modern composers use of the orchestra when compared with the classical masters...

[Peter]

The special effects that were so lightly touched in those days are exploited almost without reserve today.

That's the problem - special effects do not equal musical mastery, nor (on their own) do they make a good film!

[Preston]

Not only that, but instruments have changed since the time of Beethoven and the standard orchestration (if there is any) has changed a lot. Consider Mahler's orchestra compared to Beethoven's. I think that in the last 150 years there has been an expanded emphasis on the various aspects of the orchestra. The special effects that were so lightly touched in those days are exploited almost without reserve today.

I stand by what I said in my previous 2 posts, though I imagine many disagree with it.

I am convinced- that the effects (special effects, if you prefer that name more) are there in certain composers music. More so the more ancient composers- which, IMO, Beethoven's music was more like, fully mastered ancient music.

It really just depends on the composer and their understanding of how to use orchestra for "special effects". Which, IMO, many great composers had no understanding of such things.

[Preston]

That's the problem - special effects do not equal musical mastery, nor (on their own) do they make a good film!

To my mind, there is no mastery without effects. Also, there are no true effects without true mastery.

Which, IMO, many great composers had no understanding of such things.

Also, imo, there have not been many who have.

[Peter]

To my mind, there is no mastery without effects. Also, there are no true effects without true mastery.


Also, imo, there have not been many who have.

It depends what you mean by special effects - no note written by a great composer is superfluous, whereas much by 2nd or 3rd rate composers relies on 'special effects' and is musically empty.

In the hands of a master the orchestration used is integral to the piece as a whole. One of the greatest masters of the orchestra was Berlioz and for a perfect example of this listen to the Queen mab scherzo from his Romeo and Juliet symphony.

[Sorrano]

That's the problem - special effects do not equal musical mastery, nor (on their own) do they make a good film!

To use them well does require mastery. We've seen as in Stravinsky and Bartok, for example, masterful uses of the orchestra and the various effects. Composers have expanded and continue to expand the ways in which an orchestra is used. Colors have been added (I mean by the usage of "new" instruments and combinations of instruments. Instruments themselves have been enhanced, making things possible that were not in Beethoven's time. People understand better what the full capabilities of the orchestra are than at any other time. Technology has improved our understanding and use of the instruments.

[Peter]

To use them well does require mastery. We've seen as in Stravinsky and Bartok, for example, masterful uses of the orchestra and the various effects. Composers have expanded and continue to expand the ways in which an orchestra is used. Colors have been added (I mean by the usage of "new" instruments and combinations of instruments. Instruments themselves have been enhanced, making things possible that were not in Beethoven's time. People understand better what the full capabilities of the orchestra are than at any other time. Technology has improved our understanding and use of the instruments.

I don't agree Sorrano - Yes the orchestra has got bigger with more instruments and effects possible but that doesn't lessen the mastery of the earlier composers. Haydn's orchestration is often overlooked but with his limited resources it is incredibly original, especially in the minuets. He was quite adventurous and even has a passage in his symphony no.67 I think where he asks the strings to play with the wood of the bow, an effect used in Berlioz but not again till Bartok!

It isn't the size that matters, but what the composer achieves with his resources - quite frankly Beethoven achieves more in a string quartet and shows far more 'mastery and understanding' than many a score from today padded out with everything blazing at once.

Mahler thought along your lines which is why he 'touched up' Beethoven's 9th but how many want to hear his version compared to the original?

[Preston]

It depends what you mean by special effects - no note written by a great composer is superfluous, whereas much by 2nd or 3rd rate composers relies on 'special effects' and is musically empty.

To my mind, there is no mastery without effects. Also, there are no true effects without true mastery.

Thank you for helping me realize, that, the first sentence I wrote is not correct. There can be mastery without effects. The second sentence I wrote, I stand by.

I absolutely agree with you when you say- "no note written by a great composer is superfluous..." And, I like the way you look at the feeling of even one note- that is key, especially with a true master- as you said.

When I said effects I meant any type of effects the orchestra is capable of- that is only my opinion though. I really do not want to talk about it because I think many will disagree.

[Preston]

Also, we are not writing undergraduate papers, are we, ? My point is, we are having a good, deep, moderated, etc. discussion- right?

Please, any who wish to share their ideas towards the subjects at hand- please do so.

[Sorrano]

I don't agree Sorrano - Yes the orchestra has got bigger with more instruments and effects possible but that doesn't lessen the mastery of the earlier composers. Haydn's orchestration is often overlooked but with his limited resources it is incredibly original, especially in the minuets. He was quite adventurous and even has a passage in his symphony no.67 I think where he asks the strings to play with the wood of the bow, an effect used in Berlioz but not again till Bartok!

It isn't the size that matters, but what the composer achieves with his resources - quite frankly Beethoven achieves more in a string quartet and shows far more 'mastery and understanding' than many a score from today padded out with everything blazing at once.

Mahler thought along your lines which is why he 'touched up' Beethoven's 9th but how many want to hear his version compared to the original?

If you are referring to the usage of col legno, check out Mahler's 2nd Symphony.

With regards to orchestration mastery there is no doubt that there were composers in the 18th and early 19th Centuries that were at the top of that form. However, I do not feel that orchestration was as critical to that group of composers as it is today. More care is placed upon color than before. Consider Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, and Webern. Beethoven may have had a good solid understanding of his orchestra. After all, he did add several instruments to some of his orchestral works for color effect.

When you say that size does not matter, I am not concerned about size in terms of power, etc. But I am more concerned about the color combinations that you can get from a bigger palette. But to be able to use a large palette you must have more than a basic understanding of how to use it! Did Beethoven use much percussion beyond the timpani, triangle, and bass drum? My purpose is not to demean Beethoven's orchestral capabilities but rather to point out it wasn't as important to him as it is to the composer today. I may be wrong, but this is how I interpret the usage of the orchestra (and other instrumental ensembles) today.

[Preston]

Would a genius of Beethoven's level not be able to tell from the simplest sounds- what they once were, are, and what they were to become. I imagine that he would, greatly. People of such genius like that, are different. They work differently, their minds know things beyond belief- they are true geniuses. A lot of the times they are plagued with the endless problems of humanity, yet, at the same time- are all too different than common humanity- their minds work more on a divine level, well, something like that. They tap into things of the supernatural powers, imo.

I think that form is the key to true effect- I know that could seem to be completely wrong, though, I am almost convinced that form somehow relates to the true effect. Sorry if I have brought this up to much- though, I am completely fascinated and blown away by it.

Beethoven did not use the harp much either- perhaps he felt it was to "Elvish", .

[Preston]

This is just my opinion.

Wanted to touch on this subject some more. A lot of the orchestral effects now are hack and somewhat cheesy. I mean, an effect in Beethoven's and the other masters time could be done without any fancies. To the true masters- one note- is an effect, and a quite good one, too.

Such as, I have been listening to Schubert's Death and the Maiden, and the opening consists of just a D (I think, either way it does not matter) played on each instrument in the quartet and even the opening effect is far greater than that of most contemporary musicians (that I have heard) can achieve in a whole piece. After that opening the effects just build and build.

I guess in short, when you are a master- the effect(s) are within one note on any instrument, pretty much. They did need to use all the catchier, fanciful, hack, cheesy, etc. effects a lot of the modern musicians use today- because they already had them within one note.

A true master can capture a miraculous effect in just one note depending on the articulation.

[Roehre]

A true master can capture a miraculous effect in just one note depending on the articulation.

Articulation on one note

[Preston]

Articulation on one note

Sorry, I thought about editing that part. I should have said, a master can achieve a great effect based on the way the note is articulated and equally important, at the same time, the feeling or emotion the composer is trying to express.

Then of course you get into more complex situations such as layering of the instruments, the different effects each instrument can provide, etc.

Roehre, I know you listen to a lot of 20th century composers, though I was primarily talking about Hollywood composers use of the orchestra. I know too little of the actual 20th century composers, .

Hope that makes more sense.

[Sorrano]

There are some very good Hollywood composers out there that used the orchestra very effectively; I think immediately of the Alfred Hitchcock movies (there was one composer in particular who's name I can't remember) and how effective the music and orchestration was in creating and sustaining suspense throughout the movies. John Williams is extremely effective. Scoring for film has it's own challenges but there are many successful composers of that genre.

[Preston]

There are some very good Hollywood composers out there that used the orchestra very effectively; I think immediately of the Alfred Hitchcock movies (there was one composer in particular who's name I can't remember) and how effective the music and orchestration was in creating and sustaining suspense throughout the movies. John Williams is extremely effective. Scoring for film has it's own challenges but there are many successful composers of that genre.

Yes, they are quite talented- though, as I said at the beginning of this thread, I feel the modern use of the orchestra, in most cases, is entirely different from that of the masters.

I- would not say John Williams is extremely effective, because I disagree. Effective, yes, extremely, no. I feel composers like Mussorgsky, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc. use the orchestra for extreme effects, though not John Williams nor any composer I have heard in the past 50 years.