# Greatest Orchestrators



## Polednice

I've become quite interested in trying to listen to music that really demonstrates a masterful gift of orchestration. I was wondering if anybody could drop a few names about who is considered to be the best at it (and, just because of the evolved make-up of the orchestra, I'm thinking anything post-Beethoven). From what I've casually picked up but not really thought about until now, I gather that Berlioz, R. Strauss and Ravel are all particularly highly praised. Those three are probably a good enough start for me, though it's still interesting to hear of more. Also, if possible, can anyone suggest to me a piece by whatever composer that you think particularly exemplifies their orchestrating skill?

Thanks for all your help once again!


----------



## andruini

A few I like:
Rimsky-Korsakov
Stravinsky
Holst
Prokofiev
Respighi
Messiaen
Ligeti
Adams

And I don't know if he's considered a masterful orchestrator, but I love Copland's orchestrations..
And if you're looking for some very effective, albeit sort of peculiar, orchestration, Percy Grainger had a great ear for orchestral coloring, using different instrument combinations in very curious ways.. I love it.


----------



## World Violist

Well you can't make a thread like this without expecting to see Mahler, absolutely one of the greatest orchestrators of all time (any of his music proves it).

Berio is also a masterful orchestrator, very much because he delved into each individual instrument as did no other composer, writing masterpieces for several instruments completely alone (Sequenze) and also expanding these Sequenze into other pieces. He also made several transcriptions, most notable for me being Brahms' f minor clarinet sonata, with a transcription for clarinet and orchestra. With this piece he even went so far as to include an alternate orchestration in case a violist wanted to play it as well. It offers great depth and supreme mastery of tone color that even Brahms' great piano writing can't give.

Debussy was also a great orchestrator, on a little lower level than Ravel, Mahler, and R. Strauss, but still worth examining. The thought of incandescence doesn't apply to anyone more than to Debussy.

Kalevi Aho has a great ear for orchestration and tonal color. I've got a CD of his cello concerto and 9th symphony, and I think the symphony is particularly masterful, not only in its haunting orchestration, but for the interesting music therein presented as well.

Yeah, those are some of my favorite orchestrators. I'll be sure to look back here, since I'm rather interested in this topic also. But wasn't there another thread of the same premise some months ago?


----------



## Polednice

World Violist said:


> Well you can't make a thread like this without expecting to see Mahler, absolutely one of the greatest orchestrators of all time (any of his music proves it).


I don't mind Mahler coming up  I keep returning to his music, and still never getting it, but here's another opportunity... Although, from what I _have_ heard (which, admittedly, is not a lot at all), I get the (possibly wrong) impression that his extreme bombast just misleads people into thinking that the orchestration is good.

Berio sounds intriguing too; particularly the arrangement of Brahms (seeing as it will at least be somewhat familiar music!)



World Violist said:


> Yeah, those are some of my favorite orchestrators. I'll be sure to look back here, since I'm rather interested in this topic also. But wasn't there another thread of the same premise some months ago?


I don't remember seeing one, and I did do a quick search and didn't see anything the same. There seems to have been quite a few threads where the topic could have easily touched upon this without it being the point of the OP, but I'm sorry if this duplicates an already existent discussion :/


----------



## World Violist

Polednice said:


> I don't remember seeing one, and I did do a quick search and didn't see anything the same. There seems to have been quite a few threads where the topic could have easily touched upon this without it being the point of the OP, but I'm sorry if this duplicates an already existent discussion :/


Ok, I could have been mistaken. If it has indeed come up before, I don't see a problem in its coming up again.  I rather like the topic anyway.


----------



## Guest

Can orchestrating really be separated out from composing, though, and treated as a separate thing?

Anyone who's a great composer will be so at least in part because they care about sound.

Not all composers write for orchestra, either. Should we talk about instrumentation instead of orchestration? Not all composers write for instruments....

I'd like to know if anyone knows of a great composer who wrote for orchestra and who was a clumsy orchestrator? That is, someone who could be considered great as a composer in spite of being um not so great as an orchestrator. I think it will be found that orchestration is one component of greatness in composition.


----------



## Polednice

some guy said:


> Can orchestrating really be separated out from composing, though, and treated as a separate thing?
> 
> Anyone who's a great composer will be so at least in part because they care about sound.
> 
> Not all composers write for orchestra, either. Should we talk about instrumentation instead of orchestration? Not all composers write for instruments....
> 
> I'd like to know if anyone knows of a great composer who wrote for orchestra and who was a clumsy orchestrator? That is, someone who could be considered great as a composer in spite of being um not so great as an orchestrator. I think it will be found that orchestration is one component of greatness in composition.


I think it's quite easy to separate orchestration from composing... Clearly, a good composer will be good at both, but orchestration is one aspect of composing at which certain composers noticeably excelled. And though not all composers wrote for orchestras, that just means I'm not interested (for the sake of this discussion) in the ones who didn't  My question is specifically about the technical ability of a composer to handle the instruments of the orchestra in the most effective and pleasing manner.

A great composer often talked about as being a clumsy orchestrator (although debatable) is Schumann.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Some composers have a knack for the harmony, counterpoint and melody and may display these perfectly in chamber music or other non-orchestral forms. However it is another talent completely to have the instrument, and combination thereof, used entirely augment the colour and mood of the music; and rarely create the atmosphere entirely of itself.

There are a few composers I can think of who may not be the best at transmitting their ideas (let along augmenting them) through the medium of orchestra:

Schumann, Liszt, Shostakovich (he prided himself on his economical orchestration, and though generally effective I do not believe it actually improves the piece, or what could be called 'the piano reduction', Grieg, Brahms. [it is clear that the majority of these are pianists and specialise in chamber or solo music]

Other than the composers already mentioned, some composers I think have mastered this art:

Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Penderecki.

Equally I think orchestration implies a fundamental understanding of the qualities of each instrument, and the ways in which their extended techniques can be manipulated to produce a range of desired sounds.

(all the composers mentioned are IMO)


----------



## emiellucifuge

Also many clumsily orchestrated compositions have been balanced and improved by a good conductor. Hypothetically the composer should make the task of the conductor as easy as possible to transmit his idea, clumsy orchestration can often prevent this. For example, giving a solo bassoon an important role in the middle of a barrage of chords from the entire string section is a bad idea as it will be very hard to bring the bassoon out to an acceptable level for a solo. A conductor may through subtle tricks and rearrangements of the seating bring it out, but fundamentally I think the composer is just a bad orchestrator


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Schumann, Liszt, Shostakovich (he prided himself on his economical orchestration, and though generally effective I do not believe it actually improves the piece, or what could be called 'the piano reduction', Grieg, Brahms. [it is clear that the majority of these are pianists and specialise in chamber or solo music]


Not my dear Brahms!  He's at least not as bad as some of the others, but you can tell he's a pianist. I was actually quite surprised by Liszt; I don't know why, but I was expecting him to have quite interesting and unexpected orchestration, but the first thing of his I listened to was the _Dante Symphony_ and, while I enjoy it, I remember being really struck at how bland the orchestration sounded.


----------



## Artemis

To me all the top composers have "good" orchestration. That's why they're top composers! 

Beyond that we're involved in some detailed judgements of quality in respect of which, in my opinion, the average listener won't notice much difference, especially on standard home hi-fi systems. Even on more expensive kit I don't think that anything all that definitive can be said because of the variability between interpretations. For example, Schumann is sometimes said to be a relatively poor orchestrator, but in the right hands and right size/balance of orchestra his music sounds perfectly fine. Brahms is said by some to be a bit mushy but it sounds fine to me. 

I am aware that some of the composers are reckoned to be especially good. Among the earlier ones Beethoven and Mozart are obviously top rate. In my estimation Schubert too was a superb orchestrator, a skill which greatly improved in his later years. The brilliance of his String Quintet and Great C Major symphony bear testimony to that. Bruckner for example was in awe of the later and used it to model some of his works. Chopin, however, generally gets the thumbs down as an orchestrator, but who cares when he wrote such wonderful piano solo works.

Among later composers, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mahler, Ravel, Strauss and Respighi are also considered to have had exceptional orchestration talent. I wouldn't argue with that, especially with regard to Mahler and Strauss who achieved some astonishingly good effects. My problem is that I'm not wildly keen on much of their material in general terms, so that any enthusiasm I might have had have for their brilliance as orchestrators is more than offset by my less than enthusiastic perception of their musical skills in other respects, in particular creating works which sound as good top me as say Brahms Symphony No 4 or Schubert's Unfinished Symphony or Schumann's Rhenish Symphony, just to give a few random examples.


----------



## Aramis

> Tchaikovsky


Is he a great orchestrator? I doubt. He wrote great symphonic music, but isn't orchestration one of his weakest points?


----------



## Polednice

Aramis said:


> Is he a great orchestrator? I doubt. He wrote great symphonic music, but isn't orchestration one of his weakest points?


He had rare moments of experimenting with orchestral colour, as in the second movement of the _Manfred Symphony_, but I wouldn't have said it's a characteristic that you'd soon think of when describing him - at least, not if we're talking about the absolute best.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Personally, I think Tchaikovsky is, the Nutracker, albeit a rather cliche example, contains some of the most remarkable passages of orchestral colour. There are saxophone parts, and during the journey through different countries the orchestra is used to demonstrate the nature of each countries music. 

Regards the interpretation of Brahms and Schumann, Aramis, I addressed them in my earlier post


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Personally, I think Tchaikovsky is, the Nutracker, albeit a rather cliche example, contains some of the most remarkable passages of orchestral colour. There are saxophone parts, and during the journey through different countries the orchestra is used to demonstrate the nature of each countries music.


And, of course, he was one of the first to use the celesta!  I actually just put some Tchaikovsky on and acquired a new appreciation of his orchestration  I think he was actually rather good in that respect; although you might not necessarily jump to include him in the top few, he's certainly far above average - if such a thing exists in a contest of genius!


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> To me all the top composers have "good" orchestration. That's why they're top composers!


I agree completely! All the great composers (and even many of the less-than-great) ones were perfectly competent orchestrators. Some may be slightly more creative and resourceful than others, but that's about it.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I suppose we could introduce some kind of comparative ranking of genius!


