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"?
Please, I'd like an answer to this, too. :)
To me, a good orchestrator uses instumental color like a good chef uses spices.
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.
Quote from: Corey on September 19, 2007, 03:16:51 PM
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
Quote from: Corey on September 19, 2007, 03:16:51 PM
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?
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*! ;) ;D
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.
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.
Quote from: hornteacher on September 19, 2007, 03:43:40 PM
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?
Quote from: Corey on September 19, 2007, 04:59:43 PM
Okay. Why?
Don't bother to ask, you'll never get an answer other than "I don't like it".
Quote from: Florestan on September 19, 2007, 11:22:13 PM
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.
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.)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 20, 2007, 07:43:41 AM
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.
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 :-[
Quote from: Florestan on September 20, 2007, 07:48:32 AM
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 20, 2007, 07:43:41 AM
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.
"Everybody has something interesting to play" is another characteristic of good orchestration, in general.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on September 20, 2007, 09:31:29 AM
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...
BTW, Karl, and in the same vein as the piano concerti, Rach's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini is consummately well orchestrated ........
yeah, i always thought all the stuff i have on CD by Rachmaninov has pretty good orchestration (2nd Piano Concerto, Paganini Rhapsody, Isle of the Dead, and especially the Symphonic Dances).
i haven't studied the Rachmaninov symphonies, either, Karl
here's the first two:
http://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.1%2C_Op.13_%28Rachmaninoff%2C_Sergei%29
http://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.2%2C_Op.27_%28Rachmaninoff%2C_Sergei%29
anyone who can give examples of what's bad in here?
I don't think there's any "no uncertain terms" bad orchestration, except the stupid, of course, where instruments are scored out of compass or the composer (e.g.) places a flute in its lowest notes fff in an orchestral tutti.
I was taught a while ago that Janacek's Sinfonietta was bad orchestration (with various examples pointed out like the last movement recap where a downward clarinet run follows the blast on 12 trumpets). I admitted that the orchestration sounded weird especially the middle movements.
Some time later when recordings appeared I listened to some of his early works where the orchestration sounded very 'standard' in that it sounded like it was composed orchestrally - that Janacek was thinking orchestrally no matter how he drafted his work. I concluded that Janacek knew very well what he was doing with the Sinfonietta.
Quote from: Anancho on September 20, 2007, 11:46:34 AM
I don't think there's any "no uncertain terms" bad orchestration, except the stupid, of course, where instruments are scored out of compass or the composer (e.g.) places a flute in its lowest notes fff in an orchestral tutti.
I was taught a while ago that Janacek's Sinfonietta was bad orchestration (with various examples pointed out like the last movement recap where a downward clarinet run follows the blast on 12 trumpets). I admitted that the orchestration sounded weird especially the middle movements.
Some time later when recordings appeared I listened to some of his early works where the orchestration sounded very 'standard' in that it sounded like it was composed orchestrally - that Janacek was thinking orchestrally no matter how he drafted his work. I concluded that Janacek knew very well what he was doing with the Sinfonietta.
Every time this kind of thread comes up I make a point related to Janacek, and by extension to other composers, which I (obviously) think bears repeating. In the example you quote, and also in countless other places, Janacek is, in textbook terms, guilty of 'poor orchestration.' It is common for even the most Janacek-favourable conductors to lightly touch up his scores; it also used to be common for other conductors to heavily change things a la Rimsky-Korsakov (Talich, for example whose glitzy fashioning of the Cunning Little Vixen Suite is nevertheless a real treat!).
My own view, however, is that Janacek's orchestration
works, and more potently than that of many more polished orchestrators, despite or even because of its flaws, because they spring from the same source as the rest of his musical language. He didn't regard orchestration as a supplementary skill to be applied from the outside, but as an integral part of the piece (dozens of his writings attest to this vividly, and of course there is the much-noted practice of drawing his own manuscript paper so as not to be tempted to write for instruments he didn't really
need). For instance, often the 'faults' spring from keeping a particular music to a particular voice even if that leads to imbalances or unwieldy areas of tessitura - but this is precisely the point in his music, that the expression belongs to the individual instrument, that it is aesthetically wrong to transfer it to another instrument, and that strain on the player or the sound etc. are psychologically 'true'.
In any case, this is how I things are with Janacek; other composers find their own routes to a personal orchestral voice, and I think the finest composers tend to find an orchestration which is 'true' for them, which speaks with their own voice,
and which even if it is academically incorrect could not be improved on in that respect.
There are no certain terms when it comes to orchestration. :o
Rachmaninoff: I haven't done more than glance at any of his orchestral scores, but I think that only in his First Symphony (and maybe the unknown original version of the First Piano Concerto) could he be guilty, by any stretch, of less-than-exemplary orchestration. I've played in the orchestra for the Second Concerto, and it's really wonderfully scored for woodwinds. The Second Symphony has a big, full sound and seems to be very gratifying for the orchestra, while the Isle of the Dead is appropriately lean except for the big climaxes. And as others have pointed out, the Paganini Rhapsody, the Third Symphony, and the Symphonic Dances are real marvels of concise, precise, colorful orchestration.
Janacek: I've only played a suite from The Cunning Little Vixen, but that suite is full of the most glorious orchestral effects; not even Mahler outdid him in instrumental color. Also, in the Sinfonietta's third movement are some piccolo runs in the top octave that most conductors thought were unplayable as written. Well, as a flutist who has sometimes played piccolo, I can tell you that, if you can play it on flute, you can play it on piccolo, even in the top octave (except for the two or three lowest notes that the piccolo doesn't have keys for). Charles MacKerras and the Vienna Philharmonic, in their recording, do those piccolo runs as written; they're far more effective and brilliant that way than as usually played. So, here at least, Janacek apparently knew more than his "advisors." ;D
Beethoven: How much of the great master's supposedly "inferior" orchestration skill is due to the fact that instruments and orchestral size have changed tremendously in two hundred years? When he wrote his symphonies, woodwind instruments didn't yet have keys, just fingerholes! :o And they were still using "alto, tenor, and bass" trombones; only the tenor used the same "home" scale as a modern trombone. Also, it was common practice in those days to use doubled woodwinds even with the smaller string bodies common then; in modern-sized orchestras, unless the woodwinds are doubled or even tripled, you lose them in the loud sections. A good period or HIP recording shows just how radical and masterful Beethoven's orchestration was compared to other composers of that time.
Incidentally, Berlioz recommended an orchestra of 119 as "standard." :o
Thanks for the insightful posts. This thread has accomplished exactly what I wanted, and that is to show that there is no real definition for bad orchestration. Outside of technical problems, it's all a matter of taste.
Quote from: Corey on September 24, 2007, 12:27:13 PM
Thanks for the insightful posts. This thread has accomplished exactly what I wanted, and that is to show that there is no real definition for bad orchestration. Outside of technical problems, it's all a matter of taste.
Well, yes. And remember as well that when the composers you are likely to hear on recordings are generally well-trained in orchestration; and in those cases where their orchestration is faulty, the conductor is likely to have touched it up, often without acknowledgment.
Quote from: Corey on September 24, 2007, 12:27:13 PM
Outside of technical problems, it's all a matter of taste.
but this is debatable, too- try reorchestrating a nicely-orchestrated work (although to where all the instruments can be heard), and make it suck. It's possible. When composing, you know which instruments to use next would sound good and which would sound bad. The exits or entrances of "colors" can be too soon or too late, it really depends on the timing
Quote from: greg on September 24, 2007, 03:03:14 PM
but this is debatable, too- try reorchestrating a nicely-orchestrated work (although to where all the instruments can be heard), and make it suck. It's possible. When composing, you know which instruments to use next would sound good and which would sound bad. The exits or entrances of "colors" can be too soon or too late, it really depends on the timing
I did say it's a matter of taste, and what you just highlighted is entirely dependent on taste.
