# Greatest Orchestrator of all time?



## JamieHoldham

Give a who and why.

Definition: Orchestration is the study or practice of writing music for an orchestra.

I will start first by stealing the obvious answer: Richard Wagner - from the absolute pinnacle of the Romantic era and arguably music in general, creating Operas of immense length with immense harmony, and of course orchestral color... it's hard to describe but Wagner seems to utilise the Orchestra with a almost perfection to the amount of repitition that is needed to give enough tension but not enough to make music feel too dull or lose energy, as well as his ability to fill in the gaps that is harmony... creating some of the most beautiful sounds and music ever composed, which is what gives Wagner's music feelings you didn't know existed until you listened to some of the Vorspiel's to his Operas, which I will give a single video example to solidify my reasoning for Wagner being the greatest Orchestrator and argubaly composer to ever live...

Parsifal - the most heavenly and divinely inspired harmonys of Herr Richard Wagner... with first page of the original Manuscript:

Part 1:





part 2:


----------



## MarkW

I was going to stay out of this until I realized that we actually had an A/B example: Listen to any of the "performing version" pages of the Mahler Tenth, and then try to imagine how much different (and better) they would sound if Mahler himself had orchestrated them.


----------



## JamieHoldham

MarkW said:


> I was going to stay out of this until I realized that we actually had an A/B example: Listen to any of the "performing version" pages of the Mahler Tenth, and then try to imagine how much different (and better) they would sound if Mahler himself had orchestrated them.


Of course Mahler would outdue anyone else trying to orchestrate any of his own works, just for the sake of only the composer himself knowing what notes are truly needed.

It's like if anyone tried to revise Wagner's Tannhasuer Opera, which Wagner was dissatisfied with even at the end of his life, according to a record in his wife's diary - "He says he still owes the world Tannhäuser."


----------



## BabyGiraffe

There is no such thing as "the greatest orchestrator". 

You can write in idiomatic way for the instruments and use them efficiently to suggest some kind of musical effect. This is called good orchestration. 

How can you say that composer "X" is a better orchestrator than "Y" when they wrote different music?

There is a school of coloristic orchestration (Korsakov, Ravel, Stravinsky, modern aleatoric composers etc), but does flashy and virtuoso orchestration equal better orchestration?


----------



## JamieHoldham

BabyGiraffe said:


> There is no such thing as "the greatest orchestrator".
> 
> You can write in idiomatic way for the instruments and use them efficiently to suggest some kind of musical effect. This is called good orchestration.
> 
> How can you say that composer "X" is a better orchestrator than "Y" when they wrote different music?
> 
> There is a school of coloristic orchestration (Korsakov, Ravel, Stravinsky, modern aleatoric composers etc), but does flashy and virtuoso orchestration equal better orchestration?


There is many great orchestrators, and of course its as silly as the age old question of who is the best composer.

This thread and question was more a curiosity on my part to see other's answers and explainations of other composers ability to orchestrate effectively, partly for personal study and observational purposes.


----------



## tdc

Well, if we _are_ talking about excellent and coloristic orchestration I think the obvious answer is Ravel whom Stravinsky referred to as "the most perfect of Swiss watchmakers".

Some other examples off the top of my head of fine orchestrators - Wagner, Mahler, Stravinsky, Takemitsu and Sibelius.


----------



## DavidA

Interesting that Richard Strauss said if you want to find out about orchestration study Carmen not Wagner!


----------



## gustavdimitri

For me Shostakovich belongs in this summoning...

' In October 1927, the conductor Nikolai Malko challenged Dmitri Shostakovich to do an arrangement of the song after the two listened to it on record at Malko's house. Malko bet 100 roubles that Shostakovich could not completely re-orchestrate it from memory in under an hour. Shostakovich took him up and won, completing it in around 45 minutes. His "Tea for Two" arrangement, Opus 16, was first performed on 25 November 1928. It was incorporated into _Tahiti Trot_ from his ballet _The Golden Age_ first performed in 1929. '






Conducted here by Rozhdestvensky


----------



## arnerich

I've always admired Stravinsky's orchestration.


----------



## T Son of Ander

When I think of good orchestrators, Prokofiev always comes to mind. Not to say he's (or anyone's) the best, but I think he often gets left out of the discussion. People often mention Berlioz, Stravinsky, Mahler, Wagner... all excellent, especially (IMO) Wagner. But Prokofiev - I think his symphonies say it all. I would also mention Tchaikovsky, and I don't think he falls into the flashy category, though I suspect some would say so.


----------



## Donna Elvira

It seems to me that Baby Giraffe's point is certainly true.
Good orchestration is what most effectively and movingly describes the particular musical piece.
Nevertheless, later composers had a wide variety of instruments to bring out in a more complex way their musical ideas.
I would not necessarily call some of it "flashy" because the restraint that characterized certain musical periods would not be so adhered to by later composers.
Other posters mentioned very effective orchestrators.
I'd add also Resphigi


----------



## eugeneonagain

There are simply too many good orchestral writers and too many styles of great orchestration to choose from. I also wouldn't limit it to writing directly for orchestra, but the skill of orchestrating from limited material, like two-hand piano works.

Berlioz has to rank high on any such list. As must Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, Stravinsky, Ravel and of course Richard Strauss. I'd also put Tchaikovsky up there and Dvorak.

Earlier periods are tricky because the orchestras were different and sometimes full parts weren't written out. However Mozart's sense of orchestral colour comes through in his string writing and his use of woodwinds, particularly clarinets. Bach as orchestrator is something I don't think I can properly assess, so perhaps someone else can talk about it?

Among other composers Arnold Bax, Vaughan Williams and Gustav Holst were all superb orchestral writers. Debussy was also a fine orchestrator, as was Jean-Francaix.

It's a pretty long list really.


----------



## Becca

tdc said:


> Well, if we _are_ talking about excellent and coloristic orchestration I think the obvious answer is Ravel whom Stravinsky referred to as "the most perfect of Swiss watchmakers".


Given Stravinsky's tendencies, that could have been an insult!


----------



## Strange Magic

I second T Son of Ander's endorsement of Ottorino Respighi as a superlative orchestrator. Respighi's tone poems are compositions that perhaps are not regarded with the full respect that I feel they deserve, but they represent a remarkable combination of wonderful melody perfectly realized through brilliant orchestral writing.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Interesting that Richard Strauss said if you want to find out about orchestration study Carmen not Wagner!


Strauss's comment might appear to be a value judgment, but I think it speaks more to his awareness of the problems inherent in learning to understand the basic qualities of instruments and what they can do.

