# Great Orchestrators and Orchestrations



## R-F

Recently I've become very interested in works that use very good orchestration, and I've been noticing how orchestrations change distinctively with different composers. I was wondering, are there any composers who you think are particularly great orchestrators, or are there any pieces you think are orchestrated particularly well?

I'm enjoying Stravinsky a lot just now, and I'm really enjoying the orchestration in the Firebird. I'm convinced I wouldn't enjoy it as much, were it not for it's brilliant orchestral colours. I also like Rachmaninov's orchestration, and Prokofiev's too.


----------



## Rondo

Try Respighi, or Ravel (who orchestrated Mussorgsky's _Pictures at an Exhibition_).


----------



## World Violist

Well, just about anything orchestral by Mahler, Ravel, Stravinsky, Debussy, Rimsky-Korsakov, Shostakovich, and a host of others, is pretty much bound to be at least excellently scored.


----------



## Kuhlau

For a truly outstanding performance of a truly well-orchestrated work, try this:










FK


----------



## Weston

I would add Gustav Holst and Joaquín Rodrigo to the list of great orchestral colorists. This seems to be more of a late romantic and 20th century phenomenon for some reason. I guess they began to have larger orchestras to color with.


----------



## phoenixshade

Rimsky-Korsakov was the first name that came to mind for me too, FK. He quite literally *wrote the book* on the subject. Lots of good suggestions here. I'll add Richard Strauss to the list.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Personally I find Shostakovich's orchestration somewhat so-so. It has some intriguing colours every now and then but not really much in total.

Stravinsky's orchestration is _very_ innovative while still remaining interesting (Something I find Klanfarbenmelodie fails at).

Mahler's orchestration while providing a rare occasion of innovations sits perfectly well with the music and is quite variable.

Berlioz started it all, but it is those who carried it from him that made his idea come to life.

Mozart was a very interesting orchestrator for the Classical period (considering orchestration was less of a focus). Of note is Sinfonia Concertante, and his piano concertos (especially for the division of winds and strings). Mozart was also someone of close interest (regarding orchestration) to Ravel; he along with some baroque composer starting with C - forgot the name!

Strauss I personally believe to be one of the most colourful and beautiful orchestrators. While not being too innovative, he is still very varied and extremely colourful.


----------



## Kuhlau

Yagan Kiely said:


> Mozart was also someone of close interest (regarding orchestration) to Ravel; he along with some baroque composer starting with C - forgot the name!


Couperin?

FK


----------



## David C Coleman

Don't forget Beethoven!, Ok some of his orchestras were just basic classical ensemble but he seemed to know exactly what intsrument(s) to bring in at exactly the right time to give shape and colour to his pieces.
I also would put Brahms and Dvorak in there as well, because they knew how to squeeze as many different orchestral colours out of what are basic classical ensemble...


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Couperin?


May have been.



> Don't forget Beethoven!, Ok some of his orchestras were just basic classical ensemble but he seemed to know exactly what intsrument(s) to bring in at exactly the right time to give shape and colour to his pieces.
> I also would put Brahms and Dvorak in there as well, because they knew how to squeeze as many different orchestral colours out of what are basic classical ensemble...


You will do well to forget Beethoven. His harmonics and melodic inventions seems to cast shadow on his study of orchestration. He can't Orchestrate to save his life: his violin concerto is a piano concerto; he has no idea how to write a woodwind chord (the voicing is, again, is magically as if he composed it on the piano and forgot how other instruments sound different!). He is a great composer (around 75% of the time), but a terrible orchestrator.


----------



## Atabey

Mahler,Berlioz,Strauss,Brahms and Tchaikovsky are the finest orchestrators in my humble opinion.


----------



## Weston

Yagan Kiely said:


> May have been.
> 
> You will do well to forget Beethoven. His harmonics and melodic inventions seems to cast shadow on his study of orchestration. He can't Orchestrate to save his life: his violin concerto is a piano concerto; he has no idea how to write a woodwind chord (the voicing is, again, is magically as if he composed it on the piano and forgot how other instruments sound different!). He is a great composer (around 75% of the time), but a terrible orchestrator.


That's good. If his greatest compositions were improved in any way we probably couldn't survive them.


----------



## World Violist

Yagan Kiely said:


> Mozart was also someone of close interest (regarding orchestration) to Ravel; he along with some baroque composer starting with C - forgot the name!


Yes, it was Couperin. Although that may have been more of a stylistic influence...

I agree that R. Strauss was one of the great orchestrators. Listen to Don Juan and Don Quixote and try to say otherwise!


----------



## PostMinimalist

Let's add Wagner to this company if only for the overture to Parsifal! As a professional orchestrator I find myself going back again and again to Wagner for inspiration. It's just a shame that most of the time we're not allowed to demand 8 Wagner tubas and quadruple woodwind in all our scores!
FC


----------



## PostMinimalist

Oh and don't get to down on ludwig! I will defend him on detail soon when I have alittle more time! just now it's Christmas night so have a merry one and drive safely!
FC


----------



## Mendelssohn

In my opinion,the greatest orchestrator was Beethoven:his orchestration (mainly in his symphonic works) is quite complicated,something that i really like!

Mozart's orchestration differs from that of Beethoven.Not only it was too clear,but he also used many of the instruments to double other instruments (same notes-same everything ) and thus is recognized by many as weaker than Beethoven from this aspect...but Mozart's instrument-combination is far the best in the history of music...kind of divine for me. 

During the 19th century,Mendelssohn was thought to be the best orchestrator of his time.Not only his friends like Schumann, his "fun",but even Wagner,his enemy, thought that.In many critics of the middle-19th century composers like Weber,Meyerbeer or even Schubert (!!!) sometimes, were not respected for their orchestration technique so much as Mendelssohn...And we mustn't forget that he was "attacked" and gradually forgotten because (including other things) his works "lacked of emotion" and not for his technique that none ever doubted.The best example of his orchestration technique is the Overture to "a Midsummer Night's Dream".


----------



## confuoco

Well, I am huge fan of Brahms, but he definitively isn't among the best orchestrators, I think. Beethoven the same.

In my opinion we shouldn't forget one name - *Carl Maria von Weber*. Of course, we can't compare him to Rimsky-Korsakov or Ravel, but in his age he did a lot for art of orchestration. His innovations deal especially with using of french horns and high register of clarinets. Just compare his ouvertures to Beethoven. Later both Berlioz and Debussy appreciated his orchestration mastery (and Debussy didn't use to appreciate anybody except himself very often )

My list of great orchestrators is here: Weber, Berlioz, Rimsky-Korsakov, Debussy, Strauss and Ravel.

But Tchaikovsky was very good orchestrator as well. His symphonies have perfect, well balanced sound. So far from Brahms.


----------



## David C Coleman

Yagan Kiely said:


> May have been.
> 
> You will do well to forget Beethoven. His harmonics and melodic inventions seems to cast shadow on his study of orchestration. He can't Orchestrate to save his life: his violin concerto is a piano concerto; he has no idea how to write a woodwind chord (the voicing is, again, is magically as if he composed it on the piano and forgot how other instruments sound different!). He is a great composer (around 75% of the time), but a terrible orchestrator.


Well I like him all the same!..


----------



## Bach

Beethoven is the greatest composer who has ever lived and perhaps will ever live, however, his orchestration is clunky and slightly imbalanced in places. Probably the only manifestation of his deafness, it's fairly difficult to hear orchestration in your head!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> it's fairly difficult to hear orchestration in your head!


No it isn't...


----------



## PostMinimalist

Yagan Kiely said:


> May have been.
> 
> You will do well to forget Beethoven.
> he has no idea how to write a woodwind chord (the voicing is, again, is magically as if he composed it on the piano and forgot how other instruments sound different!).


Well that's the piano's fault, not Beethoven's. The truth is if you play any Classical era music on the piano it looks as if it might have been written there!
Have a closer look at B's woodwind writing. The total effect is of course triadic harmony with nice voice leading but you miss the individual instrumental couplings.
I have opened at random the Symphonies to prove my point. 
From the 6th symphony 4th mvt. (random) Top of the page is bar 116.
The woodwind are at the end of a long diminuendo of sustained notes (not particularly pianistic). The couplings are all 3rds (considered optimal in Classical style) except clarinets in 2nds (better than fourths or fifths on identical intruments). The harmony is dominant 7th chord over a tonic pedal. The woodwind do not have the pedal but sustain the dominant 7th except for the first clarinet which skips a 7th to help define the top not of the spread pizzicato chord in the second violins, a note which resolves one and a half bars later in both the 1st clt. (and consequently the 2nd clt. an octave lower and the 2nd. violins. The oboes and flutes are treaed as a single group here since the p oboes can control a good ballence with the flutes in this '5th above the break' register. B's sensitivity in grouping four woodwind instruments (2obs+2flutes, 2bsns+2clts, 2hrns+2bsns etc.) is always guided by register considerations.

Beethoven had many virtuoso friends such as Dragonetti the double bass player. It is almost incredible how one can see the point in his writing when he takes Dragonetti at his word and start writing real bass parts. These are still considered model bass parts and I'd be proud when players compare my bass writing to beethoven's If I hadn't actually just lifted ideas right out his scores!
FC


----------



## Kuhlau

Bach said:


> Beethoven is the greatest composer who has ever lived and perhaps will ever live, however, his orchestration is clunky and slightly imbalanced in places. Probably the only manifestation of his deafness, it's fairly difficult to hear orchestration in your head!


I doubt very much that that would've caused problems for a genius like Beethoven. It's a common misconception that his deafness affected his ability to compose. In fact, it would only really have affected his ability to conduct or play with other musicians - both skills requiring you to _listen_ to the players around you.

FK


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Well that's the piano's fault, not Beethoven's.


No, it's Beethoven for allowing himself to be restricted. Bruckner's orchestration is sub-par for the same reason: it reeks of organ.

My point is that although he knows how the instrument works, the chords are not nice sounding chords, they sound immature.

I would provide more information by it's the end of my course (Honours next year) and the library has ended my 'patron record' so I have no access to Journals.



> (not particularly pianistic)


The fact that he knew that wind instrument is not a piano is not evidence that he wrote well for winds...



> problems for a genius like Beethoven.


Just so you know, there isn't such thing as genius. He isn't born with the ability to compose music. That's like being born with the ability to program computers.


----------



## David C Coleman

Yagan Kiely said:


> No, it's Beethoven for allowing himself to be restricted. Bruckner's orchestration is sub-par for the same reason: it reeks of organ.
> 
> My point is that although he knows how the instrument works, the chords are not nice sounding chords, they sound immature.
> 
> I would provide more information by it's the end of my course (Honours next year) and the library has ended my 'patron record' so I have no access to Journals.
> 
> The fact that he knew that wind instrument is not a piano is not evidence that he wrote well for winds...
> 
> Just so you know, there isn't such thing as genius. He isn't born with the ability to compose music. That's like being born with the ability to program computers.


Ok so what about composers thus mentioned (Rimski- Korsakov, Ravel, Mahler etc.)? what instruments were they a specialist in? and why didn't they sound like a particular instrument?..(BTW, Mahler sounds very often like millitary band to me..)


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Ok so what about composers thus mentioned (Rimski- Korsakov, Ravel, Mahler etc.)? what instruments were they a specialist in?


 Piano - all three.



> and why didn't they sound like a particular instrument?


They didn't let the instrument command their orchestration and had a much greater knowledge of in in depth nature of each instrument. Mahler for example had intimate knowledge of combination on instruments. They treated orchestration as an integral part of the actual composition. Strauss and Berlioz also.



> (BTW, Mahler sounds very often like millitary band to me..)


Mahler did employ many march's in his pieces it is inevitable that he decidedly chose to employ a militaristic style orchestration for a military piece. I doubt you believe the first movement of Symphony 1 or kindertotenlieder sounds like a military band?


----------



## Kuhlau

Yagan Kiely said:


> Just so you know, there isn't such thing as genius. He isn't born with the ability to compose music. That's like being born with the ability to program computers.


Kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth, sir. 

I said nothing about Beethoven being _born_ with genius - only that he was one. I'm unaware of any definition of 'genius' that specifically requires it to be something one is born with. That may or may not be true, but it wasn't my point.

FK


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Genius 'shows an exceptional natural capacity of intellect', 'exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural'.

There is nothing natural about hardwork, a good education, and passion for what you do (often because of the former two, but the former two greatly feed of the latter.


----------



## jhar26

I'd like to add the name of Puccini to those already mentionned.


----------



## Kuhlau

Yagan Kiely said:


> There is nothing natural about hardwork, a good education, and passion for what you do (often because of the former two, but the former two greatly feed of the latter.


Well, I look forward to reading your thesis on genius. Or is this a case of your opinion masquerading as fact?

FK


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Or is this a case of your opinion masquerading as fact?


 So you think that Mozart and Beethoven were born with the ability to compose music? It was an inane gift, there is a part of their brain that is specifically geared towards the abstract art of music, a form of art that has no reference to human evolution?

Moreover, my opinion is based on many journals by professionals and many years. Some evidence may also lead to an 'opinion' that everyone has perfect pitch, but a poor education in the critical period of learning 'unlearns' it. There are obviously physical elements that can benefit performers (possibly composers too, but I don't know of anything). Psychological problems, such as autism, can exaggerate certain abilities but they often lack the creative process (which is why mathematics is 'popular' - but also why they are of no use _as_ mathematicians).


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I'd like to add the name of Puccini to those already mentionned.


Yes, he is interesting and certainly a very good orchestrator. Not sure I'd call him 'great' however.


----------



## Kuhlau

Yagan Kiely said:


> So you think that Mozart and Beethoven were born with the ability to compose music? It was an inane gift, there is a part of their brain that is specifically geared towards the abstract art of music, a form of art that has no reference to human evolution?


What I'm questioning, Yagan, is not whether or not there's any scientific evidence to support or dismiss the idea of 'genius', but your own *absolute* assertion that a person cannot be born with innate potentiality for exceptional ability in any given area of life.

Why should 'natural' equate 'born with'? Cannot some natural ability be latent; encouraged to flower to a quite extraordinary extent later in a person's life with the aid of top-flight education, personal enthusiasm/ambition and other 'ideal' circumstances? Would it not then be appropriate to call such a flowering 'genius', especially if that flowering results in demonstrable achievements that tower over those of others who've benefited from similarly excellent situations?

If I mean anything by the term 'genius', sir, I most certainly mean this.

FK


----------



## Weston

Beethoven himself seemed to dismiss orchestration or at least playability as the be all end all of music. "Do you think I worry about your lousy fiddle when the spirit moves me?"

One can still be among the top three composers of all time and not be the greatest orchestrator. In the visual arts I would say that da Vinci and Rembrandt both were fairly mundane colorists, partly due to the materials available but not entirely.

I and many others find Beethoven's orchestration sublime enough and I am grateful I am no academic so that I can still enjoy music as it was intended.


----------



## PostMinimalist

jhar26 said:


> I'd like to add the name of Puccini to those already mentionned.


Yes this one slipped my mind! Among the greats in my opinion. Too often underrated!


----------



## danae

Personal favourites masters in orchestration: Wagner, Rimsky-Korsakow, Ravel, Shostakovitch, Strauss, Messiaen, Ligeti


----------



## confuoco

Yagan Kiely said:


> Genius 'shows an exceptional natural capacity of intellect', 'exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural'.
> 
> There is nothing natural about hardwork, a good education, and passion for what you do (often because of the former two, but the former two greatly feed of the latter.


If you deny existence of genius, do you deny also existence of talent?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> If you deny existence of genius, do you deny also existence of talent?


I deny the existence of genius that your are born into.

Talent is something you learn, it is not natural, a gift or anything. You cannot be born to write music.


----------



## confuoco

Yagan Kiely said:


> I deny the existence of genius that your are born into.
> 
> Talent is something you learn, it is not natural, a gift or anything. You cannot be born to write music.


Quotation form Brittanica: "Genius is distinguished from talent, both quantitatively and qualitatively. *Talent refers to a native aptitude* for some special kind of work and implies a relatively quick and easy acquisition of a particular skill within a domain (sphere of activity or knowledge). Genius, on the other hand, involves originality, creativity, and the ability to think and work in areas not previously..."

I think it is important for you to deny talent and genius because of some private reasons.

If there is nothing like native talent, how do you explain melodic "gift" of Dvořák or Tchaikovsky then?

Brahms (who was admirer of lovely melodies) hadn't so rich melodic invention as Dvorak and he knew it . There is his well known quotation: "I should be glad if something occurred to me as a main idea that occurs to Dvořák only by the way.".

So where was the problem? Was Brahms well educated (self-educated)? Oh, much more than Dvořák. Did Brahms work hard? Oh, he was workaholic! Was he passionate to compose the music? No doubt. Please explain it for me.

Make group of 100 children in the age of 3 and and tell them to draw anything they want. Then you check it and you will find that 5 drawings are much better than onthers, surprisingly good for their age. That's the talent and in the age of three it has nothing to do with hard work or art education. That's why there is a talent proof for naturally uneducated children who want to join primary music schools.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I think it is important for you to deny talent and genius because of some private reasons.


