Orchestration Workshop 2013 - Chopin

> Given how Chopin's music is, it would almost seem to me like using "violence" on it by removing certain things and adding others

...so composers are probably "violent" types, after all, how else could they make their voices heard (don't you think?)... ... ... without even involving us, there are infinite examples in the repertoire

...I forgot

rstrauss wrote:

A point in favor of this transcription is the fact that Mussorgsky habitually wrote for orchestra and his major works are for this ensemble. Therefore, it makes sense that in a piece for piano one can perceive elements that the composer had conceived in an orchestral guise even though he had written them for the piano. Thus, Ravel had at his disposal many examples of what Mussorgsky wrote and what his characteristics were.

The orchestration is by Ravel... it doesn't really seem to me that he relied on Mussorgsky's orchestral works (let's even say he didn't need to... right?)

Frank wrote:

> Given how Chopin's music is, it would almost seem to me like using "violence" by removing certain things and adding others

...so composers are probably "violent" types; after all, how else would they make their voices heard (don't you think?)... ... ... without even involving us, there are countless examples in the repertoire

Viewed that way, it would... if we stay within the scope of transcriptions, Liszt is an example... he transcribed the most disparate things for piano, albeit with varying results.

I start from the assumption that the original, as it came from the composer's mind, always remains the top, because it is exactly what he wanted; otherwise, he wouldn't have written it.

Transcribing by moving away from this is risky, at least for me, and with Chopin, this is accentuated simply because of how his music is written.

I'll give you an example that happened to me at a choral conducting masterclass I attended a month ago... the teacher proposed transcriptions for 10/16-voice choirs of Mahler's lieder

for orchestra and solo voice... beautiful, very well written for choir, engaging, very rewarding to conduct... but they are no longer the original pieces and there is no comparison.

The new pieces had very little of the character of the originals, also because in the orchestral interludes, the transcriber added parts of text taken from the lyrics themselves that Mahler intended to be purely instrumental.

With Chopin we haven't had the same problem, but the comparison holds and anyway, I repeat, I am not disputing Geppino's orchestration, of course not... it is done very well... what I miss

is the intrinsic character of the piece which, with his orchestration, loses what was probably its main characteristic: torment.

Frank wrote:

...I forgot

The orchestration is by Ravel... it doesn't really seem to me that he relied on Mussorgsky's orchestral works (let's just say he didn't need to... right?)

I am sure that Ravel didn't need anything at an orchestral level ... but do you think Ravel didn't study other orchestral pieces by Mussorgsky before writing the Pictures?

I also like that one by RStrauss

Look Strauss, the argument is a bit more articulated.

I asked a question about Ravel, and his answer is somewhat the essence of what we are saying....and it's no coincidence that I chose Russian performers.

If you search on YouTube, you will even find pianists, who do not have broad shoulders like Kissin, who, not having the "courage" (or the strength) to respect Mussorgsky's original tempo, imitate the orchestra in their pianistic interpretation... taking a much slower tempo than the one indicated and literally followed by Kissin himself.

Surely Ravel did not have access to the documentation that we know (there was no internet, eh!), so he imagined a great exhibition of paintings with "Putin" and all of "the army general staff"... it's a pity that today we know Mussorgsky was called to something more intimate... him and the paintings (and that's it)... so, no pompous procession Ravel-style.

And yet, as we are saying, Ravel's version today even influences performers (pianists), despite the sound decay limits of the piano, precisely because the well-known version is now indeed the orchestral one.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that an original Ravel orchestration is better than a bad copy of the Mussorgsky-style orchestration. In Chopin's case, the problem doesn't even arise; he wrote almost exclusively for pf [piano], so one could not be any freer than that. As for the fact that this piece evokes a certain type of emotion in you, from my point of view, it is entirely subjective... a counter-proof is the Lied we wrote to a text by D'Annunzio... remember? Despite the presence of a text (a story couldn't be clearer), you gave a more "light" reading compared to the more dramatic or even hysterical one of others.

So, excuse me, but I won't meddle in the subjective, and it has nothing to do with the depth of technical knowledge of a piece... we are in the emotional sphere; it would be too much to expect us all to feel the same thing.

On this point

rstrauss wrote:

I am sure that Ravel had no need for anything at an orchestral level ... but do you think Ravel did not study other orchestral pieces by Mussorgsky before writing the Pictures?

This text doesn't hurt...

http://books.google....orgskij&f=false

Surely he knew Fauré, Debussy,

This wiki article may be useful; the part I highlight in red is interesting.

http://it.wikipedia....i/Maurice_Ravel

Musical influence

At first impression, he was influenced by Debussy, but in reality Ravel was also inspired by Russian and Spanish music, and by American jazz, as evidenced by the movement titled Blues from his violin and piano sonata and by the atmosphere of the Piano Concerto for the left hand, dedicated to the pianist Paul Wittgenstein, who was maimed in the war. Maurice Ravel is considered an impressionist on par with Debussy, but even while imitating the style of others, the typical character of Ravel's compositions remains evident. In 1928, Ravel stated that "the greatest fear of American composers is to find within themselves strange impulses to depart from academic rules: at this point musicians, as good bourgeois, compose their music according to the classical rules dictated by European tradition". When the American composer George Gershwin met Ravel, he spoke to him of the desire to study, if possible, with the French composer. The latter replied: "Why should you be a second-rate Ravel when you can be a first-rate Gershwin?". Some notes and fragments confirm the influence that Basque music had on the composer. Ravel commented that André Gedalge, his counterpoint professor, was fundamental to the development of his compositional qualities. Ravel studied with great expertise and meticulousness the expressive possibilities of individual instruments in order to determine their effects: this was the characteristic that allowed for the success of his orchestral transcriptions, both of his own compositions for piano and those of other composers.

Frank wrote:

I asked a question about Ravel, and his answer is somewhat the essence of what we are saying.... and it's no coincidence that I chose Russian performers.

If you search on YouTube, you will even find pianists, who do not have broad shoulders like Kissin, who, not having the "courage" (or the strength) to respect Mussorgsky's original tempo, imitate the orchestra in their piano interpretation... taking a much slower tempo than the one indicated and literally followed by Kissin himself.

here the discussion becomes one of interpretation, even if effectively few pianists manage to keep the original tempos.

Frank wrote:

Surely Ravel did not have access to the documentation that we know (there was no internet, eh!), so he imagined a great exhibition of paintings with "Putin" and the entire "army general staff"... it's a pity that today we know Mussorgsky was called to something more intimate... him and the paintings (and that's it)... so, no pompous procession Ravel-style.

And yet, as we are saying, Ravel's version influences performers (pianists) today, despite the sound decay limits of the piano, precisely because the well-known version is now indeed the orchestral one.

sI agree. If Mussorgsky had wanted something pompous, he would have used the orchestra.

Frank wrote:

Therefore, I am of the opinion that an original Ravel orchestration is better than a bad copy of the Mussorgsky-style orchestration. In Chopin's case, the problem doesn't even arise; he wrote almost exclusively for piano, so one could not be more free. As for the fact that this piece evokes a certain type of emotion in you, from my point of view, it is entirely subjective...

without involving the personal sphere... I have tried to center or get as close as possible to Chopin's intentions, and for this reason, I interpreted Geppino's version as being a bit too far off. I think that analyzing the original prelude, it is clear that with the ostinato bass, which is almost constant, Chopin wanted to communicate restlessness and torment, and that is what I tried to respect. I believe it is important to keep in mind what the composer wanted... it's not always easy, but in pieces like this, the message seems clear to me.

Frank wrote:

one piece of evidence is the Lied we wrote to a text by D'Annunzio... remember? Despite the presence of a text (a story clearer than that), you gave a "lighter" reading compared to the more dramatic or even hysterical one of others.

So, excuse me, but I won't meddle in subjective matters, and it doesn't relate to the depth of technical knowledge of a piece... we are in the emotional sphere; it would be something else if we all had to feel the same thing

I agree here too... but we wrote the lied from scratch and that's how we wanted it, making a precise choice different for each of us (that's the beauty of it).

If our lieder were transcribed for orchestra by another composer and, instead of their original character, they were transformed into something different with an opposite or very distant character from the original, the matter would be as debatable as the transcription we are talking about.

I will go and look at the book you are talking about.

I wanted to comment on R. Strauss's orchestration: I will first make some purely harmonic considerations, then I will focus on the actual orchestration.

1) bar. 16: I don't understand the F# in the vc [violoncello], especially with the F natural in the cb [contrabass]; the F# is not in harmony; there the harmony is a 3rd inversion of the B7(b5) chord (B D# F A), in fact, in the piano part, F# does not appear;

2) bar. 17: the F in the bassoon (second note) is unjustified; the harmony is a 2nd inversion of A minor; the F is only justifiable as an appoggiatura to E or anyway with a melodic function in the turn, but in the bassoon part it jumps to A, which makes it ascend to the role of a chord tone that it is not;

3) bar. 28 mov. I: 2nd violins and violas play notes that are not in harmony, which is clearly still A minor, while the mentioned instruments play F A D C; it's not understood why; furthermore, in the melody immediately after there is an F#, so that accompaniment results in being particularly unpleasant at that point;

4) bar. 29 2nd violins and violas play D C G E, but the D is not in harmony, which there is a 2nd inversion of C major (G C E, without D...); similarly, bar 30 has G sus 4 (G C D) as harmony and therefore the E in the accompaniment is not wanted. In fact, bars 29 and 30 were treated as if they had the same harmony, but that is not the case.

5) bar. 31: in the accompaniment, F (the seventh of G) appears on the harmony which is still G sus; it's not that it's an error, but I think that seventh colors the chord in an improper way at that point; if Chopin had wanted the seventh there, he would have put it there, whereas here it isn't but appears in the following bar; there must be a reason and indeed I perceive a sense, not to say annoyance, but anyway of something improper in this bar;

6) bar. 35: in many instruments D appears in an E minor harmony (2nd inversion), absolutely unjustified; in fact, that passage takes on a grotesque jazz-like color, since the harmony becomes E minor VII of the second species (!);

7) bar. 36: I want to hope that the F natural in the flute is a typo unless an chord with the simultaneous presence of major and minor thirds is intended, like altered chords in jazz... but, even assuming it's a typo, one should notice it upon listening....

8) bar. 36: many instruments (too many for me) insist on C (the flat ninth of B) which in the original is present only in the turn and not in the accompaniment; particularly unpleasant is the C# F tritone in the horns, but at least this is a choice, albeit debatable, and not a mere harmonic error like the previous ones;

9) bar. 38: I don't understand what notes the vc plays; there the harmony is Eb #5 (or, if you prefer, 2nd inversion of G#5 with the enharmonicization of the fifth from D# to Eb, Chopin does this to have the connection to the key of C minor, hence that Eb), the vc plays B F E (natural!!) B, over the Eb bass in the cb.... what harmony is that? how to justify the Eb in the cb and the E natural in the vc?? This error, for me, no offense, is truly absurd... what I don't understand is how it is possible that the cacophony is not perceived; I jumped out of my chair when I heard this passage... I repeat, no offense, even in the next movement this E natural still appears which is not in harmony.

10) bar. 42: why isn't there the Ab seventh to go to Db, since it is in the piano part? The flat ninth was used at will, now why omit the seventh?

11) bar. 50: the C natural in the vc is a typo, since there is a C# in the cb? Even if it is, where did the ear go...?

12) bar. 53 and 54: in the melody, a Bb appears which should be Db; a pity, it was the most beautiful part of the melody, I don't think Chopin would be happy with this change to his melody...

13) bar. 51: the harmony is G Bb D E, not G Bb D F; that F in the accompaniment (fg, vl II and vc) is not wanted and moreover it would completely distort the whole passage;

14) bar. 57: the harmony is 2nd inversion of D minor; the C in the flutes and oboes is not in harmony;

15) bar. 61-63: the harmony is Em7(b5)/A or, if you prefer, G minor with a major sixth over a dominant pedal; the F that appears in the accompaniment is not in harmony;

16) bar. 73: there is much to be said about that F bass because in reality the harmony there is affected by the tonic bass because in the piano part it is played with the pedal depressed, so the lowest sound results to still be D; at most I would have understood a dominant bass, but of the third degree it is not justifiable for me.

Regarding orchestral choices, I will make another post so as not to dwell too much here.

I'll look it over calmly... there might be some transcription error that I haven't had time to check.

I'll go back over it and post it.

I looked over the manuscript again and to tell the truth I am bewildered ... I don't know what happened ... there are notes that I hadn't written ... even though I passed 40 a long time ago, I don't think I'm still that bad ... anyway ...

i will tell you which ones are errors and which ones are oversights ...

geppino12575 wrote:

I wanted to comment on R. Strauss's orchestration: I will first make some purely harmonic considerations, then I will focus on the orchestration itself.

1) bar. 16: I don't understand the F# in the vc [cello], especially with the F natural in the cb [double bass], the F# is not in harmony; there the harmony is a III rev. of the B7(b5) chord (B D# F A), in fact

in the piano part, F# does not appear;

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Transcription error

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

2) bar. 17: the F in the bassoon (second note) is unjustified, the harmony is a II rev. of A minor; the F is only justifiable as an appoggiatura to E or anyway with a melodic function in the turn, but in the bassoon part it jumps to A, which causes it to rise to the role of an chordal note that it is not;

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Right. I wanted to create an internal theme

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

3) bar. 28 Mov. I: violins II and violas play notes not in harmony, which is still clearly A minor, while the mentioned instruments play F A D C, it's not understood why; furthermore, in the melody immediately after there is an F#, so that accompaniment results particularly unpleasant at that point;

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Transcription error

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

4) bar. 29 violins II and violas play D C G E, but the D is not in harmony, which there is a II rev. of C major (G C E, without D...); likewise bar 30 has as harmony G sus 4 (G C D) and therefore the E in the accompaniment is not wanted. In fact, bars 29 and 30 were treated as if they had the same harmony, but that is not the case.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Wrong copy-paste

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

5) bar. 31: in the accompaniment, F (seventh of G) appears on the harmony which is still G sus, not that it is an error but I think that seventh colors the chord in an improper way at that point; if Chopin had wanted the seventh there, he would have put it there, whereas here it isn't but appears in the following bar; there must be a reason and indeed I perceive a sense, not to say annoyance, but anyway of something improper in this bar;

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Right, my mistake.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

6) bar. 35: in many instruments D appears in an E minor harmony (II rev.), absolutely unjustified, in fact that passage takes on a grotesque jazz-like color, since the harmony becomes E minor VII of the second species (!);

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Right

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

7) bar. 36: I want to hope that the D natural in the flute is a typo unless an chord with the simultaneous [note] is intended"}

presence of major and minor thirds, like alt chords in jazz.....but, even if it is a typo, one should notice it upon listening....

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Error, the # disappeared

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

8) bar. 36: so many instruments (too many for me) insist on C (B-flat ninth) which in the original is present only in the solo part and not in the accompaniment; particularly unpleasant the tritone C F# in the horns, but at least this is a choice, albeit debatable, and not a mere harmonic error like the previous ones;

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I wanted this one.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

9) bar. 38: I don't understand what notes the vc plays, there the harmony is Eb #5 (or, if you prefer, II of G#5 with the enharmonic change of the fifth from D# to Eb, Chopin does it to have the connection to the key of C minor, that's why that Eb), the vc plays B F E (natural!!) B, over the Eb bass in the cb....what harmony is this? how to justify the Eb to the cb and the E natural to the vc?? This error for me, no offense, is truly absurd....what I can't explain is how it's possible that the cacophony isn't perceived, I jumped out of my chair when I heard this passage....I repeat, no offense, even in the following movement this E natural appears again which is not in harmony.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I can't explain what came out.

geppino12575 wrote:

10) bar. 42: why isn't there the Ab seventh to go to Db, since it is in the piano part? The B-flat ninth was used at will, now why omit the seventh?

Right.

geppino12575 wrote:

11) bar. 50: the C natural in the vc is a typo, since there is a C# in the cb? Even if it is, where did the ear go...?

Transcription error

geppino12575 wrote:

12) bar. 53 and 54: in the melody a Bb appears which should be Db; pity, it was the most beautiful part of the melody, I don't think Chopin would be happy with this change to his melody...

I didn't want to modify the melody, I can't explain this either.

geppino12575 wrote:

13) bar. 51: the harmony is G Bb D E, not G Bb D F, that F in the accompaniment (fg, vl II and vc) doesn't belong there and moreover it would completely distort the whole passage;

But the F is in the piano accompaniment in the left hand.

geppino12575 wrote:

14) bar. 57: the harmony is II of D min, the C that is in the flutes and oboes is not in harmony;

Right. My mistake.

geppino12575 wrote:

15) bar. 61-63: the harmony is E minor 7(b5)/A or if you prefer G minor with the major sixth on a dominant pedal, the F that appears in the accompaniment is not in harmony;

I can't understand where this came from either.

geppino12575 wrote:

16) bar. 73: there is something to say about that F bass because in reality the harmony suffers from the tonic bass because in the piano part it is played with the pedal depressed, so the lowest sound results to be D still, at most I would have understood a dominant bass, but of the third degree it is not justifiable for me.

To tell the truth, I had the chance to hear this chord played without the long pedal with the low D.

A partial excuse on my part in the end, I made some oversights, but something must have happened in the file because for example when the accompaniment was the same I did copy-paste and I can't understand where certain notes come from that are not in the manuscript.

In my opinion, there was a bit of chaos with the layers.

Regarding the playback, as already said, I haven't had time to check it and I only listened to it in the car.

I will at least fix the transcription errors.

geppino12575 wrote:

Regarding orchestral choices, I will make another post so as not to dwell too much here.

...I can't wait

Report 13) concerns measure 53, not 51...

geppino12575 wrote:

Report 13) concerns measure 53, not 51...

Ok.

Report 5) meas. 31 ... you are telling me about the F which is the 7th of G. But in the piano there is the F to the left as the second note.

Report 12) the D actually shouldn't be flat but natural.

Aside from the errors, I also found three others not reported by Geppino; what remains is as follows:

Reports

1) I replaced the F with a C in accordance with the A minor.

6) I removed the D and put an E

8) I removed the C from ob. and cl. and left the C only at cr4 to let it resolve with a descending semitone with cr3, which resolves with an ascending semitone, and cr 1-2 with the tritone.

10) I transformed the Ab of the accompaniment into Gb,

14) To the Fl. The C became D, while to the ob I put D-F to avoid overlapping two fifth chords in an octave.

16) After having re-sounded it, I preferred to keep the D in the double bass.

I thank Geppino again for the reports (which surely cost him some of his free time) and will post the modified version shortly.

rstrauss wrote:

Report 5) meas. 31 ... you are talking about the F which is the 7th of G. But in the piano there is the F to the left as the second note.

In the piano version I have, it doesn't seem to me that there is an F in the accompaniment in measure 31, but only in measure 32, consistently with how dominant seventh chords are used in all parts analogous to this one but in other keys. Perhaps we have two different editions; mine is Ricordi.

Another version

http://conquest.imsl..._6088_first.pdf

I note with surprise (I hadn't reflected on it before your discussion about the character of the piece) that Chopin speaks of Appassionato and not of Drammatico... among other things, the only case in the preludes where he adds a descriptive term to the metronomic indication

geppino12575 wrote:

In the piano version I have, it doesn't seem to me that there is an F in the accompaniment in measure 31, but only in measure 32, consistently with how the dominant seventh chords are used in all parts analogous to this one but in the other keys. Perhaps we have two different editions; mine is Ricordi.

I have the Paderewski edition and I confirm that the F is present in both measure 31 and 32.

I have a suspicion... at 31, the third note of the accompaniment is a C, which is clearly an appoggiatura that then resolves on the B-flat. Seen this way, it seems more plausible to me that the only different note between the two measures is precisely that C going to B.

In the Breitkopf edition, and also in Peters and in Parsons, instead of F there is a D.

Paderewski is a very authoritative publisher regarding Chopin, so I would opt for the F, but all the others put a D.

I don't know... it would take a musicologist expert in Chopin.

A partial clarification of bar 31:

Paderewski in the notes justifies the indication of F instead of D:

CM (manuscript copy) GE (Breitkopf) have a D and not an F as the second and seventh notes of the measure.

MS (manuscript) FE and EE (original editions) follow the rule of bar 13 (where Chopin in the first version wrote G and then replaced it with Bb.)

Compliments Geppino, very articulated and colorful with many dynamic excursions that make it varied and interesting.

Bravo!

@AleGozzo Complete

It's flashy and compelling and works in a virtual orchestra but...

...in passages like measure 67, the flute would never play ff.... at most p.

Furthermore, even if I am not certain, but probably an orchestral flute (so not a soloist) probably struggles in very high tessituras and it would be better to have the piccolo play it, perhaps doubled an octave below by the flutes.... perhaps the ideal would be to have the flutes play in octaves when it's that high... otherwise what would actually come out would be too thin.