# Who's the Best Orchestrator?



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I didn't run this as a poll because there's too many great composers - and maybe a thread like this would be more informative without a poll. We'll see. Basically, I'm wondering who you think was the greatest composer for orchestra?

What I'm thinking is, innovation, use of colour and instruments but also the ability to seamlessly move through themes.

Who do you rate as composers for orchestra?

And what are the criteria a great composer needs to follow, in order to compose for the full orchestra, as opposed to composing chamber music?

:tiphat:


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Messiaen
Grisey
Murail


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Jobis said:


> Messiaen
> Grisey
> Murail


What sets these composers apart? It would help me to understand the art of orchestration if you can share your view on this.

Thanks! :tiphat:


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I'd say that orchestration has been a developing art and the general trend has been towards a better understanding of the possibilities and more creative solutions - but "moderns" are definitely standing on the shoulders of giants!


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

What is "Orchestration?"

I mean, it's a craft, isn't it? I read that Chopin composed bad piano music for the orchestra, and great orchestral music for the piano. In other words, when he wrote for the orchestra, he was thinking pianistically, but it wasn't big enough for the whole orchestra. And yet, when he composed for the piano, it was so large it seemed to be more than one instrument was playing. I don't know if this is true or not, but i read it applied to his 2nd PC, of which I'm very fond.

And then, surely, composing for the orchestra in a concerto is different to writing a symph. Orchestra composition for operas can take on psychological dimensions that propel the plot-lines.

I suppose a deep and innate understanding of instruments and their keys, and how they blend and collide, is part of the art...


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

A few off the top of my head: Ravel, Dutilleux, Bartok, Koechlin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Berlioz, Schoenberg, Poulenc, Stravinsky, Lutoslawski, Ligeti, and the list could go on and on...


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Berlioz, please!









for his work in theory and in practice ... but you need to listen (repeatedly) to the four hours of Les Troyens to really appreciate it :lol:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Maurice Ravel.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think it comes down to things like getting maximum clarity out of an orchestra and 'color', without wasting anything or having indiscernible unnecessary parts, or clashing components. My vote for best orchestrator would go to Ravel. Runners up might be Stravinsky and Mahler.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'd also agree with Ravel. He could put not one but two saxophones in an orchestra, and nobody was bothered by it.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Prokofiev, Ravel, Berlioz, Mozart, Messiaen, Mahler, Dvorak, Rimsky-Korsakov, Scriabin, Schoenberg and many more


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

Strauss's name hasn't been mentioned yet. I mention Strauss.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Freischutz said:


> Strauss's name hasn't been mentioned yet. I mention Strauss.


Which one! Richard, I guess...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kieran said:


> What is "Orchestration?"
> 
> I mean, it's a craft, isn't it? I read that Chopin composed bad piano music for the orchestra, and great orchestral music for the piano. In other words, when he wrote for the orchestra, he was thinking pianistically, but it wasn't big enough for the whole orchestra. And yet, when he composed for the piano, it was so large it seemed to be more than one instrument was playing. I don't know if this is true or not, but i read it applied to his 2nd PC, of which I'm very fond.
> 
> ...


Describing orchestration as a craft makes it sound like it is a process separate from composition proper, as in your Chopin example - that is, writing the music first on the piano and then assigning different parts of it to the instruments of the orchestra. Many great composers seem to have worked this way. But there are certainly cases in which this doesn't apply, where the music is conceived from the start as emanating from particular instrumental voices. In such cases, I'm not sure the craft description is quite right.

Anyway, I don't answer "who's the best" questions. But last night I listened to Miaskovsky's 16th and 18th symphonies and was, once again, deeply impressed by his imaginative use of orchestral color and the perfect clarity and balance of even the most complex passages. All the melodies seemed to sound in perfect registers for the instruments that carried them. I guess it is hardly surprising that someone who composed so much orchestral music became a master "craftsman" - if that applies; I don't know his working methods - by the time he had 15 symphonies under his belt. I thought he was worth a mention in this thread.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Rimsky-Korsakov.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Rimsky-Korsakov.