Wagner's orchestration is hugely diverse and hard to generalize about. With each opera he made new discoveries in sound in response to new dramatic requirements. One could learn an immense amount by studying Wagner's scores, but they don't present the sort of clear picture that the works of some other composers do. Bizet's orchestration is very transparent, in the French tradition represented splendidly by Berlioz and Ravel. Wagner's scoring is notable for its rich and subtle blends; there are passages in _Tristan_ that sound like a gigantic Romantic organ, and _Parsifal_ is an advanced lesson in making individual instruments disappear into a magical cloud of soft sonorities (an effect much appreciated by Debussy). I would second Strauss's remark as sound advice for the student of orchestration, for whom Wagner's impressive but ineffable effects would be a dangerous temptation toward vagueness and murkiness.

That Strauss appreciated the genius of Wagner's orchestration is clear from two other remarks: he noted, with a touch of envy, that Wagner could make every instrument's contribution tell, which he himself found difficult to achieve, and he called the final chord of _Tristan und Isolde_ the most beautifully orchestrated B-major chord in all music (I wonder if he was hoping to reserve for himself the possibility of surpassing it in another key!).


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

The early 20th century has lots of composers who are very creative and knowledgeable regarding orchestration....it would almost be easier to name composers who weren't great orchestrations. Ravel, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, Debussy, Prokofiev, William Walton, Respighi, the list would just go on and on with less household-y names........ compared to the romantic era, where you basically had only a handful of really interesting orchestrators (Wagner, Berlioz, Liszt....), composers in the 20th century had a much bigger palate (if you consider that valve technology had only been developed for horns in the mid-19th century and the only percussion during that time period was timpani and MAYBE triangle).....20th century composers more often write in a striking manner for orchestra.


----------



## Woodduck

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> The early 20th century has lots of composers who are very creative and knowledgeable regarding orchestration....it would almost be easier to name composers who weren't great orchestrations. Ravel, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, Debussy, Prokofiev, William Walton, Respighi, the list would just go on and on with less household-y names........ compared to the romantic era, where you basically had only a handful of really interesting orchestrators (Wagner, Berlioz, Liszt....), composers in the 20th century had a much bigger palate (if you consider that valve technology had only been developed for horns in the mid-19th century and the only percussion during that time period was timpani and MAYBE triangle).....20th century composers more often write in a striking manner for orchestra.


Although I agree that 20th-century composers focused more on orchestral color than most of their predecessors (from whom they learned), I think you're underestimating the number of superb and innovative Romantic orchestrators. My list would include Weber, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner, Bizet, Borodin, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Verdi in his last operas, and Mahler - to name only the more famous composers of the era.


----------



## Michael Diemer

I would have to say Ravel. Great orchestration=transparency. All the instruments heard perfectly. Also, Ravel was able to perfectly orchestrate his piano works, so that I cannot decide which version I like better. Others who come to mind are Mozart, Mendelssohn and Sibelius. NRK is always up there as well, and he may have understood orchestral instruments better than anyone. Older composers are at a disadvantage in this discussion, as the styles of the day favored a much simpler palette. But Mozart knew how to color this with the woodwinds. Mendelssohn followed in his tracks, and then it all exploded as Berlioz, Wagner, NRK and others hit the scene. At times, transparency suffered in the quest to push the orchestra to, and even beyond, its limits. But the way was shown once more by Ravel and Sibelius. I beleive Sibelius admired Mozart and Mendelssohn the most, and it shows in his music.


----------



## arnerich

Michael Diemer said:


> I would have to say Ravel. Great orchestration=transparency. All the instruments heard perfectly. Also, Ravel was able to perfectly orchestrate his piano works, so that I cannot decide which version I like better. Others who come to mind are Mozart, Mendelssohn and Sibelius. NRK is always up there as well, and he may have understood orchestral instruments better than anyone. Older composers are at a disadvantage in this discussion, as the styles of the day favored a much simpler palette. But Mozart knew how to color this with the woodwinds. Mendelssohn followed in his tracks, and then it all exploded as Berlioz, Wagner, NRK and others hit the scene. At times, transparency suffered in the quest to push the orchestra to, and even beyond, its limits. But the way was shown once more by Ravel and Sibelius. I beleive Sibelius admired Mozart and Mendelssohn the most, and it shows in his music.


Won't lie, it took me a couple minutes to realize that NRK stood for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Michael Diemer said:


> I would have to say Ravel. Great orchestration=transparency. All the instruments heard perfectly. Also, Ravel was able to perfectly orchestrate his piano works.


It's saying something that once Ravel orchestrated a piano piece, he never played it on piano again (at least that's what I heard).


----------



## Heck148

for 20th century: Ravel, Shostakovich, Stravinsky were awesome orchestrators...tremendous imaginations... Prokofieff,Copland, Respighi were good also. Beethoven, Bach and Haydn also deserve mention - esp Beethoven, who pushed the limits of the instruments well beyond their contemporary limits.


----------



## TwoPhotons

Bartok hasn't been mentioned yet. He was an astounding orchestrator; like Ravel you could sense that each note was carefully selected for its corresponding instrument (and vice-versa...).


----------



## T Son of Ander

Strange Magic said:


> I second T Son of Ander's endorsement of Ottorino Respighi as a superlative orchestrator. Respighi's tone poems are compositions that perhaps are not regarded with the full respect that I feel they deserve, but they represent a remarkable combination of wonderful melody perfectly realized through brilliant orchestral writing.


Actually, that was Donna Elvira, but I wholeheartedly concur! I forgot to mention him. The Trittico Botteceliano immediately comes to mind, and one has to mention the Roman Trilogy, though I think many would say the latter is all effect and no substance. I also like Church Windows and Metamorphoseon for it's orchestration.

I also agree with eugeneonagain who mentioned Holst.


----------



## Woodduck

Heck148 said:


> for 20th century: Ravel, Shostakovich, Stravinsky were awesome orchestrators...tremendous imaginations... Prokofieff,Copland, Respighi were good also. Beethoven, Bach and Haydn also deserve mention - esp Beethoven, who pushed the limits of the instruments well beyond their contemporary limits.


If you're going back to the 18th century don't forget Rameau, Gluck and Mozart.


----------



## Heck148

TwoPhotons said:


> Bartok hasn't been mentioned yet. He was an astounding orchestrator; like Ravel you could sense that each note was carefully selected for its corresponding instrument (and vice-versa...).


Yes, Bartok was an excellent orchestrator....all of his orchestral works are superbly orchestrated.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

My first instinct was also Wagner, but is Mozart not getting enough credit here? Parts of his piano concertos sound almost impressionistic to me - beyond the linked example, just think of the soft, breeze-like effects he achieves with the strings during the piano portions of his concertos.






He's more sparing with the floaty, fantastical effects than some of the other composers mentioned here, but when he does use them he sounds at least as rich to me as many of the them. And if it counts as orchestration to juggle the entrances and exits of each section so that nothing ever gets overexposed, as I feel like the strings often do when I'm listening to someone like Bruckner, or even Mahler, then I enjoy his orchestration more than just about anyone else's. I mean, he puts a sustained note a horn and a few seconds of trilly flutes in the right place and his music sounds like it's glittering.