Please don't turn this into a personal attack.  The concept of genius is just an excuse for those who have not achieved anything. If that person over there is a genius, that is why I am not as good. Or. I don't have to work hard at this, because that person is a genius and I'm not. If you have received a good education in your critical periods of life, then it is _only_ the work you put into it that lets you do anything.



> If there is nothing like native talent, how do you explain melodic "gift" of Dvořák or Tchaikovsky then?


Melody is a science in composition, it isn't a gift, it can be learnt.



> Then you check it and you will find that 5 drawings are much better than onthers, surprisingly good for their age.


Age three is _after_ the (first?) critical period in life.



> So where was the problem? Was Brahms well educated (self-educated)? Oh, much more than Dvořák. Did Brahms work hard? Oh, he was workaholic! Was he passionate to compose the music? No doubt. Please explain it for me.


Different access to works at a younger age? Different teachers? How am I supposed to know the early, undocumented psycology of a 100 years dead guy?



> That's the talent and in the age of three it has nothing to do with hard work or art education.


Incorrect.

Under your definition, I am a genius. Now, I know I worked hard to achieve what I have in music (and my tennis), yet I fit your definitions. But I worked hard, and that is the only reason I achieved what I did.


----------



## Herzeleide

Ravel, Stravinsky, Debussy, Schoenberg (only sometimes, e.g. the _Five Pieces_, but not of the op. 31 variations), and Berg are all great orchestrators.

Boulez, Messiaen, Carter, Dutilleux, Knussen, Holloway, Adès and Julian Anderson are also all great orchestrators.


----------



## confuoco

Yagan Kiely said:


> Melody is a science in composition, it isn't a gift, it can be learnt.


It can be learnt in a manner. It isn't exact matter like step-by-step programming of some software.

I can speak about Mussorgsky for example, no real music education, no systematic hard work, alcohol, etc. one could expect composer deeply below the average. But _Pictures_ is a touch of pure genius (and composer mastery as well of course). Then there are some specific gifts connected to music, for example phenomenal and really wonderful musical memory of Shostakovich (that was at first observed by her mother when he was child, by the way).



Yagan Kiely said:


> Under your definition, I am a genius. Now, I know I worked hard to achieve what I have in music (and my tennis), yet I fit your definitions. But I worked hard, and that is the only reason I achieved what I did.


Maybe you are...I don't know. _But I didn't said that only genius can become a good composer_. No way, what I said is that there exists a phenomenon of talent and geniality as a very significant predisposition, which can be bring to bear or not.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Please don't turn this into a personal attack.


No attack, I just see that is very important for you to keep on your "tabula rasa" theory. I don't get it, because it is based on your wish and not on the apparent reality.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> No attack, I just see that is very important for you to keep on your "tabula rasa" theory. I don't get it, because it is based on your wish and not on the apparent reality.
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. Sorry. (To both accusations in that).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can speak about Mussorgsky for example, no real music education, no systematic hard work, alcohol, etc. one could expect composer deeply below the average. But Pictures is a touch of pure genius (and composer mastery as well of course). Then there are some specific gifts connected to music, for example phenomenal and really wonderful musical memory of Shostakovich (that was at first observed by her mother when he was child, by the way).
> 
> 
> 
> Can _you_ tell me how they were educated when they were 2 years old? What external aspects of life they were shown and experienced? No? Neither can I, so stop bringing up ancient composers. It's useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way, what I said is that there exists a phenomenon of talent and geniality as a very significant predisposition, which can be bring to bear or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your argument is that composers are different later in life. I agree with that. My argument is that it is external stimuli that make them like this, not an in built knowledge of an abstract, and non-evolutionary concept of music. Language is different, humans are predisposed to learning language, however music is not a natural evolutionary trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Saturnus

Berlioz, Puccini and Bartók knew better than others (IMO) how to play with and blend new orchestral colours. If you are intrested in the most thick-woven, richest and fullest sound, go for Brahms.



Yagan Kiely said:


> You will do well to forget Beethoven. His harmonics and melodic inventions seems to cast shadow on his study of orchestration. He can't Orchestrate to save his life: his violin concerto is a piano concerto; he has no idea how to write a woodwind chord (the voicing is, again, is magically as if he composed it on the piano and forgot how other instruments sound different!). He is a great composer (around 75% of the time), but a terrible orchestrator.


His pieces aren't written for today's instruments. He wrote for classical oboes, wooden flutes, pre-Heckel bassoons, brass with much narrower bore, non-metallic strings etc. 
In his wind music (chamber), he knows how they work. The same goes for Mozart (period instrument 'Gran Partita' recording from Harmonia Mundi heavily recommended, it gives a hint to the sound intended for the symphonies).


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> His pieces aren't written for today's instruments. He wrote for classical oboes, wooden flutes, pre-Heckel bassoons, brass with much narrower bore, non-metallic strings etc.


And?
[quoteIn his wind music (chamber), he knows how they work. The same goes for Mozart (period instrument 'Gran Partita' recording from Harmonia Mundi heavily recommended, it gives a hint to the sound intended for the symphonies).[/quote]How come the rest is so **** then?


----------



## Herzeleide

Herzeleide said:


> Ravel, Stravinsky, Debussy, Schoenberg (only sometimes, e.g. the _Five Pieces_, but not of the op. 31 variations), and Berg are all great orchestrators.
> 
> Boulez, Messiaen, Carter, Dutilleux, Knussen, Holloway, Adès and Julian Anderson are also all great orchestrators.


And - how could I forget?! - Richard Strauss and Gustav Mahler.


