I think that Rimsky-Korsakov was the greatest orchestrator of all time in a vertical sense. His tutti chord voicing and instrumentation was incredibly well balanced and 'crystal clear'. No instrument intrudes on any other and all are blended but can still be heard individually. My biggest gripe about his compositions is that they sound too vertical. Kind of like one beautiful balanced chord after another, not enough horizontal tension in the orchestration in my very very humble opinion.
BTW, I have taken all the examples from Volume 1 of 'Principles of Orchestration' (the section with all the words and short examples) and created Sibelius 2 and 3 files out of them. I figured I would never really be able to hear those examples if I didn't play them back some how. I had some real 'aha!' moments when I listened to them and read the explanations. If you are interested, let me know and I'll post a link to the Sibelius files or Midi files if they are of any interest to any of you.
thanks,
Julie

Yes, very interesting! Very gracious. T think it would be great for all here if you´d post a link!

Thanks!
- Mathis

Yes indeed that would be wonderful! [:P]

I too just bought that book and was thinking it would be so much better if it had a CD to go with it. I thought of making one myself but it'd be hard to find recordings of all those examples especially excerpts from his operas (I didn't even know he wrote any). Not even sure there are available recordings for all his work anyway unless you'd go hunting for old 78rpm in garage sales in St-Pertersburg! Hmm, [I] come to think of it, that sounds like it could be a lot of fun!

=m=a=r=c=

Julie

I agree it is a good idea to actually hear orchestration examples rather than just study them silently in a book.

I also agree about the balance and individual audibility of Rimsky-Korsakov's orchestration, but disagree with the idea that his music is too vertically oriented. Two examples that come to mind: March of the Nobles and Capriccio Espagnole. In both of those, even though the orchestation and voicings in a vertical sense are masterfully done, the immediate impression is one of pure melody with accompaniment - a very horizontal sound moving dynamically forward. Especially the Espagnole - it moves to a tremendously energetic climax. The opposite of stagnant vertical harmonic structures.

Just a minor disagreement though - always interesting to hear different opinions especially about Rimsky-Korsakov.

@William said:

Julie

I agree it is a good idea to actually hear orchestration examples rather than just study them silently in a book.

I also agree about the balance and individual audibility of Rimsky-Korsakov's orchestration, but disagree with the idea that his music is too vertically oriented. Two examples that come to mind: March of the Nobles and Capriccio Espagnole. In both of those, even though the orchestation and voicings in a vertical sense are masterfully done, the immediate impression is one of pure melody with accompaniment - a very horizontal sound moving dynamically forward. Especially the Espagnole - it moves to a tremendously energetic climax. The opposite of stagnant vertical harmonic structures.

Just a minor disagreement though - always interesting to hear different opinions especially about Rimsky-Korsakov.

Reputedly Rimsky-Korsakov flew into a rage when someone complimented him on his orchestration of Capriccio Espagnole; he supposedly said "I didn't orchestrate it, I wrote it for orchestra". I think that this is a valid point, as they are very different skills, although they do have an overlapping skill base [:)]

DG

Ok, here are the links to the files:
http://home.comcast.net/~layabout5/orchestrationtemplatesib3.sib">http://home.comcast.net/~layabout5/orchestrationtemplatesib3.sib

http://home.comcast.net/~layabout5/orchestrationtemplatesib2.sib

http://home.comcast.net/~layabout5/orchestrationtemplatemidi.mid

Also, I agree with you William that those pieces are great, but I also think those are his best pieces: Capriccio, Nobles. But I think in one of his other famous works - 'Russian Easter' is a good example of what I'm talking about. A little to consonant and vertical for my taste. No biggie though, I still love all of his music.
-Julie

Yes, that is a good point Julie. I agree. Even the greatest orchestrator could sometimes go off on a "vertical" tangent.

Though of course Ligetti has written entire pieces that exist solely to explore vertical sonorities in a fascinating way.

DG - yes, I can see why he would get irritated. Because he wrote pure musical ideas explicitly for each instrument, and didn't merely "translate" his conception into an orchestration like any hack.