----------



## mbhaub

In a Mahler biography, someone wrote to him about some new music he had heard and mentioned how superb the orchestration was, then he added something like "of course, who doesn't orchestrate well these days?" Orchestration is a difficult, mysterious art that some didn't do so well - like Mussorgsky, Schumann, Rubinstein and the like. Then there are the super-orchestrators: like Puccini, Elgar, Mahler, Vladigerov, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Debussy and so many others that's it's pointless to say who was the best. But there is one who is too often overlooked: Brahms. Just study the First Symphony - it's stunning how he gets so much power and depth of sound out of a fairly conservative orchestra. No percussion, standard brass...it's an amazing study in how to orchestrate well. Each voice is carefully calculated. Every instrument's weight given consideration. It's brilliant. Not flashy. The Second Symphony is just as amazing. Both Brahms and Tchaikovsky were able to make a standard orchestra have a huge sound - too many other composers resorted to adding more instruments rather than study their techniques. And don't forget Ketelby! What a brilliant use of the orchestra.


----------



## Vasks

mbhaub said:


> "who doesn't orchestrate well these days?"


It's very telling that all the replies so far don't venture beyond mid-20th Century. There are plenty of terrific living and recently deceased composers that dazzle with their orchestrational skills.


----------



## Strange Magic

T Son of Ander said:


> Actually, that was Donna Elvira, but I wholeheartedly concur! I forgot to mention him. The Trittico Botteceliano immediately comes to mind, and one has to mention the Roman Trilogy, though I think many would say the latter is all effect and no substance. I also like Church Windows and Metamorphoseon for it's orchestration.
> 
> I also agree with eugeneonagain who mentioned Holst.


I stand corrected: indeed it was Donna Elvira who suggested Respighi. With Respighi's tone poems, substance and effect are so skillfully intertwined as to defy disentanglement, but I find the Roman trilogy no less substantive than the others mentioned--the Fountains sparkle and dazzle in the sunlight, the Colosseum resounds with trumpets and the hymns of the martyrs, the legions advance along the Via Appia, and You (and I) Are There. Quite amazing.


----------



## tdc

Vasks said:


> It's very telling that all the replies so far don't venture beyond mid-20th Century. There are plenty of terrific living and recently deceased composers that dazzle with their orchestrational skills.


One of the names on my list does venture beyond mid 20th century - Takemitsu.

Aside from that I agree there are plenty of outstanding orchestrators today but I think the reason they are less recognized for it generally is that the early part of the 20th century was the golden age of orchestration. I realize it was attained by building on the work of the past and also the improved instrumentation. The result is a certain clarity and transparency that was achieved in many works that at the time was unprecedented. Although there are many fine living orchestrators that maintain these high standards I can't think of any that have improved on what was achieved in the earlier part of the 20th century.


----------



## laurie

I don't think anyone has mentioned Manuel de Falla .... his beautiful & evocative _Nights in the Gardens of Spain_ as "Exhibit A"!


----------



## Vasks

tdc said:


> Although there are many fine living orchestrators that maintain these high standards I can't think of any that have improved on what was achieved in the earlier part of the 20th century.


Nope. Try Lachenmann, Ruders, Norgard, Schwantner, Tsontakis, Dutilleux, Boulez, Saariaho, Tuur.

Those are ones I can list off the top that have pushed orchestration along quite a bit since mid-20th Century. There are more if I dig into my library. But my point was that a number of TC folks really have not gotten into truly contemporary literature.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, both Strausses, Wagner, Varese, Shostakovich, Boulez, Henze among others.


----------



## JamieHoldham

I'm still intrested in the whys as to how people think certain composers orchestrate well, however if you just want to name your personal opinions regardless continue on.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Stravinsky’s use of polytonality between voices while achieving an overall effect on the whole is amazing. For me he stands out from the others.


----------



## KenOC

Phil loves classical said:


> Stravinsky's use of polytonality between voices while achieving an overall effect on the whole is amazing. For me he stands out from the others.


Agree. Stravinsky had a knack, probably most apparent in his works for a limited number of voices and timbres.


----------



## tdc

Vasks said:


> Nope. Try Lachenmann, Ruders, Norgard, Schwantner, Tsontakis, Dutilleux, Boulez, Saariaho, Tuur.
> 
> Those are ones I can list off the top that have pushed orchestration along quite a bit since mid-20th Century. There are more if I dig into my library. But my point was that a number of TC folks really have not gotten into truly contemporary literature.


Well what I've heard from Lachenmann sounds maybe too far removed from the aesthetic aims of the composers I listed to make a reasonable comparison. I certainly have been impressed by the orchestration of Dutilleux, Saariaho and Tuur. One area I agree orchestration has been pushed along is the integration of electronics. Aside from that are there other ways you feel these composers have pushed forward orchestration?


----------



## T Son of Ander

There are some film composers who are excellent orchestrators. Being a huge Star Trek fan, I am most familiar with the composers of that franchise: Dennis McCarthy, Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner, Jay Chattaway, and others. Some have mentioned electronics, which some of those composers have used to great effect. But they were also fantastic with their use of orchestral instruments as well. I would also add John Williams, however, someone in another thread said that people helped him with orchestration. Not sure if that is true or if it apllies to other film composers, as well. If so, I guess that invalidates this whole post.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Vasks said:


> Nope. Try Lachenmann, Ruders, Norgard, Schwantner, Tsontakis, Dutilleux, Boulez, Saariaho, Tuur.
> 
> Those are ones I can list off the top that have pushed orchestration along quite a bit since mid-20th Century. There are more if I dig into my library. But my point was that a number of TC folks really have not gotten into truly contemporary literature.


A list of names is fine, but unlike those names listed where most people have heard examples of their music and will have an idea, this will be less evident for the names you are listing.

Perhaps an explanation of _how_ the above composers have pushed orchestration along; how they have developed it?
Personally I don't think Boulez is a particularly notable orchestral writer at all. But I'm willing to listen to an argument that will contradict my view.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Debussy is mentioned quite a lot throughout this thread (indeed I mentioned him myself). While his orchestral textures are superb, he doesn't demonstrate as much variety as some others. He had an over-reliance on certain textures and seemed to use them at similar dramatic points in his music. His use of the oboe/cor anglais and flute is very similar through his works and because he tended to overuse both the descending chromatic scale and snippets of a descending/ascending whole-tone scale (e.g. in 1888's _La damoiselle élue_ and 1894's Prélude à l'après-midi..) and also used similar or near-identical ways of orchestrating, the pieces can sound very similar. A more generous approach would be to could call it a 'personal style'.

I particularly dislike his orchestration of Satie's Gymnopédies 1 & 3. He didn't, in my opinion, capture the essence of them, but turns them into a Debussy work.


----------



## Vasks

eugeneonagain said:


> A list of names is fine, but unlike those names listed where most people have heard examples of their music and will have an idea, this will be less evident for the names you are listing.
> 
> Perhaps an explanation of _how_ the above composers have pushed orchestration along; how they have developed it?


I can point to specific places in specific pieces for people to hear, but without scores to explain all the details I can only write in general terms as to what makes it "tick".



eugeneonagain said:


> Debussy is mentioned quite a lot throughout this thread (indeed I mentioned him myself). While his orchestral textures are superb, he doesn't demonstrate as much variety as some others.


I know what you mean, but I just studied his "Three Nocturnes" this morning and it's filled with all kinds of detail that rarely gets "heard". The piece does not knock you out with orchestration prowess but a fine orchestrator is obvious at work.


----------



## Vasks

So let me start with Lachenmann's "Mouvement (-vor der Erstarrung)

I recommend you start from the 4 minute mark and watch for at least four minutes. The wealth of techniques being used you'll be able to "see" as well as hear with the result being a kaleidoscopic soundfield.


----------



## Orfeo

Alexander Glazunov ranks up there with Rimsky-Korsakov, Ravel, Stravinsky, perhaps even Respighi, in my honest opinion (examine his ballet "The Seasons" or even "The Sea"). I will also mention Puccini also (his La Fanciulla del West is amazing). Lehar comes to mind also (as do Reinhold Gliere).

Massenet and Richard Strauss, even Schmitt? Not bad at all.


----------



## Vasks

On to Poul Ruders and his "Gong"

For almost the entire work, which is quite dense much of the time, there is always something orchestration-wise that makes you wonder "What the heck is that? or "How did he do that?" The accumulative effect of the scoring is one of raw power.

As much as I love the very beginning of this piece, I recommend starting around the 6 minute mark and go for a minimum of four minutes


----------



## Josquin13

I would say it has to be Mahler, considering how difficult it is to do first rate recordings of his densely orchestrated symphonies. Mahler is the one composer whose orchestration is rarely, if ever given full justice via the recording process (perhaps only by the Exton label?). More than others I think his symphonies have to be heard in the concert hall to be fully appreciated. Although I suppose it could be argued that that's a weakness, that Mahler's orchestration is too dense, relative to the ingenious simplicity of Haydn or Mozart.

However, is there any orchestration more thrilling and expansive than Stravinsky's Firebird ballet, or The Rite of Spring, or Ravel's ballet Daphnis et Chloe, or Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, or the 5th & 7th Symphonies of Jean Sibelius? I rank those works very highly. The "Sirènes" movement of Debussy's Nocturnes is also utterly masterful (& clearly influenced Ravel's Daphnis, as did Debussy's beautifully orchestrated Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun).

Charles Koechlin was another composer that had a remarkable ear for matching a variety of instrumental timbres. It isn't an accident that the ailing Debussy asked Koechlin to orchestrate his late ballet, Khamma. Faure also relied on Koechlin to orchestrate his Pelleas et Melisande. Koechlin's orchestration gifts are evident in his chamber music (as unfortunately, so few conductors have bothered to record his symphonies), where Koechlin matches various woodwind & string instruments in imaginative & unusual ways. (He reminds me a bit of Haydn in this respect.) A good example is Koechlin's late 1949-50 chamber orchestration of his 1917 solo piano piece Paysages et Marines (performed by Christoph Keller and Ensemble Mobile Zürich--it's on You Tube). What Koechlin does with the orchestration of his solo piano work Les Heures Persanes is likewise remarkable (especially when heard conducted by Leif Segerstam). (By the way, Koechlin wrote books on orchestration, if memory serves.)

Among more recent composers, the Scandinavian composers Joonas Kokkonen, Vagn Holmboe & Allan Pettersson have all impressed me with their ability to use a full orchestra. Have a listen to Kokkonen's 3rd & 4th symphonies (conducted by Kamu, Oramo, or Berglund), or Holmboe's 8th, or Pettersson's 7th (conducted by Comissiona), for example. While today, Magnus Lindberg continues to show a growing mastery, as with his Violin Concerto (though no symphonies yet).


----------



## Vasks

Josquin13 said:


> While today, Magnus Lindberg continues to shows a growing mastery


Yeah, he's one of those I forgot to mention earlier.


----------



## TwoPhotons

T Son of Ander said:


> I would also add John Williams, however, someone in another thread said that people helped him with orchestration. Not sure if that is true or if it apllies to other film composers, as well. If so, I guess that invalidates this whole post.


People helped him with copying, not orchestrating. If you're not convinced, listen to his concert works, for instance American Journey.

You can try the same experiment with Jerry Goldsmith - listen to his Music for Orchestra and judge whether he was a good orchestrator or not.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Vasks said:


> So let me start with Lachenmann's "Mouvement (-vor der Erstarrung)
> 
> I recommend you start from the 4 minute mark and watch for at least four minutes. The wealth of techniques being used you'll be able to "see" as well as hear with the result being a kaleidoscopic soundfield.


I watched the entire video. Whilst I personally enjoyed the work, I'm going to be conservative with regard to the word "orchestration". Lachenmann's piece is more like small "ensemble writing" of the scope used in Stravinsky's _Soldier's Tale_. It's not really an _orchestra_ and in my opinion there is much less successful orchestral blending than in traditional orchestration; it's more a case of very small sections playing in turn. His best effects come from his use of winds and the percussion, but a lot of the string writing is pretty hackneyed and superfluous.
However, I would say that this sort of ensemble writing is by no means easier and it takes great care and concentration to play.

I imagine the majority of listeners would probably consider this an assemblage work consisting of sound effects.


----------



## Vasks

Next up Henri Dutlilleux and his first movement of his "Timbres, espaces, mouvement"

What is special about his orchestration is that the colors are constantly changing while being frequently delicate, and more fascinating, keeping a singular mood while doing so.

While I suggest starting at the beginning, I would offer listening more intently to what I mean starting around the 1 and 1/2 minute mark and go for 3 more minutes.


----------



## Vasks

eugeneonagain said:


> Lachenmann's piece is more like small "ensemble writing"


Technically it's a chamber orchestra not unlike Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony. I chose it, as I know the work.



eugeneonagain said:


> I imagine the majority of listeners would probably consider this an assemblage work consisting of sound effects.


Oh most likely, but that also their misfortune.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Vasks said:


> Next up Henri Dutlilleux and his first movement of his "Timbres, espaces, mouvement"
> 
> What is special about his orchestration is that the colors are constantly changing while being frequently delicate, and more fascinating, keeping a singular mood while doing so.
> 
> While I suggest starting at the beginning, I would offer listening more intently to what I mean starting around the 1 and 1/2 minute mark and go for 3 more minutes.


I've actually seen this one played live at a conservatory (Utrecht) concert - and I remember feeling a bit defeated because I had to nip off to the toilets to look him up on my phone...). Dutlilleux's brass and woodwind writing is excellent; later-day French composers tend to be a bit thin on brass. He also makes great use of low strings.

I don't think it's an insult to say it sounds somewhat like film music from European film of the middle of last century... And in fact it does also have a feel of the type of underscore music written by Lalo Schifrin in the 70s (the use of low muted brasses).


----------



## Vasks

Pierre Boulez and his "Notation #4" from his set of orchestrated piano pieces called "Notations".

Here we have not the delicacy of Dutilleux nor the denseness of Ruders, but something in between, where much of the orchestra is playing simultaneously, yet you can hear all the many different "objects" in motion. That's what I call fine orchestration.

Start at the 10 minute mark (It's an 8 minute movement and at times resembles his teacher's music - Messiaen)


----------



## arnerich

I've always admired the orchestration in Stravinsky's violin concerto.


----------



## Vasks

I felt I need to get an American into the mix, so here's Joseph Schwantner's Pulitzer Prize winning work, "Aftertones of Infinity". It is deliciously orchestrated including wordless singing from the orchestra players. It all comes across as sometimes haunting and at other times shimmering.

I recommend the final 4 minutes starting at the 11 minute mark.


----------



## Vasks

eugeneonagain said:


> in fact it does also have a feel of the type of underscore music written by Lalo Schifrin in the 70s (the use of low muted brasses).


Schifrin has composed plenty of serious contemporary Classical works.


----------



## DeepR

Just putting in a word for my man Scriabin. His earlier orchestral music could be a little problematic in orchestration, I think, but by the time he composed his stupendous pair of symphonic poems (Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus), well, he was a master. This superbly controlled, world class performance of Prometheus really brings to light every orchestral detail and nuance (which made me realize that quite a few performances are, in some ways, careless and rushed). Headphones recommended.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Vasks said:


> Schifrin has composed plenty of serious contemporary Classical works.


Yes, I know, but I'm referring particularly to a particular brass sound he uses throughout his scores, the 'dirty brass' sound using muted trumpets and trombones. It turns up in his other works (e.g. _Concierto Cabana_), but fewer people listen to his non-film score music, so I needed a reference most people would be familiar with (as much as I am more familiar with it).

However I'll post this, because that sound turns up in it. Also because James Morrison plays a great flugelhorn halfway through (which was my instrument for many years and I like to hear it):


----------



## Alfacharger

TwoPhotons said:


> People helped him with copying, not orchestrating. If you're not convinced, listen to his concert works, for instance American Journey.
> 
> You can try the same experiment with Jerry Goldsmith - listen to his Music for Orchestra and judge whether he was a good orchestrator or not.


Williams always used orchestrators in his scores. Herb Spencer has been his go to guy.





]

Goldsmith liked to use Alexander Courage for orchestration. Here is one of my favorite tracks from Goldsmith score to Ridley Scotts' little girl dream film of Unicorns, "Legend". Filled with 80s synths. Gorgeous music!


----------



## Alfacharger

Alfacharger said:


> Williams always used orchestrators in his scores. Herb Spencer has been his go to guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Goldsmith liked to use Alexander Courage for orchestration. Here is one of my favorite tracks from Goldsmith score to Ridley Scotts' little girl dream film of Unicorns, "Legend". Filled with 80s synths. Gorgeous music!


Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco who taught both Williams and Goldsmith was pretty good at orchestration.


----------



## tdc

Some of the newer music examples certainly have some impressive orchestration. I can't say I agree that they have improved on what was done in the early 20th century, though some newer things have been done. I don't think the Lachenmann piece is really applicable in this discussion, it is its own thing. 

To some extent the point that was touched on earlier in the thread applies in that it is hard to separate the orchestration completely from the rest of the composition. If one is not really touched by the music, they will not notice how the orchestration may enhance clarity or expressiveness. People will tend to prefer the orchestration in music they enjoy. 

I find good use of harmony is more important than orchestration, which is why Bach's works tend to all sound perfectly orchestrated to me. Its also why I get more color and expressiveness out of the rough orchestration in a Rachmaninov symphony than I get out of most anything Boulez composed. Regardless of how well the latter orchestrates his harmonic language renders his compositions mostly dull and lifeless to me.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> To some extent the point that was touched on earlier in the thread applies in that *it is hard to separate the orchestration completely from the rest of the composition. *If one is not really touched by the music, they will not notice how *the orchestration may enhance clarity or expressiveness.* People will tend to prefer the orchestration in music they enjoy.
> 
> I find good use of harmony is more important than orchestration, which is why Bach's works tend to all sound perfectly orchestrated to me. Its also why *I get more color and expressiveness out of the rough orchestration in a Rachmaninov symphony than I get out of most anything Boulez composed. Regardless of how well the latter orchestrates his harmonic language renders his compositions mostly dull and lifeless to me.*


Yes. The best orchestration is whatever instrumental coloration best reveals the melodic and harmonic substance of the work, and doesn't draw undue attention to itself. For example, how often is Brahms mentioned as a great orchestrator? He should be, but I'll bet it takes many people a while to realize that (I know it did me). He knew what colors his ideas required, and never went for merely brilliant "effects."

Personally, I tend to be bored by music that relies mainly on colorful orchestration for its interest. "Interesting" timbral effects seem almost obligatory in contemporary music, but they're a lot easier to create than a compelling sequence of melody and harmony that makes the sounds really meaningful.


----------



## Guest

JamieHoldham said:


> Of course Mahler would outdue anyone else trying to orchestrate any of his own works, just for the sake of only the composer himself knowing what notes are truly needed.


I don't think that's true. Many composers would acknowledge their need for helpful criticism of their work, pointers about how to improve.

[add]Sorry, I should say that it may be true in the particular case of Mahler.



tdc said:


> Well, if we _are_ talking about excellent and coloristic orchestration I think the obvious answer is Ravel


And yet I find Ravel's work...well, actually, I don't find his work, that is, I don't go looking for it. _Daphnis_ et _Chloé_ is a turn off - but perhaps I'm not listening to his best orchestrated works?



T Son of Ander said:


> When I think of good orchestrators, Prokofiev always comes to mind.


Yes .


----------



## KenOC

Tchaikovsky would often invite a particular friend (Arensky?) to preview and criticize his new works, including I assume orchestration. He'd often get quite angry at the criticism, but always listened, apologized afterward, and asked his friend back the next time.

I read that Brahms, also, gave preview performances of his works on the piano for a small circle of friends, in order to get their feedback.

Beethoven just told them all to go to hell.


----------



## Guest

Just found this comment on Mahler's orchestration in wiki (apologies if it's already been posted and I missed it.)

View attachment 99178


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Mahler#/media/File:Mahlercartoon_1907.jpg


----------



## tdc

MacLeod said:


> And yet I find Ravel's work...well, actually, I don't find his work, that is, I don't go looking for it. _Daphnis_ et _Chloé_ is a turn off - but perhaps I'm not listening to his best orchestrated works?


I think _Daphnis et Chloé _is a great example of his orchestration, but not his most accessible piece. You may find another work a better gateway to appreciating his work, you may not. I think I am certainly biased towards Ravel's orchestration because he is among my favorite composers. I do know I'm not the only one who feels he excelled in that area which is why I posted the Stravinsky quote. Simply by reading through this thread you will find others who rate his orchestration very highly.

But as I've said I don't think of orchestration as being the most important thing in composition anyway and I'm not really that attached to the idea of Ravel being the very best. There are plenty of other composers who have excelled in orchestration. You are free to draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Guest

@tdc...you're right, Ravel is regarded as one of the best orchestrators. He just seemed to me to be an example of what you and Woodduck have observed: that orchestration isn't everything.


----------



## tdc

MacLeod said:


> @tdc...you're right, Ravel is regarded as one of the best orchestrators. He just seemed to me to be an example of what you and Woodduck have observed: that orchestration isn't everything.


No its not, the reason I like his music so much doesn't even have much to do with that. The fact he is widely respected from an academic standpoint and also one of the more popular and frequently recorded and performed composers of the 20th century I think is indicative that he excelled in more areas than just orchestration.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Mozart's orchestration must seem primitive compared to the 19th/20th c masters - but then he used modest forces.

I recall a friend telling me how when he was a teenager in the 60s mad about classical music - his parents bought him a classical LP for christmas. Being a lover of orchestral music he was left feeling deflated when he saw that he had been bought Mozart's K361 for winds - but after listening to the piece he changed his view - was overwhelmed by the variety of sounds etc.

I think Dvorak was a class orchestrator among others but then there are just too many in that era and after who did stunning things with an orchestra.


----------



## Flavius

Messiaen considered Villa-Lobos the greatest orchestrator of the modern era.


----------



## R3PL4Y

Villa Lobos is very colorful! I also thing Ginastera's orchestration is very good, although in his music it is more of a primary element than it is to many other composers. As far as other composers, Vaughan Williams studied orchestration with Ravel, and it shows in his music.


----------



## Heck148

Mahler had a great advantage as an orchestrater. since he was primarily a conductor, he enjoyed the vantage point of the podium. he would have constant insight into what would "sound", what combinations would work, what voices would project in what setting....when we get to Mahler's latest works - Sym #9, DLvDE....we see a total mastery of orchestration...a clarity of texture and a wonderfully colorful and varied orchestral palette.


----------



## Heck148

R3PL4Y said:


> Villa .....Vaughan Williams studied orchestration with Ravel, and it shows in his music.


Vaughan Williams and Prokofieff sound very different in thematic, harmonic content, but they share a common trait as orchestrators - they really exploit the low woodwind and brass sonoroties very effectively..bassoons, low clarinets, horns, trombones, tuba always enjoy pretty juicy parts with these composers....they still achieve a clarity of texture, tho, and sound does not become too thick or muddy...they paid great attention to the exact instruments being featured, or used in combination.


----------



## T Son of Ander

Heck148 said:


> ...bassoons, low clarinets, horns, trombones, tuba always enjoy pretty juicy parts...


True, but with Prokofiev, I always thought how he used clarinets in the higher register was practically a signature. Works that immediately come to mind are the 5th symphony and Alexander Nevsky.


----------



## Heck148

T Son of Ander said:


> Works that immediately come to mind are the 5th symphony and Alexander Nevsky.


yes, Prokofieff 5 has major league solos for clarinet.


----------



## David Phillips

Another angle on great orchestration: someone asked Elgar why in one of his scores he had the cor anglais playing mezzo forte when the rest of the orchestra was playing fortissimo and the cor anglais couldn't possibly be heard. Elgar said the instrument had an important solo in a few bars and he wanted to give the player a chance to warm up.


----------



## flamencosketches

Let me start with a few obvious ones:

*Maurice Ravel
Gustav Mahler
Ottorino Respighi
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov*

Perhaps less obvious:

*Pierre Boulez * (Listen to Répons or Pli selon pli, or to what he does with just a handful of instruments in Le Marteau sans maître. It can't be denied.)
*Anton Webern* (Seriously - listen to his Bach and Schubert orchestrations, then listen to his own Symphony. He was the first and most important composer to realize the power of what his teacher Schoenberg called Klangfarbenmelodie.)
*Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart * (Orchestration may not be what he is most known for, but I think Mozart is one of few composers who truly understood the unique voice and potential of every instrument at every dynamic in every register, and he employed this knowledge beautifully)

I have a feeling *Johannes Brahms* belongs on the list somewhere, but I can't figure out a good reason why...

Edit: How could I forget *Igor Stravinsky*...


----------



## mikeh375

I scanned the thread and couldn't see a mention for Elgar. The appeal in his music belies a complexity in scoring that is often sophisticated yet crystal clear in performance - a true master.


----------



## DavidA

I think we confuse orchestrations sometimes with the massive effects later romantic composers had but when we look at people like Purcell who Got incredible effects with far less orchestration they are a thing of wonder


----------



## Fabulin

As for a "peak", *Tchaikovsky *had moments of truly perfect orchestration, more so than any other composer. Swan Lake Waltz / Swan Theme are as sublime as it gets. No-one of his contemporaries could rival him at his best.

After Tchaikovsky, I would mention *Ravel, Reger, Schoenberg* and *Korngold*, who developed "the rules of the game" much further.

And then there was certain *Bernard Herrmann* (1911-1975), who wrote greatly orchestrated music for:
- traditional orchestra
- only string orchestra (Psycho)
- only woodwinds, brass and percussion, including an octet(!) of church and electric organs (_Journey to the Center of the Earth_)
- "ensembles" in the times of radio, from big to rudimentary. He could make instruments out of anything.
- wildest possible instrument groups, for example 12 harps (_Beneath the 12-Mile Reef_), or woodwind and brass sections in most unusual configurations and filled with obscure instruments

Herrmann composed in every idiom known in his times, from an updated 18th century (_3 Worlds of Gulliver_ - check out Joel McNeely's re-recording, his reorchestration of Mozart's "Entführung aus dem Serail" in _7th Voyage of Sinbad_) to mid-20th century modernism he promoted as a concert conductor.

He was the _only _composer in Hollywood in his time who orchestrated everything himself. He considered it a personal stamp and didn't think highly of orchestrators, who in his view would be completely at loss with his sketches and dense harmonies he had in mind.
Finally, he was also able to make the opening of every film score sound immediately identifiable with a right choice of instruments.

However - just because Korngold used orchestrators, it doesn't mean that he couldn't do orchestration himself. His orchestral exubarance in _Anthony Adverse_, _The Sea Hawk_, _Kings Row_, etc. virtually tossed the bar up in Hollywood in terms of "big sound" Ditto *Max Steiner*, who worked as a professional orchestrator and adapter since he was a teenager(!). 
Check out Charles Gerhardt's re-recording of the latter's overture to _The Big Sleep_ on Spotify to appreciate the composer's orchestrational mind.

