IMSLP Forums

It sickens me that almost every composer has written for the cello and the viola gets repeatedly ignored in the concertante genre. Come on, it is a nice instrument but the viola has such a richer sound, especially in the high range. The cello is not that great of an instrument.

For the people that don't like me using the word overrated, let's please don't bring that up because that is distracting from the real issue.

Regards

It most certainly is relevant. This may be a case of overuse, but not overrating.
You may as well ask why there are more cello or violin players than viola or contrabass (or others). Is there really a clear answer to that question?

Acoustically, there well may be. Both the violin and cello are constructed along the principles of the violin (I know that sounds dumb, but stay with me, it will make sense). If the viola and double bass were constructed along those principles, both would be too long for a human to play comfortably. They have to be made in part along the lines of a viol, which is a completely different family of instruments.

Proportionately, they are shorter, so they are easier to handle in larger sizes, but the downside is that they don't project well. In fact, this is one of the reasons the double bass sounds a bit woolly compared to cello.

This affects concertante works directly. When playing with a backing of 3 or 4, solos aren't hard to project. When playing against a background of 40-50 or more, it's a different story.

Fortunately, violas aren't made in standard sizes, so a violist with really long arms can buy a viola that is slightly longer, though still not really in proportion to violin measurements. These longer instruments will project better.

This is a practical issue. Though it isn't impossible to score an orchestral accompaniment for viola, it is trickier than either cello or violin. It is difficult to envisage an accompaniment, for example, like the Dvorak Cello Concerto, with a viola solo.

I love the viola, and also wish more composers would tackle concertos for it (carefully scored so as not to obscure), but I think it is very shortsighted to call the cello overrated (and yes, this is an overused word here) simply because it is used more often for solo works than viola. If an instrument has the range and ability to project easily over a large orchestra, it will be written for, plain and simply, more often than an instrument that doesn't project quite as well.

(As an Administrator) If you want to make another 'overrated' thread (or similar), just create one thread and change the topic every now and then. It is messing up the forum. Okay?


In terms of this thread, the Cello is one of the most beautiful sounding instruments in it's low register, an expressive higher register, and has a huge range. Viola (to me) sounds like a singer holding their nose (a lot of the time: not all!). It is not as virtuosic an instrument (it's bulkiness makes it difficult to play in it's playing position). But both play their roles perfectly and neither are overrated, possibly the viola is underrated but composers are allowed to compose for whatever they want.

Well the viola does have a lot of concertante pieces out there, there are just not well known. For instance, Carl Maria von Weber wrote a couple of concertante works for the viola, and I have not seen one recording of them.

Another question, what is the reason behind composers wanting to write alternate parts for the viola for pieces that were originally composed for the clarinet (e.g. Brahms and Reger). Is it because of the mutual qualities of timbre that both instruments share?

To Yagan: I bet if I named this thread "Violincello Problems" or something along those lines you would not have a problem with it. I do not know why people cannot stand me using the word overrated.

Oh and some trivia: Did you know Brahms's favorite string instrument was the viola?

Another question, what is the reason behind composers wanting to write alternate parts for the viola for pieces that were originally composed for the clarinet (e.g. Brahms and Reger). Is it because of the mutual qualities of timbre that both instruments share?

Probably the range (the quality is similar, mainly in the range, not timbre IMO), also Viola is more convention e.g. string quartet.

Well the viola does have a lot of concertante pieces out there, there are just not well known. For instance, Carl Maria von Weber wrote a couple of concertante works for the viola, and I have not seen one recording of them.

Speaking of Concertante, didn't Mozart use Scordatura to make the Viola sound more like a Violin (or at least to make it 'fit' more comfortably with the Violin)?

allegroamabile wrote:To Yagan: I bet if I named this thread "Violincello Problems" or something along those lines you would not have a problem with it. I do not know why people cannot stand me using the word overrated.

Any word that is used so frequently will tire, but (and please don't take this personally) the use of this one can be seen as arrogant, in that it can look like anything you don't happen to like is overrated. It doesn't have to come across this way, especially if used sparingly, but certainly some of the highly emotional responses (not just one person's) in another thread kind of started going that way.

And some of the high emotions involved detracted from an otherwise useful and interesting discussion, because we just aren't objective when we're emotional. Even though music itself is meant to evoke emotions, the scholarly discussion of it shouldn't.

(At this point, she exits quietly, to a jazz concert with, hopefully, a glass of wine, not to return to this forum until tomorrow.)

]Speaking of Concertante, didn't Mozart use Scordatura to make the Viola sound more like a Violin (or at least to make it 'fit' more comfortably with the Violin)?

Mozarts Sinfonia Concertante, K.364 - for violin and viola - was written in E flat Major. But the Viola part was written in D. The violist has to tune up the strings 1/2 step higher and play it as if it was in D... but it actually sounds in E flat. Many Violists nowadays just play it with normal tuning and in E flat. You can find both versions (Viola part written in D and in E flat) on this site.

steltz wrote:Any word that is used so frequently will tire, but (and please don't take this personally) the use of this one can be seen as arrogant

I do not want to appear arrogant, sorry if it has seemed that way. I am just an excessively emotional and sensitive person and that can get in the way of how I truly look upon something.

Anyways, I do love the viola, but I do not think it makes much sense to replace the clarinet part in Brahms's Quintet, Op. 115 with a viola. It makes the viola a solo instrument fighting against two violins, another viola, and a cello.

Mozarts Sinfonia Concertante, K.364 - for violin and viola - was written in E flat Major. But the Viola part was written in D. The violist has to tune up the strings 1/2 step higher and play it as if it was in D... but it actually sounds in E flat. Many Violists nowadays just play it with normal tuning and in E flat. You can find both versions (Viola part written in D and in E flat) on this site.

I know 'what' I was asking 'why'. The tuning changed the timbre, or tone of the Viola, it's my understanding he changed it to make it sound more like a Violin, just getting clarification.

I don't think the 'Cello is over-rated, but I do think the viola is ignored too often.... I think the over-rated string intrusment is the VIOLIN (not that I dis-like the instrument, I just think it's used much more often then it should be), but the 'cello is very.....flexible...in every range, which is why composers like it so much. The viola, while very usable in all ranges, is most characteristic in it's lower ranges.

There you go, overused- not overrated...

KGill wrote:There you go, overused- not overrated...

The word "overrated" is definitely overused.



(...and overrated)

Closed see this thread.