# Beethoven's orchestration



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I seldom see this topic discussed. Beethoven's orchestration strikes me as pretty utilitarian, but few have stepped forward to "improve" it, aside from the usual adjustments by conductors. Would his works benefit from some rework in this area? (flame-proof suit is on)

Maybe some members experienced in orchestration can offer some comments!


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Not trying to pick a fight or anything {I'm not wearing my flak vest}, but I am just wondering in what context you are using the adjective "utilitarian" to describe Beethoven's orchestration. In other words, do you have a basis of comparison between him and another specific composer whom you might have in mind?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'll answer that as best I can! Beethoven's orchestration seems (to me) designed to get the job done efficiently. It rarely calls attention to itself and is usually almost unnoticed. In contrast, starting only a few years later with Berlioz, orchestration became a separate art, culminating in composers like Rimsky-Korsakoff, Stravinsky, and so forth.

Mahler re-orchestrated some of Schumann's symphonies of course, mostly due to what he saw as their faults. But what if (say) Stravinsky had re-orchestrated Beethoven's 7th Symphony just to give it more pizzazz -- if that's possible? I'm fantasizing here, but I'd love to hear it.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

As long as he leaves the exquisite second movement alone, I think it might be interesting at that!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I agree it's pretty utilitarian, but Beethoven's ideas don't need orchestral gimmicks.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I'll answer that as best I can! Beethoven's orchestration seems (to me) designed to get the job done efficiently. It rarely calls attention to itself and is usually almost unnoticed. In contrast, starting only a few years later with Berlioz, orchestration became a separate art, culminating in composers like Rimsky-Korsakoff, Stravinsky, and so forth.
> 
> Mahler re-orchestrated some of Schumann's symphonies of course, mostly due to what he saw as their faults. But what if (say) Stravinsky had re-orchestrated Beethoven's 7th Symphony just to give it more pizzazz -- if that's possible? I'm fantasizing here, but I'd love to hear it.


Your ideas make me shudder through and through----more pizzazz!!!???


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

To paraphrase/quote badly a well-known musicologist "With Beethoven's orchestration, it's hard to imagine it done in any other way."


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven's orchestration strikes me as pretty utilitarian





KenOC said:


> Beethoven's orchestration seems (to me) designed to get the job done efficiently. It rarely calls attention to itself and is usually almost unnoticed.


An interesting thought - what would it sound like if it was orchestrated in such a way that it drew attention to itself, got the job done inefficiently and barged everything else outta the way so that you couldn't help but notice!


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Wagner, in his essay on Beethoven's Ninth, said that Beethoven, because of his hearing loss, stopped taking notice of technogical developments and innovations with regard to instruments. Apparently, Wagner claims, Beethoven was not even aware that certain instruments had expanded their playing range or that others could now effortlessly play the full chromatic scale.

Wagner found this out by examining Beethoven's scores and then proceeded to make adjustments where he felt Beethoven would have written things differently had he known that certain technical limitations no longer existed.

If this is at all true, then I think it's understandable that Beethoven's orchestrations are perhaps not as colourful. Though I guess it's safe to say that Beethoven was mostly about substance than colour anyway.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't have any problem with Beethoven's orchestration. & as KenOC says, its later composers like Berlioz, esp. Rimsky-Korsakov and also Ravel who had more of a focus on orchestration, raised it up to virtually being an art in itself.

But there are some very memorable moments in Beethoven's music to do with what instruments he chooses. Probably my favourite is those blaring horns in the slow movement (funeral march) of the Sym.#3 'Eroica.' It basically says to me that every dog has its day. Whatever your power or status today, tyranny will eventually whither and die. Its like with that moment, Beethoven predicts Napoleon's demise, and there is also this anger in how the double basses kind of introduce that moment.

There's plenty of other notable 'events' like this in the ubiquitous 5th symphony. Like the double basses towards the end, in the third movement, I think. Its apparently one of the hardest things for players of that instrument to perform.

& what of the way he uses the timpani in the scherzo of the 9th? So there are these moments where I find Beethoven's orchestration to be interesting and memorable.

