What, in no uncertain terms, is "bad" orchestration?

[Kullervo]

I often see this comment directed at the works of composers, and really have a hard time understanding it. Other than the obvious technical problem of balancing timbres and the volume levels of instruments, how can orchestration be intrinsically "bad"?

[Mark]

Please, I'd like an answer to this, too.

[longears]

To me, a good orchestrator uses instumental color like a good chef uses spices.

[hornteacher]

Here's one example:

At the first rehearsal for Schumann's first symphony, Mendelssohn pointed out that the opening measures (played by the horns) were impossible (not difficult, but actually notes that were not possible on the horns of the time).  The part had to be transposed down a third in order to use notes that could be played on the natural horns.  I actually like the effect, but it was an error in orchestration on Schumann's part.

[Catison]

I often see this comment directed at the works of composers, and really have a hard time understanding it. Other than the obvious technical problem of balancing timbres and the volume levels of instruments, how can orchestration be intrinsically "bad"?

Exhibit A: Rachmaninov

[Kullervo]

Exhibit A: Rachmaninov

Okay. Why?

[DavidW]

I often see this comment directed at the works of composers, and really have a hard time understanding it. Other than the obvious technical problem of balancing timbres and the volume levels of instruments, how can orchestration be intrinsically "bad"?

By intrinsic do you mean that the work itself is flawed as opposed to a screw up on the performer side?

[Larry Rinkel]

In the most notorious thread of all time here ("The Elgar"), a number of us (including me) contributed various thoughts on this topic. I'll just quote some of the posts:

//
Me: In one of his books with Robert Craft, Stravinsky is asked "What is good orchestration?" and he replies, "When you are unaware that it is orchestration." And the example he gives is from the third movement of Beethoven's 8th symphony. Vaughan Williams once said that you can identify an orchestral piece by Beethoven from the sound of a single chord. The only limitations in Beethoven's orchestration stem from the nature of his brass instruments, and these are easily rectified today without disrupting Beethoven's orchestral idiom. But orchestrally Beethoven rarely takes an interest in color for the sake of color, and he never looks to incorporate "special effects" that make his orchestration call attention to itself.

//
Luke: We did this somewhere else, but if Rimsky-Korsakov was impressed enough by Haydn's orchestration to call him the finest orchestrator of all, that's good enough for me to doubt your judgement on this one.

And, really, he has a point - Haydn doesn't just do the basics superbly well, though that would be enough; he  has a real flair for the subtle but pointedly perfect orchestral gesture, and at time is even an early exponent of the sort of colouristic trick we associate with later figures

//
Me: There are aesthetic criteria that we can use to help us decide how well Beethoven orchestrates, criteria that we can apply to any number of composers. Now, I'm not going to debate the philosophical issues because that's out of my expertise, but consider for instance:

- Are all the voices in Beethoven's orchestration audible in performance?
- Does Beethoven write anything that is impossible for the instruments for which he scores to play? For example, does he ask any instruments to play things out of their ranges, or does he ask for double/triple stops on the strings that cannot be played - such as an open G along with the C# above middle C for the violins? Or does he write for instruments in their weakest register, or combine instruments in ways in which they don't sound well? (E.g., flutes in their weak lowest register are hard to hear against the more powerful lowest register of the oboe; so bring the flutes up an octave.)
- Does Beethoven write for the instruments idiomatically? For example, does he ask from them things they naturally cannot do, such as writing chromatic melody lines for the trumpets or timpani? If he wrote for harp, would he write a long sustained note, which the harp cannot do?
- Does Beethoven follow generally accepted practices for voice-leading in his instrumental parts?
- Does Beethoven vary his instrumental textures in relation to his thematic material and dynamic scheme?

Etc.

To return to question 1:
- Are all the voices in Beethoven's orchestration audible in performance?

I can think of a couple of examples where Beethoven falls short unless the conductor balances things very carefully. One is in the introduction to the Consecration of the House Overture, where the running bassoon lines are not always heard against the trumpets. (But there is also a strong possibility that Beethoven could have doubled each of the wind parts.) Abbado gets this right. Another is this woodwind passage from the Andante of the fifth symphony:

http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bgp5237/large/index.html, Andante, bars 185-90.

This close canon is not always audible if the conductor is letting the strings play out too freely. Gunther Schuller is one conductor who "nails" it.

So you might say these instances reflect problems in Beethoven's orchestration, though they are few and far between; moreover, the problems may instead be with the performance.



//
Title: Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: Larry Rinkel on July 13, 2007, 11:22:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Boris_G on July 12, 2007, 07:26:23 AM
The point is partly to satisfy my own curiosity. I can think off-hand of one stunning bit of orchestration by Beethoven, which is the opening of the Ninth Symphony; but otherwise I rather agree with Britten in disliking the sound of Beethoven's orchestration. However, although I think Beethoven's sonic genius is best demonstrated in his piano music, I'm prepared to be persuaded that I haven't listened enough to sufficiently appreciate his orchestral skills.

Perhaps we need a thread (or a chain, take your pick) on Beethoven's Orchestration. But let me pose the question: if we agree that Beethoven wrote great orchestral music, does it follow that he could have been an inferior orchestrator?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: scottscheule on July 14, 2007, 12:22:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on July 13, 2007, 11:22:14 PM
Perhaps we need a thread (or a chain, take your pick) on Beethoven's Orchestration. But let me pose the question: if we agree that Beethoven wrote great orchestral music, does it follow that he could have been an inferior orchestrator?


I'd say so.  He may have written great orchestral music in spite of his poor orchestration.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: D Minor on July 14, 2007, 12:25:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on July 13, 2007, 11:22:14 PM
But let me pose the question: if we agree that Beethoven wrote great orchestral music, does it follow that he could have been an inferior orchestrator?


If it can't be improved upon, then it's not inferior.  I'd like to see someone improve upon the orchestration of LvB's 6th, 7th, or 8th Symphonies .........

Mahler tried ........ and failed .......


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2007, 12:42:42 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: The Modernator
Eat flaming death, Gustav!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: M forever on July 14, 2007, 01:04:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on July 13, 2007, 11:22:14 PM
Perhaps we need a thread (or a chain, take your pick) on Beethoven's Orchestration. But let me pose the question: if we agree that Beethoven wrote great orchestral music, does it follow that he could have been an inferior orchestrator?


What is good orchestration?



//
Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: M forever on July 16, 2007, 05:46:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2007, 02:52:35 AM
I never said I could come up with better orchestration but I know it is possible because I have heard music by Berlioz and any other skilled orchestrators. 


Dude - Berlioz' music, as much as it owes, is *totally different* in the way he treats the orchestra and in what he wants to do. It is idiotic to compare that directly. Plus Berlioz was specifically interested in experimenting a lot with any kind of instrumental color or effect he could get his hands on. That kind of experimentation was never in Beethoven's interest nor would it fir the character of his musical style. That said, Berlioz in some respects was also a fairly clumsy orchestrator, there are whole movements where he just takes a simple idea and lets the entire string section play that more or less unisono throughout most of the movement, without any differentiation at all.

Berlioz was half complete genius, half bloody amateur. But with very interesting results.

BTW, before you blabla on here, you should read Berlioz' book about orchestration (yes, he actually wrote a book about that) and see what he has to say about Beethoven's orchestrations there. Since you are totally blind, that probably won't open your eyes either. But you could at least try to inform yourself just a little bit about the things you unsuccessfully pretend to know so much about.

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on July 16, 2007, 04:07:09 AM
How unfortunate that he died before they were invented.


Indeed he did. Or before the bass tuba came into use. But that's his problem, not ours. Imagine the opening of the 5th with bass tuba in addition to the strings "bobobo-baaaaaaaaaaaah". That would have been *awesome*!

But indeed that opening is a good example for what a fantastic orchestrator Beethoven was. I was always intrigued by the fact that he wrote clarinets in the middle register there, as the only wind instrument playing along with the strings. Because in "modern" orchestra performances with large string sections and gut strings, you simply don't hear that. But with "period" instruments you typically do - and what a great effect, the subtle dark coloring the clarinets give the string sound. Here is one of many examples which show that Beethoven was not just a functional, but a very expressive and imaginative orchestrator.

And then the following bars in which he lets the celli play without the basses, but colors them with the bassoons - not one, but two, because that gives them a slightly rounder and softer color and together with the celli but no basses, it creates a lightly floating, but eerily dark sound.
Another interesting detail is that the violas actually play higher than the 2nd violins, this adds to the subtle richness of the overall sound created by the "echoing" motifs.

