Chapter 2: Composition and Orchestration Styles
Musical Values and Style Evolutions: Composing Techniques vs. Orchestration
Main ideas:
The first consideration in planning an orchestral score should be the musical values, style, harmonic texture, and period characteristics.
Each period of music has specific identifying mannerisms to aid in deciding on the instrumentation.
Composers of orchestral music have constantly sought to expand the potentials of all the instruments at their disposal, and this experimentation in orchestration has brought about personal scoring techniques.
The development of compositional and orchestral styles is best observed by comparing different symphonies.
The quality of music and its orchestration do not depend on the amount of sonority or artificial brilliance.
The importance of style in orchestration is seen by evaluating the scores of two composers with opposing temperaments.
An interesting experiment can be conducted by playing orchestral works on the piano to illustrate the contention that the most successful orchestral scores lose their complete coloristic identification when considered apart from their original orchestral settings.
The first consideration in planning an orchestral score should be of purely musical values. What is the style of the music? Is it homophonic or polyphonic? Are its stylistic patterns characteristic of a specific period? What is its harmonic texture? When these characteristics have been properly judged, actual planning of the score can start. It should be remembered that each period of music, from the Baroque to the Modern, has rather definite, identifying mannerisms which offer specific aid in deciding upon the instrumentation (instruments used) which is in keeping with these characteristics. In orchestral transcriptions, the student would do well either to refer to original scores by the composer or, if such scores are not available, to make comparative studies of scores by other contemporary composers. A mixture of stylistic patterns in music is just as undesirable as a faulty combination of melody, rhythm, and harmony. The essentials of the music should not be changed from the original when orchestrating.
For more than two hundred years, composers of orchestral music have constantly sought to expand the potentials of all the instruments at their disposal, just as they sought to experiment with the basic elements of their craft. This predisposition toward experimentation in the matter of orchestration has, in many cases, brought about personal scoring techniques which have become identifying trademarks as much as the personal mannerisms in their compositions.
To clarify this point further, one has only to compare four representative symphonies—covering a span of a little more than one century—with differing instrumentations. The following scores are recommended for this survey: Schubert No. 5, Beethoven No. 5, Tchaikovsky No. 5, and Shostakovitch No. 5. The instrumentation of the Schubert score has less than the minimum usually associated with the Classic period, while the Shostakovitch score has a maximum one—quite regular for twentieth-century scores in this form. The two middle scores, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, become increasingly instructive when consideration is given to their identical instrumentation.
First, note the gradually increased number of wind instruments and their progressive importance, both melodically and harmonically. Then observe the writing for the brass, especially the horns and trumpets. Follow these parts in their gradual release from the scale limitations of natural horns and trumpets (valveless) to their later melodic freedom and flexibility resulting from the adoption of valve instruments. Notice that the percussion section, with the exception of the timpani, is conspicuously absent until the Shostakovitch score. Attention should also be directed to the changing details of phrasing, tessituras, and balance.
These observations apply only to instrumental considerations. They do not evaluate the extraordinary development of compositional and orchestral styles present in these symphonies. This dramatic evolution (not revolution) is best observed by a comparison of the two extremes—the Schubert and Shostakovitch scores.
In the Schubert symphony, the texture rarely deviates from the real parts of three- or four-voice harmonic spellings. There is a minimum of doublings and infrequent use of added fillers—hence a limited degree of sonority. The orchestration is pure, transparent, lucid—in keeping with the emotional level of the music.
The Shostakovitch score reveals the extent of developments in compositional techniques and orchestral thinking. Here we find frequent doublings and fillers along with sustained harmony parts. The composer seeks out the flavor and pungency of orchestral effects for their sheer coloristic values. Extremes of instrumental ranges are exploited, as are totally different spacing arrangements. Increased emphasis is given to each section of the orchestra as a complete and/or semi-independent unit, sometimes referred to as "individualized choirs." These combined factors contribute greatly to this score's greater sonority, tonal strength, and intensity.
A feeling of appropriateness pervades the pages of these four symphonies. They carry the conviction that the thematic and harmonic materials were conceived for the exact orchestration as given and that any other scoring would have been unsuitable and ineffectual.
The quality of music and its orchestration do not depend upon the amount of its sonority or artificial brilliance. There are times when a two-voiced contrapuntal line has far greater power and drive than the loudest tutti. These things are a matter of good musical taste and style and should be treated as such.
The importance of style in orchestration may be seen by evaluating the scores of two composers with opposing temperaments. For this purpose, the overtures Anacreon by Luigi Cherubini (1760-1842) and the Roman Carnival by Hector Berlioz (1803 — 1869) will serve as excellent models. In the Cherubini work, the instrumentation differs only slightly from that employed by Berlioz. The differences are in the latter's use of a piccolo, an English horn, and a percussion section. Why, then, do these overtures differ so greatly in their total effect and sonority?
The answer lies primarily in the compositional techniques of the two composers, for their styles have little in common. Cherubini, the Classicist, steeped in the tradition of the conventions and formalities of the past, was always mindful of his servant, counterpoint. The then-rising tide of Romanticism touched him but slightly and he remained constant to his conservative Classic concepts. Berlioz, on the other hand, was extravagant, daring, and explosive, with a natural inclination toward pioneering—the incarnate antithesis of conservatism. His whole concept of music making was given over to the new-found freedoms and excesses then sweeping the artistic world. He used the orchestra as a medium for the projection of his vivid, imaginative ideas—a well-nigh perfect blending of the compositional-orchestrational technique.
An interesting experiment, emphasizing these points of view, may be obtained by playing these two overtures on the piano. While Anacreon sounds convincing as abstract music, the Roman Carnival becomes surprisingly pale and colorless when divorced from its orchestral setting. Generally, this piano-playing test serves very well to illustrate the contention that the most successful orchestral scores lose their complete coloristic identification when considered apart from their original orchestral settings.