That was the first name that came to my mind as well. He was apparently also a great teacher of the art of orchestration - Stravinsky's early ballet scores are pure R-K.

Well, at least, that is what it sounds like to my uneducated and untrained ear.


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

If pushed for an answer, I'd say Beethoven and Mozart, because of such consistent high quality orchestration. Although I think some composers have had nicer orchestration in one or two pieces, consistency is definitely important too.

Honorable mention to E.S. Posthumous (and here are a couple of contrasting pieces by them):


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Rimsky-Korsakov.


He must be "in the conversation". Considering the mufti-faceted nature of the art, the "conversation" should never be resolved. As a listener _uncontaminated by music theory,_ I can't rank the facets. Tchaikovsky wasn't mentioned, though his ability to avoid 'the triangle hidden in the crescendo' has been admired. Rachmaninoff's subtle-and-effective convolutions of harmony in orchestral tuttis? Prokofiev's _startlingly_ effective colorations? I guess maybe I can't see the forest for the trees, eh?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I think the greatest orchestration begins and ends with the Romantic period. LvB, Berlioz, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler first come to mind for me. 

Berlioz, for creating such distinctive voice and using less-thought-of instruments. The others for being powerful symphonists, displaying the widest range of emotion in highly-developed manner.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Strauss, Wagner


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Strauss, Respighi, Ravel.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Nobody beats Ravel, in my humble opinion.

Exhibit A: Pictures at an Exhibition, piano version by Mussorgsky.

Exhibit B: Pictures at an Exhibition, orchestrated by Ravel.

Many since have tried their hand at orchestrating the Mussorgsky.

The Ravel remains the most satisfying. An amazing feat!


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2014)

Each piece has its own unique patterns and combinations.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Nobody beats Ravel, in my humble opinion.
> 
> Exhibit A: Pictures at an Exhibition, piano version by Mussorgsky.
> 
> ...


Stokowski complained that Ravel Frenchified the work. Stoky's own version is as good as Ravel's - if no better - and isn't Frenchified.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2014)

Asking who is the best "orchestrator" is a bit like asking which painter is best at using paint, and proceeding to compare Rembrandt with Rothko with Schwitters.


----------



## DaDirkNL (Aug 26, 2013)

I think that Schubert's 8th symphony is close to perfect. As is the orchestration. So Schubert would be my vote.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

What I look for in orchestration is rather broadly defined as interest and beauty. Interest simply means that there's something about the piece that makes it sound, well, interesting. It could be "innovative", but also just an original use of old techniques, or a sound that doesn't quite sound like anything else. Beauty is my primary concern: I will tolerate ugly sounds in the service of beauty, but for its own sake I have no use for ugliness.

I agree with the many people who have said Ravel. his _Introduction et allegro_ for harp, flute, clarinet, and string quartet is my submission on his behalf. He uses seven instruments, and creates so much sound and such unique sound as to put to shame a full orchestra. Check out the gorgeous and original timbres at rehearsal number 1, and the diaphanous sound that they dissolve into a few measures later. The orchestration would be enough to sustain interest without the beautiful and interesting melodies. I would also point to Ravel's String Quartet in F major, which, like so many of his works, has the most interesting and beautiful textures.

I also think Wagner deserves his reputation as a great orchestrator. Like Ravel many years later, he seems to have had a real knack for orchestral texture. His greatest achievement in this regard is _Tristan und Isolde_, where Brangaene's aria in particular is out of this world.

Of the Italians, I think that Puccini and all the assonant rhymes are the best orchestrators (so I'm including Respighi, Rossini, Bellini etc.). For me, Puccini's glory lies in the way that he uses music to form his dramas, and less in the intrinsic merit of all his music (although i would argue that much of it is very, very high). But his orchestration's are always very fine. In particular, I think that the prelude to _Il tabarro_, much of _La fanciulla del west_, and in particular his last two works, _ Gianni Schicchi_ and _Turandot_ are all outstanding examples of superb orchestration. In _Turandot_ listen to the choruses and Commedia dell'arte scenes to hear to some very different stuff by Puccini.