Quote from: Corey on September 24, 2007, 03:06:13 PM
I did say it's a matter of taste, and what you just highlighted is entirely dependent on taste.
well, if i let a noob composer reorchestrate a famous/succesful symphony (though as i said, making sure technical problems are cared for), i doubt many people would like the reorchestrated version better.
or...... if i let two composers orchestrate, say, a piano sonata- one is famous, the other one doesn't know what they're doing. I think one would be liked more than the other, probably, or at least be recognized as more professional.
Quote from: greg on September 24, 2007, 03:13:15 PM
well, if i let a noob composer reorchestrate a famous/succesful symphony (though as i said, making sure technical problems are cared for), i doubt many people would like the reorchestrated version better.
Who knows? I will cite the oft-repeated instance of Rimsky-Korsakov reworking Mussorgsky's works. R-K may have been the superior orchestrator, but is this really an
improvement?
Quote from: Corey on September 24, 2007, 03:18:22 PM
Who knows? I will cite the oft-repeated instance of Rimsky-Korsakov reworking Mussorgsky's works. R-K may have been the superior orchestrator, but is this really an improvement?
i don't know much of what he reworked- you mean reorchestrated?
reorchestrating something that has already been orchestrated is a bit...... well, usually it doesn't work out ;D
but if you presented them a random piano sonata, told both to orchestrate, and then later their orchestrations were presented to a group of judges after listening to the concert, who do you think would win? that's what i mean 8)
Quote from: greg on September 24, 2007, 03:13:15 PM
well, if i let a noob composer reorchestrate a famous/succesful symphony (though as i said, making sure technical problems are cared for), i doubt many people would like the reorchestrated version better.
or...... if i let two composers orchestrate, say, a piano sonata- one is famous, the other one doesn't know what they're doing. I think one would be liked more than the other, probably, or at least be recognized as more professional.
Rimsky taught Stravinsky orchestration by having the younger composer orchestrate passages from works like Beethoven piano sonatas. Then Rimsky would explain what he might have done differently.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on September 24, 2007, 03:31:50 PM
Rimsky taught Stravinsky orchestration by having the younger composer orchestrate passages from works like Beethoven piano sonatas. Then Rimsky would explain what he might have done differently.
i've tried orchestrating parts of Prokofiev's Sonatas but gave up because i didn't have good enough staff paper, but now i could do it on the computer. Hey, maybe i will sometime! Probably the 7th, then 6th, then 2nd. I'd even add them to my opus list. And then the Scriabin 10th.
well, sounds like Rimsky's method was pretty decent; if he taught Stravinsky after all!
Quote from: greg on September 25, 2007, 05:41:09 AM
i've tried orchestrating parts of Prokofiev's Sonatas but gave up because i didn't have good enough staff paper, but now i could do it on the computer. Hey, maybe i will sometime! Probably the 7th, then 6th, then 2nd. I'd even add them to my opus list. And then the Scriabin 10th.
well, sounds like Rimsky's method was pretty decent; if he taught Stravinsky after all!
Do you use the program Sibelius? I used that a bit when going through Wuorinen's book on composition. Pretty fun.
Quote from: Corey on September 25, 2007, 06:15:53 AM
Do you use the program Sibelius? I used that a bit when going through Wuorinen's book on composition. Pretty fun.
Now that'll be one helluva music: Prokofiev's sonatas orchestrated by Sibelius. :D
Quote from: Corey on September 25, 2007, 06:15:53 AM
Do you use the program Sibelius? I used that a bit when going through Wuorinen's book on composition. Pretty fun.
no, i wish.... :P
i use that cheap piece of junk Noteworthy Composer, it's extremely limited and totally useless for making orchestral scores, unless you just want a sound file. Even then, it's a bit hard.
i have know idea when i'll have the money to afford something like that, but when i do i think i'll get Finale instead
A bad orchestration is when the composer has something in his mind and falls short, for example creating a full tutti sound. Sometimes Shumann sounds "strange" in that respect, especially his 4th Symphony. Maybe Bruckner is also little eccentric...? Berg and Pfitzner are sometimes very thick with dark colours and low brasses... ::)
Quote from: Greg on September 25, 2007, 08:39:19 AM
no, i wish.... :P
i use that cheap piece of junk Noteworthy Composer, it's extremely limited and totally useless for making orchestral scores, unless you just want a sound file. Even then, it's a bit hard.
i have know idea when i'll have the money to afford something like that, but when i do i think i'll get Finale instead
In fairness, Noteworthy Composer is a deliberately cut-down version of Finale, intended to promote the "real thing" by way of its tiny cousin. It's ok for tinkering with, and if your needs are simple (viz you want to write-down some piano music or songs) it is not entirely without merit. Of the various bits of music software that are legitimatel free, it's the best one. I think you need to have a special kind of mind to get anywhere with LilyPond ;)
I can thoroughly recommend Finale, though, and it's a workhorse tool to which I have frequent recourse. The learning curve is far less steep than Sibelius, yet the program is just as capable and feature-laden as Sib. If you've already used NoteWorthy, you are halfway there before you start - the interface is the same. Strongly recommended to get hold of a cheap midi keyboard for inserting your raw note data :) Everyone has his/her own criteria for what they need from music software of course... but if for example you have a show going up in two hours time, and the last-minute-replacement soprano tells you "I can't sing that number in that key, I want it a minor third lower"... the pure joy of being able to do an instant transposition and reprint all the orchestral parts within 15 mins cannot easily be expressed in words ;D
Well, I've actually tried both Finale and Sibelius since then (please don't ask how I obtain them) :-X . Although I used to have a bias for Finale, after actually trying both of them out, I much prefer Sibelius. It just seems more straightforward and easier to use.
(though I haven't gotten around to using both extensively)
Another freeware possibility is Musescore (find it at Musescore.org)
For me, it's chiefly useful in showing how much I don't know about how to write music :)
Bad orchestration is often written by organists, who treat the orchestra as a big organ - "turning on the woodwind section en-masse and using them for background chords", "terraced dynamics - it's either LOUD or quiet", "everything doubles everything for added noise-value", "use of the trumpets and trombones as a bandstand brass band", "choir used at breaking-point tessitura for hours on end", "unable to write lyrical and stylistic string parts".
Here's a sadly obvious example:
(http://www.prozrachny.com/Bruckner_Te_Deum.jpg)
Anton Bruckner: TE DEUM
Chopin is often cited as being "a bad orchestrator". I have studied his scores and I found them beautiful- very delicate, indeed quite refined and sort of pre-impressionistic, heavily depending on tone-colouring. And his
Tuttis- for example in the e-minor concerto -sound full and sonorous. One should bare in mind that Chopin was a perfectionist- so why assume he was anything but "perfect" else in his orchestral writing?
Also, he started writing for orchestra when he was still seventeen, and evolved enormeously in the course of merely few years. His main orchestral work is undoubtedly the e- minor concerto which he obviously was very proud of, performing it many times and also putting very much effort teaching it to young Karl Filtch- a pupil of his- who died tragically very young. A performance took place where Filtch and Chopin played the concerto (Chopin played the piano transcription of the orchestral part) and some contemporary listener recalled that Chopin played the orchestral parts "revealing the delicious scoring in all it's light and shades".
Also when Chopin played his KRAKOWIAK in Vienna- in 1829-a contemporary critic said that he had created a totally new way of writing for that particular ensemble (piano-orchestra).
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 28, 2010, 02:55:33 AM
Bad orchestration is often written by organists, who treat the orchestra as a big organ . . . .
It undercuts your argument when you frontload the commentary with remarks like "pointlessly doubling" (I suppose you fail to see the point, e.g.), "bellowing" (and, to echo the thread title, where, in no uncertain terms, on that page is the tessitura "impossible"? Do take your time, as your answer is likely to demonstrate ignorance of choral singing and voice-parts), "sawing away" (and the gratuitously hyperbolic "for hours on end"), and "extra thumping loudness."