----------



## JSK

In music history class I was once told that a lot of people say that Rimsky-Korsakov, Berlioz, Mussorgsky, Debussy, and Ravel are among the "greatest" orchestrators.


----------



## Artemis

Aramis said:


> Is he a great orchestrator? I doubt. He wrote great symphonic music, but isn't orchestration one of his weakest points?


 
 I have heard this view in respect of a small number of his works (e.g. Symphony No 4), but with most other major orchestral works - including his PCs, the VC, and his ballet works - I understood the situation is quite the reverse.

To be a "bad orchestrator" we're looking for thinks like excessive unisons or doublings, incorrect use of instruments to create the desired effects, over-use of excessive registers, confusion between tone levels, and such like. Tchaikovsky can't be accused of any of that kind of thing on a systematic basis. He is the paramount Russian composer, and in fact has a very high overall high ranking (within the top 10) on many peoples' estimation.

With the possible exception of Mozart and Schubert, nobody could match him as a melodist. He also had the skill to achieve, through clever orchestral balance, colour, the most heart-rending pathos from many of his works. That's not easy to achieve if it's to be convincing and not slushy sentimentality. I don't reckon that many composers can do it. Some have tried but failed in comparison with Tchaikovsky's efforts. In my book, Schubert stands right at the top of the tree in this regard, but I have to concede that Mozart and Tchaikovsky are superb too.

Regards the ballet, when I was much keener on Tchaikovsky than I am these days, I used to attend Covent Garden ballets quite frequently (I know someone who used to work there), and I must say that I found the orchestration in Tchaikovsky ballets to be astonishingly good. He is the recognised leader in this genre par excellence, and since this is his main claim to fame I don't really understand why the alleged criticism has been made. It's possibly as dumb and out-of-date as the criticism of Schumann, i.e. largely misguided.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> He also had the skill to achieve, through clever orchestral balance, colour, the most heart-rending pathos from many of his works. That's not easy to achieve if it's to be convincing and not slushy sentimentality. I don't reckon that many composers can do it.


Indeed! Rachmaninoff certainly can't! Tchaikovsky's extreme emotional nature, as melodic and open as Rachmaninoff's, is hugely more convincing.


----------



## Aramis

Nah. Tchaikovsky sometimes is too melodic. Second symphony is good example. Sometimes he develops so many tunes that work becames never ending passage of melodies that don't make much sense together. Yes, he wrote works that are based on decent and solid orchestration, but he also (especially in his earlier works) is clumsy, and certainly not suitable to admire. 

Great symphonist but not one of the greatest masters of this craft.


----------



## Il Seraglio

Artemis said:


> I have heard this view in respect of a small number of his works (e.g. Symphony No 4), but with most other major orchestral works - including his PCs, the VC, and his ballet works - I understood the situation is quite the reverse.
> 
> To be a "bad orchestrator" we're looking for thinks like excessive unisons or doublings, incorrect use of instruments to create the desired effects, over-use of excessive registers, confusion between tone levels, and such like. Tchaikovsky can't be accused of any of that kind of thing on a systematic basis. He is the paramount Russian composer, and in fact has a very high overall high ranking (within the top 10) on many peoples' estimation.


Would you say the absence of Liszt's orchestral works from the repertoire and their overall lack of popularity is down to his 'bad orchestration'? It's interesting to learn about this and it sounds like an example of the definition you give of poor orchestration would be the sort of original orchestral work that you could be forgiven for thinking was an arrangement of a piano or chamber piece.

I personally find Liszt's tone poems and symphonies to be unique and enjoyable and not the sort of music that could be achieved with a smaller ensemble. I love Schumann's symphonies also. I think it's time I stopped treating them like a 'guilty pleasure'.


----------



## Artemis

Il Seraglio said:


> Would you say the absence of Liszt's orchestral works from the repertoire and their overall lack of popularity is down to his 'bad orchestration'? It's interesting to learn about this and it sounds like an example of the definition you give of poor orchestration would be the sort of original orchestral work that you could be forgiven for thinking was an arrangement of a piano or chamber piece.
> 
> I personally find Liszt's tone poems and symphonies to be unique and enjoyable and not the sort of music that could be achieved with a smaller ensemble. I love Schumann's symphonies also. I think it's time I stopped treating them like a 'guilty pleasure'.


Rachmaninoff is one of the perceived archetypal "bad orchestrators", but as I said previously it doesn't bother me even if it is true, because I can't believe that it's that bad. I like Rachmaninoff and I have never knowingly thought anything like "this is terrible" about any of his works.

I'm not aware of any fundamental weaknesses in Liszt's orchestration abilities. Rather, I would have thought that this was probably one of his stronger points, as he thought nothing of taking other composers' works and re-inventing them as semi-orchestral pieces of sorts, and is thought highly of for some of these efforts. Personally, I don't care for any these derivatives anything like so much as the original pieces (I'm especially thinking of some of his Schubert transcriptions), but technically the ones I have heard seem fine. As an aside, I don't like any music that's been mucked about with any later composer. Mahler's fiddlings with some Schumann symphonies might be the exception, but here the purpose was offer a helping hand, nothing more. I can't say that Mahler's efforts are bad; on the contrary they're pretty good, even though I'm still happy with the originals as Schumann left them.

I do like Liszt, but not as much as I once used to. I'm afraid he is another example of one of those composers I got quite involved in for a time but, for some reason or other, things began to cool relative to other composers. 

Liszt's most admired work is probably the piano sonata. Unless one is a strong devotee of Liszt, this work is possibly the only work of his that is sufficiently widely regarded as being a masterpiece (across all genres) which would place it up there with the very best from all composers (say the top 100 works). Piano concertos 1 and 2 are very good. Les Preludes (the third of his 13 symphonic poems) is his best, but others I like are _Mazepp_a (No 6) and _From the Cradle to the Grave_, (No 13).

The two symphonies, _Faust_ and _Dante_, fit into the same broad symphonic poem mode. I prefer Faust to Dante although the second movement "Magnificat" is beautiful and well written. Wagner was a great enthusiast of Liszt's work and thought highly of the Dante symphony. 

Liszt's oratorio, _Christus_, is probably his best-known choral work and one of the products of Liszt's strong religious convictions and his time spent in Rome taking junior Orders. I have heard sections of it but I can't say that I have been tempted to buy this work as that kind of material again is not my scene. Mainly I only like liturgical sacred music, not the looser variety typified by _Christus_. However I bet the atheists would just love it, assuming they have heard of it. I can see them scarmbling off to Amazon or wherever to get their orders in quickly. 

For a fiery exciting scrawling mass of notes, there's _Totentanz_. It's definitely one of Liszt's top works that should be everyone's list of must get CDs. It's probably the best piece to start with, and can lead to one's early "capture" as a Liszt fan. However, that swoon effect can soon wear off, and in my opinion far better are his _Annees de Pelerinage_, wherein lie some really splendid pieces among the three suites. That's probably my favourite set of works by Liszt, which together with various other excellent piano works are certainly enough to place him among the top echelons of composers.

Yes indeed, Liszt is a good man. That's it: I promise myself a Liszt evening soon.


----------



## Artemis

Aramis said:


> Nah. Tchaikovsky sometimes is too melodic. Second symphony is good example. Sometimes he develops so many tunes that work becames never ending passage of melodies that don't make much sense together. Yes, he wrote works that are based on decent and solid orchestration, but he also (especially in his earlier works) is clumsy, and certainly not suitable to admire.
> 
> Great symphonist but not one of the greatest masters of this craft.


Can you say what's wrong, if anything, about the orchestration in his ballet scores, or who you think surpasses Tchaikovsky in this area?


----------



## Aramis

Artemis said:


> Can you say what's wrong, if anything, about the orchestration in his ballet scores, or who you think surpasses Tchaikovsky in this area?


I've mentioned one example of not very good orchestration, I could also call few others, but don't expect me to elaborate against any of his works you will name - as I said, he wrote many works that are quite good, which still doesn't make him greatest orchestrator ever. Idea of the thread is to recommend the greatest masters of orchestration - fact that we (and many other people) have completely diffrent opinions on matter of Tchaikovsky alone should make him sir-not-appearing-on-this-list. He is not considered as ultimate orchestration master (like Ravel, Strauss or Korsakov) so let's don't give out fellow misleading advices and recude our lists to the most important names in history of orchestration.


----------



## mueske

Polednice said:


> Indeed! Rachmaninoff certainly can't! Tchaikovsky's extreme emotional nature, as melodic and open as Rachmaninoff's, is hugely more convincing.


Says you. Tchaikovsky sounds artificial at times, Rachmaninoff has a true and sincere sound. Especially when it comes to voices.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Holst did some groundbreaking things for the orchestra in his day. 
If you can look past Fantasia, Stokowski was amazing at orchestration.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Rachmaninov did sound sincere but in his symphonies it is a huge pile of sound. The score contain so much melody and a wealth of counterpoint but it is hard to hear much of it through the thick texture and undiscerning timbre-choices - Even on the best recordings (Previn)


----------



## mueske

emiellucifuge said:


> Rachmaninov did sound sincere but in his symphonies it is a huge pile of sound. The score contain so much melody and a wealth of counterpoint but it is hard to hear much of it through the thick texture and undiscerning timbre-choices - Even on the best recordings (Previn)


I'm not disagreeing with that though, his second symphony, the fourth movement sometimes does sound like a wall of sound.

Though, you have to admit, he has some moments of pure brilliance in his orchestration. But overall, symphonies weren't really his strong point.

His concerti though, a whole other business. Are there any other concerti that so seamlessly blend piano and orchestra?


----------



## kmisho

As far as flat out top-notch orchestration, William Walton, Maurice Ravel and Sergei Prokofiev must go very near the top of the list.

A lot of composers that are often thought of as great orchestrators were not actually that great.

Beethoven was deaf for a significant portion of his career so he can be forgiven some imbalances.

Shostakovich's orchestrations were serviceable but not remarkable. One thing he had in droves though was personal style, which may in itself have affected the way he orchestrated.

Stravinsky was too outre to really be considered an orchestrator of the highest rank. What I mean is that he was frequently composing outside of an instruments best effect to create weird effects that we now think of as peculiarly Stravinskian. So the man definitely had style, but his orchestrations were often somewhat unnatural.

Compare this to someone like Walton whose orchestrations were so natural as to seem effortless. Of course this sense of effortlessness was a thing he spent huge amounts of time trying to achieve.

Prokofiev can be very difficult, but only because he expected any instrumentalist playing his work to be a total master. He still may very well be the single greatest orchestrator of brass instruments ever.

Ravel had a true love of orchestration, witnessed by the fact that he created orchestral versions of a number of piano works including his own. It was almost as if this was his preferred mode, to take a piano piece and wrangle the full orchestral range from it.


----------



## Polednice

mueske said:


> I'm not disagreeing with that though, his second symphony, the fourth movement sometimes does sound like a wall of sound.
> 
> Though, you have to admit, he has some moments of pure brilliance in his orchestration. But overall, symphonies weren't really his strong point.
> 
> His concerti though, a whole other business. Are there any other concerti that so seamlessly blend piano and orchestra?


When I was lightly condemning Rachmaninoff's orchestration, I was talking about something more general that fails him in his symphonies _and_ concertos. I'm not really questioning the overall effect he creates, but rather his handling of emotion within the orchestra. I just think, after a few listens, the tender parts of his works end up sounding so unbelievably trite. Then again, that could just be to do with his melodies rather than his orchestration - I'm just trying to imagine the same melodies as orchestrated by Tchaikovsky... Yep, Tchaikovsky wins!


----------



## mueske

Polednice said:


> When I was lightly condemning Rachmaninoff's orchestration, I was talking about something more general that fails him in his symphonies _and_ concertos. I'm not really questioning the overall effect he creates, but rather his handling of emotion within the orchestra. I just think, after a few listens, the tender parts of his works end up sounding so unbelievably trite. Then again, that could just be to do with his melodies rather than his orchestration - I'm just trying to imagine the same melodies as orchestrated by Tchaikovsky... Yep, Tchaikovsky wins!


I don't think I've ever heard greater blasphemy in my life...! I wouldn't even want to begin imagining Rachmaninoff melodies orchestrated by Tchaikovsky. Tchaikovsky would make it sound like a plastic Barbie doll, whereas Rachmaninoff would be a porcelain doll.

I like Tchaikovsky, but he can sound so fake sometimes. Does that make sense?

So, yeah, no... Rachmaninoff wins!


----------



## Polednice

mueske said:


> I don't think I've ever heard greater blasphemy in my life...! I wouldn't even want to begin imagining Rachmaninoff melodies orchestrated by Tchaikovsky. Tchaikovsky would make it sound like a plastic Barbie doll, whereas Rachmaninoff would be a porcelain doll.
> 
> I like Tchaikovsky, but he can sound so fake sometimes. Does that make sense?
> 
> So, yeah, no... Rachmaninoff wins!


That makes perfect sense, because I would say exactly the same but with the names reversed!


----------



## kmisho

From a historical perspective, Tchaikovsky did not have the orchestral facilities (nor did anyone else at the time) to handle Rachmaninov's musical ideas.

It's true that Tchaikovsky was bad for a long time and only later in life really started to find himself. Later Tchaikovsky is very genuine. Rachmaninov, though, always struck me as very genuine overall even if I personally was not particularly fond of this or that piece.


----------



## Polednice

kmisho said:


> From a historical perspective, Tchaikovsky did not have the orchestral facilities (nor did anyone else at the time) to handle Rachmaninov's musical ideas.
> 
> It's true that Tchaikovsky was bad for a long time and only later in life really started to find himself. Later Tchaikovsky is very genuine. Rachmaninov, though, always struck me as very genuine overall even if I personally was not particularly fond of this or that piece.


:O Why are there so many Rachmaninoff defenders?! Surely somebody else out there can agree with me. Really - Rachmaninoff? Sincere? Believable?


----------



## Guest

Well, I've been checking in on this thread again, and I must say that a couple of things are very striking about it. One is that the topic seems to have been completely abandoned, given over to attributing such qualities as "genuine" and "fake" and "natural" and "difficult" to the music or even to a composer's choice of instruments. This business could make a whole thread all on its own, so I will now do some abandoning on my own account and go on to point number two.

The other (point number two) is that there doesn't seem to have been any serious effort to justify the separation of orchestration from the activity of composition. All a composer's choices seem to me to be a part of the compositional process, which instruments and in what combinations, which keys and modulations and transitions, if any, length (proportions), dynamics, development, and so forth. A composer will be constantly working with all these elements (and more) all the time, not in isolation but simultaneously and even consequentially--that melody needs a trumpet here shifting to a clarinet there and ending with a timpani for the last three notes, and going from mf to ff to pp, too, with a key change at the shift from trumpet to clarinet but not from the clarinet to timpani. When that melody reappears, in the celli, it must be accompanied by another theme in the horns and bassoons that has up to this point been literally "accompaniment" in the flutes and violas for yet a third melody (violins) but which is now working out to be the main theme for the entire piece. 

I can think of a lot of composers who seem to me to be exceptional orchestrators, but without exception, they are all simply exceptionally fine composers. I would not, just by the way, think of Rimsky-Korsakov as one of the best composers. I also don't think of him as a particularly inspired orchestrator, either. It's all part and parcel of the totality. Berlioz, on the other hand, I think of as a particularly fine composer, not because of his putative skills as an orchestrator, but simply because he is adept at everything involved with making music, melody, harmony, development, instrumentation--everything tightly, inextricably woven into a unique and breathtaking whole. Which is true, I think, for every particularly fine composer.


----------



## Polednice

Sorry about the digressions. I know that, even though I started this thread, I have indulged in them myself; it just looked like no one was interested in my question!

Using your post to return us to the original idea, I suppose we could have a discussion about orchestration vs. composition, but it seems to me that it would almost be a waste of time to justify the distinction because it is a very widely accepted idea. Perhaps this is another case of speaking at cross-purposes...


----------



## kmisho

Polednice said:


> :O Why are there so many Rachmaninoff defenders?! Surely somebody else out there can agree with me. Really - Rachmaninoff? Sincere? Believable?


I can agree with you to the same extent that some others have agreed with me that Mozart can seem mamby-pamby.


----------



## kmisho

Polednice said:


> Sorry about the digressions. I know that, even though I started this thread, I have indulged in them myself; it just looked like no one was interested in my question!
> 
> Using your post to return us to the original idea, I suppose we could have a discussion about orchestration vs. composition, but it seems to me that it would almost be a waste of time to justify the distinction because it is a very widely accepted idea. Perhaps this is another case of speaking at cross-purposes...


I for one don't think there is an extremely deep connection between orchestration and composition. One need look no farther than the way movie scores are written today. These are often sketched by the composer then handed off to an orchestrator.


----------



## Lukecash12

Beethoven, 8th symphony. Explores so many concepts. Puts so much importance on rests, spastic entrances, emphasizing on certain notes in the chord, sometimes it's loosely put together, and then you hear a resounding entrance from the basses (the basement), and everyone chimes in ecstatically.


----------



## Guest

kmisho said:


> I for one don't think there is an extremely deep connection between orchestration and composition. One need look no farther than the way movie scores are written today. These are often sketched by the composer then handed off to an orchestrator.


That the tasks _can_ be separated out like this does not seem to me to be an argument for this separation being an at all desirable thing. (You wouldn't seriously suggest, would you, that your average movie score is at all comparable, artistically, to scores by Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and Prokofiev would you?)

That this separation has become a "widely accepted" thing, pace Polednice, is perhaps only an indication that orchestration (or instrumentation, as Berlioz had it) is an eminently teachable thing and hence a natural subject for books (one of which is by Berlioz). The history of how Berlioz came to write his treatise might be valuable for this discussion. You can look it up easily, though, so I'll just say here that stuff that's good for teaching purposes (like instrumentation and harmony) is not the only good stuff. And, more importantly, that Berlioz' book treats instrumentation as a thing that must be carefully and sensitively and artistically integrated into the entire compositional process of which it is a part for it to be of any value. And his many illustrations of instrumental colors and ranges and transpositions and such also illustrate _that_ point.


----------



## Polednice

I know what it is that you're saying and, having read Berlioz' treatise on instrumentation, it's clear that his intention was not at all to discuss orchestration as an art in itself, but rather how it is best utilised as one aspect of composition. However, I don't know if this what you thought I meant, but I didn't mean to suggest that we _should_ separate orchestration and composition in our appreciation of such music; I just knew that some composers are held in high regard for their particularly innovative use of orchestral colouring, and I wanted to find out a bit more so that I could find such exemplary works and experience it first-hand.


----------



## Sid James

I really like* Berg's *orchestration, especially in his operas (_Wozzeck_ & _Lulu_). I also like *Takemitsu's* & *Villa-Lobos' *orchestration. In the music of all three of these composers, there is alot of lusciousness, contrasting with dissonance. & I agree about what was said above about *Walton*.

Of the C19th composers, I especially like the orchestration of *Brahms* and *Bruckner*. The music of the former has this autumnal feel, and I like the golden-coloured brass sound of the latter.

As for a great instrumentalist, *Astor Piazzolla *was one of the best composers for small ensembles. Even when he was composing for say a quintet, the resulting sound is basically as rich as that coming from an orchestra.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I just knew that some composers are held in high regard for their particularly innovative use of orchestral colouring, and I wanted to find out a bit more so that I could find such exemplary works and experience it first-hand.


Fair enough.

OK. Helmut Lachenmann. Of all the living composers for acoustic instruments, he's the one who's pushed the limits of sound the most consistently (and with the best results musically, I'd say). _Harmonica_'s a great place to start, or would be if it were easy to find. _Air_ is brilliant. _Tanzsuite mit Deutschlandlied_ was one of my early favorites of his. I should put that on right now. And his opera, _Das Mädchen mit den Schwefelhölzern,_ is marvellous.

Of course, there are others alive who are pretty brilliant in this regard. Chaya Czernowin, Gilbert Amy, Norbert Moret. None match up quite with Lachenmann, though. Keep an ear out for Gráinne Mulvey, too. The only disc listed on Amazon right now is a split of chamber works, but I've heard her orchestral music in concerts (and on private discs), and she's pretty splendid. There are a couple of clips on her site. Not the best way to listen to music, but there you have it.

Going backwards in time a little bit (without duplication) there's Lutosławski, who is top-notch in every way. The four symphonies are spendid (with #3 in the top slot, I'd say) and many brilliant other pieces for orchestra, especially _Livre_ and the cello concerto. The very early concerto for orchestra is a fine piece, though not quite in the same league as Bartók's. Still, very enjoyable indeed. Elliott Carter's done many cool things with orchestra, including the early _Variations_ (which IS in the same league as Bartók's concerto for orchestra as well as Schoenberg's _Variations._) If you don't know them already, give Carter's _Double concerto_ and his own concerto for orchestra a spin.

There. Am I back in the band, now?


----------



## Air

some guy said:


> _Air_ is brilliant.


Why, thank you.


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> :O Why are there so many Rachmaninoff defenders?! Surely somebody else out there can agree with me. Really - Rachmaninoff? Sincere? Believable?


Tchaikovsky all the way! He illustrates an emotion, an image, and eclectic structures.

Rachmaninoff? Predictable heart on your sleeve orchestration, with straightforward structures. Always strong bass support, everyone having to chime in at the same time, not very much counterpoint or complete rests from the orchestra (that is, whenever the piano isn't just going solo), mostly the same use of texture all throughout, and throughout his different orchestral pieces. They set the stage (albeit they set the stage pretty well) for the exciting piano work.


----------



## JAKE WYB

Rachmaninoff - his symphonies and concertos (apart from the 4th) are a mush in my opinion - but how would one have them any other way? - but what about the ISLE OF THE DEAD which was the first score I ever saw and its still the piece id wished id composed most - the use of the orchetra in that is almost as evocative and spine chilling as some of Sibelius's greatest depths -

and to me *Sibelius *marks the pinnacle of truly great orchesrtation - not necessarily all fireworks, but symphony 4 and tapiola show use of instrumental colours and nuances never heard anywhere else - he manages to get such an extraordinary sound world from such limited forces like no-one else


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> Tchaikovsky all the way! He illustrates an emotion, an image, and eclectic structures.
> 
> Rachmaninoff? Predictable heart on your sleeve orchestration, with straightforward structures. Always strong bass support, everyone having to chime in at the same time, not very much counterpoint or complete rests from the orchestra (that is, whenever the piano isn't just going solo), mostly the same use of texture all throughout, and throughout his different orchestral pieces. They set the stage (albeit they set the stage pretty well) for the exciting piano work.


At last! You made my day 

And Someguy, yes, you're back in the band  Thanks for all the suggestions.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I love Rachmaninov! His melody is so beautiful, his counterpoint so amazing (he learnt from the best). His piano music is brilliant in any case.


----------



## mueske

Polednice said:


> At last! You made my day
> 
> And Someguy, yes, you're back in the band  Thanks for all the suggestions.


Do you have some sort of problem with his music? Jeez..


----------



## Polednice

mueske said:


> Do you have some sort of problem with his music? Jeez..


It's not so bad  I was just surprised that most people sided with him over Tchaikovsky  I'll grant you that his music for piano solo is much more convincing, but I'd rather listen to the _believable_ music of other composers


----------



## emiellucifuge

Art doesnt have to be believable.


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Art doesnt have to be believable.


It depends how you define the word. It doesn't have to be believable in _every_ sense of the word, but when I'm talking about Rachmaninoff, I mean to say that some of the sorrowful emotions he attempts to portray don't feel genuine; they feel factory-made and trite.


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> It depends how you define the word. It doesn't have to be believable in _every_ sense of the word, but when I'm talking about Rachmaninoff, I mean to say that some of the sorrowful emotions he attempts to portray don't feel genuine; they feel factory-made and trite.


Then maybe you are not able to feel as greatly as he did.


----------



## Polednice

Aramis said:


> Then maybe you are not able to feel as greatly as he did.


Ha! No, I think the point is that he was unable to feel as greatly as I can


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> Ha! No, I think the point is that he was unable to feel as greatly as I can


Hee


----------



## mueske

Polednice said:


> Ha! No, I think the point is that he was unable to feel as greatly as I can


Please be joking...


----------



## Polednice

mueske said:


> Please be joking...


Maybe I am, maybe I'm not... I'll just let you decide in accordance with whatever impression I've given you


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> Maybe I am, maybe I'm not... I'll just let you decide in accordance with whatever impression I've given you


We gonna catch you in side street and bite you hard.


----------



## mueske

Polednice said:


> Maybe I am, maybe I'm not... I'll just let you decide in accordance with whatever impression I've given you


I don't know what I should think.

One side of me finds you terribly annoying. The other side thinks you're just trying to be funny.


----------



## Polednice

mueske said:


> I don't know what I should think.


Even better


----------



## mueske

Polednice said:


> Even better


But now I do.


----------



## Guest

Hilarious!!

There was a time, many years ago, in the long, long ago, in the before time, when I had this debate about Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky myself, internally. I started out in classical with some reject vinyl of my dad's half brother, mostly 78s. Snippets, mostly, and some kiddie discs. I was most taken with Rachmaninoff's Prelude in C# minor (on "Sparky's Magic Piano").

So when I finally succeeded in getting my bewildered and incredulous mom into a record store, my first classical purchase was an LP with Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto on one side and Tchaikovsky's 1st piano concerto on the other.

Oh the conflict that set up! On the one hand, my sense of loyalty to "my favorite composer." On the other hand, my sense that the Tchaikovsky was much better. That conflict lasted until I realized, hey, I have recordings of both; I can listen to both. Easy! So what if I think Tchaikovsky is better? Rachmaninoff is still very delightful, plus he does things that Tchaikovsky never did. It's a win win situation, eh?


----------



## Polednice

mueske said:


> But now I do.


lol, I must be so transparent - but then, so was Rachmaninoff, so it's not all bad!


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> lol, I must be so transparent - but then, so was Rachmaninoff, so it's not all bad!


Good one


----------



## xuantu

emiellucifuge said:


> Also many clumsily orchestrated compositions have been balanced and improved by a good conductor. Hypothetically the composer should make the task of the conductor as easy as possible to transmit his idea, clumsy orchestration can often prevent this. For example, giving a solo bassoon an important role in the middle of a barrage of chords from the entire string section is a bad idea as it will be very hard to bring the bassoon out to an acceptable level for a solo. A conductor may through subtle tricks and rearrangements of the seating bring it out, but fundamentally I think the composer is just a bad orchestrator


I think you've got a very important piece of truth there.

------

I remember the French sculptor Auguste Rodin said in his discussion of arts with Paul Gsell that one cannot say Raphael's color is bad because it looks too fresh and too flowery to be real; and similarly, Rembrandt's drawing should not be criticized for its rude and jarring style. In the hands of great artists, all shall be good if their visions are well-served and their truths effectively revealed. Raphael is forever to be remembered for the joy and youth that he captured in his paintings, and Rembrandt appreciated for the drama and moral depth that he presented in his works. Craft is important but when the end of the artist is met, it would be easily forgotten, and what we get from the artist is his truth, nothing but the truth.

I think we should probably look at this orchestration matter in the same light. Like it or not, each composer has his personal style of doing orchestration, and each style is totally unique and suites the musicality of the composer perfectly. Beethoven, for one, is not particularly known for his orchestration. But if you let a Rimsky-Korsakov or a Richard Strauss put his colors into Beethoven's scores. I'm afraid all the power of Beethoven's music will be lost (however, orchestrating the work of a deceased composer with his style in mind is quite another story).


----------



## xuantu

Back to Polednice's original question, for the sheer joy of listening to brilliant musical thoughts rendered in wonderful orchestral sounds, I would personally prefer:

Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique 
Respighi: Pines of Rome
Tchaikovsky: Sleeping Beauty
Ravel: Ma mère l'oye 
Stravinsky: Petrushka

I have to say that I'm not at all familiar with many other composers mentioned here (such as Holst, Messiaen, and yes, Liszt).


----------



## Aramis

What about Rued Langgaard.


----------



## Air

Aramis said:


> What about Rued Langgaard.


Or Roussel. Or Miaskovsky.

Honestly, there's too many to name.


----------



## Polednice

Hmm... this has been counter-productive. Maybe I should have asked for everyone's top 5!


----------



## Air

How about this one:

Was Schumann a great orchestrator?

Hmm...


----------



## xuantu

Air said:


> How about this one:
> 
> Was Schumann a great orchestrator?
> 
> Hmm...


I have no idea. I heard horrible things about Schumann as an orchestrator.

Anyways, I think I can answer these two questions very well:

1. Is Schumann a great composer?

--Yes, he is.

2. In what genres is he most at home?

--Piano works and lieder. Schumann excels in miniature works.


----------



## xuantu

Aramis said:


> What about Rued Langgaard.


You are making me feel hopeless! Where does this guy come from, Northern Europe? Is he any good?


----------



## Aramis

xuantu said:


> You are making me feel hopeless! Where does this guy come from, Northern Europe? Is he any good?


Denmark. He's good, he was afraid of sun and exploded in his 11th (or 9th?) symphony.


----------



## Polednice

Aramis said:


> Denmark. He's good, he was afraid of sun and exploded in his 11th (or 9th?) symphony.


Wikipedia does call him a master of orchestration


----------



## emiellucifuge

Good god I forgot about him...


(quote from Monty Python)


----------



## Polednice

In light of what some other people said on this thread, and seeing as I'm reading _Principles of Orchestration_ at the moment, I thought I'd add someone else's opinion!



Rimsky-Korsakov said:


> It is a great mistake to say: the composer scores well, or, that composition is well orchestrated, for orchestration is *part of the very soul of the work*. A work is thought out in terms of the orchestra, certain tone-colours being inseparable from it in the mind of its creator and native to it from the hour of its birth. Could the essence of Wagner's music be divorced from its orchestration? One might as well say that a picture is well *drawn* in colours.
> 
> More than one classical and modern composer has lacked the capacity to orchestrate with imagination and power; the secret of colour has remained outside the range of his creative faculty. Does it follow that these composers do not *know how* to orchestrate? Many among them have had greater knowledge of the subject than the mere colourist. Was Brahms ignorant of orchestration? And yet, nowhere in his works do we find evidence of brilliant tone or picturesque fancy. The truth is that his thoughts did not turn towards colour; his mind did not exact it.