Re 'fixing' composer's orchestration, that's been done I think not only with Beethoven but also Schumann and Ives. I have not heard the results of these 'rejiggings' of these guys orchestration, which was for a long time thought to be incorrect or unplayable. It would be maybe interesting as a novelty to hear, say, Shostakovich's orchestration of Schumann's cello concerto, but I am more than happy with the original as it is. My viewpoint is just that of a listener, I am not a musician.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I'll have to look it up, but Tovey relates an anecdote where a respected conductor noted the opening page of Missa Solemnis on his (Tovey's) desk and pointed to the first chord and said something to the effect of 'It's amazing how you can always recognize even a common chord scored by Beethoven.'

It doesn't call attention to itself (recording engineers can't make Beethoven into sonic spectaculars), but it's wonderful as is -- especially considering how little of it the older Beethoven could even hear.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I seldom see this topic discussed. Beethoven's orchestration strikes me as pretty utilitarian, but few have stepped forward to "improve" it, aside from the usual adjustments by conductors. Would his works benefit from some rework in this area? (flame-proof suit is on)
> 
> Maybe some members experienced in orchestration can offer some comments!


I like that 'utilitrian' term, but maybe it's a pretty loose fit. Good HIP performances of his symphonies don't seem to be missing anything useful 'colorwise. Mahler's 'touched up' version of the 9th works better than late-19th C. standard, but not better than Gardiner's HIP recording. Mahler's 'enhanced' percussion actually is more intrusive than enhancing.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I read somewhere Beethoven deliberately was trying to sound more earthy in his orchestration, and I've wondered if that were true. Has anyone run across a similar observation?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ramako said:


> To paraphrase/quote badly a well-known musicologist "With Beethoven's orchestration, it's hard to imagine it done in any other way."


Very true, and that's the problem. Because LvB's orchestration works so well, I'll probably never get to hear Stavinsky's re-write!


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> I read somewhere Beethoven deliberately was trying to sound more earthy in his orchestration, and I've wondered if that were true. Has anyone run across a similar observation?


Perhaps Beethoven pioneered what's sometimes referred to as the German sound: a full, deep sonority, conceptually build from the bass up. Earthy is a very good term for it. Decidedly less bright, brilliant and sparkling than, say, Mozart or the Italian opera style in general.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Subtlety never seemed to be Beethoven's strong point...he made up for it in other areas, but in general I've never been much of a fan of the sound of his large scale works. Though there are exceptions like the previously mentioned 2nd movement of the 7th Symphony.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I don't take issue with LvB or Schumann or Brahms re orchestration. Schubert is the one you should be looking at.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> Subtlety never seemed to be Beethoven's strong point...


...


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Ramako said:


> ...


The first piece doesn't involve orchestration, which is what I thought was being discussed. The third movement of his last symphony is more subdued compared to the other movements, but that doesn't mean it's subtle.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

trazom said:


> The first piece doesn't involve orchestration, which is what I thought was being discussed. The third movement of his last symphony is more subdued compared to the other movements, but that doesn't mean it's subtle.


It is, but his came across as a general remark - possibly I misunderstood it. However in that context, I think that his orchestration can be considered subtle - at least in places such as this movement - compared to the broad theatrics of _some_ later orchestrators.

Really though, the subtlety of his orchestration could be said suffer in comparison to Mozart, and certainly in comparison to Haydn. But then, his counterpoint is supposed to be awkward, his writing for instruments (especially voice) terrible, sometimes he is called a bad melodist, his codas overlong... Such a long list of woes. Silly woes. His orchestration is more compactly designed than others, while he exploits its range he doesn't make a point of doing so. Towards the end of the development section of the fifth first movement, we here the alternating woodwinds and strings, the brass interrupt briefly before returning to the other two sections alternating even more subdued. Then suddenly the brass return, everyone is tutti for the main theme recap. Back to the strings for a bit, and then an oboe cadenza... In every case the orchestration mirrors the turn that the music is taking, although it could also be said that the music mirrors the orchestration... but only in the oboe cadenza does the orchestration come close to defining it. Mozart's orchestration is more colourful, but less integrated - what in Beethoven matches those wonderful high flute lines in the second movement of the 40th symphony? Nothing if it is that sort of colour we are talking about. I think they are about equal personally for orchestration, perhaps Mozart having the edge if only for that one passage...

Haydn is actually more subtle than either of them for orchestration in some sense: sometimes whole structural points hinge on a matter of instrumentation. His orchestration looks forward to the likes of Mahler despite being a Classical composer.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Ramako said:


> It is, but his came across as a general remark - possibly I misunderstood it. However in that context, I think that his orchestration can be considered subtle - at least in places such as this movement - compared to the broad theatrics of _some_ later orchestrators.
> 
> Really though, the subtlety of his orchestration could be said suffer in comparison to Mozart, and certainly in comparison to Haydn. But then, his counterpoint is supposed to be awkward, his writing for instruments (especially voice) terrible, sometimes he is called a bad melodist, his codas overlong... Such a long list of woes. Silly woes. His orchestration is more compactly designed than others, while he exploits its range he doesn't make a point of doing so. Towards the end of the development section of the fifth first movement, we here the alternating woodwinds and strings, the brass interrupt briefly before returning to the other two sections alternating even more subdued. Then suddenly the brass return, everyone is tutti for the main theme recap. Back to the strings for a bit, and then an oboe cadenza... In every case the orchestration mirrors the turn that the music is taking, although it could also be said that the music mirrors the orchestration... but only in the oboe cadenza does the orchestration come close to defining it. Mozart's orchestration is more colourful, but less integrated - what in Beethoven matches those wonderful high flute lines in the second movement of the 40th symphony? Nothing if it is that sort of colour we are talking about. I think they are about equal personally for orchestration, perhaps Mozart having the edge if only for that one passage...
> 
> Haydn is actually more subtle than either of them for orchestration in some sense: sometimes whole structural points hinge on a matter of instrumentation. His orchestration looks forward to the likes of Mahler despite being a Classical composer.


But Beethoven wasn't writing in order to have a lot of colour. His orchestration compliments the development of the theme. Beethoven kept with a tradition of more conservative orchestration, and, for example, really felt he was making a wild statement by adding a choir to a symphony. The instruments are utilized using typical effects, the progression between them, alternating between woodwinds and strings, then pointed interruptions, is natural and not unexpected. His talent was in doing this well. His alternations are convincing. The brilliance of his music is in the form, the progression of themes, the overriding motifs that take their time in returning, and in his orchestration that serves these purposes, not the other way around. A pattern of alternation develops, and then the restatement is made with a new group of instruments. This lends to the strength of the restatement. He doesn't do what he does to interest you. He waits to do something like that, until he feels like saying "here we are, this theme is back again". The development is more logical, instead of just placing a bunch of nice and colourful sounding stuff next side by side. When he segues into something else, it's majestic. When others segue into something else, it can be underwhelming by comparison. They just want to get on with their next great idea. Beethoven, on the other hand, is telling a story. His style of symphony plays out as if it had a text. Even in his earlier work, he has this tendency, even while sounding like Haydn.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

-double post-


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Vaneyes said:


> I don't take issue with LvB or Schumann or Brahms re orchestration. Schubert is the one you should be looking at.


Says who??

Antonin Dvorak:



