document_title: Constitutional Convention (United States)

question_text: who urged congress to call for the constitutional convention

question_tokens: who urged congress to call for the constitutional convention

text: Constitutional Convention (United States)

text: Historical context[edit]

text: Before the Constitution was drafted, the nearly 4 million inhabitants[4] of the 13 newly independent states were governed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, created by the Second Continental Congress. It soon became evident to nearly all that the chronically underfunded Confederation government, as originally organized, was inadequate for managing the various conflicts that arose among the states.[5]:4–5[6]:14–16 As the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of the states, any state had effective veto power over any proposed change.[7] In addition, the Articles gave the weak federal government no taxing power: it was wholly dependent on the states for its money, and had no power to force delinquent states to pay.[7]

text: Once the immediate task of winning the American Revolutionary War of 1775 to 1783 had passed, the states began to look to their own interests, and disputes arose. These included a dispute between Maryland and Virginia over the Potomac River and opposition to Rhode Island's imposing taxes on all traffic passing through it on the post road. James Madison suggested that state governments should appoint commissioners "to take into consideration the trade of the United States; to examine the relative situation and trade of said states; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interests and permanent harmony".[8]:92

text: Another impetus for the convention was Shays' Rebellion of 1786-1787. A political conflict between Boston merchants and rural farmers over issues including tax debts had broken out into an open rebellion. This rebellion was led by a former Revolutionary War captain, Daniel Shays, a small farmer with tax debts, who had never received payment for his service in the Continental Army. The rebellion took months for Massachusetts to put down completely, and some desired a federal army that would be able to put down such insurrections.

text: In September 1786, at the Annapolis Convention, delegates from five states called for a Constitutional Convention in order to discuss possible improvements to the Articles of Confederation. The subsequent Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia, convening in the Old Pennsylvania State House (then becoming known as Independence Hall) on May 14, 1787. Rhode Island, fearing that the Convention would work to its disadvantage, boycotted the Convention and, when the Constitution was put to the states during the next year of controversial debates, initially refused to ratify it, waiting until May 1790 to become the thirteenth, a year after the new federal government commenced.[9]

text: The Convention[edit]

text: Due to the difficulty of travel in the late 18th century, very few of the selected delegates were present on the designated day of May 14, 1787, and it was not until May 25 that a quorum of seven states was secured. (New Hampshire delegates would not join the Convention until more than halfway through the proceedings, on July 23.)[5]:103 James Madison arrived first, and soon most of the Virginia delegation arrived. While waiting for the other delegates, the Virginia delegation produced the Virginia Plan, which was designed and written by James Madison. On May 25, the delegations convened in the Pennsylvania State House.

text: George Washington was unanimously elected president of the Convention,[10] and it was agreed that the discussions and votes would be kept secret until the conclusion of the meeting.[5]:11 Despite the sweltering summer heat, the windows of the meeting hall were nailed shut to keep the proceedings a secret from the public.[History Alive! 1] Although William Jackson was elected as secretary, his records were brief and included very little detail. Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, supplemented by the notes of Robert Yates, remain the most complete record of the Convention.[5]:162–64 Throughout the debate, delegates constantly referred to precedents from history in support of their position. Most commonly, they referred to the history of England, in particular the Glorious Revolution (often simply called "The Revolution"), classical history (mainly the Roman Republic and the leagues of Greek city-states), and recent precedents from Holland and Germany.

text: Outside the Convention in Philadelphia, there was a national convening of the Society of the Cincinnati. Washington was said to be embarrassed. The 1776 "old republican" delegates like Elbridge Gerry (MA) found anything military or hereditary anathema. The Presbyterian Synod of Philadelphia and New York convention was meeting to redefine its Confession, dropping the faith requirement for civil authority to prohibit false worship.[11] Protestant Episcopalian Washington attended a Roman Catholic Mass and dinner.[12] Revolution veteran Jonas Phillips, of the Mikveh Israel Synagogue, petitioned the Convention to avoid a national oath including belief in both Old and New Testaments. Merchants of Providence, Rhode Island, petitioned for consideration, though their Assembly had not sent a delegation.[13]

text: Manasseh Cutler came directly from the capital in New York and found himself a frequent dinner guest among the delegates. He carried grants of five million acres to parcel out among The Ohio Company and "speculators", including some who were attending the Convention.[a] A Philadelphia guest of Robert Morris, Noah Webster would write a pamphlet immediately after the signing. "Leading Principles of the Federal Convention" advocated adoption of the Constitution. It was published much earlier and more widely circulated than today's better known Federalist Papers.[15]

text: James Madison's blueprint[edit]

text: While waiting for the Convention to formally begin, James Madison sketched out his initial draft, which became known as the Virginia Plan and reflected his views as a strong nationalist.[6]:47 By the time the rest of the Virginia delegation arrived, most of the Pennsylvania delegation had arrived as well. They agreed on Madison's plan, and formed what came to be the predominant coalition. By the time the Convention started, the only blueprints that had been assembled were Madison's Virginia Plan, and Charles Pinckney's plan. As Pinckney didn't have a coalition behind his plan, Madison's plan was the starting point for deliberations.[6]:47

text: The Convention agreed on several principles. Most importantly, they agreed that the Convention should go beyond its mandate merely to amend the Articles of Confederation, and instead should produce a new constitution outright. While some delegates thought this illegal, the Articles of Confederation were closer to a treaty between sovereign states than they were to a national constitution, so the genuine legal problems were limited.[6]:64 Another principle they agreed on was that the new government would have all the powers of the Confederation Congress, plus additional powers over the states.[6]:64 Once agreeing on these principles, the Convention voted on the Virginia plan and signaled their approval for it. Once this was done, they began modifying it.

text: Madison's plan operated on several assumptions that were not seriously challenged. During the deliberations, few raised serious objections to the planned bicameral congress, nor the separate executive function, nor the separate judicial function.[6]:67 As English law had typically recognized government as having two separate functions, law making embodied in the legislature, and law executing embodied in the king and his courts, the division of the legislature from the executive and judiciary was a natural and uncontested point.[10]

text: The division of the legislature into an upper and lower house wasn't questioned either, despite the obscure origins of the English House of Lords and its role as the representative of the hereditary nobility.[6]:82 Americans had seldom known any but bicameral legislatures, both in Britain and in most state governments. The main exceptions to this were the dysfunctional Confederation Congress and the unicameral Pennsylvania legislature, which was seen as quickly vacillating between partisan extremes after each election.[6]:82 Experience had convinced the delegates that an upper house was necessary to tame the passions of the lower classes against the interests of wealthy merchants and landowners. Since America had no native hereditary aristocracy, the character of this upper house was designed to protect the interests of this wealthy elite, the "minority of the opulent," against the interests of the lower classes, who constituted the majority of the population.[6]:85[16]

text:
In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.

—James Madison, quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates

tag: div

text: On Thursday, June 7, it was proposed that senators should be chosen directly by the state legislatures, instead of by popular vote, as this method was more likely to preserve the power of the upper classes. Convention delegate Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts observed that "the great mercantile interest and of stockholders, is not provided for in any mode of election-they will however be better represented if the State legislatures choose the second branch."[16] The proposal was carried unanimously.

text: The delegates also agreed with Madison that the executive function had to be independent of the legislature. In their aversion to kingly power, American legislatures had created state governments where the executive was beholden to the legislature, and by the late 1780s this was widely seen as being a source of paralysis.[6]:82 The Confederation government was the ultimate example of this.

text: Furthermore, in the English tradition, judges were seen as being agents of the King and his court, who represented him throughout his realm.[10] Madison believed that in the American states, this direct link between state executives and judges was a source of corruption through patronage, and thought the link had to be severed between the two, thus creating the "third branch" of the judiciary which had been without any direct precedent before this point.[10] Madison, however, did not believe that the judiciary should be truly independent, but rather beholden to the legislature rather than the executive. At the Convention, some sided with Madison that the legislature should choose judges, while others believed the president should choose judges. A compromise was eventually reached that the president should choose judges and the Senate confirm them.[6]:84

text: In a few areas, Madison's plan included provisions that had little support among the delegates. Few agreed with Madison that the legislature should be able to invalidate state laws, so the idea was dropped. While most thought there should be some mechanism to invalidate bad laws by congress, few agreed with Madison that a board of the executive and judges should decide on this. Instead, the power was given solely to the executive in the form of the veto. Many also thought this would be useful to protect the executive, whom many worried might become beholden to an imperial legislature.[6]:141 Also, during the deliberations, the New Jersey Plan was introduced, although it was more of a protest to the excessive national character of the Virginia plan, and was not seriously considered.[6]:230 The office of Vice President was also included later in the deliberations, mainly to provide the president a successor if he was unable to complete his term but also to provide presidential electors with an incentive to vote for at least one out of state candidate in addition to a "favorite son" from their own state or region.

text: The early debate[edit]

text: Each state was allowed to cast a single vote either for or against a proposal during the debates in accordance with the majority opinion of the state's delegates.[5]:83 Throughout the Convention, delegates would regularly come and go, with only 30–40 being present on a typical day.[5]:83 Consequently, if a state's delegates were equally divided in their views on a given proposal, or if too few of the state's delegates were in attendance to establish a quorum for the delegation when votes were being cast on a particular proposal, that state's delegation had essentially no effect on the outcome of the vote on the proposal. Thus, for example, after two of New York's three delegates abandoned the Convention in mid July with no intention of returning, New York was left unable to vote on any further proposals at the Convention, although Hamilton would continue to periodically attend and occasionally to speak during the debates.[5]:83

text:
All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontroling disposition requires checks.

