Solo Instruments vs. Ensemble

wthurman · #1 10-16-2010, 03:13 AM

It's always been this way for me: outside of possibly some classical piano, I don't like whole albums of solo instruments. This is true of acoustic guitar, bass, or anything else. I was trained as a classical trumpet player - went to school on a scholarship for it (not for bragging, but background). I noticed that those that moved on to the next level, not only for trumpet, but for any instrument, truly believed, regardless of other appreciations and underneath it all, that their chosen instrument was two things: 1. The perfect instrument for them and, 2. The best instrument in existence. Violin, flute, cello, trumpet, sax, guitar, percussion... name your poison.

But for me, I have always preferred ensembles and the nuance of orchestration and arrangement. I couldn't relate to my fellow trumpet players because I didn't feel that the trumpet was the most important instrument in the orchestra. I find I feel the same way about guitars.

Don't get me wrong - I love playing, and I love listening to a great guitarist or other instrumentalist, but to me, variety in instrumentationis the palette that makes music magical. For me, interaction with other musicians and other inspirations and other gifts is the part that creates joy - being a part of something that is inevitably greater than the sum of its parts.

So I can't listen to a whole CD of Tommy Emmanuel, or Pierre Bensusan, even as I appreciate what they do and love it when I hear maybe 2-4 songs in a row.

Anyone else ever find himself or herself with this feeling?

Bingoccc · #2 10-16-2010, 06:19 AM

Honestly I go the other way. Other than a full blown Symphony Orchestra at work, I prefer solo or very sparsely instrumented music. I saw B.B. King once and was disappointed by his ensemble. I'd have paid double just to see him on stage, alone, with his guitar. Larger ensembles seem slick and commercial to me. Smaller groups sound more soulful and I get to appreciate individual players more. It's probably my slow metabolism

HHP · #3 10-16-2010, 06:36 AM

I would prefer solo or small, tight groups. Listened to John Fahey records non-stop for I don't know how long and never got bored with them. I think Tony Rice's "Church Street Blues" album may be the best folk/Americana/traditional recording of the 20th century. Really like tight groups like Tony Rice Unit, Dave Grisman's various groups, Rising Fawn String Ensemble, John Reischman ,Solas, who can put together sparse but brilliant arrangements that never get dated and seem to reveal something new every time you listen.

Brent Hutto · #4 10-16-2010, 07:05 AM

I like solo stuff all right as long as its a genius-level player doing material that I'm really into. But that's a pretty rare thing. David Grier can do it on guitar, sometimes. There's a few of fingerstyle players who can maintain it for a whole album or close to it. Maybe a couple of classical guitarists. But it's a tough ask to hold my attention for 6, 8, 10 tracks of solo guitar.

Large ensembles don't do it for me so much. Even your typical Bluegrass grouping of guitar, mandolin, fiddle, banjo, bass gets a bit busy for my tastes. Duos can be good but if one of the two is doing percussion or bass what you've really got is a solo instrument (like guitar) whose job is made a little easier by not having to provide rhythm and/or the bass line. But most of the same limitation apply. But then again two guitars or guitar+mandolin or guitar+fiddle or mandolin+fiddle can seem much of a muchness. Probably the only duo setup I really like is piano accompanying violin.

For me the trio grouping is where it really starts to happen. You can put a guitar in there, either a bass or drums to get the rhythm section thing and then mix in 'most anything. Another guitar, a mandolin, a fiddle. Or you can even have piano plus percussion and a solo instrument. Lots of ways to make things interesting with a trio. And its the sweet spot where you can hear each part perfectly yet they have almost unlimited ways of working out their voicings, harmony, rhythm and so on.

I think my favorite trio grouping is guitar+mandolin+bass although for jazz it's hard to beat the classic piano+bass+drums.

Fliss · #5 10-16-2010, 07:08 AM

Ideally, I like a mix of a few instruments and voice. I can enjoy other groupings - I love hearing a good brass/silver band, for example - but a solo instrument on its own will only hold my interest for a limited amount of time, however wonderful the player.

Fliss

wthurman · #6 10-16-2010, 10:18 AM

I also like small groups - although I truly enjoy orchestra from a composition/orchestration point of view.

fitness1 · #7 10-16-2010, 10:43 AM

While I appreciate all kinds of music, the older I get, the more I appreciate the more sparse recordings. During the great New Age scare of the mid 80's, I developed quite a taste for the solo piano and guitar music....it's lingered and strengthened as I've become older. In regards to the singer/songwriter genre, I also always appreciate just the guitar and voice type recordings. In most cases I feel like anything else it just taking away from the "soul" of the words and music......some harmony vocals and a tasty acoustic solo are fine, but anything past that is just more, not neccesarily better....

wthurman · #8 10-17-2010, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitness1

While I appreciate all kinds of music, the older I get, the more I appreciate the more sparse recordings. During the great New Age scare of the mid 80's, I developed quite a taste for the solo piano and guitar music....it's lingered and strengthened as I've become older. In regards to the singer/songwriter genre, I also always appreciate just the guitar and voice type recordings. In most cases I feel like anything else it just taking away from the "soul" of the words and music......some harmony vocals and a tasty acoustic solo are fine, but anything past that is just more, not neccesarily better....