Thank you for demonstrating (what I see as) the point of the thread, which is that deriding the orchestration of a world-renowned composer (we're not talking Dittersdorfs here) as bad generally entails a failure to empathize with the musical goals of the composition. As I've said more than once before, it is not the people who fail to appreciate the art, who have the last say in the evaluation of the art. (And again, we're not talking Dittersdorfs here.)
Quote from: abidoful on May 28, 2010, 07:43:48 AM
Chopin is often cited as being "a bad orchestrator". I have studied his scores and I found them beautiful- very delicate . . ..
QFT.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 27, 2010, 01:59:01 PM
I can thoroughly recommend Finale, though, and it's a workhorse tool to which I have frequent recourse. The learning curve is far less steep than Sibelius . . . .
That is exactly the reverse of my own experience. Interesting.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2010, 08:48:18 AM
It undercuts your argument when you frontload the commentary with remarks like "pointlessly doubling"
The woodwind are perfectly adequate on their own. There is absolutely no need for the organ at this point in the work, other than to add a loud and unpleasant noise. Organs don't belong in orchestras anyhow.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2010, 08:48:18 AM
where, in no uncertain terms, on that page is the tessitura "impossible"? Do take your time, as your answer is likely to demonstrate ignorance of choral singing and voice-parts),
I've sung the entire work, several times. Please - before you write more nasty-minded twaddle - take the trouble to read through the entire score. Take your time - I doubt it is a work you know well. Have a look at the vocal parts in the final section?
And get off your pedastal? You might fall off and have an accident, Mr Composer.
I reject the notion that accomplished composers, e.g. Chopin, or Bruckner, or Schumann, can be accused of "bad orchestration".
IMO, every choice they made concerning the orchestration was an attempt to achieve an effect that they thought best suited to the music. If they later revised the score because the intended effect did not "land" as they hoped, then you have some indication they thought the orchestration needed changing - but outside of that, we must assume that they were happy with the results of their orchestration, and it is our own inability to appreciate their choices that are at the bottom of these negative judgments.
(I'm often amused on GMG when anonymous folks on the Internet render scathing judgments of acknowledged masters.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2010, 08:48:18 AM(And again, we're not talking Dittersdorfs here.)[/font]
What you know about Dittersdorf could be written on the back of a postage-stamp.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 28, 2010, 09:53:23 AM
What you know about Dittersdorf could be written on the back of a postage-stamp.
But some stamps are much larger than others.
Quote from: abidoful on May 28, 2010, 07:43:48 AM
Chopin is often cited as being "a bad orchestrator". I have studied his scores and I found them beautiful- very delicate, indeed quite refined and sort of pre-impressionistic, heavily depending on tone-colouring. And his
Tuttis- for example in the e-minor concerto -sound full and sonorous. One should bare in mind that Chopin was a perfectionist- so why assume he was anything but "perfect" else in his orchestral writing?
Also, he started writing for orchestra when he was still seventeen, and evolved enormeously in the course of merely few years. His main orchestral work is ondoubtedly the e- minor concerto which he obviously was very proud of, performing it many times and also putting very much effort teaching it to young Karl Filtch- a pupil of his- who died tragically very young. A performance took place where Filtch and Chopin played the concerto (Chopin played the piano transcription of the orchestral part) and some contemporary listener recalled that Chopin played the orchestral parts "revealing the delicious scoring in all it's light and shades".
Also when Chopin played his KRAKOWIAK in Vienna- in 1829-a contemporary critic said that he had created a totally new way of writing for that particular ensemble (piano-orchestra).
In today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/arts/music/28chopinweb.html?adxnnl=1&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1275069762-2bo7N63qpjOHZ2cKe6JtjA) there is a group of music critic's picks of
Chopin recordings they consider noteworthy and Anthony Tommasini includes this one:
PIANO CONCERTOS NOS. 1, 2 Krystian Zimerman, pianist and conductor; Polish Festival Orchestra (Deutsche Grammophon 459 684; two CDs). In part because of this issue:
QuoteMore than a decade ago the formidable Polish pianist Krystian Zimerman, tired of hearing everyone trash the orchestrations of Chopin's two piano concertos, decided to do something about it. He formed a special touring ensemble of excellent younger musicians, the Polish Festival Orchestra, and worked in detail to uncover the complexities and inventive touches in Chopin's orchestra writing. Playing and conducting from the keyboard, he performed the two concertos on tour and recorded them in 1999. The performances are revelations. Here again Mr. Zimerman shows himself to be one of the finest pianists of our day.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 28, 2010, 02:55:33 AM
Bad orchestration is often written by organists, who treat the orchestra as a big organ - "turning on the woodwind section en-masse and using them for background chords", "terraced dynamics - it's either LOUD or quiet", "everything doubles everything for added noise-value", "use of the trumpets and trombones as a bandstand brass band", "choir used at breaking-point tessitura for hours on end", "unable to write lyrical and stylistic string parts".
Here's a sadly obvious example:
(http://www.prozrachny.com/Bruckner_Te_Deum.jpg)
Anton Bruckner: TE DEUM
The tessitura for the voices in your example is far easier than some passages I could quote from Beethoven's 9th symphony. And though I've never heard Bruckner's Te Deum live, I find the orchestration of those symphonies I have heard to be generally sonorous and effective.
Quote from: Greg on September 25, 2007, 05:41:09 AM
i've tried orchestrating parts of Prokofiev's Sonatas but gave up because i didn't have good enough staff paper, but now i could do it on the computer. Hey, maybe i will sometime! Probably the 7th, then 6th, then 2nd. I'd even add them to my opus list. And then the Scriabin 10th.
Oh dear, your artistic passion is not sufficient to overcome the barrier of not having the sort of paper you want. :o Beethoven, on the other hand composed despite being
deaf.
Even though I love Bruckner, and am no expert, I really enjoyed False Dmitri's post. I thought it was really funny. :D C'mon you guys, lighten up, that one was one of the most entertaining posts written in this whole month. :)
Quote from: Bulldog on May 28, 2010, 10:05:27 AM
But some stamps are much larger than others.
And some people write
really small.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 28, 2010, 12:21:24 PM
And some people write really small.
With a large stamp and very small letters, all one needs to know about Dittersdorf can be written down. :D
Quote from: Franco on May 28, 2010, 09:46:57 AM
(I'm often amused on GMG when anonymous folks on the Internet render scathing judgments of acknowledged masters.)
They do that in order to feel SPECIAL.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 28, 2010, 09:25:52 AM
And get off your pedastal? You might fall off and have an accident, Mr Composer.
No, get off
your pedastal, please.
You have some nerve, to refer that one of the most beloved and reverred orchestral composers, Bruckner, as a 'bad' orchestrator.
If the comment wasn't so idiotic, it would actually be pretty hilarious. :P
Quote from: Sforzando on May 28, 2010, 10:29:22 AM
The tessitura for the voices in your example is far easier than some passages I could quote from Beethoven's 9th symphony. And though I've never heard Bruckner's Te Deum live, I find the orchestration of those symphonies I have heard to be generally sonorous and effective.
Agreed. The choral passage is well within comfort range--it's only when it starts to rise significantly above the staff that you might start to worry a bit.
I haven't sung Beethoven's Ninth but I have sung the Missa Solemnis. That does have a few passages where the chorus is stretched to the limit--the "Resurrexit...ascendit" in the Credo is the worst offender (IIRC, each section of the chorus is required to sing--and hold for a full stave--their top note, at top volume), and does come close to "bellowing" but even that is fairly limited--probably no more than 12 or 15 measures in length.