That reminds me of what Varese said about Brahms vs. "great orchestrators." He said that in Brahms, no one comments on the brilliant orchestration because they are simply thinking about the music. On well-known orchestrators people always say "what a magnificent orchestration" as if it is something that sticks out, divorced from the music. With Brahms, it is perfectly integrated into the entire basic conception.

@William said:

That reminds me of what Varese said about Brahms vs. "great orchestrators." He said that in Brahms, no one comments on the brilliant orchestration because they are simply thinking about the music. On well-known orchestrators people always say "what a magnificent orchestration" as if it is something that sticks out, divorced from the music. With Brahms, it is perfectly integrated into the entire basic conception.

Yes, Brahms is the perfect example. People often mistake colour for "good orchestration".

DG

William,

My .03567889 cents... Stravinsky, Mahler, Rihm - and when you're feeling particularly interested in "icy" colours, Saariaho. I know, everybody's saying, "Rihm, what the f**k?"

What I noticed about your choices is that they were all somewhat similar - except perhaps Debussy. For the most part, these are all what I think of as "rich" orchestrators, meaning that they are brilliant at making full, rich, colours. However, for me personally, a great orchestrator is not someone who necessarily makes the orchestra sound best, but rather someone who makes the orchestra sound as though it was designed to play that particular piece. This, to me, was Stravisnky's greatest strength - his ability to make, and re-make, the orchestra each time he needed a new and unique sound for a given work - think of the enormous difference in colour between the strings of Le Sacre and those of Orpheus. Prokofiev was great at this also, though he didn't tend to re-invent the orchestra for each piece, as Stravinsky did, but rather had some generally endearing "signatures" - that great Tuba in the bass, so common to his later works, or his nose-bleed-high, contrapuntal, molto espressivo string writing...

Mahler. Well. He was simply the Grand Master of the absolutely massive orchestra. To dispute that would be silly.

Rihm. First of all, I seldom see _any_ contemporary concert music composers discussed here. Secondly, he has a similar ability to Stravinsky, in that his orchestras seem to morph into the specific needs of his musical idea/argument - he has a particular talent for dense textures in winds and brass, which seem to defy harmonic categorization - not simple-minded clusters, but seemingly not "chords" either...
I would also classify Berio in this group - his quasi-viola-concerto "voci" is a particularly great example. And Bent Sorensen's violin concerto "The Echoing Garden" has some really wonderful colours as well...

But that's just me.

J.

ooops!

I've been had!

I thought this was a new discussion. And here I am going off on points I've probably alread made! Aaaack!

red faced.

J.

JBM,

I agree with you but I was just saying that with Brahms!

To me the perfect orchestration is one that has a completely seamless fit between the musical idea or inspiration and the instrument(s) playing it.

I have noticed that sometimes an idea will exist in your mind as a pure instrumental sound - like this is horns fff. Or a trombone section unison pp. Or a scratchy violin solo. Or any number of vivid orchestral sounds.

HOWEVER - there are many times when the process of orchestration becomes much more a matter of figuring out something that is in color not so clear. Obviously in the "Art of Fugue" Bach was doing this very thing - creating musical ideas that no matter how strong were not tied to any particular color.

About all of these people being "rich and full" orchestrators - well, yeah maybe I guess so, but Debussy I rank as the greatest of all orchestrators ever, and he is no way "rich and full" but absolutely perfect. He accomplished what the modernist era said it accomplished, long before they ever came around - a completely expressive and transparent orchestration for every instrument of the orchestra. Stravinsky owed everything he ever did to Debussy.

hmmm...

I understand what you're saying about Debussy, and actually, I wouldn't really include him in the "full and rich" list either... But I guess I've just never really "got hooked" on his music, so it's coloured my ability to judge the orchestration. However, I do think the fact that he _is_ "perfect" is actually what leaves me a little cold. I don't think I enjoy perfection as much as imperfection - I always prefer things that are a little "off"...

