Talk:Orchestration

Are we sure about this Mussorgsky stuff? It's true that Rimsky re orchestrated and retouched quite a few of Mussorgsky's pieces (notably Night on Bare Mountain and Boris Godunov), but these were pieces which had already been completed (including orchestration) by Mussorgsky. If Rimsky (or anyone else for that matter) did complete unfinished works by Mussorgsky, what were they? Rimsky Korsokov didn't so much re-orchestrate as in the case of Boris Godunov, but to rewrite the opening to make it more desirable to listen too. Mussorgsky was an accomplished concert pianist and came from both a wealthy and educated class. Rimsky Korsokov has very little accomplishments, and pales in stature to the likes of Mussorgsky.

I've removed mention of posthumous orchestrations of Mahler, by the way. The only piece that's been touched after his death is his Symphony No. 10, but that was more a process of reconstruction and completion than simple orchestration. I've put in Bartók and Berg instead, which make better examples, I think. --Camembert

Okay, sounds fine for replacing Mahler. Might want to keep it short and just have the links to the composer pages though (assuming mention of the posthumous orchestration is available on the composer page...).

For Mussorgky stuff, I didn't know that he had already orchestrated Pictures. I know the Ravel orchestration is based on Rimsky's edition of the piano score. Some of the song cycles have been orchestrated by RK, Glazunov, and more recent contributors, but I'm not sure whether Mussorgsky ever intended them to be more than piano and voice arrangements. I'm sure I have read program/liner notes of Mussorgsky operas mentioning Rimsky's (or others') completion and orchestration of some sections. In fact, isn't the orchestration for Dance of the Persian Slaves, the most famous fragment of Kovanshchina, commonly attributed to RK? I'll check into the facts more later, but if someone else is working from something better than memory of program/liner notes, then go for it.

Chinasaur 21:42, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I admit I don't know Khovanshchina very well, and I don't have anything very conclusive to hand on it, so you might be right on that point. On the others, though: it's true, of course, that Mussorgsky never orchestrated Pictures, but then I don't think he ever intended to do so did he? As far as he was concerned it was a piano work. I'm reasonably certain this is also the case with his songs - he never intended to orchestrate them.

Anyway, I'll check into all this more later as well (I have Calvocoressi's shorter biog here, but it's not yielding up too much on a quick check). We'll get it cracked between us, I'm sure :) --Camembert

I guess one thing we should recognize in the article is that not all posthumous orchestration is truly waranted in many people's views. These are complicated issues and most of this should be dealt with in the composer article, where it's easier to go into the intricacies of whether an orchestration was really ever in the original composer's plans or whether a particular case is more an orchestration or a larger reworking, etc.. I do feel that people looking up this orchestration article might be looking for this phenomenon specifically, so I think we should say something, but I think an introduction to the idea and some handwavey examples is good enough for here. Chinasaur 19:08, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, are we sure that Mussorgsky actually orchestrated anything? I had the impression that the only composer of the group of five that knew orchestration was Rimsky Korsakov, and that the others, however talented, were actually folk musicians rather than (i)academic(/i) ones. If this is a mistake could anyone give me examples of orchestral music written by Mussorgsky, or any of the others?

Thanks!--Cha daniels 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Mussorgsky orchestrated a lot of things, including Boris Godunov itself. However, for a long time others considered orchestrations of Mussorgsky's music, for example those by Rimsky-Korsakov, superior to his own work (it's an issue of occasional controversy). Antandrus (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rimsky-Korsakov may have turned out to be the most skilled orchestrator of "The Five," but his comrades were not incompetent as orchestrators. (Admittedly, a few of Cui's orchestral works had help from Balakirev, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Glazunov.) Balakirev -- who had been the only trained musician among them by the time they all had met -- evidently learned orchestration before R-K did. (Listen to Balakirev's Tamara, Overture to King Lear, and the two symphonies, if nothing else.) None of the members of "The Five" started out as "academic" musicians; nevertheless, all of them had been drawn to "classical" music, and taught themselves that tradition (notably under Balakirev's leadership in the 1860s, while the Petersburg and Moscow Conservatories were being established). Rimsky turned out to be the only kuchkist who actually became a professional in academic music. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article seems to assume the term orchestration applies only to works not originally written for orchestra which strikes me as very strange. It also seems to me the distinction it attempts between what it calls "orchestration" and arranging is properly the distinction between transcription and arranging.