—Alexander Hamilton, quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates

text: The first area of major dispute was the manner by which the lower house would be apportioned. A minority wanted it to be apportioned so that all states would have equal weight, though this was never seriously considered. Most wanted it apportioned in accordance with some mixture of property and population.[6]:117 Though there was discussion on how to calculate property for this purpose, the issue of property was later dropped because of its difficulty, and an assumption that property would closely correlate to population.

text: Most accepted the desire among the slave states to count slaves as part of the population, although their servile status was raised as a major objection against this. The Three-Fifths Compromise assessing population by adding the number of free persons to three-fifths of "all other persons" (slaves) was agreed to without serious dispute.[6]:119 In 1783, when attempting to assess a national taxation system, the Confederation Congress had considered a three fifths ratio, which did not achieve unanimity.[6]:119[17] This compromise resulted in a large coalition of states, including the small slave states of South Carolina and Georgia, backing the Virginia plan and thus expanding the power of the primary coalition. That the lower house was to be elected directly by the voters was also accepted without major dispute.[6]:119

text: More contentious than the lower house was the question of the upper house. Few agreed with Madison that its members should be elected by the lower house. James Wilson suggested election by popular vote versus election by state legislature, but his proposal was shot down 10–1 by the delegates.[18] Most delegates didn't question the intelligence of the voters,[citation needed] rather what concerned them was the slowness by which information spread in the late 18th century.[6]:122

text: At the time of the Convention, they noted that local newspapers said little of current events, and what little they had was sketchy and dated. Local papers even said little about the meeting of the Convention.[citation needed] Alexander Hamilton proposed extending the term in office for senators to life, considering earlier proposals of four and seven years inefficient to enable the "rich and well born" to have a "distinct, permanent share in the government," which could "check the imprudence of democracy."[16] Moreover, Hamilton proposed that senators not be elected directly by the general public, but by "electors" chosen for that purpose.

text: Besides the problems of direct election, the new Constitution was seen as such a radical break with the old system, by which delegates were elected to the Confederation Congress by state legislatures, that the Convention agreed to retain this method of electing senators to make the constitutional change less radical.[6]:122 The more difficult problem was the issue of apportionment. The Connecticut delegation offered a compromise, whereby the number of representatives for each state in the lower house would be apportioned based on the relative size of the state's population, while the number of representatives in the upper house would be the same for all of the states, irrespective of size. The large states, fearing a diminution of their influence in the legislature under this plan, opposed this proposal. Unable to reach agreement, the delegates decided to leave this issue for further consideration later during the meeting.

text: The delegates couldn't agree on whether the executive should be a single person, or a board of three. Many wished to limit the power of the executive and thus supported the proposal to divide the executive power between three persons.[6]:134 The possible problems of this system, in addition to the knowledge that George Washington would probably be the first president,[citation needed] calmed the fears enough so that the proponents of a singular executive could accumulate a large coalition.[6]:134 This issue came up occasionally after the matter was settled, but was never again seriously doubted.

text: Another issue concerned the election of the president. Few agreed with Madison that the executive should be elected by the legislature. There was widespread concern with direct election, because information diffused so slowly in the late 18th century, and because of concerns that people would only vote for candidates from their state or region. A vocal minority wanted the national executive to be chosen by the governors of the states.[6]:136

text: The issue was one of the last major issues to be resolved, and was done so in the electoral college. At the time, before the formation of modern political parties, there was widespread concern that candidates would routinely fail to secure a majority of electors in the electoral college. The method of resolving this problem therefore was a contested issue. Most thought that the house should then choose the president, since it most closely reflected the will of the people. This caused dissension among delegates from smaller states, who realized that this would put their states at a disadvantage. To resolve this dispute, the Convention agreed that the house would elect the president if no candidate had an electoral college majority, but that each state delegation would vote as a bloc, rather than individually.[6]:136

text: As the Convention was entering its second full month of deliberations, it was decided that further consideration of the prickly question of how to apportion representatives in the national legislature should be referred to a committee composed of one delegate from each of the eleven states that were present at that time at the Convention. The members of this "Grand Committee," as it has come to be known, included Elbridge Gerry, Oliver Ellsworth, Robert Yates, William Paterson, Gunning Bedford, Jr., George Mason, William Davie, John Rutledge, Abraham Baldwin, and Benjamin Franklin. In its report to the Convention on July 5, the committee offered a compromise. The large states had opposed the Connecticut Compromise, because they felt it gave too much power to the smaller states. The Grand Committee's proposal added the requirement that revenue bills originate in the lower house and not be subject to modification by the upper house (although this Origination Clause would later be modified so that revenue bills could be amended in the upper house, or Senate).[6]:199 With this modification, the Convention in a close vote adopted the compromise on July 16. Nationalist delegates remained bitterly opposed, however, until on July 23 they succeeded in further modifying the compromise to give members of the Senate individual voting power, rather than having votes taken by each state's representatives en bloc, as had occurred in Congress under the Articles of Confederation.[19] This accomplished the nationalist goal of preventing state governments from having a direct say in Congress's choice to make national laws.[20] The final document was thus a mixture of Madison's original "national" constitution and the desired "federal" Constitution that many of the delegates sought.[6]:199

text: The first draft[edit]

text: The Convention adjourned from July 26 to August 6 to await the report of the Committee of Detail, which was to produce a first draft of the Constitution. It was chaired by John Rutledge, with the other members including Edmund Randolph, Oliver Ellsworth, James Wilson, and Nathaniel Gorham.

text: Though the committee did not record minutes of its proceedings, three key surviving documents offer clues to the committee's handiwork: an outline by Randolph with edits by Rutledge, extensive notes and a second draft by Wilson, also with Rutledge's edits, and the committee's final report to the Convention.[21]:168 From this evidence it is thought that the committee used the original Virginia Plan, the decisions of the Convention on modifications to that plan, and other sources, such as the Articles of Confederation, provisions of the state constitutions, and even Charles Pinckney's plan, to produce the first full draft,[6]:269–70[21]:165 which author David O. Stewart has called a "remarkable copy-and-paste job."[21]:165

text: Randolph adopted two rules in preparing his initial outline: that the Constitution should only include essential principles, avoiding minor provisions that would change over time, and that it should be stated in simple and precise language.[6]:270

text: Much of what was included in the committee's report consisted of numerous details that the Convention had never discussed but which the committee correctly viewed as uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged; and as such, much of the committee's proposal would ultimately be incorporated into the final version of the Constitution without debate.[21]:169 Examples of these details included the Speech and Debate Clause, which grants members of Congress immunity for comments made in their jobs, and the rules for organizing the House of Representatives and the Senate.

text: However, Rutledge, himself a former state governor, was determined that while the new national government should be stronger than the Confederation government had been, the national government's power over the states should not be limitless; and at Rutledge's urging, the committee went beyond what the Convention had proposed. As Stewart describes it, the committee "hijacked" and remade the Constitution, altering critical agreements the Convention delegates had already made, enhancing the powers of the states at the expense of the national government, and adding several far-reaching provisions that the Convention had never discussed.[21]:165

text: The first major change, insisted on by Rutledge, was meant to sharply curtail the essentially unlimited powers to legislate "in all cases for the general interests of the Union" that the Convention only two weeks earlier had agreed to grant the Congress. Rutledge and Randolph worried that the broad powers implied in the language agreed on by the Convention would have given the national government too much power at the expense of the states. In Randolph's outline the committee replaced that language with a list of 18 specific "enumerated" powers, many adopted from the Articles of Confederation, that would strictly limit the Congress' authority to measures such as imposing taxes, making treaties, going to war, and establishing post offices.[6]:273–74[21]:170–71 Rutledge, however, was not able to completely convince all of the members of the committee to accept the change. Over the course of a series of drafts, a catchall provision (the "Necessary and Proper Clause") was eventually added, most likely by Wilson, a nationalist little concerned with the sovereignty of individual states, giving the Congress the broad power "to make all Laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."[6]:274[21]:171–72 Another revision of Wilson's draft also placed eight specific limits on the states, such as barring them from independently entering into treaties and from printing their own money, providing a certain degree of balance to the limits on the national government intended by Rutledge's list of enumerated powers.[6]:274–75[21]:172 In addition, Wilson's draft modified the language of the Supremacy Clause adopted by the Convention, to ensure that national law would take precedence over inconsistent state laws.[21]:172

text: These changes set the final balance between the national and state governments that would be entered into the final document, as the Convention never challenged this dual-sovereignty between nation and state that had been fashioned by Rutledge and Wilson.[21]:172

text: Another set of radical changes introduced by the Committee of Detail proved far more contentious when the committee's report was presented to the Convention. On the day the Convention had agreed to appoint the committee, Southerner Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, had warned of dire consequences should the committee fail to include protections for slavery in the Southern states, or allow for taxing of Southern agricultural exports.[6]:269, 275[21]:173 Pinckney and his fellow Southern delegates must have been delighted to see that the committee had included three provisions that explicitly restricted the Congress' authority in ways favorable to Southern interests. The proposed language would bar the Congress from ever interfering with the slave trade. It would also prohibit taxation of exports, and would require that any legislation concerning regulation of foreign commerce through tariffs or quotas (that is, any laws akin to England's "Navigation Acts") pass only with two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress. While much of the rest of the committee's report would be accepted without serious challenge on the Convention floor, these last three proposals would provoke outrage from Northern delegates and slavery opponents.[6]:275[21]:173–74

text: The final report of the committee, which became the first draft of the Constitution, was the first workable constitutional plan, as Madison's Virginia Plan had simply been an outline of goals and a broad structure. Even after it issued this report, the committee continued to meet off and on until early September.

text: Further modifications and concluding debate[edit]

text: Another month of discussion and relatively minor refinement followed, during which several attempts were made to alter the Rutledge draft, though few were successful. Some wanted to add property qualifications for people to hold office, while others wanted to prevent the national government from issuing paper money.[21]:187 Madison in particular wanted to push the Constitution back in the direction of his Virginia plan.

text: One important change that did make it into the final version included the agreement between northern and southern delegates to empower Congress to end the slave trade starting in 1808. Southern and northern delegates also agreed to strengthen the Fugitive Slave Clause in exchange for removing a requirement that two-thirds of Congress agree on "navigation acts" (regulations of commerce between states and foreign governments). The two-thirds requirement was favored by southern delegates, who thought Congress might pass navigation acts that would be economically harmful to slaveholders.[21]:196

text: Once the Convention had finished amending the first draft from the Committee of Detail, a new set of unresolved questions were sent to several different committees for resolution. The Committee of Detail was considering several questions related to habeas corpus, freedom of the press, and an executive council to advise the president. Two committees addressed questions related to the slave trade and the assumption of war debts.

text: A new committee was created, the Committee on Postponed Parts, to address other questions that had been postponed. Its members, such as Madison, were delegates who had shown a greater desire for compromise and were chosen for this reason as most in the Convention wanted to finish their work and go home.[21]:207 The committee dealt with questions related to the taxes, war making, patents and copyrights, relations with Indian tribes, and Franklin's compromise to require money bills to originate in the House. The biggest issue they addressed was the presidency, and the final compromise was written by Madison with the committee's input.[21]:209 They adopted Wilson's earlier plan for choosing the president by an electoral college, and settled on the method of choosing the president if no candidate had an electoral college majority, which many such as Madison thought would be "nineteen times out of twenty".

text: The committee also shortened the president's term from seven years to four years, freed the president to seek re-election after an initial term, and moved impeachment trials from the courts to the Senate. They also created the office of the vice president, whose only roles were to succeed a president unable to complete a term of office, to preside over the Senate, and to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate. The committee transferred important powers from the Senate to the president, for example the power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors.[21]:212 One controversial issue throughout much of the Convention had been the length of the president's term, and whether the president was to be term limited. The problem had resulted from the understanding that the president would be chosen by Congress; the decision to have the president be chosen instead by an electoral college reduced the chance of the president becoming beholden to Congress, so a shorter term with eligibility for re-election became a viable option.

