Why violists rule the world

This, plainly, is a controversial opening gambit.

Violas and their owners are loathed by some with a zeal which I can only relate to my own irrational hatred of Audi-owning sales reps.  For another significant segment of musos and the interested public, they are objects of smirking derision, for despite history's best efforts in providing evidence to the contrary, it has been convenient to retain the altos as the butt of orchestral jokes. Of course, this is not completely without reason, for in antiquity violists were either poor violinists or else wind players who had learned the instrument as something to fall back on (whether in a literal sense or not) when their teeth fell out. In a self-fulfilling-circular-mixed-metaphor scheme, many composers usually wrote for the players they expected to get and thus violists had little to live for, perpetuating the neglect of the instrument.

Oddly, at the other end of the scale, there seemed to be plenty of really quite gifted musicians who took the instrument seriously. Viola concerti have never been particularly inferior works to the violin or cello repertoire either in terms or quality or performance technique required, although often written by less-remembered individuals.  But there was not a complete absence of capable composers interested in the viola either.  Out of the so-called 'great' composers; Bach, Beethoven, Dvorak, Haydn, Hindemith, Mendelssohn, Mozart and Schubert all played, some of them quite well, not to mention Bridge, Eric Coates, Lalo, Paganini, Harry Partch, Respighi and Torelli.  What is noticeable about all the diverse figures listed above is that their ensemble music is very good to actually play.  And having played music by all but two, I can assuredly say that every instrumental part is not only well-written but the player feels well-used within the ensemble.  More, the ensemble itself is often highly innovative - Bach's Brandenburgs, several Haydn symphonies and Hindemith's Kammermusik series all feature little-used combinations of instruments for at least part of their length.  Tenuous as the link seems, I'm sure all this has quite a lot to do with the composer having played an instrument on an inner part.  Whilst being a violinist or pianist does not preclude one from becoming a skilled orchestrator, actually being 'the middle' provides a thorough understanding of how an ensemble works and how to get the most from it. Of course, long periods of time spent playing uninspiring parts probably does much for this outlook as well.

The flip side of this is that 'interesting orchestration' can also mean 'harder parts'.  (At this point I quietly brush through the scores of The Sun Rising, my orchestration of a Bach WTC fugue and some pieces for quartet I wrote in third year, cruelly smirking at the technical delights residing within).  Yet violists simply rose to the challenge and shouldered the responsibility of enlightened folk realising that 'those lot' had the same technical potential as the violins (Berlioz here receives kudos for being an early convert).  The fact that, solo-repertoire-wise, the cello was nearly as neglected as the viola in roughly the same periods of music history is rather mysterious, as this instrument has seldom been considered anything less than highly attractive and capable as a solo instrument.  Orchestral viola parts from the mid-nineteenth-century also contain few concessions to technique, indicating that most composers had cottoned on to what they could ask of the entire string section. In any case, no matter how good your folks playing the tune or the bass are, the music falls flat without an effective 'middle' - ie the violas (with assistance from horns/bassoons and such like).

To reiterate, being a violist or playing any other 'inner' instrument will, in all probability, make you a better composer.  I am not at all suggesting that violinists or pianists necessarily write dull orchestral parts (that morbid role is often filled by concert band composers and the army of arrangers who are all too eager to copy and paste saxophones as string parts) but a lot of less rewarding parts do come from composers who either spent too much time at the piano or who set excessive store by melody and thus 'conventional' melodic instruments.  Being literally inside the ensemble teaches one how it works with great effect.  If you want to be a great orchestrator, play the viola. QED.

Anyway, here's William Primrose to play us out with some expertly cultivated alto one-upmanship: