@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

Dave,

yeah, you've got it... late-romantic, as in the last turn-of-the-century romantics, and American composers (though no one in particular) of the 40's-ish period. However, I would say (agreeing with you), that the works of both periods far outshine the film music I'm speaking of. It's a brand of nowhere sentimentalism, that robs its general aesthetic from the above periods, without extracting any of the brilliance. Totally formulaic. I can't recall hearing an orchestra-based score (recently) that really caught me off-guard, and I don't see any great reason why this should be the case. The last film score to really impress me was from Punch Drunk Love, but it was not orchestral, and impressed me for reasons which lay beyond the scope of a discussion of orchestration (mostly its ability to invade the space of the narrative itself). I thought Tan Dun's Crouching... was beautiful, and I'm glad it exists, but mostly so that we might see more real composers invited into the world of film music. Much of this probably has more to do with producers than composers, but I thought it would be worth bringing up. I sometimes fear that people, in general, think it's okay that so much film music is garbage... Sometimes it even seems to be _expected_ -- as though it _should_ be dull!
I mean, has anybody heard the score Bernstein (Leonard!) wrote for "On the Waterfront" -- lots of Prokofiev in there, but a strong enough piece for the concerthall, nonetheless.
How many of today's film scores would survive a concert performance?

...

And it´s not necesserally the case, that even "good" film music works equally well as a concert piece. The same way round, a piece good for a concert actually may often fail as film music. I do think there is a difference in "film scoring" and "music composition". Music used in a film has a serving function, it´s not percieved as music on its own, as absolut music. It is part of this miraculous connection of sound and image. And it is only *one* part. There is also sound effects and dialog. I don´t see any hirarchy in these three elements, they all serve a higher form - the film - in a different way.

I usually can´t stand Phillip Glass' music as absolut music. But when I heard his music as part of the film "The hours", I thought it works pretty well. In film it´s absolutely not about the quality of music, it´s about its meaning in relation to the picture/story.

...

@groove said:

It's funny to read this thread.I'm surprised no one mentionned Jean-Baptiste Lully, Bach or Heandel.

George Frederick Handel. One of the great commercial musicians of all time. Everyone knows, of course he was King George II's court musician. You can just imagine the conversations, can't you.

KG: George, I'm going up the River Thames in a couple of weeks in a barge. Fancy some watery-type music.
GFH: OK George. I'll put something together. Where am I going to put the band?
KG: Oh, don't worry George. We'll stick you on another barge.
GFH: But George, what if the water's choppy?
KG: I'll see that it isn't George. Also George, I'm throwing a fireworks party a little later. See what you can do.
GFH: No worries mate. BTW, I've got an idea about Zadoc the Priest you might like.
KG: Ok George. Lets run it up the royal flag-pole and see who salutes it.

Music to order. The name of the game for Handel. Money was his driving motive. Such a juxtaposition between him and Bach, both born in the same country in the same year.


Dear PaulR,

Don't get me wrong but don't be naive, even Bach had to make a living and was most of his life cantor in Leipzig or kappellmeister in Weimar por Cöthen. At this position you were litterally ordered not only to teach music atthe schola but to compose music every weeks for every liturgic celebrations. In fact, the magnificent Mathäus-Passion wouldn't have been written if Bach wasn't under the service of the church of Leipzig.

People seem to forget the basic: every artists great or bad have to make a living. And there is nothing trivial at it. Mozart composed his masterpieces because he was commissioned for them, otherwise he had to do the virtuoso puppet to pay the monthly bills. todays musicians doesnt do differently: the commisionners changed face, they no longer belong to the church or the royalty but are either big national or international corporations or gouvernments and commission composers, orchestra- in fact the whole art world- through grants and sponsorship.


Not a lot of artists can claim complete financial autonomy and even the richiest need grants to produce their ideas.

Cheers!!

[...

hello All,

I definitely hear all your positions.