However, as far as "everything [Stravinsky] ever did" - I just can't agree with that. Firebird, much of Petrouchka, some of Le Sacre: Yes. Everything after, and including, Symphonies of Wind Instruments: No. Strangely, this division in his work also represents the time at which his orchestration started to go a little "off" - somewhat angular, seldom "full" (in a _very_ subjective sense of the word), at times even awkward. This is when it started getting really interesting, to me -- as seems reasonable, since he started to distance himself from his teachers (I would include Debussy in this category), and began to hear the orchestra in a unique way.
BTW, I don't imagine Debussy himself would even agree with such a statement (in fact, I wonder how deeply you meant that yourself, William).

I hope I'm not offending anyone, but it seems clear that we're talking now about an entirely subjective statement of "taste", not an objective estimation of ability. Besides, I'd imagine the "greatest" orchestrator is actually some 24-year-old PhD holder from Eastman!

J.

Not surprised to see such interesting dialogue from Bill and jbm.

I tend to agree with both of you on different points. On his musical influences Stravinsky said, "Debussy is my father and Ravel my uncle."

Bill's statement that I.S. owed "everything" to C.D. is overstatement simply by virtue of what gifts one is born with. However it's true that I.S.'s early work owes tons and tons to C.D. It's also true the Debussy did hit a type of perfect expression in his composition/orchestration that contains no artifice whatsoever and is a singular achievement in music. Ravel , the quintessential "orchestrator" rarely seems to break entirely free from "effects". Debussy's "Afternoon of a Faun" is a wonder and marvel of what Bill is talking about. It's not the sterile "perfection" I think all good musicians balk at, but perfect in the best sense of the word: a musical statement that wants for nothing in it's presentation of a totally unique musical thought and sensibility.

Stravinsky who was uncomfortable and chagrined at the persistent focus upon his early period was far more influenced by Mozart than any one else during his "middle" period, which makes jbm's point about Debussy's influence evaporating. Also the "awkward" orchestration point is exactly right (as deliberate as it was.) Shostakovitch said I.S. flat out didn't know how to orchestrate. It's hard to imagine I.S. went from a brilliant orchestrator in his early work to a lousy one. He just went kind of quirky, but this is what we identify as his "sound".

Dave Connor

That's true JBM that it is a matter of taste. I also agree with Dave on Ravel vs. Debussy in that there is a mechanistic approach (which is nevertheless very effective) in Ravel whereas Debussy is pure inspiration - or at least sounds like it, whether personally he felt inspired or not.

I find it funny that Stravinsky was irritated with the adulation over his early works. He was one of the most irritating, obnoxious and arrogant people in his statements and attitude toward just about everything and everyone, and a beautiful example of how great attainment in music means nothing about personal character (of the lack thereof). However it is just as typical of great as well as poor artists that they often have no conception of the relative values of what they accomplished.

The most extreme example of this is the painter de Chirico, who did in a ten year period the greatest works of modern art besides Picasso and Duchamp, but after that youthful burst of energy became a paint-by-numbers hack who even copied his own works. Stravinsky is similar though not as extreme. After the great early works, he was unable to continue doing the same (understandably) and had to change, but never really did anything to match what he created decades before. Instead, he adopted the many pretenses of modernism - serialism, other forms of atonalism, and worst of all Neo-Classicism. This resulted in a great and powerful Romanticist becoming an impotent Modernist. Probably the reason Shostakovich said that was that he was reacting to the later intellectually contrived works, and not the early emotionally inspired masterpieces which are truly great orchestrations.

Well, well!

I can certainly think of one composer who's not terribly popular on your list!

I agree that there was more "paint by numbers" work in Stravinsky's later output. But then, there were more commissions, less time, and so on... That's not an excuse. But to be fair, and at the risk tremendous verbal assault, there was also certainly much done "by numbers" in Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and many other "great" composers as well, and for similar reasons. I mean, when composition is one's daily life, one has bad days!

I think he was more confused than anything by the attention [to his early works], since he didn't really see these pieces as being so incredibly inventive as people felt them to be, and this for the very reasons we're talking about them now; the massive debt they owe to Ravel and Debussy. I mean, Firebird basically IS Debussy. Petrouchka is brilliant, but primarily for it's formal/conceptual innovation - the orchestration is only a few steps away from Debussy. Only the Rite is singularly brilliant - both in orchestration and form/conception. Though it owes much to Debussy, it is clearly the work of another generation, and conveys a very clear message that "times have changed". However, all that aside, the works I find to be most "inspired" from that period are lesser known works like L'Histoire du Soldat, Les Noces, Renard, and Priboutki, all of which have an intense, soulful drive... They seem almost ancient, in spite of the fact that their language is clearly ahead of its time.

The other thing to consider is the fact that they were "early works". I mean, I've already found myself a little irritated when people close to me wonder why I don't write like I did a few years ago. But the fact is, there's nothing so unfulfilling as regurgitating the same language over and over. We all need to find something new to strive for in our music. If we lose that deep urge to push ourselves forward, we lose the very inspiration that makes our music worth listening to...
Finally, there certainly are numerous deeply inspired and emotionally powerful works in Stravinsky's post-Rite output: Symphonly of Psalms (a brilliant orchestration, as well), Concerto in D for violin and orchestra, Duo Concertante for violin and piano, the Mass, and many parts (though perhaps not all) of Canticum Sacrum, to name a few. To simply object to Neo-Classicism is not a particularly persuasive argument. Stopping to look around himself, Stravinsky very clearly saw that a whole way of speaking, a whole musical language was coming to an end - and he was thoroughly immersed in that language - so he responded. I think he responded brilliantly. You, among others, do not.

...

What's more interesting about your response is that it brings to mind your statement a while ago that you are tired of all the tense, conflicted contemporary music - that you long for clean, beautiful, and inspired musical statements.

Now, that is an admirable position to be in... But where does it leave you? With all the music that surrounds you, where can you find yourself? I think this is the question that Stravinsky faced, some 80 years ago. He answered that question with Neo-Classicism. I don't think he was so calculated as you imagine. Rather, I agree with your general thesis that he was a Romanticist at heart, and I think he found only conflict and bombast around him. Hell, he even found Schoenberg over there inventing an entirely new way of organizing pitches, in order to dispense with the language over which Stravisnky had become a true master. What I.S. yearned for was clarity, and I believe he created that on his own terms.

But enough about him...

Where do you and I find ourselves?
Lately, I face this question on an almost daily basis. I mean, we are writing for virtual orchestras, for God's sake! Both our language, and our medium are becoming complete abstractions.
I believe there is a certain power and beauty in this awkward position. The problem is, I have not yet figured out _where_ my music will find its "home"... Where is this music's true venue? That, I think, is the real question of our time. If its true home is the concert hall, then we are only play-acting, and hoping for what might prove to be an impossible future, in world in which many of our _cities_ can scarcely afford to even keep an orchestra...
If, on the other hand, our music's true home is a virtual one, then why should we remain confined by the parameters of orchestral technique, as we know it, at all? Why even acknowledge the constraints of "double winds", or "1st Violilns"? Why not sculpt the sound-stage, and the orchestral pallette along with it, to whatever the musical idea demands?

This is the dilemma that keeps me up at night...

Which reminds me. It's way past my bedtime!

cheers.

J.

jbm, I appreciate your defence of late Stravinsky. I´m absolutely with you!
Especially after hearing the "Mass" I was lost to the later I.S.
The Rite is a furious testesteron-driven statement of a young man, but in terms of maturity and long-lasting statements he had much more to say later on. He developed a modesty and clarity which is quite singular and I gratefully take him as a model.

@jbm said:

...


Where do you and I find ourselves?
Lately, I face this question on an almost daily basis. I mean, we are writing for virtual orchestras, for God's sake! Both our language, and our medium are becoming complete abstractions.
I believe there is a certain power and beauty in this awkward position. The problem is, I have not yet figured out _where_ my music will find its "home"... Where is this music's true venue? That, I think, is the real question of our time. If its true home is the concert hall, then we are only play-acting, and hoping for what might prove to be an impossible future, in world in which many of our _cities_ can scarcely afford to even keep an orchestra...
If, on the other hand, our music's true home is a virtual one, then why should we remain confined by the parameters of orchestral technique, as we know it, at all? Why even acknowledge the constraints of "double winds", or "1st Violilns"? Why not sculpt the sound-stage, and the orchestral pallette along with it, to whatever the musical idea demands?


cheers.

J.