text: Near the end of the Convention, Gerry, Randolph, and Mason emerged as the main force of opposition. Their fears were increased as the Convention moved from Madison's vague Virginia Plan to the concrete plan of Rutledge's Committee of Detail.[21]:235 Some have argued that Randolph's attacks on the Constitution were motivated by political ambition, in particular his anticipation of possibly facing rival Patrick Henry in a future election. The main objection of the three was the compromise that would allow Congress to pass "navigation acts" with a simple majority in exchange for strengthened slave provisions.[21]:236 Among their other objections was an opposition to the office of vice president.

text: Though most of their complaints did not result in changes, a couple did. Mason succeeded in adding "high crimes and misdemeanors" to the impeachment clause. Gerry also convinced the Convention to include a second method for ratification of amendments. The report out of the Committee of Detail had included only one mechanism for constitutional amendment, in which two-thirds of the states had to ask Congress to convene a convention for consideration of amendments. Upon Gerry's urging, the Convention added back the Virginia Plan's original method whereby Congress would propose amendments that the states would then ratify.[21]:238 All amendments to the Constitution, save the 21st amendment, have been made through this latter method.

text: Despite their successes, these three dissenters grew increasingly unpopular as most other delegates wanted to bring the Convention's business to an end and return home. As the Convention was drawing to a conclusion, and delegates prepared to refer the Constitution to the Committee on Style to pen the final version, one delegate raised an objection over civil trials. He wanted to guarantee the right to a jury trial in civil matters, and Mason saw in this a larger opportunity. Mason told the Convention that the constitution should include a bill of rights, which he thought could be prepared in a few hours. Gerry agreed, though the rest of the committee overruled them. They wanted to go home, and thought this was nothing more than another delaying tactic.[21]:241

text: Few at the time realized how important the issue would become, with the absence of a bill of rights becoming the main argument of the anti-Federalists against ratification. Most of the Convention's delegates thought that states already protected individual rights, and that the Constitution did not authorize the national government to take away rights, so there was no need to include protections of rights. Once the Convention moved beyond this point, the delegates addressed a couple of last-minute issues. Importantly, they modified the language that required spending bills to originate in the House of Representatives and be flatly accepted or rejected, unmodified, by the Senate. The new language empowered the Senate to modify spending bills proposed by the House.[21]:243

text: Drafting and signing[edit]

text: Once the final modifications had been made, the Committee of Style and Arrangement was appointed "to revise the style of and arrange the articles which had been agreed to by the house." Unlike other committees, whose members were named so the committees included members from different regions, this final committee included no champions of the small states. Its members were mostly in favor of a strong national government and unsympathetic to calls for states' rights.[21]:229–30 They were William Samuel Johnson (Connecticut), Alexander Hamilton (New York), Gouverneur Morris (Pennsylvania), James Madison (Virginia), and Rufus King (Massachusetts). On Wednesday, September 12, the report of the "committee of style" was ordered printed for the convenience of the delegates. For three days, the Convention compared this final version with the proceedings of the Convention. The Constitution was then ordered engrossed on Saturday, September 15 by Jacob Shallus, and was submitted for signing on September 17. It made at least one important change to what the Convention had agreed to; King wanted to prevent states from interfering in contracts. Although the Convention never took up the matter, his language was now inserted, creating the contract clause.[21]:243

text: Gouverneur Morris is credited, both now and then, as the chief draftsman of the final document, including the stirring preamble. Not all the delegates were pleased with the results; thirteen left before the ceremony, and three of those remaining refused to sign: Edmund Randolph of Virginia, George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. George Mason demanded a Bill of Rights if he was to support the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution submitted to the states for ratification, but many states ratified the Constitution with the understanding that a bill of rights would soon follow.[23] Shortly before the document was to be signed, Gorham proposed to lower the size of congressional districts from 40,000 to 30,000 citizens. A similar measure had been proposed earlier, and failed by one vote. George Washington spoke up here, making his only substantive contribution to the text of the Constitution in supporting this move. The Convention adopted it without further debate. Gorham would sign the document, although he had openly doubted whether the United States would remain a single, unified nation for more than 150 years.[21]:112 Ultimately, 39 of the original 55 delegates ended up signing, but it is likely that none were completely satisfied. Their views were summed up by Benjamin Franklin, who said,

text: I confess that There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies ...[24]

text: Rhode Island never sent delegates, and two of New York's three delegates did not stay at the Convention for long. Therefore, as George Washington stated, the document was executed by "eleven states, and Colonel Hamilton."[21]:244 Washington signed the document first, and then moving by state delegation from north to south, as had been the custom throughout the Convention, the delegates filed to the front of the room to sign their names.

text: At the time the document was signed, Franklin gave a persuasive speech involving an anecdote on a sun that was painted on the back of Washington's Chippendale chair.[25] As recounted in Madison's notes:

text: Whilst the last members were signing it Doctor. Franklin looking towards the Presidents Chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. I have said he, often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.[25][26]

text: The Constitution was then submitted to the states for ratification, pursuant to its own Article VII.[27]

text: Proposed plans[edit]

text: Several plans were introduced, with the most important plan being that of James Madison (the Virginia Plan). The Convention's work was mostly a matter of modifying this plan. Charles Pinckney also introduced a plan, although this wasn't considered and its exact character has been lost to history. After the Convention was well under way, the New Jersey Plan was introduced though never seriously considered.[6]:230 It was mainly a protest to what some delegates thought was the excessively radical change from the Articles of Confederation.[6]:230 Alexander Hamilton also offered a plan after the Convention was well under way, though it included an executive serving for life and therefore the delegates felt it too closely resembled a monarchy.[6]:137 Historians are unsure how serious he was about this, and some have speculated that he may have done it to make Madison's plan look moderate by comparison.[6]:137 The Connecticut Compromise wasn't a plan but one of several compromises offered by the Connecticut delegation. It was key to the ultimate ratification of the constitution, but was only included after being modified by Benjamin Franklin in order to make it more appealing to larger states.[6]:199

text: Virginia Plan[edit]

text: Prior to the start of the Convention, the Virginian delegates met and, drawing largely from Madison's suggestions, came up with what came to be known as the Virginia Plan, also known as the Large State Plan.[28] For this reason, James Madison is sometimes called the Father of the Constitution.[28] Presented by Virginia governor Edmund Randolph on May 29, 1787, the Virginia Plan proposed a very powerful bicameral legislature.[28] Both houses of the legislature would be determined proportionately.[28] The lower house would be elected by the people, and the upper house would be elected by the lower house.[28] The executive would exist solely to ensure that the will of the legislature was carried out and would therefore be selected by the legislature.[28] The Virginia Plan also created a judiciary, and gave both the executive and some of the judiciary the power to veto, subject to override.

text: New Jersey Plan[edit]

text: After the Virginia Plan was introduced, New Jersey delegate William Paterson asked for an adjournment to contemplate the Plan.[28] Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had equal representation in Congress, exercising one vote each.[28] The Virginia Plan threatened to limit the smaller states' power by making both houses of the legislature proportionate to population. On June 14 and 15, 1787, a small-state caucus met to create a response to the Virginia Plan. The result was the New Jersey Plan, otherwise known as the Small State Plan.[28]

text: Paterson's New Jersey Plan was ultimately a rebuttal to the Virginia Plan, and was much closer to the initial call for the Convention: drafting amendments to the Articles of Confederation to fix the problems in it.[28] Under the New Jersey Plan, the existing Continental Congress would remain, but it would be granted new powers, such as the power to levy taxes and force their collection.[28] An executive branch was created, to be elected by Congress (the plan allowed for a multi-person executive).[28] The executives would serve a single term and were subject to recall on the request of state governors.[28] The plan also created a judiciary that would serve for life, to be appointed by the executives.[28] Lastly, any laws set by Congress would take precedence over state laws.[28] When Paterson reported the plan to the Convention on June 15, 1787, it was ultimately rejected, but it gave the smaller states a rallying point for their interests.[28]

text: Hamilton's plan[edit]

text: Unsatisfied with the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan, Alexander Hamilton proposed his own plan. It also was known as the British Plan, because of its resemblance to the British system of strong centralized government.[28] In his plan, Hamilton advocated virtually doing away with state sovereignty and consolidating the states into a single nation.[28] The plan featured a bicameral legislature, the lower house elected by the people for three years. The upper house would be elected by electors chosen by the people and would serve for life.[28] The plan also gave the Governor, an executive elected by electors for a life-term of service, an absolute veto over bills.[28] State governors would be appointed by the national legislature,[28] and the national legislature had veto power over any state legislation.[28]

text: Hamilton presented his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787.[28] The plan was perceived as a well-thought-out plan, but it was not considered, because it resembled the British system too closely.[28] It also contemplated the loss of most state authority, which the states were unwilling to allow.

text: Pinckney's plan[edit]

text: Immediately after Randolph finished laying out the Virginia Plan, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina presented his own plan to the Convention. As Pinckney did not write it down, the only evidence of the plan are Madison's notes,[29] so the details are somewhat vague. It was a confederation, or treaty, among the thirteen states. There was to be a bicameral legislature made up of a Senate and a House of Delegates. The House would have one member for every one thousand inhabitants. The House would elect Senators who would serve by rotation for four years and represent one of four regions. Congress would meet in a joint session to elect a President, and would also appoint members of the cabinet. Congress, in joint session, would serve as the court of appeal of last resort in disputes between states. Pinckney did also provide for a supreme Federal Judicial Court. The Pinckney plan was not debated, but it may have been referred to by the Committee of Detail.[30]

text: Connecticut Compromise[edit]

text: The Connecticut Compromise, forged by Roger Sherman from Connecticut, was proposed on June 11.[28] In a sense it blended the Virginia (large-state) and New Jersey (small-state) proposals. Ultimately, however, its main contribution was in determining the apportionment of the Senate, and thus retaining a federal character in the constitution. Sherman sided with the two-house national legislature of the Virginia Plan, but proposed "That the proportion of suffrage in the 1st. branch [house] should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more."[28] This plan failed at first, but on July 23 the question was finally settled.[28]

text: What was ultimately included in the constitution was a modified form of this plan. In the Grand Committee, Benjamin Franklin successfully proposed the requirement that revenue bills originate in the house. But the final July 16 vote on the compromise still left the Senate looking like the Confederation Congress. In the preceding weeks of debate, Madison, King, and Gouverneur Morris each vigorously opposed the compromise for this reason.[31] Then on July 23, just before most of the convention's work was referred to the Committee of Detail, Morris and King moved that state representatives in the Senate be given individual votes, rather than voting en bloc, as they had in the Confederation Congress. Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, a leading proponent of the compromise, supported their motion, and the Convention adopted it.[19] As the personally powerful senators were to receive terms much longer than the state legislators who appointed them, they became substantially independent. The compromise nonetheless continued to serve the self-interest of small-state political leaders, who were assured of access to more seats in the Senate than they might otherwise have obtained.[20]

text: Slavery[edit]

text: Among the most controversial issues confronting the delegates was that of slavery. Slavery was widespread in the states at the time of the Convention.[21]:68 At least a third of the Convention's 55 delegates owned slaves, including all of the delegates from Virginia and South Carolina.[21]:68–69 Slaves comprised approximately one-fifth of the population of the states;[32]:139 and apart from northernmost New England, where slavery had largely been eliminated, slaves lived throughout all regions of the country.[32]:132 The majority of the slaves (more than 90%),[32]:132 however, lived in the South, where approximately 1 in 3 families owned slaves (in the largest and wealthiest state, Virginia, that figure was nearly 1 in 2 families).[32]:135 The entire agrarian economy of the South was based on slave labor, and the Southern delegates to the Convention were unwilling to accept any proposals that they believed would threaten the institution.

