The SPECTROTONE will change your life

Ah, let the funtimes begin.

There wasn't much to reply to was there?

Other than the implied bitterness: "Oh, fame and success are subjective or irrelevant, and if I refuse to acknowledge that people are famous and successful, then they mustn't be!" That's a load. It is better to learn from people who are fantastically more successful than you, than to redefine success so you feel better about your life.

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity? I don't really CARE if someone is famous or not, or if they are "successful," I care much more about what they DID. If I happen to not like what they did, they can be the most famous and "successful" people in the universe and I won't give much of a damn.

Besides, your knowledge of history has serious holes if you actually believe this. Then, what, you'll ignore Bach, Satie, etc because they weren't famous and/or "successful" during their time, or suddenly there are exceptions. There are thousands upon thousands of composers who don't reach popularity, it says nothing for their art or what counts as "successful."

Oh, yeah, and please DO define what you mean with "success," since I'm highly curious to see if you actually believe you fit it yourself.

I also didn't reply to the statement "there is no such thing as good orchestration either and everything is relative" that SSC posted on the last page (direct quote). Because why bother? It's just not true, it's a slight to orchestrators everywhere.

SSC acts like YC is his own little troll playground, I've put him on Ignore and just won't reply to anymore of his BS.

So it's not true because you say it is? But hey apparently you tried to give some arguments so I'll continue this below.

It's fine if you put me on ignore, I don't care if YOU see my statements. After all, you are already making a fool of yourself on an open forum and showing just how big those holes in your knowledge and experience are... plus that you can't really use the search feature as all of what you're saying has been discussed ad nauseum and most of these bullshit statements have been already debunked.

Is it only because we say it does? Harmonies sound different based on the ratios between note-frequencies... Tones blend or clash based on the combination of their sound waves. Two tones of radically different timbres will always be heard distinctly no matter what century it is (and like timbres will blend). Sound doesn't change... Looking back, the only real allowance we should make in evaluating orchestration is for the differing sound/technique of period instruments.

For example Beethoven is a terrible orchestrator from the POV of someone playing a modern valved horn or a modern trumpet (awful voice leading, leaps of 7ths etc) but not so from the POV of someone playing a brass instrument of the era, whose limitations are built into B's music.

POINT OF VIEW? Well Weca, make up your mind! You implied POV didn't matter, then you say it does? So you actually agree that it's relative and therefore "good" orchestrations are only dependent on A) what is "good" to the person and B) if it fits that personal and individual criteria.

It all comes down to a question of taste, regardless of how the orchestra sounds like, or how anything actually sounds like. The composer is a master of sound, not a slave to it.

Oh, and I hope you don't mean to imply that "awful voice leading" = "awful music" or anything like that... but considering what you've been saying so far, I'm not too optimistic.

And I'll tell you right now, Charles Ives? Yeah everyone thought at the time he was a horrible orchestrator, that what he wrote was unplayable, bla bla bla. Now? Standard repertoire for a lot of orchestras. Were they hypocritical? No, not really. They just rejected change, and later as time moved on changed their mind thanks to the influence of cultural aspects beyond their control.

Or do you seriously think that an orchestra that existed during Beethoven's time would've played Ligeti's music? And yet, it's also (somewhat) standard repertoire now. You even said he was an "expert colorist," which by the by, you haven't defined.

At the same time, whatever orchestra plays his music, it's too obvious that Beethoven composed at the piano (just like it's obvs that Bruckner had all his ideas at the organ) and that he didn't really care, at points, whether his orchestration was idiomatic or carefully balanced. Compare with Ravel... I'd say Ravel is a "better" orchestrator than Beethoven...

It's "obvious," eh? Well interestingly, I tend to think the opposite. What Beethoven did for piano writing, specially his sonatas, is that he applied concepts of orchestration to the piano so he would often end up with chords and things where normally it wouldn't be allowed (like the very low registers.)

Furthermore, saying Beethoven didn't care about how his orchestral work sounded is the biggest piece of misinformation you could have possibly said. He was obsessed with getting rid of the sectional orchestration practices of the Vienna school and started applying techniques across instruments.

Another thing is that there's nothing wrong with "writing at the piano," either. I don't think Beethoven, being the cool guy he was, let that have an influence on his orchestral work and if it did, well so what? I don't think the end product sounds bad (as much as I may not like Beethoven's actual music) so it doesn't really matter if he wrote it using a piano or a toilet for all I care.

But even ignoring all this, comparing Ravel to Beethoven is like comparing Bach to Machaut. There's nothing to go by, since they're writing entirely different music in an entirely different context, in an entirely different time frame. Frankly why even bother? Saying Ravel is a "better orchestrator" than Beethoven is the same as saying Machaut's voice work is "better" than Bach's, it means nothing.

Even from an analysis standpoint it's sort of useless except for a historical side note, same here.

oh my God why are you a reviewer

Oh SSC, just go away!