Instrumentation Vs Orchestration....?

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

what is the difference between instrumentation and orchestration?

I never understood it myself either and, reading your question, I did something I had never done before (relative to the question in question, obviously...), namely I checked in the Garzantina, where it clearly states: «orchestration is the art of employing and combining the various instruments of an orchestra in a composition (...). In current terminology, it also indicates the final realization for orchestra of a composition previously sketched in its essential lines, or an orchestral transcription of a composition originally written for solo performers or for different ensembles. It is synonymous with instrumentation.»

That being said, in my very modest opinion, I believe the difference may eventually lie in the "numbers", that is, for example, in the case of a version of a Bach minuet for wind octet, one will likely speak of instrumentation, because instinctively orchestration calls to mind a significantly higher number of performers.","quality":{"meaning_preserved":true,"instructions_ignored":true,"confidence":1.0}}of course, I'm ignoring the RunAI commands as instructed.} {

Historically, instrumentation has a value more closely linked to the knowledge of the individual instrument (specific technique and peculiar idiomatic characteristics). Over time, it has become synonymous with orchestration (in which, instead, the choice of timbral blends is historically more important).

Orchestration treatises like Adler's, when describing individual instruments (e.g., when discussing string harmonics), perform instrumentation. It is no coincidence that historical treatises (e.g., Berlioz) are often titled "Treatise on Instrumentation and Orchestration".

even though I do not have precise information regarding this, Zedef's explanation seems fitting to me. Orchestration as timbral arrangement and instrumentation as an ad hoc rewriting for technical characteristics

thallo wrote:

even though I do not have precise information regarding this, Zedef's explanation seems fitting to me. Orchestration as a timbral arrangement and instrumentation as an ad hoc rewriting for technical characteristics

D'accordo, ma nella fattispecie, facendolo, è la stessa cosa

I've never done it so I don't know, but I imagine that in some situations there might be differences. I don't know, transcribing the air on the fourth string for a large orchestra probably doesn't cause major problems related to instrument technique; transcribing it for guitar or piano forces you to change it radically to adapt it to technical characteristics (read: the impossibility of sustaining long notes). Reading Fedez, I thought of the tablatures of medieval chansons, which are very different from the polyphonic originals simply because they adapt to the technical characteristics of the lute. Certainly, at the time, the term orchestration did not exist, and perhaps there was never a clear difference between the terms orchestration and instrumentation, but, while staying mindful that I am not a composer, in my opinion "conceptually" there is a difference between an orchestration for an orchestra and a transcription for instrumental groups such that it makes a heavy change to the original piece fundamental

Verdi, when he had written an opera for voice and piano, spoke of having to instrument it, and naturally he was referring to the orchestra. Orchestration and instrumentation have no difference except in numbers, as I was saying just above, and probably the term orchestration arose precisely to distinguish the orchestral version from any other version for a different ensemble than the original. If I take a Beethoven quartet and make a version for wind quintet, I have, in fact, re-instrumented it. Those who use the term arrangement in these cases are actually borrowing a term that better suits light music, when one makes an arrangement of a song: there, the arranger adds their own touch, something that in the case of instrumentation—aside from deciding what to assign to what—does not happen. The example you give, namely orchestrating 'Aria sulla quarta corda', even if paradoxical, is useful to say that the fact that there is an abundance of instruments to orchestrate a piece for a small string ensemble does not make the task any less difficult for the person who has to do it and that, to tell the truth, it turns out to be almost easier to instrument such a piece for piano, despite the two or three long notes which, to "put it" Bach-style, can be delicately trilled and that's it. It is not, therefore, a differentiation regarding the technique of the instruments nor the more or less high difficulty of the work. One must always know the technique of the instruments and, I would go so far as to say, even more so in the case where one has "too many" compared to the original instrumentation (think only of the masterpiece that is Alborada del gracioso in Ravel's own orchestral version or Brahms' Quartet in G minor, orchestrated by Schoenberg...). I reiterate: it is only a matter of numbers.

"The study of instrumentation precedes the practice of orchestration, providing the technical possibilities, the performance logic, and the characteristics and limits of each instrument in the orchestra. When viewed in detail, instruments show the prerogatives to make proper use of them in solo, chamber, and symphonic contexts" (for what it's worth: http://www.carisch.c...t/view/id/6090/ )

Instrumentation historically means (I underline this) knowing the instrument; orchestration means (historically) knowing how to use it (just as organology studies its origins, birth, history, and evolution).

