On the MENC web site, Paul Fergus posted an article called ‘Why All The Crazy Band Titles?’. He raises the point that many students and parents can see no clear pattern in the names of school bands. ‘Wind ensemble’, ‘symphonic band’, ‘wind symphony’, ‘concert band’, and ‘symphonic winds’ are all used interchangeably, as well as titles such as ‘beginning band’, ‘intermediate band’, and ‘advanced band’.
I think we could do a better job at standardising, or at least thinking about, what we call our school ensembles. Two points come to mind. The first is that I don’t like calling bands ‘beginner’, ‘intermediate’, or ‘advanced’. Similarly I don’t like calling them ‘Band 1′, ‘Band 2′, and ‘Band 3′. Your students know what their level of ability is and where they fit into the school heirachy. I don’t think it is necessary to reinforce this to beginners by putting them in ‘Beginner Band’ or ‘Concert Band 5′.
Secondly, although many band terms are generic, some have specific definitions. A ‘wind ensemble’ is an ensemble that subscribes to the theories of flexible instrumentation and one player per part (except clarinets)–a 70-piece band is not a ‘wind ensemble’. Similarly, the term ‘symphonic band’ implies a large number of players–it would be rare that a primary school or beginning band could live up to the title of ‘symphonic band’. ‘Chamber Winds’ implies six to eighteen players, not 50.
So, what is the answer? How about naming the ensembles after composers, conductors or musicians–the ‘Grainger Band’, ‘Fennell Band’, ‘Solti Strings’, ‘Karajan Ensemble’. Does anyone have other ideas? Post them in the comments.
At a large music school I worked in for a few years, I conducted Stage Band 4.
Now stage band 4 wasn’t the lowest level stage band in the school, in fact, this band kicked stage band 2’s butt quite regularly. But we battled inferiority complexes all the way, because of the title.
On the other hand, in the school I now work in, names like the Grainger Band, the De Meij Ensemble etc would be laughed out of town.
I currently have Concert Band and Stage Band in the junior high levels, and Symphonic Band and Big Band in the senior high levels. Different enough to know who we’re talking about.… Same enough not to cause problems.
I agree that in competition settings, types of band need close definition. I’ve always taken a Wind Ensemble as a flexible mix of wind instruments, and a Concert Band as closer to what’s actually written for in ‘Band Arrangements’.
As for Symphonic Winds/Wind Symphony/Wind Orchestra.… I’ve always thought they were fancy names for a Concert Band, although Wind Orchestra to me implies a very high level of performance. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
[Reply]
Hi dtb,
You are working in a school that has 2 concert bands. I have five from years 8 to 12 and only 2 of the 5 have “correct” names. One of the intermediate bands is called the “Concert Band” and the most senior is called the “Symphonic Winds”–these two I can live with. The most junior is called “Wind Ensemble” (totally wrong!), one of the intermediates is “Chamber Winds” (again, totally inappropriate) and the second highest is the “Wind Symphony” (I guess I can live with this one).
I would probably feel very self-conscious and a little dorky naming the ensembles after composers/conductors, but it at least might give the players and parents something to talk and think about.
Does anyone have any other ideas?
Craig
[Reply]
Just another point: a wind ensemble is not a “flexible mix of wind instruments”. It has a set instrumentation (see this post — http://abodaq.org.au/on-wind-ensemble-tone/ ) but the instrumentation is flexible in the way that if a composer wants to subtract or augment the set instrumentation in any way then they are able to. It was this idea that made the Wind Ensemble “backwards compatible” with all wind music written since the Venetian Gabrielis.
Craig
[Reply]