# How important is orchestration for you?



## Sid James

Due to discussion about Schumann's orchestration on THIS thread which yours truly initiated, I thought I'd make a poll & discussion about the topic of orchestration in general.

Orchestration as an art in itself really came to the fore after the mid nineteenth century, and especially later on in that century. A number of prominent composers of that time wrote books on orchestration, Berlioz and Rimsky-Korsakov are two that I can think of.

Personally, I'm more interested in the actual musical substance of a piece in general more than just the orchestration. Orchestration is only a slice of the pie for me, so to speak. This is why I don't really have much time for people who criticise certain composers' orchestration as not very good when compared to that of others (Schumann comes to mind here strongly, as do some more idiosyncratic orchestrators like Charles Ives). I'm more interested in the "big picture" of what a composer does, not specific tiny things eg. as to how he does things with regards to orchestration, what instruments or combinations of them he/she uses, etc. I largely leave these things up to the professionals, eg. the composers themselves.

Of course, orchestration is important, but in some ways I think it's been overrated, esp. when we hear music of earlier times through the prism of what's happened since the mid nineteenth century.

Before, I used to think a bit poorly of composers whose orchestration strongly resembled that of others - eg. Bax & maybe Vaughan Williams - but now, knowing their works in a deeper way, I can see that orchestration is only a garb, a clothing. It's the other things like structure and the quality of ideas/themes & how they're worked out/handled that are the focus for me now. Don't judge a book by it's cover, as they say.

*What are your thoughts on this, guys?* All thoughts are welcome, from lay listeners like myself to musicians who've maybe even done a bit of orchestrating, studied the texts on this, themselves...

(I have made this a *public poll*)


----------



## clavichorder

I will take the middle ground. I think orchestration is a form of substance in and of itself, if its truly the work of a genius, it has its own musical value. Although if you keep reading, you'll see that as usual by the end of the post, I've halfway changed my mind.

Apart from this notion of mine that I pretty much just decided on; for the undeniably brilliant orchestrators, we commonly think of Richard Strauss, and Maurice Ravel? But there are different styles of skillful orchestration, Brahms for example, I've heard described as a blender in that he was innovative with instrument combinations, whereas Tchaikovsky and other Russians like Balakirev or Liadov can be said to be primary color, very colorful. Dvorak for a late romantic is maybe somewhere in between, varying in his works from one end of the spectrum to another. Gustav Holst might be on the side of orchestrator, except he also has wonderful melodies, so there is color.

Perhaps I would place "melody/themes" and "architecture"(perhaps subdivided into integrative architecture of the whole piece, and the daring humps and horns of the moment to moment experience, i.e. modulations and dynamics) above orchestration. So though I voted in the middle, if these categories be substance, and probably more categories too, then orchestration will have to be second priority.

Though, perhaps I don't understand Bax deeply yet, but I had placed Britten to be the superior composer to Bax, largely because though not quite as juicy/souped up of an orchestrator, Britten is such an original orchestrator and Bax you feel like his garb has been worn before. Nonetheless, I like and appreciate Bax's 6th symphony. I would also say Britten's thematic content and integrative architecture is superior, but Bax's "humps and horns" are perhaps superior. Also, my basis of comparison is between two pieces of each, Britten's violin concerto, and Bax's 6th symphony.


----------



## Nix

I've noticed a trend among music scholars and professors, about how they compliment composers and what it really means. 

For instance, if the first thing they say about the composer was 'he was very innovative' or 'his harmonies (or rhythms) were very inventive' then you know they think highly of the composer. This is often applied to Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Debussy, Stravinsky, etc. If instead they comment on the composers structure, this statement can be taken in just as high regard, but usually slightly less so (often applied to Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, Boulez) 

If the first thing they say is 'he was a great orchestrator' you can tell they admire this composer, but not to the degree of their favorites- usually applied to Berlioz, Rimsky-Korsakov, Strauss, Mahler, Shostakovich. 

And if the first thing they say is 'he was a great melodist' then you know they're in trouble. ('The Melodist' card is reserved for the likes of Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov). 