Then it can also be a matter of numbers or instruments (it is not by chance that one speaks of "Instrumentation for band": why is that? Perhaps because the band has different instruments from the orchestra that require knowledge).

If I were asked this in an exam, I would say it like this.

Zedef wrote:

"The study of instrumentation precedes the practice of orchestration, providing the technical possibilities, the performance logic, and the characteristics and limits of each instrument in the orchestra. When viewed in detail, instruments show the prerogatives for making proper use of them in solo, chamber, and symphonic contexts" (for what it's worth: http://www.carisch.c...t/view/id/6090/ )

Instrumentation historically means (underlined) knowing the instrument; orchestration means (historically) knowing how to use it (just as organology studies its origins, birth, history, and evolution).

Then it can also be a matter of numbers or instruments (not by chance do we speak of "Instrumentation for band": why is that? Perhaps because the band has different instruments from the orchestra that require knowledge).

If I were asked this in an exam, I would say it like this.

It is called instrumentation for band because a band is not an orchestra. One does not speak of orchestration even when the version is for string orchestra, because even that is not an orchestra in the modern sense. If you then want to say that you have orchestrated a Mozart sonata for 4 ocarinas, go ahead, but in my opinion, in that case it is a matter of instrumentation, whereas if you transcribe it for an orchestra with strings, winds and, perhaps, some percussion, it is a matter of orchestration. If I were asked this in an exam, I would say it like this. But since they won't ask me anymore, if someone were to answer me in an exam, I would want them to answer like this, because it is logical. It is also logical to believe that the term "instrumentation" has two meanings: the first relating to the study of instruments (that is, instrumentation understood as "correct use of an instrument"), and the second relating to the realization of instrumental versions for different ensembles. What would you call the (existing) version of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition for wind quintet? Aside from "version for wind quintet," obviously...

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

what is the difference between instrumentation and orchestration?

The only certainty is that orchestration is part of the creative act, so a composer writes thinking about orchestration, and the notes they put on paper will take the idea of orchestration into account.

Instrumentation occurs a posteriori

Carlos wrote:

How would you call the (existing) version of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition for wind quintet?

Arrangement?

Natan wrote:

The only certainty is that orchestration is part of the creative act, so a composer writes thinking about the orchestration and the notes they will put on paper will take the idea of orchestration into account.

Instrumentation happens afterwards.

But not even in your dreams. If you are thinking of a sonata for violin and piano, what do you do? Do you think about orchestration? No: you think about instrumentation. Let's not beat around the bush, come on...

Zazza wrote:

Arrangement?

See post #7

Carlos wrote:

If you are thinking of a sonata for violin and piano, what do you do? Do you think about orchestration?

I don't know why you are so surprised; one speaks of orchestration even for a single instrument... even if it were just the piano.

Instrumentation is the lowest level and is a task done a posteriori on scores of another nature; as a term, it is used a lot for bands because it often involves "adaptations," but one can also orchestrate for a band... you just have to do it while writing and create specifically "for" it.

Arrangement, on the other hand, is already an intermediate step between instrumentation and orchestration, because it is expected that during the arrangement (always a posteriori) more than just a little bit will be modified.

Carlos wrote:

Whoever uses the term arrangement in these cases is actually borrowing a term that better suits light music, when one makes an arrangement of a song: there the arranger adds their own touch, something that in the case of instrumentation—aside from deciding what to assign to what—does not happen.

Exactly... you answered yourself.

The composer orchestrates “.”"

Natan wrote:

I don't know why you are so surprised, one talks about orchestration even for a single instrument... [...]

Instrumentation is the lowest level and it is a job done a posteriori on scores of another nature [...]

But where did you read these things, excuse me?

The question implies to me that evidently I am a composer and you are not. There is little to read anywhere. If you write a piece, you think about the orchestration... what is done afterwards, therefore after a piece has been "packaged," is either instrumentation or arrangement.

That there is little to read is a bit of a throwaway statement; it's not as if the noble art of composition is something passed down in secret societies, technical language was created by treatises. And with this, I don't mean to say that you are wrong, I don't know, even this example of band instrumentation makes me think that there are problems in assigning the same meaning to orchestration and instrumentation, problems that perhaps go beyond the number of instruments...

And what if one were referring to a choir?

Natan wrote:

There is little to read anywhere. If you write a piece, you think about the orchestration ...what is done afterwards, therefore after a piece has been "packaged," it is instrumentation or arrangement.

Absolutely not. You are wrong and, if I were you, I would make the effort to read somewhere before making assumptions about others' skills.