----------



## Saturnus

Yagan Kiely said:


> And?
> 
> 
> 
> In his wind music (chamber), he knows how they work. The same goes for Mozart (period instrument 'Gran Partita' recording from Harmonia Mundi heavily recommended, it gives a hint to the sound intended for the symphonies).
> 
> 
> 
> How come the rest is so **** then?
Click to expand...

And? That means we cannot judge Beethoven's orcherstration based on how his symphonies sound in modern orchestras. 
Why do you say that the rest is "****"?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> And? That means we cannot judge Beethoven's orcherstration based on how his symphonies sound in modern orchestras.


What I mean by and, is that is obvious and I know.



> Why do you say that the rest is "****"?


I gave one example already.

Nothing taking off (75% of) his music, it's still great! It's just that orchestration wasn't his speciality (It is okay for him not to be perfect).

EDIT: I'd like to backtrack; Dvorak does _not_ have good melodies, he doesn't good much at all. Very sub par composer.


----------



## Saturnus

Yagan Kiely said:


> What I mean by and, is that is obvious and I know.





Yagan Kiely said:


> My point is that although he knows how the instrument works, the chords are not nice sounding chords, they sound immature


Here you say Beethoven doesn't sound nice. I'm pointing out that what you've heard and are judging him by are not the sounds he intended when he composed.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I'm pointing out that what you've heard and are judging him by are not the sounds he intended when he composed.


Then he isn;t good at orchestrating.


----------



## Kuhlau

To be fair, Yagan, that last argument of yours doesn't really stand up. You can't accuse a composer of being a poor orchestrator when the types and styles of instruments for which he was composing aren't those commonly in use today.

FK


----------



## Yagan Kiely

But I'm listening on period instruments... He's the one presuming I only listen to modern orchestra.

And, I'm not the only one to say this, it is well documented on many journals that Beethoven was not good at orchestration.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> it is well documented on many journals that Beethoven was not good at orchestration.


Unfortunately it's documented by my ears.


----------



## confuoco

Yagan Kiely said:


> EDIT: I'd like to backtrack; Dvorak does _not_ have good melodies, he doesn't good much at all. Very sub par composer.


Oh, thank you for this wise	finding. In what journal did you read it?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

confuoco said:


> Oh, thank you for this wise finding. In what journal did you read it?


smirk:) Somehow, I think Dvořák's reputation will find a way to endure, "journal" citations or no....


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I don't remember saying I did, so my the stupid question? Dvorak is an overrated composer, promotes purely because he wrote the New World symphony.


----------



## confuoco

Yagan Kiely said:


> I don't remember saying I did, so my the stupid question? Dvorak is an overrated composer, promotes purely because he wrote the New World symphony.


My question didn't call for the answer . If you don't like him or consider him overrated, why not, but to say he hasn't good melodies...it is really inept, sorry. There is no talent, Dvořák has no good melodies, what is the next? Earth is not rotating?

Dvořák is prototype of melodic invention and richness. At first I was shocked by your assertion, but then I realized one thing: I am always surprised when I am reading how great composers of the past hard and unreasonably atacked each other. So I think composers are the least competent persons to rate other composers...they lack necesarry detachment. That's my explanation.

Btw, many critics think Symphony No. 7 is Dvořák's best symphonic work, not New World Symphony. And Cello Concerto is at least so frequently performed as Symphony No. 9.


----------



## R-F

It just so happened that I stumbled across a CD of my Dad's- Ravel's Complete Orchestral Works. He doesn't seem to know how he got it, as he's not fond of classical music, but I took it anyway and listened to it.
I hadn't listened to a lot of Ravel, but I decided I should listen to some more after the great comments about his orchestration I was hearing. To be short, I loved it all. However, one particular piece stood out. The sunrise from Daphnis et Chloe was absolutely stunning, and I'm still amazed by it every time I hear it.
I also bought and listened to Mahler's First Symphony, after hearing good things about his orchestration too, and I was equally as impressed. He seems to use his instruments like a paint pallet- only ever adding what he needs to make the technique he wants. Very effective.
I may try some Richard Strauss next. I have actually heard none of his music.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> My question didn't call for the answer . If you don't like him or consider him overrated, why not, but to say he hasn't good melodies...it is really inept, sorry. There is no talent, Dvořák has no good melodies, what is the next? Earth is not rotating?


Yes, the answer is a personal attack, well done. Congratulations on nothing. I forgot, that you are are be all end all of defining melody.



> Dvořák is prototype of melodic invention and richness. At first I was shocked by your assertion, but then I realized one thing: I am always surprised when I am reading how great composers of the past hard and unreasonably atacked each other. So I think composers are the least competent persons to rate other composers...they lack necesarry detachment. That's my explanation.


Another personal attack. Wow, you do like them don't you? This is also quite... incorrect. It may have some merrit for contemporaries, but not otherwise. Try again.



> Btw, many critics think Symphony No. 7 is Dvořák's best symphonic work, not New World Symphony. And Cello Concerto is at least so frequently performed as Symphony No. 9.


Oh WOW!, I forgot I said that critics said that his 9th is the bestest. Oh wait... I didn't


----------



## confuoco

Yagan Kiely said:


> Oh WOW!, I forgot I said that critics said that his 9th is the bestest. Oh wait... I didn't


I reserved a law to write what I want in my posts and not only precisely reply to your assertions. Didn't you notice "BTW" in the beginning of that sentence? These are three very essential letters.



Yagan Kiely said:


> It may have some merrit for contemporaries, but not otherwise. Try again.


It isn't true at all. Your arrogant attack of Dvořák (with no arguments) is the best proof. Another example is Boulez' opinion in Brahms music, etc., etc.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

When did I say that my opinions are facts? Try not beating everything up. Jeez...



> I reserved a law to write what I want in my posts and not only precisely reply to your assertions. Didn't you notice "BTW" in the beginning of that sentence? These are three very essential letters.