I think this is the order of things that most composers and scholars place in terms of importance: harmony, rhythm, structure, orchestration, melody. Whenever you hear a music scholar talk about Schubert, the first thing they say is never about his melodies, it's always in regards to his harmony. And before a composer can talk about the orchestration of Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring', they have to talk about the harmony and rhythm of those famous thumping chords. And while I think melody is vastly underrated among the classical community, I probably have to more or less agree in the order of importance these things are put in. Orchestration is really nice, and it can make or break a piece sometimes, but I don't place it over the essentials.


----------



## haydnfan

My option is not up there. I voted for medium, because the other extremes are too extreme, but medium doesn't match me either. Really I would say very important, and always important but never the most important.


----------



## Kopachris

Nix said:


> And if the first thing they say is 'he was a great melodist' then you know they're in trouble. ('The Melodist' card is reserved for the likes of Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov).


What's wrong with Tchaikovsky's orchestration? I happen to admire his orchestration even more than I do Mahler or Rimsky-Korsakov's.


----------



## Polednice

I, like most people, voted for the middle ground, but I don't think that demonstrates quite how important I think orchestration is. There may be orchestration geniuses who can dazzle us with inventive instrument combinations and techniques that no one else could think of, but, in a piece by a composer who isn't generally renowned for their orchestration, the use of instruments is still incredibly important. I mean, think of a wonderful flute solo in its highest register lifted up by some mezzo-forte passage in the strings - what if that solo was instead given to a tuba? It could be dire, it could work wonderfully, but the character would necessarily change. I think orchestration shapes our experiences of a piece more than we might at first expect.


----------



## clavichorder

Nix said:


> If the first thing they say is 'he was a great orchestrator' you can tell they admire this composer, but not to the degree of their favorites- usually applied to Berlioz, Rimsky-Korsakov, Strauss, Mahler, Shostakovich.
> 
> And if the first thing they say is 'he was a great melodist' then you know they're in trouble. ('The Melodist' card is reserved for the likes of Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov).


Its true that academics can really underestimate the skill that goes into melody and orchestration. They also really underestimate the skill it takes to make a perfectly formed classical era composition.


----------



## Nix

Kopachris said:


> What's wrong with Tchaikovsky's orchestration? I happen to admire his orchestration even more than I do Mahler or Rimsky-Korsakov's.


There's nothing wrong with his orchestration, in fact it's commonly used as examples in composition coursework. Tchaikovsky is all about balance and having it be very easy to play in rehearsal and concert. However his orchestration is usually described as being 'one color.' That is to say, when Tchaikovsky picks an instrument to start a melody, that same instrument will finish it. He often goes through several minutes, or an entire movement using the same texture throughout (think the 3rd movement of his 4th symphony). That isn't to say his orchestrations aren't inventive, but they usually don't carry the same spark as Mahler and Rimsky-Korsakov, who both balance their pieces, and use a wide variety of sounds for great effect.


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> What's wrong with Tchaikovsky's orchestration? I happen to admire his orchestration even more than I do Mahler or Rimsky-Korsakov's.


His orchestration for his 1st piano concerto sucks big time. On the other hand, his orchestration for his 2nd piano concerto is very good. Orchestration for his symphonies rates from good - the first 3 and the 5th, to excellent (the 6th). That never-seems-to-end pizzicato in the 4th is an abomination.

R. Strauss' orchestrations are excellent for the audience, though the triangle player may wonder why he is tinkling during an orchestral balls to the wall crescendo.


----------



## Nix

Hilltroll72 said:


> His orchestration for his 1st piano concerto sucks big time.


What makes you say that? One of my favorite orchestral moments is the statement of the big theme at the end of the 3rd movement- reminds me of glass at how clear and transparent everything is.


