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

[Joy]

[QUOTE=Sorrano;47952]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. QUOTE]

Are you possibly thinking of Bernard Herrmann? He provided and music and the 'screaming strings' from Psycho, also for the movie 'Vertigo' and I believe he did the bird sounds and edited them together as the soundtrack to 'The Birds'.

[Sorrano]

Yes, Hermann is who I was thinking of. Also, Miklos Rozsa is another fine example of a first rate film composer who's lush orchestral scores are outstanding. There are many, many others, as well.

Preston, you have to understand, first of all, that Mozart and Beethoven's orchestras were very different than today's orchestras. All of the instruments have undergone changes and most are easier to play today. For example, trumpets have been valved so that they can play passages that would have been extremely difficult if not impossible in Beethoven's time. Timbres have changed, as well as tuning schemes. In the past 100 years there has been increased emphasis on orchestration skills; there are many books out there and classes that teach orchestration. Composers today are much more aware of these things because they have all the fine examples of the past as well as the increase of information in the present. When I listen to music of the past 50 years I can only be impressed with the orchestral skills of the composers. In this I do not demean Beethoven or any other composer of the 18th and early 19th Centuries. They were good at what they did and with the tools that they had. Those of this and the last Century are as good and have the added advantage of having their music along with everything that has come along since.

[Preston]

I am certain, musicians like your Mozart's, Beethoven's, etc. had far, far, etc. more feeling in them than any composer in this century and the 20th. Their genius is not meant to be underestimated, imo. It is profound genius- genius, that only a handful have achieved. People like John Williams, etc. come absolutely nowhere near genius- if genius entered their body, I think it would crush them to the ground, . And, because of their genius and feeling- they took music to a degree so high, so very high. Composers like Beethoven and Mozart knew things about music that not many understand- their music goes beyond the stars into the heavens, not into a typical Hollywood movie. I mean am I supposed to say the music to Jurassic Park, etc. is a glorious and profound as Beethoven's Missa Solemis, Mozart's Requiem, Bach's Mass in B-minor? Of course not, that would be absurd- these people were touched, touched by the divine powers, imo.

[Chris]

I mean am I supposed to say the music to Jurassic Park, etc. is a glorious and profound as Beethoven's Missa Solemis, Mozart's Requiem, Bach's Mass in B-minor? Of course not, that would be absurd- these people were touched, touched by the divine powers, imo.

First of all, I agree that Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach were superior to John Williams and other modern film composers. Though I wonder if you are being entirely fair in your comparison. Writing music for a film is a very different task than writing concert music. Have you ever heard any concert pieces by John Williams? I mean, something that was truly original, and not an arrangement of movie themes?

[Sorrano]

So, what does that have to do with orchestral skills? It is one thing for a piece of music to be more sublime than another, but the effective use of orchestral resources is another thing. John Williams simply has more resources at hand than did Bach. He uses them quite effectively, too. Whether you feel that his music is worth listening to is something you alone have to decide. I enjoy his music, along with that of many other Hollywood composers, as well as many other 19th, 20th, and 21st Century composers.

It is still my opinion that because the orchestral resources are greater and more diverse today that the overall techniques have improved.

I am certain, musicians like your Mozart's, Beethoven's, etc. had far, far, etc. more feeling in them than any composer in this century and the 20th. Their genius is not meant to be underestimated, imo. It is profound genius- genius, that only a handful have achieved. People like John Williams, etc. come absolutely nowhere near genius- if genius entered their body, I think it would crush them to the ground, . And, because of their genius and feeling- they took music to a degree so high, so very high. Composers like Beethoven and Mozart knew things about music that not many understand- their music goes beyond the stars into the heavens, not into a typical Hollywood movie. I mean am I supposed to say the music to Jurassic Park, etc. is a glorious and profound as Beethoven's Missa Solemis, Mozart's Requiem, Bach's Mass in B-minor? Of course not, that would be absurd- these people were touched, touched by the divine powers, imo.

[Quijote]

The argument so far has been too partisan. Only Sorrano has answered it coherently.
Contemporary masters of orchestration / instrumentation? Here is a short list : Ligeti, Boulez, Adès, Benjamin, Dillon ... the list goes on. The point is that in Beethoven's day the concept of "technical-timbral exploitation" was non-existant; the orchestra was considered as a simple "palette" of contrast, and not as a "structural building block". Or, as Trevor Wishart would put it, a question of "instrumental streaming" versus "timbral-morphological streaming". For a more developed argumentation, see : Trevor Wishart, "On Sonic Art", (Ed. Simon Emmerson), Routledge Press, 2002.

[Sorrano]

Thank you, Philip! I could not have said that better!

[Quijote]

Thank you, Philip! I could not have said that better!

Oh, I'm sure you could. For the record, your comments have been most pertinent. For me (in terms of orchestral mastery) it's a toss-up between Ligeti and Boulez, though I remain to some extent gob-smacked (excuse the vulgarity) by Scelsi.

[Quijote]

About Scelsi : I regret to say that I have not yet heard a "fully faithful" rendition of his scores, though this applies equally to Xenakis. Still, one gets the idea, and the idea is quite wonderful. What the ears miss the brain makes up for.

[Peter]

The point is that in Beethoven's day the concept of "technical-timbral exploitation" was non-existant; the orchestra was considered as a simple "palette" of contrast, and not as a "structural building block". Or, as Trevor Wishart would put it, a question of "instrumental streaming" versus "timbral-morphological streaming". For a more developed argumentation, see : Trevor Wishart, "On Sonic Art", (Ed. Simon Emmerson), Routledge Press, 2002.

Really - I don't agree - Just take the Pastoral symphony to see that's nonsense.
Then we have Berlioz who actually wrote part of the Symphonie Fantastique in 'Beethoven's day' and the majority of it very soon after.

[Sorrano]

Berlioz was more of an anomaly for his time. However, partly through his influence composers became more interested in exploring the capabilities of the instruments to their fullest.

[Quijote]

Really - I don't agree - Just take the Pastoral symphony to see that's nonsense.
Then we have Berlioz who actually wrote part of the Symphonie Fantastique in 'Beethoven's day' and the majority of it very soon after.

Enlighten me, Peter, I am always open to counter views, really I am. How does Beethoven (in the 6th) employ timbre structurally? Clearly, there are various timbres in play, but they remain an instrumental streaming of melodic content. At best, I might concede that in the Razumovsky quartets the use of (high) register approaches that concept, but it is far from being structural in the sense I use it. My point (and Sorrano's, if I may speak for him) is that timbre in Beethoven's day was not given the prime place that it has had since the early 20th century. And why is that? Well, I do believe it has to do with notational practice (hard to notate timbre, easy to notate pitch). Hence, my joy in electroacoustic music.
Your Berlioz comment above strikes me as a non sequitur.

[Peter]

Enlighten me, Peter, I am always open to counter views, really I am. How does Beethoven (in the 6th) employ timbre structurally? Clearly, there are various timbres in play, but they remain an instrumental streaming of melodic content. At best, I might concede that in the Razumovsky quartets the use of (high) register approaches that concept, but it is far from being structural in the sense I use it. My point (and Sorrano's, if I may speak for him) is that timbre in Beethoven's day was not given the prime place that it has had since the early 20th century. And why is that? Well, I do believe it has to do with notational practice (hard to notate timbre, easy to notate pitch). Hence, my joy in electroacoustic music.
Your Berlioz comment above strikes me as a non sequitur.

I was referring to your 'simple palette of contrast' not your blocks of concrete!

[Quijote]

I was referring to your 'simple palette of contrast' not your blocks of concrete!

Yes. So you have confirmed my point.

[Peter]

Yes. So you have confirmed my point.

Not at all - I do not accept Beethoven was using the orchestra in the Pastoral as simple colour contrast. What about his immitation of bird-song? I'm sure the 6th had great influence on Berlioz's revolutionary approach to orchestration.