The man speaks sensibly, although Brahms was an awful example


----------



## Ian Elliott

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Maurice Ravel, Igor Stravinsky.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Great composers do not automatically make great orchestrators. Some who come to mind who fall rather short include:

Brahms
Bruckner
Reger
Schumann
Edmund Rubbra

One of the great orchestrators who has not yet been mentioned is the contemporary Russian composer Rodion Shchedrin (b 1932). He has a dazzling command of orchestral colours and effects. His fame in 'the West' began (and remains to an extent) through with his _Carmen-Suite_ a virtuosic arrangement for the Bolshoi ballet of themes from Bizet's _Carmen_ (mostly - plus little bits from _L'Arlésienne_ and _La jolie fille de Perth_) for strings and percussion.

There's pitifully little of his wonderful music on Youtube, but I have posted a few extracts. The end of the 1972 ballet _Anna Karenina_ has one of the most realistic (and terrifying) imitations of an approaching train I have encountered.

_The Little Humpbacked Horse_ (1955) 



_Carmen-Suite_ (1967) 



_Anna Karenina_ (1972)(not great sound, but listen until the end of the second extract for the train) 








_The Seagull_ (1980)


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*The very best of all times*

is without doubt Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov...he tought Stravinsky and Ottorino Respighi...

He was amazing! But his strengh was OPERA. And not many people here know that, they insist on Sheherazade, Capriccio espagnol or the sad flight of the bumblebee from the Tsar Saltan opera...He composed 15 operas! Do you know them?

Martin Pitchon


----------



## Nix

I was just discussing this with my orchestration teacher the other day... some of the great orchestrators we came up with were Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Pendreski (pardon my spelling), and R. Strauss. 

Some of the bad orchestrators, or just more boring ones included Schumann, Liszt and Rachmaninoff.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hmmm... for me Rachmaninov is a tricky one.
Sometimes his orchestration is average (2nd symphony?) but other times it is equally as colourful for example Rimsky-Korsakov. Im talking about the Symphonic Dances, and the 3rd Symphony.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

LOL all them Russians, right? I notice most of you choose those types of people. Add Glazunov onto that list, I think he was a very good orchestrator. Just like Brahms, Rimsky-Korsakov, and all those other masters.


----------



## PianoCoach

I also find Hector Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique to have superb orchestration. The fact that he wasn't really a performer himself, have led some to surmise that he had a broad, equal sense of the entire orchestra.

I too love Tchaikovsky melodies, harmonies and orchestrations. I do wish (please forgive me) that his transitions and bridges between themes were a bit smoother. I love the 1812 Overture, but even when I was a kid I thought there was a skip on my record. Later did I find out that it was a very awkward transition.

Parts of Rachmaninoff's orchestrations drive shivers of ecstasy and joy thru my body. Goose bumps. I think that's what it's about .......

Mahler, confuses me too. (but I'm trying)

Would love to hear comments


----------



## Ian Elliott

I adore Debussy's music and certainly he could be a master orchestrator at times. But what, for insnance, are we to do with Rondes des Printemps, exquisitely impressionistic but not very clearly orchestrated? It needs less prominence in the strings, I think, more woodwinds.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Glazunov? All he learned he leaned from R-K!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Glazunov

As Shostakovich and Prokofiev would say...He was so old fashion....LOL

Martin


----------



## Eviticus

Polednice said:


> In light of what some other people said on this thread, and seeing as I'm reading _Principles of Orchestration_ at the moment, I thought I'd add someone else's opinion!
> 
> The man speaks sensibly, although Brahms was an awful example


Its an interesting quote and I'm sorry to dig up this old thread but it's a really good one. For me the quote above exemplifies my personal point of view that Wagner was an exceptional orchestrator and from reading this thread surprisingly barely gets even a nod or mention. This is maybe something down to personal taste about his music or maybe even his social/cultural ideology(which i can completely understand) but should not cloud his impact on music as a whole.

Berloiz followed Wagner's path as a great orchestrator although again his music often can lack general appeal.

However, the one great that mastered both mass appeal and great orchestration was tchaikovsky (whom i was actually surprised was dismissed by some posters). Tchaikovsky's major strengths were lyricism and orchestration and such great lyricism often disguised just how good an orchestrator he really was. Subliminal use of texture and colour can be found in a wide breadth of works including the ballet scores (even the Nutcracker alone), his symphonies (yes even the early ones), complete overtures, concerto's and operas. The arguments by posters against this were all irrelevant (except for the comment about phasing) and subjective claiming it sounds forced or fake etc which has nothing to do with orchestration.

Therefore, if you are interested in great orchestration - i'd start with Tchaikovsky (as his abilitys are always referenced in this field) and work from there.


----------



## jalex

Eviticus said:


> Berlioz followed Wagner's path as a great orchestrator although again his music often can lack general appeal.


Umm, no. Berlioz wrote Symphonie Fantastique, Harold en Italie, Romeo et Juliette and his Requiem before Wagner even finished Rienzi. Berlioz was the true revolutionary orchestrator. To my mind no-one has ever had a greater insight in to the character of each instrument than he, and no-one was more sensitive to the effects of mixing timbres.


----------



## Lukecash12

Anyone mention Delius yet?


----------



## Webernite

Not much mention of Mozart. For me Mozart is the greatest orchestrator.

There's a tendency to say that any composer who uses a large number of unusual instruments in a vaguely convincing manner must be a great orchesator. That line of reasoning doesn't convince me (although I respect the orchestrations of Mahler and Berlioz).

Edit: Specifically, I think Mozart's best orchestrations are the symphonies 38 and 39, and the accompaniments in the operas. The quality of the wind writing and the ease with which he plays with different combinations of instruments is just staggering.


----------



## Eviticus

jalex said:


> Umm, no. Berlioz wrote Symphonie Fantastique, Harold en Italie, Romeo et Juliette and his Requiem before Wagner even finished Rienzi. Berlioz was the true revolutionary orchestrator. To my mind no-one has ever had a greater insight in to the character of each instrument than he, and no-one was more sensitive to the effects of mixing timbres.


Yes he was a revolutionary i don't deny - although his influence on music and orchestration is unlikely to match Wagners in most critics opinion. It could be argued Wagner practically changed the direction of music. And as concert demand, sales and popularity polls will prove Berloiz is sadly not as loved as many other of the greats which backs up my second point about lacking mass or general appeal.


----------



## Eviticus

Webernite said:


> Not much mention of Mozart. For me Mozart is the greatest orchestrator.
> 
> There's a tendency to say that any composer who uses a large number of unusual instruments in a vaguely convincing manner must be a great orchesator. That line of reasoning doesn't convince me (although I respect the orchestrations of Mahler and Berlioz).
> 
> Edit: Specifically, I think Mozart's best orchestrations are the symphonies 38 and 39, and the accompaniments in the operas. The quality of the wind writing and the ease with which he plays with different combinations of instruments is just staggering.


I'm not sure if this post is saying you don't agree with Tchaikovsky, but still yes Mozart was pretty exceptional. Why he may not be mentioned as much is because the orchestra in his day was considerably smaller and classical music was still relatively confined to the style of aristocracy and it's pretty strict rules to account for taste. I think its widely accepted now that Mozart took the role of wind instruments to another level.

I love his orchestrations for the Paris, Prague and Jupiter symphonies, piano concertos No.20-24, the marriage of figaro and the amazing oboe concerto! If only he'd had enough money to really express his art without worry.


----------



## NightHawk

Re: separating composing from orchestration - Rued Langgaard (1853 - 1952) = virtuoso orchestrator - his collected 16 symphonies, in a fantastically rehearsed and beautifully produced set (down to the box and liner notes!) by the Danish National Symphony Orchestra, are episodic, and almost totally lacking in thematic transformation, or development. His 4th Symphony is attractive - 18 movements (none longer than about 4 minutes, most much shorter) that remind me of a movie sound track where the music is changing with every scene. A very gifted orchestrator without much to say. I'd say.



Polednice said:


> I think it's quite easy to separate orchestration from composing... Clearly, a good composer will be good at both, but orchestration is one aspect of composing at which certain composers noticeably excelled. And though not all composers wrote for orchestras, that just means I'm not interested (for the sake of this discussion) in the ones who didn't  My question is specifically about the technical ability of a composer to handle the instruments of the orchestra in the most effective and pleasing manner.
> 
> A great composer often talked about as being a clumsy orchestrator (although debatable) is Schumann.


----------



## NightHawk

I think Brahms was a wonderful orchestrator, he simply liked a darker, more glowing palette. His use of winds is superb as in the Clarinet Quintet, in his symphonies and the brilliant Hungarian Dances. Strauss, Ravel, Prokofiev, all composers I love, can be like too many sweets with too much listening, but I can listen to Brahms like Beethoven - any time, any place, any where.



Polednice said:


> Not my dear Brahms!  He's at least not as bad as some of the others, but you can tell he's a pianist. I was actually quite surprised by Liszt; I don't know why, but I was expecting him to have quite interesting and unexpected orchestration, but the first thing of his I listened to was the _Dante Symphony_ and, while I enjoy it, I remember being really struck at how bland the orchestration sounded.


----------



## Webernite

Eviticus said:


> I'm not sure if this post is saying you don't agree with Tchaikovsky


I wasn't alluding to Tchaikovsky in particular. To be honest, I think I have a blind spot for the whole Berlioz tradition of orchestration - Berlioz, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, in fact practically everybody who normally receives praise in threads like these, even much of Wagner and Mahler. I respect their talent for that style of orchestration, and enjoy it from time to time, but I don't feel at home with it. Rimsky-Korsakov, especially, reminds me too much of chamber music. I like orchestration to sound solid, like architecture. For that, I go to Mozart and, yes, Brahms, whose orchestration is largely a fattened-up Romantic pastiche of Mozart's (although their harmonic styles are so different that no one notices).


----------



## Polednice

Webernite said:


> I wasn't alluding to Tchaikovsky in particular. To be honest, I think I have a blind spot for the whole Berlioz tradition of orchestration - Berlioz, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, in fact practically everybody who normally receives praise in threads like these, even much of Wagner and Mahler. I respect their talent for that style of orchestration, and enjoy it from time to time, but I don't feel at home with it. Rimsky-Korsakov, especially, reminds me too much of chamber music. I like orchestration to sound solid, like architecture. For that, I go to Mozart and, yes, Brahms, whose orchestration is largely a fattened-up Romantic pastiche of Mozart's (although their harmonic styles are so different that no one notices).


