Moonlight sonata arranged for orchestra

A wonderful video sprang across my YouTube feed a few days ago. All the information in the video was news to me -- essentially, the claim is that we've been playing the Beethoven "Moonlight Sonata" the wrong way for two centuries, inspired by a poor nickname that really doesn't fit the piece at all! The professor's fresh interpretation of the first movement at the end of the video suddenly inspired me to try to orchestrate the piece, as I was having a lot of interesting ideas I thought I might try in order to create a really unorthodox interpretation. Before this week I had always thought Moonlight was a sort of cliched piece, but the professor brought it back to life and showed me it's famous for a reason....

The work was surprisingly quick, even though I was also trying Musescore 4 for the first time. Figured I'd give it a whirl on a short side project rather than a main composition. (Spoiler: it's actually pretty awesome. The sounds are amazing.)

My overall aim was to recreate some of the tragic funeral march character that is usually lost in most modern interpretations, but also to emulate the "ghostly" quality of which Carl Czerny spoke. I've accordingly created more active, dense, even "smeary" textures instead of transparent and simple ones. Overall I want to kill the whole notion that this piece is supposed to be "relaxing"!

This was a great orchestration challenge for me. Some of the creative decisions I made were born of necessity; others were just pure indulgence on my part. I actually took a lot of liberties; the piece is faithfully adapted insofar as the overall structure and proportions are preserved, but I freely modify harmonies and add new voices and contrapuntal layers where I see fit.

The bass clarinet and contrabasses both need low Cs for this transcription.

It sounds very good, indeed.
Two observations, from my point of view:
1) I think the piano arpeggio is passed to the orchestra too literally, all the time.
2) The register of the flutes, in general, is very low.

Hey @Sean Brown,

Yes you are right, the original intention of the movement should be faster than many of the modern interpretations. I think Jando's choice of tempo quite fitting to the original intention, what do you think?

By the way his third movement playing is in GOD mode!!!!

I think adding the extra tremolos in section B makes the music more exciting and less serenely sad. The excitement in section D you added with the added layers and faster rhythmic notes for me is not fitting to the original version and intention, since it's more cinematic here, but to be treated as a new arrangement it's quite creative. Maybe I'm too used to the original version that I don't like any subsequent arrangement of it and that's personal. The sound is good, but in a different way than the original version, and the mood is changed to a more broad texture. Thx for sharing!

Henry

35 minutes ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Hey @Sean Brown,

Yes you are right, the original intention of the movement should be faster than many of the modern interpretations. I think Jando's choice of tempo quite fitting to the original intention, what do you think?

By the way his third movement playing is in GOD mode!!!!

I think adding the extra tremolos in section B makes the music more exciting and less serenely sad. The excitement in section D you added with the added layers and faster rhythmic notes for me is not fitting to the original version and intention, since it's more cinematic here, but to be treated as a new arrangement it's quite creative. Maybe I'm too used to the original version that I don't like any subsequent arrangement of it and that's personal. The sound is good, but in a different way than the original version, and the mood is changed to a more broad texture. Thx for sharing!

Henry

 

 

Like I said, I took a ton of liberties, and I wasn't directly shooting to recreate the original intention perfectly, per se 🙂 I just wanted to get the listener into that same kind of headspace, rather than the typical "calm relaxation" crap we hear a lot associated with this piece.

Wow, I love this. I've come across that video a couple years ago as well, and thought that it would be so nice with a quicker tempo. I made a half-hearted attempt back then to arrange it for guitar and violin (for my brother and me) and give the guitar the arpeggios as the background instead of the melody how it is often performed on piano. 

I think you have done a fantastic job arranging it for orchestra. I like the "usual" version of the moonlight, but this is like a different version, a different piece almost, and it brings out such a different character. Would you mind if I show this recording to friends, or did you maybe put it on youtube? Definitely going to credit you.