text: Commerce and Slave Trade Compromise[edit]

text: Whether slavery was to be regulated under the new Constitution was a matter of such intense conflict between the North and South that several Southern states refused to join the Union if slavery were not to be allowed. Delegates opposed to slavery were forced to yield in their demands that slavery practiced within the confines of the new nation be completely outlawed. However, they continued to argue that the Constitution should prohibit the states from participating in the international slave trade, including in the importation of new slaves from Africa and the export of slaves to other countries. The Convention postponed making a final decision on the international slave trade until late in the deliberations because of the contentious nature of the issue. During the Convention's late July recess, the Committee of Detail had inserted language that would prohibit the federal government from attempting to ban international slave trading and from imposing taxes on the purchase or sale of slaves. The Convention could not agree on these provisions when the subject came up again in late August, so they referred the matter to an eleven-member committee for further discussion. This committee helped work out a compromise: Congress would have the power to ban the international slave trade, but not for another twenty years (that is, not until 1808). In exchange for this concession, the federal government's power to regulate foreign commerce would be strengthened by provisions that allowed for taxation of slave trades in the international market and that reduced the requirement for passage of navigation acts from two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress to simple majorities.[6]:318–29

text: Three-Fifths Compromise[edit]

text: Another contentious slavery-related question was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation of the states in the Congress, or would instead be considered property and as such not be considered for purposes of representation.[33] Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population.[33] Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation.[33] Finally, delegate James Wilson proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise.[28] This was eventually adopted by the Convention.

text: Framers of the Constitution[edit]

text: Fifty-five delegates attended sessions of the Constitutional Convention, and are considered the Framers of the Constitution, although only 39 delegates actually signed.[34][35] The states had originally appointed 70 representatives to the Convention, but a number of the appointees did not accept or could not attend, leaving 55 who would ultimately craft the Constitution.[34]

text: Almost all of the 55 Framers had taken part in the Revolution, with at least 29 having served in the Continental forces, most in positions of command.[36] All but two or three had served in colonial or state government during their careers.[6]:65 The vast majority (about 75%) of the delegates were or had been members of the Confederation Congress, and many had been members of the Continental Congress during the Revolution.[21]:25 Several had been state governors.[6]:65[36] Just two delegates, Roger Sherman and Robert Morris, would be signatories to all three of the nation's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.[36]

text: More than half of the delegates had trained as lawyers (several had even been judges), although only about a quarter had practiced law as their principal means of business. There were also merchants, manufacturers, shippers, land speculators, bankers or financiers, two or three physicians, a minister, and several small farmers.[6]:65–68[36] Of the 25 who owned slaves, 16 depended on slave labor to run the plantations or other businesses that formed the mainstay of their income. Most of the delegates were landowners with substantial holdings, and most, with the possible exception of Roger Sherman and William Few, were very comfortably wealthy.[6]:66–67 George Washington and Robert Morris were among the wealthiest men in the entire country.[36]

text:
Connecticut

Oliver Ellsworth*
William Samuel Johnson
Roger Sherman

Delaware

Richard Bassett
Gunning Bedford, Jr.
Jacob Broom
John Dickinson
George Read

Georgia

Abraham Baldwin
William Few
William Houstoun*
William Pierce*

Maryland

Daniel Carroll
Luther Martin*
James McHenry
John Francis Mercer*
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer

Massachusetts

Elbridge Gerry*
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King
Caleb Strong*

New Hampshire

Nicholas Gilman
John Langdon

New Jersey

David Brearley
Jonathan Dayton
William Houston*
William Livingston
William Paterson

New York

Alexander Hamilton
John Lansing, Jr.*
Robert Yates*

North Carolina

William Blount
William Richardson Davie*
Alexander Martin*
Richard Dobbs Spaight
Hugh Williamson

Pennsylvania

George Clymer
Thomas Fitzsimons
Benjamin Franklin
Jared Ingersoll
Thomas Mifflin
Gouverneur Morris
Robert Morris
James Wilson

South Carolina

Pierce Butler
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
John Rutledge

Virginia

John Blair
James Madison
George Mason*
James McClurg*
Edmund Randolph*
George Washington
George Wythe*

Rhode Island Rhode Island did not send delegates to the Convention.

text: (*) Did not sign the final draft of the U.S. Constitution. Randolph, Mason, and Gerry were the only three present in Philadelphia at the time who refused to sign.

text: Several prominent Founders are notable for not participating in the Constitutional Convention. Thomas Jefferson was abroad, serving as the minister to France (nonetheless, Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, would describe the delegates approvingly as a gathering of "demi-gods").[37]:13 John Adams was in Britain, serving as minister to that country, but he wrote home to encourage the delegates. Patrick Henry refused to participate because he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy." Also absent were John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Many of the states' older and more experienced leaders may have simply been too busy with the local affairs of their states to attend the Convention,[6]:65 which had originally been planned to strengthen the existing Articles of Confederation, not to write a constitution for a completely new national government.


document_title: List of Los Angeles Lakers seasons

question_text: when was the last time lakers make playoffs

root

text: List of Los Angeles Lakers seasons

text: Table key[edit]

text:
AMVP
All-Star Game Most Valuable Player

COY
Coach of the Year

DPOY
Defensive Player of the Year

Finish
Final position in league or division standings

GB
Games behind first-place team in division[a]

Italics
Season in progress

L
Number of regular season losses

EOY
Executive of the Year

FMVP
Finals Most Valuable Player

JWKC
J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship

MVP
Most Valuable Player

ROY
Rookie of the Year

SMOY
Sixth Man of the Year

W
Number of regular season wins

tag: table

text: Seasons[edit]

text: Note: Statistics are correct as of the end of the 2016–17 season.

tag: p

text:
NBA Champions
(1949–present)
Division Champions / Conference Champions
(1949–1970 / 1971–present)
Division Champions
(1971–present)
Playoff berth
(1949–present)

text:
Season
League
Conference
Finish
Division
Finish
Wins
Losses
Win%
GB
Playoffs
Awards
Ref.

Minneapolis Lakers

1948–49
BAA
—
—
Western
2nd
44
16
.733
1
Won Division Semifinals (Stags) 2–0
Won Division Finals (Royals) 2–0
Won BAA Finals (Capitols) 4–2[7]
—
[8]

1949–50
NBA
—
—
Central
1st[b]
51
17
.750
—
Won Division Semifinals (Stags) 2–0
Won Division Finals (Pistons) 2–0
Won NBA Semifinals (Packers) 2–0
Won NBA Finals (Nationals) 4–2[10]
—
[11]

1950–51
NBA
—
—
Western
1st
44
24
.647
—
Won Division Semifinals (Olympians) 2–1
Lost Division Finals (Royals) 3–1[12]
—
[13]

1951–52
NBA
—
—
Western
2nd
40
26
.606
1
Won Division Semifinals (Olympians) 2–0
Won Division Finals (Royals) 3–1
Won NBA Finals (Knicks) 4–3[14]
—
[15]

1952–53
NBA
—
—
Western
1st
48
22
.686
—
Won Division Semifinals (Olympians) 2–0
Won Division Finals (Pistons) 3–2
Won NBA Finals (Knicks) 4–1[16]
George Mikan (ASG MVP)
[17]

1953–54
NBA
—
—
Western
1st
46
26
.639
—
Won Division Finals (Royals) 2–1
Won NBA Finals (Nationals) 4–3[18]
—
[19]

1954–55
NBA
—
—
Western
2nd
40
32
.556
3
Won Division Semifinals (Royals) 2–1
Lost Division Finals (Pistons) 3–1[20]
—
[21]

1955–56
NBA
—
—
Western
2nd[c]
33
39
.458
4
Lost Division Semifinals (Hawks) 2–1[23]
—
[24]

1956–57
NBA
—
—
Western
2nd[d]
34
38
.472
—
Won Division Semifinals (Pistons) 2–0
Lost Division Finals (Hawks) 3–0[26]
—
[27]

1957–58
NBA
—
—
Western
4th
19
53
.264
22
—
—
[28]

1958–59
NBA
—
—
Western
2nd
33
39
.458
16
Won Division Semifinals (Pistons) 2–1
Won Division Finals (Hawks) 4–2
Lost NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–0[29]
Elgin Baylor (ASG MVP, ROY)
[30]

1959–60
NBA
—
—
Western
3rd
25
50
.333
21
Won Division Semifinals (Pistons) 2–0
Lost Division Finals (Hawks) 4–3[31]
—
[32]

Los Angeles Lakers

1960–61[e]
NBA
—
—
Western
2nd
36
43
.456
15
Won Division Semifinals (Pistons) 3–2
Lost Division Finals (Hawks) 4–3[33]
—
[34]

1961–62
NBA
—
—
Western
1st
54
26
.675
—
Won Division Finals (Pistons) 4–2
Lost NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–3[35]
—
[36]

1962–63
NBA
—
—
Western
1st
53
27
.663
—
Won Division Finals (Hawks) 4–3
Lost NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–2[37]
—
[38]

1963–64
NBA
—
—
Western
3rd
42
38
.525
6
Lost Division Semifinals (Hawks) 3–2[39]
—
[40]

1964–65
NBA
—
—
Western
1st
49
31
.613
—
Won Division Finals (Bullets) 4–2
Lost NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–1[41]
—
[42]

