# Are there any great composers who were not great at instrumentation?



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Additional question for those interested: if you could take one piece by composer X and have it re-arranged by composer Y to improve the instrumentation, who would be your X and Y?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

X=Vivaldi; Y=Bach
X=Bach; Y=Webern
X=Beethoven; Y=Louis Andriessen
X=Brahms; Y=Schoenberg
X=Haydn; Y=Berhnard Lang
X=Wagner; Y=Glen Gould
X=verdi; Y=Michael Finnissy


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> X=Wagner; Y=Glen Gould


Gould has very few compositions. What impressed you so much that you would have him editorialize Wagner?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

level82rat said:


> Gould has very few compositions. What impressed you so much that you would have him editorialize Wagner?


His Maestersinger. Maybe Siegfried Idyll too, I'm not sure.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

level82rat said:


> Additional question for those interested: if you could take one piece by composer X and have it re-arranged by composer Y to improve the instrumentation, who would be your X and Y?


x = Rachmaninoff
y = Shostakovich or Stravinsky


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

I'll add that I would very much like to hear Mahler's orchestration of Bach, particularly the St Matthew Passion


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> X=Vivaldi; Y=Bach
> X=Bach; Y=Webern


Nope. I think what Webern did in that oft-praised arrangement of his was to destroy the flow of the individual voices.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

x = Vivaldi y = Ferneyhough


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Xriabin; RimskY


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Nope. I think what Webern did in that oft-praised arrangement of his was to destroy the flow of the individual voices.


It liberated timbre from melody.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> It liberated timbre from melody.


"Liberated"? To what purpose? That's just restating what I said, only using the loaded term "liberated". "Separated" and "tore away" work as well. Similarly, you can "liberate" tires from a car.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

X = Mahler; Y = John Cage
X = Wagner; Y = Pierre Boulez
X = Bruckner; Y = Erik Satie


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> "Liberated"? To what purpose? That's just restating what I said, only using the loaded term "liberated". "Separated" and "tore away" work as well. Similarly, you can "liberate" tires from a car.


I'm sorry, I didn't notice this until just now, or I would have responded to your question earlier.

The purpose was to explore making timbre a major musical parameter, not just a decoration of pitch.

It turned out to be a very fruitful experiment, in that it inspired some interesting music -- for example, Stockhausen's Gesang der Jünglinge and Boulez's Le marteau sans maître. A more recent example I think, which I like rather more than those two myself, is Brice Pauset's canons.

By the way I think that you're wrong to say that the Bach/Webern piece destroys the flow of the individual voices . . . but this is maybe not the place to discuss that.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I'm sorry, I didn't notice this until just now, or I would have responded to your question earlier.
> 
> The purpose was to explore making timbre a major musical parameter, not just a decoration of pitch.
> 
> ...


I'd disagree, of course.  I think what Webern does is essentially treat every note as its own unit, which seems to run counter to what Bach was doing in that fugue. As for the rest and "fruitfulness", I guess that depends on how you feel about Stockhausen and Boulez. That's something for another time.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

First, I wouldn't take music to a great composer - they simply cannot avoid making it sound like they wrote it. Every great composer has their own sound signature. (Ok, Mahler is an exception. His work on Weber's Die Drei Pintos is astonishing; it's impossible to know where Weber left off and Mahler begins.) Rather, I'd take it to a great orchestrator like Hollywood used to have. Leonid Raab or Murray Cutter will do. Then let them work their magic on Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov, the Schumann 1st, Amy Beach's symphony, and Messiah.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

consuono said:


> I think what Webern does is essentially treat every note as its own unit, which seems to run counter to what Bach was doing in that fugue.


According to Webern, his aim was to interpret Bach anew, "to set the character of the piece as I feel it...to awaken this music asleep in the seclusion of Bach's own abstract presentation, and thus unknown or unapproachable by most men", by striving to reveal the motivic structure of the melodic lines. Webern's version is distinctive by virtue of his extreme effort to sort out and clarify Bach's contrapuntal lines. Webern sometimes changes instruments for every single note, so that he can highlight each line and make us hear each note more clearly; the color of each note becomes as important as its interval.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> ... Webern sometimes changes instruments for every single note, so that he can highlight each line and make us hear each note more clearly; the color of each note becomes as important as its interval.


By doing so though he places the focus on those individual notes and not on their function within those lines. At one time I was a big fan of that arrangement. Now I just find it distracting. But de gustibus etc etc
(edit) I would point out though that a follower of Schoenberg and Webern -- René Leibowitz -- produced what I think is one of the finest efforts at Bach transcription with the orchestration of the Passacaglia and Fugue.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> X = Mahler; Y = John Cage
> X = Wagner; Y = Pierre Boulez
> X = Bruckner; Y = Erik Satie


Intriguing!

Is there something significant in Wagner's or Mahler's orchestration that a mere mortal could better? I understand that Cage's reorchestration of Mahler could be fascinating but how much of Mahler would be left after that?