There are works, and the Chopin may be in that category, where the orchestration is not particularly remarkable and the value of the piece is mainly in other aspects of the music. That doesn't make it bad orchestration. There is also music that is wonderfully orchestrated that doesn't seem to have anything in particular to say. There is some Rimsky Korsakov that falls in that category, in my view.
Anyway, the claims about Bruckner being a bad orchestrator strike me as ridiculous. If he had followed all the rules of orchestration his music would have come out sounding like Mendelssohn, and who wants that? ;D
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2010, 04:06:45 PM
Anyway, the claims about Bruckner being a bad orchestrator strike me as ridiculous. If he had followed all the rules of orchestration his music would have come out sounding like Mendelssohn, and who wants that? ;D
Mendelssohn fans, I would assume ;D
Although I don't think Anton would have come out like a second Felix--he didn't seem to have the lightness of touch.
Quote from: Brahmsian on May 28, 2010, 03:56:04 PMYou have some nerve, to refer that one of the most beloved and reverred orchestral composers, Bruckner, as a 'bad' orchestrator.
Oddly enough Mr Hanslick shared my opinions. I suppose "he had some nerve" as well? ROFL!!!!
Quote from: kishnevi on May 28, 2010, 04:20:28 PM
Mendelssohn fans, I would assume ;D
Although I don't think Anton would have come out like a second Felix--he didn't seem to have the lightness of touch.
Occasionally he did. Think of the trio section to the scherzo of the 9th Symphony.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 28, 2010, 04:24:10 PM
Oddly enough Mr Hanslick shared my opinions. I suppose "he had some nerve" as well? ROFL!!!!
Whether he had nerve or not is immaterial. Hanslick was very much of his time, a partisan in the Brahms vs. Wagner/Bruckner camp, and none of us is required in 2010 to latch on to his opinions. More pertinent is Sir Donald Tovey's remark (from his essay on the Bruckner 4th):
"[Bruckner's] orchestration is often said to be influenced by the organ. But that is because it often sounds like an organ. And it could not sound thus unless it were completely free from the mistakes of the organ-loft composer. The scores bristle (as Weingartner says) with abnormalities, but the quintessence of orchestral quality is manifest in every line."
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2010, 11:25:53 AM
Oh dear, your artistic passion is not sufficient to overcome the barrier of not having the sort of paper you want. :o Beethoven, on the other hand composed despite being deaf.
You know that was 2 1/2 years ago, right? I don't even remember writing that.
(i have my big book of staff paper right on top of my keyboard at all times and write down ideas every day)
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 28, 2010, 09:25:52 AM
The woodwind are perfectly adequate on their own. There is absolutely no need for the organ at this point in the work, other than to add a loud and unpleasant noise. Organs don't belong in orchestras anyhow.
How are woodwinds adequate on their own if what Bruckner wanted was the sound of woodwinds
and organ? To decide that an aspect of Bruckner's orchestration is "pointless" wouldn't one have to know what his true aim was? Have you spoken with him lately? ;)
And can anyone listen to this (among other pieces) and say that the organ has no place with orchestra?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYM54vhLYTU
(not pushing for Rattle here, his was just the first that came up on a YouTube search :) )
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 28, 2010, 04:24:10 PM
Oddly enough Mr Hanslick shared my opinions. I suppose "he had some nerve" as well? ROFL!!!!
I pray that adherence to the dogma of Hanslick does not lead you to reject out of ignorance much of the music he dismissed for extramusical reasons.
The sheer amount of agendas and pointless (albeit highbrow) name-calling in this thread is of fairly Late Romantic proportions in its own right.
I think the mention of Eduard Hanslick was, inadvertently, very apt.
Returning to the OT, I could see at least two ways of deciding an instance of orchestration is bad: either you compile a set of rules to compare it against, with the inherent problem of rejecting unconventional but effective orchestrations, or you rely on listener's intuition.
And since I am myself too partisan to accurately represent (let alone support) the latter, I would be happy to conclude orchestration is simply not something assessed independently of the formal qualities of a piece of music, nor outside the frame of a listener, vs. a score.
(Which would permit pronouncements of pointlessness, as there would be a sum of the individual parts, such as to indicate a point.)
Quote from: Greg on May 27, 2010, 02:22:41 PM
Well, I've actually tried both Finale and Sibelius since then (please don't ask how I obtain them) :-X . Although I used to have a bias for Finale, after actually trying both of them out, I much prefer Sibelius. It just seems more straightforward and easier to use.
(though I haven't gotten around to using both extensively)
FWIW-- if you want a fairly full featured, inexepensive tool, I'd suggest getting Melody Assistant (25$ or 20 Euros) and upgrade the sound generation capability with Gold Base (same cost). It's not the slickest interface, but it has a lot of features for what it costs.
http://www.myriad-online.com/en/products/melody.htm
(ANd if you are a real geek, it has a programmable scripting language. I've always wanted to write a Markovian generator for Riley's In C)
Someone quoted Stravinksy's line about how the best orchestration isn't noticed. I wish I had the Fisk's Composers on Music with me, but I also remember him saying that the people know as the best orchestrators (e.g., Rimsky Korsakov) were not the best composers.
Of course, the same book has a quote by Rimsky that said that orchestration was the heart of composition.
Both points have some validity to them-- there are some composers I love for their skills in orchestral color (Respighi, anyone?) , while others can be pretty colorless, and convince you solely through structure (Robert Simpson?)
Quote from: BMW on May 28, 2010, 09:01:52 PM
How are woodwinds adequate on their own if what Bruckner wanted was the sound of woodwinds and organ?
Bruckner was himself - by his own admission - an incompetent conductor (hardly a recommendation for his orchestration in itself), and usually preferred to hire a professional conductor to perform his works. However, many conductors saw his scores and refused.
Frankly he wrote the organ part out of vanity, so that he would be involved in the performance himself. It contributes nothing to the work, and is often omitted in performance.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 29, 2010, 01:56:16 AM
Bruckner was himself - by his own admission - an incompetent conductor (hardly a recommendation for his orchestration in itself), and usually preferred to hire a professional conductor to perform his works. However, many conductors saw his scores and refused.
Frankly he wrote the organ part out of vanity, so that he would be involved in the performance himself. It contributes nothing to the work, and is often omitted in performance.
With the important proviso that my comment about agendas was directed at almost all of the participants in the debate, and so was neither personal, nor an indirect swipe at you, may I ask if you
like Anton Bruckner's work, as well as Anton Bruckner?
Your language gives the impression that this might be a pertinent question to ask. And it's fair enough, of course, either way; but I think the answers should be made clear, before any discussion on the objective (?) quality of any part of his output.
(And yes, liking the man shouldn't matter, but as someone who enjoys both Richard Wagner's music and Herbert von Karajan's work, I've had it ingrained in me the hard way that this is far from obvious; so we might as well cover that, too. ???)
Quote from: Renfield on May 29, 2010, 02:12:51 AM
Your language gives the impression that this might be a pertinent question to ask.
Actually this is a discussion about orchestration, good & bad. I realise it would cheer your day to stick pins in my effigy, but it's not pertinent to this discussion. All we've heard from Bruckner's defenders is that he's a "revererred" (sic) composer, and that "I have a nerve". No-one has addressed the issues.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 29, 2010, 01:56:16 AM
Bruckner was himself - by his own admission - an incompetent conductor (hardly a recommendation for his orchestration in itself), and usually preferred to hire a professional conductor to perform his works. However, many conductors saw his scores and refused.
Frankly he wrote the organ part out of vanity, so that he would be involved in the performance himself. It contributes nothing to the work, and is often omitted in performance.
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).
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 29, 2010, 02:23:31 AM
Actually this is a discussion about orchestration, good & bad. I realise it would cheer your day to stick pins in my effigy, but it's not pertinent to this discussion. All we've heard from Bruckner's defenders is that he's a "revererred" (sic) composer, and that "I have a nerve". No-one has addressed the issues.
