Why do composers write so few violin concertos?

Beethoven and Mozart both played the fiddle, more than adequately. Mozart is documented as somewhat lamenting having to put the violin aside if he was going to have time to be a pianist and composer.

Even being fully trained in orchestration or with first-hand knowledge of the instrument, single line instruments in general are a hellish pain in the @ss to write for, that is at least successfully, making anything interesting, sustainable, etc. I'm not up to it on skill level, but would find it a real pain to have to depend upon and sit in this upper tessitura for the duration of a work of symphonic length and proportions, write the accompaniment very carefully around the lower and lower middle registers so they weren't lost in a texture, and on and on.

Prokofiev was a virtuoso pianist and composer, and wrote virtuoso music for all players. He wrote two Violin Concerti, Five Piano Concerti, more than Five symphonies. Berg, like Beethoven, only wrote one, but it is a masterpiece. Ditto Stravinsky, though it might be too 'fun' to be a heavier contender. Stravinsky consulted directly with professional violinist Samuel Dushkin all the way through the time he composed the work. It is a guess that even composers who have great knowledge of the instrument still find it a greater than normal labor to compose for it - i.e. much more labor intensive, perhaps.

Favor or not, the piano is the one instrument a composer / pianist can always expect to get polyphony out of, including playing an orchestral reduction if need be. It has a wonderful ability to accompany, double instruments or take a walk in solo territory in all parts of its range, and with the right player, those elements and dynamics can all be expected to be delivered as finely as the automobile which can 'turn on a dime'. The range and the ability to play full harmony are of course why there is so much solo literature and that many more concertante works for it.

The very practical factor of collecting a performer's fee as well as the fee for your composition does come in to play: simply put, Beethoven and Mozart needed the gigs.

Just to settle another very silly posit I recall. The pianist/ composers seem to be the ones who have composed most of the greatest of fiddle concerti ~ so where, for example, is the Paganini Piano Concerto?

best regards.

For many composers, the piano is a tool of their trade. The violin, however, is not an instrument so often played by composers since the Baroque (OK, Paganini was an exception, but always think of him as a violinist who also composed, rather than the other way around). Therefore, composers might be a little reticent tacking a major symphonic work for an instrument whose technical capabilities and techniques they don't have an intimate knowledge.

I am afraid it is not correct to say Vivaldi wasn't a composer-violinist - he WAS. He was a great violin virtuoso like Corelli before him and Locatelli after him (and Paganini after that). True, he wasn't PRIMARILY a career violionist like Paganini, but he was no slouch, believe me. That's one of the reasons he wrote so many concertos for the instrument.

Next, in general, composers have become less prolific over time (modern-day would-be Mozarts, Haydns and Vivaldis not having to churn-out piece after piece for their masters). Therefore, statistically, there will be fewer violin concertos.

Then there is the question of the models composers might feel they need to live up to. The violin concertos of Beethoven and Brahms (and, to a lesser extent, Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky) are towering masterpieces. It can surely be daunting to attempt a violin concerto with those models peering over your metaphorical shoulder.

I think you will find that all the composers of multiple violin concertos were actually fine fiddlers in their own right (eg Louis Spohr, Giovanni Viotti (who wrote no fewer than 29 violin concertos!), Josef Mysliveček).

That probably explains it.

I love the Elgar cello concerto too. You should listen to Dvorak's too. But I wanted to say that I am a cellist and there are quite a few concertos written for us out there and sonatas, and 6 suites by Bach, and trios, quartets, etc. There is a lot out there for us to play and work on. But I do know what you mean when there is a massive amount of music for violin and piano. Sometimes I think that someone like Yo Yo Ma has to be bored sometimes as a cellist. In a way if he had played violin I don't think he would feel bored at all. I am a young student and I have played 4 concertos thus far and I feel like I have kind of only scraped the tip of the iceberg when I think about what is available to learn and prepare still. I look forward to what I am working on and what I will play in the future. Anyways, like other answers have said the cello when it was first created was seen as an accompanying instrument. For a while it wasn't special enough I guess you could say. But I am grateful some composers still wrote good music for it.

Concerto Composers

Probably because more composers are pianists than violinists, and composers feel more comfortable writing for their own instrument.

You were mistaken in saying that Vivaldi was not a violinist. I have read that some witnesses have been dazzled by his violin playing.

I admit, though, that there must be other factors, too. Beethoven and Mendelssohn were both violinists, and neither of them were prolific in their outpuit of violin concertos.

It could be that before amplification a violin concerto could only be played before a small audience. Fewer bums in the seats meant less money for the composer. As for piano concertos, they are often accompanied by a full orchestra, and piano sheet music sells better than violin concerto sheet music. It's all economics, then and now.

The only comment I can really make is...

Beethoven - pianist.

Mozart - principally klavier -ist. (And his violin concertos were all composed before he was 22)

Brahms - pianist.

Tchaikovsky - pianist.

Saint Saens - pianist.

Prokofiev - pianist.

Composers have a preference for their own instruments (?). Most composers weren't principally violinists.

The piano is the most satisfactory platform for composing (?!?).

Other than that I have nothing to offer.

The piano is so much larger as an instrument. You can play 10 notes at one time. You can mix and match for an infinite variety of tones and moods. It's just so much more dramatic and satisfying to listen to, to interpret and express music with. I think Beethoven and Mozart just preferred the piano because it's just a larger and more accomplished instrument on which you can do so much more.

yes schumann mendelssoh is the best!