Coming back to this thread, I suppose I was originally making too many assumptions about what good orchestration is. I think many of us would probably assume that it's something like 'idiosyncratic orchestral writing where instruments are given unique characters within a well-balanced whole', though I can entirely understand why someone might prefer something a little more homogeneous in character to achieve a more monumental effect.

The recent Tchaikovsky praise made me think of the second movement from the _Manfred_ Symphony, which, except from the obvious section, has often been commented on as being devoid of much melody (atypical for the composer) and instead painting a picture with orchestral 'colour'.


----------



## clavichorder

Britten was a great orchestrator. Just listen to four sea interludes. Very unique.
I always think of this movement of Sinfonia da Requiem, very interesting




More raunchy and wild, less puree than Holst or Bax.


----------



## Eviticus

Polednice said:


> Coming back to this thread, I suppose I was originally making too many assumptions about what good orchestration is. I think many of us would probably assume that it's something like 'idiosyncratic orchestral writing where instruments are given unique characters within a well-balanced whole', though I can entirely understand why someone might prefer something a little more homogeneous in character to achieve a more monumental effect.
> 
> The recent Tchaikovsky praise made me think of the second movement from the _Manfred_ Symphony, which, except from the obvious section, has often been commented on as being devoid of much melody (atypical for the composer) and instead painting a picture with orchestral 'colour'.


A good example of what i was talking about Polednice  Tchaikovsky's catalogue is full of little gems like this that often get forgotten about or overlooked because of his enormous popularity.

Here is an example of another under stated symphonic movement (Scherzo from symphony no.3) using brilliant orchestration to create a sense of mischief... one of my favs!


----------



## Lukecash12

Webernite said:


> Not much mention of Mozart. For me Mozart is the greatest orchestrator.
> 
> There's a tendency to say that any composer who uses a large number of unusual instruments in a vaguely convincing manner must be a great orchesator. That line of reasoning doesn't convince me (although I respect the orchestrations of Mahler and Berlioz).
> 
> Edit: Specifically, I think Mozart's best orchestrations are the symphonies 38 and 39, and the accompaniments in the operas. The quality of the wind writing and the ease with which he plays with different combinations of instruments is just staggering.


I'm behind you 100% on Mozart's writing for the wind instruments. He often collapses parts, etc. because of his understanding of the instruments. Take his Jupiter symphony, for example, and see how he condenses the woodwind parts so that they can compete with the horns over the main motif.


----------



## Tizianodefelics

There are many great opinions so far, this is a great topic. Personally I like to separate composers from different time periods because I think it is fair to judge them according to the size of the orchestra, how good they were compared to other living composers or how influential they became. Bach is almost never spoken of in terms of orchestration and that's ok, but a close analysis to the 6 Brandenburg concertos (or say the B minor mass) and you'll see what I'm talking about...complex but not complicated counterpoint (yes there a difference) and a great sense of drama and storytelling in the music. Or Wagner...the quintessential romantic composer...he was so influential (think about mahler or r.strauss) and his use of the orchestra was so polished and refined and chiseled like a fine quartet proving that he studied well other composers like berlioz and beethoven and improved on them. Berlioz was a great influence but I tend to dislike him sometimes because I have the feeling that he thought of good upper and lower voices and then started "stuffing" the music between them, but that's my opinion. My favourites though remain both Stravinsky for his "clear" and "snappy" sound and how it evolved during his lifetime from the Firebird to the neo-classical period to the late serialism and of course Schoenberg....controversial figure I know, but damn he knew what he was doing. The gurrelieder have such a incredible orchestration throughout (and hearing them has confirmed this for me), it's like mahler, strauss or wagner squared...or the phenomenal brahms op.25 transcription with that crazy and virtuoso final movement which in its original form is so unlike Brahms in a weird way, or the kammersymphonie...he always used instruments in such a creative and imaginative way, dark one time, lush and romantic the next, clear or dissonant....but never in a way which was superficial.


----------



## dbcrow

There seems to be a clear consensus for Russians (Rimsky-Korsakov, Moussorgsky, Tchaikovsky and/or Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Miaskovsky) followed by French (Berlioz, Ravel, Debussy, Delibes). Two surprising omissions, to me, are Scriabin, for the Russians, and Poulenc, for the French. 

Might I solicit an expert opinion. Were these composers good orchestrators, or am I off base?


----------



## aleazk

One of the reasons I like Ligeti so much is because of his amazing orchestration skills:

Piano Concerto - Fourth movement

Violin Concerto - First movement

Boulez:

Notation II

...explosant-fixe...

Webern:

Five Movements (Orchestral Version)

The bogeyman himself, of course!:

Five pieces for Orchestra

Piano Concerto

Stravinsky:

Dumbarton Oaks

Takemitsu:

Textures

Scelsi:

Hymnos

Furrer:

Piano Concerto

Nuun

Haas:

limited approximations


----------



## Harrytjuh

I think Mahler and Wagner were great orchestrators of course, but I think Bartók and Vaughan Wlliams are really two of the most underrated orchestrators, they know exactly which instrument(s) they should use at what moment. They always know to suprise me.
Try to listen to Bartóks Duke Bluebeard's Castle or Vaughan Williams 3rd symphony.


----------



## hpowders

Too bad Maurice Ravel was not involved in more orchestration projects. He was phenomenal!


----------



## Blake

some guy said:


> Hilarious!!
> 
> There was a time, many years ago, in the long, long ago, in the before time, when I had this debate about Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky myself, internally. I started out in classical with some reject vinyl of my dad's half brother, mostly 78s. Snippets, mostly, and some kiddie discs. I was most taken with Rachmaninoff's Prelude in C# minor (on "Sparky's Magic Piano").
> 
> So when I finally succeeded in getting my bewildered and incredulous mom into a record store, my first classical purchase was an LP with Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto on one side and Tchaikovsky's 1st piano concerto on the other.
> 
> Oh the conflict that set up! On the one hand, my sense of loyalty to "my favorite composer." On the other hand, my sense that the Tchaikovsky was much better. That conflict lasted until I realized, hey, I have recordings of both; I can listen to both. Easy! So what if I think Tchaikovsky is better? Rachmaninoff is still very delightful, plus he does things that Tchaikovsky never did. It's a win win situation, eh?


I've never been overly keen on either of these composers, but the process you've went through is why I dig the post. Most of the time we realize that this comparative/competitive game we play has no substance. We can have it all! What a shameful display of riches.


----------



## QuietGuy

andruini said:


> A few I like:
> Rimsky-Korsakov
> Stravinsky
> Holst
> Prokofiev
> Respighi
> Messiaen
> Ligeti
> Adams
> 
> And I don't know if he's considered a masterful orchestrator, but I love Copland's orchestrations...


I would add Maurice Ravel to the list.


----------



## hpowders

I would add Aaron Copland for honorable mention.

He did a helluva job taking his 13 piece chamber orchestra version of Appalachian Spring and beautifully expanding it for full symphony orchestra.


----------



## licorice stick

What makes a great orchestrator?

1. They know the ins and outs of each instrument and write for a technically proficient musician. They know what would be challenging but rewarding on the instrument, as opposed to awkward and annoying. This is a major difference between R. Strauss, who typically wrote the right ratio of technically annoying to rewarding music for each instrument, and Mahler, who too often forces instruments into unnatural roles (a specific instance that comes to mind is the endless and belabored use of "bells up" in the clarinets and oboes). Great orchestrators push the technical and dynamic limits of the instrument and make peripheral instruments more essential. Mozart, Weber, Rossini, and, to some extent, Beethoven raised the standard of composing for the traditional instruments of the orchestral wind quintet. Meyerbeer and Berlioz expanded the use of auxiliary woodwinds and brass.

2. Great orchestrators understand the emotive qualities of the instrument. Berlioz, for example, systematized the personalities of the instruments in his treatise. They know how to effectively combine instruments and pass music from one instrument to another when changing the color and character of the music. Bad orchestrators often cycle through the instruments of the orchestra with little purpose.

3. Great orchestrators know when to hold off on instruments. Mahler is often at his best in chamber passages. The vast forces required in some of his symphonies sometimes add nothing more than noise; I believe he makes the best and most varied use of his uber-orchestra in the Sixth Symphony, in which the full spectrum of instruments and their combinations are used at different times. Rachmaninoff, on the other hand, makes very poor use of a large orchestra in his Second Symphony, superfluously adding orchestral sections, or even splitting sections, at every opportunity.


----------



## hpowders

The greatest orchestrator was Ravel. No doubt in my mind.

What he did with Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition was incredible!


----------



## Albert7

Schoenberg is a winner in my book in this field.


----------



## ericdxx

I wish more of you would categorize it like this (these are just my subjective picks):

Complex:
Wagner Ride of the valkyries 
Holst Mars the bringer of war

Inventive:
Beethoven Symphony 9, 1st and last movements
Stravinsky Rite of spring opening + other parts of the work

Effective/Melodic:
Mozart overture for Marriage of Figaro


----------



## Skilmarilion

licorice stick said:


> Rachmaninoff, on the other hand, makes very poor use of a large orchestra in his Second Symphony, superfluously adding orchestral sections, or even splitting sections, at every opportunity.


I'd always considered Rachmaninov a rather effective orchestrator. Are there any specific examples you have in that work?

The first movement of the _Symphonic Dances_ is a masterclass in orchestration. :tiphat:


----------



## Pip

hpowders said:


> The greatest orchestrator was Ravel. No doubt in my mind.
> 
> What he did with Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition was incredible!


He is not the only one - Stokowski's orchestration while totally different is equally as valid, just less well known. I love them both.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Has anyone mentioned *Benjamin Britten* yet? You only have to listen to his _Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra_ to hear how well he understood the prinicples of orchestration. He achieves miracles with the small orchestra employed for *The Turn of the Screw*, and orchestrates brilliantly for a wide range of instruments in *The Prince of the Pagodas*.


