Thread: Is Tchaikovsky a greater orchestrator than Brahms?

Originally Posted by BurningDesire

I think they were both great orchestrators. Personally I think orchestration can be viewed in 2 ways: from an artistic sense and a practical sense. In the practical sense, I think it is quite possible to narrow down somebody as objectively better. Stravinsky and Ravel were way better at this than Beethoven or Zappa, in terms of writing extremely idiomatically for the instruments, being able to write so that everything is balanced and easily heard, things aren't covering up other things unintentionally, instruments aren't expected to play things that are extremely difficult for them without preparation, parts are divided up cleverly to allow players a chance to breath and rest. However, in the artistic sense, it all somewhat comes down to personal preference. In addition to the practical aspects, orchestration is about color. Timbre is extremely important, even going back to the classical and baroque and ancient music. Why have such a variety of instruments, if not for the colors that such variety lends to music? I tend to prefer Romantic through contemporary orchestration, because you have alot more imagination employed in it. In the classical period, everything is so homogenized, which is why I tend to not enjoy that period, so much is by-the-book in melody, harmony, form, and in orchestration. Personally its hard for me to choose a favorite orchestrator (just as it is hard to choose a favorite composer). In particular, though, I love Tchaikovsky, who I think it academically under-rated in pretty much every aspect of his writing (everybody favors either Wagner or Brahms). Brahms also did beautiful things with color in his orchestrations, though I think Tchaikovsky's is a bit more imaginative simply because his writing drew on more diverse influences, including his native Russian folk music, and the folk and classical music of western Europe. Both he and Brahms took heavy influence from Mozart and Beethoven in the classicist elements of their work, but Brahms' writing I think is stuck in Germany, and Germany I don't find to be especially interesting compared to other places.

tldr: I prefer Tchaikovsky, more diverse and imaginative in his writing than Brahms, imo. But I think they are both brilliant.

Your best post evar

Originally Posted by Sonata

I like you.

Why thank you Sonata! I like you too, since your posts about Brahms have managed to get me listening to Brahms, something very few have managed to do.

Have you heard my orchestration yet?

"In the music of this master (for his mastery can of course not be denied) there is something dry and cold which repels my heart. He has very little melodic inventiveness; his musical thoughts are never spoken out to their conclusion; no sooner has one heard a suggestion of a melodic form that can be easily appreciated, than the latter has already sunk into a whirlpool of meaningless harmonic progressions and modulations."

This is all, of course, subjective.
I love all the Greats, and certain pieces always transport me - Bach violin concerto and Goldberg variations, Mozart requiem and 23rd piano concerto, Beethoven's 6th and 9th symphonies - But when I listen to the Brahms piano and violin concertos, my mind is drawn into an intricate and totally absorbing world - shall I call it colors, or math, or psychedelics? All I can say is, these do for me what none other can do.

WARNING! TOTALLY ABSURD, ARBITRARY, BIGOTED, SUBJECTIVE POST

The answer is Brahms!!! Alas! My poor Adler feels neglected.

(Note: Tchaikovsky never composed a contrabassoon part. They did not have any in Russia. They kept burning them to stay warm in the winter.)

The orchestral elements of Tchaikovsky's orchestral works are more prominent than the non-orchestral components due to the nature of his music; when we think of his works, which we think of in a series of differences, the salient differences are in the sound, the orchestration, as the substance of the music is by and large homogeneous. Brahms simply did not write orchestral works of that nature; if he did, who knows? I suspect he would outdo Tchaikovsky. Mahler certainly did, but he paid a heavy price for synthesizing the symphonic form with Wagner's orchestral innovations.

Originally Posted by http://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2011/03/21/in-praise-of-the-imperfect/

A creative work, however, can be perfect. For my money, Brahms is a pretty consistently perfect composer. I suppose not everyone agrees. I remember a friend in college, a young composer possessed of the certainty of youth, who said “Brahms is a terrible orchestrator. Maybe the worst ever. Everything is so dark and dull- he just didn’t know how to use percussion. A real orchestrator would have used timbers like glockenspiel to double those endless violin melodies and give them some sparkle.”

The mind reels at the idea of the theme of the Finale in Brahms 1 doubled with glockenspiel. I think his orchestration is, well, pretty damn perfect.

Brahms….He never wrote (or at least never published) a bad, uneven or unfinished piece. The early pieces don’t sound like he has anything left to do to become Brahms and the late ones don’t sound like he’s running out of gas. You never find a passage that seems a little short on inspiration or a little weak on craft. Pretty much everything he wrote strikes a flawless balance between emotional engagement and intellectual rigor. You feel like the artistic personality is absolutely defined, but not limited. The four symphonies are, beginning to end, like so much else he wrote, pretty much perfect works.