I also regard Hugo Alfven very highly, and believe that his works are unjustly underrated. While perhaps not "groundbreaking", he wrote many things of great beauty.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Asking who is the best "orchestrator" is a bit like asking which painter is best at using paint, and proceeding to compare Rembrandt with Rothko with Schwitters.


Well, some artists don't use paint...


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

I wouldn't argue with any of the composers mentioned here. But I would add Haydn, who knew how to get lots of colors out of the standard chassical orchestra. Consider his early "morning, noon and night" symphonic trilogy (Nos. 6, 7 and 8), the "Hornsignal" Symphony No. 31 or any of the later Paris and London Symphonies.

And even though he wrote relatively few orchestral works, I would add Bartok, if only for his "Concerto for Orchestra" (although his ballets and concertos are nicely orchestrated as well).


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Whistler Fred said:


> I wouldn't argue with any of the composers mentioned here. But I would add Haydn, who knew how to get lots of colors out of the standard chassical orchestra. Consider his early "morning, noon and night" symphonic trilogy (Nos. 6, 7 and 8), the "Hornsignal" Symphony No. 31 or any of the later Paris and London Symphonies.
> 
> And even though he wrote relatively few orchestral works, I would add Bartok, if only for his "Concerto for Orchestra" (although his ballets and concertos are nicely orchestrated as well).


Speaking of color, Haydn's Creation begins with an eery depiction of chaos perfectly captured in the minor and then wonderfully is transformed to the major with the words "Let There Be Light."

Yes. Haydn knew how to get a lot of color from an orchestra.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ukko said:


> Stokowski complained that Ravel Frenchified the work. Stoky's own version is as good as Ravel's - if no better - and isn't Frenchified.


But Stokowski didn't cover the whole work in his version or am I wrong ?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> But Stokowski didn't cover the whole work in his version or am I wrong ?


Right! Stokowski omits two movements, "Tuileries" and "Limoges," because he felt they showed too much French influence and had a suspicion they might have been composed by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, whose 1886 edition was the first published version of Mussorgsky's work.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mozart's orchestrations of his operas are masterly. The orchestra is acting out what is being sung. The sighings of Cherubino, for example. Mozart was the complete master.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Right! Stokowski omits two movements, "Tuileries" and "Limoges," because he felt they showed too much French influence and had a suspicion they might have been composed by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, whose 1886 edition was the first published version of Mussorgsky's work.


Rimsky's 'editing' of Mussorgsky's music has generated 'clicking of tongues' during three centuries now, mostly negative (well. clicking tongues are never gracious).


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Mahler for the gentle and multi-faceted; R. Strauss, Rimsky-Korsakov and Ravel for the rich and luscious; Beethoven for the simple and grand; Berlioz for universality; Dvorak for simple majesty; Respighi and Debussy for the evocative; Rameau for his early inventiveness; Brahms for some other adjectives (here, let me borrow from Huneker: "He gives you the impression of mastery, but writes as if to him the garb, the vestment were naught, and the pure, sweet flesh and form, all.").


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ukko said:


> Rimsky's 'editing' of Mussorgsky's music has generated 'clicking of tongues' during three centuries now, mostly negative (well. clicking tongues are never gracious).


Maybe, but we might not have heard Mussorsky's music at all but for Rimski's championing of him.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ukko said:


> Rimsky's 'editing' of Mussorgsky's music has generated 'clicking of tongues' during three centuries now, mostly negative (well. clicking tongues are never gracious).


