Commentary on Opus 9 No.2 Orchestration
I have chosen Chopin Op. 9 No.2 due to the difficulties presented in scoring in Sibelius. Also, I wanted to challenge myself since my last orchestration from the piano score was not as satisfactory as expected. There were various elements I wanted to uplift in the piece and in order to do so, I began by listening following the score and noting how the rubato would interact with the tempo of 132 per quaver. This took some time and challenge, however, my studies in romantic period rubato aid the task and I believe I provided enough and concise instructions to create a flowing performance. In order to achieve some additional rubato feeling, I added a fermata at the beginning of the piece. The fermata on the minims at bar 32 were removed to allow the embellishment to shine independently and nuance-free. Allocating the melody and harmony in the orchestration presented minimal challenges as it was straightforward and clear. However, I made sure the melody was distributed between instruments. At some point, the antecedent was performed by an instrument and the consequent by another instrument. The harmony was also distributed between sections of the orchestra. The instrumentation was straightforward, woodwinds, brass, strings, and percussion section. However, due to the soft and delicate nature of the piece, only triangle, timpani, glockenspiel, and cymbals were used in the percussion. Different sections of the piece were orchestrated using a balance of instruments. In the first section of the piece the strings and woodwinds are used to support each other, passing the melody between them, I assigned the brass as the main role in the second section. The trumpet was used to infuse melodic brilliance into the orchestration, while the woodwinds offered shades of colour. In terms of dynamics and balance, and in order to enhance the resonance in the strings, I employed divis in some parts to balance the silence of other sections. This device on the second part of the piece is allocated to the woodwind section in order to achieve balance. All these distributions were decisions made with the overall instrumental balance in mind. Also, adjusting the dynamics to harmonise the different powers between sections. An example is the f dynamics in bar 11. I have chosen to mark it mf as the divisi could create an unbalanced power between instruments. Pitch corrections were made when necessary to ensure idiomatic writing. I have also researched Elaine Gould’s Behind Bars to rectify a few errors in my writing. In order to achieve accents and embellishments in the orchestration, I introduced the glockenspiel to accentuate certain phrases and add a delicate touch to the orchestration. I purposely left bar 16 the solo trumpet to introduce an element of surprise and to create the rest of the bass patterns. To further disrupt the bass patterns and create subtle variety in timber, I introduced pizzicato. In bar 18 I marked staccato to the viola and cello to emphasise the notes. To introduce further embellishments and continuity, I applied different instruments to antecedent and consequent, however, in a pitch both match their timber. To enhance the tone, and weight the timpani was assigned, however sparingly and in the final sections more constant. In addition, and to smooth the power of the brass, legato was assigned to them whereas the original score did not. The main difficulty encountered was at bar 32 in order to notate the desired effect. I initially attempted mathematical, tuple, and triplet solutions, however, without satisfactory effect. I then adjusted the notation’s duration to achieve the desired outcome. Additionally, I encountered challenges with certain triplet ratios in Sibelius, however, satisfactory fixed doing online research.
Mp3: Here
Pdf: Here
Sibelius: Here
Original: Here
Next: Reflection five
Orchestration and Arrangement 