Re: "Instrumentation deals with the techniques of writing music for a specific instrument, including the limitations of the instrument, playing techniques and idiomatic handling of the instrument. Orchestration includes, in addition to instrumentation, the handling of groups of instruments and their balance and interaction."

The salient difference between orchestration and instrumentation is that the term orchestration applies, strictly speaking, only to the orchestra whereas the term instrumentation applies to all intrumental groups. Instrumentation in this sense subsumes orchestration.

The Corozine and Rogers direct quotes are superfluous. The comments about orchestration textbooks (of which there many, many more) are "point of view". I think the "masters" list should be deleted entirely--and what is J.S. Bach doing in it anyway? This article needs a lot of work.--Scotch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by :66.188.140.155 (talk • contribs) .TheScotch 10:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yup, this article needs a lot of work. I also think we should lose that "masters" section. Antandrus (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the "masters' section should be removed. It is too subjective an issue to be regarded as fact, don't you think?Nathgregory 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excellent; I took it out. It would certainly be possible to put in a paragraph giving famous critical opinions about "masters" of orchestration as long as it is sourced; for example it shouldn't be too hard to find good cites on Mahler, Ravel, Berlioz, and so forth. Antandrus (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for adding my two cents, but anyone interested in contributing greatly to this article should try to read to the New Grove Dictionary or Grove Dictionary Online article. It discusses orchestration techniques and style in a historical context that might be a good example to emulate.

Sounds like a plan. Thanks for the tip.TheScotch 14:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I came to this article looking for a little bit more information about orchestration: not just a definition but also mor practical stuff, like the sections of the orchestra, different types of instruments, tibre balancing, etc. I think it would be cool to include quotations from orchestration books such as RK's "Principles of Orchestration", Samuel Adler's "The Study of Orchestration" or Andrew Stiller's "Handbook of Instrumentation", etc.--Cha daniels 04:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a good idea: the article is slim. Stuff about instrumental combinations, what works and what doesn't according to the various authors from Berlioz to Rimsky to the present day, all sourced to their books, would all be good additions. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why is the Blatter book been removed? Nathgregory 12:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's not historically significant. This is not amazon.com.

Why don't you sign your posts? Also, your attitude is neither funny or helpful. No wonder nothing gets added here with your indepth scrutiny of every addition/comment... Nathgregory 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re: "Stuff about instrumental combinations, what works and what doesn't according to the various authors from Berlioz to Rimsky to the present day, all sourced to their books, would all be good additions." I tend to disagree. I don't think a wikipedia article can pretend to teach anyone the art of orchestration. Before we even consider these additions, it would be much better to have a short history of orchestration. TheScotch 12:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd also like to see a short excerpt of a piano work transcribed for orchestra (perhaps Pictures from an Exhibition) compared to the original. I think that would illustrate graphically what is involved. I don't know whether Pictures is in the public domain. I suspect it isn't. TheScotch 12:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: "I came to this article looking for a little bit more information about orchestration: not just a definition but also mor practical stuff, like the sections of the orchestra, different types of instruments..." That much you should find using the link to orchestra. TheScotch 12:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that the Blatter book should not be mentioned - it is historically relevant - being used widely today - and is the most detailed and modern one available today. Pablocasals (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Morricone's comments on orchestrating his own music: it's worth noting that the use of orchestrators to assist in the completion of orchestral music in an accompanimental fashion predates film music. While Beethoven didn't use an orchestrator, many composers of the time writing operas and stage works did. Rossini, in fact, used an orchestrator for many of his opera projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.217.235 (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see Akira Ifukube (1953): Orchestration (Kangen-gaku hou) has been added to the Historically significant orchestration texts list. I'm not familiar with this work. Can someone explain what makes it historically significant, please? TheScotch 11:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

