Orchestration Workshop 2013 - Chopin

rstrauss wrote:

i am halfway through, but I don't know if I can make it by the end of October.

... I will probably arrive at the end of November

In my opinion, it's worth it for you to keep going, except between 20'' and 25'', where the trilling part might perhaps improve sonically; for the rest, excellent... magical from 29'' onwards... I have a crazy curiosity to know how it continues

I thank you Zaccaria, it's just that it is truly exhausting, even in terms of time ....

where you indicate 20/25'', it actually seems a bit weak with only the brass (m. 15/16), however I am not quite clear if it is a problem of sounds (brass in unison shouldn't theoretically give a sense of emptiness) or if there is truly a need to double in the high register.

another thing that leaves me perplexed is the speed of the "runs" in the woodwinds: a concrete possibility that in real performance they would be very messy
i had thought about adding a measure to decrease their speed, but then I didn't try it, who knows if it works ...

Not very intimate as a start but engaging, woodwinds in general are part of the fast instruments...

If it was also discussed here

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/893-lo-strumento-piu-veloce/

eheh you're right faria, it's a bit tacky for a Chopin nocturne

regarding the woodwinds, it's true that they are fast, but they are still quite difficult passages. In my opinion, one also needs to evaluate if an equivalent effect can be obtained with greater practicality for the performer.

In this regard, as soon as possible I will try 2 things:

duplicating the measures as already mentioned, or narrowing the range of the flourishes; perhaps it is not necessary to start from re3 and reach fa6 to achieve that effect.

i'll keep you informed .... stay tuned

@ALeGozzo

I took a listen and a look... I detect a certain originality in the transcription at the expense of the character of the piece. If it weren't written that this is a Chopin prelude, who would say anything? Of course, one can then delve into the technical issues of orchestration, but let us never blame the composer's choices a priori.

Surely a careful evaluation will have to be made once the piece is finished, because then one must sustain those good premises for quite a while... without boring and keeping the listener's attention alive. It is not certain that in the end the result will be proportionate, balanced, and weighed in all sections of the piece.

For technical doubts, indeed in the first solution I don't know if the rendering is what you hear from Cubase.

Anyway, only at the end can one say how truly effective the orchestration is, despite the good (albeit personal) beginning

Frank wrote:

... I will probably arrive at the end of November

same

At first glance, something to look into further, I can certainly say that without having heard the playback :

the oboe and trumpet combination does not satisfy me, for the simple reason that the trumpet is always dominant in that register and the 2 oboes in the medium-low register, despite there being two of them, are weak. I would have seen 2 clarinets as a better fit.

Then you double them at the 8th with the flute, which reinforces but not too much and improves the sonority anyway.

a 14 the crescendo of the horns alone, in my opinion, does not work properly since they are the only ones holding the note. Perhaps by filling the pause of cl and ob in the second movement it could have worked better.

a 15/16 you put diminuendo for the horns and then always mf, bringing in the tb almost at full stretch (allow me the analogy with the national sport): this way there is no vacuum effect after the crescendo. An opinionated choice

but in this case, given the perspective of the piece as it is written, it works.

17/18 the bass ostinato that creates that typical restlessness of the piece would be missing, but the string tremolo still works.

I would say you are moving towards an arrangement rather than a transcription: an intriguing solution.

Frank wrote:

It is not certain that, in the end, the result will be proportionate, balanced, and weighed across all sections of the piece.

[...]

In any case, only at the end can one say how truly effective the orchestration is, despite the good (albeit personal) beginning.

I find it very correct; in effect, I didn't think on a large scale, my main interest was to see if I could reconstruct a very complex pianistic texture to transfer to the orchestra.

Proposing to continue, although I don't know exactly when, I will certainly have to evaluate the aspects you mention, perhaps even pushing back an overly heavy beginning (provided that is possible...)