----------



## ericdxx

GregMitchell said:


> Has anyone mentioned *Benjamin Britten* yet? You only have to listen to his _Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra_ to hear how well he understood the prinicples of orchestration. He achieves miracles with the small orchestra employed for *The Turn of the Screw*, and orchestrates brilliantly for a wide range of instruments in *The Prince of the Pagodas*.


short stints of greatness (there are awesome moments in the war requim as well) but not comparable to the complex orchestrations by Holst and Wagner IMO


----------



## Mahlerian

ericdxx said:


> short stints of greatness (there are awesome moments in the war requim as well) but not comparable to the complex orchestrations by Holst and Wagner IMO


It seems wrong to criticize Britten for not achieving something he never set out to. Making something sound full and large is not the best or primary goal of orchestration. I consider Britten to have had a very refined, excellent sense of orchestration, despite the infrequency with which he used the full orchestra in his works.

And, because I could not improve upon them, Schoenberg's words on Mahler:



Arnold Schoenberg said:


> What strikes one first about Mahler's instrumentation is the almost unexampled objectivity with which he writes down only what is absolutely necessary. His sound never comes from ornamental additions, from accessories that are related not at all or only distantly to the important material, and are put down only as decorations. But where it soughs, it is the theme which soughs; the themes have such a form and so many notes that it immediately becomes clear that the soughing is not the _aim_ of this passage, but its _form_ and its _content_. Where it grunts and groans, the themes and harmonies grunt and groan; but where it crashes, gigantic structures clash against one another; the architecture crumbles; the architectonic relationships of tension and pressure are in revolt.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

ericdxx said:


> short stints of greatness (there are awesome moments in the war requim as well) but not comparable to the complex orchestrations by Holst and Wagner IMO


I'm not sure I'd agree, when one thinks of the subtleties of the orchestration in the Sea Interludes in *Peter Grimes* and in great swathes of *Billy Budd*.


----------



## Becca

I have seen Respighi mentioned briefly a few times - while is Roman trilogy is indeed brilliant in a rather over-the-top way, listen to his Metamorphoseon as a real example of what he can and did do.

Another who I would add to the list is Delibes, particularly with his Sylvia ballet.

Whatever you might think of George Lloyd's thematic thoughts, listen to his 11th symphony where each movement focuses on a different group in the orchestra. Somewhat similar to what Vaughan Williams did in his 8th.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I think all truly 'great' composers were great orchestrators - every one in their own special way. If I had to pick my favourites, I'd say Haydn, Beethoven, Rimsky-Korsakov, Telemann and Bach. But of course, Schubert, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Smetana, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, Brahms, Schumann, Bruckner and Wagner are great as well.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

myaskovsky2002 said:


> is without doubt Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov...he tought Stravinsky and Ottorino Respighi...
> 
> He was amazing! But his strengh was OPERA. And not many people here know that, they insist on Sheherazade, Capriccio espagnol or the sad flight of the bumblebee from the Tsar Saltan opera...He composed 15 operas! Do you know them?
> 
> Martin Pitchon


I agree, I've only heard The Tsar's Bride so far but I find it more impressive than the most popular Rimsky-Korsakov pieces (which I also enjoy).


----------



## Rhombic

Myaskovsky is, in my opinion, one of the greatest of the 20th Century.

Beethoven is one of the best ever. Even his piano sonatas (example: Pathétique) have components reminiscent of orchestral effects: fortepianos, recognising instruments in the score (example: the very start of the 2nd theme in the 1st movement of the Pathétique sonata is a bassoon, both in colouristic approach and in melodic function).

I'd say that Rimsky-Korsakov is also very good.
Aaron Copland is amazing as an orchestrator.
Charles Ives is magnificent as an orchestrator.
Mahler is fairly good as an orchestrator.

Schumann... don't even mention Schumann...


----------



## aajj

Bartok, Ravel, Berlioz, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Schubert (thinking principally of the 8th & 9th Symphonies), Ives, Debussy (my favorite being La Mer) and Mozart come immediately to mind.

Glancing through the posts i did not notice Mozart's name. Is he taken for granted? Thinking of his late symphonies, operas and piano concertos.

I think of Brahms' Piano Quintet & Mozart's Piano-Winds Quintet as examples of superb orchestrations in miniature.


----------



## Becca

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I agree, I've only heard The Tsar's Bride so far but I find it more impressive than the most popular Rimsky-Korsakov pieces (which I also enjoy).


_Christmas Eve, May Night, Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh, Le Coq d'Or..._


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

aajj said:


> Bartok, Ravel, Berlioz, Stravinsky, Schubert (thinking principally of the 8th & 9th Symphonies), Ives, Debussy (my favorite being La Mer) and Mozart come immediately to mind.
> 
> Glancing through the posts i did not notice Mozart's name. Is he taken for granted? Thinking of his late symphonies, operas and piano concertos.


I mentioned him - I think he was a genius at it, but it somehow sounds too 'perfect' or 'fluffly' to me at times. Maybe it's the clarinets. Symphony No. 25 is done amazingly though.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Becca said:


> _Christmas Eve, May Night, Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh, Le Coq d'Or..._


I plan to hear these at some point for sure .


----------



## Albert7

Haydn is one of my top 3-4 orchestrators... very witty, on point, descriptive, and hilarious... also subversive and you could argue he was one of the very first postmodern composers way before that term got into vogue.


----------



## Becca

albertfallickwang said:


> Haydn is one of my top 3-4 orchestrators... very witty, on point, descriptive, and hilarious... also subversive and you could argue he was one of the very first postmodern composers way before that term got into vogue.


Now let's see what we have here ... a postmodern composer writing in the last half of the 18th century - given the definition of postmodernism that means that he was reacting against the style of the era, presumably Handel, Bach, etc., etc., by harking back to the 17th century? So what would this make Mozart & Beethoven? The mind boggles!


----------



## Albert7

Becca said:


> Now let's see what we have here ... a postmodern composer writing in the last half of the 18th century - given the definition of postmodernism that means that he was reacting against the style of the era, presumably Handel, Bach, etc., etc., by harking back to the 17th century? So what would this make Mozart & Beethoven? The mind boggles!


Haydn was a postmodernist not the sense of the era but in terms of creating self-referential works that played on the readers' expectations.

For example, the prime suspects are:

The Surprise Symphony (94)- the sudden fortissimo chord which only appears once as a punctuated joke is a poke in the ribs of the audience of the time to "wake" them up... this violation of expectation is a meta-joke that refers to the breaking of rules in composition at the time.

The Symphony No. 60- the ending of the fourth movement with the prestissimo opening going to a sudden stop after complete chaos ensues. This balance between order and chaos is rather subtle but it reflects on that conflict within compositional rules at the time.

Also a parody of a French folk dance too.

final example. Symphony No. 90 during the final movement there is a false finish before the orchestra resumes back to the first theme in D-flat major after some silence. Again this false finish is a violation of the reader's expectation once again.

A quote here in order:

...what I enjoy in a narrative is not directly its content or even its structure, but rather the abrasions I impose upon the fine surface: I read on, I skip, I look up, I dip in again. Which has nothing to do with the deep laceration the text of bliss inflicts upon language itself, and not upon the simple temporality of its reading."

― Roland Barthes, The Pleasure Of The Text

And Haydn interrupts the flow of the listener with his unexpected wrenches into the "reading" process... it is this violation of expectation and the listener being forced to recognize the structure of the piece outside of mere lazy listening that makes Haydn for me a "postmodern" composer way way before the term exists.

For me, Haydn = pure genius!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

albertfallickwang said:


> Haydn is one of my top 3-4 orchestrators... very witty, on point, descriptive, and hilarious... also subversive and you could argue he was one of the very first postmodern composers way before that term got into vogue.


Nothing's more subversive than believing that one's entitled not merely to one's own opinion but to one's own facts as well.


----------



## Becca

albertfallickwang said:


> Haydn was a postmodernist not the sense of the era but in terms of creating self-referential works that played on the readers' expectations.


_"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."_


----------



## Albert7

Becca said:


> _"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."_


"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."

― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow


----------



## Woodduck

albertfallickwang said:


> Haydn was a postmodernist not the sense of the era but in terms of creating self-referential works that played on the readers' expectations.
> 
> For example, the prime suspects are:
> 
> The Surprise Symphony (94)- the sudden fortissimo chord which only appears once as a punctuated joke is a poke in the ribs of the audience of the time to "wake" them up... this violation of expectation is a meta-joke that refers to the breaking of rules in composition at the time.
> 
> The Symphony No. 60- the ending of the fourth movement with the prestissimo opening going to a sudden stop after complete chaos ensues. This balance between order and chaos is rather subtle but it reflects on that conflict within compositional rules at the time.
> 
> Also a parody of a French folk dance too.
> 
> final example. Symphony No. 90 during the final movement there is a false finish before the orchestra resumes back to the first theme in D-flat major after some silence. Again this false finish is a violation of the reader's expectation once again.
> 
> A quote here in order:
> 
> ...what I enjoy in a narrative is not directly its content or even its structure, but rather the abrasions I impose upon the fine surface: I read on, I skip, I look up, I dip in again. Which has nothing to do with the deep laceration the text of bliss inflicts upon language itself, and not upon the simple temporality of its reading."
> 
> ― Roland Barthes, The Pleasure Of The Text
> 
> And Haydn interrupts the flow of the listener with his unexpected wrenches into the "reading" process... it is this violation of expectation and the listener being forced to recognize the structure of the piece outside of mere lazy listening that makes Haydn for me a "postmodern" composer way way before the term exists.
> 
> For me, Haydn = pure genius!


There is absolutely nothing "postmodern" about humor, in music or out of it. Humor entails the element of surprise, which is a violation of expectations, which is not postmodern. Music, of course, is constantly violating expectations simply in order not to be boring. Postmodernism, on the other hand, does not violate expectations: one expects it to be boring, and it is.

As for "the deep laceration the text of bliss inflicts upon language itself, and not upon the simple temporality of its reading," I think the most apt response would be silence. Not difficult to achieve.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

albertfallickwang said:


> "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
> 
> ― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow


Yeah, that quote was in the movie _Slackers_, too.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> There is absolutely nothing "postmodern" about humor, in music or out of it. Humor entails the element of surprise, which is a violation of expectations, which is not postmodern. Music, of course, is constantly violating expectations simply in order not to be boring. Postmodernism, on the other hand, does not violate expectations: one expects it to be boring, and it is.
> 
> As for "the deep laceration the text of bliss inflicts upon language itself, and not upon the simple temporality of its reading," I think the most apt response would be silence. Not difficult to achieve.