1 hour ago, AM-Valkyrie said:

Wow, I love this. I've come across that video a couple years ago as well, and thought that it would be so nice with a quicker tempo. I made a half-hearted attempt back then to arrange it for guitar and violin (for my brother and me) and give the guitar the arpeggios as the background instead of the melody how it is often performed on piano. 

I think you have done a fantastic job arranging it for orchestra. I like the "usual" version of the moonlight, but this is like a different version, a different piece almost, and it brings out such a different character. Would you mind if I show this recording to friends, or did you maybe put it on youtube? Definitely going to credit you.

 

Absolutely, go for it. 

My comment won't go down well although it's sincerely meant. For a start, the movement is too fast. Secondly, highly pianistic, reliant on the percussive "envelope" of piano tone. Too easily here, the orchestra or orchestration cloy up, removing any feeling of delicacy for me, especially when brass came blasting in. Sure, it's a sustained piece but the sustaining is done by the decay-release of the piano itself. 

Thirdly, if Beethoven had wanted to write it for an orchestra he would have done, was perfectly capable.

When I clicked on the MP3 I realised you'd only done the first movement. I was wondering what you'd make of the third movement. It seems more susceptible to instrumentation than this one.

I really appreciate that Beethoven's piano music is bait for rearrangement. During such student days as I had, up came a couple of excerpts. But the Op 27 Sonata is probably among the most difficult to bring off. 

12 minutes ago, Quinn said:

My comment won't go down well although it's sincerely meant. For a start, the movement is too fast. Secondly, highly pianistic, reliant on the percussive "envelope" of piano tone. Too easily here, the orchestra or orchestration cloy up, removing any feeling of delicacy for me, especially when brass came blasting in. Sure, it's a sustained piece but the sustaining is done by the decay-release of the piano itself. 

Thirdly, if Beethoven had wanted to write it for an orchestra he would have done, was perfectly capable.

When I clicked on the MP3 I realised you'd only done the first movement. I was wondering what you'd make of the third movement. It seems more susceptible to instrumentation than this one.

I really appreciate that Beethoven's piano music is bait for rearrangement. During such student days as I had, up came a couple of excerpts. But the Op 27 Sonata is probably among the most difficult to bring off. 

 

I'm going to push back a bit on your comments in defense of the choices I made. I don't believe the movement should be played any slower. If I recall correctly, my tempo is pretty much exactly what Czerny tells us it is supposed to be, except I wrote h=30 in my score in lieu of q=60 to emphasize that the piece is indeed written in 2/2, not 4/4. h=30 is indeed a very slow adagio in 2/2.

The "lack of delicacy" was also intentional. I felt if I made the piece too delicate it would again fail to capture the tragic, depressed, funereal spirit I was really aiming for. The reference recording that inspired me (played on a fortepiano) was naturally rather percussive in nature, and the level of tone color control achievable on a modern piano is much greater than that which appears to have been achievable on Beethoven's. So I didn't feel the need to make my orchestration too thin or light during the most dramatic moments to comply with his directions. I just did what I wanted, using that recording as a loose benchmark, and tried to make it sufficiently dramatic to "spruce up" a piece I consider to almost always be extremely poorly understood and interpreted.

Of course the point of orchestrating was a) to demonstrate a set of interpretation ideas much more concretely than I ever could by simply playing it (I also can't play piano proficiently anyway!) and b) to practice orchestrating a piece that has, rightfully, often not been thought to be orchestration-friendly due to how overtly pianistic it is.

Yes. I confess to being biased against arranging works for a medium other than for which they were composed (aside from small adjustments to facilitate a performance that may otherwise be impossible, e.g. arranging an orchestral piece for smaller orchestra which may mean compromising the instrumentation). But that's an aside.

I tend to look out for rearrangements sounding like they were originally written for the new medium. Piano work is most difficult probably because of the sheer compass of the instrument and the unusual percussive acoustic that allows. for example, thick chords deep in the bass that would sound muddy and thick transcribed note for note to deeper orchestral instruments.