1965–66
NBA
—
—
Western
1st
45
35
.563
—
Won Division Finals (Hawks) 4–3
Lost NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–3[43]
—
[44]

1966–67
NBA
—
—
Western
3rd
36
45
.444
8
Lost Division Semifinals (Warriors) 3–0[45]
—
[46]

1967–68
NBA
—
—
Western
2nd
52
30
.634
4
Won Division Semifinals (Bulls) 4–1
Won Division Finals (Warriors) 4–0
Lost NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–2[47]
—
[48]

1968–69
NBA
—
—
Western
1st
55
27
.671
—
Won Division Semifinals (Warriors) 4–2
Won Division Finals (Hawks) 4–1
Lost NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–3[49]
Jerry West (FMVP)
[50]

1969–70
NBA
—
—
Western
2nd
46
36
.561
2
Won Division Semifinals (Suns) 4–3
Won Division Finals (Hawks) 4–0
Lost NBA Finals (Knicks) 4–3[51]
—
[52]

1970–71
NBA
Western
2nd
Pacific[f]
1st
48
34
.585
—
Won Conference Semifinals (Bulls) 4–3
Lost Conference Finals (Bucks) 4–1[53]
—
[54]

1971–72
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
69
13
.841
—
Won Conference Semifinals (Bulls) 4–0
Won Conference Finals (Bucks) 4–2
Won NBA Finals (Knicks) 4–1[55]
Wilt Chamberlain (FMVP)
Jerry West (ASG MVP)
Bill Sharman (COY)
[56]

1972–73
NBA
Western
2nd
Pacific
1st
60
22
.732
—
Won Conference Semifinals (Bulls) 4–3
Won Conference Finals (Warriors) 4–1
Lost NBA Finals (Knicks) 4–1[57]
—
[58]

1973–74
NBA
Western
2nd
Pacific
1st
47
35
.573
—
Lost Conference Semifinals (Bucks) 4–1[59]
—
[60]

1974–75
NBA
Western
9th
Pacific
5th
30
52
.366
18
—
—
[61]

1975–76
NBA
Western
6th
Pacific
4th
40
42
.488
19
—
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (MVP)
[62]

1976–77
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
53
29
.646
—
Won Conference Semifinals (Warriors) 4–3
Lost Conference Finals (Trail Blazers) 4–0[63]
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (MVP)
[64]

1977–78
NBA
Western
5th
Pacific
4th
45
37
.549
13
Lost First Round (SuperSonics) 2–1[65]
—
[66]

1978–79
NBA
Western
5th
Pacific
3rd
47
35
.573
5
Won First Round (Nuggets) 2–1
Lost Conference Semifinals (SuperSonics) 4–1[67]
—
[68]

1979–80
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
60
22
.732
—
Won Conference Semifinals (Suns) 4–1
Won Conference Finals (SuperSonics) 4–1
Won NBA Finals (76ers) 4–2[69]
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (MVP)
Magic Johnson (FMVP)
[70]

1980–81
NBA
Western
3rd
Pacific
2nd
54
28
.659
3
Lost First Round (Rockets) 2–1[71]
—
[72]

1981–82
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
57
25
.695
—
Won Conference Semifinals (Suns) 4–0
Won Conference Finals (Spurs) 4–0
Won NBA Finals (76ers) 4–2[73]
Magic Johnson (FMVP)
[74]

1982–83
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
58
24
.707
—
Won Conference Semifinals (Trail Blazers) 4–1
Won Conference Finals (Spurs) 4–2
Lost NBA Finals (76ers) 4–0[75]
—
[76]

1983–84
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
54
28
.659
—
Won First Round (Kings) 3–0
Won Conference Semifinals (Mavericks) 4–1
Won Conference Finals (Suns) 4–2
Lost NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–3[77]
—
[78]

1984–85
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
62
20
.756
—
Won First Round (Suns) 3–0
Won Conference Semifinals (Trail Blazers) 4–1
Won Conference Finals (Nuggets) 4–1
Won NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–2[79]
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (FMVP)
[80]

1985–86
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
62
20
.756
—
Won First Round (Spurs) 3–0
Won Conference Semifinals (Mavericks) 4–2
Lost Conference Finals (Rockets) 4–1[81]
Michael Cooper (JWKC)
[82]

1986–87
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
65
17
.793
—
Won First Round (Nuggets) 3–0
Won Conference Semifinals (Warriors) 4–1
Won Conference Finals (SuperSonics) 4–0
Won NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–2[83]
Magic Johnson (MVP, FMVP)
Michael Cooper (DPOY)
[84]

1987–88
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
62
20
.756
—
Won First Round (Spurs) 3–0
Won Conference Semifinals (Jazz) 4–3
Won Conference Finals (Mavericks) 4–3
Won NBA Finals (Pistons) 4–3[85]
James Worthy (FMVP)
[86]

1988–89
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
57
25
.695
—
Won First Round (Trail Blazers) 3–0
Won Conference Semifinals (SuperSonics) 4–0
Won Conference Finals (Suns) 4–0
Lost NBA Finals (Pistons) 4–0[87]
Magic Johnson (MVP)
[88]

1989–90
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
63
19
.768
—
Won First Round (Rockets) 3–1
Lost Conference Semifinals (Suns) 4–1[89]
Magic Johnson (MVP, ASG MVP)
Pat Riley (COY)
[90]

1990–91
NBA
Western
3rd
Pacific
2nd
58
24
.707
5
Won First Round (Rockets) 3–0
Won Conference Semifinals (Warriors) 4–1
Won Conference Finals (Trail Blazers) 4–2
Lost NBA Finals (Bulls) 4–1[91]
—
[92]

1991–92
NBA
Western
8th
Pacific
6th
43
39
.524
14
Lost First Round (Trail Blazers) 3–1[93]
Magic Johnson (ASG MVP, JWKC)
[94]

1992–93
NBA
Western
8th
Pacific
5th
39
43
.476
23
Lost First Round (Suns) 3–2[95]
—
[96]

1993–94
NBA
Western
9th
Pacific
5th
33
49
.402
30
—
—
[97]

1994–95
NBA
Western
5th
Pacific
3rd
48
34
.585
11
Won First Round (SuperSonics) 3–1
Lost Conference Semifinals (Spurs) 4–2[98]
Del Harris (COY)
Jerry West (EOY)
[99]

1995–96
NBA
Western
4th
Pacific
2nd
53
29
.646
11
Lost First Round (Rockets) 3–1[100]
—
[101]

1996–97
NBA
Western
4th
Pacific
2nd
56
26
.683
1
Won First Round (Trail Blazers) 3–1
Lost Conference Semifinals (Jazz) 4–1[102]
—
[103]

1997–98
NBA
Western
3rd
Pacific
2nd[g]
61
21
.744
—
Won First Round (Trail Blazers) 3–1
Won Conference Semifinals (SuperSonics) 4–1
Lost Conference Finals (Jazz) 4–0[105]
—
[106]

1998–99[h]
NBA
Western
4th
Pacific
2nd
31
19
.620
4
Won First Round (Rockets) 3–1
Lost Conference Semifinals (Spurs) 4–0[108]
—
[109]

1999–00
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
67
15
.817
—
Won First Round (Kings) 3–2
Won Conference Semifinals (Suns) 4–1
Won Conference Finals (Trail Blazers) 4–3
Won NBA Finals (Pacers) 4–2[110]
Shaquille O'Neal[i] (MVP, FMVP, ASG MVP)
[112]

2000–01
NBA
Western
2nd
Pacific
1st
56
26
.683
—
Won First Round (Trail Blazers) 3–0
Won Conference Semifinals (Kings) 4–0
Won Conference Finals (Spurs) 4–0
Won NBA Finals (76ers) 4–1[113]
Shaquille O'Neal (FMVP)
[114]

2001–02
NBA
Western
3rd
Pacific
2nd
58
24
.707
3
Won First Round (Trail Blazers) 3–0
Won Conference Semifinals (Spurs) 4–1
Won Conference Finals (Kings) 4–3
Won NBA Finals (Nets) 4–0[115]
Shaquille O'Neal (FMVP)
Kobe Bryant (ASG MVP)
[116]

2002–03
NBA
Western
5th
Pacific
2nd[j]
50
32
.610
9
Won First Round (Timberwolves) 4–2
Lost Conference Semifinals (Spurs) 4–2[118]
—
[119]

2003–04
NBA
Western
2nd
Pacific
1st
56
26
.683
—
Won First Round (Rockets) 4–1
Won Conference Semifinals (Spurs) 4–2
Won Conference Finals (Timberwolves) 4–2
Lost NBA Finals (Pistons) 4–1[120]
Shaquille O'Neal (ASG MVP)
[121]

2004–05
NBA
Western
11th
Pacific
4th[k]
34
48
.415
28
—
—
[123]

2005–06
NBA
Western
7th
Pacific
3rd
45
37
.549
9
Lost First Round (Suns) 4–3[124]
—
[125]

2006–07
NBA
Western
7th
Pacific
2nd[l]
42
40
.512
19
Lost First Round (Suns) 4–1[127]
Kobe Bryant (ASG MVP)
[128]

2007–08
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
57
25
.695
—
Won First Round (Nuggets) 4–0
Won Conference Semifinals (Jazz) 4–2
Won Conference Finals (Spurs) 4–1
Lost NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–2[129]
Kobe Bryant (MVP)
[130]

2008–09
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
65
17
.793
—
Won First Round (Jazz) 4–1
Won Conference Semifinals (Rockets) 4–3
Won Conference Finals (Nuggets) 4–2
Won NBA Finals (Magic) 4–1
Kobe Bryant[m] (FMVP, ASG MVP)
[131]

2009–10
NBA
Western
1st
Pacific
1st
57
25
.695
—
Won First Round (Thunder) 4–2
Won Conference Semifinals (Jazz) 4–0
Won Conference Finals (Suns) 4–2
Won NBA Finals (Celtics) 4–3
Kobe Bryant (FMVP)
[132]

2010–11
NBA
Western
2nd
Pacific
1st
57
25
.695
—
Won First Round (Hornets) 4–2
Lost Conference Semifinals (Mavericks) 4–0
Kobe Bryant (ASG MVP)
Lamar Odom (SMOY)
Ron Artest (JWKC)
[133]

2011–12[n]
NBA
Western
3rd
Pacific
1st
41
25
.621
—
Won First Round (Nuggets) 4–3
Lost Conference Semifinals (Thunder) 4–1
Pau Gasol (JWKC)
[136]

2012–13
NBA
Western
7th
Pacific
3rd
45
37
.549
11
Lost First Round (Spurs) 4–0
—
[137]

