The Evolution of Modern Orchestration

by Louis Adolphe Coerne

With the advent of Rossini (1792-1868), the triumph of Italian aria was resumed. His operas are the embodiment of Italian emotionalism. But although much of his music must be condemned as entirely irrelevant to the demands of the dramatic situation or of the sentiment to be expressed, his orchestration was certainly an advance upon antecedent Italian methods. On the other hand, there are but few new features in his instrumentation; this consisted of certain restricted and oft-repeated formulas, of which, however, Rossini had perfect command. His crowning achievement was, of course, "Guillaume Tell." Here the orchestration plainly betrays a happy fusion of Italian and French styles. The string writing is full of life; due regard is shown to the wind instruments, and effective solos are assigned more particularly to the English horn and the French horns. The improvements that Rossini made in horn writing were probably due to the fact that his father was a horn player. Parenthetically, the same statement might be made in reference to Richard Strauss. It is also interesting to note in passing that Rossini used two batons in conducting,—a short one for arias and a long one for ensemble.

VI.

At this point it is fitting that we examine the dazzling orchestration of Meyerbeer (1791-1861), for his career is, of course, inseparably allied with the evolution of French opera. As the most famous representative of French romantic and historic grand opera, Meyerbeer would appear, at first sight, to have embraced in his operas every conceivable meretricious device for the sensational and the spectacular. He was above all an eclectic, modelling his works largely after those of Spontini, being likewise strongly influenced by Weber, combining German harmony, Italian melody, and French rhythm. His was a marked departure from the school of Gluck—so much so, that he has been accused of "playing with dynamic effects" and writing "hollow" music that cannot withstand æsthetic analysis. In a large measure such censure is merited, but it is manifestly an error in judgment to declare as one writer does that his productions are comprised of but "dazzling effects, glaring contrasts, and clever instrumental devices." True, the contents of his operas are certainly an alternating mixture of the grandiose and the paltry, but as for orchestration, none have surpassed him in judicious distribution of sonorous masses, in forceful dramatic effects, richness of details, and successful application of the individual characteristics of each instrument. Again, the consistent recurrence of a specific tone-color as the annotator to a dramatic personage contains the germ of the Leit-motiv. And for ever varying resource of instrumentation few can excel him! And no composer before him was his peer as a dramatic painter.

Meyerbeer of course relied primarily upon the strings as the basis of his orchestra, but they are frequently replaced by independent combinations of wind instruments. In this connection, it is worthy of especial note that complete groups of kindred instruments are employed alone, and almost invariably in complete four part harmony. Meyerbeer's scoring for full orchestra was practically identical with Spontini's; each group is again complete in four part harmony, doubled and redoubled in the octave. Though his accompaniments are heavy, it will be found that the voice is usually supported by a solo instrument. He developed great variety in string writing. The violins and violoncellos are frequently subdivided into numerous parts. The characteristics of high violins and again of low double-basses soli are brought into prominence. Passages are to be found in which parts of the strings are muted while the remainder are simultaneously employed without mutes. The viola d'amore is carefully treated, as, for instance, in Raoul's Romance in the first act of "Les Huguenots." The harp is used extensively, both in arpeggios and in broad chords. The English horn and bass-clarinet are constantly used as regular constituents of the secondary group, and the latent dramatic powers of the clarinet are intensified; again, every one is familiar with the earliest of bass-clarinet solos in "Les Huguenots." Apart from more common methods of employing the wood-wind group by itself, Meyerbeer was fond of peculiar combinations such as piccolo flute and English horn, or bass-clarinet and trumpet an octave apart. Further entirely novel combinations are the assignment of a melody to the English horn and bass-clarinet in unison, or the redoubling of the violoncellos by a flute two octaves above. Great variety in mixed tints is to be found. The most common is the combination in solo passages of violoncello and bassoon; more complex is the union of violins, tremolo, together with three flutes, all in the high range, while an English horn or a bass-clarinet produces the melody below. Or two clarinets and two bass-clarinets are united to violoncellos in three-part writing. One of Meyerbeer's chief contributions to instrumentation lay in his methods of scoring for the brass. In "Les Huguenots" a veritable military band is introduced upon the stage; the band includes both reeds and brass—likewise piccolo flutes. And the newly invented sax-horns were drawn into requisition for "Le Prophète." The kettle-drums acquired greater freedom than even Beethoven had allowed them, and "Robert le Diable" contains actual solos for the instruments. In different works, as many as three and four kettle-drums were employed. In conclusion, it is not necessary to dwell upon the realistic impression provoked by the sounding of a gong in connection with the Resurrection of the Nuns in "Robert le Diable"; nor need the reader be reminded of the deep-toned bell used for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew in "Les Huguenots." All in all, though Meyerbeer's scoring is frequently brutal, it is intensely dramatic and original.

VII.

We have now traced the wonderful growth of orchestration through the entire eighteenth century and well into the nineteenth. And the contributions thereto by the great Italian and French masters are by no means to be underestimated even though the German classicists tower above them. A final summing up of their general methods of instrumentation will properly conclude this chapter.

The classic symphony realizes its principal effects from the dialogue of instruments rather than from their collective forces. The primary object was clearness of polyphonic design, and since clearness of detail does not admit of great force, the first and second orchestral groups were rarely united other than in forte passages.

When examining the scores of the classics, it is important to keep in mind that in their day the numerical distribution of the string band was limited. Therefore force and volume of tone could only be obtained by keeping the intermediate and lower parts constantly in motion. Particularly the violas were inadequately represented, and it will be found that any important viola melody was almost invariably doubled by some other instrument.

The classic use of the flute for tuttis was generally like that of a four-foot organ stop. Many of the earlier functions of the oboe gradually passed to the more responsive clarinet. But the frequent employment of divided violas as auxiliary to the wind was due to the former absence of adequate contralto wind instruments.

The larger symphonic orchestra of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven added two trumpets to the third group, acquiring thereby a feminine metallic diapason capable of masculine energy. In the exposition of their symphonies, the classicists usually gave the first theme to the strings, the second to the wood. The brass was reserved for climaxes, and the trumpets entered last. But the limitation of the "natural" trumpet was detrimental for employing it with invariable symmetry in the recurrence of thematic design. In employing the full orchestra, held chords were assigned to the second group as a support to the strings, whereas the third group added short rhythmic chords.