Orchestration: An Anthology of Writings (review)

Abstract

ORCHESTRATION Orchestration: An Anthology of Writings. Edited by Paul Mathews. New York: Routledge, 2006. [230 p. ISBN 10: 0-415-97683-9. $35.00.] Bibliography, index, music examples. In his preface, Paul Mathews declares Hector Berlioz's Grand traite d'instrumentation et d'orchestration of 1844 watershed moment in history of (pages unnumbered in front matter). While books about instrumental practice had been published periodically since sixteenth century, no one as prominent as Berlioz had done so as extensively, nor had case been made that orchestration-to Berlioz, balancing of appropriate numbers and types of instruments, considering their differing timbres, characters, and ranges of expression-was a craft beyond mere instrumentation. Since Berlioz, many composers have written on this topic. Mathews began to collect those writings to use in classes he taught on subject at Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins University. Along way, occurred to him that they documented evolution of orchestral style in nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and comprised a useful history of philosophy and practice in this domain. resulting anthology includes writings only by composers, and further eliminates excerpts from twentieth-century orchestration textbooks, such as those by Walter Piston and Samuel Adler, on grounds that their purpose is less speculative and more technical. texts included are grouped into six chronological sections, each introduced by Mathews. He divides nineteenth-century practice into three styles: French, with mainly homophonic textures; German, predominantly contrapuntal; and New German, combining homophonic and contrapuntal. In twentieth century, historic divide between those was less evident, though Mathews detects vestiges of opposing schools of thought in conflicting remarks on use of instrumental color made by Morton Feldman and Elliott Carter. According to editor, selected texts have been reprinted here with minimal editing, and changes were normally made only to clarify nomenclature or to restore performance indications in score excerpts to their original language, where earlier authors had translated them. Music have been re-engraved based on recent editions of scores in question, and a few redundant examples (preface; page unnumbered) were omitted and footnoted. Section 1, The Early Nineteenth Century, focuses on issues concerning Beethoven's orchestration, especially Ninth Symphony, which was particularly challenging for nineteenth-century musicians as required many more instrumentalists than was norm, and a conductor to prepare and lead them in performance, also a new departure. debate evolved along mainly nationalist lines, with German composers arguing for clarity above all, even offering various improvements to Beethoven's score, while French and Russian composers insisted on fidelity to original even if that meant sacrificing clarity in performance. Claiming that deafness caused Beethoven to lose the distinct consciousness of [the orchestra's] dynamic values (p. 20), and noting limitations (p. 24) of natural brass and other instruments of his era that caused distort[ions in] established melodic curve (p. 26), Wagner proceeded to correct defects in of . . . Ninth Symphony (p. 22), calling his action a restitutio in integrum of master's intention (p. 25). On opposing side of issue, Gounod [did] not admit right of anybody to correct masters (p. 37), insisting that it is better to leave a great master his imperfections, if he has any, than to impose on him our own (p. 39). Stravinsky, too, felt a fundamental error to consider instrumentation as something extrinsic from music for which exists (p. 41). Section 2, The Late Nineteenth Century, focuses on the dialectic of French and German orchestral styles (p. …