----------



## Kopachris

Odd that you dislike the pizzicato ostinato from the fourth symphony... that happens to be my favorite movement from it. Oh, well; to each his own. As for the one color thing, I find it nice that Tchaikovsky doesn't rely so much on Klangfarbenmelodie. It keeps his themes clean and distinct from one another. Because tone color is probably one of the most recognizable aspects of a theme, keeping tone color mostly static while varying other factors (such as dynamics and context) allows for more variation in those other factors.


----------



## Polednice

With regards to Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony, 3rd movement - surely it's not bad orchestration, but actually a deliberate attempt to be homogeneous in texture? There's nothing like that anywhere else in his works that I can think of, so it does seem to be on purpose. As such, even though it can sound rather bland, it makes him an experimental orchestrator.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Surely every piece of music has to be 'orchestrated' to a degree, otherwise every instrument would play every note. Tne issue is how well it's done. The extent to which orchestration is important, however, is a _*belief *_and, while each of our beliefs is sacrosanct, it is only a belief, an opinion.

Personally I see timbre (for it is variety of timbre that orchestration achieves) as valid a parameter with which to work as pitch (or melody) and time duration (or rhythm). If you're Stockhausen or Monteverdi you would legitimately add spatial position (or motion).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Should be a predictable poll outcome for the middle ground. Orchestration requires as much artistic "taste" as the music composed itself to some degree.

As everyone thus far has discussed big Romantic pieces (not surprisingly), I can take a look at orchestration from Baroque examples. JS Bach was the not greatest Baroque orchestrator, relatively speaking. For him, an instrument in a concerto was often taken as a voice/line, as he was much more obsessed with the fugue and counterpoint: take the famous _Brandenburg Concertos_ for example. Almost every set of sleeve notes from all 12 HIP versions I have on CD lament how difficult it is to balance the soft recorder versus the high trumpet solo parts in Brandenburg #2 (the recorder being too soft and drowned out by the other parts), and the problems of a bottom-heavy-three-way sound of Brandenburg #3 (three violas, three cellos), or how to address the harpsichord solo lines mushed up in the arranged concertos for dense solo harpsichord lines and strings. Handel on the other hand, was a much more effective orchestrator, as his orchestral works showed effective use of intrumental colour. Take a listen to his _Concerti a Due Cori_, being made up of existing pieces from popular works, including chorus from _The Messiah_ arranged for instruments only, and you can then very clearly hear how effective orchestration can add much colour to the sounds. Or _The Water Music_ orchestral suites must have sounded magnificent when played in open air on the king's barge in 1717, and sounding lacklustre when arranged for solo harpsichord (by another composer, not Handel).

But we all love the _Brandenburgs_ despite several occasions of instrumental lines being drowned out by others (#1, #2, #3 and #6) because of its sheer inspiration in composition itself. That said, the "middle ground" for the purpose of this poll seems sensible to me for many pieces.

Opera might be an exception. Badly orchestrated lines at the wrong moment won't sound right when the characters are pouring their hearts out. But as most members here aren't big fans of opera, we can leave out opera.


----------



## violadude

Orchestration is important to me, only in a sense that it can really really change what you are listening to. If you took a piano piece and told two different composers with different styles to orchestrate it, they could end up sounding like two totally different pieces. I'm not sure how to judge orchestration based on good or bad...frankly I'm not sure what "bad" orchestration necessarily sounds like. All I know is that orchestration gives a piece it's identity as much as any other element of the piece. Can you imagine Daphnis et Chloe without the beautiful, magic and exotic colors Ravel gets out of the orchestra? Can you imagine a Wagner opera orchestrated as if it were a Mozart one? Or Barber's first essay for orchestra scored just for woodwinds (with those dark deep string colors)? They would all cease to be the pieces that we know and love today.

Anyway, to sum my ideas up, I don't really think in terms of good or bad orchestration, but just orchestration as it adds or applies to the particular piece I'm listening to and as an important part of the identity or character of the piece.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Schumann was not a "bad" orchestrator, he was merely an odd orchestrator; there is a big difference.


----------



## Ukko

Nix said:


> What makes you say that? One of my favorite orchestral moments is the statement of the big theme at the end of the 3rd movement- reminds me of glass at how clear and transparent everything is.