Some points:

- Tongues have hardly been clicking for three centuries! Well, not about this anyway.
- M's original handwritten piano score for "Pictures" (piano) was discovered in 1975. If Ravel wrote new sections, that would surely be known (and it is not noted in any sources I've seen).
- Anybody who compares Rimsky's "Bald Mountain" with M's original (any of them) will be forced to admit that Rimsky's is an improvement.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Some points:
> 
> - Tongues have hardly been clicking for three centuries! Well, not about this anyway.
> - M's original handwritten piano score for "Pictures" (piano) was discovered in 1975. If Ravel wrote new sections, that would surely be known (and it is not noted in any sources I've seen).
> - Anybody who compares Rimsky's "Bald Mountain" with M's original (any of them) will be forced to admit that Rimsky's is an improvement.


Yes, but some of what he did to _Boris Godunov_ was unforgivable. Chopping measures out of the opening theme to simplify and square up the phrase structure, for example.

About Pictures: I like cruder, more Mussorgsky style orchestrations like Gortchakov's. Ravel's is just too pretty and confectionary - excellent in its way, of course, but just the wrong tone.


----------



## QuietGuy (Mar 1, 2014)

Ravel, followed by Stravinsky and Respighi.


----------



## southwood (Jul 25, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Nobody beats Ravel, in my humble opinion.
> 
> Exhibit A: Pictures at an Exhibition, piano version by Mussorgsky.
> 
> ...


I agree. But I have a Khovanschina Prelude orchestrated by Rimsky and it's magnificent. I suppose he orchestrated the entire opera ?


----------



## noraa (Apr 12, 2014)

Strauss' tone poems and operas have some of the most imaginative use of orchestration in any music I've heard. No matter how many instruments or wildly difficult parts, it always works and sounds stunning.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A contest without a winner, because there are too many criteria and too many masters of orchestration. But I'll plump for Wagner, because his scores, from opera to opera, reveal a limitless capacity to invent unprecedented sonorities as each new dramatic conception required. Think of the turbulence of the sea and high shriek of the wind in _Dutchman_; the dualism of _Tannhauser_'s frenzied, sensual Venusberg vs. its somber religiosity; the similar dualism of _Lohengrin_'s shining vision of the grail knight vs. the dark, insidious evil of pagan sorcery; the vast canvas of the _Ring_, overflowing with an unbelievable richness of imagery, character, and atmosphere; the deep, complex psychology of passion in _Tristan_, engendering a sonorous world utterly unlike that of the _Ring_; another completely different fictional world, and consequent sound-world, in _Meistersinger_; and finally the ethereal, mystical realm of _Parsifal_. Every time Wagner the dramatist confronted Wagner the composer with a new task, he made a virtual quantum leap into hitherto unexplored realms of harmonic and orchestral sonority. There was no apparent limit to his sonic imagination. However, I'd like to point to one particular aspect of his orchestral mastery in which I believe he surpasses everyone, namely the ability to create new sonorities through "doubling" - having two or more instruments on the same note to produce a sound unlike that of any instrument heard separately. Wagner's imagination and resource in this are amazing, reaching their zenith in the rich sonorities of _Tristan_ (Richard Strauss called its final chord the most beautifully orchestrated in all music) and in the glowing, diaphanous sounds of _Parsifal _(which Wagner called "like clouds forming and dissolving" and Debussy called "lit from behind").

Wagner is always given proper credit for revolutionizing harmony, but I think it no exaggeration to say that he was also one of the greatest breakers of new ground revealing the possibilities of the orchestra, and that he takes a back seat to no one in the resourcefulness and mastery of his own writing for it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2014)

I don't see how 'orchestration' can be divorced from the rest of the components of the piece. To laud Ravel so highly, but leave Beethoven out of the list of 'great orchestrators' when his symphonies are among the most highly regarded seems odd (though I note that one member gave him a name-check.)

I looked for Ravel's first symphony, but I couldn't find it...