This is a very interesting question. I always used to programme according to my ability as a programmer, but when writing for real players I would do what I knew was possible. However, with the virtual orchestra there are far less limitations than in the real world, and as composers we should be able to make use if this. I think that once one accepts that certain music is never going to be performed "live", then rather than thinking of the virtual orchestra as a "next best thing", one should embrace it as an instument in it's own right. This is why I think that the combination of orchestral instrumental sounds together with electronic sounds is potentially a very interesting subject. Obviously then this means that the music that one eventually writes may not be possible to perform live, but for many people, that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

DG

In response to jbm's response to Bill and my posts.

To clarify on Stravinsky's lack of enthusiasm about his early work: this was much later in his life (obvious in his dialogue's with Robert Craft.) At the time I imagine he was thrilled to be so young, successful and rubbing elbows with the great artists of the world.

As to his middle period I will add The Rakes Progress to the list of works jbm sited which is such a brilliant delightful work (to me anyway.) On Bill's side I will say that conductor Fritz Zweig (a good friend of Stravinsky's) disliked the work intensely. So there you have it.

Elmer Bernstein's, The Magnificent Seven film score borrows heavily from the Symphony in C and Le Sacre, so one wonders what the film cannon would be like after these countless borrowings that continue today. The Omen contains rather poor efforts at Symphony of Psalms (a work adored by Shostakovich.)

Neo Classicism includes everyone from the Russians to the French (Le Six) to (Bartok?) to Copeland and so on. So I can't throw out the baby or the bathwater on this one. But we all have our reasons and preferences.

Stravinsky had absolutely no Romantic notions about music whatsoever and would recoil (IMHO) at the identification with it. He absolutely skewered the likes of R. Strauss. Does the word apply in the scientific sense to some of his early work? Perhaps, but as far as schools of music, his was a radical departure from what we now call the "Romantic" period.

Dave Connor

DG

I was reading your response quite appreciatively - a lot of which I agreed with (but not about the Firebird - Debussy could never have summoned as much Russian turmoil and emotion) - until I hit: "I think he responded brilliantly. You, among others, do not." What is that supposed to mean? Are you referring to this thread? Then o.k., that may be, but this is a simple little discussion, not an artistic response. What exactly do you mean by that?

Dave,
Interesting, but Stravinski regularly skewered every other composer except himself. If he was on this forum he would be hated by everyone here, I guarantee you. Also, the worst people to listen to for opinions about composers ARE composers. (So why are we talking at all? Never mind.)


JBM,

Yes, I contradict myself on a daily basis. Often hourly. In fact, I've been known to take up the opposing viewpoint within a single discussion, completely nullifying everything I said to begin with. Actually I don't dislike Stravinsky or Neo Classicism - I love Satie - but rather don't accept the grand pronouncements that have been made about both - at the time, Neo-Classicism was touted as the only way music could possibly be written. And Stravinsky is regularly put forth as the greatest composer of modern times, all time, etc. Also, I have an innate bias against intellectual control of impulses, which Neo Classicism is a prime example of.

"where can you find yourself? I think this is the question that Stravinsky faced, some 80 years ago. He answered that question with Neo-Classicism. I don't think he was so calculated as you imagine. Rather, I agree with your general thesis that he was a Romanticist at heart, and I think he found only conflict and bombast around him."

You bring up so many important points it is extremely hard to respond! This is a good question and observation, and the reason you are kept up at night is because there are no easy answers to such basic dilemmas.

However, just to irritate Mathis I am going to say that the Neo-Classicists and all the intellectuals who cobble together music by thinking will more often be disturbed by these questions than the Neo-Romantics, because music is not ideas, it is emotion in sound. Ideas (i.e. intellectual thought processes) are the mere vessel or form for the essence of music, which is emotion. No composer can tell what significance his music actually has, or will have in the future. History is filled with composers who were either lauded and now forgotten, or ignored and now played regularly. The idea of intellectually discerning what to write is not valid because the mind is so easily distracted down channels of utter futility. But the emotional, felt essence of a music, if found and nourished, willl guide a composer to the only thing he can do of real significance - whatever that may be and whatever "Home" it may ultimately find.