Doesn't make up for everything else. I suspect that if you ask a dozen conductors about that work, they might all say that it belongs to the soloist, they just try to stay out of the way.


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> Odd that you dislike the pizzicato ostinato from the fourth symphony...


I like it when it begins. If it were about one third as long I would have no complaints, and neither would my teeth.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Kopachris said:


> What's wrong with Tchaikovsky's orchestration? I happen to admire his orchestration even more than I do Mahler or Rimsky-Korsakov's.


Nah, I agree, even though I'd put Mahler's a tier above. I think the trashing they occasionally get has less to _really_ do with their orchestration, and more with their heart-on-sleeve pathos, which a lot of people internally warp into meaning they must have no deeper beauty. Pfft.


----------



## Artemis

I ticked the middle box "medium importance", but I would have preferred a mid to-high box if there had been one.

Poor orchestration to me occurs in a variety of ways, but chiefly when you get:(i) thick textures or mushiness caused either by too many different instruments playing the same thing or too many octave doublings, or by not enough deviation from the mid ranges of the instruments being played, and/or

(ii) strange sounding results caused by inappropriate choice of instruments like possibly using brass when wind or strings would sound better, or by asking for an instrument to be played at the limit of or above its normal range.​When I hear bad orchestration it's usually fairly obvious, especially the first variety, and I generally don't like it. There is a great deal of bad orchestration, which I guess partly explain why some composers "make it" and others flop. Among the great composers, there are nevertheless some problems. Chopin's piano concertos can sound mushy to me - with good piano writing but a blurred orchestral sound, the extent depending on the particular performance. Rachmaninoff's piano concertos have the same problem, with a generally mushy-sounding background, overlaid with good piano writing. Some of Schumann's orchestral works are the classic targets for alleged poor orchestration for all the reasons set out above.

Sometimes a good conductor can circumvent these problems by adjusting the balance of the instruments or size of the orchestra or speed of the playing. In the case of Schumann, some very good results have been achieved in more modern recordings by altering these facets of performance, basically by applying some musicological research trying to align the playing to what Schumann would have aimed for using the kind of resources he would had available in his own time and the sound that he was looking for.

Some of the best orchestrators were Rimsky-Korsakov, Ravel, and Respighi. Listen to, for example, Sheherazade, Daphnis et Cloe, and the Fountains of Rome respectively, and the colour, variation and transparency is exceptional.


----------



## World Violist

I don't value orchestration above musical substance, but I do pay attention to it. So I chose the middle option, keeping in mind that many great composers had middling orchestration skill (Bruckner, Schumann, Beethoven, etc.).


----------



## Sid James

I enjoyed your post, *Artemis*, quite insightful.

As you basically said that you think Chopin, Rachmaninov, Schumann were not that good at orchestration. If that's the case, would you think that Rimsky-Korsakov, Ravel & Respighi, who were clearly masters of the art/craft whatever, had as much "musical substance" in their works generally than the other three guys? I'd say that Ravel only makes the grade to be both good orchestrator and offering something else (difficult to describe, the unquantifiable "it" factor), whereas R-K & Respighi come across to me as like not as varied in what they did as him.

If anything, from what I've read about him & heard some of his music, Ernest Chausson had a tendency to over-do orchestration, eg. do it in a "thick" way. He was aspiring to do what Wagner did but didn't quite make the grade. But in any case, I enjoy Chausson pretty much the same as anyone else, really...


----------



## Artemis

Sid James said:


> I enjoyed your post, *Artemis*, quite insightful.
> 
> As you basically said that you think Chopin, Rachmaninov, Schumann were not that good at orchestration. If that's the case, would you think that Rimsky-Korsakov, Ravel & Respighi, who were clearly masters of the art/craft whatever, had as much "musical substance" in their works generally than the other three guys? I'd say that Ravel only makes the grade to be both good orchestrator and offering something else (difficult to describe, the unquantifiable "it" factor), whereas R-K & Respighi come across to me as like not as varied in what they did as him.
> 
> If anything, from what I've read about him & heard some of his music, Ernest Chausson had a tendency to over-do orchestration, eg. do it in a "thick" way. He was aspiring to do what Wagner did but didn't quite make the grade. But in any case, I enjoy Chausson pretty much the same as anyone else, really...