What I like about Prokofiev is the way the leading melody is passed around the orchestra, and in interesting combinations, rather than being hogged by the strings, with scraps thrown to the odd woodwind or horn as was the norm for the Classical. However, what I like about Beethoven is how the hogging of the melody by the strings imparts the force and energy that is his trademark, and the other sections seem either to add emphasis or weight or punctuation - they don't get much to do on their own.

Orchestration for the right purpose.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Matsps said:


> If pushed for an answer, I'd say Beethoven and Mozart, because of such consistent high quality orchestration. Although I think some composers have had nicer orchestration in one or two pieces, consistency is definitely important too.
> 
> Honorable mention to E.S. Posthumous (and here are a couple of contrasting pieces by them):


The last is a kind of joke, right? Inputting into midi does not require the extensive craft of knowing all the instruments -- their idiosyncratic strong suites, in which key and range they sound best and most 'open,' or their equally idiosyncratic limitations, what will balance or cut through in the actual acoustic situation. Alto flute front and center with the full orchestra in an _Mf_ dynamic behind it? Completely obliterated by the amplitude of that orchestration around it; Midi, just ramp up the amplitude of the notes on the track, ramp up the track volume, fiddle with its spatial placement, and bingo, problem 'solved,' but it is not solved if the piece is for real players in a real space.

There is just a sea, if not an ocean, of technical data which one must know, plus experience, to orchestrate for large acoustic ensembles. So, so sorry, E.S. Posthumous (isn't that one of two partners, one now really "posthumous?") can not be considered anywhere near the same level of skills required (unless he, they knew both orchestration and midi -- which is not likely from what I've heard) to be anywhere in the running.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kieran said:


> What is "Orchestration?"
> 
> I mean, it's a craft, isn't it? I read that Chopin composed bad piano music for the orchestra, and great orchestral music for the piano. In other words, when he wrote for the orchestra, he was thinking pianistically, but it wasn't big enough for the whole orchestra. And yet, when he composed for the piano, it was so large it seemed to be more than one instrument was playing. I don't know if this is true or not, but i read it applied to his 2nd PC, of which I'm very fond.
> 
> ...


You suppose correctly.

Each composer who clearly realized their ideas justly for instruments -- that very much includes those composers whose ideas were simultaneously linked to instrumental forces, i.e. the medium and the idea are one.

An ideal, like to 'formalism' where the composer has an idea simultaneous with the form, the two inseparable, or one simultaneously filling in the blank of the other, i.e. the orchestration should also be as integral to the musical ideas. This means it is not a matter of pausing and wondering, "should the clarinets or another instrument carry this part of the main theme or harmony," but a more instinctual choice, as you would expect a master painter to not hesitate in picking pigments from the palette or instinctively mixing those colors exactly to the purpose intended.

There are multiple criticisms of some orchestrations that they are transliterated piano configuration somewhat 'unnaturally' and arbitrarily assigned to an instrument or section. I bet you could find that criticism leveled at about every well known pianist / composer 

Rameau, Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Mahler, are but a few of the finest.

Ravel had a more than canny ability for orchestration; many of his 'orchestral works' having their genesis as a piano piece, conceived of directly for the piano, yet his craft was so great, and his ability to 'rewrite' vs. simply transfer from piano so deft, that one might not tell which came first -- that is a highly polished deftness I would still not rank as prime in original orchestral thinking. Yet, his Daphnis et Chloe, the Piano Concerti, the operas were certainly composed thinking more directly in instrumental terms, and they are his masterworks. I still 'rank' Debussy over Ravel, in that he got as much or more timbrel color out of far smaller instrumental resources than Ravel (Ravels one exception, an 'undisputed masterpiece' is the very reduced pit orchestra for _L'enfant et les sortilèges_.)