I do most of my writing for either the concert hall or contemporary dance (yes, I'm broke!). So, I'm always straddling the gap between "stand-alone" music and "support" music. However, over the last couple of years I've become acutely aware of the presence of a strange sort of status quo in holding the opinion that the music _must_ serve the other form (dance in my case, film for this discussion). And I used to simply accept it... but I no longer feel so sure that it's in any way valid. I mean, when audiences first saw Le Sacre du Printemps (sorry to mention it again!), they... well, they rioted... but they were not under any illusions as to the fact that they were seeing _two_ great artists - Najinsky and Stravinsky. And this was the case with virtually all ballet music. People _expected_ to be swept up in the music at one point, then drawn back into the dance the next. This was, in fact, the whole point of these interdisciplinary forms. The two forms were in dialogue, and that dialogue could often generate a level of meaning all its own. It was complex, and even potentially confusing or overwhelming, but it was the foundation for interdisciplinary work. (As an aside, I do realize that in ballet, dance generally interpreted the music, which is no longer the case. However, I don't think that means the music should now take a secondary position, or that it should assume the role of interpreting the dance.)

Now, clearly I'm talking about art, and to assume that the majority of Hollywood production houses have any interest in producing "art" is a mad assumption. So, there's certainly is a wide berth given for conventional films, with conventional music -- they are the little money-makersj, the films that keep companies afloat. But I've always wondered whether there's any validity in this....? Would audiences really fail to respond to films with higher artistic goals? I doubt it. In fact, they generally respond quite well (you all have your own examples). It's similar in the pop music world, where major labels seem to assume that it will "work" to simply sign artists who are reasonable copies of their (or the competition's) major stars. This is what dragged music down in the 80's, and I sincerely believe it's what's killing the labels now. File sharing is very likely a symptom, not the disease, but it will take a great deal of courage for major labels to accept that position (please, let's leave that discussion for another century!)

The main thing for me is challenging the assumption that film music _should_ sit in the background... I challenge that assumption now when I write for contemporary dance, and believe me, that world is steeped in simlar opinions. Ever since dance found its feet (pardon the pun) as an autonomous form, that could exist without music, it's increasingly become an unwritten rule that music must now support.... I don't buy it anymore. And, yes, it is a _huge_ challenge to make music that is effective as an interdisciplinary element, but at the same time strong in itself. I've no idea whether I can do it...

you're all an impressive lot -- it's good to hear people thinking so much about what they do!

James.

Hello Paul,

I hope I was not sounding rude. Blame my poor use of this new "esperanto" called "international english" for it. my mother tongue is french and altough I try my best to clearly express my point de vue in esperanto sometime it comes rude and ugly! sorry.

Now for Bach's mattäus-passion.

Bach was appointed as kantor of the Thomasschule in leipzig when he composed it. Bear in mind that he was no longer a kappelmeister or a court composer for Prinz Leopold Anhalt in Köthen but a simple municipal servant where he had to teach music, cathechism and compose excercices for his pupils and a cantata a wek for the Thomaskirche!! They sure didn't have time to waste in front a television set back in these time!

Anyway I recall a composer who didn't need any grants for a living and composed extremely complex and innovative use of the orchestra; giacinto scelsi (1905-198[H] was born in an aristocratic family. It is not for every one but listen to such pieces as "quattro pezzi per orchestra" or "hurqualia" and you won't be disappointed.

Ciaò!

Hello Folks,

Just want to say I'm enjoying all the intelligent and informative posts here. Loving the Bach and Handel stories in particular.

Paul has once again proven himself has the wittiest fellow on the entire forum.

Cheers

Dave Connor

...

James, I didn´t mean that music in film should serve as a background, that I actually hate. I see music in film as one element for constructing a higher form. For me music in film is like a chord in concert music. Just an element. But maybe this thinking is already too arty for the general film producer... [[;)]]

By the way, a couple of days ago I learned that dancers always count to 8, even in a waltz... [:D]
So maybe they don´t exactly care for the music?

Regarding Bach there is that interesting thing that he was terribly outdated already during his later period of his life. At least that´s what I was told. Preclassicism demanded for really simple and blond music. He was kind of a dinosaur.

And I highly recommend Scelsi!