Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

180,730 users have contributed to 42,140 threads and 254,357 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 14 new post(s) and 54 new user(s).

  • Greatest Orchestrators

    I don't know if this is appropriate for this forum but I'm interested in opinions on the greatest orchestrators (and why).

    Some of the ones that I like the most are ---

    Debussy. To me he is the greatest because his orchestration is more transparent than any other I've heard. If you listen to the Images or Jeux, you will notice the most extreme delicacy of detail in every instrument audible. And it is unimaginable to transcribe these pieces for piano or some other medium. Though they are not mere "orchestral showpieces" that have only color and no ideas, these great works are so specifically for the instruments that are written in the score that you could never make anything else play them without completely changing the work.

    Mahler. In the Ninth Symphony, he completely broke down the conventional orchestral practice barriers by composing for each instrument on an individual basis, even though a full orchestra was used. In the other symphonies and song-cycles he continued the extreme expansion of the orchestral palette begun by Beethoven into expressive areas never equalled by any other composer. For example, the hugely massive sound of the finale of the 2nd or the 8th, forcing expanded brass ensembles into competition with multiple choirs never dreamed of previously.

    Berlioz. The Symphonie Fantastique with its weirdly imaginative uses of the large 19th century orchestra - for example the "March to the Gallows" with the tuba and bassoons below playing the Dies Irae theme, or the extensive use of the English horn, creating a lasting definition of the instrument's character in this one piece. Or the "Requiem" with its huge palette of brass, percussion and choirs that Mahler was obviously inspired by.


    Holst His use of the orchestra in "The Planets" is probably the single most significant influence upon film composition ever. From the shocking and Stravinsky-influenced brass and percussion dynamo of "Mars" to the single most ethereal piece outside of Debussy ever composed "Neptune" with its layered and intricate colors of celeste, harp, pp woodwinds, string tremolos, muted brass and subtle timpani, he created a work which perhaps defines the 20th century use of the orchestra more than any other.

    Just some random ideas. I wish others might suggest their own.

  • I've changed the forum title, at the moment I don't have a better title idea. Hope this works so far.

    best
    Herb

  • That seems like a perfect title to me.

  • One of my greatest favorites is Ravel, with his orchestration for his Mother Goose suite (original for 2 piano's I believe). Incredibly detailed and subtle. Very visual, also.

  • Peter,

    That's funny - I was going to make another post and mention Ravel and the Mother Goose Suite. You're right about that - it is one of the best orchestrations. Ravel in a way is more direct than Debussy, but just as subtle. I was going to mention the clarinet and contrabassoon duo section for Beauty and the Beast. Also the spectacular orchestration he did for Pictures at an Exhibition and the rich, complex textures of Daphnis and Chloe - for example the sunrise section with the burbling clarinet ostinato, string tremolos and trills and suspended cymbal/celeste/gong/glockenspiel. It is an incredibly vivid piece. And his chamber works which use the colors of the instruments far more than other composers.

  • 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