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

[False_Dmitry]

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:


Anton Bruckner: TE DEUM

[abidoful]

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).

[karlhenning]

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.)

[karlhenning]

Chopin is often cited as being  "a bad orchestrator". I have studied his scores and I found them beautiful- very delicate . . ..

QFT.

[karlhenning]

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.

[False_Dmitry]

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.

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.

[Franco]

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.)

[False_Dmitry]

(And again, we're not talking Dittersdorfs here.)[/font]

What you know about Dittersdorf could be written on the back of a postage-stamp.

[Bulldog]

What you know about Dittersdorf could be written on the back of a postage-stamp.

But some stamps are much larger than others.

[Franco]

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 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:

More 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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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:


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.

[Scarpia]

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.     Beethoven, on the other hand composed despite being deaf.

[DavidW]

Even though I love Bruckner, and am no expert, I really enjoyed False Dmitri's post.  I thought it was really funny.   C'mon you guys, lighten up, that one was one of the most entertaining posts written in this whole month.

[(poco) Sforzando]

But some stamps are much larger than others.

And some people write really small.

[Bulldog]

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.

[Bulldog]

(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.

[Brahmsian]

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. 

[kishnevi]

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.

[Scarpia]

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?   

[kishnevi]

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?   

Mendelssohn fans, I would assume

Although I don't think Anton would have come out like a second Felix--he didn't seem to have the lightness of touch.