Ravel is a great example. Mahler is not. The reasoning here is, Ravel would write his music from start to finish in simple piano form (treble and bass), then he would spend time actually doing the seperate task of orchestrating what he composed. This is REAL orchestrating as the term would imply. Mahler on the otherhand composed for the full orchestra in the composition process so therefore there was no need for an orchestration step. The composition was already for orchestra and could not be taken away from it.

Sometimes we think of the orchestration of a certain piece as something we can break down and take apart and use seperately like a magic wand on our simplistic compositions. But I think that all composers, whether for film or classical or what-else, ought to consider taking the extra effort and write for full orchestra right off the bat, straight out of the bag. It would certainly elevate the composition to a level more complete in it's own rite. Others may try to decorrelate what they think the orchestration of the work is, but until they try to make the extra effort it will only be a magic wave over a tone-limited composition.

Ravel on the other hand established his own experimental orchestrations, that he referred to as "blur between the notes". More along the lines of arranging which is the assignment of notes to instruments with added original orchestrating.

Whatever. I'm tired and have no clue what I just said.

[:)]

Evan Evans

I like to add Njcolaj Rimski-korsakov.After all is the father of coloristic orchestral effects(and consequently of modern orchestral score for cinema).Take a look at Sherazade suite!
For Herb:the title for me is ok

For those looking to study an orchestration of a work originally for piano, a reminder regarding the above mentioned "Pictures at an Exhibition." I know some scores of the Ravel orchestration have the original Moussorgsky piano composition at the bottom of the page. The reader can immediately consider the piano score and study the orchestral expansion of registers, the filling in of inner voices, the interpretations of dynamic changes, etc.

Perhaps scores for "Mother Goose" and "Daphnis" can be found with the original piano work also included. But it seems a common layout with the "Pictures" scores I've seen. I know the Boosey and Hawkes miniature score of "Pictures" has it.

Actually you did make a point, Evan, that's true. Ravel is orchestration applied to pre-existing musical ideas and Mahler is pure orchestral thinking. I didn't mean to make that distinction though it's a very good one - I was just talking about the best use of orchestra, period.

One point that occurred to me in the middle of reading Evan's statement is something Varese said about Brahm's orchestration. He commented that people always acclaim a great orchestrator like Ravel but never even think of Brahms' orchestration because it is completely integrated into the music. It is not a spectacular addition, but a natural part of the expression and so more perfect than that of a composer whose orchestration "sticks out."

I don't know if I fully agree with him but he has a point too. Though I told this to a conductor once and he said "Yes, but Varese was crazy."

Isn't this sort of a silly distinction? What then do you call it if Stravinsky writes everything at the piano? Does plonking out notes disqualify what you're doing from being called orchestration?

(These are rhetorical questions, in case anyone was wondering... ) [[;)]]

What is silly about it? I wasn't talking about using a piano to figure out things. I'm talking about having a piano score in this case that was written without any instruments other than piano in mind. Then afterwards looking at the score and saying - this would work for violins, this would be good for flute, etc.

In the case of Mahler, you do not have that situation (at least a lot of the time). He probably originally had in mind the sound of a trombone solo in the third symphony, or a trumpet solo in the fifth for example, that was completely integrated into the musical idea to begin with - was not separable from it.

An example of the opposite is Bach - the Art of Fugue. There are no instruments at all specified. It is pure musical tones. Yet you can after the fact orchestrate these any way you want. These are two extremes - two distinctions - and there is nothing "silly" about them.

I just mean that orchestration = writing for orchestra, regardless of whether you're expanding a piano piece or writing a piece for orchestra from the beginning. The silliness comes in when someone tries to say that only the first is orchestration.

I was never trying to discriminate in a snobbish way like that and certainly don't - however you create something, if it sounds good it is good.

Understood.

I alos meant to mention Vaughn-Williams as one of my favorites. For an example of pure orchestration at its most colorful - the Seventh Symphony which was based on the film score to "Scott of the Antarctic." The depiction of the remote, inhuman landscape and awesome natural forces is brilliantly handled in that piece. Also the Sixth Symphony with its sustained pp finale (inspired perhaps by his friend Holst's "Neptune"); the Eighth with the slow movement and scherzo being done entirely by strings alone and winds alone respectively; and the Ninth with its inclusion of a "concertino" sax trio. Vaughn-Williams, along with Holst, innovated much of modern orchestration.

I'm just doing this for fun and to see if anyone agrees or has their own list - my favorite orchestrations of all time (which includes necessarily composition because I don't like anything that is just good orchestration but lousy music!) -

Mahler's 2nd (probably my favorite of all pieces of music ever written with the RCA Ormandy Philadelphia LP the greatest music recording of all time - human beings cannot express more with sound than this)
Strauss Alpine Symphony
Strauss Thus Spake Zarathustra
Strauss Death and Transfiguration
Debussy Images
Debussy Jeux
Debussy La Mer
Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique
Stravinksy Firebird
Stravinsky Rite of Spring (of course)
Shostakovich 5th
Shostakovich 10th
Ravel Daphnis and Chloe
Ravel Mother Goose Suite
Rimsky Korsakov Capriccio Espagnol
Holst The Planets
Holst Egdon Heath
Holst Perfect Fool Suite
Vaughn Williams 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th symphonies
Herrmann Vertigo
Herrmann Journey to the Center of the Earth
Herrmann Obession
Herrmann Marnie
Herrmann Jason and the Argonauts
Tchaik 5th and 6th (another obvious one)
Beethoven 3rd and 9th
Stokowski Bach transcriptions: Komm Susser Tod, Chaconne from Partita in D
Borodin b minor symphony
Ravel orch. of Mussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition

These are only some examples that spring to mind which emphasize orchestral use as well as great ideas. Of course many other great composers - like Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, and above all Bach - emphasize musical ideas with fairly conventional (or no) orchestration.

Who have I left out? If anyone has their own favorites I'd be interested to know.

...

Dvorak - of course. He was a great one I left out. The 7th symphony, the 9th of course, many others. He was probably as much a master of orchestration as Tchaikovsky whose orchestral treatment he reminds me of.

Bruckner is one of my favorites purely as a composer, though some people take issue with his orchestration, accusing it of being "block-like" as if too much influenced by his organ background. I don't agree with that and really like it - especially the extreme dynamic contrasts he was so fond of between tutti ff and pp solos, the majestic brass writing, and the great soaring string lines. His music was infinitely simpler than Mahler's, almost as if the simple spirituality of his nature (being a very devout countryman who only moved to the big city) and his love of nature were reflected in the rock-solid, huge forms of his symphonies.

Whereas Mahler - a Jew who converted to Christianity, a neurotic but very sophisticated urbanite, was reflected in the restless, even agitated qualities of his music which had the deepest lows and highest peaks conceivable. The 6th symphony in particular is a tremendous, surging dynamo of everchanging emotions.

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
Wolfgang
Barber
Bartok

I guess I havn't posted here because you just want to put down all the major guys. I can't really list works cause there are so many.

DC

Anothers Great modern orchestrators for me:
Albert roussel,sinfonie
Oliver Messiaen,most orchestral works
Ottorino respighi,powerful

A little surprise here maybe but...

Puccini is an absolute monster ochestrator. La Boheme is masterful. He is one of the most difficult to apprehend (for me) as far as his entire approach. He has a way of passing things off that is brilliant. Colin Davis the great British conductor has voiced his marvel at Puccini's handling of the orchestra.

Debussy perhaps exemplifies the concept of composition/orchestration as a singular endeavor as much as anyone (Afternoon of a Faun an astonishing example.) No one presented their work in the orchestra any better than that man. A great, great musician.

DC

...

How did we manage to leave Vaughn Williams out? (Paul rectified that thankfully - standing up for his fellow countryman I suppose.)

The Lark Ascending is a beautiful piece if music to be sure. Think I'll pull that LP out.

Is it just me or is Vaughn Williams growing in stature? His music is holding up very well and he is as copied as anyone it seems.

In a phone conversation with David Raksin I mentioned to him I thought he sounded like Mahler to which he replied, "A lot of people say Vaughn Williams" which I thought was interesting.

DC

...

@PaulR said:

William puts Vaugn Williams in his list next to Holst.

Heavens you're right Paul. Not paying attention. And he lists some dandy symphonies (leaving out the 2nd and 5th however which are also gems.) VW's 5th is being "borrowed from" right and left these days. Gorgeous string writing at the and of it btw. The Klingon theme in Star Trek V is right out of it for sure. The 4th also has very intense writing and orchestration that's found it's way into film.

It seems that film writing behaves so often as the step child of the Classical literature. I must agree that Bernard Herman (as William advocates) is the least derivative although Mr. Goldsmith and North have also been stunningly original -oops - wrong thread.

dave