> Of Schubert's symphonies, too, I am such an enthusiastic admirer that I do not hesitate to place him next to Beethoven, far above Mendelssohn as well as above Schumann. Mendelssohn had some of Mozart's natural instinct for orchestration and gift for form, but much of his work has proved ephemeral. Schumann is at his best in his songs, his chamber music, and his pianoforte pieces. His symphonies, too, are great works, though they are not always truly orchestral; the form seems to hamper the composer, and the instrumentation is not always satisfactory. This is never the case with Schubert. Although he sometimes wrote carelessly, and often too diffusely, he was never at fault in his means of expression, while mastery of form came to him spontaneously. *In originality of harmony and modulation, and in his gift of orchestral coloring, Schubert has had no superior.*
> 
> ..The more I study them, the more I marvel. Although the influence of Haydn and Mozart is apparent in them, Schubert's musical individuality is unmistakable in the character of the melody, in the harmonic progressions, and in many exquisite bits of orchestration. In his later symphonies he becomes more and more individual and original. The influence of Haydn and Mozart, so obvious in his earlier efforts, is gradually eliminated. With his contemporary, Beethoven, he had less in common from the beginning. He resembles Beethoven, however, in the vigor and melodious flow of his basses; such basses we find even in his early symphonies. *His 'Unfinished Symphony' and the great one in C are unique contributions to musical literature, absolutely new and original, Schubert in every bar. What is perhaps most characteristic is the song-like melody pervading them. He introduced the song into the symphony, and made the transfer so skillfully that Schumann was led to speak of the resemblance to the human voice of these orchestral parts.*
> 
> The richness and variety of coloring in the great Symphony in C are *astounding.* It is a work which always fascinates, always remains new. It has the effect of gathering clouds, with constant glimpses of sunshine breaking through them.


Robert Schumann



> *The complete independence in which this symphony stands to those of Beethoven, is another sign of its mature origin. Here, one can see how appropriately and wisely Schubert's genius reveals itself. * To imitate grotesque forms, the daring relationships, as we find them in Beethoven's later works, he avoids, being aware of his modest forces; he gives to us a work in most graceful form, and, yet, one that shows a new path, nowhere leading too far off its center, always returning to it. Thus it must appear to everybody who looks at this symphony more often. At first, the glamour and novelty of its instrumentation, the width and breadth of form, the graceful change of moods, the entire new world into which we are transported, will confuse one or the other (listener), as also every first glance at the unfamiliar; yet, there also still remains the sublime feeling as, for example, that after we have attended the performance of a fairy tale or a magical play; everywhere, one feels that the composer was master of his visions, and the connection will become clear to you, in time. Right at the outset, this impression of certainty is conveyed in the richly adorned, romantic introduction, although everything still appears mysteriously veiled. Completely new is also the crossover into the Allegro; the tempo does not even appear to change, we have arrived and do not know how. To dissect the different movements will neither bring joy to us nor to others; one would have to copy the entire symphony in order to convey an impression of the novel character. Only from the second movement that speaks to us with such moving voices, I do not want to part without saying a word about it. In it, there is also a part in which the horn seems to be calling as from afar, that appears to be descending down from another sphere to me. Here, everything is listening, as if a heavenly guest was quietly walking through the orchestra.
> 
> *The symphony has had an effect on us like none other after Beethoven's symphonies. A*rtists and friends of art united in its praise, and of the master who rehearsed it most carefully so that it could be heard splendidly, I heard a few words that I wish I could have conveyed to Schubert, perhaps as the most joyful message for him. It might be that years will pass until it (the symphony) will be at home in Germany; that it will be forgotten, overlooked, there is no fear of that; it bears in itself the eternal fountain of youth.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

trazom said:


> The third movement of his last symphony is more subdued compared to the other movements, but that doesn't mean it's subtle.


I suspect that the poor 4th horn is worried about things other than subtlety when we get to that point.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2012)

I'm puzzled (not difficult for me, I'll admit).

Beethoven wrote orchestral music. What is being said is that his orchestration - surely the essence of what orchestral music is about - is less colourful (andreas), less subtle (ramako), and 'utilitarian' (KenOC) (in what I take as a disparaging sense).

Yet he is highly regarded as an orchestral composer. That suggests that there is something else that he does with his orchestra which has equal, if not greater validity, which Lukecash explores.

So, is he a 'good' orchestrator, or not?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> So, is he a 'good' orchestrator, or not?


Well, that a puzzle for sure. The trouble is, like so many other aspects of Beethoven's music, how could it possibly be any different?


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I'm puzzled (not difficult for me, I'll admit).
> 
> Beethoven wrote orchestral music. What is being said is that his orchestration - surely the essence of what orchestral music is about - is less colourful (andreas), less subtle (ramako), and 'utilitarian' (KenOC) (in what I take as a disparaging sense).
> 
> ...


I think later composers were more inventive in creative with regard to how they used the different instruments of the orchestra, how they combined them, in order to create new and unique sounds.

I think in Beethovens time there were certain rules and conventions that determined the functions of the different sections of the orchestra. That determined which instruments mix well and which don't. That determined role the viola or the bassoon may play in the context of a work and which not.

Beethoven, it seems to me, was not very interested in exploring new paths in terms of instrumentation and orchestration. I think he cared more about the musical conception of his works. For instance, I'd guess that most of his piano sonatas would work just as well played by a string quartet, and his string quartets would be just as amazing as pieces for the piano.

Also, as time went on, new instruments were included in the orchestral lineup, like the cor anglais, the harp, the tuba, the triangle etc., adding all kinds of colours to the sound. This was taken further by Mahler's sleighbells, cowbells, anvil and hammer, or other sound effect devices like the wind machine, the whip or the ratchet.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> But Beethoven wasn't writing in order to have a lot of colour. His orchestration compliments the development of the theme. Beethoven kept with a tradition of more conservative orchestration, and, for example, really felt he was making a wild statement by adding a choir to a symphony. The instruments are utilized using typical effects, the progression between them, alternating between woodwinds and strings, then pointed interruptions, is natural and not unexpected. His talent was in doing this well. His alternations are convincing. The brilliance of his music is in the form, the progression of themes, the overriding motifs that take their time in returning, and in his orchestration that serves these purposes, not the other way around. A pattern of alternation develops, and then the restatement is made with a new group of instruments. This lends to the strength of the restatement. He doesn't do what he does to interest you. He waits to do something like that, until he feels like saying "here we are, this theme is back again". The development is more logical, instead of just placing a bunch of nice and colourful sounding stuff next side by side. When he segues into something else, it's majestic. When others segue into something else, it can be underwhelming by comparison. They just want to get on with their next great idea. Beethoven, on the other hand, is telling a story. His style of symphony plays out as if it had a text. Even in his earlier work, he has this tendency, even while sounding like Haydn.


Um, that seems to almost exactly mirror the sentiment of my post... Which is great because we agree


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> less subtle (ramako)


I have not said it isn't subtle, I have said it is perhaps less subtle than Mozart (debatable because they are close) and less subtle than Haydn - of whom Rimsky Korsakov said that he was "the greatest master of orchestration". In fact the whole point of my post was to demonstrate that it was subtle but obviously that didn't work very well.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2012)

Ramako said:


> I have not said it isn't subtle, I have said it is perhaps less subtle than Mozart (debatable because they are close) and less subtle than Haydn - of whom Rimsky Korsakov said that he was "the greatest master of orchestration". In fact the whole point of my post was to demonstrate that it was subtle but obviously that didn't work very well.


Er...you quote me quoting you saying 'less subtle'...so no conflict there.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Er...you quote me quoting you saying 'less subtle'...so no conflict there.


Yes, but given Lukecash's response as well clearly I failed to communicate the meaning of my post well.

Less subtle in comparison to Haydn, Mahler... Maybe or maybe not Mozart - roughly equal. Not less subtle in comparison to everyone.

But let's drop it since I seem to be having problems communicating myself at the moment and we are arguing over semantics anyway.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Ramako said:


> Yes, but given Lukecash's response as well clearly I failed to communicate the meaning of my post well.
> 
> Less subtle in comparison to Haydn, Mahler... Maybe or maybe not Mozart - roughly equal. Not less subtle in comparison to everyone.
> 
> But let's drop it since I seem to be having problems communicating myself at the moment and we are arguing over semantics anyway.


Oh, I got you, but I wanted to talk up the conservative approach a bit. Conservative isn't a bad way to go either.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Cut the guy some slack, he was deaf y'know!

Nothing wrong with his orchestration.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Personally I see his orchestration as being pretty creative for its time. I mean, Classical period orchestration for the most part is the most boring element of that period. Everything is extremely homogenized and bland. There are certain bits of orchestration that are very imaginative and forward thinking in certain works of Haydn and Mozart, but for the most part things are done the same way. Beethoven's, to me, tends to sound heavier, which is fitting of his Romantic style.

I tend to view orchestration and judge by two different standards: artistically and practically. As far as artistically, this is how timbre is utilized by the composer. The instruments playing which notes of the harmony, and their articulations and dynamics, and the textures they create. Beethoven still retains alot of the aesthetic of Classical writing, but alot of it is pushing forward towards the far more colorful and dramatic use of timbre we later get with composers like Berlioz and Tchaikovsky, it wasn't a sudden leap from the Classical sound to Berlioz. I personally think Beethoven's orchestration is beautiful and generally fits the sound of his music, though it would be certainly interesting to hear other composers' ideas of how they might sound. As far as practicality goes (I think somewhat similar to your idea of utilitarian orchestration) I would describe as how practical is it in performance, and how idiomatic is the writing for the instruments. Part of it isn't Beethoven's fault, because modern instruments are very different from how they were in his time, but there are certain things that aren't as practical. For instance, alot of his brass writing includes HUGE leaps from one note to another, sometimes up to really high notes at a lower dynamic, and these are extremely difficult to do on brass instruments, and those notes usually stick out of the texture without alot of extra work by the performer. 

Stravinsky and Ravel were among the best in terms of extremely practical orchestration while also being brilliantly artistic in the orchestration as well


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Adding to Burningdesire's post, it can also be noted that critics of the time sometimes complained about how much wind was used in Beethoven's symphonies. Even the 1st had more significant wind parts than most things of the classical era(though the baroque was a different matter). Carl Phillip Emanuel Bach used plenty of wind instruments in his symphonies in a fashion more akin to baroque music, but Haydn and Mozart, and most of their contemporaries, used less.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> ...critics of the time sometimes complained about how much wind was used in Beethoven's symphonies.


That criticsm was made of Symphony #1, along with its opening on a discord (and a mild one at that). But a word of caution: Liner notes and even reference books tend to quote only the negative reviews, evidently trying to prove some kind of point. The 1st symphony was, in fact, very well received and considered to be quite wild and daring, not in a bad way. From the AMZ: "This great symphony, this wonderful clear masterwork by Beethoven which is full of harmony and still lacks all bizarre elements, was executed with taste and energy. How splendidly did the first Allegro sway back and forth in its emotional storms and effects! How pleasantly did the Quasi-Allegretto calm the excited senses! How unsurpassingly beautifully did the wind instruments play the 'singing' in the Trio of the minuet, in which the violins executed the progressing motions in entire synchrony!"

The second was also highly regarded, though as Grove points out, it wasn't considered quite as "safe" as the 1st. The famous review of the 2nd, referring to it as a "gross wounded serpent, refusing to die," was from a French paper and not at all indicative of general opinion.

Re the Eroica, after complaining about the length -- "it plays for an hour" -- the AMZ reviewer says: "Anyway, the work has been written as it is, and it is certain -- all connoisseurs' voices that the reviewer has heard agree, if not the authors of certain leaflets! -- it is certain, I say, that this symphony is one of the most original, sublime, and profound products that music has to show for itself." This was written in 1803.

The Beethoven myth is, of course, quite otherwise.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm reminded of Ted Turner's asinine efforts to colorize classic black and white films in order to give them more "pizzazz".


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I'm reminded of Ted Turner's asinine efforts to colorize classic black and white films in order to give them more "pizzazz".


Considering that TT was 'asinine' enough to marry Hanoi Jane, his bumbling search for pizzazz via the 'colorized' seems fitting.


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2012)

Oh, you're one cool Dude, Hilltroll72. I like your style, Dude (see "The Big Lebowski")!! Hanoi Jane - now she keeps her rear off rockets and her hands off mortar and sticks to a daily grind on the treadmill!! The aging Barbarella. Delicious.

Colorized B&W classics, where the actors look cadaverous and their clothes brilliantly coloured. What a hoot!!


----------