I singled out a very small number of examples of individual pieces where I agree with assessments made by others that the orchestration is either weak or strong. I selected works which tend to be well-known. Possibly these examples may be of use to others who may not be all that familiar with what constitutes good/bad orchestration, to help them make their own more critical asessments in these and other works. I wasn't trying to argue that you can infer from these examples the overall quality of any composer

Chopin, for example, wrote mainly piano solo so clearly it doesn't matter that his orchestration ability may have been a bit suspect. He was, after all, very young when he wrote his two PCs.

I agree that Respighi's output is somewhat limited, but he was an excellent composer in the late Italian Romantic style and a master of orchestration. He was inpired largely by Rimsky-Korsakov and Ravel, and it shows. His orchestral suites and tone poems exhibit incredible colour and detail, bathed in a romantic warmth without being slushy.

Talking of which, I'll be quite happy if I never hear again any of Rachmaninov's piano concertos. The funny thing is that I once like all that kind of material, but I now vastly prefer the much earlier poetic forms of Romanticism, or the later more transparent forms (like Respighi). All that Wagner, Bruckner, and Mahler ... no thanks.

Ravel and Schumann are the two greatest of the composers I mentioned previously. Ravel's very high orchestration skills are legendary, and of course the range of his various works is very wide, achieving considerable notoriety in each. It's difficult to tire of Ravel: you can hear something new each time, especially among his bigger orchestral scores.

I picked up mentioning Schumann, who is among my favorite composers, because it was Schumann who triggered this thread in the first place. As you know, his alleged poor orchestration is an old-fashioned idea that has largely been dispelled by making various tinkerings to the overall size of orchestra (a smaller chamber orchestra sounds much better). I should have mentioned that Mahler's attempt at re-orchestrating Schumann's symphonies (as performed by Riccardo Chailly and the Gewandhaus Orchestra) are not versions that I much care for. Schumann has definitely got the "X" factor as far as I'm concerned, rather like Schubert, Brahms, Mozart .. and yes, of course, Beethoven, god bless them all!


----------



## Sid James

Thanks Artemis for taking time to flesh out what you were saying before. Basically what I get from your post is that orchestration in itself, if taken to a very high level, can offer something in itself (in a way). It can be part of the substance of a work, a big part, or "the" part, if it's done to perfection.

& picking up from this re Schumann -



Artemis said:


> ...I picked up mentioning Schumann, who is among my favorite composers, because it was Schumann who triggered this thread in the first place. As you know, his alleged poor orchestration is an old-fashioned idea that has largely been dispelled by making various tinkerings to the overall size of orchestra (a smaller chamber orchestra sounds much better).


I just bought a cd of contemporary cello concertos. There is a quote in the notes by one of the three composers on the disc, Bruno Mantovani. I haven't yet listened to the disc but I thought Mr Mantovani's comments about Schumann's cello concerto influencing him were relevant here. He basically agrees with you in praising the way Schumann was able to use smaller forces for maximum effect -



> ...The reference to Schumann's cello concerto is limited to the instrumentation. In fact, I adopted the same orchestral forces as he did. Schumann has often been dismissed as a poor orchestrator, which seems utterly absurd to me: in his Cello Concerto, for example, he created an enormous density of sound with a modestly sized orchestra. This scoring is ideal for the balance between soloist and orchestra. So I had to write a work for an orchestra without percussion or trombones. That was only apparently a limitation, but was actually much more of a challenge for me. The thing I find most fascinating in the Schumann concerto is certainly the fact that the melodic flow semms never to be broken. Better still, one has the impression that the discourse is carried through to a point at the end of the work, and that Schumann has created over the three movements a single-minded dramaturgy of accumulating tension...


