@Nick said:

OK, I'm going to make a case for Charles Ives, based on the 1 & 2nd Orchestral sets, Central Park in the Dark, The unanswered question and Symphony no4.

Nick,

It seems that Charles Ives transcends the question of "greatest orchestrator" in that he is one of the most unique musical personalities of all time. What tree did this guy spring from? We can trace the roots of Bach, Mozart and the rest (even though their genius is equally unexplainable.) But Ives mature music (his early stuff sounds like Brahms!) is seminal. Not just seminal but radical. So radical that he doesn't fit in to any time period including his own. Stravinsky pointed out that Ives' polyrhythm's were 50 years ahead of their time.

As far as orchestrating his work, he reaches the ideal of a singular creative idea. You don't hear the orchestration of an idea in the traditional sense. You hear the idea presented as a singular whole with many aspects. In this sense he is a master orchestrator to be sure. I can't imagine anyone finding an Ives sketch and "orchestrating" it, which you could do with countless other composers. (I recently mentioned him in another thread btw.)

Gesualdo is the only guy I can think of that is a unique as Ives.

Thanks for bringing him up.

Dave Connor

I couldn't agree more with Respighi and Messiaen; Turrangalila is a fantastic piece.
The point I was trying to make with Ives is that outside of the European traddition here was a composer firmly indebted to it, but forcing a new harmonic and rhythmic language that would enivetably lead to new kind of orchestral writing. I think anyone who has heard "From Hanover Square North..." can not fail to be impressed by the expert handling of huge orchestral forces.

Can I ask if Ives was not a great orchestrator then, today, how can anyone be "great" without conforming to recieved ideas concerning orchestral texture etc ? Who are the great living composers who have moved the art form forward ?

Thanks Dave.

It seems to me he could see tradditions and styles and used them rather than worked within them. In many ways I think he marks the end of that huge orchestral, harmonic and rhythmic development over the previous centrury that Schoenberg "dealt" with. I'm mean it continued, but now, where else is there to go ? How different really are Johan Adams' works (in terms of Orchestration) to Ravel ? Granted I think there are some (Ligeti etc) who in the late 50's pushed the orchestra foward but now, I hear a lot of "new" orchestral music that sounds (in terms of orchestration) old.

In some ways like those crazy Roland digital Harpsichords.

Great discussion, sorry to come in on the end. I enjoy reading others, often very informed, opinions

Kind regards

It's true that Ives used different styles rather than existed within them. That is profoundly different from the past, when composers were "imprisoned" in a sense within the musical thought and language of the time and slowly pushed the boundaries further. It has now reached what must be an endpoint, in the sense that now absolutely anything is possible in music. You can have medieval plain chant followed by white noise and no one will be surprised.

You mentioned Ligetti and that occurred to me also - he is one of the few of the current composers (current though getting rather old) who has actually created some new sounds - the use of microtonalities in the famous Lux Aeterna, Lontano, Atmospheres which interestingly did not mean only dissonance as he had consonances and unisons in those pieces. Other composers, like Schoenberg and many more recent ones, were literally afraid to use consonances because of their terror of being sucked back into tonal thinking. But nowadays, tonality, atonality, serialism, synthesized sound, pure noise - all of it is equal. Nothing is forbidden.

What this means is impossible to judge. How can you have "progression" from this? From infinity? In my own work I don't even think about any of the theoretical approaches. I could never write a thing if I did. I work in a style I know is very old-fashioned in many ways simply because it is engrained in my approach somehow. It is not possible for me or I believe for any composer today to believe he is at the "forefront" of things, and maybe that is a good thing because all of the different styles throughout history have values of their own.

Brilliant post William which rings very true.

@ "PaulR" One of my favourite symphonic suites is actually Lieutenant Kije. Not usually thought of as one of Serge Prokofiev's 'great works' maybe, but orchestrally and thematically something else. [/quote said:

[quote= "PaulR" One of my favourite symphonic suites is actually Lieutenant Kije. Not usually thought of as one of Serge Prokofiev's 'great works' maybe, but orchestrally and thematically something else.

Paul,

I was going to chime in as to how much I like Lieutenant Kije and now I'm not sure if I'm thinking of that or the "Scythian Suite" So I need to listen to Kije (which I think I have.)

Suffice to say Prokofiev is a terriffc composer. I love his piano concertos.

Now log off and get some rest. [:)]

Dave

[...

Ok, I'm going to chime in (I've been busy ... ok AND lazy!)

If you haven't heard PROKOFIEV: SYMPHONY NO. 5, then you've missed out on one of the greatest works in classical repertoire, and my personal pick as the best 4 movement symphony ever written. While working for Basil Poledouris we shared some moments talking in depth about the score while we took a break preparing tracks and parts for STARSHIP TROOPERS. It is also his favorite symphony. He and I simultaneously, awkwardly, said the same thing, "there isn't a single bar without melody in the entire piece."

Caveat: If you want to HEAR this piece, I can really truly honestly tell you that there isn't but one recording that is any good. I am not sure why this is. I own over 5 recordings of it and have listened to more. I am 99% sure I have listened to all the recordings available, so at the very least trust that I am ahead of the pack with regards to knowing what recordings are out there. So I have to say that the others are not even decent performances, let alone decent recordings. It's a very difficult piece, and the power of it is in the conducting and balancing, once the players have mastered their parts. Then you hope for a good hall and nice mic placement. For whatever reason only one recording has done it all right, and all the others have done a less than average job in all categories.

So, the one to listen to is:

JAMES LEVINE conducts the CHICAGO SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA in PROKOFIEV'S SYMPHONIES NO.1 and NO.5

Don't bother listening to NO.1 before NO.5. Conductors like to program it that way because of the extreme contrasts, but that is a purely academic notion in my opinion. It actually detracts from the attention and focus needed towards the listening of the NO.5. Also, if you find yourself daydreaming or losing concentration during listening, PAUSE the CD, and come back to it another time. Every bar in this work is masterful. It'd be a shame to miss a passage anywhere. Especially I notice that PROKOFIEV seems to get more complex, more tasty, more interesting, more colorful, etc as each movement progresses towards each's own end, as if to invigorate the audience and stimulate them into staying focused.

How's that for a chime!

[:)]

Evan Evans

...!

Thanks for that tip on the Levine Prokofiev, I'm making a note of it. The best performance I've ever heard of the Mahler Sixth is also conducted by Levine. He's spent a lot of time in opera and is probably less well known for his other conducting.

@William said:

The best performance I've ever heard of the Mahler Sixth is also conducted by Levine. He's spent a lot of time in opera and is probably less well known for his other conducting.

William,

Do you have the NY Phil Bernstein 6th? I can imagine a different performance that is truly great but I can't imagine the spirit of the piece being more perfectly realized or the actual playing surpassed. This performance has a feel that is truly incredible.

One thing for sure: Mr Levine could not have been unaware of this recording. I would love to hear his version of the Mahler and Prokofiev. (I have Slatkin and St. Louis on the 5th which is a wonderful performance as well.)

Dave

@Nick Batzdorf said:

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... ) [[;)]]

I would add Stravinsky as one of the Great Orchestrator. Aaron Copland also composed at the piano.

csduke,

I completely agree with that about Stravinsky. Not only Le Sacre but also the Firebird always seemed to me a masterpiece of orchestration. By the way I have a recording of that which is one of those definitive, must-have recordings that make all others sound wrong - Stokowski's 70s era LP which also had Tchaikovski's Marche Slav and Stokowski's own orchestration of "Night onBald Mountain" which he claimed to have based on Mussorgski's original score (as opposed to the Rimsky Korsakov elaboration). You can never trust what Stokowski said, because he was such a showman, and I asked Gregory Stone, an old film composer/conductor who knew Stokowski and he said that Stokowski stole the score from him, so I guess it was true. But anyway, it has some of the most extreme orchestral playing I've ever heard, including the longest, most drawn-out horn rips at the end of the Firebird which are barely audible in most performances.