Actually several of us have, but no matter.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 29, 2010, 02:23:31 AM
Actually this is a discussion about orchestration, good & bad. I realise it would cheer your day to stick pins in my effigy, but it's not pertinent to this discussion. All we've heard from Bruckner's defenders is that he's a "revererred" (sic) composer, and that "I have a nerve". No-one has addressed the issues.
With all due respect, I would be happier if you would read my entire post, concerning whom I care to stick pins in, or indeed don't. I thoroughly disagree with the manner and (extra-musical) content of almost all the opinions expressed above, except
Sforzando's.
But that aside (especially as I have little knowledge of music theory to support a claim for or against a certain affectation in the way composer X orchestrated their kazoo concerto), it is not unreasonable to assume that if you don't like Bruckner, then you might be less inclined to accept his creative choices than if you did.
And vice-versa. Much like how
Karl is wont to completely dismiss Dittersdorf, for example, in the negative case.
So this is not just about you. But you began by making a contentious point, using strongly
emotive language; and as someone following this discussion, I will thus politely insist on my request for clarification on your views.
I should add, I
do like Bruckner's music, and also feel sympathy for the man, whom I also, however, acknowledge to have been a decidedly disturbed individual. To me, this does not matter enough to cite his arrogance in the context of his
orchestration; but to you it apparently does.
This is hardly 'not pertinent to this discussion', is it?
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 29, 2010, 01:56:16 AM
Bruckner was himself - by his own admission - an incompetent conductor (hardly a recommendation for his orchestration in itself)
A fact of not being a professional conductor does not mean that one is incapable of writing good orchestral music.
What about Debussy then? Or Ravel? I think Debussy was not particularly good conductor and Ravel I think never conducted.
Moreover what about your assertion when applied to other instances?Good piano music is only written by good pianists? What about Szymanowski then? Or Ravel?
Or what about cello works? Rachmaninoff or Chopin were hardly cellist's and still they wrote magnifiscent cello sonatas. :)
Schubert - a little too fond of the old trombone what!
Quote from: Renfield on May 29, 2010, 02:12:51 AM
(And yes, liking the man shouldn't matter, but as someone who enjoys both Richard Wagner's music and Herbert von Karajan's work, I've had it ingrained in me the hard way that this is far from obvious; so we might as well cover that, too. ???)
;D
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2010, 04:06:45 PM
There are works, and the Chopin may be in that category, where the orchestration is not particularly remarkable and the value of the piece is mainly in other aspects of the music. That doesn't make it bad orchestration.
QFT
Quote from: Sforzando on May 29, 2010, 02:39:02 AM
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.
Quote from: drogulus on May 29, 2010, 02:24:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 29, 2010, 02:39:02 AM
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).
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).
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 29, 2010, 03:52:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 29, 2010, 02:39:02 AM
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).
Quote from: drogulus on May 29, 2010, 02:24:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 29, 2010, 03:08:33 PM
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. :)
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 29, 2010, 02:23:31 AM
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.
Quote from: jochanaan on May 29, 2010, 06:09:08 PM
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. :P
Quote from: Renfield on May 29, 2010, 02:52:13 AMI 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! :o So of course he's emotive! :D :D :D :D
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 30, 2010, 12:04:31 AM
Sure, next time I'll include the whole damn score just for you and Henning. :P
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.
Come on guys, give it a rest... :-[ Why should'n't someone have an aversion towards Bruckner? Personal taste, huh? ???
Quote from: abidoful on May 30, 2010, 02:46:22 AM
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.
Quote from: abidoful on May 30, 2010, 02:46:22 AM
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.Quote from: Sforzando on May 30, 2010, 02:25:14 AM
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.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 30, 2010, 04:01:43 AM
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 ;D
Sarge
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 30, 2010, 04:01:43 AM
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!
Quote from: Il Furioso on May 30, 2010, 06:53:22 AM
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 . . .
Quote from: Sforzando on May 30, 2010, 08:08:47 AM
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!
Quote from: Sforzando on May 30, 2010, 02:25:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 30, 2010, 05:39:13 AM
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 ;D
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.)
Quote from: kishnevi on May 30, 2010, 04:41:09 PM
...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.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 30, 2010, 04:01:43 AM
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...! :o
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.
Quote from: abidoful on May 30, 2010, 09:58:49 PM
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...! :o
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1535790/2/istockphoto_1535790_i_agree.jpg)
Quote from: Scarpia on May 30, 2010, 11:23:06 PM
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.)
I think there are obvious bad examples. Say, if a composer wrote a huge mass of loud sound for a full orchestra and gave the most important line to a solo bassoon :o, that wouldn't work too well.
(or a trumpet doubling a flute, etc.)
Quote from: Greg on May 31, 2010, 04:53:57 AM
I think there are obvious bad examples. Say, if a composer wrote a huge mass of loud sound for a full orchestra and gave the most important line to a solo bassoon :o, that wouldn't work too well.
(or a trumpet doubling a flute, etc.)
Do we include directions like 'forte' in the orchestration, though?
If not, imagine if a particularly savvy conductor could get them to pull off a sound quiet enough for the bassoon to be heard. What then? :o
Quote from: Renfield on May 31, 2010, 05:08:40 AM
Do we include directions like 'forte' in the orchestration, though?
If not, imagine if a particularly savvy conductor could get them to pull off a sound quiet enough for the bassoon to be heard. What then? :o
Oh yeah, I mean a loud orchestra blasting away fff, with some important main theme being played by a solo bassoon (or even better, a solo alto flute in its low register).
If a conductor pulled that off, the orchestra wouldn't
really be fff. ;)
(or the instrument would have to be miked)
Quote from: Greg on May 31, 2010, 05:16:41 AM
Oh yeah, I mean a loud orchestra blasting away fff, with some important main theme being played by a solo bassoon (or even better, a solo alto flute in its low register).
If a conductor pulled that off, the orchestra wouldn't really be fff. ;)
(or the instrument would have to be miked)
Exactly.
My point being, are performance indicators like 'fff' considered part of the orchestration? Because that's only an orchestration issue if they are. Otherwise, I'd call it a problem of composition, i.e. "why one earth would you ask for fff when you've got a solo bassoon part there?"
Quote from: Greg on May 31, 2010, 04:53:57 AM
(or a trumpet doubling a flute, etc.)
At the unison, you mean. I think if you double them at the octave, where the trumpet is playing softly in (say) the bottom twelfth of the range, the result can be most successful.
Quote from: Renfield on May 31, 2010, 05:22:09 AM
Exactly.
My point being, are performance indicators like 'fff' considered part of the orchestration? Because that's only an orchestration issue if they are. Otherwise, I'd call it a problem of composition, i.e. "why one earth would you ask for fff when you've got a solo bassoon part there?"
Hmm.... I guess it would depend. It could be either way- if it was orchestrated from a short score that was originally intended for solo piano, then it would be a problem of orchestration. If it were conceived all at once, then it'd be a problem of composition.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 31, 2010, 05:41:46 AM
At the unison, you mean.
Yep.
Shosty reorch'd Schumann's Cello Concerto. Anyone?
I think I hear some xylophone in the reorch. The recording I have (Olympia) isn't the last word in clarity.
And, does anyone have the Kalevi Aho reorch or Mussorgsky?
Maybe I misunderstand a lot. Please bear with me.
What if you have a music that starts off (or, for the whole piece) in the low/lowest registers. Suppose I want to write a De Profundis? I'll want to have a lot of slithering, soupy, muddy instruments oddling all over each other, like subterrainean(sic) snakes.
Orchestration wouldn't really be the point, would it? Because, EVERYTHING is going to be in the low register. All of the usual suspects will be there: double basses, tubas (bass tubas!), percussion/timpani, piano/harp, bass flute, bass clarinet,... perhaps one WOULD use treble instruments in their weakest/lowest registers,...