2013–14
NBA
Western
14th
Pacific
5th
27
55
.329
30
—
—
[138]

2014–15
NBA
Western
14th
Pacific
5th
21
61
.256
46
—
—

2015–16
NBA
Western
15th
Pacific
5th
17
65
.207
56
—
—

2016–17
NBA
Western
14th
Pacific
4th
26
56
.317
41
—
—

text: All-time records[edit]

text: Note: Statistics are correct as of the 2017 NBA Playoffs.

text:
Statistic
Wins
Losses
Win%

Minneapolis Lakers regular season record (1948–1960)
457
382
.545

Los Angeles Lakers regular season record (1960–present)
2756
1692
.625

All-time regular season record (1948–present)
3261
2190
.598

Minneapolis Lakers post-season record (1948–1960)
67
40
.626

Los Angeles Lakers post-season record (1960–present)
373
257
.592

All-time post-season record (1948–present)
440
297
.597

All-time regular and post-season record
3701
2487
.596

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ The formula is as followed:

G
a
m
e
s

b
e
h
i
n
d

=

(

T
e
a
m

A
′

s

w
i
n
s

−

T
e
a
m

B
′

s

w
i
n
s

)
+
(

T
e
a
m

B
′

s

l
o
s
s
e
s

−

T
e
a
m

A
′

s

l
o
s
s
e
s

)

2

{\displaystyle \mathrm {Games} \ \mathrm {behind} ={\frac {(\mathrm {TeamA's} \ \mathrm {wins} -\mathrm {TeamB's} \ \mathrm {wins} )+(\mathrm {TeamB's} \ \mathrm {losses} -\mathrm {TeamA's} \ \mathrm {losses} )}{\mathrm {2} }}}

Jump up ^ Though the Lakers had the same record as the Rochester Royals in the Central Division, the Lakers won the tiebreaker and finished first.[9]
Jump up ^ Though the Lakers had the same record as the St. Louis Hawks in the Western Division, the Lakers won the tiebreaker and finished second.[22]
Jump up ^ Though the Lakers had the same record as the St. Louis Hawks and Fort Wayne Pistons in the Western Division, the Lakers lost the tiebreaker and finished second.[25]
Jump up ^ The team relocated to Los Angeles, California.
Jump up ^ The Western Division was renamed to Western Conference and split into the Midwest and Pacific divisions.
Jump up ^ Though the Lakers had the same record as the Seattle SuperSonics in the Pacific Division, the Lakers lost the tiebreaker and finished second.[104]
Jump up ^ Due to a lockout, the season did not start until February 5, 1999, and all 29 teams played a shortened 50 game regular season schedule.[107]
Jump up ^ O'Neal shared the All-Star Game Most Valuable Player award with Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs.[111]
Jump up ^ Though the Lakers had the same record as the Portland Trail Blazers in the Pacific Division, the Lakers won the tiebreaker and finished second.[117]
Jump up ^ Though the Lakers had the same record as the Golden State Warriors in the Pacific Division, the Lakers won the tiebreaker and finished fourth.[122]
Jump up ^ Though the Lakers had the same record as the Golden State Warriors in the Pacific Division, the Lakers won the tiebreaker and finished second.[126]
Jump up ^ Bryant shared the All-Star Game Most Valuable Player award with Shaquille O'Neal of the Phoenix Suns.[111]
Jump up ^ Due to a lockout, the season did not start until December 25, 2011 and all 30 teams played a shortened 66-game regular season schedule.[134][135]

tag: ol


document_title: Concerto

question_text: the origins of the concerto can be found in

question_tokens: the origins of the concerto can be found in

text: Concerto

text: Etymology[edit]

text: The word concerto comes from Italian; its etymology is uncertain, but it seems to originate from the conjunction of two Latin words: conserere (meaning to tie, to join, to weave) and certamen (competition, fight). The idea is that the two parts in a concerto—the soloist and the orchestra or concert band—alternate between episodes of opposition, cooperation, and independence to create a sense of flow.

text: The concerto, as understood in this modern way, arose in the Baroque period, in parallel to the concerto grosso, which contrasted a small group of instruments called a concertino with the rest of the orchestra, called the ripieno. The popularity of the concerto grosso form declined after the Baroque period, and the genre was not revived until the 20th century. The solo concerto, however, has remained a vital musical force from its inception to this day.

text: Early-Baroque concerto[edit]

text: The term "concerto" was initially used to denote works that involved voices and instruments in which the instruments had independent parts—as opposed to the Renaissance common practice in which instruments that accompanied voices only doubled the voice parts.[2] Examples of this earlier form of concerto include Giovanni Gabrieli's "In Ecclesiis" or Heinrich Schütz's "Saul, Saul, was verfolgst du mich".

text: Late-Baroque concerto[edit]

text: The concerto began to take its modern shape in the late-Baroque period, beginning with the concerto grosso form popularized by Arcangelo Corelli. Corelli's concertino group was two violins and a cello. In J. S. Bach's Fifth Brandenburg Concerto, for example, the concertino is a flute, a violin, and a harpsichord;[3] the harpsichord sometimes plays with the ripieno, as opposed to playing a continuo keyboard accompaniment.[4]

text: Later, the concerto approached its modern form, in which the concertino usually reduces to a single solo instrument playing with (or against) an orchestra. The main composers of concertos of the baroque were Tommaso Albinoni, Antonio Vivaldi, Georg Philipp Telemann, Johann Sebastian Bach,[5] George Frideric Handel, Pietro Locatelli, Giuseppe Tartini, Francesco Geminiani and Johann Joachim Quantz. The concerto was intended as a composition typical of the Italian style of the time, and all the composers were studying how to compose in the Italian fashion (all'Italiana).

text: The Baroque concerto was mainly for a string instrument (violin, viola, cello, seldom viola d'amore or harp) or a wind instrument (flute, recorder, oboe, bassoon, horn, or trumpet,). Bach also wrote a concerto for two violins and orchestra.[6] During the Baroque period, before the invention of the piano, keyboard concertos were comparatively rare, with the exception of the organ and some harpsichord concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. As the harpsichord evolved into the fortepiano, and in the end to the modern piano, the increased volume and the richer sound of the new instrument allowed the keyboard instrument to better compete with a full orchestra.[citation needed] Cello concertos have been written since the Baroque era, if not earlier. Among the works from that period, those by Antonio Vivaldi and Giuseppe Tartini are still part of the standard repertoire today.[citation needed]

text: Classical concerto[edit]

text: The concertos of the sons of Johann Sebastian Bach, such as CPE Bach, are perhaps the best links between those of the Baroque period and those of the Classical era.

text: It is conventional to state that the first movements of concertos from the Classical period onwards follow the structure of sonata form. Final movements are often in rondo form, as in J.S. Bach's E Major Violin Concerto.[7]

text: Violin concertos[edit]

text: Mozart wrote five violin concertos, all in 1775. They show a number of influences, notably Italian and Austrian. Several passages have leanings towards folk music, as manifested in Austrian serenades. Mozart also wrote the highly regarded Sinfonia Concertante for violin, viola, and orchestra.

text: Beethoven wrote only one violin concerto, under-appreciated until revealed as a masterpiece in a performance by violin virtuoso Joseph Joachim.

text: Cello concertos[edit]

text: Haydn wrote at least two cello concertos (for cello, oboes, horns, and strings), which are the most important works in that genre of the classical era. However, C.P.E. Bach's three cello concertos and Boccherini's twelve concertos are also noteworthy.

text: Keyboard concertos[edit]

text: C.P.E. Bach's keyboard concertos contain some virtuosic solo writing. Some of them have movements that run into one another without a break, and there are frequent cross-movement thematic references.

text: Mozart, as a child, made arrangements for keyboard and orchestra of four sonatas by now little-known composers. Then he arranged three sonata movements by Johann Christian Bach. By the time he was twenty, Mozart was able to write concerto ritornelli that gave the orchestra admirable opportunity for asserting its character in an exposition with some five or six sharply contrasted themes, before the soloist enters to elaborate on the material. Of his 27 piano concertos, the last 22 are highly appreciated.

text: A dozen cataloged keyboard concertos are attributed to Haydn, of which only three or four are considered genuine.[8]

text: Concertos for other instruments[edit]

text: C.P.E. Bach wrote four flute concertos and two oboe concertos.

text: Bohemian composer Francesco Antonio Rosetti composed several solo and double horn concertos. He was a significant contributor to the genre of horn concertos in the 18th century. Most of his outstanding horn concertos were composed between 1782 and 1789 for the Bohemian duo Franz Zwierzina and Joseph Nage while at the Bavarian court of Oettingen-Wallerstein. One of his best-known works in this genre is his Horn Concerto in E flat major C49/K III:36. It consists of three movements: 1. Allegro moderato 2. Romance 3. Rondo.

text: Many common features of the galant style are present in Rosetti's music and composing style. In his E-flat horn concerto, we hear periodic and short phrases, galant harmonic rhythm and melodic line reduction.[original research?] Rosetti's influence on the 18th century composers, musicians and music was considerable. At the Bavarian court of Oettingen-Wallerstein, his music was often performed by the Wallerstein ensembles. In Paris, his compositions were performed by the best ensembles of the city, including the orchestra of the Concert Spirituel. His publishers were Le Menu et Boyer and Sieber. According to H. C. Robbins Landon (Mozart scholar),[full citation needed] Rosetti's horn concertos might have been a model for Mozart's horn concertos.

text: Mozart wrote one concerto each for flute, oboe (later rearranged for flute and known as Flute Concerto No. 2), clarinet, and bassoon, four for horn,[contradictory] a Concerto for Flute, Harp, and Orchestra, and Exsultate, jubilate, a de facto concerto for soprano voice.[citation needed] They all exploit and explore the characteristics of the solo instrument(s).

text: Haydn wrote an important trumpet concerto and a Sinfonia Concertante for violin, cello, oboe and bassoon as well as two horn concertos.

text: Romantic concerto[edit]

text: Violin concertos[edit]

text: In the 19th century the concerto as a vehicle for virtuosic display flourished as never before. It was an age in which the artist was seen as hero, to be worshipped with rapture. Early Romantic traits can be found in the violin concertos of Viotti, but it is Spohr's twelve violin concertos, written between 1802 and 1827, that truly embrace the Romantic spirit with their melodic as well as their dramatic qualities.[citation needed]

text: Cello concertos[edit]

text: Since the Romantic era, the cello has received as much attention as the piano and violin as a concerto instrument, and many great Romantic and even more 20th-century composers left examples.