(Notes/interview in Harmonia Mundi France disc, by Dr. Beate Fruh, copyright 2009)

& in regards to Schumann's _Cello Concerto_, a guy at the other forum I was at said he preferred Shostakovich's orchestration. Without hearing that orchestration, I could scarcely imagine thinking how Schumann's original could be bettered or improved upon. I heard this work live last year, and I think it's superb. Have you heard this orchestration? In your post, you said you heard Mahler's orchestrations of the symphonies, so I'm thinking you may have heard the Shostakovich one as well.

Anyway, I agree with what you said below, and to add to that, previous generations' preoccupation/judgement of Schumann's psychological problems affecting his work, whether in terms of orchestration or other things, I think have been negated strongly by scholarship of esp. the post-1945 period...



> ...Schumann has definitely got the "X" factor as far as I'm concerned, rather like Schubert, Brahms, Mozart .. and yes, of course, Beethoven, god bless them all!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Artemis said:


> Sometimes a good conductor can circumvent these problems by adjusting the balance of the instruments or size of the orchestra or speed of the playing. In the case of Schumann, some very good results have been achieved in more modern recordings by altering these facets of performance, basically by applying some musicological research trying to align the playing to what Schumann would have aimed for using the kind of resources he would had available in his own time and the sound that he was looking for.


My only version of Schuman's symphonies etc. Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique and John Eliot Gardiner. Orchestral pitch, tempi, number of instruments, the generation of the instruments etc. really cannot be underestimated, given we are looking at century old works.


----------



## clavichorder

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> My only version of Schuman's symphonies etc. Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique and John Eliot Gardiner.


Is that an HIP recording? Gardiner usually is isn't he? He's an amazing conductor.


----------



## Air

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> My only version of Schuman's symphonies etc. Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique and John Eliot Gardiner. Orchestral pitch, tempi, number of instruments, the generation of the instruments etc. really cannot be underestimated, given we are looking at century old works.


This is the recording that will redeem Schumann's symphonies for any of the nonbelievers out there.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

clavichorder said:


> Is that an HIP recording? Gardiner usually is isn't he? He's an amazing conductor.


Yes, it is HIP. He has two period instrument bands: The English Baroque Soloists (playing pre-Romantic), and Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique (Romantic, as the name suggests).


----------



## Sid James

So, HC, what do you think of Maestro Gardiner's performance of the Schumann symphonies? What do you think of Schumann's orchestration with regards to this discussion? I'm mainly familiar with Schumann's music in "modern" (non-HIP) performance, but I haven't had any problem vis a vis his orchestration, in whatever mode of performance (as a matter of fact, I really like it, esp. his _Cello Concerto_ & a number of his other orchestral works)...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> So, HC, what do you think of Maestro Gardiner's performance of the Schumann symphonies? What do you think of Schumann's orchestration with regards to this discussion? I'm mainly familiar with Schumann's music in "modern" (non-HIP) performance, but I haven't had any problem vis a vis his orchestration, in whatever mode of performance (as a matter of fact, I really like it, esp. his _Cello Concerto_ & a number of his other orchestral works)...


Like Gardiner's performance of Brahms' symphonies, which too, can sound like a drag under some interpretations trying to make them sound like a Bruckner, these recordings have done wonders to these symphonies. You realise that while these were Romantic works, the Classical roots were never far away. Likewise with Schumann's only opera, _Genoveva_ under Harnoncourt. Similary, I can also recommend the piano and cello concertos under Orchestre de Champs-Élysées/Herreweghe (the _musique d'abord_ label is Harmonia Mundi's budget label).


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Like Gardiner's performance ...these recordings have done wonders to these symphonies. *You realise that while these were Romantic works, the Classical roots were never far away*...