Wouldn't the overall effect be of 'different shades of black'?, and not, a confusion of tone colors?
(Yes, I DO realize my point is slipping away, but,... :-[)
I guess, my impression is that 'bad orchestration' can only occur in 'normal', 'old fashioned' music where octave-doubling comes with the territory. When I 'improvise' Shosty-type stuff at the piano, my left hand makes bass octaves and my right hand makes melody octaves, so that there's usually two sets of octaves making up the music. Is THIS the type of music that is an immediate candidate for bad orchestration? Basically, you could have the whole orchestra just doubling those four (actually two) notes. Why does this sound like Romantic Penderecki to me?
I'm sorry, I'm not making any sense,... the result of wanting to say something, but not knowing what that is! :P
Let those of you who are without the sin of bad orchestration cast the first stone on Bruckner / Dittersdorf / Whoever. ;D
Case closed.
I am going to go back to some points on the Beethoven Missa Solemnis. I have sung in it about half a dozen times. On one occasion I was surprised during a performance in a cathedral, the huge organ behind me started up. My wife said it was audible and added richness and grandeur. It would be interesting to know what words were being sung when the organ is orchestrated. I only have a piano reduction.
However, there are certainly some points where in the choral bass line the score shows ff, but it is placed in the voice where the bases cannot produce any real volume of sound, push as we might, and at a point where the rest of the musicians are singing and playing at full tilt.
I hesitate to be critical of the piece in any way, it is stupendously taxing physically, but that is a lot of the point of it. If I was only allowed to sing one piece once more it would be the Missa.
Turning to the Bruckner Te Deum; I find some of the choral work bombastic, especially the third movement. Certainly the way we had to sing it, it became a shouting match. But then....that may well have been the conductor's fault. However, here is Karajan and it is pretty much as I recall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YonB14gkQyA&feature=related
Incidentally, I think Karajan's slowing down of the 'In gloria' passage is not to its benefit.
Singing it gave me such an aversion to the piece, I have not listened to it for many years, despite my love of just about everthing else Bruckner wrote. Sarge is right that some of the music displays a compulsiveness. Bruckner suffered from an obsessive compulsive disorder.
Mike
PS...now going through the whole piece on Youtube.
Quote from: knight on May 31, 2010, 02:04:45 PM
However, there are certainly some points where in the choral bass line the score shows ff, but it is placed in the voice where the bases cannot produce any real volume of sound, push as we might, and at a point where the rest of the musicians are singing and playing at full tilt.
That's poorly done, certainly.
Quote from: knight on May 31, 2010, 02:04:45 PM
Incidentally, I think Karajan's slowing down of the 'In gloria' passage is not to its benefit.
I like the way he does it. I think it's very moving...obvious maybe, but moving. If you want the entire
Aeterna section at the same basic tempo check out Barenboim and Jochum. They are both thrilling here, charging right through to the end without slowng down, and at a far faster tempo than Karajan or Klemp or Celi. Klemperer's pretty straightforward too but does pull back just a little for the final
in glorias. Celibidache, at a speed so slow you wouldn't think he has anywhere else to go, also pulls in the reins, bringing the proceedings to a complete halt ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 01, 2010, 06:18:31 AM
[...] Barenboim and Jochum. They are both thrilling here, charging right through to the end without slowng down, and at a far faster tempo than Karajan or Klemp or Celi.
Indeed. For some reason, though rationally I do understand Jochum's is a solid enough recording while I'm listening to it, emotionally it feels a little like his similarly-rationally-good DG Bruckner 8th: too much drive!
If the Barenboim you refer to is on EMI, recently coupled with a Mozart Requiem, I wasn't even thinking it was a 'rationally good performance' listening to that one. :P Edit: In other words, I found it quite sloppy. But that's all off-topic, I realise! Blast.
Quote from: Renfield on June 01, 2010, 06:25:15 AM
Indeed. For some reason, though rationally I do understand Jochum's is a solid enough recording while I'm listening to it, emotionally it feels a little like his similarly-rationally-good DG Bruckner 8th: too much drive!
Exactly my impression. I've always preferred Karajan to Jochum in both the
Te Deum and the 8th.
The Bareboim recording I have is EMI but a twofer coupled with the E minor and F minor Masses and motets. I like it for being in the "completely different" category ;D
Sarge
Oh, don't mind me re that Te Deum. But I think the Karajan is being like hit over the head. There are times when seeing the work from the inside is not an advantage. Several violinists in orchestras have said to me they detest Mozart symphonies, clearly because they don't get much out of their own line. But standing back the thing works a treat.
The converse is often true though. I am sure I would never have got to grips with Stravinsky's 'Les Nocces' if I had not had to slog to learn it. It then came alive in a way I know it never could have were I only listening to it.
Mike
Quote from: Renfield on May 31, 2010, 05:08:40 AM
Do we include directions like 'forte' in the orchestration, though?
Yes. One of the reasons Mahler's orchestration is so effective is his meticulous care on dynamic markings. 8) However, it's also true that different conductors will tell different players to bring out what they've got, and that dynamic markings are less "sacrosanct" than the actual notes. :o
Quote from: jochanaan on June 01, 2010, 08:39:11 PM
Yes. One of the reasons Mahler's orchestration is so effective is his meticulous care on dynamic markings. 8) However, it's also true that different conductors will tell different players to bring out what they've got, and that dynamic markings are less "sacrosanct" than the actual notes. :o
Completely agreed. The approach that "only the notes" are the "composition" is something banged into us when we're aged 7 by bad piano-teachers. Dynamic markings, articulation markings, phrase-markings, bowings, tongueings (rarely-found, but sometimes), fingerings, grace-notes, ossias, marked & implied ornamentation, etc, are all integral parts of compositions - and failure to observe them is just as "wrong" as playing the "wrong" notes.
Without these elements the "Pizzicato Polka" would be the "Arco Legato Polka", Haydn's "Surprise" Symphony would be "Unsurprising" Symphony, and the "Mad Scene from Lucia di Lammermoor" would be "Lucia The Pragmatic & Sensible Of Lammermoor".
Quote"Notes, notes, all I can hear is notes! For chrissake stop playing me notes! And try playing some bloody music for a change!
- Russian conductor Vladislav Bulakhov, during a rehearsal of Britten's SERENADE FOR TENOR, HORN & STRINGS
Anyway a "bad orchestration" can be appealing too, don't you think? That strings-like ostinato for the brass in A Night on the Bare Mountain's original version is full of win ;D
Quote from: Popov on June 02, 2010, 04:31:10 AM
Anyway a "bad orchestration" can be appealing too, don't you think?
Right. I'll bet Dittersdorf never broke The Rules ; )
I could care less if it's good or bad orchestration. I'm much more interested in good music. Period.
Quote from: Brahmsian on June 02, 2010, 04:42:59 AM
I could care less if it's good or bad orchestration. I'm much more interested in good music. Period.
Given that orchestration is an important aspect of music, this statement doesn't make much sense to me.
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.
This discussion certainly proves that people seem to be very "touchy" about the orchestration of their beloved masters :o :o :D :D :D :D
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 >:D >:D >:D
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...
Quote from: abidoful on June 02, 2010, 08:46:41 AM
. . . 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? ; )
Quote from: abidoful on June 02, 2010, 08:46:41 AM
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
Quote from: abidoful on June 02, 2010, 08:46:41 AM
This discussion certainly proves that people seem to be very "touchy" about the orchestration of their beloved masters :o :o :D :D :D :D
This discussion certainly proves that people seem to be very "touchy" about the orchestration of masters they hate :o :o :D :D :D :D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 02, 2010, 09:12:04 AM
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 :) :) :) :)
Quote from: Franco on June 02, 2010, 07:02:18 AM
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! :D--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. 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 02, 2010, 08:53:45 AM
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...(?)
