Concerti (this is what us stiff-necked grammar nazis refer to as plural of "concerto", but "concertos" is also acceptable) are very much like any other genre - some are tragic, some aren't. I'd be curious to know which ones you listened to. From my experience, I rarely feel the soloist is against the orchestra but instead is comforted by an ensemble expanding on the musical ideas presented. But this could also depend on the players.

It's an interesting notion you've put forth, but for some decidedly not-tragic concertos, I recommend the Haydn Cello Concertos, perhaps a Mozart Violin Concerto, and the final movement of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in E Minor.

-PPP

 

You are right in thinking that there is a contrast between the solo instrument and the orchestra - however - the concerto is not, in general, a "tragic" genre. This is because the primary purpose of the concerto is, in fact, to display the crowd-pleasing technical skills of the soloist. Sometimes when I listen to concerti I get the feeling (after the opening theme) that I'm simply listening to a series of improvisations and technical exercises..

Of course, there are quite a few more "laid back" concerti that seem to have serene beauty as their goal, such as Bruch's Violin Concerto No. 1, Elgar's Cello Concerto, Saint-Saens Piano Concerto No. 4, Beethoven's Piano Concero No. 4, Schumann's Piano Concerto (1st movement), etc. But no, the concerto is not in general a tragic genre, and I feel that the composer's artistic ability often tends to be limited by the need to show off the soloist.

 

...This is because the primary purpose of the concerto is, in fact, to display the crowd-pleasing technical skills of the soloist. Sometimes when I listen to concerti I get the feeling (after the opening theme) that I'm simply listening to a series of improvisations and technical exercises...
...I feel that the composer's artistic ability often tends to be limited by the need to show off the soloist.

This is an interesting POV, and actually now that I think about it, I can empathise. However, if you may excuse me for blatantly plugging this*, Bloch's Schelomo for cello and orchestra is an actual piece of music, and I don't feel that it's played simply to show the technical aptitude of the player - nor indeed that the solo part has limited the composer's intentions in any way.

-PPP

*I will not rest until this piece has achieved world domination!!

 

Character of every form changed in time, not to mention individual views of particular composers. Works like clarinet concerto by von Weber or Harold et Italie by Berlioz are surely dramatic, but one couldn't say the same about early classical piano concertos which are 100% formalistic.

When concerto form was invented there was no artistic idea of conflict behind it. Today we call any live musical event a concert and that's how concerto in classical music was seen in it's early life - as good idea to provide audience with combination of solo instrument and orchestra and therefore make performance more differential and attractive.

How future composer used this form is, like I said, very individual case and there can be no general answer for this question.

 

Thanks for the excellent answers, that covered both the technical and the historical angles!

Some of the concertos that I have been listening include: Rachmaninov piano concerto n 2 (and n 1 to a lesser extent), Sibelius' violin concerto, some concerto by Brahms that I don't remember now, and I recently saw a very strong live performance of Schumann's violin concerto (my first live concert[o] of classical music!)

 

That's a heavily Romantic listening diet. A lot of the Romantics (esp. late ones) where quite an unhappy bunch of people. Try some Baroque concertos from the likes of Corelli, Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, Albinoni and obviously the main man, JS Bach. They do contain slow sections normally to contrast the light-hearted parts, but in general are more lively. Vivaldi alone composed over 500 concertos, so there's plenty to sink your teeth into.:tiphat:

 

Apart from some large generalizations I do accept the basic reasoning on your argument based on the experience you have.

If you listen to a wider range of concertino may soon realize composers dont always follow strict traditions and there are many examples in which the solo instrument seems to be 'in concert' with the accompaniment.

Try listening to both Poulenc's harpsichord and organ concertos for contrast.

 

or maybe it's related to the temperament of instrument. the violin is good in doing melancholic music, the cello even further melancholic / sad /tragic. the piano like to go romantic (as in 'romance'), the organ goes majestic feel.