I think Stravinsky almost never 'gave a wrong note to the wrong instrument,' as exceptional as much of his instrumental writing is. He is noted for taking instruments into their extreme registers (especially the winds), precisely for the timbre that delivers. This is sometimes called writing 'against' the instrument, in that one steps completely away from more typically expected configurations which the repertoire has as being 'handy, technically and acoustically very sound' for the instrument, and to do that effectively, you have to first know extremely well how to write 'for the instrument.' He composed one of _the_ great violin concertos of the entire violin repertoire -- consulting directly with a virtuoso player, and while doing, wrote a fiendishly difficult part which one could argue expanded violin technique.) That orchestration, pretty consistent from Stravinsky, is then a step further than usual and I think deserves especial mention and credit, showing that much more intimate knowledge and skill.

So many of the orchestral composers knew so well what they were doing, Nielsen, Wagner, Messiaen -- really a list of 'good and great' would be quite long, that it is since the advent of thinking more concretely in specific set orchestral forces, exactly which instruments, in what number, to be duplicated each performance. (Rameau was the beginning, thinking directly in specifics of instrumental color for the orchestra.) It is then more question -- from Rameau on -- of who was _not_ very good at thinking in terms of the orchestra or realizing their ideas for it.

I would say Rameau, Mozart, Debussy, Stravinsky and Mahler (up to mid-20th century) were the ones to most fully realize exactly what they wanted out of their respective available orchestral palettes. Beethoven's struggles and sound of struggling with the material also sounds in his orchestration at times, a quality we give him points for where about no one else would be so considered -- or forgiven -- because he was Beethoven, I guess.

Considering he was primarily self taught in orchestration, Tchaikovsky was no slouch  Schumann should probably be first to get the credit for the larger romantic orchestral sound, typically strings doing melody, winds harmony and occasional melodic motivic participation, the brass primarily for additional bulk or punctation. He is also criticized for a blocky thickness with a lot of doublings. Proof is in the performance, and what the conductor makes of it to balance that orchestration. Done well, I believe a lot of the criticism leveled against it melts away. I don't know who clarified the later long-held aesthetic of the orchestral symphony as a blocked out affair between the three sections, with alternate materials and play between them with the occasional grand tutti -- now quite cliche and carried over into the 20th century -- but the later Nielsen or Sibelius, who handled that type of registration so well, hardly invented it out of thin air.

Berlioz and Rimsky-Korsakov are 'important' but quite secondary in they were very often about color which was not completely an essential part of the music they were writing. (Their respective well-respected books on orchestration are often cited while simultaneously one is given the admonition that they are best for learning how to orchestrate like the respective composers who wrote them 
Ditto R. Strauss, certainly a virtuoso orchestrator who clearly thought directly in orchestral terms, where the operas are concerned the orchestration becomes quite 'more to the point,' but I find also that with the orchestral dressing off of the symphonic works, the music does not integrally stem from it -- I'm sure others would argue the opposite.

No matter how large, small, what the palette, that sort of ideal of 'nothing extra,' with every element and detail all working toward the point, and whether artificial or not, the end result sounds to us 'organic' or 'inevitable.'

ADD: there needs mention of both Rachmaninov and Prokofiev as brilliant orchestrators whose orchestral writing is both idiomatic and highly virtuosic for each and all the players.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

That's a brilliant and very instructive post, PetrB, thanks for that.  It's very generous of you to go into such depth, and I found all of it to be helpful. I especially found the part about "writing against the instrument" to be brilliant, because that's most likely the furthest extreme you can go without falling off. The idea of orchestral writing being "virtuosic for each and all the players" is another fascinating one: does the composer start with that intention, or is that just an effect he achieves through writing music? It would depend, no doubt, on the composer. I wonder if orchestral music leaves the composer a totally different predicament when it comes to this, as opposed to virtuoso music for the soloist. Incorporating all that virtuosity into a coherent whole would be some task.

Thanks again! :tiphat:


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Well, some artists don't use paint...


But all _painter_ use paint.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Burroughs said:


> But all _painter_ use paint.


That's true - and not all painters are artists...


----------



## chalkpie (Oct 5, 2011)

Lutoslawski, Stravinsky, Ligeti, Ravel, Debussy, Sibelius (for his "pure" quality), Messiaen, Varese, Boulez, Mahler, Copland, etc etc

In my eyes, 20th Century composers rule the roost.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2014)

........................ deleted ........................