Quote from: jochanaan on June 02, 2010, 10:14:43 AM
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! :D--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. 8)
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.
Quote from: Franco on June 02, 2010, 11:19:21 AM
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.
8)
Quote from: Franco on June 02, 2010, 11:19:21 AM
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. ;D Certainly I rank Chopin among the major composers and his music very enjoyable, "conventional" orchestration notwithstanding. 8)
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.
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.
(http://www.note4piano.com/img/art/couvertures/me6386.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jochanaan on June 02, 2010, 10:14:43 AM
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.
Quote from: quintett op.57 on July 06, 2010, 02:43:50 AM
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.
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 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif) (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.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 03, 2010, 04:08:16 PM
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)?
Those French Spectral Composers sure know how to use it.
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
LOL! Bump. :D
Since there has been some discussion on "bad and good orchestrators" on the Brahms' thread. ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on June 02, 2010, 08:53:45 AM
Does Chopin's use of col legno predate Berlioz? ; )
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col_legno), yes. (Though it would be by less than a year.)
Quote from: Maciek on September 17, 2014, 12:30:56 PM
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col_legno), yes. (Though it would be by less than a year.)
Haydn beat them all to the punch in symphony #67:
Col legno (http://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/2014/07/1775-the-music-part-2-.html)
Ha! ;D
Cheers, gents!
Which would you prefer between good orchestration of bad music and bad orchestration of good music?
I get good orchestration of bad music all the time at the cinema . . . .
Quote from: springrite on September 18, 2014, 03:47:54 AM
Which would you prefer between good orchestration of bad music and bad orchestration of good music?
If it's good music, how bad can the orchestration be?
Quote from: karlhenning on September 18, 2014, 03:52:10 AM
I get good orchestration of bad music all the time at the cinema . . . .
True. ;D
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 17, 2014, 11:28:20 AM
LOL! Bump. :D
Since there has been some discussion on "bad and good orchestrators" on the Brahms' thread. ;D
Folks who think Brahms' orchestration bad generally haven't played his music or studied his scores. 8)
Quote from: jochanaan on September 18, 2014, 07:48:57 AM
Folks who think Brahms' orchestration bad generally haven't played his music or studied his scores. 8)
For sure. I've just always loved this thread title name. :D And I figured the "bad"/"good" orchestration talk should be diverted away from the JB composer thread. ;)
Quote from: jochanaan on September 18, 2014, 07:48:57 AM
Folks who think Brahms' orchestration bad generally haven't played his music or studied his scores. 8)
Just for the record, I neither read music nor play an instrument, but I absolutely love Brahms's orchestration. He tends to provide a warm, rich sound and texture that I find particularly compelling. Calling Brahms a bad orchestrator (in relation to composers like Mahler or Rimsky-Korsakov), it seems to me, would be a bit like calling Rembrandt a bad colorist in relation to, say, Gauguin or Matisse--one doesn't need an explosion of post-impressionist "color" to be a great colorist, in either music or painting.
Question: What, in no uncertain terms, is "bad" orchestration?
Answer: This. Can you spot it?
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/z4pytzxdczzjler/QuestionableOrchestration.jpg)
This is a clip from 1st violin part of a famous piece I played in my university's orchestra five years ago. Feel free to guess which piece (I'm sure most all of you know it). I'll post it if no one guesses/cares.* A favorite work of mine, but it has some pretty awkward writing in it, especially for strings. Totally doable, but awkward. And, in this case, slightly painful.
*An ad/trailer for the recently-renovated Mystery Scores thread, which can be found here if anyone is interested:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3125.5200.html
Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 18, 2014, 06:56:41 PM
Just for the record, I neither read music nor play an instrument, but I absolutely love Brahms's orchestration. He tends to provide a warm, rich sound and texture that I find particularly compelling. Calling Brahms a bad orchestrator (in relation to composers like Mahler or Rimsky-Korsakov), it seems to me, would be a bit like calling Rembrandt a bad colorist in relation to, say, Gauguin or Matisse--one doesn't need an explosion of post-impressionist "color" to be a great colorist, in either music or painting.
I like the way you think! ;D
Quote from: EigenUser on September 19, 2014, 01:28:48 AM
Question: What, in no uncertain terms, is "bad" orchestration?
Answer: This. Can you spot it?
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/z4pytzxdczzjler/QuestionableOrchestration.jpg)
This is a clip from 1st violin part of a famous piece I played in my university's orchestra five years ago. Feel free to guess which piece (I'm sure most all of you know it). I'll post it if no one guesses/cares.* A favorite work of mine, but it has some pretty awkward writing in it, especially for strings. Totally doable, but awkward. And, in this case, slightly painful.
*An ad/trailer for the recently-renovated Mystery Scores thread, which can be found here if anyone is interested:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3125.5200.html
You're referring to the
pizzicati on high D# and E, aren't you? Yeah, playable but I wouldn't think the audience could hear any pitches on those high pizz.! :P To get a real pitch up there, you'd about have to double it with piccolo.
And this is probably one of those pieces that, as soon as someone reveals its identity, I'll kick myself and say "Oh yeah, THAT one!" -- Or is it Enesco's First Romanian Rhapsody? ???
Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 18, 2014, 06:56:41 PM
Just for the record, I neither read music nor play an instrument, but I absolutely love Brahms's orchestration. He tends to provide a warm, rich sound and texture that I find particularly compelling. Calling Brahms a bad orchestrator (in relation to composers like Mahler or Rimsky-Korsakov), it seems to me, would be a bit like calling Rembrandt a bad colorist in relation to, say, Gauguin or Matisse--one doesn't need an explosion of post-impressionist "color" to be a great colorist, in either music or painting.
An excellent analogy!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 17, 2014, 12:34:50 PM
Haydn beat them all to the punch in symphony #67:
Biber used it in Battalia (1673).
Now we'll see if somebody knows a composer who did it in the 1500s. :)
Quote from: jochanaan on September 19, 2014, 06:46:37 AM
You're referring to the pizzicati on high D# and E, aren't you? Yeah, playable but I wouldn't think the audience could hear any pitches on those high pizz.! :P To get a real pitch up there, you'd about have to double it with piccolo.
And this is probably one of those pieces that, as soon as someone reveals its identity, I'll kick myself and say "Oh yeah, THAT one!" -- Or is it Enesco's First Romanian Rhapsody? ???
Oh, I forgot about this. That is exactly what I was referring to. Trying to play it loud enough to hear is painful since the E string is so thin and plucking a string that high up creates a lot of tension in it.
The piece is Gershwin's
An American in Paris.
Quote from: EigenUser on September 22, 2014, 04:09:30 PM
Oh, I forgot about this. That is exactly what I was referring to. Trying to play it loud enough to hear is painful since the E string is so thin and plucking a string that high up creates a lot of tension in it.
The piece is Gershwin's An American in Paris.
Of course! *kicks self in rear end* ;D Gershwin obviously was not a violinist. :o :laugh:
Quote from: Pat B on September 22, 2014, 03:23:03 PM
Biber used it in Battalia (1673).
Now we'll see if somebody knows a composer who did it in the 1500s. :)
Good luck with that. Same for finding an earlier use of polytonality.
Quote from: EigenUser on September 22, 2014, 04:09:30 PM
Oh, I forgot about this. That is exactly what I was referring to. Trying to play it loud enough to hear is painful since the E string is so thin and plucking a string that high up creates a lot of tension in it.
The piece is Gershwin's An American in Paris.
And very abrupt shifts between pizz and arco.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 23, 2014, 03:23:55 PM
And very abrupt shifts between pizz and arco.