Regarding Strauss's comment, I don't quite agree on the oboe/clarinet issue. I am not speaking with certain expert knowledge, let's be clear, but I find that the timbre of the oboe is, among the woodwinds, the best to pair with the trumpet, especially if rather than a mix of timbres, one is looking for a nuance of color that does not affect the dominance of the trumpet.

While I'm at it, I'll point out a beautiful and inexpensive little book, very enlightening, on the history of orchestration: Adam Carse - The History Of Orchestration

Speaking of the oboe, I haven't seen the passage in question, but even if it doesn't suffer from dynamics in the low register, between the central F and the octave above it is very "ugly"... if we were talking about contemporary sound effects, okay, it could be a choice, but on Chopin...

I agree with Ale, the oboe is often paired with brass during orchestration and in chamber ensembles (for example, decets) it happens that the two oboes side by side with the horns specifically with the functions of the ensemble's brass.

But Eagle's point is true, the oboe is not appreciable in all registers... in the octave he indicated it should at least be "brightened" by something like a flute doubling an octave above... or other solutions, compatible with the trumpet... eheh

AleGozzo wrote:

Regarding Strauss's comment, I don't quite agree on the oboe/clarinet issue. I am not speaking with certain expert knowledge, let's be clear, but I find that the timbre of the oboe is, among the woodwinds, the best to pair with the trumpet, especially if rather than a mix of timbres one seeks a nuance of color that does not interfere with the dominance of the trumpet.

if I had to find a woodwind instrument that blends well with the trumpet, I would tell you the Eb clarinet, which in its lower timbre vaguely reminds one of the trumpet, but since that is not provided for here, I thought of the cl., for the simple reason that in that register it has more strength than the ob.

In fact, my doubt was in an absolute sense and mindful of the studies conducted, the ob/tp blend as you have presented it is not exactly homogeneous.

However, if your intention was to let the trumpet dominate, I have nothing to say... it is your choice and if the timbre satisfies you, that's perfectly fine... after all, Stravinsky used the double bass with the piccolo...

Frank wrote:

I agree with Ale, the oboe is often paired with brass during orchestration and in chamber formations (for example, decets), it happens that the two oboes side with the horns specifically with the functions of the ensemble's brass.

if we are talking about horns, I agree... in fact, the horn is the most "woodwind" brass instrument in the orchestra... but there is a big difference between horns and trumpets.

I am fixing the playback.

I will deliver it during the week.

Great RStrauss !

Mine will be arriving soon too....

... Geppino's is very beautiful and personal, even if they are Chopin's notes ... I feel something else!

You are very good Geppino, not that I had any doubts... but you have orchestrated in a truly unified way, with fresh and interesting sound textures.

I will also post tonight.

I have listened to and analyzed Geppino's version.

Nothing to say regarding the instrumental texture and treatment of the instruments, nor on the variety of carefully chosen timbres.

The playback is very well done ... if only I could make one like that ... AleGozzo taught me how to use Cubase, but I lack the time to experiment.

What works very well is the Vc and Cr theme and the exchange of the theme between cor ang., cl. and ob., as well as the subsequent crescendo, not to mention the texture of the brass in the crescendos. It lends strength and pathos and becomes

almost heroic from 61 onwards, an effect that I particularly like.

What did not convince me in this version comes mostly from the fact that I am a pianist and I studied this piece well in my youth.

In Geppino's version, especially when he abandons the bass figuration (4 sixteenths + 1 eighth), I do not find the torment that permeates the original piece, which is a fundamental distinctive character.

The tempo is quite fast and the triplet figuration of the bassoon, which is always present, when it is alone, e.g., from 39 to 47 / 60-64, gives the piece a character that, for my taste, is a bit too optimistic. Another episode that does not convince me is the trombone from 19 with the triplets and the trumpets punctuating the 2nd and 3rd beats and the double bass/harp with an 8th rest 8th.

To conclude, perhaps I am too biased, but being a Chopin enthusiast and having played many of his works, in this piece I simply cannot detach myself from the piano version, where the author, in my opinion, wanted to communicate a profound torment, which is perceived at times, also demonstrated by the choice of D minor itself, a key that I define as pessimistic, rough, and tormented, with striking examples in 1700/1800s literature.