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2014)

I wouldn't know where to begin to answer the OP, to be honest, as it's a bit like asking who's the "best painter". Still, to play the game, if you would ask me to get off the fence and place my money on only one top orchestrator I'll say *Mahler*.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Burroughs said:


> But all _painter_ use paint.


Okeedoh: Not all visual artists working on (usually) flat surfaces use paint.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I don't see how 'orchestration' can be divorced from the rest of the components of the piece. To laud Ravel so highly, but leave Beethoven out of the list of 'great orchestrators' when his symphonies are among the most highly regarded seems odd (though I note that one member gave him and name-check.)


Orchestration can certainly be divorced from other components of a piece, otherwise how would one judge the merits of pieces for solo instruments? They use many of the same elements of composition of a full scale orchestral piece. It is completely possible for a composer to be strong melodically and contrapuntally but weak in orchestration. Bernstein felt Beethoven was weak in all of those areas. Beethoven was great at making dramatic musical gestures and developing them in ingenious ways, his orchestration I think was average at best.



MacLeod said:


> I looked for Ravel's first symphony, but I couldn't find it...


Try _Daphnis et Chloe_ a full scale orchestral work far better composed and orchestrated than any of Beethoven's symphonies (in my opinion of course).


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> A contest without a winner, because there are too many criteria and too many masters of orchestration. But I'll plump for Wagner, because his scores, from opera to opera, reveal a limitless capacity to invent unprecedented sonorities as each new dramatic conception required. Think of the turbulence of the sea and high shriek of the wind in _Dutchman_; the dualism of _Tannhauser_'s frenzied, sensual Venusberg vs. its somber religiosity; the similar dualism of _Lohengrin_'s shining vision of the grail knight vs. the dark, insidious evil of pagan sorcery; the vast canvas of the _Ring_, overflowing with an unbelievable richness of imagery, character, and atmosphere; the deep, complex psychology of passion in _Tristan_, engendering a sonorous world utterly unlike that of the _Ring_; another completely different fictional world, and consequent sound-world, in _Meistersinger_; and finally the ethereal, mystical realm of _Parsifal_. Every time Wagner the dramatist confronted Wagner the composer with a new task, he made a virtual quantum leap into hitherto unexplored realms of harmonic and orchestral sonority. There was no apparent limit to his sonic imagination. However, I'd like to point to one particular aspect of his orchestral mastery in which I believe he surpasses everyone, namely the ability to create new sonorities through "doubling" - having two or more instruments on the same note to produce a sound unlike that of any instrument heard separately. Wagner's imagination and resource in this are amazing, reaching their zenith in the rich sonorities of _Tristan_ (Richard Strauss called its final chord the most beautifully orchestrated in all music) and in the glowing, diaphanous sounds of _Parsifal _(which Wagner called "like clouds forming and dissolving" and Debussy called "lit from behind").
> 
> Wagner is always given proper credit for revolutionizing harmony, but I think it no exaggeration to say that he was also one of the greatest breakers of new ground revealing the possibilities of the orchestra, and that he takes a back seat to no one in the resourcefulness and mastery of his own writing for it.


<_Fanfare from the Entry of the Guests in Tannhauser_>: Great post.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

tdc said:


> Orchestration can certainly be divorced from other components of a piece, otherwise how would one judge the merits of pieces for solo instruments? They use many of the same elements of composition of a full scale orchestral piece. It is completely possible for a composer to be strong melodically and contrapuntally but weak in orchestration. Bernstein felt Beethoven was weak in all of those areas. Beethoven was great at making dramatic musical gestures and developing them in ingenious ways, his orchestration I think was average at best.
> 
> tdc: Try _Daphnis et Chloe_ a full scale orchestral work far better composed and orchestrated than any of Beethoven's symphonies (in my opinion of course).












