I often think writing at the piano can lead you down certain paths, that pure desk work wouldn't and I don't always think that's a good thing. If you're a pianist to any level, I think you can endup using pianistic devices that sound fine but don't transfer well to other instruments. Part writing often suffers, as can chord voicing.

As I don't have pitch I need the piano in the corner to refer to, but use it like Feldman suggested, as a guide, not as a means of transport. Also it's intresting to note that Ravel's piano music is "pianistic" in a way the Stravinsky's isn't. The two piano version of The Rite is akward, and like listening in black and white, while the Noble & Sentimental waltzes by Ravel work fantasically well on the piano, for which they were first composed.
Ives too somtimes used the piano and then orchestrated after that, and sometimes the other way, fragments of orchestral works made it back into piano pieces.

Nick,
I agree that if you don't know what you're doing as an orchestrator then pianistic technique may influence your writing especially if you are a good pianist. This is probably what happened to some famous pianists who wrote for orchestra on occasion. Though I can't think of examples. Can you? Maybe Rubinstein. Not Lizst, that's for sure. His great orchestral writing especially in Les Preludes and the Faust Symphony was a huge inspiration to Mahler.

Wasn't Chopin's concerto (as oppposed to his great solo music) a little lackluster? Perhaps due to the fact that he didn't manage to create a real dialogue between the orchestra and the piano. Unlike his contemporary Schumann whose concerto is a beautiful piece because though he was originally a pianist (before the disastrous hand exercises) he truly imagined the orchestra's sounds in his most basic conception.

If you use the piano to do this as you play, you make the transition automatically from keyboard technique to the other instruments' general techniques, voice leading, range, etc. Especially if you have in mind the sound of those instruments and are genuinely trying to write for them characteristically. I've never heard hardly any piano music by Stravinsky - just orchestral. My impression is he didn't much like the instrument (?) Did you ever hear anything about that?

But it's interesting to compare Ravel who as you point out was such a master of both piano and orchestra. He of course made perfect orchestations of his own piano pieces - like the Mother Goose Suite. It doesn't seem like an "orchestration" but its natural musical expression. At the same time the piano version sounds good for piano. So you can conclude that certain pieces of music can be basically expressive in both media.

I remember a set of orchestrations done by the excellent American composer Morton Gould. They were released as "Jungle Drums" in a popular LP of the 60s, then re-released recently on CD. They are mainly guitar solos by Lecuona transcribed for orchestra but done incredbily vividly to the extent that the orchestral versions seem almost as "essential" as the original guitar.

What do you think of the piano version of PIctures at an Exhibition? Ravel's orchestration of course is one of the greatest things ever done with the symphony orhcestra, but I have always felt that Mussorgsky who had his problems finishing things didn't really conceive it that well for piano. Pianists like to play it because it is so wide-ranging, but to me it has always sounded a little absurd to hear a pianist banging for all he's worth at those chords at the beginning of the Great Gate of Kiev compared to the awe-inspiring brass ensemble that Ravel scored.

Hello William
I couldn't argree more as far as the two Chopin concerti go. All his piano and orchestral works really ignore the orchestra, so much so that I learnt his Andate Spinato & Grand Polanise as a solo work, as it's now usually performed. Also I'm in full agreement about Pictures, although I do think a lot depends on the performer. I was lucky to hear Kissin do an amazing performance a few years ago. Maybe this has to do with the nature of the piano not really being a sustaining instrument in the same way as brass/woodwind etc. What do you think ? Also did you know the Ravel first, I did so I can't help thinking that's got something to do with it.

I didn't know Stravinsky had an aversion to the piano. Off the top of my head I know his rather dry sonata, his famous Tango, The Five Fingers and another set of studies (op7 myabe ?)

The only music by Morton Gould I know is his Pieces of China (on my music stand now). I think I saw a concerto of his for Tap dancer although I might be wrong ! I'll check out those guitar works you mentioned

Have you heard the Respighi Etude Tableaux orchestrations ? They're excellent, and it surpirses me that Rachmaninov didn't do more orchestrations of his own piano works. Again though, I knew the piano versions first. There's another first class orchestrator; Symphonic Dances spring to mind.
Great thread, really intresting and insightful comments.

Kind regards

Nick

"Can not everything be said on the piano?" Igor Stavinsky

Nothing like an aversion to the piano could be found in Stravinsky. His Sonata in C is a wonderful work. The piano writing in Symphony of Psalms (which contains two pianos) is a revelation of the instrument. I believe his 3rd Symphony has a piano part as well.

He wrote at the piano but does not have a large output of solo work for it (understandable considering the nature of all his orchestral works.) But his affection for the instrument is probably as much as any composer who ever sat at it.

Le Sacre is loaded with pianistic ideas set into the orchestra (polychords and such.) Personally I hear the piano in his works (which have no piano) far more than any other composer. Not as a crutch but as percussive elements worked out on the instrument then wonderfully captured (orchestrated) in other instruments.

Dave Connor

That's intresting Dave. Obviously the Symphony in 3 movements has quite a pronounced piano part also. I understand what you mean about the the polychords especially in the Rite and the pre Neo classical works. This is something you also see in Bartok's piano writing (polychords I mean) but doesn't come through quite as clearly in his orchestral works.

As a question of personal taste though I can't agree with you about the Sonata though. Purely in pianistic terms I'd go for any of the Prokofiev before the Stravinsky, I think Prokofiev 5th is from the same year (pre revsions).

Also perhaps one of the boards braver members would like to orchestrate Ravels Gaspard, one of only 2 piano works (there's probably someone who'll tell me there's loads now I've said that !) I can think of that he never orchestrated.

kind regards

Nick.

Nick,

The Stravinsky Sonata in C I think is wonderful because it's the composer's very unique sensiblity set in the piano. In other words, Stravinsky is so great and unusual that I'm glad we have him on record with that particular instrument. But I wouldn't begin to compare him to the canon of piano literature. Might as well compare him to Chopin in that case. My post was a direct response to his relationship to the piano not to other composers who wrote for it.

Prokofviev's piano output dwarfs Stravinsky's in volume and I would agree in quality as well. I have the scores to almost all his concerto's and admire them very much. A truly unique voice on that instrument.

Dave

Nick,

Yes, I was probably very influenced by first hearing the Ravel orchestration. As I read what you wrote about the pianist I immediately flashed back to once hearing the great concert violinist Oskar Schumsky play a Bach Partita. I was so carried away by his playing that I felt I could hear an entire symphony orchestra coming from his solo violin. I suppose you could say a sufficiently expressive performance can bridge the gap between different media.

Dave,

That is an interesting point about Stravinsky and good to know. Perhaps his mastery of the orchestra overshadowed his piano writing.

Gotta also be another person to say that Prokofiev's Piano Works are the finest around in my opinion. There's more texture and color in a single Prokofiev Piano Sonata than most Piano composer's entire life's piano output, including Chopin in my opinion (who was kind of a one note Johnny when you think about it). The range of color is tops!

[:)]

Evan Evans

...

All intresting stuff...

Evan. I think Chopin added more to the development of piano writing than anyone before, or since, but I'm not getting drawn into who's better A or B (or am I already !). This is music, not sport. I don't really understand your point though about him being a one trick wonder. Could you clarify ? Thanks

Dave. I see what you mean about the Stravinsky sonata, I dug it out last night and had a quick run through. Perhaps I should give it another chance...Onto Prokofiev Concertos. When I was at music college I'd finished Prokofiev 7th sonata and was begining to feel very pleased with myself. I went to the library and had a look at the 2nd Piano Concerto. The cadenza in the first movement soon put my feet back on the ground. I think that's the most overlooked of the mature concertos. What's your favourite ?

William. It is amazing when you hear a perfomer who can authentically claim to have an "orchestral sound", in gesture at least.

Good stuff

Nick

@Nick said:

Evan. I think Chopin added more to the development of piano writing than anyone before, or since, but I'm not getting drawn into who's better A or B (or am I already !). This is music, not sport. I don't really understand your point though about him being a one trick wonder. Could you clarify ? Thanks

Certainly. First of all, I didn't say that. it's interesting when people put words into my mouth. I was making a loose comment, and if read carefully you'll see the following which is different than what you purport I said:

"Chopin in my opinion (who was kind of a one note Johnny when you think about it)"

This reminds me of a game I played in my youth. We all got around in a circle. The teacher whispered a rumor into one ear of the first person. Each person then whispers the rumor to the next around the room. By the time it got to the other end it WAS WAAAAAY OFF. Almost no correlation to original rumor.

Anyway, the key word(s) in what I said, that I actually felt were pretty darn important to the tone of what I said are: kind of a and when you think about it. I did NOT say he WAS a one trick wonder. I don't believe that and I want to make that clear. If anything I think he was KIND OF A one trick wonder, but mostly what I meant by what I said, was that the framework of the colors that he achieved with the piano varied little throughout his lifetime. It was always lush, embellished, pure, and so many other things. But mainly what I was saying is that it was always that way.

And finally the comparison to Prokofiev was only about an aspect of Prokofiev and also an aspect of Chopin. I was NOT comparing Chopin in total to Prokofiev in total, nor just either composer's piano works. I was comparing, only COLOR RANGE.

I stand by my comment that Prokofiev achieved more color range than anyone at the piano (barring the experimental composers; ie: sticking only to those who used just the effects of playing the keys on the piano, nothing else). I am not saying he is better though than anyone. Please, everybody, do not read anything more into what I have said then ONLY what I said. (at least this time) [:)] Perhaps color is not important. I am not saying he's better because he has more color range.

Just that he has the greatest color range. Also, finally I want to clarify that more by saying that that is not because he achieved the widest spread of color, but that he also used every color within as well.

And also in my post, I said, in my opinion. I do try to be careful with what I say. I do say short simple things, but I always try to make them empirical in nature. Even if it's empirically an opinion.

