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

[Franco]

I am beginning to understand how this idea (good or bad orchestration) is perceived by different people:

1) a composer with a talent for exploiting orchestral effects = "good" orchestration for some (Ravel comes to mind)

2) merely to orchestrate a keyboard sketch for the orchestra, utilizing doublings for volume and enforcement = "bad" or at least unimaginative orchestration for others (ala Schumann)

- or my favorite

3) using the orchestra as a large pool of small chamber groupings and having the music meander from section to section or instrument combinations seamlessly, only rarely in tutti - not sure where this falls on the good vs bad spectrum. (Webern is a perfect  example)

All of the above can be good (or badly done, I suppose), IMO, but I am loathe to accuse a great composer such as Chopin or Schumann or Bruckner of being incapable of writing for the orchestra effectively.

[abidoful]

This discussion certainly proves that people seem to be very "touchy" about the orchestration of their beloved masters 

As for Chopin
Someone made a statement, which seemed to me a bit "politically correct" (about orchestration not being q very important aspect in his case) I do disagree; they are (e.g, the beforementioned KRAKOWIAK and CONCERTO op.11) after all orchestral works- so surely it is quite essential thing  

One thing came to my mind.  I listened- a while ago- all (!) Mozart piano concerti and found that those which I heard performed with period instruments were sooooooo much better in regards of balance and sound! Mozart-e.g- in the d-minor concerto wrote lots of lines- during soli- for woodwinds, and thats very much true also in Chopin- especially in KRAKOWIAK.

So it really is an issue, the balance. In KRAKOWIAK Chopin trusts something like 70% of all thematic material and development for orchestra, usually using soli woodwinds (bassoon, oboe and flute and clarinet) and to be very honest, I've NEVER heard completely transparent and succesfull performance of that work; the etude-like piano-figurations always owepower the winds! That's very annoing 
Few other things of Chopin's orchestral writing are the unconventional and open-minded use of novel orchestral effects (I believe they were novel at the time- in 1828-30)- col legni (op.21) and sordini (op.11) and the sensitive bassoon part of e.g. the early F-minor concerto.

Chopin, it seems, doesn't get much credit for those features...

[karlhenning]

. . . Few other things of Chopin's orchestral writing are the unconventional and open-minded use of novel orchestral effects (I believe they were novel at the time- in 1828-30)- col legni (op.21) and sordini (op.11) and the sensitive bassoon part of e.g. the early F-minor concerto.

Chopin, it seems, doesn't get much credit for those features...

Does Chopin's use of col legno predate Berlioz? ; )

[Sergeant Rock]

One thing came to my mind.  I listened- a while ago- all (!) Mozart piano concerti and found that those which I heard performed with period instruments were sooooooo much better in regards of balance and sound! Mozart-e.g- in the d-minor concerto wrote lots of lines- during soli- for woodwinds...

You don't need period instruments for correct balance...just a good conductor. Both Szell and Klemperer were famous for getting the balance right in Mozart and Haydn. Winds are always prominent in a Klemperer performance, no matter what the music.

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

This discussion certainly proves that people seem to be very "touchy" about the orchestration of their beloved masters 

This discussion certainly proves that people seem to be very "touchy" about the orchestration of masters they hate 

Sarge

[abidoful]

You don't need period instruments for correct balance...just a good conductor. Both Szell and Klemperer were famous for getting the balance right in Mozart and Haydn. Winds are always prominent in a Klemperer performance, no matter what the music.

Sarge

No, you don't- but I guess with period instruments you could find an ideal balance more easily (of course if the conductor chooses not to highlight lines e.g. in Chopins wind-department, they miss that advantage- also the way these works are being recorded counts... ). I'd love to hear how Boulez or Rattle would do Chopin

[jochanaan]

I am beginning to understand how this idea (good or bad orchestration) is perceived by different people:

1) a composer with a talent for exploiting orchestral effects = "good" orchestration for some (Ravel comes to mind)

2) merely to orchestrate a keyboard sketch for the orchestra, utilizing doublings for volume and enforcement = "bad" or at least unimaginative orchestration for others (ala Schumann)

- or my favorite

3) using the orchestra as a large pool of small chamber groupings and having the music meander from section to section or instrument combinations seamlessly, only rarely in tutti - not sure where this falls on the good vs bad spectrum. (Webern is a perfect  example)...

All of these are only fragments of the art of orchestration, which I define simply as writing for orchestra.  Good orchestration is merely the orchestra effectively communicating a musical idea.