Diaghilev saw the young Stravinsky meticulously studying the score to _Daphnis et Chloe and said that Daphne et Chloe was "so yesterday."

Stravinsky looked up at Diaghliev and with quaint, infallible sagacity said that he wasn't interested in music that was yesterday, or today. . . but rather, 'forever.'

For orchestral plumage, color, and finesse, Daphne's a work of rarefied genius. So delightful._


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2014)

tdc said:


> Orchestration can certainly be divorced from other components of a piece, otherwise how would one judge the merits of pieces for solo instruments?


I've not made myself clear. I meant that the construction of a piece cannot be divorced from its form and purpose. Presumably, you should also take into consideration what instruments were available at the time and what musical conventions prevailed during the period.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> ADD: there needs mention of both Rachmaninov and Prokofiev as brilliant orchestrators whose orchestral writing is both idiomatic and highly virtuosic for each and all the players.


Glad you mentioned Rachmaninov. I am always stunned by the orchestral magic of his late scores (nothing wrong with the earlier ones, of course!). The _Symphonic Dances_ alone would mark him as one of the great masters of the orchestra. It's especially wonderful in that he spent so much of his time playing the piano - but then no one "scores" better for the piano either.


----------



## Brad (Mar 27, 2014)

I'm just going to squeeze in an honorable mention to Liszt for the symphonic poems/Dante symphony/Faust symphony. The dude could really tell a story. Not to mention he used that triangle in his piano concerto!


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Mozart
Rimsky Korsakov
Ravel


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I meant that the construction of a piece cannot be divorced from its form and purpose.


Well, I think a composer can set out to use a certain form, and have a specific purpose in mind, but not necessarily hit the mark of what they were trying to achieve. In some cases of course if a composer is amateurish the results can in fact sound quite muddled and incoherent. I would imagine even with many of the great composers - they don't always feel as though they hit the mark of what they are trying to accomplish 100% in every piece they compose. Sometimes as the composition process unfolds a piece might take unexpected turns, or unforeseen problems could arise.

So I do believe that the construction (or quality of construction) of a piece can absolutely be divorced from its form and purpose, or am I still misunderstanding you?


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2014)

tdc said:


> Well, I think a composer can set out to use a certain form, and have a specific purpose in mind, but not necessarily hit the mark of what they were trying to achieve. In some cases of course if a composer is amateurish the results can in fact sound quite muddled and incoherent. I would imagine even with many of the great composers - they don't always feel as though they hit the mark of what they are trying to accomplish 100% in every piece they compose. Sometimes as the composition process unfolds a piece might take unexpected turns, or unforeseen problems could arise.
> 
> So I do believe that the construction (or quality of construction) of a piece can absolutely be divorced from its form and purpose, or am I still misunderstanding you?


How about...

In analysis of how a piece works (or doesn't) its component parts - orchestration, melody, texture, dynamics, harmonies etc etc - can, of course, be separated and examined. However, to make a _value judgement_ about a particular component, it should be put back into the whole, and then considered along with the interrelationships with the other components, and with the things I referred to in my last post - form, purpose, context etc. A listener might well decide that a particular passage could have sounded 'better' (or more to the listener's tastes) if it had been carried by the oboe and not the clarinet, or shared across the whole of the brass and not the brass and woodwind combined...and so on, but it would be unfair for one person's personal tastes to be imposed as an objective judgement on others.

I suspect that I "know what you mean" if I take the responses to the OP so far as indicative of how composers have made abundant and flexible use of a variety of instruments, instead of conforming to standard expectations. But the problem with this is you are still left with the prospect of rejecting the works of early composers who simply didn't have the access to the instruments and the conventions of later eras. By all means ask who is the best orchestrator among the impressionists or the late romantics or the classicals or the baroques...but to go further is, IMO, meaningless. To attempt such a comparative value judgement across not only one composers works, but across centuries of all composers, regardless of form or context seems to me to be invidious.


----------