What people need to remember about Hollywood, is that one has anywhere from a week to dozen weeks to compose music that will be not only impressive on it's own, as the obvious musical integrity of the top composers demands, but also _planned_ down to a second in harmony with events onscreen. Imagine Beethoven's or Wagner's anguish if someone tried to get one of them to compose over 2 hours of a perfectly timed _The Empire Strikes Back_ in 10 weeks :lol: Even a titan like John Williams must have at least one or two knowledgeable associates, who will turn idiosyncratically written directions expressing what he has in mind into a score ready for copying and splitting into parts.

And while we are at that, *John Williams* (b. 1932) . Whatever composers from the dawn of time to the age of Stravinsky, Holst, Hindemith, Shostakovich etc. have done in terms of instrument use, Williams can do as well. He recently implied in an interview that (at 87) he doesn't feel much improvement could have been done over what knowledge he had when he was 57 (which was in 1989). Of course most modern inventions could have escaped his attention, but he is basically Rimsky-Korsakov on steroids at this point.


----------



## mbhaub

flamencosketches said:


> I have a feeling *Johannes Brahms* belongs on the list somewhere, but I can't figure out a good reason why...


I can: just listen to the 1st symphony. It's utterly astonishing how much power he gets out of that standard orchestra. A lesser composer could use the same resources and deliver a weak, thin sound (think Rubinstein). How does he do it? He pays extremely close attention to voice spacing following the natural overtone series "rules". He avoided doublings which can muddy up a texture. He used instruments in their proper range, knowing where they made the best sounds. He was a master of knowing how to weight and balance. And that bass line - the foundation for the entire orchestra - is given great attention. That's why he used the contrabassoon so much - he wanted the volume at the lowest notes he could get. This is one reason why small, amateur orchestras can make Brahms sound bad - too few double basses and no contra. I've played every single orchestral work Brahms wrote, three of the four concertos, and all the choral music with orchestra. I'm always impressed with Brahms' orchestral wizardry - it's just "right" - and woe to the conductor who tries to rewrite it.


----------



## flamencosketches

mbhaub said:


> I can: just listen to the 1st symphony. It's utterly astonishing how much power he gets out of that standard orchestra. A lesser composer could use the same resources and deliver a weak, thin sound (think Rubinstein). How does he do it? He pays extremely close attention to voice spacing following the natural overtone series "rules". He avoided doublings which can muddy up a texture. He used instruments in their proper range, knowing where they made the best sounds. He was a master of knowing how to weight and balance. And that bass line - the foundation for the entire orchestra - is given great attention. That's why he used the contrabassoon so much - he wanted the volume at the lowest notes he could get. This is one reason why small, amateur orchestras can make Brahms sound bad - too few double basses and no contra. I've played every single orchestral work Brahms wrote, three of the four concertos, and all the choral music with orchestra. I'm always impressed with Brahms' orchestral wizardry - it's just "right" - and woe to the conductor who tries to rewrite it.


Excellent post! I am a new Brahms fan and still trying to understand just what it is that makes his music so great, but you put that aspect of it into words really well.

Another great I forgot to mention: *Paul Hindemith*. He was a genius in terms of making unique ensembles and having them play off each other in fascinating ways. Just look at his Heckelphone trio for example. Surprisingly idiomatic writing for an instrument no one has heard of!


----------



## Machiavel

Berlioz the master of color. Huge orchestra but refine details everywhere. HE was the first composer in my opinion to understand the concept of timbres


----------



## Guest

I'd say no one surpasses Brahms - orchestration was not icing on the cake, but baked into to his orchestral music. Magnificent orchestration that does not call attention to itself.


----------



## mbhaub

Machiavel said:


> Berlioz the master of color. Huge orchestra but refine details everywhere. HE was the first composer in my opinion to understand the concept of timbres


Plus, he wrote a still-useful book on orchestration. Sometimes his writing is incredibly hard to play, but he knew what he wanted and left it up to the musicians to figure how to get it done. That last movement of Symphony Fantastique is marvelously scored. And to his credit, as instruments improved technically, he edited this work to make use of new instruments that hopefully got closer to what he wanted. Gone was the ophicleide and he brought in the tuba. The Requiem is also an orchestral tour-de-force.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Glass .


----------



## jdec

My top 10 orchestrators:

Berlioz, Wagner, Mahler, R. Strauss, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Respighi.


----------



## flamencosketches

^I'm no huge fan of Respighi's (well, I'm new to his music) but his talent in orchestration is just undeniable. I think he may be worthy of his place on your list among such august company, despite his more limited body of work, just on account of pure skill alone. I'm sure Berlioz deserves his spot too, though I'm just not all that into his music at this stage in my life. I'll say this, though, he was way ahead of his time, and his music looked forward to the late, post-Wagnerian Romantic a lot more than it ever looked back to Beethoven or Mozart before him.


----------



## BachIsBest

mbhaub said:


> Plus, he wrote a still-useful book on orchestration. Sometimes his writing is incredibly hard to play, but he knew what he wanted and left it up to the musicians to figure how to get it done. That last movement of Symphony Fantastique is marvelously scored. And to his credit, as instruments improved technically, he edited this work to make use of new instruments that hopefully got closer to what he wanted. Gone was the ophicleide and he brought in the tuba. The Requiem is also an orchestral tour-de-force.


If someone was to ask me the most brilliantly orchestrated movement in music I would reply, without hesitation, the finale to the Symphonie Fantastique. It's simply unbelievable how many things he has going on and how they all contribute the overall whole.


----------



## Dimace

Bruckner (7th, 8th, 9th)R.Strauss (almost everything), Liszt in One Faust Symphony, followed by Wagner and Berlioz. Many English composers are also great orchestrators. From the Russians I vote for Maximilian Steinberg.


----------



## mikeh375

Britten is acknowledged as an exceptional orchestrator and quite rightly - often it's the bare minimum creating maximal effect. His ballet The Prince of the Pagodas has some astonishing invention in it and is one of his great masterpieces. The War Requiem too, written with incredible technical prowess in its orchestration is a masterclass in timbral combinations and precision scoring. Economy of means is on every page in his work, the sign of a true master. No wonder he wrote the famous Guide to the orchestra.


----------



## adrien

I think a lot of the pieces here are a bit vague (esp Dutilleux / Boulez). Just meander randomly from one short mood to another, but none of them actually resonate with me. They end up just being an exercise in frustration - hoping that the composer will make something of a fragment of a theme they introduce, but then they don't.

Especially Notations by Boulez. If you took 4 bars from the middle of 200 different symphonies and strung them together you might end up with something like that. I can see how that sort of music might work as incidental music in film, where there is something else to direct your attention to, but the music itself did not command attention for me. I don't think I'm alone in liking something I can connect with. For me that requires a strong melody. A slide-show progression of disjoint textures simply doesn't do anything for me.