Geppino has chosen a more "serene" atmosphere ... it is his choice, debatable, but nonetheless to be accepted.

If I did not know the original, none of the above objections would exist ... but this is the undeniable limit of transcriptions/arrangements.

rstrauss wrote:

If one did not know the original, all the objections above would not exist ... but this is the undeniable limit of transcriptions/arrangements.

I relatively agree... as far as Arrangement, Transcription, and Composition are concerned, there are many nuances, but in particular there exists:

- “utilitarian” transcription, when a piece is transcribed from one or more instruments to others because they are not available in the target repertoire. Here it is enough to have a deep knowledge especially of the target instrument. Very close to these are also transcriptions used as a way of understanding and knowledge.

- Transcription-arrangement. A deeper work of understanding the original and its meaning, even hidden meanings. In this regard, a typical example is parodies from 19th-century works. See the importance of the virtuoso element.

- The more complex transcription-arrangement, especially from a single instrument to an orchestra, can lead to a meaning that is entirely or partially different from the piece.

It is here that I would begin to reason about

Mussorgsky, Pictures at an Exhibition.

original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK7I284Xf3k

Ravel's orchestral transcription. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiv2i-25wZ8

Note the different starting tempo; let us ask ourselves why. Can we speak of the promenade, what Mussorgsky was thinking, what Ravel proposed ...?

Let's say that when evaluating a work within the scope of our laboratory, one should grasp at what level the person who proposed their work is positioning themselves... for example, I doubt that Ravel was unaware of Mussorgsky's intentions, yet perhaps Mussorgsky's own piece is more famous for Ravel's "transcription" than for the original itself.

Therefore, knowing a piece well is never a limit... on the contrary, it is precisely by knowing it well that one can go beyond.

... if there are problems in Geppino's arrangement, they cannot be on this level

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Frank wrote:

Note the different starting tempo, let us ask ourselves why. Can we speak of the promenade, what Mussorgsky was thinking, what Ravel proposed … ?

Dlet's say that when evaluating a work within the scope of our laboratory, one should grasp at what level the person who proposed their work is positioning themselves… for example, I doubt that Ravel was unaware of Mussorgsky's intentions, yet perhaps Mussorgsky's own piece is more famous for Ravel's "transcription" than for the original itself

I should preface that I prefer this work on the piano and we cannot know the reasons why Mussorgsky himself did not make an orchestral version, such as Rossini's Petite Messe Solennelle ... here too I prefer the version with two pianos and harmonium.

Ravel certainly added something with the transition to the orchestra and I agree that the latter version is the most famous.

In favor of this transcription is the fact that Mussorgsky habitually wrote for orchestra and his major works are for this ensemble. It follows, therefore, that in a piece for piano one can grasp elements that the composer had conceived in an orchestral guise even while having written them for the piano. Thus, Ravel had at his disposal many examples of what Mussorgsky wrote and what his characteristics were.

Chopin never considered the orchestra and therefore there are no points of comparison to understand how Chopin wrote for the orchestra without piano, and anyway Geppino's orchestration is much richer than Chopin's (for example the piano concertos or the Krakowiak). Speculating, one might venture to say that Chopin did not love large ensembles and therefore the orchestra was not for him ... while remaining firm that some of his pieces surpass the orchestra in timbre, drama, and pathos.

In the case of our prelude, precisely because of my deep knowledge of Chopin, I would not feel comfortable going further as Geppino has done, moreover in a masterful way.

Given the nature of Chopin's music, it would almost seem to me like using "violence" on it by taking certain things away and adding others.

Frank wrote:

Therefore, knowing a piece well is never a limit… on the contrary, it is precisely by knowing it well that one can go beyond.

This statement is valid in both senses ... you know and you go beyond ... or you know and you set a limit for yourself.