that full wind bands serve pretty much a musician training function from high school through college, right? What could replace that, for the volume of students a music university needs?”

Tim has it right…the old “full band format” could serve a lot of students.

Now in 2023 (from what I am anecdotally observing) only a few Universities field a full, 80-100 piece “Symphonic Band.” The University of Michigan still wields a full band for many of its better players. In contrast, The University of Illinois has segmented their better wind players into two smaller units: The Wind Symphony and The Wind Orchestra. Way back when… in mid 70-mid 80 era…Illinois’ 90+ piece “large symphonic band” was the top band. The Wind Ensemble existed, but it was a much more a subdued add-on voluntary organization, with much less visibility.

In my estimation, many colleges are having a difficult time getting enough quality student musicians to properly assemble the appropriate orchestrations (i.e. players by instrument). ex: an overabundance of quality trumpets, but not enough good woodwinds to create a full symphonic band.

[LeTromboniste]

1. wind bands as we know it now are an American invention. Of course, it's spread worldwide by now, but at the beginning of the 20th century when they were at their most popular it was almost exclusively American. So at the time that the big-name European composers of the serious chunk of classical repertoire was being created, wind bands were more of a provincial thing.
2. Wind bands were insanely popular at the beginning of the 20th century. But that was popular music as opposed to the "high society" music from orchestras.

They had wind bands in Europe (both military and civil) through the entire 19th century. Of course not in the exact format of today's concert band, but still.

[Mikebmiller]

I can't speak about popularity, but when it comes to playing enjoyment, the wind band is at the bottom of the heap for me. Most composers/arrangers give all the fun parts to the trumpets and woodwinds and the the low brass gets footballs and off beats. I would much rather play in a brass band or big band any day.

[harrisonreed]

I can't speak about popularity, but when it comes to playing enjoyment, the wind band is at the bottom of the heap for me. Most composers/arrangers give all the fun parts to the trumpets and woodwinds and the the low brass gets footballs and off beats. I would much rather play in a brass band or big band any day.

In the West, maybe so. The Wind Ensemble culture is in full swing in Japan. If you want good and fun arrangements, you gotta buy ones that have kanji on the sheet music:

https://www.bravomusic-inc.com/index.ph ... ts_id=1585

Our band played that one, for example, in joint concerts with Japanese Bands all over Japan. Not very difficult, but the trombone parts were GREAT. I think it comes out of the face that the schools are generally pretty big in Japan and they have a vibrant wind band culture in the schools. You hear a "decent" middle school band in Japan and it sounds better than All State high school bands in the USA, especially the intonation. They be fielding twice as many woodwinds as we do in the US and they all play loudly and in tune.

Excluding the Defense Force bands, there are at least 3 full time professional wind ensembles around Tokyo that I'm aware of. Even the prefecture police force has a full time pro wind ensemble, and all they do is play music even though they are technically police officers. Kosei Winds absolutely takes the cake though.





The best

[Posaunus]

I understand that the wind band situation in Korea may be similar to that in Japan. Can anyone here verify that?

[harrisonreed]

I went to a wind band conference in 2016 in Seoul that ended with J. van Rijen playing the T-Bone concerto. I would say the level and amount of bands is higher in Japan, but the Korean schools are really good.

The premiere Korean military band was awesome!

[bbocaner]

They had wind bands in Europe (both military and civil) through the entire 19th century. Of course not in the exact format of today's concert band, but still.

Sure, but that is really a different animal. Modern concert band really started with Sousa band.

[BGuttman]

I'd move you back about a decade to Gilmore.

[CharlieB]

I've always been curious as to why wind bands never "caught up" to orchestra in terms of popularity (at least from what I can see). Was it just because orchestras we're already well established? A lack of rep or need for then?

Speculation..........
String instruments of exceptional musical quality were being made in year 1550; i.e. Amati violins.
Wind instruments were also available at that time, but the technology to make them with musical quality comparable to the strings did not arrive until the Industrial Revolution, 200 years later. (Some violinists claim that they still aren't as good.) That gave the strings a 200 year head start. For those 200 years, composers wrote for the best tools at their disposal, the strings.
????????? Dunno. I wasn't there.

[JohnL]

I'd move you back about a decade to Gilmore.

Good point; Patrick Gilmore was phenomenally popular in his time and his addition of saxophones to his band (circa 1873) pretty much established the modern "concert band" instrumentation (though he got the idea from a French military band visiting the USA as part of festival he organized in 1872).

[SwissTbone]

I'd move you back about a decade to Gilmore.

Good point; Patrick Gilmore was phenomenally popular in his time and his addition of saxophones to his band (circa 1873) pretty much established the modern "concert band" instrumentation (though he got the idea from a French military band visiting the USA as part of festival he organized in 1872).

AFAIK wind bands - more or less in the form known today - where already known around 1700 in France.

[JohnL]

AFAIK wind bands - more or less in the form known today - where already known around 1700 in France.

I would say less rather than more from an instrumentation standpoint. There wouldn't have been valved brass back then, so I would think a band in the 18th century would more resemble the instrumentation seen in Handel's Music for the Royal Fireworks.

[BGuttman]

AFAIK wind bands - more or less in the form known today - where already known around 1700 in France.

I would say less rather than more from an instrumentation standpoint. There wouldn't have been valved brass back then, so I would think a band in the 18th century would more resemble the instrumentation seen in Handel's Music for the Royal Fireworks.

Add to that the fact that brass bass (Ophicleide or Bombardon) were not invented until the early or mid 19th Century respectively.

American bands of the mid 19th Century were composed of Saxhorns, so still not modern.