The postmodern swindle is indeed 'con' 'trite.'


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> There is absolutely nothing "postmodern" about humor, in music or out of it. Humor entails the element of surprise, which is a violation of expectations, which is not postmodern. Music, of course, is constantly violating expectations simply in order not to be boring. Postmodernism, on the other hand, does not violate expectations: one expects it to be boring, and it is.
> 
> As for "the deep laceration the text of bliss inflicts upon language itself, and not upon the simple temporality of its reading," I think the most apt response would be silence. Not difficult to achieve.


Humor and postmodernism are not exclusive elements. In fact, Barthes writes in Writing Degree Zero that "interrupted flow of the new poetic language initiates a discontinuous Nature, which is only revealed piecemeal." For me, the humor isn't hahaha type of slapstick, this is subtle humor that reflects a deeper concern for the ideas of musical structure and self-referential relations that the listener/orchestra (composer) that these symphonic works raise.

And it's no wonder that Haydn has become more popular again today... we postmodern folks relish a guy for his accessible approach to some very meta-pieces here.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

albertfallickwang said:


> Humor and postmodernism are not exclusive elements. In fact, Barthes writes in Writing Degree Zero that "interrupted flow of the new poetic language initiates a discontinuous Nature, which is only revealed piecemeal." For me, the humor isn't hahaha type of slapstick, this is subtle humor that reflects a deeper concern for the ideas of musical structure and self-referential relations that the listener/orchestra (composer) that these symphonic works raise.
> 
> And it's no wonder that Haydn has become more popular again today... we postmodern folks relish a guy for his accessible approach to some very meta-pieces here.


What does Barthes have to do with _anything_?- except for qualifying one to make fries.


----------



## Albert7

Marschallin Blair said:


> What does Barthes have to do with _anything_?- except for qualifying one to make fries.


That is assuming if you see the parallel between the reader looking at the text and the listener "reading" the text/bars of the music accordingly. Metaphorically speaking.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Woodduck said:


> There is absolutely nothing "postmodern" about humor, in music or out of it. Humor entails the element of surprise...


I've always found that 'humour' to be quite unfunny, uninteresting and trivial.

It's like Neil Patrick Harris hosting the Oscars, but worse, and even less funny (if that's even possible).

Give me the 80th symphony over the 'surprise' 94th any day. :tiphat:


----------



## Kivimees

albertfallickwang said:


> For me, the humor isn't hahaha type of slapstick, this is subtle humor that reflects a deeper concern for the ideas of musical structure and self-referential relations that the listener/orchestra (composer) that these symphonic works raise.


I prefer hahaha humour. Reading about Haydn The Postmodernist did well. Thanks! :tiphat:


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Ravel, Russian-phase Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, William Walton all stand out especially.

John Williams (many of his best scores are available for purchase) is actually a GREAT orchestrator.

Btw, when I think of 'great orchestration', I think of potent, imaginative or striking effects, consideration of and expressive use of instrumental timbre/ color. Great orchestration can't be replicated on a piano - playing a piece where the orchestration is _truly_ a crucial element on the piano would ruin it.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Skilmarilion said:


> I've always found that 'humour' to be quite unfunny, uninteresting and trivial.
> 
> It's like Neil Patrick Harris hosting the Oscars, but worse, and even less funny (if that's even possible).
> 
> Give me the 80th symphony over the 'surprise' 94th any day. :tiphat:


Where's the dislike button? And hpowders, what happened to you, man? You used to love Haydn.

Haydn's 80th: although this symphony begins in a stormy fashion, it is definitely not a Sturm und Drang symphony, and does also contain very good examples of Haydn's humour.

Well, to each their own, I guess. To me, Haydn's humour is the most wonderful thing in classical. I just love it. He tells a great story and makes you follow every miniscule detail of it, a true master, imo.

I also agree with Albert that Haydn's music thematicizes itself, which makes it close to the idea of 'art for art's sake', which is quite modern. Still, of course, Haydn was not of a 'modernist' temper - he was not a secluded, tormented genius but a happy man, working on his craft and expanding his abilities as time went on.

And Haydn as an orchestrator was terrific - just his efforts in The Creation and The Seasons alone are feats or orchestration, imo. And the way he turns the Adagio from the Piano Trio Hob. 15/26 in F-Sharp minor into the 2nd movement of Symphony 102 is just masterful. All the introductions to the London symphonies are excellent as well.


----------



## Albert7

Traditional interpretations of Haydn has attempted to place Haydn as a "lesser" form of Mozart or Beethoven. Not good.

Haydn is a true master of his craft and he was a very happy man. Postmodernist interpretation does not mean doom and gloom. Think of John Barth who is a very happy postmodern novelist.

Haydn isn't always sunshine and rainbows. He was not scared to confront the demons of life. Just that he knew that life would right the ship accordingly.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Skilmarilion said:


> I've always found that 'humour' to be quite unfunny, uninteresting and trivial.
> 
> It's like Neil Patrick Harris hosting the Oscars, but worse, and even less funny (if that's even possible).
> 
> Give me the 80th symphony over the 'surprise' 94th any day. :tiphat:


Well, Haydn's humour is definitely not trivial - when composers of the time examined Op. 33 No. 5, which begins on a gesture usually saved for endings, they wanted to 'correct' Haydn's notes. Haydn just had a healthy and wonderful sense of humour. Anyone not 'getting' it is missing out, imo.


----------



## Albert7

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Well, Haydn's humour is definitely not trivial - when composers of the time examined Op. 33 No. 5, which begins on a gesture usually saved for endings, they wanted to 'correct' Haydn's notes. Haydn just had a healthy and wonderful sense of humour. Anyone not 'getting' it is missing out, imo.


I agree... Haydn seems to be getting a bad rep as a frilivious (sp?) composer but he is not... He is very witty and knew exactly what he was doing phrase by phrase which is very crucial to how he structured his compositions precisely.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Albert7 said:


> I agree... Haydn seems to be getting a bad rep as a frilivious (sp?) composer but he is not... He is very witty and knew exactly what he was doing phrase by phrase which is very crucial to how he structured his compositions precisely.


Haydn could do everything, imo - but the original discussion was about orchestration anyway. I'll try to describe what I appreciate about the orchestration of these great composers:

Haydn: variety of tonal colour (for eg. Adagio of Symphony 102), 'visual' creativity (The Creation, The Seasons), 'masculinity' (horns, trumpets, etc.), knowing exactly when to add solo segments, dynamics

Beethoven: very colourful, expressive in the solo parts, especially for winds. Independence of the instruments, masculinity, knowing when to place solo parts, dynamics

Bruckner, Wagner: size and power of the orchestra, use of horns, very effective use of the textures of stringed instruments, masculinity

Telemann: utter variety of instrumental colours, mastery of instrumental interaction, understanding each instrument's 'voice'.

Mendelssohn: very colourful, evocative and expressive (for eg. beginning of the 'Scottish' symphony)

Rimsky-Korsakov: instrumental colour and combination, variety, knowing which instruments fit which musical segments.

Mozart: colour, fullness of sound, creative use of texture (for eg. in Symphony 25, first movement, the way the Strings have that strong rhythmic attack), independence of the instruments, knowing which musical segments fit which music

Bach: independence of the instruments, mastery of instrumental interaction, creativity in instrumental combination

Schubert: exploitation of orchestration & of instrumentational capabilities, dynamics, colour, independence of the instruments, variety


----------



## Lord Lance

'tis a most difficult question. Still, I'd say its a tie between:











AND

​


----------



## Rhombic

Lord Lance said:


> 'tis a most difficult question. Still, I'd say its a tie between:


Seriously? Liszt?
in my opinion, he is not a great orchestrator, compared to most other composers.


----------



## Skilmarilion

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Where's the dislike button? And hpowders, what happened to you, man? You used to love Haydn.
> 
> Haydn's 80th: although this symphony begins in a stormy fashion, it is definitely not a Sturm und Drang symphony, and does also contain very good examples of Haydn's humour.


Hey HBC -- let me say, I wasn't intending to get negative on Haydn. 

I am just not a fan of something like the 'surprise'* in the 94th symphony. It comes across to me like a gimmick, and to me isn't actually humorous in any way -- I guess that it may well have been for its time. Maybe 'humour' is actually the wrong term to be applying to some of his music. I'd say I do appreciate when Haydn gets 'playful'.

I really enjoy the 80th, but none of it comes across as containing 'humour' to me. Maybe I'm missing it?

* btw, for surprises, the ending of Mahler's 6th is as surprising -- and powerful -- as they come. I made the mistake of turning up the volume when the music goes quiet just before the massive chord, when I first listened to it. Wooops.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Skilmarillion, you are of course entitled to your own opinion and perception of Haydn's music, as is everyone, and that is the way it should be. Here an article András Schiff wrote about the 80th, and about Haydn's humour in general:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/may/29/joseph-haydn-comedy-classical-music

Haydn didn't take himself or these 'jokes' too seriously either - they are meant for enjoyment. Let us agree that 'new' things are part of the enjoyment we get out of music, and Haydn's humour was often 'new' and unexpected. I perceive his humour very warmly and appreciate his 'fun' approach to creating music. The guy didn't wear a gruff face all the time, he wanted to enjoy creating, and wanted the listeners to be a part of that. The Creation and The Seasons are possibly the best examples of Haydn's humour, but a lot of his later works contain it. Imo, it just adds another dimension of enjoyment to the music.


----------



## Lord Lance

Rhombic said:


> Seriously? Liszt?
> in my opinion, he is not a great orchestrator, compared to most other composers.


I meant orchestrator of works. Not orchestral works. Orchestrating works for piano, chamber, operatic, etc.

Even in general, works like Eine Faust-Symphonie and Dante Symphonie show his genius.


----------



## Albert7

Lord Lance said:


> I meant orchestrator of works. Not orchestral works. Orchestrating works for piano, chamber, operatic, etc.
> 
> Even in general works like Eine Faust-Symphonie and Dante Symphonie show his genius.


I am still curious why Lizst does not have a good rep with everyone.


----------



## Lord Lance

Albert7 said:


> I am still curious why Lizst does not have a good rep with everyone.


Prejudiced scum of society.


----------