I think the arrangement is also exhibit A in why Brahms is the 2nd most underrated orchestrator ever, after Schumann. It’s not that people think Brahms is a bad orchestrator (a charge often erroneously leveled by fools at the great Bobby Schumann), it’s just they don’t think of him as an orchestrator, yet his orchestration is incredibly personal and hard to replicate. At least Schoenberg seemed to find it hard. It always engages the musicians and always serves the music.

I vote Brahms. I'm certain that if Tchaikovsky was given Brahm's unorchestrated scores he would have foundered it. If Brahms had orchestrated Tchaikovsky's ballets he probably would've done better. The problem is that Brahms would have considered the work beneath him. Remember how many drafts of his first symphony he burned. Brahms was probably too resistant to Wagner for his own good. Without Otello and Falstaff (and Aida) we wouldn't think of Verdi as a great orchestrator either even though he had it in him all along.

The question of the thread is "Is Tchaikovsky a greater orchestrator than Brahms?" not "Whose orchestrations are more colorful and orchestra-emphasized" so hypothetical scenarios are valid. This is not the same with "who was a better composer" debates devolving into "if Mozart or Schubert had lived another X years" because the skill of Brahms' orchestrations are already manifest in existing works while the trajectory of talent and output of composers who died young are purely speculative; if Mendelsson had died at 18 it's plausible that many would proclaim him a great musical genius on par with Mozart and Schubert; if Stravinsky kicked the bucket in 1913 I'm certain that many would proclaim him greater in Beethoven in intrinsic talent due to speculations on what his future output would be.

I think it is very difficult to separate orchestration from composition and in pre-romantic era it may be pretty pointless.
In the case of someone like Ravel who composed all his music on the piano and orchestrated after, it is possible to appreciate his incredible ear for sonority and faultless orchestral craft.
With Brahms and Tchaikovsy, I think their use of the orchestra goes hand in hand with their material. Tchaik's soaring melodies and blocks of chord progressions are brought out by his clear and direct instrumentation. Brahms more motivic and dense textures I think require a different approach. I wouldn't be able to say who was a better orchestrator.

Although Brahms and Tchaikovsky are equal when it comes to balance, and the strings, Tchaikovsky I think is a bit better when it comes to woodwind and brass writing. Most musicians will say that Brahms makes very boring parts for the woodwinds and brass, but Tchaikovsky gives well-rounded parts for all the players. And, although Brahms wrote my favorite flute solo of all time (in the 4th symphony IV), I supremely enjoy playing Tchaikovsky's music whenever I can, I've done 4 things in the past. So, with a biased perspective, I vote Tchaikovsky.

I find it difficult to judge orchestration when the composer is using only the "standard" orchestra. This is true of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann as well as Brahms.

Originally Posted by Petwhac

I think it is very difficult to separate orchestration from composition....

With Brahms and Tchaikovsy, I think their use of the orchestra goes hand in hand with their material. Tchaik's soaring melodies and blocks of chord progressions are brought out by his clear and direct instrumentation. Brahms more motivic and dense textures I think require a different approach. I wouldn't be able to say who was a better orchestrator.

I've never liked Petwhac's posts, especially those whacked out (whaced out?) non sequiturs he (she?) is so good at.

And I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't even like Petwhac in real life.

Or was until I read this. This is spot on. And even more impressive, it's a sensible response to an extremely silly premise. Great job!

Originally Posted by some guy

I've never liked Petwhac's posts, especially those whacked out (whaced out?) non sequiturs he (she?) is so good at.

And I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't even like Petwhac in real life.

Or was until I read this. This is spot on. And even more impressive, it's a sensible response to an extremely silly premise. Great job!

Yes well, I have heated debates with my very dear friends too. I'm not such a bad chap really (or chap-ess?)

The only thing Tchaikovsky does better than Brahms is emote.

Originally Posted by science

The only thing Tchaikovsky does better than Brahms is emote.

Hah. An excellent example of the inaccurate bon mot.

Originally Posted by science

The only thing Tchaikovsky does better than Brahms is emote.

Brahms does it just as well but just not for so long.

Originally Posted by Hilltroll72

Hah. An excellent example of the inaccurate bon mot.

You're right. I'd forgotten about opera.

If Brahms had only written an opera. He should've done Lear.

Originally Posted by science

You're right. I'd forgotten about opera.

If Brahms had only written an opera. He should've done Lear.

And you're right. Lear would have been a perfect vehicle for the 'mature' Brahms.