OBVIOUSLY, what you said had absolutely _nothing_ to do with what I said, and it certainly could never resemble anything similar to a response.... shouldn't you make a beeping noise?

Just because (almighty) you think Dvorak is the bees knees (or whatever), does not make him the bestest in anything. Me saying he is overrated doesn't either, why are you insisting you are right and I am bias? It's amazingly hypocritical.

BTW*, did you know that critics also dislike pieces that became hugely popular?

And you are right in one sense, composer do look at compositions differently, mainly because they actually know more about them.

*Because I said 'BTW', it mean that the sentence/s that followed had nothing to do with anything you said at all, any resemblance to a counterargument (or similar) is merely coincidence!


----------



## confuoco

Yagan Kiely said:


> OBVIOUSLY, what you said had absolutely _nothing_ to do with what I said, and it certainly could never resemble anything similar to a response.... shouldn't you make a beeping noise?


Absolutely nothing? At least it was about Dvořák . I tell you exactly why I said it. You said: "Dvorak is an overrated composer, promotes purely because he wrote the New World symphony." I supposed that you was trying to say that Dvořák's reputation is based on one work. That's why I mentioned 7th symphony and Cello Concerto (could mention much more works).



Yagan Kiely said:


> Just because (almighty) you think Dvorak is the bees knees (or whatever), does not make him the bestest in anything. Me saying he is overrated doesn't either, why are you insisting you are right and I am bias? It's amazingly hypocritical.


Now I can ask where I wrote something like this? I don't deem Dvořák to be bees knees at all. I insist I am right because I have ears and my opinion is supported by many other listeners, critics and musicians. Sincerely, your opinion "Dvořák does not have good melodies" is really unique (nonsense, in my opinion), so I am still waiting if you put some relevant arguments on the table. But I am afraid it is like waiting for Godot.



Yagan Kiely said:


> And you are right in one sense, composer do look at compositions differently, mainly because they actually know more about them.


Maybe, but it has nothing to do with effort of objective evaluation of composers. I can paraphrase you: Just because (almighty) you think Dvořák is sub par (or whatever), does not make him bad in anything (including his exceptional melodic invention). He can be sub par composer, but in this aspect of composing he is on the top.

Brahms was also a composer and thought Dvořák had excellent melodic ideas. So don't arguments of composer's knowledge or education, because their reviews can be strictly different (beacuse their review is influenced by their own composition style preferences, that's what I'm speaking about and there is no personal attack in that, don't be paranoid.)


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I insist I am right because I have ears and my opinion is supported by many other listeners, critics and musicians. Sincerely, your opinion "Dvořák does not have good melodies" is really unique (nonsense, in my opinion), so I am still waiting if you put some relevant arguments on the table.


I have read many upon many who think Dvorak is overrated (and also MANY more whom I know personally), yet putting them forth (if I could find them) would be pointless, because just like your 'evidence' they are all opinions, and are thus, worthless.

And what is the point of adding the 'nonsense' fallacy? Why are you so desperate in defending an opinion which has no basis in fact and is actually (this is closer to fact) not as one sided as you think.



> I insist I am right because


Why do you insist you are right? That's stupid. I can't insist I'm right and neither can you.



> I can paraphrase you: Just because (almighty) you think Dvořák is sub par (or whatever), does not make him bad in anything (including his exceptional melodic invention).


The funny thing is, I am freely admitting that mine is just opinion and has no basis in arguments, you are still trying to say otherwise on yours.



> (including his exceptional melodic invention).


Why are you trying to assert that his 'exceptional melodic invention' is a given fact when it isn't?

I actually stand by what I said on hindsight, you do think you are 'almighty' you, as you defend you unfounded opinions with such immature vigor!

I'm sorry, but your opinion is just that, opinion and I am _not_ on my own like to are trying to say.


----------



## confuoco

Yagan Kiely said:


> I have read many upon many who think Dvorak is overrated (and also MANY more whom I know personally), yet putting them forth (if I could find them) would be pointless, because just like your 'evidence' they are all opinions, and are thus, worthless.


Don't turn it, I said few times, that I don't contradict your opinion about his overrating, but your assertion about his melodies.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Why do you insist you are right? That's stupid. I can't insist I'm right and neither can you.


In this case I can. For me good melodic invention of Dvořák is the same fact as that sun is shining.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Why are you trying to assert that his 'exceptional melodic invention' is a given fact when it isn't?


Because I just think it _is_ a given fact.



Yagan Kiely said:


> I am freely admitting that mine is just opinion and has no basis in arguments


OK, that is all I wanted to know. Now we can end this dialog.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> In this case I can. For me good melodic invention of Dvořák is the same fact as that sun is shining.


Well in that case it's like talking to a brick wall. I can't be bothered talking to someone who is trying to put forth his pure and simple opinion (based on no actual evidence) as a given fact.



> Because I just think it _is_ a given fact.


No, you think he has exception melodic invention. There is no fact, and if you think a pure opinion without and basis in evidence is a given fact you need to re-evaluate the situation badly, and give this, probably many things in your life.



> OK, that is all I wanted to know. Now we can end this dialog.


Yours is too, in case you hadn't noticed.

Also, you don't know everything, and you opinions aren't godly as you seem to think. Please stop being so arrogant.



> OK, that is all I wanted to know. Now we can end this dialog.


I've been telling you this from the begining and you notice this now? WTF? Can't you read?


----------



## confuoco

Yagan Kiely said:


> Also, you don't know everything, and you opinions aren't godly as you seem to think. Please stop being so arrogant.


I don't know everything of course and really has no special opinion on myself and my thoughts , believe me or not. Sorry if I seem to be arrogant, however I've accounted you arrogant from the beginning of discussion about talent. Nice to see I was wrong  (I hope).