Wagner was an unusually talented orchestrator. I mean, he developed his own tuba to fix some rather minor "mistakes" in his orchestration. It's difficult to imagine that Boulez, who, like no one else despite Wagner himself, wasn't aware of Wagner's exact intentions (Wagner's operas are still thoroughly programmatic), could have reorchestrated it so that the operas would have been even more explicit in their musical expression. Considering that Boulez was a great and loved Wagner conductor, I'm not even sure if he would have wanted to really fully reorchestrate any of Wagner's works. As the always trustworthy Wikipedia informs me then Boulez wrote about the "sheer richness of Wagner's orchestration and his irrepressible instinct for innovation," in _Orientations_.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Bartók is among the best composers, but his orchestration is consistently dull and uninteresting.

He did write very nicely for the violin, for instance, and had an accurate understanding of the instrument's possibilities. But not so for most instruments, for their combinations, and he took little advantage of an orchestra.

My preferred orchestra writer is Ravel.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> René Leibowitz


X = Sibelius ; Y = René Leibowitz

I just want to see how René Leibowitz would have gone about "fixing" Sibelius' music



> RENÉ LEIBOWITZ
> 
> SIBELIUS
> the worst
> ...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

annaw said:


> Is there something significant in Wagner's or Mahler's orchestration that a mere mortal could better?


"Ravel never made a pilgrimage to Bayreuth, and although he was overwhelmed by Wagner as a young man, and later called him "a magnificent musician," he was critical of Wagner's thick orchestral texture and believed that Wagnerian influence in France was "pernicious" and would be "disastrous" if unchecked."
<Ravel: Man and Musician, By Arbie Orenstein, Page 123>


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> x = Rachmaninoff
> y = Shostakovich or Stravinsky


What?
No way....


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Orfeo said:


> What?
> No way....


anything would be an improvement..,


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> "Ravel never made a pilgrimage to Bayreuth, and although he was overwhelmed by Wagner as a young man, and later called him "a magnificent musician," he was critical of Wagner's thick orchestral texture and believed that Wagnerian influence in France was "pernicious" and would be "disastrous" if unchecked."
> <Ravel: Man and Musician, By Arbie Orenstein, Page 123>


True. French saw Wagner's influence as a threat for French music. That's among the reasons why Debussy suddenly changed his mind regarding Wagner, although I don't know if he ever really let go of his youthful admiration. But I feel that Wagner's orchestration was exactly right for Wagner. Ravel has been described as the antithesis of Wagner and the last anti-Wagnerian. French were determined to save their music from Wagnerian influences. Claiming his orchestration to be _fit for French_ wouldn't have helped their cause much. Thus I'm not sure if Ravel was an independent critic.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Rachmaninoff was a terrific orchestrates by any standard. Isle of the Dead, symphonies 2 and 3, Rhapsody on a theme by Paganini, and especially Symphonic Dances are brilliantly scored. His perceived darkness is very Russian. His part writing is excellent, too. I enjoy playing his music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

annaw said:


> Intriguing!
> 
> Is there something significant in Wagner's or Mahler's orchestration that a mere mortal could better? I understand that Cage's reorchestration of Mahler could be fascinating but how much of Mahler would be left after that?


That's the idea.



> Wagner was an unusually talented orchestrator. I mean, he developed his own tuba to fix some rather minor "mistakes" in his orchestration. It's difficult to imagine that Boulez, who, like no one else despite Wagner himself, wasn't aware of Wagner's exact intentions (Wagner's operas are still thoroughly programmatic), could have reorchestrated it so that the operas would have been even more explicit in their musical expression. Considering that Boulez was a great and loved Wagner conductor, I'm not even sure if he would have wanted to really fully reorchestrate any of Wagner's works. As the always trustworthy Wikipedia informs me then Boulez wrote about the "sheer richness of Wagner's orchestration and his irrepressible instinct for innovation," in _Orientations_.


I was thinking ideally, transcribing Wagner's music into one of Boulez's type ensembles, e.g. three pianos and three percussionists, with maybe a harp or guitar thrown in, would be a welcome improvement.

My idea was to remove the original composer's style entirely, transforming it into a more transparent, quirky, chamber sound.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn (Feb 26, 2020)

There are many composers whose orchestration is not to my liking for one reason or another. In almost all of the "great" composers, though, their orchestration is part of what they wanted to say, and it cannot be changed without creating a rift between the content of the music and its presentation. The one exception is Chopin, who orchestrates like a student.

My standard for evaluating orchestration is the same as my standard for evaluating acting, and for the same reason; If I am thinking about the orchestration, the composer has failed.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> I was thinking ideally, transcribing Wagner's music into one of Boulez's type ensembles, e.g. three pianos and three percussionists, with maybe a harp or guitar thrown in, would be a welcome improvement.
> 
> My idea was to remove the original composer's style entirely, transforming it into a more transparent, quirky, chamber sound.