If not, I'll just delete his name. (As far as I can tell--from checking his wikipedia entry--, he appears to be a children's monster-movie film composer who has incidentally written an orchestration text). TheScotch 06:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fine then. It's gone. TheScotch 09:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd still very much like to see an orchestral excerpt here, especially one comparing a piano version to its orchestral transcription. I don't have the technical means to accomplish this. Suggestions as to what piece might be appropriate and in the public domain are welcome. After we find a reasonable match, maybe someone who does have the technical means can do the deed for us. TheScotch 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It may be beneficial to use scores from IMSLP as they are in the public domain and readily accessible. I'm pretty sure there are at least a number of pieces by Ravel (his music would serve as a great example) that have piano and orchestral scores uploaded.

As far as I can determine, Kunitz is notable for modifying a particular contrabass trombone. His Die Instrumentation is notable (also as far as I can determine) only in so far as it perpetuates old falsehoods and invents new falsehoods concerning the chimerical soprano trombone. (http://www.utoronto.ca/conf2000/abs4-4.html: "Thus, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries various false 'facts' concerning the soprano trombone have made the rounds. In concentrated form, they are to be found in Posaune, vol. 8 of Hans Kunitz's series Die Instrumentation published in 1959. Kunitz, however, did not content himself with a simple retelling of the usual legends, but rather fabricated a grandiose history of the soprano trombone, a forgery that has found great acceptance in spite of its obvious source-historical problems.")

I will wait to see if someone cares to defend the putative historical significance of Kunitz's texts. If no one does, I will consider deleting the reference. TheScotch 07:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Deleting. TheScotch 11:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Template:expert Was added to this text a few months ago with the edit comment, ""expert needed" tag—this is little more than a stub. History of orchestration daughter article needed too". While I agree the article could stand to be expanded with elements including history of orchestration, I believe a regular editor with a textbook in hand could do plenty; no expertise needed. Further, history could be presented as a section of this article; a sub-article wouldn't be needed until we boarder on issues of WP:SIZE. I'll update the tag appropriately. -Verdatum (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This work seems to be disapearing several times from the list of signifigant orchestration texts under the pretext of "self-advertisement". I hardly think this is the case. The text is a standardized text for today's college orchestration courses and has been more common than all the other modern texts. Why shouldn't it be listed? Justin Tokke (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's the modern text-of-choice, though I used others as well when I taught the class. There's a mention in Adler's entry in the New Grove; the thing won an award for excellence. I think it's worth putting in. (As a general question -- should we list any other modern orchestration books? there's really not that many.) Antandrus (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

How does anyone feel about a separate section for "Modern orchestration texts" (or equivalent)? It seems this avoids the rub of a current book being "historically significant" (which is arguable -- you don't know whether or not that is true until some time goes by). I like the idea of listing some of the major books currently in use, but it is clear from activity on the article that there is disagreement. (I don't have a strong opinion either way, really.) Antandrus (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi I started reorganizing the article to try to make more clear the distinction of orchestration as an "art" and the general version of orchestration as an adaptation. Please feel free to improve upon it; I have to go to class so I cannot make it perfect just yet. As this is an encyclopedia, examples are good. Pictures would be good too. When I have time I'll look into making some pictures to better explain the example. -Horncomposer (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I removed the sentence which suggested that James Horner, James Newton-Howard, and David Newman generally orchestrate their own scores--as it is patently false. Having worked with two of these composers and virtually every one of their orchestrators in the past ten years, I can assure you, Horner and JNH are not orchestrating, nor have they in many years. I have also included mention of the four biggest orchestrators working in LA today: Dechter, Fowler, Redford, and Pope. Between them, you can pretty much account for every major motion picture of the past thirty years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.246.132 (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you can find a source for that that isn't your own personal experience, that would be even more helpful.... Temevorn 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply