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

[(poco) Sforzando]

Or, rather, in a church (perhaps a retro-fit idea . . . were there concert performances in churches in Beethoven's day?)

I shouldn't necessarily take even that as a 'flaw' in Beethoven's scoring.  If he had written an essential, distinct organ part, the piece would have been ineligible for performance in concert halls (here again I am retro-speculating a bit . . . I am guessing that the practice of outfitting German concert halls with pipe organs largely post-dates Beethoven).

In concert, when B presented three of the movements on the same 1824 program which saw the premiere of the 9th symphony, the excerpts from the MS had to be called "hymns," as it was forbidden by the censor to sing parts of the Mass in a theater. Remember that B intended the mass to be sung at the investiture ceremony to archbishop of his pupil and patron the Archduke Rudloph in 1820; unfortunately B being B missed the deadline by a mere three years. He first intended a program consisting of the Consecration Overture, the whole Missa, and the 9th, but feeling that was a bit long (!) he omitted the Gloria and Sanctus.

As for the organ, yes, it is written into the score in virtually every bar. Not once, however, does it play anything independently that isn't covered by the rest of the orchestra. In the C major mass, "organo" is specified as a kind of continuo just doubling the celli/basses with figured bass chords.

[jochanaan]

There is also a totally superfluous organ part in the Beethoven Missa Solemnis which is always omitted in concert performance and recordings. It was obviously included solely in case the work was to be performed liturgically (an obvious chimera in itself).

     Whoa! Are you sure it's always omitted? I thought I heard organ pedal on the Klemperer/EMI recording. Does anyone know it well enough to confirm this? Check out the Gloria in excelsis Deo.

OK, OK, maybe it's used sometimes. Obviously I haven't heard every performance/recording. But it is totally superfluous, doing nothing more at any time than doubling lines covered elsewhere in the texture.

In the Karl Böhm Missa from the 1970s with the Vienna Philharmonic and Staatsoper Chorus, organ is definitely and effectively included.  Sure, it's not an independent part, but it adds richness and power in performance, especially at the climaxes.  (Remember, they were still doing keyboard continuo in concerts even as late as this, whether it was written or not!)

Music for orchestra and chorus has its own challenges and difficulties.  So much depends on how many singers there are and how good they are.  The most effective balance is when the chorus is at least as large as the full orchestra or even larger.  (Major orchestras usually have choruses on call, so it's less of a problem than for a community orchestra.)

False Dmitry, you might have presented a more balanced view of Anton Bruckner's orchestration if you had included a page from the Te Deum's marvelously subtle "Salvum fac populum tuum" section.

[Franco]

Actually this is a discussion about orchestration, good & bad.   No-one has addressed the issues.

Some of us have pointed out that because you admit to not seeing the point of what Bruckner did is not a definitive judgment of his orchestration.  It only indicates that you do not share Bruckner's taste in the kind of orchestral sound he was attempting.  To say that his doublings are "pointless" is your opinion and it ought to be obvious that your opinion about doublings only matters when you are orchestrating your own compositions.

Unless you are a proponent of The Unassailable Rules of Good Orchestration.  Rules which may produce good orchestration exercises but usually not great music - which more often than not, what makes it great are those places where the composer broke the so-called rules.

[False_Dmitry]

False Dmitry, you might have presented a more balanced view of Anton Bruckner's orchestration if you had included a page from the Te Deum's marvelously subtle "Salvum fac populum tuum" section.

Sure, next time I'll include the whole damn score just for you and Henning. 

[abidoful]

I thoroughly disagree with the manner and (extra-musical) content of almost all the opinions expressed above, you began by making a contentious point, using strongly emotive language....

Come on, he's Russian! So of course he's emotive! 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Sure, next time I'll include the whole damn score just for you and Henning. 

Do you honestly think a snide remark like that advances your position? The fact remains that although Bruckner does at times score in a manner that simulates massive organ effects, at many other times his highly varied orchestral palette indicates his thorough awareness of the scores he studied from Beethoven, Schubert, and Wagner. Examples are so numerous that I'm sure anyone familiar with the Bruckner canon could easily supply them. All so far you have indicated is an apparent antipathy to Bruckner, and as far as I can tell, not much familiarity with most of his music.

[abidoful]

Come on guys, give it a rest... Why should'n't someone have an aversion towards Bruckner? Personal taste, huh?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Come on guys, give it a rest... Why should'n't someone have an aversion towards Bruckner? Personal taste, huh?

Personal taste is fine. If he has an aversion, he has an aversion. His aversion does not make Bruckner a poor orchestrator.

[karlhenning]

Come on guys, give it a rest... Why should'n't someone have an aversion towards Bruckner? Personal taste, huh?

That, in itself, is not the issue.  The post under advisement (insofar as it had any pretensions to musical comment) has been discredited without substantive counterargument by the faux russe.

Do you honestly think a snide remark like that advances your position?

He might have made an effort at the least to have pointed his misguided choral remarks to any passage other than one with perfectly normal tessitura.

abidoful is also mistaking this thread for a Vent any musical distaste thread.  The topic is orchestration.  And there's nothing wrong (or bad) about the scoring on the page which has been cited.  Nothing wrong or bad on Bruckner's part, that is.

The commentator is another matter.

[Sergeant Rock]

The topic is orchestration.  And there's nothing wrong (or bad) about the scoring on the page which has been cited.  Nothing wrong or bad on Bruckner's part, that is.[/font]

Thank you, Karl. It's surprising, but gratifying, to see you coming to Anton's defense. Surprising because I know you're still struggling to appreciate his music.

It's amusing to me, a dedicated Brucknerian, to note the points F_D makes about Bruckner's "bad" orchestration are reasons I love his music so much. The thrilling (to me) proto-minimalist repetition, bordering on the obsessive compulsive (mirroring both Bruckner's own inner demons and, I think, spiritual chanting) and the tendency to turn the orchestra into a kind of grand, cosmic organ are part of his unique, individual style. Nobody sounds like Bruckner--and I love that sound.

I'm not a singer so I can't say some of the vocal parts in the Te Deum aren't taxing. Assuming they are, how does that make him a bad orchestrator, though? I think we all agree the tenor part in "Das Trinklied" from Das Lied von der Erde and Bacchus in Ariadne auf Naxos are so difficult there have been very few completely satisfying performances. If I went further, though, and tried to use that as proof that Mahler and Strauss were bad orchestrators, I'd be laughed off the forum 

Sarge

[canninator]

He might have made an effort at the least to have pointed his misguided choral remarks to any passage other than one with perfectly normal tessitura.

I am generally not a fan of choral music and know very little of its scoring. In my innocence I would look at the tenor line and think it a little high for normal choral writing so for my own interest could you tell me what the "comfortable" range would be for choral writing of this type, please, Karl.

Thanks!

[(poco) Sforzando]

I am generally not a fan of choral music and know very little of its scoring. In my innocence I would look at the tenor line and think it a little high for normal choral writing so for my own interest could you tell me what the "comfortable" range would be for choral writing of this type, please, Karl.

Thanks!

As a simple rule of thumb: if the vocal line is within the five lines or doesn't venture too far/too long from them, it's in a comfortable tessitura.

But we're told that Bruckner can't write idiomatic and lyrical string parts (like those in AB 7-2) and doubles all his wind parts too much (unlike AB 9-2). Oh, wait . . .

[canninator]

As a simple rule of thumb: if the vocal line is within the five lines or doesn't venture too far/too long from them, it's in a comfortable tessitura.

Great, thanks!

[False_Dmitry]

Do you honestly think a snide remark like that advances your position?

Please confine your comments to the music (if you are able to).  Ad homiment bluster merely reduces you to the same level as Mr Henning.

[kishnevi]

I'm not a singer so I can't say some of the vocal parts in the Te Deum aren't taxing. Assuming they are, how does that make him a bad orchestrator, though? I think we all agree the tenor part in "Das Trinklied" from Das Lied von der Erde and Bacchus in Ariadne auf Naxos are so difficult there have been very few completely satisfying performances. If I went further, though, and tried to use that as proof that Mahler and Strauss were bad orchestrators, I'd be laughed off the forum 

Sarge

Well, the collegiate choral group to which I belonged, and with which I sang the Missa Solemnis, sang the Te Deum just before I joined them, and I heard no one complain about the Te Deum the way people complained about the Missa Solemnis (I was friends with several members before I joined, so was in a position to hear complaints if they were voiced).

More importantly, LvdE and Bacchus were composed with the assumption that they would be sung by trained professional singers, and not by whatever assortment of folks populated the local chorus's tenor section--although sometimes producers/impresarios seem to find some underwhelming choices for those parts (for instance, whomever picked Klaus Florian Vogt to sing in Nagano's LvdE.)

[jochanaan]

...More importantly, LvdE and Bacchus were composed with the assumption that they would be sung by trained professional singers, and not by whatever assortment of folks populated the local chorus's tenor section--although sometimes producers/impresarios seem to find some underwhelming choices for those parts (for instance, whomever picked Klaus Florian Vogt to sing in Nagano's LvdE.)

I don't know the Bacchus part, but even for trained professional tenors, DLvdE is extremely challenging.  The first song needs a real Heldentenor but the third and fifth, by contrast, require utmost delicacy.  I can't think who, even among historical tenors, might have been able to pull it off to everybody's satisfaction.  Tenors like Melchior or Set Svanholm would have had the power, but I'm not sure even Melchior could have brought off the extreme dynamic and stylistic range this set needs.

[abidoful]

abidoful is also mistaking this thread for a Vent any musical distaste thread.  The topic is orchestration.  And there's nothing wrong (or bad) about the scoring on the page which has been cited.  Nothing wrong or bad on Bruckner's part, that is.

Hey---(!) I  B-E-G  Y-O-U-R  P-A-R-D-O-N,  but surely "good orchestration" isn't something that is a fixed, absolute thing without reflecting a certain aesthetics. As a composer you must recognize that...!  

[Scarpia]

Like any other area of artistic endeavor, there is a difference between breaking the rules on purpose to achieve a clear artistic goal and breaking the rules because you don't have the skill to follow the rules.  In the Rite of Spring Stravinsky, in the first bars, Stravinsky gives the bassoon a part that is clearly out of the normal range of the instrument.  A composition student would presumably be marked off for writing such a part, but in the Sacre it is one of many strokes of genius.

[False_Dmitry]

Hey---(!) I  B-E-G  Y-O-U-R  P-A-R-D-O-N,  but surely "good orchestration" isn't something that is a fixed, absolute thing without reflecting a certain aesthetics. As a composer you must recognize that...!

[Renfield]

Like any other area of artistic endeavor, there is a difference between breaking the rules on purpose to achieve a clear artistic goal and breaking the rules because you don't have the skill to follow the rules.

Quoted for truth - particularly vis-à-vis the whole 'is quality of orchestration context-irrelevant' issue.

As I've already above, unless you're going to bite the bullet and demand a rigorous set of rules for what constitutes good orchestration, knowing full well that someone, somewhere will break them effectively, then it isn't independent of the other features of a piece.

In being thus context-dependent, there is then the question of whether you can, in fact, systematically determine cases of effective orchestration. If not, and it's down to whether you like the result, instead, obviously this discussion will not take us much further.

If you can, if you think there's an objective basis, it really, really would be best if everyone stuck to musical arguments, vs. I-beg-your-pardons, how-dare-yous, and assorted expressions of incredulity, however well-placed their originator might consider them.

Please, gentlemen. If I were a mod, I'd have locked this a while ago.

(Though this is by no means a suggestion to those who are mods. I'm not particularly known for my tolerance of ad hominem.)