It's not that bad if you take the last arco note on an up-bow. (and are a reasonably well coordinated person)
Quote from: amw on September 23, 2014, 07:29:29 PM
It's not that bad if you take the last arco note on an up-bow. (and are a reasonably well coordinated person)
Yeah, that didn't bother me so much. Tricks like up-bowing the note before the pizzicato were made for this*.
By the way, what do you play? For some reason I was under the impression that you play piano, but do you also play a stringed instrument or are you just familiar with technique?
*For non-string-players, an up-bow is when you sound the instrument by moving the point of the bow up (likewise, a down-bow means moving the bottom of the bow down, not to insult anyone's intelligence :D). Of course, on cello and bass the "up" and "down" description doesn't work, but you get the idea. So, when playing normally with the bow (arco), all motions consist of up-bow and down-bows. Playing an up-bow before a pizzicato is a good transition because your right hand will already be near the string at the end of the note.
Quote from: EigenUser on September 24, 2014, 01:41:49 AM
Of course, on cello and bass the "up" and "down" description doesn't work, but you get the idea.
Replace "up'' with ''left'' and ''down'' with ''right'' and it works perfectly, because moving the bow towards left on a cello / double bass will have the same effect of bringing your hand closer to the strings at the end of a note.
Quote from: EigenUser on September 24, 2014, 01:41:49 AM
Yeah, that didn't bother me so much. Tricks like up-bowing the note before the pizzicato were made for this*.
By the way, what do you play? For some reason I was under the impression that you play piano, but do you also play a stringed instrument or are you just familiar with technique?
I played violin for about a year, and was awful at it. I also played cello for two or three years, and flute for about six months (took me about three months to be able to make any sounds come out of the damn thing...). Piano's the only instrument I have any sort of competence at. But as a composer one has to know, in theory at least, how to play every instrument of the orchestra, even if it's just what sorts of movements the players are going to make. Such things then become intimately bound up with the actual music one writes.
(I quickly learned not to specify fingerings though, as 9 times out of 10 the players would cross out all my fingerings and write in their own, and if I then adopted their fingerings the next person to play the piece would replace them with
their own etc.)
Quote from: Florestan on September 24, 2014, 01:49:41 AM
Replace "up'' with ''left'' and ''down'' with ''right'' and it works perfectly, because moving the bow towards left on a cello / double bass will have the same effect of bringing your hand closer to the strings at the end of a note.
"Left" and "right" are more accurate anyway, since for violin and viola your right hand is parallel to the strings (rather than perpendicular as with cello and bass) and therefore moves horizontally. But "left-bow" and "right-bow" never caught on for some reason >.>
When I ask orchestra players which composer do you like to play the most, the most frequently mentioned name is Brahms.
Quote from: springrite on September 24, 2014, 02:36:11 AM
When I ask orchestra players which composer do you like to play the most, the most frequently mentioned name is Brahms.
Paul, are you sure they didn't say Schoenberg? :P
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 24, 2014, 07:48:00 AM
Paul, are you sure they didn't say Schoenberg? :P
One did, and a sound beating from fellow orchestra members followed promptly.
I am a professional composer and orchestrator and love this topic. An important aspect of orchestration is that it must effectively meet its intent. In other words, something that is considered muddled in one context might be effective if the intent is achieved. There are many great composers who are not great at orchestrating and I saw earlier in the thread examples of great orchestration of poor material. So another way to think of this is that poor orchestration might work in a different context but the desire is not sufficiently nor succinctly achieved. Bernstein said good orchestration can be thought of like wearing the appropriate clothes for an event. You wouldn't go swimming in a sweater...that wardrobe would work well in a different setting but it doesn't fit the context....unless the idea is to be ridiculous. Orchestration is a constant effort to find the most specific thing in the most meaningful way as concisely as possible.
In Ravel's orchestration of Mussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition, why is the saxophone used only in one movement? Why does only one trumpet start the promenade? Why such an obscenely high tuba solo in Bydlo? Other example - in Ravel's Bolero, at rehearsal 8 , there is a strange passage with a notoriously difficult passage for solo horn with 2 piccolos. The high piccolo range tends to be more difficult to keep in tune with some notes are naturally sharp and some naturally flat. The first piccolo plays in E major, the second piccolo plays in G major an octave lower, and the horn plays the ostinato theme we've head adnoseum in C. Without context all of these examples are poor orchestration but in context, they are brilliantly effective therefore success! (see 7:44 of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KgpEru9lhw&feature=player_detailpage#t=464 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KgpEru9lhw&feature=player_detailpage#t=464)). Ravel is one of the great orchestrators and these decisions were very deliberate and intentional. If the same combination of instrumentation was used to start the promenade of Mussorgsky, would that work? Also the opening bassoon of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. Wouldn't it make more sense as a different instrument? Yes, but the intent is an unusual timbre and the sound of an instrument outside its tessitura (the comfortable range).
Also important is balance between the forces. 60 strings can be covered up by one trombone. Is that the intent? If so, use powerful forces sparingly. Now we are also broaching the topic of dramaturgy. You see this is a very deep well and constant source of invention & experimentation.
I can send a one minute example of my music and orchestration but the site limits the upload to 500k!
Quote from: springrite on September 24, 2014, 07:49:53 AM
One did, and a sound beating from fellow orchestra members followed promptly.
:P
Quote from: relm1 on September 24, 2014, 08:09:39 AM
Other example - in Ravel's Bolero, at rehearsal 8 , there is a strange passage with a notoriously difficult passage for solo horn with 2 piccolos. The high piccolo range tends to be more difficult to keep in tune with some notes are naturally sharp and some naturally flat. The first piccolo plays in E major, the second piccolo plays in G major an octave lower, and the horn plays the ostinato theme we've head adnoseum in C.
I always thought that example sounds awesome- the effect is quite a bit like that of an organ.
Quote from: Greg on September 24, 2014, 08:15:40 PM
I always thought that example sounds awesome- the effect is quite a bit like that of an organ.
Me, too. It falls under the category of being "so wrong that it's right."
I should hear
Bolero again sometime soon. Not my favorite Ravel by a long shot, but damn good. Second-rate Ravel is still first-rate music.
If anyone is interested, I have created a brief sampler of my music and orchestrations:
http://youtu.be/bOGCOfLNb5c
This features a range of styles including my concert music, film, and video game music all for large orchestra.
Wasn't the Bolero just an exercise in orchestration in the first place? Maybe he was just experimenting.
Quote from: Purusha on December 16, 2014, 04:35:29 PM
Wasn't the Bolero just an exercise in orchestration in the first place? Maybe he was just experimenting.
Great composers such as Ravel generally don't publish their mere "exercises" or have them performed. I know, he described Bolero as "seventeen minutes of orchestra without any music," but he also said that people would whistle it on the streets. 8)
Whenever I see this thread I always think "Mahler!", not so much in terms of timbre ( which he had a great understanding of ), but in terms of understanding instruments' ranges. Look at a bassoon, Mr. Mahler, it's right there. You can even ask a bassoonist.
It may be an apocryphal story, but I remember this story of Mahler getting frustrated with a percussion player who he saw as being too gentle in his strokes on the bass drum, and going right up and hitting the drum as hard as possible, only to have a dead, muffled note come out. I'd love to know if it's true!
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 18, 2014, 11:10:04 AM
...It may be an apocryphal story, but I remember this story of Mahler getting frustrated with a percussion player who he saw as being too gentle in his strokes on the bass drum, and going right up and hitting the drum as hard as possible, only to have a dead, muffled note come out. I'd love to know if it's true!
According to Alma Mahler's biography, the story is true, and happened during rehearsals for the world premiere of his Sixth Symphony. For the hammer-blows in the finale, he had a massive frame constructed with a leather skin that was to be "beaten with clubs." The bass drummer tried it out--only a muffled boom. Again--no louder. Mahler ran back, seized the club and gave the machine a huge thwack. The resulting note was no louder than before. So they had to use the old bass drum. "And the true thunder came."