----------



## haziz

Rimsky-Korsakov. I just wish he had composed more, or tinkered with more friends' music!

Tchaikovsky ain't half bad as an orchestrator. Dvorak as well.


----------



## TC2

I don't think that you can call anyone from the baroque era an "orchestrator" in the modern sense, but nonetheless, I think that you can give an honorable mention to Telemann for all his experimenting with colorful combinations of instruments in the concertino his concerti grossi. If you could have transported him forward 100 years or so in a time machine, I'm sure he would have done well with a modern orchestra.


----------



## Couchie

If I recall correctly Wagner considered first drafting his music for 4-staff piano as the "real" work. The orchestration he regarded practically as busywork he worked on now and then when he found the time. I guess he had it fully realized in his head and found writing it out for all the instruments as tedious.


----------



## Neo Romanza

A few favorite orchestrators: Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Glazunov (he did learn it from Rimsky-Korsakov after all), Mahler, Strauss, Berlioz, Dvořák, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Bartók, Debussy, Schoenberg, Berg, Nielsen, Takemitsu, Martinů, Boulez, Britten, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Respighi, Saint-Saëns, Milhaud, Villa-Lobos, Mendelssohn, Szymanowski, Ligeti, Penderecki (esp. his earlier avant-garde works) et. al. To answer the OP’s question, I couldn’t pick one as I think each of the afore mentioned composers achieved something special when writing for an orchestra.


----------



## SanAntone

I have to mention *Duke Ellington*. His orchestration was based on the musician playing the part, not just instrumental combinations. He did not write parts for alto sax or trumpet, but parts for Johnny Hodges and Bubber Miley, etc. And often his combinations were unorthodox and produced unique colors.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> *Duke Ellington*


Duke Ellington is classical music?


----------



## Heck148

hammeredklavier said:


> Duke Ellington is classical music?


His various suites are orchestral works - or orchestra with jazz band -

Harlem
Black, Brown and Beige
New World A-comin'
Three Black Kings
The River


----------



## Phil loves classical

Don't forget the Nutcracker Suite and the Peer Gynt. Personally I liked his Uptown more than any of those.


----------



## Heck148

Phil loves classical said:


> Don't forget the Nutcracker Suite and the Peer Gynt. Personally I liked his Uptown more than any of those.


Yes Uptown is really good.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Duke Ellington is classical music?


The OP did not stipulate that only orchestrators active in Classical music were to be considered.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> The OP did not stipulate that only orchestrators active in Classical music were to be considered.


It's implied since TC (the main section) is a classical music forum. Likewise, no one would make a thread titled "the best melodists in classical music" here. A thread title "the best melodists" just implies it.



Heck148 said:


> His various suites are orchestral works - or orchestra with jazz band -
> Harlem
> Black, Brown and Beige
> New World A-comin'
> Three Black Kings
> The River





Phil loves classical said:


> Don't forget the Nutcracker Suite and the Peer Gynt. Personally I liked his Uptown more than any of those.


Do these facts make Ellington classical music though?


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> It's implied since TC (the main section) is a classical music forum. Likewise, no one would make a thread titled "the best melodists in classical music" here. A thread title "the best melodists" just implies it.
> 
> Do these facts make Ellington classical music though?


The issue is not whether the music of Duke Ellington is Classical music, but if he is a great orchestrator, something that has been widely acknowledged. But, if you wish to request that a moderator remove all posts related to Duke Ellington, I won't complain.


----------



## Heck148

hammeredklavier said:


> ......Do these facts make Ellington classical music though?


Several of these works have been performed and recorded by Detroit SO [Jarvi] and Buffalo PO [Faletta]....they've certainly been performed in "classical" music venues....


----------



## mikeh375

Orchestration is obviously not unique to classical music so I'd also say Ellington is a valid proposal. I've already mentioned some concert music composers who have superlative orchestration skill. However, given a wider definition of an orchestrator, I think one could even include the likes of Burt Bacharach in the category 'great', or if not then a least 'distinctive' which is also a decent accolade as it's not easy to achieve. Oh, and Mancini and Nelson Riddle, the main men.
I would also include people like Dave Cullen (https://en.schott-music.com/shop/autoren/david-cullen ) who got me out of a tricky scheduling dilemna once with a few superbly done charts in break neck speed.


----------



## tdc

Did Ellington do all his orchestration? I thought I heard somewhere that it was Billy Strayhorn doing much of the arrangements for Ellington.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> Orchestration is obviously not unique to classical music so I'd also say Ellington is a valid proposal.


Melody is also not unique to classical music, so we might as well all just talk about non-classical music artists capable of good melody in threads titled "the best melodists" in this forum section.



Heck148 said:


> Several of these works have been performed and recorded by Detroit SO [Jarvi] and Buffalo PO [Faletta]....they've certainly been performed in "classical" music venues....


Why not create a whole new thread about Ellington's orchestration in this forum section, if discussion of his orchestration is so acceptable in it.


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> Melody is also not unique to classical music, so we might as well all just talk about non-classical music artists capable of good melody in threads titled "the best melodists" in this forum section.


I understand the annoyance about the 'deviations' from pure 'Classical', but believe it or not, there are great orchestrators as such whose work doesn't normally find its way to the concert hall. I personally have a broad view and appreciation of that particular skill and art as do others, so why not expand the thread's remit a bit?


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> Did Ellington do all his orchestration? I thought I heard somewhere that it was Billy Strayhorn doing much of the arrangements for Ellington.


I've heard it was more than just the arrangements.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> I've heard it was more than just the arrangements.


Strayhorn wrote many of the songs, they collaborated seamlessly on much of the book, and Ellington would turn over some of the orchestrations to him. But, Ellington wrote the bulk of the music and did his own orchestrations, before, during, and after Strayhorn was a part of the organization.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

I'll add another vote for Richard Strauss, and stir the pot by suggesting Malcolm Arnold. Not to everyone's taste, perhaps, but a skillful manipulator of orchestral tone and texture.


----------



## mikeh375

Pat Fairlea said:


> I'll add another vote for Richard Strauss, and stir the pot by suggesting Malcolm Arnold. Not to everyone's taste, perhaps, but a skillful manipulator of orchestral tone and texture.


...absolutely.......


----------



## Ethereality

When it comes to an unparalleled genius in grasping the most basic potentials of instruments, I wouldn't hesitate to nominate Dvorak as my teacher.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Orchestration: The Critical Fundamentals by Michael Barry


----------



## Roger Knox

Vasks said:


> It's very telling that all the replies so far don't venture beyond mid-20th Century. There are plenty of terrific living and recently deceased composers that dazzle with their orchestrational skills.


The late American composer Steven Stucky is one who has truly astounded me.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto_for_Orchestra_No._2_(Stucky)


----------