 

Also Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn.

 

Possibly the happiest concerto I've ever heard is Handel's Orcgan Concerto No. 14 (or is it 13?). No matter -- they are mostly joyous, but the number 14, especially the last movement can bring me out of any down mood. Also Schumann's piano concerto mentioned above ends on a triumphantly euphoric theme, rivalling even Beethoven's triumphant themes.

 

Orcgan Concerto

Is it performed by orcs? Zug, zug... LOKTAR.

 

I haven't a clue what is meant by a "tragic genre". I'm surprised that none of the answers thus far has stated the same, instead of going on about all sorts of irrelevant things. There is some classical music which contains what might loosely be called a tragic theme, but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "tragic genre" as such. And most definitely the suggestion that "concertos" constitute a tragic genre is way off beam. I'd forget all about the concept if I were you, and get a book out (or possibly look on Wikepedia) to find which are are the main classical music genres genuinely are. There's clearly no point asking in places like this unless you want a lot of silly answers.

 

. . . There is some classical music which contains what might loosely be called a tragic theme, but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "tragic genre" as such.

Right. Nothing at all tragic about a funeral march, dirge, requiem, or threnody.

 

Yes, no point at all. Just look at all of the above silly answers if you require evidence...

 

Short answer is no. You probably have listened to a lot of Romantic period concertos, which might give you the impression that the concerto is one of a "tragic genre", which to a newbie, the music might sound "tragic". Take a listen to earlier period instrumental concertos, that might change your perception.

Which concertos did you have in mind as "tragic"?

 

...the final movement of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in E Minor.

The first piece that crossed my mind when I saw this thread.

Have I listened to a skewed selection of concertos[?]

Could be.

Another thought that I entertained was "what Concerto selections have you heard so far?"

In some pieces, it may seem that the soloist struggles against the inexorable power of the orchestra. In other works, the soloist seems to emerge triumphant from the shadows of the orchestra. And then there are those times when the soloist and orchestra advance the same musical points with dovetail-teamwork.

 

Three concertos I can think of that are basically devoid of any overt emotion (tragedy, turbulence or happiness) are Prokofiev's Violin Concerto No. 1, Hovhaness' Cello Concerto or Carter's Violin Concerto. It's a bit like squeezing blood from a stone, the performer has to inject his/her emotion into these works to make them get off the ground. But that's a good thing, to a degree, the performance has to be about the music rather than the flamboyance or ego of the performer. A common thing about these concertos is also that the soloist is at the foreground, and forces the orchestra into the background. There is no epic struggle, and this is an accepted fact from the word go. Even Carter, who is often prone to make many things more involved, writes a concerto (for once) where the orchestra is a mere accompanist, not a protagonist or foil to the soloist. In many ways, these three concertos occupy a world in the stratosphere, and are not of terra firma (indeed, the start of the Prokofiev makes me feel like I am gliding amongst the clouds like a bird). Concertos (like any other work) need neither be "happy" or "sad," they can be neither, and it's sometimes up to the individual listener to attach any emotions to the music, which is (in itself) uncommitted either way - it just exists like a tree, or a boulder, or the vast ocean - there's nothing tragic or ecstatic about it. Neither extreme is entertained or attained, but the "middle ground" between the two becomes like a fertile, blossoming garden, from which we are allowed to pluck the flowers that we like (or perhaps just gaze at them from afar, detatched, only involved in our minds)...

 

Three concertos I can think of that are basically devoid of any overt emotion (tragedy, turbulence or happiness) are Prokofiev's Violin Concerto No. 1, Hovhaness' Cello Concerto or Carter's Violin Concerto. ..

What about Schoenberg's violin concerto? Would be interested in your views on this piece, Andre. (I bought the Naxos CD, which I think I mentioned to you in a post not long ago. Yes, I've been a good "student" with Arnie's music, taking my time with attentive listening).

 

Tragic.... loaded word. Dramatic maybe.