Yes, I think that's an important point/perception, in terms of how in the past, Schumann was kind of dissed (maybe) in comparison with super orchestrators who came later - eg. Rimsky-Korsakov or Ravel, or even Schumann's contemporary Berlioz, though he had a more idiosyncratic way of doing it. It probably makes more sense to think of Schumann as coming from earlier traditions/practices, maybe he was an evolutionary innovator, not as much a revolutionary one like some of the others (though still unique all the same). In any case, what the contemporary composer Bruno Mantovani said in the quote I posted earlier bears this out in some ways...


----------



## myaskovsky2002

For me the very best is Rimsky-Korsakov. His operas are master pieces...and he was asked by many composers to orchetrate/finish their works: Mussorgsky, Borodin and others...He taught Respighi everything he knew...

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum...INCIPLES-OF-ORCHESTRATION-by-Rimsky-Korsakov?

Martin

Martin


----------



## jdavid

Mozart's melodic gift was one of his most fascinating characteristics, they seemed to fall out of his pockets - and though people are hard pressed to sing a Beethoven melody, the man could sculpt beautiful, memorable melodies i.e 6th Symphony, 2nd movement 'Am Bach'. Schubert differs essentially from Haydn and Beethoven in that he was a songster with over 600 lieder to his credit and this penchant for melody is lavished upon his symphonies, sonatas, chamber music and especially the Quintet in C for 2 violins, 1 viola and 2 cellos. I do, however, agree that Schubert's art was heavily centered in modulation, but he crowned them with memorable tunes. Just my opine.


----------



## jdavid

If a composition is written for orchestra then orchestration counts hugely in my view. It is the same as writing idiomatically for any instrument - the composer must know how to treat the voice, the violin, the piano etc., if they are to convince and also to use the instrument, whatever it may be, to its best effect. RStrauss and Ravel are always mentioned as the top orchestrators of the 20th century, and I won't argue the point, but Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, and Benjamin Britten were brilliant orchestrators, as well.


----------



## Aramis

It's like asking: "how important are colours for you when you look at painting?".


----------



## clavichorder

Aramis said:


> It's like asking: "how important are colours for you when you look at painting?".


That's apt, I agree.


----------



## GoneBaroque

myaskovsky2002 said:


> For me the very best is Rimsky-Korsakov. His operas are master pieces...and he was asked by many composers to orchetrate/finish their works: Mussorgsky, Borodin and others...He taught Respighi everything he knew...
> 
> http://www.northernsounds.com/forum...INCIPLES-OF-ORCHESTRATION-by-Rimsky-Korsakov?
> 
> Martin
> 
> Martin


Several years ago I read Rimsky-Korsakov''s "Principles of Orchestration" which was loaned to me by a friend. Thank you for posting the link to the interactive version. It is a very important book which deserves to be kept available.

When I hear an unfamiliar composition I listen first to the orchestration. I feel the interplay of the various instruments sets the mood and texture of the piece and is essential to its architecture. While there are many other aspects to the composition which are essential to its structure I turn to them in subsequent hearings.


----------



## Evelina

Orchestration is highly important, perhaps because it's what I take in first. In my opinion, good orchestration makes a piece of music accessible. It's simply easier for me to listen to a well-orchestrated work, on first hearing.

In many cases, poorly-orchestrated works -- or just oddly-orchestrated ones, I like that idea better! -- are more of an acquired taste. With those works, I have to listen for some other element of the composition that I like. Once I can tap into what element makes that particular work spin, I can begin to appreciate it as much as a well-orchestrated piece.


----------



## jdavid

Forgot the quote - will try again. sorry i'm such a klutz.

I like the remark, but I do like Franz Kline's slashing blacks on white of the 50's and 60's (I'm guessing, here), and the monochromatic (and sad) paintings of Mark Rothko's last works = greys, silvers, charcoals and black. Very expressionistic stuff but many of those guys had super stunning color De Kooning, and Rothko's early and mid career work.







F. Kline


----------



## jdavid

Aramis said:


> It's like asking: "how important are colours for you when you look at painting?".


And I said in the post just previous to this one that I like color, but I also like the black on white of Franz Kline and Rothko's late (tragic) stuff in greys, silvers and black.


----------