Okay, I see, I see. Thanks for an elaboration! May I only ask that what aspect of Wagner's music the chamber sound would improve? You'd still have a heldentenor, a dramatic soprano and Wagner's massive choruses.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Rachmaninoff was a terrific orchestrates by any standard. Isle of the Dead, symphonies 2 and 3, Rhapsody on a theme by Paganini, and especially Symphonic Dances are brilliantly scored. His perceived darkness is very Russian. His part writing is excellent, too. I enjoy playing his music.


have to disagree...way too thick and heavy....Pag/Vars is ok, the rest - arrrgghh...for me, not enjoyable to play, rather frustrating...
the Amy Beach "Gaelic" could use a re-orchestration, for sure


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Isaac Blackburn said:


> The one exception is Chopin, who orchestrates like a student.


Not the first time that complaint has been brought up. What was so amateurish about his orchestration?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

annaw said:


> Okay, I see, I see. Thanks for an elaboration! May I only ask that what aspect of Wagner's music the chamber sound would improve? You'd still have a heldentenor, a dramatic soprano and Wagner's massive choruses.


I was being just a little facetious.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

level82rat said:


> Not the first time that complaint has been brought up. What was so amateurish about his orchestration?


It's thin, weak, and odd. Such as the one trombone in the first concerto. Mily Balakirev did reorchestrate the whole thing. Friedrich Gulda recorded it. Listen to it and compare it to Chopin's original. Quite interesting. (It's on YouTube).


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> I was being just a little facetious.


Now, this is an even better elaboration :lol:.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Chopin's colleagues who were better trained in orchestration "helped" him:
"Chopin's fellow composers and Prof. Elsner's former students, Ignacy Feliks Dobrzyński (1807-1867) and Tomasz Nidecki (1807-1852), are believed to have helped him orchestrate his piano concertos. This gave an excuse for other musicians to make slight alterations in the score."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No._2_(Chopin)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> X = Sibelius ; Y = René Leibowitz
> 
> I just want to see how René Leibowitz would have gone about "fixing" Sibelius' music


I don't have any interest in Leibowitz beyond his transcription. I'd say that orchestration was the least of his gripes with Sibelius. What ticked him off apparently was that Sibelius wasn't Schoenberg and didn't abandon tonality.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

level82rat said:


> Not the first time that complaint has been brought up. What was so amateurish about his orchestration?


his Piano concerto have good bassoon parts!! middle mvt of #1 has really delicious, extensive solo parts for bassoon..


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> have to disagree...way too thick and heavy....Pag/Vars is ok, the rest - arrrgghh...for me, not enjoyable to play, rather frustrating...
> the Amy Beach "Gaelic" could use a re-orchestration, for sure


Russian orchestration for the most part tend to be on the thick side, sometimes even on the garish. With Rachmaninoff, his orchestration, while typically Russian, but not as brilliant as Rimsky-Korsakov, Glazunov, or even Tchaikovsky (or even Gliere perhaps), is still above average, and one can see the progression, or greater mastery with the orchestra, from the First Symphony to his Symphonic Dances. But I guess let us agree to disagree.

As far as:
_x = Rachmaninoff_
_y = Shostakovich or Stravinsky

_I would replace Rachmaninoff with Mussorgsky hands down (though he was not bad at all, striking even).


----------



## Isaac Blackburn (Feb 26, 2020)

I've always found Rachmaninoff's orchestration to have a very distant and rather indirect sound (compared to Prokofiev or Mahler, two of my favorite orchestrators), but it seems inseparable from the yearning romanticism that pervades his work.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Orfeo said:


> Russian orchestration for the most part tend to be on the thick side, sometimes even on the garish.


the great Russians of the 20th century were terrific orchestrators - Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev...
Rachmaninoff not even in the same universe - orchestrations consistently demonstrate so many fundamental errors, weaknesses - it's way too thick and heavy.... excessive unison/octave 2bling, 3pling, 4drupling of voices....this constant tendency to write instruments in their lower; or lower mid-range registers, where the overtones are very thick and murky....the range is way too constricted...he writes interesting interior lines, counter melodies, then covers them up completely
with impenetrable texture....other composers - Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev- explored the bass sonorities of the orchestra to great effect....but their works are not thick and muddy...the bass lines are clear, and well orchestrated - the timbre of the individual instruments comes thru effectively...they avoid the excessive and massive 2blings of Rachm'ff
..a colleague of mine nailed it perfectly:
Rachmaninoff orchestrated in the "middle school band music" concept - ie- everyone must be playing at all times!! way too thick....Stravinsky or Shostakovich could have thinned it out; made it much clearer and more colorful.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

level82rat said:


> Not the first time that complaint has been brought up. What was so amateurish about his orchestration?


It is dry and colorless. Most of his concertante works could be rewritten as solo piano pieces with almost zero loss of intent or musical content. If you ask an orchestra which concerto is the most boring to play, the answer is usually Chopin.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> X=Vivaldi; Y=Bach
> X=Bach; Y=Webern
> X=Beethoven; Y=Louis Andriessen
> X=Brahms; Y=Schoenberg
> ...




fgxhrpz


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> It liberated timbre from melody.


This is irrelevant with Bach and also destroys the unity of the composition.


----------