This is why some of us greatly respect the orchestration of, say, Brahms and Bruckner.  Despite these composers' perceived "insufficiencies" and lack of obvious color (and I would dispute this"lack;" what about the first part of Brahms' First Symphony's last movement, or the openings to Bruckner 4 and 7?), the orchestral writing transmits the musical ideas perfectly.  Schumann's orchestral writing, while somewhat less "perfect" in this respect, is nevertheless highly effective.

Regarding Chopin, what I have against his orchestration--and it is a very slight thing! --is not its effectiveness, but its conventionality.  In the concertos particularly, the solo piano part is wonderfully personal and progressive, very "Chopinesque," but the orchestral writing is much more generic in sound; it could just as easily have been written by Weber, or Hummel, or any number of Chopin's contemporaries, creating an almost anachronistic effect.  But I still enjoy listening to both concertos.

[abidoful]

Does Chopin's use of col legno predate Berlioz? ; )

I don't know... You tell me

The score of op.21 wasn't published until much later after it's composition (don't remember when, I guess in mid 1830s at earliest) so it might be that Chopin took it from Berlioz actually...(?)

[Franco]

All of these are only fragments of the art of orchestration, which I define simply as writing for orchestra.  Good orchestration is merely the orchestra effectively communicating a musical idea.

This is why some of us greatly respect the orchestration of, say, Brahms and Bruckner.  Despite these composers' perceived "insufficiencies" and lack of obvious color (and I would dispute this"lack;" what about the first part of Brahms' First Symphony's last movement, or the openings to Bruckner 4 and 7?), the orchestral writing transmits the musical ideas perfectly.  Schumann's orchestral writing, while somewhat less "perfect" in this respect, is nevertheless highly effective.

Regarding Chopin, what I have against his orchestration--and it is a very slight thing! --is not its effectiveness, but its conventionality.  In the concertos particularly, the solo piano part is wonderfully personal and progressive, very "Chopinesque," but the orchestral writing is much more generic in sound; it could just as easily have been written by Weber, or Hummel, or any number of Chopin's contemporaries, creating an almost anachronistic effect.  But I still enjoy listening to both concertos.

I wasn't trying to exhaust the idea of orchestration but to offer a thumbnail summary of how this thread seems to be developing and the various attitudes based on my cursory reading of the posts.  But I take your point.

I agree with your comments about Brahms and Schumann - but wonder if Chopin's conventionality is such a bad thing, in itself.  The same might be said for Rachmaninoff, another great piano composer, but I find his orchestration conventional - albeit very effective for his concertos.

Chopin was a keyboard specialist and knew how to write very pianistic music - it seems to me only natural that his thinking about an orchestral palette may have been less developed and he relied on conventional orchestral methods - but this does not make his orchestration "bad" only not who you turn to if you want to study writing for the orchestra.

There have been composers who both wrote very idiomatic music for the piano and wrote very creatively for the orchestra, Ravel and Debussy come to mind (I'm sure there are others) - but critisizing a composer for not being a master orchestrator - while being a master at writing for piano - is a bit much, IMO.

[jochanaan]

I wasn't trying to exhaust the idea of orchestration but to offer a thumbnail summary of how this thread seems to be developing and the various attitudes based on my cursory reading of the posts.  But I take your point.

I agree with your comments about Brahms and Schumann - but wonder if Chopin's conventionality is such a bad thing, in itself.  The same might be said for Rachmaninoff, another great piano composer, but I find his orchestration conventional - albeit very effective for his concertos.

Chopin was a keyboard specialist and knew how to write very pianistic music - it seems to me only natural that his thinking about an orchestral palette may have been less developed and he relied on conventional orchestral methods - but this does not make his orchestration "bad" only not who you turn to if you want to study writing for the orchestra.

There have been composers who both wrote very idiomatic music for the piano and wrote very creatively for the orchestra, Ravel and Debussy come to mind (I'm sure there are others) - but critisizing a composer for not being a master orchestrator - while being a master at writing for piano - is a bit much, IMO.

Well, I said my "complaint" was very slight. Certainly I rank Chopin among the major composers and his music very enjoyable, "conventional" orchestration notwithstanding.

However, I actually don't find Rachmaninoff's orchestration to be "conventional," but very personal.  All his mature compositions after and including Piano Concerto #2 sound unmistakably like Rachmaninoff.

[kishnevi]

Since he's been mentioned in this thread, I thought this might be of interest
http://www.archive.org/details/principlesoforch00rims
Principles of Orchestration,  with musical examples from his own works, by Rimsky Korsakov

I've found, with this site, that PDF is the best format to download their offerings.

[pjme]

And do not forgot Koechlin's 'Traité'!

From Wiki:

Koechlin began assisting Fauré in teaching fugue and counterpoint while he was still a student in the 1890s, but though he taught privately and was an external examiner for the Paris Conservatoire throughout his career, he never occupied a permanent salaried teaching position. Composers who studied with him included Germaine Tailleferre, Roger Désormière, Francis Poulenc and Henri Sauguet. Cole Porter studied orchestration with him in 1923-24. Darius Milhaud, though never a pupil, became a close friend and considered he learned more from Koechlin than any other pedagogue. Koechlin wrote three compendious textbooks: one on Harmony (3 vols, 1923-6), one on Music Theory (1932-4) and a huge treatise on the subject of orchestration (4 vols, 1935–43) which is a classic treatment of the subject. He also wrote a number of smaller didactic works, as well as the life of Fauré mentioned above.


P.

[Superhorn]

  You can't always tell how well or badly a work is orchestrated merely by examining the score. There are many different factors which determine how good a work will sound when you actually hear it performed live or on a recording.
For example, the quality and size of the orchestra, the acoustics of the hall where the work is played or the quality of the recorded sound, the skill of the conductor in guaging balances ,any retpuchings of the orchestration the conductor might make etc.
  Retouching the orchestration in the attempt to improve clarity or make the music sound more effective .
  Sometimes these retouchings work well, but sometimes they merely distort the composer's original intent.
  Leopold Stokowski was notorious for doing this,sometimes in the most blatant way, but many other conductors,even the supposedly literalist Toscanini ,have done this.
  Leos Janacek has sometimes been accused of awkward and quirky orchestration, but that is one thing which makes his music so distinctive. It's been compared to the fact that theoretically, a bumblebee should not be able to fly,yet it does anyway.

[Scarpia]

Bad orchestration is simply orchestration that does not sound the way the composer wanted it to sound, or which is unnecessarily awkward for performers to play.  Other than that, there are no real rules.  If you follow rules in in textbooks you will produce music that sounds conventional, but if you take the time to write music, presumably you want to produce something that is not entirely conventional.

[quintett op.57]

This is why some of us greatly respect the orchestration of, say, Brahms and Bruckner.  Despite these composers' perceived "insufficiencies" and lack of obvious color (and I would dispute this"lack;" what about the first part of Brahms' First Symphony's last movement, or the openings to Bruckner 4 and 7?), the orchestral writing transmits the musical ideas perfectly.  Schumann's orchestral writing, while somewhat less "perfect" in this respect, is nevertheless highly effective.

I prefer talking about rich or less rich orchestration, without giving any connotation to this adjective.
I don't think Bruckner would have been pertinent if he had orchestrated in such a colorful and innovative way as Berlioz did.

[Florestan]

I don't think Bruckner would have been pertinent if he had orchestrated in such a colorful and innovative way as Berlioz did.

Well, orchestration, just like any other element of music, is a reflection of composer's personality, isn't it? Berlioz and Bruckner were galaxies apart as human beings, and consequently so is their orchestration.

[drogulus]

     I wonder how an oddity like Faure's Requiem should be judged. In general Faure expressed no interest in coloristic effects, though I can't say this piece is colorless. I suppose he was one of those musicians who heard music in a disembodied way. The other kind would be Berlioz. I think there's something to this. Let's call it my Polytone Mini-Brute theory (OK, let's not). Melody, harmony, and rhythm stand out against the background of overtones produced by novel instrumental textures.

     Some of the posts here indicate good orchestration is what a composer does to cover sins. In support of this is the idea that really good orchestration is just good composition, so no errors of commission, no need to cover them.

   

Bad orchestration is simply orchestration that does not sound the way the composer wanted it to sound, or which is unnecessarily awkward for performers to play.  Other than that, there are no real rules.  If you follow rules in in textbooks you will produce music that sounds conventional, but if you take the time to write music, presumably you want to produce something that is not entirely conventional.

     Isn't it intrinsic to the legitimacy of radicalism that all distinctions of correctness can only derive meaning from the whole? Even then, how do you adjudicate within a dissenting aesthetic? Can you have success without failure? Who get to decide (not a problem for me but someone might have an idea about decisions binding everyone)?

[snyprrr]

Those French Spectral Composers sure know how to use it.

[bigshot]

I'm not fond of melodies rammed home by unison strings. A little counterpoint or harmony is nice. I have trouble with Puccini and can't abide modern Broadway stuff like Andrew Lloyd Weber

[Brahmsian]

LOL!  Bump. 

Since there has been some discussion on "bad and good orchestrators" on the Brahms' thread.