Dave,

I haven't heard that Bernstein recording of the 6th in a long time. I'm sure you're right about it, but this Levine one I mentioned (originally an LP) is also that great. Definitely one where the orchestra, conductor and recording all sound as if they are the same inseparable entity.

@csduke said:

I would add Stravinsky as one of the Great Orchestrator. Aaron Copland also composed at the piano.

Just a quick note to clarify that we were (I think) talking about composers who first wrote a piano score and further orchestrated it with said technique. Writing orchestral music "at the piano" is not the same as writing piano music at the piano.

I get waht you mean though and I agree that Stravinsky and Copland are great examples of composers who used solid orcehstration techniqes.

Both by the way were students of nadia Boulangier.

Evan Evans

@William said:

csduke,

I completely agree with that about Stravinsky. Not only Le Sacre but also the Firebird always seemed to me a masterpiece of orchestration. .

The sound Le Sacre has always amazing me. I've listened to a lot of 20th century orchestral music but with Le Sacre, its almost as if an alien from an advanced culture came to earth and composed it. As a kid, I imagined it as some exotic creature not as sections of an orchestra playing together. I've since learned to keep that to myself when in the company of medical professionals [[;)]]

@csduke said:

I would add Stravinsky as one of the Great Orchestrator. Aaron Copland also composed at the piano.

Just a quick note to clarify that we were (I think) talking about composers who first wrote a piano score and further orchestrated it with said technique. Writing orchestral music "at the piano" is not the same as writing piano music at the piano.

I get waht you mean though and I agree that Stravinsky and Copland are great examples of composers who used solid orcehstration techniqes.

Both by the way were students of nadia Boulangier.

Evan Evans
Right. There are at least three ways to work at the from the piano. 1) to make a piano sketch possibly including some orchestral direction and later orchestrate it, 2) use the piano for sound and write to a score and 3) play into a sequencer (a score of clips and pianos roll, not notes) - which uses a piano KB but sample sounds. In music school I was taught with the first two approaches - so many year ago.

I take the first and the third approach now. When I start with a sketch, I'm more organized, better know where I’m going, I can see the harmonies and can better see hidden relationships. As for the third approach, it make me compose more orchestrationally in some ways, I never know where I'm going (good and bad) but I lose a lot of visibility into the music because of the notation - or lack thereof, and it's harder to apply techniques (for me) since I cannot see all of the notes. I am trying to get back to sketching more though. Since I don't do this for a living I have less discipline than I should have. (hope I'm not getting too OT here).

As for Nadia Boulangier - wow. What was her secret? The number of 20th century composer she touched and taught is amazing. I've always wanted to read a biography of her since her name always pops up in composer biographies I read. One of my old composition teachers studied from her as I recal. Found this short list of her students: http://www.nadiaboulanger.org/nb/amstudents.html

"with Le Sacre, its almost as if an alien from an advanced culture came to earth and composed it."

I've had the same reaction. Stravinski's genius was to take everything the orchestra had done in all its previous history, smash it to pieces and create a new form of expression. Like the Indian god Shiva, who destroys the old to create the new.

@csduke said:

As for Nadia Boulangier - wow. What was her secret? The number of 20th century composer she touched and taught is amazing. I've always wanted to read a biography of her since her name always pops up in composer biographies I read. One of my old composition teachers studied from her as I recal. Found this short list of her students: http://www.nadiaboulanger.org/nb/amstudents.html

And if I haven;t mentioend it before, my teacher Lalo Schifrin, studied with her. he wasn't listed on this list so I thought I'd add that for posterity.

Evan Evans

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.