Evan Evans

Evan, I now realise there's a massive difference between me saying that you thought Chopin was a one trick wonder, when as you pointed out, you actually said "who was kind of a one note Johnny when you think about it". Sorry to mis represent you. Clearly in tone this is quite different. I also take you point about one not being better than the other ("I am not saying he's better because he has more color range.")

l don't know if it's fair to compare the short life of Chopin to Prokofiev's in terms of "Color Range", but again I see your point. From a personal stand point I find Bartok's piano writing much more deeply textured and exploritative in terms of colouration. Maybe though that's because I'm playing through "Out of Doors" at the moment with a view (possibly) to orchestrate it, although I think The Chase might defeat me.

Kind regards

Nick.

yeah I agree, Bartok's piano works are for me even more stimulating. Prokofiev's are very, but Bartok and Shostakovich do a lot for me as well.

Evan Evans

It's funny to read this thread.
Making a distinction between an expanded piano piece or an orchestral one goes nowhere. It is not the process involved - piano or directly with the orchestra (remember that Mahler used to try his "summer ideas" with the Vienna during rehersals of the regular season!) that is important but the achieved emotion on the listener.

After that, one cannot but agree with all that's been said on the "why" of a certain orchestration: the quality of the colors, the craftmanship of the combinations, the suprising effect of an unusual playing technique for a particular instrument, etc..


I've noticed that most of the preferred orchestrators are also composers of either post-romantic or neo-classical expression. ( Are we just to blinded by the Hollywood orchestra!!)

I'm surprised no one mentionned Jean-Baptiste Lully, Bach or Heandel. These guys we're not only genius but absolute masters at the orchestration. they were able to achieve complex emotions with great effects on very limited instruments and a playing technique that was in its infancy.

Closer to us Webern did some of the most wiked, yet shorthest orchestrations of all time!! And what about Ligeti, who was able to achieve in some of his compositions the true sound of electronic music with "only" his perfect skills and genius and a symphonic orchestra!!

but let's not forget these great orchestrators -yes pop sound had and has great guys too!- Bernard Hermann who paved the way to so many, Mancini -he did better than just the pink panther- and of course Gill Evans who is he true genius in his own way.

anaway, it is a quick pick just to broaden a bit this excellent thread!

Okay, guys, I'm going to toss out another name into the mix here. Keep in mind that I have no formal training in music, so I'm am absolutely ready to be educated by one and all. The lists on this thread are dizzying, and I certainly have a lot of listening to do if I want to keep up.
So. What does everyone thing of Wagner? I'm surprised he hasn't been mentioned yet. Not that I'm the biggest fan of his music, but he has certainly been very influencial. Lemme know what you think.

~Chris

Well, I've always felt that the "greatness" of an orchestrator lay in his/her capacity to impress a personal imprint on the orchestra... so, I'd have to put Stravinsky at the top of my list. Le Sacre du Printemps is just the most obvious example of this, but there are many works with a similar sonic "personality" - Symphony of Psalms, Orpheus, and Agon come to mind... I've also always been partial to Prokofiev, with his stange love of Tuba. On a more contemporary note - Wolfgang Rihm and Kaija Saariaho.
By the way, could somebody please pull film music out of this bizarre no-man's land somewhere between late romanticism and warmed-over 40's Americana?...
(That ought to get some reactions! :wink[:)]

Here's my (partial) list from earlier in this subject for those wondering if certain composers or periods were left out.

@dpcon said:

Mahler's 6th Bernstein NY
Berg Vln Cto, 7 Last Songs, Wozzeck
Beethoven Beethoven Beethoven
Elliot Carter Vatiations for Orch
Zemlinsky Lyriche Symph
Copeland 3rd Symph
Schumann Symph's and Orch Works
Dvorak
Brahms
Mendelsohn
Wagner (did tons for modern orchestration)
Debussey
Ravel
Britten
Walton
Bach
Mozart
Barber
Bartok

I agree that leaving Handel out was a glaring omission as his orchestration is so personal, distinct, and very, very hip even with todays ears. His overture to Judas Maccabeus is a wonder of writing on every level. Not the least his melodic leaps, harmonic surprises, fugal writing and halting rhythmic feel.
Beethoven was floored by the guy and sang his praises untill the day he died (literally.)

Dave Connor

God, I can't believe I forgot about it....
LES NOCES (Stravinsky) --- now that's a mind-bender!
(and talk about pianos!)

@jbm said:

By the way, could somebody please pull film music out of this bizarre no-man's land somewhere between late romanticism and warmed-over 40's Americana?...

jbm,

Do you mean modern film music is sounding like romantic/late 40's? Or are you referring to the discussion of it here?

I think I know what you mean though. Only problem is that the guys in the 40's had way more chops then a lot of guys now. Their romantic music was for more romantic and their americana was far more american sounding. Now much of it is overly simplistic tripe with little or no melodic or harmonic invention. The exceptions are well noted around here.

Dave Connor