As for tempo, this is always a matter of taste. Your tempo is hardly different from Schnabel's and he knew what he was up to. Some people still measure Beethoven performance plus-or-minus so many degrees Schnabel. I tend to play it slower, probably turning it into an impressionistic thing. Probably has poor old Ludwig turning in his grave.

As you said, you were facing 'a great orchestration challenge.' Brave indeed taking it on - and you seem happy with the result which is what counts. You are the final arbiter.

Cheers,

There's some good stuff in this arrangement, but I just wanted to reinforce a point Luis made: the flutes are written in a very low register in many places throughout the score.  In many places, these flute parts would be nearly inaudible in a real performance.

Sean!!!

  I ABSLOUTLEY LOVE THIS!!!

   It makes me consider this masterpiece in a new light, reflect, FEEL.  A very well done orchestration (I like the sound library very much BTW).  I might have held back a bit in the first portion for a slower build up-but that's the beauty of music--there is a million ways to do it.

  Overall the effect is wonderful--to me.

  I like to think of myself as a purist, but i read a lot of music history/biographies, and  I know it was very common for composers to arrange orchestral pieces/chamber pieces for solo piano, or piano for 4 hands-- and other arrangements of various pieces.  

  Mozart arranged Handel's Messiah to "bring it up to date"!   Late 19th century composers mucked with Beethoven's 9th---"FIXING" flaws.  The list goes on...

   MUSIC was a living thing---and a thing to MKAE A LIVING FROM!  People wanted to play music, to hear music.  Composers provided that.  IT WAS THEIR JOB!  We seem to have forgotten that core role in our era.  

  I know this was a labor of love!  And it was time well spent.    

                              THANK YOU FOR POSTING IT!!!  THANK YOU FOR KEEPING MUSIC "LIVING"!

On 9/9/2023 at 8:28 AM, Luis Hernández said:

It sounds very good, indeed.
Two observations, from my point of view:
1) I think the piano arpeggio is passed to the orchestra too literally, all the time.
2) The register of the flutes, in general, is very low.

 

I agree.  The flutes in various parts are too low, ESPECIALLY "G."  It's a lot of work for something that won't even be heard.  They won't be heard at all.   If you gave it to the clarinets, if would cut through just fine (same as in that opening solos), If it was feasible, I would even say saxophones, but orchestras don't want to spend money.  The trade of for that could be cues.  Measure 65? Forget about it.  That is calling for the clarinets.  The ending is going to be as strong in your recording.  Maybe double it with the bassoons, or even add the cellos?

Overall, a listening pleasure.

14 hours ago, maestrowick said:

 

I agree.  The flutes in various parts are too low, ESPECIALLY "G."  It's a lot of work for something that won't even be heard.  They won't be heard at all.   If you gave it to the clarinets, if would cut through just fine (same as in that opening solos), If it was feasible, I would even say saxophones, but orchestras don't want to spend money.  The trade of for that could be cues.  Measure 65? Forget about it.  That is calling for the clarinets.  The ending is going to be as strong in your recording.  Maybe double it with the bassoons, or even add the cellos?

Overall, a listening pleasure.

 

  

 

Are you sure they won't be heard there? There's not a lot going on, really - really soft string pad (pp -> ppp), viola playing a somewhat similar line, a guttural drum pulse. You don't think that could be balanced in such a way so that the flute does poke through a little?

2 hours ago, Aria Donn said:

Are you sure they won't be heard there? There's not a lot going on, really - really soft string pad (pp -> ppp), viola playing a somewhat similar line, a guttural drum pulse. You don't think that could be balanced in such a way so that the flute does poke through a little?

 

That register doesn't project at ALL.  JEan-Pierre Rampal and James Galway would even have problems.  It probably won't go like you think, but hey, if you like it, I love it.