----------



## Yagan Kiely

My opinion on Beethoven has some critical evidence e backing it up, as does my opinions of talent and genius. You have to remember (instead of continuously beating it up), that I only disagree with a small tiny part of the definition of talent and genius, and that doesn;t undermine it's effect in one sense. I always never say these 'disclaimers' because I know it is obvious, but I seem to always get surprised people people still find a way not to see it...


----------



## R-F

I was speaking to my music teacher about orchestration, and he noted that Beethoven wasn't good at voicing chords. He said one explanation was that when Beethoven was going deaf, he struggled to hear some of the chords in the bass section of the piano. Therefor he would add notes to the chords to allow him to hear them better, making it less spread out so giving it a muddier sound. I don't know how true that is, though.
I'm interested in this sort of thing- what is the best way to voice chords? How does it differ on a piano to, say, a wind band?


----------



## JoeGreen

Offenbach anyone?

He had some good moments.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> My opinion on Beethoven has some critical evidence e backing it up


The only evidence one needs is one's ears.


----------



## confuoco

Herzeleide said:


> The only evidence one needs is one's ears.


I don't think so...still there are some aspects of music that can be measured detachedly in a manner.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Another favorite classical orchestrator of mine is Canteloube. He wrote so little but his major contribution to the Repertory is an orchestrational masterpiece; 'Songs from the Auverne' One could do no better than study this score to learn how to write for piano orchestrally!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I don't think so...still there are some aspects of music that can be measured detachedly in a manner.


Indeed, there are many aspects. Aesthetic philosophy is very active in music academia.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

This is prime waffle, and no doubt a digression, but the idea of "detached measurement of aesthetic phenomena" _always_ reminds me of the 'Pritchett-essay' scene from the early section of the movie "Dead Poets' Society."

Now for a 'personal confession' I consider myself to be something of a bibliophile, with irrational tendencies in that direction. I _don't_ 'dog-ear' pages, and (even after all this time) I _can't_ bring myself to use highlight-marker in my books. The sight of a book on fire (ANY book) almost physically sickens me. (I turn my head away from the screen during the video for the song "Africa" by Toto.) Sort of neurotic, I know, but it's just hard-wired into me somehow. In spite of all of that, I ALMOST made an exception for the page-tearing urged by the Robin Williams character in that film.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I find it horrible too, but what's worse.... is a grand piano burning... should be a crime.


----------



## Herzeleide

confuoco said:


> I don't think so...still there are some aspects of music that can be measured detachedly in a manner.


I meant regarding orchestration.


----------



## confuoco

Herzeleide said:


> I meant regarding orchestration.


Yeah, that's one of the best examples of aspects I was talking about


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Therefor he would add notes to the chords to allow him to hear them better, making it less spread out so giving it a muddier sound. I don't know how true that is, though.
> I'm interested in this sort of thing- what is the best way to voice chords? How does it differ on a piano to, say, a wind band?


Muddier might make him physically feel the soundwaves, (semitones even more!), but in terms of general loudness, 3rds and dissonant notes quieten the chord while 5ths 8ves and 5ths (mainly first two) louden the chord.


----------



## tahnak

*Great Orchestrators*

I think you mean colors in the instrumentation. The Russians ticked off in this area - particularly Piotr Ilyitch Tchaikovsky, Sergei Rachmaninov, Nikolai Rimsky Korsakov, Mussorgsky (though Pictures was marvellously orchestrated by Maurice Ravel), Aleksandr Borodin, Ippolitov Ivanov, Igor Stravinsky, Sergei Prokofiev, Dmitri Shostakovich. Other than these Russians is Armenian, Aram Khachaturian.
Ludwig Van Beethoven
Johannes Brahms
Richard Wagner
Anton Bruckner
Hector Berlioz (one of the pioneers in revolutionary orchestrating)
Jean Sibelius
Richard Strauss
Gustav Mahler


----------



## Herzeleide

Shostakovich was only an adequate orchestrator - not even in the league of the colourful Russians before him (because of course such things are decadent and a grey, merely functional orchestration is more in line with Socialist Realism).


----------



## PostMinimalist

Did we mention Glazunov?


----------



## Aleksandar

Besides the usual suspects (Wagner, Rimsky-Korsakov, Ravel, Debussy, Mahler...) I think Sibelius deserves a mention. His orchestration is a big part of the uniqueness of his music in my opinion.


----------



## hpowders

Mahler? Fine in his own music, but in my opinion, he vandalized the Schumann symphonies much like Mozart mauled Handel's Messiah.

I wish composers would leave works by other composers alone!


----------



## KenOC

Mahler also did a re-orchestration of Beethoven's 9th. I think there is only one recording, and not a very satisfactory one, which I have. IMO some of his changes increase the transparency of the texture, especially in the first movement. Other changes seem less successful.

If there were a better performance, I might listen to it more often.


----------



## clavichorder

Herzeleide said:


> Shostakovich was only an adequate orchestrator - not even in the league of the colourful Russians before him (because of course such things are decadent and a grey, merely functional orchestration is more in line with Socialist Realism).


I disagree with half of what you say. Definitely he wasn't colorful, but he was very very skilled. The 15th Symphony has orchestration precise like clockwork. In Symphony 4 and his more neoclassical works, I generally find this to be true. Colorful, not so much. Imaginative and precise, yes.


----------



## clavichorder

Janacek is a wonderful orchestrator. There is a certain perfection, and it factor he has that belongs to a select few other composers, namely the likes of Ravel, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev. Richard Strauss and Mahler are both marvelously complex and virtuosic, but they don't have this otherworldly perfection that the likes of Janacek had.


----------



## EdwardBast

Herzeleide said:


> Shostakovich was only an adequate orchestrator - not even in the league of the colourful Russians before him (because of course such things are decadent and a grey, merely functional orchestration is more in line with Socialist Realism).