text: Antonín Dvořák's cello concerto ranks among the supreme examples from the Romantic era while Robert Schumann's focuses on the lyrical qualities of the instrument. The instrument was also popular with composers of the Franco-Belgian tradition: Saint-Saëns and Vieuxtemps wrote two cello concertos each and Lalo and Jongen one. Elgar's popular concerto, while written in the early 20th century, belongs to the late romantic period stylistically.

text: Beethoven contributed to the repertoire with a Triple Concerto for piano, violin, cello and orchestra while later in the century, Brahms wrote a Double Concerto for violin, cello and orchestra.

text: Tchaikovsky's contribution to the genre is a series of Variations on a Rococo Theme.[clarification needed] He also left very fragmentary sketches of a projected Cello Concerto. Cellist Yuriy Leonovich and Tchaikovsky researcher Brett Langston published their completion of the piece in 2006.[citation needed]

text: Carl Reinecke, David Popper and Julius Klengel also wrote cello concertos that were popular in their time and are still played occasionally nowadays.

text: Today's 'core' repertoire—performed the most of any cello concertos—are by Elgar, Dvořák, Saint-Saëns, Haydn, Shostakovich and Schumann, but many more concertos are performed nearly as often (see below: cello concertos in the 20th century).

text: Piano concertos[edit]

text: Beethoven's five piano concertos increase the technical demands made on the soloist. The last two are particularly remarkable, integrating the concerto into a large symphonic structure with movements that frequently run into one another. His Piano Concerto No. 4 starts, against tradition, with a statement by the piano, after which the orchestra enters in a foreign key, to present what would normally have been the opening tutti. The work has an essentially lyrical character. The slow movement is a dramatic dialogue between the soloist and the orchestra. His Piano Concerto No. 5 has the basic rhythm of a Viennese military march. There is no lyrical second subject, but in its place a continuous development of the opening material.[original research?]

text: The piano concertos of Cramer, Field, Düssek, Woelfl, Ries, and Hummel provide a link from the Classical concerto to the Romantic concerto.

text: Chopin wrote two piano concertos in which the orchestra is very much relegated to an accompanying role. Schumann, despite being a pianist-composer, wrote a piano concerto in which virtuosity is never allowed to eclipse the essential lyrical quality of the work. The gentle, expressive melody heard at the beginning on woodwind and horns (after the piano's heralding introductory chords) bears the material for most of the argument in the first movement. In fact, argument in the traditional developmental sense is replaced by a kind of variation technique in which soloist and orchestra interweave their ideas.[original research?]

text: Liszt's mastery of piano technique matched that of Paganini for the violin. His concertos No. 1 and No. 2 left a deep impression on the style of piano concerto writing, influencing Rubinstein, and especially Tchaikovsky, whose First Piano Concerto's rich chordal opening is justly famous.[citation needed]

text: Grieg's concerto likewise begins in a striking manner after which it continues in a lyrical vein.[citation needed]

text: Brahms's First Piano Concerto in D minor (pub 1861) was the result of an immense amount of work on a mass of material originally intended for a symphony. His Second Piano Concerto in B♭ major (1881) has four movements and is written on a larger scale than any earlier concerto. Like his violin concerto, it is symphonic in proportions.

text: Fewer piano concertos were written in the late Romantic Period.[citation needed] But Sergei Rachmaninoff wrote four piano concertos between 1891 and 1926. His Second and Third, being the most popular of the four, went on to become among the most famous in the piano repertoire.[citation needed]

text: Other romantic piano concertos, like those by Kalkbrenner, Henri Herz, Moscheles and Thalberg were also very popular in the Romantic era, but not today.[citation needed]

text: 20th-century concerto[edit]

text: Many of the concertos written in the early 20th century belong more to the late Romantic school than to any modernistic movement.[clarification needed] Masterpieces were written by Edward Elgar (a violin concerto and a cello concerto), Sergei Rachmaninoff and Nikolai Medtner (four and three piano concertos, respectively), Jean Sibelius (a violin concerto), Frederick Delius (a violin concerto, a cello concerto, a piano concerto and a double concerto for violin and cello), Karol Szymanowski (two violin concertos and a "Symphonie Concertante" for piano), and Richard Strauss (two horn concertos, a violin concerto, Don Quixote—a tone poem that features the cello as a soloist—and among later works, an oboe concerto).

text: However, in the first decades of the 20th century, several composers such as Debussy, Schoenberg, Berg, Hindemith, Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Bartók started experimenting with ideas that were to have far-reaching consequences for the way music is written and, in some cases, performed. Some of these innovations include a more frequent use of modality, the exploration of non-western scales, the development of atonality and neotonality, the wider acceptance of dissonances, the invention of the twelve-tone technique of composition and the use of polyrhythms and complex time signatures.

text: These changes also affected the concerto as a musical form. Beside more or less radical effects on musical language, they led to a redefinition of the concept of virtuosity that included new and extended instrumental techniques and a focus on previously neglected aspects of sound such as pitch, timbre and dynamics. In some cases, they also brought about a new approach to the role of soloists and their relation to the orchestra.

text: Violin concertos[edit]

text: Two great innovators of early 20th-century music, Schoenberg and Stravinsky, both wrote violin concertos. The material in Schoenberg's concerto, like that in Berg's, is linked by the twelve-tone serial method. Bartók, another major 20th-century composer, wrote two important concertos for violin. Russian composers Prokofiev and Shostakovich each wrote two concertos while Khachaturian wrote a concerto and a Concerto-Rhapsody for the instrument. Hindemith's concertos hark back to the forms of the 19th century, even if the harmonic language he used was different.

text: Three violin concertos from David Diamond show the form in neoclassical style.

text: In 1950 Carlos Chávez completed a substantial Violin Concerto with an enormous central cadenza for the unaccompanied violin.

text: More recently, Dutilleux's L'Arbre des songes has proved an important addition to the repertoire and a fine example of the composer's atonal yet melodic style.

text: Other composers of major violin concertos include John Adams, Samuel Barber, Benjamin Britten, Peter Maxwell Davies, Philip Glass, Cristóbal Halffter, György Ligeti, Frank Martin, Carl Nielsen, Walter Piston, Alfred Schnittke, Jean Sibelius, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Walton, and Roger Sessions.

text: Cello concertos[edit]

text: In the 20th century, particularly after the Second World War, the cello enjoyed an unprecedented popularity. As a result, its concertante repertoire caught up with those of the piano and the violin both in terms of quantity and quality.

text: An important factor in this phenomenon was the rise of virtuoso cellist Mstislav Rostropovich. His outstanding technique and passionate playing prompted dozens of composers to write pieces for him, first in his native Soviet Union and then abroad. Among such compositions may be listed Sergei Prokofiev's Symphony-Concerto, Dmitri Shostakovich's two cello concertos, Benjamin Britten's Cello-Symphony (which emphasizes, as its title suggests, the equal importance of soloist and orchestra), Henri Dutilleux' Tout un monde lointain..., Cristóbal Halffter's two cello concertos, Witold Lutosławski's cello concerto, Dmitry Kabalevsky's two cello concertos, Aram Khachaturian's Concerto-Rhapsody, Arvo Pärt's Pro et Contra, Alfred Schnittke, André Jolivet and Krzysztof Penderecki second cello concertos, Sofia Gubaidulina's Canticles of the Sun, Luciano Berio's Ritorno degli Snovidenia, Leonard Bernstein's Three Meditations, James MacMillan's cello concerto and Olivier Messiaen's Concert à quatre (a quadruple concerto for cello, piano, oboe, flute and orchestra).

text: In addition, several important composers who were not directly influenced by Rostropovich wrote cello concertos: Samuel Barber, Elliott Carter, Carlos Chávez, Alexander Glazunov, Hans Werner Henze, Paul Hindemith, Arthur Honegger, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, György Ligeti, Darius Milhaud, Nikolai Myaskovsky, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Joaquín Rodrigo, Toru Takemitsu, William Walton, Heitor Villa-Lobos, and Bernd Alois Zimmermann for instance.

text: Piano concertos[edit]

text: Igor Stravinsky wrote three works for solo piano and orchestra: Concerto for Piano and Wind Instruments, Capriccio for Piano and Orchestra, and Movements for Piano and Orchestra. Sergei Prokofiev, another Russian composer, wrote five piano concertos, which he himself performed.[citation needed] Dmitri Shostakovich composed two. Fellow Soviet composer Aram Khachaturian contributed to the repertoire with a piano concerto and a Concerto-Rhapsody.

text: Arnold Schoenberg's Piano Concerto is a well-known example of a dodecaphonic piano concerto.

text: Béla Bartók also wrote three piano concertos. Like their violin counterparts, they show the various stages in his musical development. Bartok's also rearranged his chamber piece, Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion, into a Concerto for Two Pianos and Percussion, adding orchestral accompaniment.

text: Cristóbal Halffter wrote a prize-winning neoclassical Piano Concerto in 1953, and a second Piano Concerto in 1987–88.

text: Ralph Vaughan Williams wrote a concerto for piano, though it was later reworked as a concerto for two pianos and orchestra—both versions have been recorded—while Benjamin Britten's concerto for piano (1938) is a prominent work from his early period.

text: Important piano concertos by Latin-American composers included one by Carlos Chávez, two by Alberto Ginastera, and five by Heitor Villa-Lobos.

text: György Ligeti's concerto (1988) has a synthetic quality: it mixes complex rhythms, the composer's Hungarian roots and his experiments with micropolyphony from the 1960s and 1970s.[9] Witold Lutoslawski's piano concerto, completed in the same year, alternates between playfulness and mystery. It also displays a partial return to melody after the composer's aleatoric period.[10]

text: Russian composer Rodion Shchedrin has written six piano concertos. Finnish composer Einojuhani Rautavaara wrote three piano concertos, the third one dedicated to Vladimir Ashkenazy, who played and conducted the world première.

