Talk:Orchestration

Are we sure about this Mussorgsky stuff? It's true that Rimsky reorchestrated and retouched quite a few of Mussorgsky's pieces (notably Night on Bare Mountain and Boris Godounov), 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?

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)

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)

Definitions

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)

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)

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)

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)

More stuff about orchestration

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)