# What truly makes a good orchestrator?



## clavichorder

Music theory typically has more of a focus on harmony, but there are subtle harmonics that go into making the different timbres of instruments, so it must underly orchestration to some extent. 

Janacek is one of my favorite orchestrators. I love the clarity of his sound, particularly with the strings. His orchestration seem to perfectly enhance his musical ideas and sense of form. This is something I would really have to look at the score on, but I get the feeling that his orchestration is not the most complex, and yet it really does it for me.

I don't really know how to penetrate the surface of this topic, but I thought I'd post it in music theory in case anyone has some deeper perspectives.


----------



## arpeggio

I went rummaging through the internet and found the following which seems to me a good overview of the process.

"Orchestration

Now that we are familiar with the different instruments of the orchestra and have a good idea of how to incorporate them into a cohesive ensemble, we begin our life long journey of discovering how to artfully extract the most possible beauty from this collection of versatile sound producing devices. With so many choices of instruments, the task can seem a little daunting at first, but through practice, we can recognize patterns that will help guide our decisions and yield powerful and provocative orchestral textures.

Before we begin assigning parts to instruments, it is very important that your music makes sense to the ear in an absolute sense. What I mean by absolute sense is that if you were to have one or two pianists play the entire composition, would the music be easily digested by the ear with clearly defined musical lines or would it be difficult to discern the different parts from one another? If the answer is the latter, you probably want to revisit the composition of the music before you attempt to orchestrate it. Well composed music will always translate better to the orchestra, so take the time and make sure you're happy with the notes before you start deciding which instruments should play them.

Balance

Balance is arguably the most important factor in successfully orchestrating a piece of music. During orchestra rehearsals, a large percentage of time is spent on adjusting the dynamic levels of individual instrument parts to assure that all parts are audible and an even, balanced texture is achieved. Our goal as orchestrators is to minimize the need for these dynamic adjustments so that every instrument is clearly audible and free of conflicts between instruments with little effort by the performers. The end result will have a greater sense of cohesion, rather than sounding like a pack of misfits all competing to be heard.

The different factors that affect balance are as follows:

1.Number of instruments playing the line. The more players that are playing a given line, the louder and more powerful the line becomes. That being said, equal numbers of instruments of equal weight in tone will produce an even balance. For example, two flutes playing a melody line in unison will balance evenly with two bassoons playing a bass line in unison.
2.Instrument's family. As a general statement, brass and percussion instruments are the strongest members of the orchestra, then the strings, and then the woodwinds. Careful consideration must be taken when balancing parts among the different families. It is often best to balance each family within itself to achieve an even balance in the whole orchestra.
3.Instrument's register. The quality of tone and degree of weight varies greatly depending on the instrument's register. It is very important to understand these differences to properly balance textures. Refer to the range charts given in the "Overview of Orchestral Groups"
4.Vertical relationship to the other parts. The top line of a texture is the easiest to hear, the bottom line is the next easiest, and the middle voices are the most difficult.
5.Space between parts. The farther apart voices are from each other, the easier it is to discern them from one another.
6.Degree of movement. The more a part moves, the more it sticks out within a texture. The less a part moves, the more it fades into the background.
7.Dynamics. Although, balance through instrumentation is commonly the best approach, certain instances call for instruments to play at different dynamic levels. Suppose you want to have your first violinist stand up and take a solo. You would likely want to have the orchestra playing two dynamic shades lower than the first violinist so as not to drown him/her out.

Blending

One of the most interesting aspects of orchestration is the blending of timbres. Just as an artist mixes paints to produce different shades of color, an orchestrator blends timbres to produce different shades of sound. With the sheer number of instrument and articulation combinations, the possibilities for different timbres are virtually infinite. As an orchestrator, it is your job to experiment with all these different combinations and discover the ones that best suit the music you are orchestrating.

It is important to understand that the more instruments you have playing a given line, the less colorful the line becomes, but with loss of color comes gain in power. As you begin blending timbres, there are a few different factors that tend to produce better results:

1.When the instruments are in the same family and even more so in the same subgroup (e.g. single-reeds).
2.When the instruments are evenly balanced with each other (e.g. 1 trumpet playing f = 2 french horns playing f).
3.When the instruments play adjacent voices.
4.When the instruments play parts that are similar to each other, especially in articulation.
5.When none of the timbres attract more attention than the others.
6.When the intervals between the instruments remain relatively consistent.

Function

A major part of making decisions when it comes to balance and blending is function. It is important to understand how a given line functions in relation to all the other parts. For this purpose, we can break it down into three different functions from greatest to least importance: melody, bass, and accompaniment. The following methods can be used to help maintain a clear function throughout your arrangement:
•Melody◦Keep line on top of the texture
◦Double on the unison or in octaves
◦Use instruments with greater strength
◦Use the more powerful registers
◦Use louder dynamic markings

•Bass◦Keep line on the bottom of the texture
◦Double on the unison or in octaves
◦Use instruments with powerful low registers
◦Use louder dynamic markings

•Accompaniment◦Keep lines in the middle of the texture
◦Use less doubling
◦Use instruments with lesser strength
◦Use the weaker registers
◦Use instruments of similar timbres
◦Use softer dynamic markings

Closing Thoughts

Although there are many different techniques to achieve favorable results when it comes to orchestration, there are no rules set in stone. Sometimes the best moments are those when the rules are broken. For example, the opening of Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" is a bassoon solo played at the very top of the bassoon's range that has a plaintive, almost piercing quality to it. Most orchestrators would never dare give that part to a bassoon, especially not at the very beginning of the ballet. But that is what makes the music so great and innovative is that he took chances and broke the rules, and it paid off. At the premiere, the music had such a profound effect on the audience that a riot broke out in the concert hall!

Some other things you can do to become a better orchestrator are:
•Learn as much as possible about each instrument. The more you know about each of the different instruments, the more comfortable you will feel giving parts to them. Get to know some orchestral musicians. They know more about their instruments than anyone else and can provide you with a wealth of invaluable knowledge.
•Read books on orchestration. The purpose of this article is to be a crash course in orchestration and was by no means meant to cover all the topics associated with orchestration. Go to your local library and check out some books on orchestration.
•Practice and experiment. There is no substitute for experience, so don't be afraid to try new things. Even if the results are not as favorable as you had hoped, you're learning. Over time you'll develop an arsenal of techniques that you can use to achieve any hue of expression you desire.
Stravinsky has been quoted for coining the phrase, "Good composers borrow, great composers steal." Even if you try your hardest to sound exactly like someone else, you'll only end up sounding like yourself trying to sound like that person. No matter what you do, you'll always sound like yourself, so why worry about it? Steal away! They've already done a lot of the hard work for you, so take advantage.

Furthermore, if you're going to steal, steal from the best. Why would you ever want to steal from an average composer? It's only going to make your music sound average. Steal from the best, and your music will reflect that.

Orchestration may seem intimidating at first, but the more you do it, the better you will get at it. The orchestra can be the most versatile medium you will ever use, so spend time to get comfortable with it. Leonard Bernstein said it best in his 1958 broadcast of his Young People's Concerts series, "The right music played by the right instruments at the right time in the right combination: that's good orchestration." "

Source: http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/creative/music-and-sound/a-brief-guide-to-orchestration-r2718


----------



## arpeggio

*Personal observation*

From my experiences playing with an orchestra or band I have found that when performing a well orchestrated piece very rarely are all of the musicians playing at the same time. I know I am doing a poor job of explaining it. Even when in an orchestra one still has the feel of playing chamber music. You may sit around resting for minutes but when you do play, even if it is an accompaniment, you are the only one playing the line. Most of the time the work is a series of segments where different combinations of instruments are playing with each other.

Most of the time a bad orchestrator has all of the instruments playing together at the same time.  One then rarely hears the unique sounds that the various combinations of small groups of instruments can produce.

Hopefully someone can do a better job of explaining it than I just did.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

What makes a great orchestrator.....well, mostly whether or not they consulted me before writing their piece 

Well, you can buy a book on orchestration for $40-$100 online that will give you a good overview, you can spend time with musicians who play the instruments you want to write for or attempt to learn to play them yourself, and/ or you can start writing and learn from experience (the hard/ only way).

In the end, I think it takes a deep sensitivity that comes from your gut; if you have enough experience, the spirit of your expression will tell you exactly what it wants.

my typical handful of cliche/ obvious statements formatted to try and sound like something sophisticated, but this topic interests me so i felt like replying


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Just double everything in octaves, several times in the case of the bass, make everything really loud and beyond the limits of the instrument registers.


----------



## clavichorder

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Just double everything in octaves, several times in the case of the bass, make everything really loud and beyond the limits of the instrument registers.


Is there a particular composer that utilizes this golden template of orchestration?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^ You ask a very good question in the OP

We have had an example of general advice for beginners in Arpeggio's post, but it hasn't answered the question as it was set. I guess it is because of the difficulties of defining good practice - in my profession, I know that it is really difficult to define what makes good preofessional practice - it is easier to daw attention to weak practice, it is easy to poijt to how a particular example of professional practice may be improved but attempts to identify the characteristics of good professional practice are often unsatisfactory because excellence often goes beyond the sum of the individual components and has a (sometimes large) component of _je ne sais quoi_ that is clearly 'good' even when we cannot define or identify 'good'.


----------



## EdwardBast

The term orchestration and the description of the process in some of the material arpeggio has been kind enough to quote above strike me as fundamentally strange and misguided, particularly passages like: "Before we begin assigning parts to instruments, it is very important that your music makes sense to the ear in an absolute sense." The implication here is that the composer has composed a bunch of notes in the abstract or on the piano and then must decide who is going to play them. Why this two-stage process of composing and then orchestrating after the fact? Such a process seems like horrible advice to me and the situation that makes it necessary should be avoided like the plague. Orchestral music, ideally, should be written with the sounds of the instruments playing it in mind from the beginning. Don't write a melody for piano and then debate whether an oboe or a trumpet should play it. Either write a melody for oboe or one for trumpet.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> The term orchestration and the description of the process in some of the material arpeggio has been kind enough to quote above strike me as fundamentally strange and misguided, particularly passages like: "Before we begin assigning parts to instruments, it is very important that your music makes sense to the ear in an absolute sense." The implication here is that the composer has composed a bunch of notes in the abstract or on the piano and then must decide who is going to play them. Why this two-stage process of composing and then orchestrating after the fact? Such a process seems like horrible advice to me and the situation that makes it necessary should be avoided like the plague. Orchestral music, ideally, should be written with the sounds of the instruments playing it in mind from the beginning. Don't write a melody for piano and then debate whether an oboe or a trumpet should play it. Either write a melody for oboe or one for trumpet.


Several composers considered great orchestrators did in fact use this method, including Ravel.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

The two-step process makes sense for people learning to orchestrate, especially since orchestrating piano music is a common way to learn...though to me conceiving the timbre (not specific instruments, but the kind of sound approximately) at the same time as the other aspects of any given musical idea seems like it's overall going to be better.


----------



## Bridge

Mahlerian said:


> Several composers considered great orchestrators did in fact use this method, including Ravel.


And Stravinsky.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> The term orchestration and the description of the process in some of the material arpeggio has been kind enough to quote above strike me as fundamentally strange and misguided, particularly passages like: "Before we begin assigning parts to instruments, it is very important that your music makes sense to the ear in an absolute sense." The implication here is that the composer has composed a bunch of notes in the abstract or on the piano and then must decide who is going to play them. Why this two-stage process of composing and then orchestrating after the fact? Such a process seems like horrible advice to me and the situation that makes it necessary should be avoided like the plague. Orchestral music, ideally, should be written with the sounds of the instruments playing it in mind from the beginning. Don't write a melody for piano and then debate whether an oboe or a trumpet should play it. Either write a melody for oboe or one for trumpet.


It seems to me that the degree to which a composer needs to think directly in terms of orchestral colors depends somewhat on the style of the music. Some styles are more adaptable than others to different orchestrations, and works in those styles (Bach's music is probably the classic case) may be more conceivable as "absolute" constructions. It's also obvious that composers present the same musical ideas in different orchestrations within the same work, according to context. Innumerable fine melodies and harmonic effects are quite adaptable in this way, which is one of the things that makes them useful in creating larger musical structures.

It would be interesting to know how much use various composers have made of the piano in working out their ideas while composing. There must be a continuum between those who create a full "piano reduction" on two staves before producing an orchestral score and those who compose directly for orchestra. I believe Berlioz, who didn't play the piano, did the latter, while Wagner, who played the piano serviceably, did the former. They are both, of course, masters of the orchestra, but their predominant styles may point to the difference in their method, with Berlioz preferring a transparent texture exhibiting the individuality of the instruments and Wagner often (though not always) creating rich blends in which individual timbres often disappear. Given the impressiveness of what each produced, I'd be hesitant to say that Berlioz's approach was better, particularly as I'm sure Wagner had many of his orchestral effects in mind even as he produced his piano scores. Maybe the centrality of harmony to his style made composing at the piano a necessity for him; I think it's responsible for the fact that much of the "essence" of his music is felt in piano reduction, while Berlioz's reliance on instrumental color makes a lot of his music sound odd and weak when so reduced.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

You can also write in a piano staff while thinking orchestrally, the purpose being practicality and easier reading.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Richannes Wrahms said:


> You can also write in a piano staff while thinking orchestrally, the purpose being practicality and easier reading.


I read that that's how a lot of movie scores would be done; the composer would write the music on two grand staves and write in what instruments were to play them, then the orchestrators would actually write it.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

By 'wind instruments' I meant flute, like how you hear in Native American and eastern flute playing.....the western concert flute can bend pitches but I've almost never heard it used.


----------



## Truckload

Clavichorder - I have read books on orchestration, but I think I have actually gained a greater understanding by listening to a recording while following along with a score. Eventually you will be able to get a sense of the general sound to expect just by looking at the score. Of course some get so good that they can just look at a score and "hear" the orchestra playing in their head. I am referring to music of the common practice era only, which would include most movie scores.

For example, I obtained a score of the William's "Harry Potter" suite, and very much enjoyed following along in the score while listening. I call this "active" listening, and I am not sure if I am the first or only one to use that term. My memory is not as perfect as I wish it were.

Just yesterday I was following along in my score of the Dvorak 4th Symphony while listening. I was so taken with the slow movement that I felt compelled to analyze some of it and compare to Wagner. Very informative.

But to answer the OP more specifically, I think a good orchestrator uses the orchestra to create music that shows off the orchestra to gretest advantage. This probably includes creating a soundscape that in and of itself contributes to the artistic expression of the music independently of any other musical factor (melody, harmony, form).


----------



## Woodduck

Truckload said:


> But to answer the OP more specifically, I think a good orchestrator uses the orchestra to create music that shows off the orchestra to greatest advantage. This probably includes creating a soundscape that in and of itself contributes to the artistic expression of the music independently of any other musical factor (melody, harmony, form).


I think the opposite: I think good orchestration is whatever suits the melodic, harmonic, and formal elements of a work. Composers such as Berlioz, Rimsky-Korsakov, Ravel, and Messiaen, who revel in creating interesting sonorities, are not the only ones who merit the title "great orchestrator." It might be interesting to hear Brahms' _First Symphony_ as orchestrated by Ravel, but do we really want to hear that work as a "soundscape"? Brahms is not often cited as a "great" orchestrator, but his dark, warm sonorities perfectly express his emotional world without distracting us with extraneous colors and effects. Schoenberg's orchestration of Brahms' _Piano Quartet in g-minor_ is interesting and enjoyable, but it is more an exercise "for fun" than a penetration of the aesthetic world of Brahms. Wagner, who _is_ considered a master of orchestration, finds a different range of colors for each of his opera; we never feel that the choice of instrumental timbre is "independent" of the other elements of a work, which are all united in expressing a central dramatic idea. It's also obvious that music can be orchestrally fascinating yet otherwise insubstantial. Is the composer of such music a great orchestrator? Maybe - but who cares?


----------



## Truckload

Woodduck said:


> Brahms is not often cited as a "great" orchestrator, but his dark, warm sonorities perfectly express his emotional world without distracting us with extraneous colors and effects.


Brahms must have been pleased with his orchestrations, since I am unaware of any revisions he made after hearing the works performed. Also, his orchestration "style" remained fairly consistent throughout his career, so he must have liked the result. Still, as you point out, he is not cited as a "great" orchestrator. So apparently there is a divergence between what many fans of orchestration find to be great and what Brahms chose. Interesting.

A fun compare and contrast exercise is to consider the storm scene from the Beethoven 6th, and compare it to the Rossini William Tell storm scene from the point of view of orchestration. I believe I remember reading many years ago that Rossini idolized Beethoven and wrote the storm music in partial homage to Beethoven.

I would be very interested in knowing which works you find to be orchestrally fascinating yet otherwise insubstantial. Personally, I think that a lot of movie music might fit that criteria, but no art music from the common practice era comes to my mind.


----------



## drfaustus

> Several composers considered great orchestrators did in fact use this method, including Ravel.


The pioneer composers in each age have made to their orchestrations and experiments. I'm not sure if Ravel used a rigorous method. I think that Ravel used a particular way to orchestration, guided by his ear and his intuition.
There is one way to orchestrate in the Baroque, in the Classicism, Romanticism, Impressionism, etc. Obviously. If, Beethoven, Debussy, Ravel or Stravinsky established models in their periods. Nowadays. Into Art Music, orchestration is like a chemistry lab where the mixing of sounds and instruments contribute to make new forms of expression whose they are in continuous development.

A good example of experimentation:


----------



## Headphone Hermit

drfaustus said:


> There is one way to orchestrate in the Baroque, in the Classicism, Romanticism, Impressionism, etc. Obviously. If, Beethoven, Debussy, Ravel or Stravinsky established models in their periods.
> 
> Nowadays ... orchestration is like a chemistry lab where the mixing of sounds and instruments contribute to make new forms of expression whose they are in continuous development.


Really? There was *one* way to orchestrate ... just *one*? Are you sure that you meant to write that? It strikes me that there were a variety of ways to orchestrate in those eras (certainly in Romanticism).

Did you really mean that for each era, there was a 'leader' who "established models" and who was followed by all the rest until another 'leader' suddenly emerged? I don't recognise that at all - it seems to me that orchestration developed throughout the C19 (and before and after) with a lot of experimentation and debate, involving a wide range of composers and performers (and instrument makers), and with considerable mixing of sounds and instruments to make new forms of expression

No ..... sorry, I think you need to listen a lot more to the music from these eras


----------



## drfaustus

I have mentioned the most paradigmatic composers. I have appointed Beethoven (for exepmple) because in his first symphonies to distance oneself to Haydn...
I thought this would be understood...
I don't need to listen a lot more. I listened enough when I studied orchestration for three years...


----------



## Headphone Hermit

drfaustus said:


> I studied orchestration for three years...


and you learnt that there was one way to orchestrate in the Romantic era?

I hope you didn't pay much for that quality of 'education'


----------



## drfaustus

I have not talked about orchestration in the Romantic era. I was only trying to think of any possible relevant features about Ravel. 
when a person is not capable to see himself, all the worst things about himself, this person thinks or believes that other people suffer because of him.
People see what they want to see…

PD: I hope you don't like Thomas Adès.


----------



## Rik1

EdwardBast said:


> The term orchestration and the description of the process in some of the material arpeggio has been kind enough to quote above strike me as fundamentally strange and misguided, particularly passages like: "Before we begin assigning parts to instruments, it is very important that your music makes sense to the ear in an absolute sense." The implication here is that the composer has composed a bunch of notes in the abstract or on the piano and then must decide who is going to play them. Why this two-stage process of composing and then orchestrating after the fact? Such a process seems like horrible advice to me and the situation that makes it necessary should be avoided like the plague. Orchestral music, ideally, should be written with the sounds of the instruments playing it in mind from the beginning. Don't write a melody for piano and then debate whether an oboe or a trumpet should play it. Either write a melody for oboe or one for trumpet.


Interesting debate. I think for me, that description best applies when we are talking about orchestrating say a piano piece or string quartet that has already been composed. But also particularly for Romantic music. 19th century composers ioften composed by writing it for piano first. I am sure they had ideas of the orchestral sound in mind as they were composing mind you. A lot of modern music that utilises soundscapes, is often about the sound in itself and the overall effect. This kind of music can only be conceived (in my view) for those instruments or sounds. So in this case, orchestration is part of and integral to composition.

So 'orchestration' as a topic means slightly different processes depending on the type of music era and method of composition.

Something like Bach is probably the ultimate example of 'pure tonal music' that lends itself to almost any type of sound or instrument because it is the notes themselves, the rhythms and the harmony that is important. But for music that relies on the combinations of sounds and effects, orchestration is an essential part of the composition process. Modern composition techniques using software enabling composition to be done by ear make this much easier.


----------



## Stavrogin

HH, as I understand drfaustus wanted to highlight the differences between the main paradygms in different eras, and did not imply a uniqueness of approach in each era.
Much ado about nothing, imo.


----------



## drfaustus

> I hope you didn't pay much for that quality of 'education'


I do not know whether to talk about specific techniques. This is, in addition to instruments, overlapping or dubbing, for example.
We only have to think the orchestra is different in each era.
In accordance with Headphone Hermit's allegations, I won't give a class about this...


----------



## pixier

I disagree that a composer has to have the orchestrations in his mind when composing. Tchaikovsky of course did that, because that is how the ideas came, but what if the germ of one's musical idea is a melody, or series of themes, whose virtues are (largely) independent of its eventual arrangement? Many, many composers think that way. Then the job is to present the musical ideas most effectively, and hence it is done in two stages.


----------



## TonneEnevoldsen

Who were the famous orchestrator before up to today?


----------



## TonneEnevoldsen

do you know guys?


----------



## EdwardBast

TonneEnevoldsen said:


> Who were the famous orchestrator before up to today?


You could start with the two who wrote important treatises on the subject in the 19thc: Berlioz and Rimsky-Korsakoff. Both were excellent. Tchaikovsky and Ravel too. But there is a long list …


----------



## DeepR

This is interesting as I was recently reading a bit and thinking about orchestration. I guess there's something to be said for both methods (composing with instrument in mind or the two stage method). I'm curious which composers used which method. It's probably hard to keep the two stages method "pure" and not think ahead about the kind of instrument that could/should play the part. The second stage could be more about the finer details of the orchestration while the basics are laid out in the first stage, when parts are composed with help of a piano for example.


----------



## DeepR

What do people think about Bruckner's orchestration, particularly the 8th (a work I've been listening to it a lot this year)? I recognize it's certainly not as finely colored as say Ravel, but for the kind of sound and effect that Bruckner was going for would you really have it any other way?


----------



## Mahlerian

DeepR said:


> What do people think about Bruckner's orchestration, particularly the 8th (a work I've been listening to it a lot this year)? I recognize it's certainly not as finely colored as say Ravel, but for the kind of sound and effect that Bruckner was going for would you really have it any other way?


It has some nice touches here and there, but mostly it's quite monochrome and lacks subtlety.


----------



## Woodduck

I have to admit that when listening to Bruckner I have never listened to his orchestration with a thought of evaluating it. Now that I think about that, I'd say it indicates that his orchestration suits his style very well. It isn't music that requires "great orchestration" of the sort that gets our attention, and in fact I suspect that he knew he was trying for the very opposite. A fervent admirer of Wagner who chooses not to emulate his idol in a quest for new and magical sonorities is likely making that choice for a good reason. Modesty, for Bruckner, was a virtue. If it works - as I think it does - it's good orchestration because it's right for its purpose.


----------



## Truckload

I have never thought about Bruckner as a great orchestrator, especially compared to Mahler, who I would think is the most similar composer to Bruckner in many ways. They were very different, yet they also have much in common. Both lived and worked in very roughly the same time frame, both using very large orchestras as their medium of expression, both using the extended chromatic language of late romanticism, both stretching the symphonic form to the very far limits of its capacity.

Mahler had the enormous orchestration advantage of being an active conductor. He could try out passages with his numerous instrumentalist friends in small groups or even try out passages with the full orchestra on occasions and make changes as needed.

Beethoven in his early and mid periods would invite small groups to audition things for him and make changes as a result. Many composers did this. Only a very few composers, for example Mozart, could sit at a desk and write out perfect music and never go back to change anything.


----------



## Truckload

I love this topic, so please forgive an additional post. A perfect example of a piece first written for keyboard, yet exhibiting "great" orchestration is "The Planets" by Holst. This piece was first written as a duet for two pianos and functions fairly well for that instrumentation. But the piece achieves the sublime once orchestrated. And the orchestration is very creative and unusual. The use of the solo Euphonium stands out in my mind as one example of the its unusual qualities, yet so inspired and perfect in execution.

This particular work also includes the occasional use pf modal harmonies and passages of bitonality, while retaining a rich and beautiful sound accessible by anyone. It is an amazing composition.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

EdwardBast said:


> You could start with the two who wrote important treatises on the subject in the 19thc: Berlioz and Rimsky-Korsakoff. Both were excellent. Tchaikovsky and Ravel too. But there is a long list …


Adding Gevaert, Glazunov, Stravinsky, De Falla, Holst and Koechlin...


----------



## Arturo Benedetti

I wish Alban Berg and Maurice ravel were still alive! They would be able to answer your question


----------



## Xenakiboy

I think a good orchestrator is able to convey the required degrees of intensity and subtly in their medium (any era will have different aesthetics to convey) 
Mahler, Ravel, Stravinsky, Messiaen, Xenakis are four of the greatest orchestrators, but not limited to them. Though I'm unsure of the amount of orchestral music from Messiaen and Xenakis was actually orchestrated from a piano draft, their control over the forces of the orchestra is incredible and incomparable. I know a large percentage of Xenakis' Orchestral Music was composed from the ground up, using his methods.

Nethertheless, the aforementioned composers had an astounding control over the orchestra and conveyed everything they where trying to convey perfectly! :tiphat:


----------



## Pugg

Arturo Benedetti said:


> I wish Alban Berg and Maurice ravel were still alive! They would be able to answer your question


Nobody is unmissable .


----------



## clavichorder

Tarus Bulba by Janacek is music that I have been hearing as being extraordinary for both the orchestration and the odd rhythms and phrases. Crisp and vivid. I wish I could understand better what it is I like about it so much. There are few pieces like that where each little puff of sound is such a gem.


----------



## Spawnofsatan

A good orchestrator will not have everyone playing at once, will not have the strings leading (except for when applicable), will take into consideration the harmonic depth they are trying to achieve. There are some excellent books written on this subject, it's a must know for any composer!


----------



## chalkpie

Some of my favorite orchestrators (in no order):

Mahler
Ravel
Debussy
Stravinsky
Ligeti
Messiaen
Schoenberg


----------



## chalkpie

^ I just noticed that these are some of my favorite composers too. 

Another favorite composer that I am a bit remiss to add is Sibelius. I think at times his orchestration reached genius level (S5, S7, Tapiola, Swan, Luonnotar) but other times I think he was merely wonderful. Love his music as much or more than just about anybody, though. He is Top 3 for me. Anybody put him in the list of elites regarding orchestration?


----------



## JeffD

EdwardBast said:


> Orchestral music, ideally, should be written with the sounds of the instruments playing it in mind from the beginning. .


Or at least sound like it was composed that way.


----------



## fluteman

Truckload said:


> I love this topic, so please forgive an additional post. A perfect example of a piece first written for keyboard, yet exhibiting "great" orchestration is "The Planets" by Holst. This piece was first written as a duet for two pianos and functions fairly well for that instrumentation. But the piece achieves the sublime once orchestrated. And the orchestration is very creative and unusual. The use of the solo Euphonium stands out in my mind as one example of the its unusual qualities, yet so inspired and perfect in execution.
> 
> This particular work also includes the occasional use pf modal harmonies and passages of bitonality, while retaining a rich and beautiful sound accessible by anyone. It is an amazing composition.


Very good points in both of your posts, Truckload, I agree entirely. Holst, like Mahler, had an excellent understanding of woodwind and brass sonorities. However, what bothers me with some modern "audiophile" recordings of Mahler symphonies (The Planets too) is an overemphasis on winds and brass. Their innovative orchestrations make their mark without sacrificing balance and consigning the strings to the background. As a wind player I guess I shouldn't mind, but I do. ;-)


----------



## Heck148

The "Planets" is quite remarkable for its orchestration - Holst called for several "unusual" instruments to be used - most performances nowadays use the alternative [cross-cued] parts available - ie - alto flute - many parts for this lovely, but gentle-sounding instrument - often in soli with flute section - these parts may be covered by the bassoon, or perhaps clarinet II. Holst also wrote for Heckelphone [a 2ble reed, pitched 1 8va lower than the oboe] - these parts may be cross-cued in the bassoon part - the tenor tuba part of course, is very prominent - esp in "mvt I "Mars"

Stravinsky used many of these instruments, plus more, in "Rite of Spring" - notable solos for alto flute, bass trumpet, 
2 tenor [Wagner] tubas as well. also - 
5 trumpets - D piccolo, 4 Bb, IV also plays bass trumpet
2 piccolo Clarinets - Eb [D]
2 contrabassoons
2 bass tubas [at very end of Part I, the 2 tubas end up on a clashing minor 2nd - FFF!!


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> The "Planets" is quite remarkable for its orchestration - Holst called for several "unusual" instruments to be used - most performances nowadays use the alternative [cross-cued] parts available - ie - alto flute - many parts for this lovely, but gentle-sounding instrument - often in soli with flute section - these parts may be covered by the bassoon, or perhaps clarinet II. Holst also wrote for Heckelphone [a 2ble reed, pitched 1 8va lower than the oboe] - these parts may be cross-cued in the bassoon part - the tenor tuba part of course, is very prominent - esp in "mvt I "Mars"
> 
> Stravinsky used many of these instruments, plus more, in "Rite of Spring" - notable solos for alto flute, bass trumpet,
> 2 tenor [Wagner] tubas as well. also -
> 5 trumpets - D piccolo, 4 Bb, IV also plays bass trumpet
> 2 piccolo Clarinets - Eb [D]
> 2 contrabassoons
> 2 bass tubas [at very end of Part I, the 2 tubas end up on a clashing minor 2nd - FFF!!


Good points and good post, Heck148. As you say, (shortly) before The Planets came Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring with similarly formidable wind and brass sections, in their entirety, according to Wikipedia: one piccolo, three flutes (third doubling second piccolo), one alto flute, four oboes (fourth doubling second English horn), English horn, three clarinets in B♭ and A (third doubling second bass clarinet), clarinet in E♭ and D, one bass clarinet, four bassoons (fourth doubling second contrabassoon), one contrabassoon; eight horns (seventh and eighth doubling tenor Wagner tubas), trumpet in D, four trumpets in C (fourth doubling bass trumpet in E♭), two trombones, one bass trombone, two bass tubas. The alto flute solo in the Rite is probably the most famous orchestral solo for that instrument. But I date the comeback of the wind instruments in modern music even earlier, to Debussy, as in The afternoon of a faun of 1894.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> Good points and good post, Heck148. As you say, (shortly) before The Planets came Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring with similarly formidable wind and brass sections, in their entirety, according to Wikipedia: one piccolo, three flutes (third doubling second piccolo), one alto flute, four oboes (fourth doubling second English horn), English horn, three clarinets in B♭ and A (third doubling second bass clarinet), clarinet in E♭ and D, one bass clarinet, four bassoons (fourth doubling second contrabassoon), one contrabassoon; eight horns (seventh and eighth doubling tenor Wagner tubas), trumpet in D, four trumpets in C (fourth doubling bass trumpet in E♭), two trombones, one bass trombone, two bass tubas. The alto flute solo in the Rite is probably the most famous orchestral solo for that instrument. But I date the comeback of the wind instruments in modern music even earlier, to Debussy, as in The afternoon of a faun of 1894.


Right - I forgot that Le Sacre uses 2 bass clarinets as well...Ravel uses alto flute also - in Daphnis...a work famous for its flute solos, section soli...
I'm not sure who did the reduced scoring for the Holst - I know very few orchestras use the Heckelphone/bass oboe. there is extensive cross-cuing in the standard orchestra parts - [it's still a huge orchestra]...


----------