I have a friend who is an engineer - and I really liked what he had to say about production, having done very complex and very sparse works - "Nothing is 'overporduced,' but rather, it is either produced well or poorly, be it simple or complex." I actually think that's fitting, as I like sparse recordings AND complex... as long as it fits.

ewalling · #9 10-17-2010, 07:35 AM

I think it depends on individual cases. I've often found with Ry Cooder that his bands get in the way of what I find truly exciting about anything with Ry Cooder in it - Ry Cooder! With exceptions, his albums seem to contain a disproportionate amount of pap, only coming alive for a few precious moments when Cooder picks up an acoustic guitar and plays one of his amazing folk/blues solos.

Lightnin' Hopkins never made the same mistake and I find his solo blues utterly compelling, one song after another. Big Bill Broonzy is the same; I can listen to whole albums of his songs without getting restless.

On the other hand, I find that Ian Anderson's brilliant dashes of acoustic work within early Jethro Tull songs arpart of an overall structure. They add variety and colour but do not monopolize. Think the acoustic intro and end to Tull's live renditions of "Thick as a Brick" in the 70s.

I'm not entirely sure what distinguishes a band like Jethro Tull from a solo performer like Lightnin' Hopkins - maybe one aims at (and achieves) greater compositional complexity that would be compromized by an over-emphasis on one instrument, while the other goes for an individual intensity within a style they play with consummate skill. Whatever. For me it depends.

HudsDad · #10 10-17-2010, 07:48 AM

Mostly, I prefer to listen to the standard band arrangement:

Singer
Guitars (lead/rhythm)
Bass
Drums

Sometimes I enjoy a simple "singer with an acoustic", but I generally stick with ensembles/bands.

wthurman · #11 10-17-2010, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewalling

I think it depends on individual cases. I've often found with Ry Cooder that his bands get in the way of what I find truly exciting about anything with Ry Cooder in it - Ry Cooder! With exceptions, his albums seem to contain a disproportionate amount of pap, only coming alive for a few precious moments when Cooder picks up an acoustic guitar and plays one of his amazing folk/blues solos.

Lightnin' Hopkins never made the same mistake and I find his solo blues utterly compelling, one song after another. Big Bill Broonzy is the same; I can listen to whole albums of his songs without getting restless.

On the other hand, I find that Ian Anderson's brilliant dashes of acoustic work within early Jethro Tull songs arpart of an overall structure. They add variety and colour but do not monopolize. Think the acoustic intro and end to Tull's live renditions of "Thick as a Brick" in the 70s.

I'm not entirely sure what distinguishes a band like Jethro Tull from a solo performer like Lightnin' Hopkins - maybe one aims at (and achieves) greater compositional complexity that would be compromized by an over-emphasis on one instrument, while the other goes for an individual intensity within a style they play with consummate skill. Whatever. For me it depends.

I like most Ry... but prefer Boomer's Story, Paradise and Lunch, Chicken Skin Music, Into the Purple Valley, Jazz, and Bop 'Til You Drop and Borderline, all of which have different amounts of musicians.

pappy27 · #12 10-18-2010, 01:48 PM

I have to agree that a Symphony orchestra is my preference for ensemble work, followed closely by a string quartet. Although quite different they can wring emotion out of a piece like nothing else I've experienced.

On the other hand solo violinist work is much too strident for me. I find it much more enjoyable when it’s working with violas and cellos.

While I prefer instrumental work to any type of singing, a really good a cappella quartet is a thing of beauty.

While one can appreciate the virtuosity of a solo performer, they are limited to what they can musically produce either by voice or instrument. Adding a few supporting pieces makes it much more enjoyable for me; similar to rather than enjoying a great steak by itself, accompanying it with a nice salad, a baked potato and a glass of wine.

Brent Hutto · #13 10-18-2010, 01:58 PM

I think some of the most effective solo performances come when they are works specifically composed to be effective in that form. Think about Bach's solo Violin Partitas or Cello Suites. Or the very best solo guitar pieces that were written explicitly in that form.

But that is admittedly limited to music structured in a way that works well within the sustain and resonance pattern of the particular solo instrument. And for most instruments that's only a tiny fraction of the possible songs one might want to write, the others are best used in an ensemble setting.

Piano is sort of an exception proving the rule. And huge range of music can be effectively expressed on a solo piano. Sure enough there is a much larger literature of solo piano works that I'd gladly listen to for an hour at a stretch than there are for violin or guitar.

Allman_Fan · #14 10-18-2010, 02:53 PM

I prefer ensembles, but I like variety.

I like a small group, but ones that change up the instrumentation. Just because you play guitar, doesn't mean you have to play guitar on every song. How about vocal "oohs and ahhs" on one song? Bongos/harmonica the next. You and the bass player switch instruments.

kinda reminds me of some british band a few years back . . .