(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bgp5237/sco10001.gif)

Or the opening of the second movement, in which he decouples celli and basses again, and teams up celli in high-mid register and violas in low register unisono, accompanied by low bass pizzicati. Yummmmm, that sounds sooooo good, what a subtle and delicate coloring:

(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bgp5237/sco20031.gif)

Or the way he opens up the sound space with the entry of all strings in 32 and then he distributes the following passage among the woodwinds - that creates a rich and differentiated, but at the same time very subtle and "to the point" sound world which is uniquely Beethoven:

(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bgp5237/sco20032.gif)


This is one of the most beautiful sounding passages in all orchestral music I know. As a bass player, I love what he does with the basses, but I believe non bass players can also appreciate the subtle richness and inventiveness of the orchestration here. He creates a marvelous sound and color space which widens and gets more and more remote all the time, one of those rare moments in music in which we get a glace of infinity:

(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bgp5237/sco20038.gif)

(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bgp5237/sco20039.gif)

(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bgp5237/sco20040.gif)


But also a seemingly simple passage like the following from the 9t symphony reveals how complex and inventive Beethoven's orchestration is, as compact and "simple" as it sound for superficial ears and shallow minds:

(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/cab4188/sco20059.gif)

(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/cab4188/sco20060.gif)

(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/cab4188/sco20061.gif)

//
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: Larry Rinkel on July 16, 2007, 06:43:41 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: M forever on July 16, 2007, 05:46:53 AM
But indeed that opening is a good example for what a fantastic orchestrator Beethoven was.

Back around June 9-11, Beethoven's orchestration was again the digressive subject of this thread on Elgar, and I mentioned Stravinsky's comments in the first of his conversation books with Robert Craft, as well as making some points of my own. I've scanned in the relevant pages:



//
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: Boris_G on July 16, 2007, 06:54:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on July 16, 2007, 06:43:41 AM
Back around June 9-11, Beethoven's orchestration was again the digressive subject of this thread on Elgar, and I mentioned Stravinsky's comments in the first of his conversation books with Robert Craft, as well as making some points of my own. I've scanned in the relevant pages:


Alas, Stravinsky was a most disingenuous pundit, and certainly nothing he said could be taken as gospel. This applies whether he's talking about Berlioz, Ravel, or even his own inspiration.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on July 16, 2007, 06:55:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with the line: It is generally not a good sign when the first thing we remark about a work is it's instrumentation.. The first time I heard Mozart's 39th Symphony (E-flat Major), the trio section of the third movement, I said to myself: Wow, way to use the clarinet to give this banal little melody such life. I think it happens a lot in Mozart. The melody sometimes is not the most remarkable, but somehow the way he colors it and tosses it around the orchestra makes it a great piece of music.

Also the 1st movement of Mahler's 7th, for better or for worst everyone seem to remember it for the unusually tenor horn solo.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: Boris_G on July 16, 2007, 06:59:40 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or indeed that remarkable opening bassoon in a certain Rite of Spring...



//
Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: M forever on July 16, 2007, 07:52:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 16, 2007, 06:55:54 AM
I disagree with the line: It is generally not a good sign when the first thing we remark about a work is it's instrumentation.. The first time I heard Mozart's 39th Symphony (E-flat Major), the trio section of the third movement, I said to myself: Wow, way to use the clarinet to give this banal little melody such life. I think it happens a lot in Mozart. The melody sometimes is not the most remarkable, but somehow the way he colors it and tosses it around the orchestra makes it a great piece of music.

Also the 1st movement of Mahler's 7th, for better or for worst everyone seem to remember it for the unusually tenor horn solo.


You don't disagree with what Stravinsky said. You are saying more or less the exact same thing. Read again, this time more carefully.



//
Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: Larry Rinkel on July 16, 2007, 08:19:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: M forever on July 16, 2007, 07:52:03 AM
You don't disagree with what Stravinsky said. You are saying more or less the exact same thing. Read again, this time more carefully.


Yes - remember that Stravinsky is the one who stated of the Beethoven 8th: "What incomparable instrumental thought it is." The crux of Stravinsky's argument lies in his comparison of Beethoven to Berlioz. Whether you agree or not (and I love Berlioz's music enormously), his point is that whereas Beethoven's "symphonies are good music in every way and the orchestra is [an] integral part of them," with Berlioz, you get a composer who attempted to hide harmonic deficiencies by his virtuosic handling of tone colors.

