Chopin and Schumann's ORCHESTRAL LIMITATIONS

[jhon]

Compare their piano cocnertos. With Chopin's, the piano is being often dominant than the orchestra (and those long orchestral intro is somewhat a "make-up" for this). In Schumann's, it's the other way around - the orchestra is more dominant as many piano parts are simply in UNISON/TUTTI with the orchestra.  I also heard that Schumann once admitted his piano concerto is much more like made as a "symphony" because the main themes are always employed by the orchestra and the piano is almost used only for episodes, transitions, and development.

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to devalue the composers.  What I'm just trying to point out is that they may have orchestral limitations and that is only because they are BETTER (if not, best) in composing pieces SOLELY for piano alone and such I think is why Chopin is regarded as the "poet of the piano" - basically because MOST of his compositions are for piano.  Now, like Chopin, Schumann I think would also deserve such title next to Chopin.  (Do you know any Schumann orchestral work aside from the concerto?)

[Rach3]

Schumann wrote four incredibly good symphonies, which are in fact very famous (three of them are named). He also wrote a well-known cello concerto, and a violin concerto which I'm not familiar with.

[Waldszenen]

Schumann wrote four incredibly good symphonies, which are in fact very famous (three of them are named). He also wrote a well-known cello concerto, and a violin concerto which I'm not familiar with.

I'll expand on that;

- Four symphonies, the latter three with good orchestration

- Cello concerto, excellent orchestration

- Violin Concerto, not so famous but overall decent orchestration

- Piano Concerto, moderately poor orchestration but still overall a very famous one

- Two Klavierstucke for Piano and Orchestra (Introduction and Allegro and Introduction and Allegro Appassionato) with superb orchestration


Now, Schumann's orchestration might not be so good compared to Brahms or Tschaikowsky, but we've all got to admit - it's infinitely better than Chopin's ever was.

[jhon]

Now, Schumann's orchestration might not be so good compared to Brahms or Tschaikowsky, but we've all got to admit - it's infinitely better than Chopin's ever was.

Agreed.  Even chopin's four concert pieces (Op.2, Op.13, Op.14, and Op.22) have the piano so dominant and orchestra too seldom that they can be (and are often) played as piano solo,

[hodi]

I'll expand on that;

- Four symphonies, the latter three with good orchestration

- Cello concerto, excellent orchestration

- Violin Concerto, not so famous but overall decent orchestration

- Piano Concerto, moderately poor orchestration but still overall a very famous one

- Two Klavierstucke for Piano and Orchestra (Introduction and Allegro and Introduction and Allegro Appassionato) with superb orchestration


Now, Schumann's orchestration might not be so good compared to Brahms or Tschaikowsky, but we've all got to admit - it's infinitely better than Chopin's ever was.

You forgot some pieces

 - Fantasy for Violin & Orchestra in C Major, op.131 (IMO it's a great piece, very melodic)
 - Konzertstuck for 4 horns & Orchestra in F Major, op.86 (didn't hear it much, i bought a cd with it not so long ago)

HOW would u define poor orchestration?

i would say a good orchestration is one that makes the maxium use of every instrument, and make every instrument very individual, like in brahms piano concerto no.1

[presto agitato]

The first movement of Schumann´s Piano Concerto was original written as a fantasy for Piano and Orchestra.

[Waldszenen]

You forgot some pieces

 - Fantasy for Violin & Orchestra in C Major, op.131 (IMO it's a great piece, very melodic)
 - Konzertstuck for 4 horns & Orchestra in F Major, op.86 (didn't hear it much, i bought a cd with it not so long ago)

HOW would u define poor orchestration?

i would say a good orchestration is one that makes the maxium use of every instrument, and make every instrument very individual, like in brahms piano concerto no.1

I agree - that's the definition of good orchestration. Also when each instrument is given unique roles and the composer is able to create a unique sound using each combined timbre of the instruments.

Bad orchestration, on the other hand, is when the sound is imbalanced or when the techniques and abilities of each instrument aren't fully recognised by the composer.

[Nightscape]

A good orchestration does not necessarily have to make maximum use of every instrument.  In fact, the most creative and original orchestrators knew the capabilities and limitations of the instruments and instrument combinations and knew when and where to use them, and especially when and where not to use them.  To illustrate my point, let me compare a masterwork of orchestration, and a mediocre (but still good) orchestration:  Ravel's Daphnis et Chloé ballet and Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet ballet.  Now, I don't know if Prokofiev orchestrated this or not, but Ravel did orchestrate his ballet.  The Prokofiev ballet is extremely long, about two hours and features a rather uniform type of orchestration throughout.  It is an interesting orchestration for sure, very Prokofiev sounding, but still two hours of it can quickly become tiresome for the ear.  It would be a good orchestration if the piece were shorter than 20 minutes or so, but being so long, it should have some large contrasts throughout the work.  The Ravel ballet, however, is a masterpiece of orchestration and is certainly one of the greatest, if not greatest, examples of orchestration there is.  The ballet is about one hour long, and is organized into 12 distinct musical sections. Each section of course features a different type of orchestration.  The first part, the Introduction et danse religieuse, features strings, flute,clarinet and french horn solos, and most distinctively a wordless chorus.  The solos that open the work show off thier respective instruments (esp the high clarinet solo).  The piece quickly builds to a climatic section, in which suddenly the trumpets enter and soar above a the hovering, pulsating, chorus.  But Ravel knows when to back off as well, as much of this piece has a very intimate feel, featuring only two or three instruments at a time.  Especially nice is the wonderful solo violin at the end of this section.  The following section, Scène - Danse générale, provides and excellent contrast with the warm, languid sounds of the first section.  This section features incisive trumpets, and also the percussion.  The most impressive parts of the ballet (orchestra wise) occur in the final three sections.  In the "Lever du jour", a wonderful effect is created (and very unique too) by using a wash of pianissimo flutes and clarinets fluttering along.  This creates an almost watery, liquid effect for the accompaniement.  The following "Daphnis et Chloé miment l'aventure de Pan et Syrinx" is most notable for the virtuositic flute solo, which explores almost the full capabilities of the instrument.  In fact, this part sounds very much like a flute concerto - a unique way of thinking within a large work, to give one instrument such a prominent role in a non-concerto.  The final section, the dazzling "Danse générale" sounds to me like one of the most virtuoistic pieces for an orchestra to play.  Here Ravel takes advantage of the agility of the clarinets and flutes, which play at blazing fast speeds.

Anyway, to conclude after a lengthy discussion of Ravel, I believe the definition of a good orchestration, is an orchestration that shows an understanding and appreciation of the various instruments, and an orchestration that uses the timbres created by blending instruments in a such a way as to enhance the quality of the music, and not to create a muddled, predictable blur of sound (unless that's what you're going for of course.) 

Sadly, most piano concertos have rather uninspiring and unambitious orchestrations, perhaps to make the piano stand out more.  Of course, two notable and beautiful exceptions are Ravel's two piano concertos.