text: Concertos for other instruments[edit]

text: The 20th century also witnessed a growth of the concertante repertoire of instruments, some of which had seldom or never been used in this capacity. As a result, almost all classical instruments now have a concertante repertoire. Examples include:

text:
Accordion concerto: Hovhaness, Sofia Gubaidulina, Toshio Hosokawa, Kalevi Aho
Alto saxophone Concerto: Adams, Creston, Dahl, Denisov, Dubois, Glazunov, Husa, Ibert, Koch, Larsson, Maslanka, Muczynski, Salonen, Ticheli, Tomasi, Worley, Yoshimatsu
Bagpipe: Chieftain's Salute by Graham Waterhouse
Bandoneón Concerto: Piazzolla
Baritone saxophone Concerto: Gaines, Glaser, Haas, van Beurden
Bass clarinet Concerto: Bouliane
Bass oboe concerto: Bryars
Bassoon concerto: Aho, Butterworth, Davies, Donatoni, Eckhardt-Gramatté, Fujikura, Gubaidulina, Hétu, Jolivet, Kaipainen, Knipper, Landowski, Panufnik, Rihm, Rota, Sæverud, J. Williams
Clarinet concerto: Aho, Arnold, Copland, Davies, Denisov, Dusapin, Fairouz, Finzi, Françaix, Hartke, Hétu, Hindemith, Nielsen, Penderecki, Piston, Rautavaara, Shapey, Stravinsky, Takemitsu, Ticheli, Tomasi, J. Williams
Clavinet concerto: Woolf
Contrabassoon Concerto: Aho, Erb
Contrabass flute Concerto: McGowan
Cornet Concerto: Wright
Double bass concerto: Aho, Gagneux, Henze, Koussevitsky, Davies, Ohzawa, Rautavaara, Skalkottas, Tubin
Euphonium Concerto: Clarke, Cosma, Ewazen, Gillingham, Golland, Graham, Horovitz, Lindberg, Linkola, Sparke, Wilby.
Flute Concerto: Aho, Arnold, Davies, Denisov, Dusapin, Harman, Hétu, Ibert, Jolivet, Landowski, Nielsen, Penderecki, Rautavaara, Rodrigo, Takemitsu, J. Williams
Free bass accordion Concerto: Serry, Sr.
Guitar Concerto: Arnold, Brouwer, Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Hovhaness, Ohana, Ponce, Rodrigo, Villa-Lobos
Harmonica concerto: Arnold, Hovhaness, Vaughan Williams, Villa-Lobos
Harp Concerto: Ginastera, Glière, Jongen, Milhaud, Jolivet, Rautavaara, Rodrigo, Villa-Lobos
Harpsichord Concerto: de Falla, Glass, Górecki, Martinů, Poulenc
Horn Concerto: Aho, Arnold, Arutiunian, Atterberg, Bowen, Carter, Davies, Glière, Gipps, Hindemith, Hovhaness, Jacob, Knussen, Ligeti, Murail, Penderecki, Strauss, Tomasi, J. Williams
Kanun Concerto: Alnar
Mandolin Concerto: Thile
Marimba concerto: Creston, Larsen, Milhaud, Rosauro, Svoboda, Viñao
Oboe concerto: Aho, Arnold, Bouliane, Davies, Denisov, Harman, MacMillan, Maderna, Martinů, Penderecki, Shchedrin, Strauss, Vaughan Williams, Zimmermann
Ondes Martenot concerto: Jolivet
Organ concerto: Arnold, Hanson, Harrison, Hétu, Hindemith, Jongen, MacMillan, Peeters, Poulenc, Rorem, Sowerby
Percussion concerto: Aho, Dorman, Glass, Jolivet, MacMillan, Milhaud, Rautavaara, Susman
Piccolo Concerto: Davies, Liebermann
Recorder concerto: Malcolm Arnold, Richard Harvey
Shakuhachi Concerto: Takemitsu
Sheng Concerto: Unsuk Chin.
Soprano saxophone Concerto: Aho, Higdon, Hovhaness, Mackey, Torke, Yoshimatsu.
Tenor saxophone Concerto: Bennett, Ewazen, Gould, Nicolau, Ward, Wilder.
Theremin concerto: Aho
Timpani concerto: Aho, Druschetzky, Glass, Kraft, Rosauro
Trombone Concerto: Aho, Bourgeois, Dusapin, Gagneux, Grøndahl, Holmboe, Larsson, Milhaud, Olsen, Rota, Rouse, Sandström, Tomasi
Trumpet Concerto: Aho, Arnold, Arutiunian, Böhme, Jolivet, Perry, Sandström, Ticheli, Williams, Zimmermann
Tuba Concerto: Aho, Arutiunian, Broughton, Gagneux, Holmboe, Vaughan Williams, J. Williams
Viola concerto: Aho, Arnold, Bartók, Denisov, Gagneux, Gubaidulina, Hindemith, Kancheli, Martinů, Milhaud, Murail, Penderecki, Schnittke, Takemitsu, Walton
Viola d'amore concerto: Hindemith
Xylophone concerto: Mayuzumi
Yamaha GX-1: Akutagawa

tag: ul

text: Among the works of the prolific composer Alan Hovhaness may be noted Prayer of St. Gregory for trumpet and strings, though it is not a concerto in the usual sense of the term.

text: Today the concerto tradition has been continued by composers such as Maxwell Davies, whose series of Strathclyde Concertos exploit some of the instruments less familiar as soloists.

text: Concertos for orchestra or concert band[edit]

text: In the 20th and 21st centuries, several composers wrote concertos for orchestra or concert band. In these works, different sections and/or instruments of the orchestra or concert band are treated at one point or another as soloists with emphasis on solo sections and/or instruments changing during the piece. Some examples include those written by:

text: Orchestra:

text:
Bartók – Concerto for Orchestra – 1945
Carter – 1969
Hindemith – Op. 38, 1925
Knussen – 1969
Kodály – 1940
Lindberg – 2003
Lutoslawski – Concerto for Orchestra – 1954
Shchedrin – No. 1 Naughty Limericks (1963), No. 2 The Chimes (1968), No. 3 Old Russian Circus Music (1989), No. 4 Round Dances (Khorovody) (1989), No. 5 Four Russian Songs (1998)

text: Dutilleux has also described his Métaboles as a concerto for orchestra.

text: Concert band:

text:
Bryant – 2007–2010
Foss – 2002
Husa – 1982
Jacob – 1974
Jager – 1982

text: Concertos for two or more instruments[edit]

text: Many composers also wrote concertos for two or more soloists.

text: In the Baroque era:

text:
Vivaldi's concertos for 2, 3 or 4 violins, for 2 cellos, for 2 mandolins, for 2 trumpets, for 2 flutes, for oboe and bassoon, for cello and bassoon... etc.. Some of Vivaldi's concertos were written for a very large number of soloists, including the extraordinary RV555, which features 3 violins, an oboe, 2 recorders, 2 viole all'inglese, a chalumeau, 2 cellos, 2 harpsichords and 2 trumpets.
Bach's concertos for 2 violins, for 2, 3, or 4 harpsichords as well as several of his Brandenburg concertos.

text: In the Classical era:

text:
Haydn's concerto for violin and keyboard (usually referred to as the Keyboard Concerto No. 6) and Sinfonia concertante for violin, cello, oboe and bassoon.
Mozart's concertos for two pianos and three pianos, the Sinfonia concertante for violin and viola, and his concerto for flute and harp.
Salieri's Triple Concerto for oboe, violin and cello, and his double concerto for flute and oboe.

text: In the Romantic era:

text:
Beethoven's triple concerto for piano, violin, and cello.
Brahms's double concerto for violin and cello.
Bruch's double concerto for viola and clarinet and one for 2 pianos.

text: In the 20th century:

text:
Malcolm Arnold's concerto for piano duet and strings, as well as his concerto for two violins and string orchestra
Béla Bartók's concerto for two pianos and percussion
Samuel Barber's Capricorn Concerto for flute, oboe and trumpet.
Benjamin Britten's double concerto for violin and viola.
Elliott Carter's Double Concerto for Harpsichord and Piano with Two Chamber Orchestras.
Peter Maxwell Davies's Strathclyde Concerto No. 3 for horn, trumpet and orchestra, No. 4 for violin, viola and string orchestra and No. 9 for piccolo, alto flute, cor anglais, E-flat clarinet, bass clarinet, contrabassoon and string orchestra.
Frederick Delius's double concerto for violin and cello.
Nicolas Flagello's Concerto Sinfonico for saxophone quartet and orchestra.
Jean Françaix's concerto for two pianos and another for two harps, as well as his Divertissement for string trio and orchestra, his Quadruple Concerto for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon and orchestra, his Double Concerto for flute and clarinet, and his Concerto for 15 Soloists and Orchestra
Philip Glass's concerto for saxophone quartet and orchestra.
Cristóbal Halffter's Concierto a cuatro for saxophone quartet and orchestra.
Hans Werner Henze's double concerto for oboe and harp.
Paul Hindemith's concerto for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, harp, and orchestra as well as his concerto for trumpet, bassoon, and strings.
Gustav Holst's Fugal Concerto for flute, oboe and string orchestra.
Alan Hovhaness's Concerto for violin, sitar, and orchestra
Tristan Keuris's concerto for saxophone quartet and orchestra.
György Kurtág's double concerto for piano and cello.
Lowell Liebermann's concerto for flute and harp
György Ligeti's double concerto for flute and oboe.
Jon Lord's Concerto for Group and Orchestra for rock band.
Witold Lutosławski's concerto for oboe and harp.
Miklós Maros's Concerto Grosso for saxophone quartet and orchestra.
Frank Martin's Petite Symphonie Concertante and Concerto for seven wind instruments, timpani, percussion, and string orchestra.
Bohuslav Martinu's concerto for string quartet, concertino for piano trio and string orchestra, two concertante duos for two violins, concerto for two pianos, sinfonia concertante No. 2 for violin, cello, oboe, bassoon and orchestra with piano, and his concerto for violin and piano.
Olivier Messiaen's Concert à quatre for piano, cello, oboe and flute.
Darius Milhaud's Symphonie concertante for bassoon, horn, trumpet and double bass, as well as his concertos for flute and violin, and for marimba and vibraphone.
Michael Nyman's concerto for saxophone quartet and orchestra.
Francis Poulenc's concerto for two pianos.
Ottorino Respighi's Concerto a cinque for piano, oboe, violin, trumpet, double bass and string orchestra
Joaquín Rodrigo's Concierto madrigal for 2 guitars and Concierto Andaluz for 4 guitars.
William Russo's concerto for blues band.
Alfred Schnittke's double concerto for oboe, harp, and strings as well as his Konzert zu Dritt, for violin, viola, violoncello and strings.
Rodion Shchedrin's double concerto for piano and cello.
Michael Tippett's triple concerto for violin, viola, and cello.
Charles Wuorinen's concerto for saxophone quartet and orchestra.

text: In the 21st century:

text:
William Bolcom's Concerto Grosso for saxophone quartet and orchestra.
Leo Brouwer's Guitar Concerto No. 10 "Book of Signs", for two guitars.
Mohammed Fairouz's Double Concerto 'States of Fantasy' for violin and cello.
Philip Glass's Concerto Fantasy for two Timpanists and Orchestra and Double Concerto for violin and cello.
William P. Perry's Gemini Concerto for violin and piano.
Karl Jenkins' Over the Stone for two harps
Terry Manning's The Darkness Within Light Concerto for flute and piano