As for "Alas, Stravinsky was a most disingenuous pundit, and certainly nothing he said could be taken as gospel," every case must be taken on its own merits. Methinks the poster is too ready to discount what Stravinsky is quite effectively saying, based on assumptions external to the passage.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Sir Edward Elgar
Post by: Larry Rinkel on July 16, 2007, 08:23:42 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: M forever on July 16, 2007, 08:05:16 AM
Nonsense. Total nonsense. Beethoven wasn't deaf. He *became* deaf. Long before the time his hearing was gone, he already knew exactly how each instrument and combination of instruments sounded. Not surprisingly for someone who was as solid a craftsman as he was, he knew exactly what each instrument can do and not do; and even what was not usually done on them, but could and should be done. He even continued to come up with new ideas and incorporate new developments in instrumental technique *after* he he had gone deaf. Fo instance, the long 4th horn solo in the 9th.

Or, perhaps even remarkably, some of the string writing in the later quartets.
- The rich double, triple, and quadruple stops for the Maestoso passages in the first movement of Op. 127.
- The ethereal passagework in the coda to the finale of the same quartet.
- The use of sul ponticello in the scherzo of op. 131.

The piano writing, too, gains in coloristic fantasy in some of the later sonatas (think of the last few minutes of op. 111).

Beethoven's ear must have been phenomenal. To have imagined and notated such original, such harmonically complex stuff as the Great Fugue would have been an amazing achievement for a hearing composer.

[KevinP]

I haven't read Larry's long pasting (but I will), but the first thing that pops in my mind is bad voice leading in the middle parts. Technically that's not a matter of orchestration at all, though when I've heard such things I tend to blame the orchestration rather than the voicing. The second thing to my mind is a poor distribution of chord tones among the various instruments, which is definately a matter of orchestration. You know, the trombones, playing in a range where they are bright, overpowering the flutes where they are weak. Or, similarly, one voice in a fugue overpowering another because of the properties of the instrument groups. In many cases, good players can pull it off, but when a composer relies on the musicians for this, that's bad orchestration right there.

[Florestan]

Here's one example:

At the first rehearsal for Schumann's first symphony, Mendelssohn pointed out that the opening measures (played by the horns) were impossible (not difficult, but actually notes that were not possible on the horns of the time).  The part had to be transposed down a third in order to use notes that could be played on the natural horns.  I actually like the effect, but it was an error in orchestration on Schumann's part.

Wasn't it more an error of judgment? I mean, how on earth could Schumann not know what horns can and cannot do?

[Florestan]

Okay. Why?

Don't bother to ask, you'll never get an answer other than "I don't like it".

[Kullervo]

Don't bother to ask, you'll never get an answer other than "I don't like it".

That's what I think most people mean.

[karlhenning]

I haven't yet studied the Rakhmaninov symphonies, which are often cited as instances of his 'bad ochestration'.  But I have studied the Third and Fourth Concerti closely, and their orchestration is expert and brilliant.

(I really enjoyed Larry's harvest of good discussion from that hopeless, hopeless thread.  Even though my only post in there was an impertinent one-liner.)

[Florestan]

I haven't yet studied the Rakhmaninov symphonies, which are often cited as instances of his 'bad ochestration'.  But I have studied the Third and Fourth Concerti closely, and their orchestration is expert and brilliant.

Why, thank you, Karl, you really made my day.

[karlhenning]

Except for a couple of typos, Andrei, including one slip of the keys which will make one wonder if I have studied them . . . "orchestration," and I meant the Second and Third Concerti, of course 

[Larry Rinkel]

Why, thank you, Karl, you really made my day.

I believe Rach's style, and with it his orchestration, tended to become leaner and more acerbic in his later years. But the bassoonist who used to post here as Heck51, used to complain frequently about his muddy inner voices in works like the 2nd concerto.

[Mark G. Simon]

I haven't yet studied the Rakhmaninov symphonies, which are often cited as instances of his 'bad ochestration'.  But I have studied the Third and Fourth Concerti closely, and their orchestration is expert and brilliant.

Ditto the Symphonic Dances, which is totally devoid of unnecessary doublings, and distributes the musical ideas through all the members of the orchestra, so that everyone gets something interesting to play.

[Mark G. Simon]

"Everybody has something interesting to play" is another characteristic of good orchestration, in general.

[Florestan]

Ditto the Symphonic Dances, which is totally devoid of unnecessary doublings, and distributes the musical ideas through all the members of the orchestra, so that everyone gets something interesting to play.

Thank you, too, Mark! They are among my all-time favourite orchestral works and I'm glad to see that it's not just my subjective feeling that makes them so lovely.

BTW, for me, the sax solo in #1 is among the most touching moments in the whole history of music...

[BachQ]

BTW, Karl, and in the same vein as the piano concerti, Rach's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini is consummately well orchestrated ........