Shostakovich was a thorough master of orchestration, bringing out his lines with utter clarity and easy balance. To me, being a good orchestrator means casting ones musical thoughts in a way appropriate to their expressive goals and the nature of the material. Dark thoughts call for dark orchestration. Violent thoughts sometimes call for harsh orchestration in lurid primary colors. When a great deal of color and subtlety was appropriate, however, Shostakovich supplied it with skill matching any of his predecessors, as this movement (or the one clavichorder cites) makes perfectly clear:


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Shostakovich was a thorough master of orchestration...


Agree with this. Shostakovich claimed that he conceived his orchestral music with the instruments already present -- he didn't orchestrate from a piano score. Certainly some of his music (some of the symphonies, mostly) are a bit "grey," as intended, but they are well-orchestrated. Other works are colorful indeed, as EdwardBast points out.


----------



## R3PL4Y

KenOC said:


> a bit "grey," as intended


I think this is the most important thing. Shostakovich is not trying to write rich, colorful music the way someone like Berlioz or Tchaikovsky is. His music is intended to be very grey and shrill, and I think he uses the orchestra perfectly like that. In addition, some other pieces like the 15th show his ability to use instruments to create a more distinct effect.

There are a lot of composers being mentioned here as great orchestrators, so I pose the question: who do you find to be a not great orchestrator?


----------



## Rhombic

Apart from many that have already been noted, I'll include Nikolai Myaskovsky: the greatness of his music is in the orchestration and, in fact, he expresses how much he enjoys orchestrating in his letters to Prokofiev.

Maybe, one of the worst orchestrators that I can come up with right now is definitely Schumann. Eugh.

Other good orchestrators that might have or might have not been mentioned so far: Arnold Bax, Rimsky-Korsakov, Glazunov (these two last ones would help Borodin quite a lot and make the most of his structural ideas!), Hans Rott.


----------



## Rhombic

hpowders said:


> he vandalized the Schumann symphonies


I personally think that Schumann vandalised his own symphonies more than any other composer did.


----------



## EdwardBast

QUOTE=KenOC;1048643]Agree with this. Shostakovich claimed that he conceived his orchestral music with the instruments already present -- he didn't orchestrate from a piano score. Certainly some of his music (some of the symphonies, mostly) are a bit "grey," as intended, but they are well-orchestrated. Other works are colorful indeed, as EdwardBast points out.[/QUOTE]

Yes. It seems Shostakovich had the music so firmly in mind with its intended orchestral colors that he could often write it down from the top to the bottom of the score one measure or one page at a time - which boggles the mind.

I think this perception of grayness in Shostakovich's orchestral music, to the extent it is valid, has nothing to do with orchestration per se; It isn't about color, it is about the subjects depicted. Or, alternatively: It isn't the paint, it's the canvas. Consider the first ten minutes of the Tenth Symphony, a quintessential example of "gray orchestration" if ever there was one, and ask yourself: Where would you apply the color you are missing? Listening with this in mind one quickly hears that there is nowhere to put it. Unlike most composers, who, when writing a long theme, tend to apply coloristic touches to the accompaniment and harmony, _Shostakovich didn't tend to write accompaniment and harmony(!)_ - or, at least, he avoided it to the maximum extent possible. More than virtually any other composer with remotely similar language, Shostakovich's music is overwhelmingly linear and contrapuntal in nature. The first 68 measures, at a moderate tempo, for example, spin out a single theme in the strings with no harmony whatever, only spare secondary lines of melody. When the texture thickens slightly, at m. 16, the first violins are merely doubled in thirds by the second violins. The pattern continues in the principal theme, the clarinet melody beginning in m. 69 - and note that this is the first time, several minutes into the movement, that we have heard any wind color whatever. This theme unfolds as an unbroken thought, the principal line passed around the orchestra for some 120 measures. Here as in the motto, there is virtually no harmony per se, just secondary melodic material which is thickened at times by doubling the lines in 3rds. When we finally get some more or less traditional melody and harmony texture, in the second theme, the harmony is there primarily for a rhythmic function; the theme is a waltz and the accompaniment is what makes it dance through rhythmic counterpoint.

The scherzo is another example of "gray orchestration," this time of the shrill kind. Once again, what little harmony there is functions primarily as rhythmic counterpoint. Like other violent scherzos of Shostakovich (like the third movement of the 8th), this movement is forte or louder for nearly its whole length, and the reason there is no independent wind color is that the whole of the high winds need to be doubled to balance the sheer volume of the strings, brass, and percussion. This deployment of color allows perfectly balanced three part counterpoint at extreme volume.

Now one might still miss a more varied color palette even if one understands how it arises from the music's fundamental linear and contrapuntal nature. But before dismissing the style on these grounds it is worth asking what one gets in return for this deprivation. The answer is enormous paragraphs of unbroken melody that focus energy ever forward, and the strong association of contrasting colors with the thematic material (e.g., the individual character of the principal theme - not the motto - is set of by the first appearance of wind color). In the first movement this adds up to over 20 minutes of music in which not a single note is wasted and in which every paragraph contributes to a devastating dramatic structure.


----------



## hpowders

Rhombic said:


> I personally think that Schumann vandalised his own symphonies more than any other composer did.


Schumann has been "underestimated" as an orchestrator. His symphonies are just fine.


----------



## ericdxx

jhar26 said:


> I'd like to add the name of Puccini to those already mentionned.





PostMinimalist said:


> Yes this one slipped my mind! Among the greats in my opinion. Too often underrated!





Yagan Kiely said:


> Yes, he is interesting and certainly a very good orchestrator. Not sure I'd call him 'great' however.


I like both but:
Rossini > Puccini.


----------

