Which of the "great" composers was the worst orchstrator?

Well, you blew my save naming Schumann. But let me throw one, in his defense. The typical example of bad orchestration is his 4th symphony, where you get an immediate perception of unbalance in the string sections (too heavy, too cumbersome): probably the need for a circular structure in that symphony imposed a monotonous usage of the same instruments in each sector of the circle; considering how S. hated italians (at least, italian composers, except Cherubini), mine is an undeserved defense.

A 'great' composer who had to rewrite his main work's orchestration is Bizet. Nothing to add.

An urban legend regarding unexecutability of Mussorgski's Boris should be broken: Rimski built a reflected fortune around it, but the wild, screechy original orchestration was absolutely charming.

Much should be said about Puccini's orchestration: one thing is for sure, he stubbornly wrote everything for the piano and later, sequentially, orchestrated it. Considering that R. Strauss (you can see him in old films) didn't have a piano in the studio where he composed, some doubt on those who don't orchestrate instinctively is legitimate.

Glinzek, I badly need a leave of absence, but if you go on with such intriguing questions, I'll never have any rest.

EDIT- After an answer, I continue to think and re-think -- I was driving with a background of Brahms's piano 'Variations and Fugue on a Haendel's theme (Harpsichord Sonata in B Flat)'. As a matter of fact, where Schumann was really poor (and where Brahms overtook him blatantly) wasn't so much orchestration as development ability. Last week or so you were mentioning the motto as used by Brahms; take Schumann's no.2 were we find the 'resistance of the spirit' motto, and its sterility in terms of reworking and reshaping. That ends up affecting orchestation as well.

EDIT 2: All interesting views, but, as it happens, the precincts of the discussion tend to enlarge, and glinzek was accurate in defining them: orchestration, color and texture. So, why on earth Mozart (classic school used form as an infrastructure: being able to produce such music, IN SPITE of form is a miracle, not a limitation) ?? Beethoven ditto. Tchaikovsky may have lots of defects (patheticism, sentimental unbalance,...) but his orchestrations are second to no one.

Spring Symphony pays up to being a first essay. Have to agree on the Brahms point: his mastership in variation covers a certain poverty of basic ideas.

Congrats on the worm-can opening.

I would have to agree with your opinion of Schumann as worst orchestrator. I am getting to grips with the music a little better over the years but I still find the orchestration clumsy, dull and often unidiomatic.

I think many people might agree that Bruckner was also not the most gifted or imaginative of orchestrators. Were it not for the sublime beauty of the actual music, I think it would be much more difficult to forgive that 'orchestral organ' sound for much of the time.

Another composer I find remarkably dull as an orchestrator (although not one of the 'greats' I think you're after) is the British composer Edmund Rubbra. While I admire his writing in many ways, his orchestral works are very over-scored. Subtlety in orchestral colour is not something in which Rubbra excelled. I find his orchestration among the most 'anonymous' I can think of.

I believe Bruckner was not a great orchestrator. Don't get me wrong - I like his music, but it is clumsy, amateurish, and lacking in texture. He was great at that sound he did, but more for the ideas than for his execution of them. If you don't believe me, listen to the original version of his 3rd symphony. Also, early Tchaikovsky wasn't well orchestrated - but the important thing is that these guys got better and better. For example, Tchaikovsky's Symphonies No. 1, 2, 3 does not have very good string writing in general, but by No. 4 its pretty good. No. 5 is great, and No. 6 stunning. Also I'm not the biggest fan of Philip Glass's orchestrations. He is better suited to smaller scale such as his ensemble, piano, or quartet.

I actually think this is a good question - it isn't easy to name a great composer who couldn't orchestrate well. Partially because if they were great composers, they must have gotten better at orchestrating as time went on otherwise it would be hard to imagine they would have achieved greatness in other challenging aspects of music writing.

People have already given all my answers so this is just a response to Rob T. First of all this is about orchestrationg not their music. Mozart was probaly the greatest orchestrator up to that point with. Secondly Mozart's music was orginal. He would use his genius to put his music into multiple phrasing structures or even multiple forms. It was absoulte genius without one doubt. It's so smothing it helps surgery patients achieve optimal anesethsia faster. And last of all, It's way more catchy and beautiful than any other composer of his time. I'm not the biggest Mozart fan but he was without a doubt one of the greatest composers.

EDIT: I feel bad for whoever said that Beethoven's music all sounds the same.

I have to agree... Schumann's orchestration is commonly criticized. However, in the right hands, his symphonies do have a unique charm. I have the set by Bernstein and Lenny did a great job on these works. Unfortunately not every composer is as gifted in this respect as say Ravel, who was quite remarkable.

I have to say that, although they may not be the most transparent and brilliant orchestrations, I love the Schumann symphonies in their original form. They have a sort of chamber-music-esque feel, which quite distinguishes them from other 'good' orchestrators' music. I see popular opinion is against me, though; Gustav Mahler hated Schumann's orchestrations so much that he completely reworked each of the four symphonies. Those would be interesting to hear, but I don't immagine that Mahler's almost overblown romanticism would mesh well with Schumann's music, which recalls echos of the classical period.

For myself, I've always particularly disliked most of Dvorak's orchestrations. Excepting, of course, the ninth symphony, the rest of the symphonies are rather bland, and often rely too heavily on one section of the orchestra for an entire movement. His Slavonic Dances have the same problem; it seems that he was trying too hard to create a Czech atmosphere, and ended up losing some of the integrity of the melodic lines (which he was so good with) to bring out unconventional orchestrations. To be sure, he sounds brilliant when he limits himself to several instruments or instruments of one kind, as in his chamber music, or his 'Serenade for Strings'.

Liszt is another of my personal un-favorites. He was definately a composer for the piano, and little else. Granted, his Symphonic Poems are considered a hallmark of Romantic music, and they're fine from a thematic viewpoint, but the orchestration is unbearable. Try listening to the Dante or Faust Symphonies; a half-hour of greyish-blue strings and singers, not my idea of a good piece of music. It would have been impressive if he had written it for a solo piano; indeed, his forte seemed to be making the piano into a full orchestra by itself (see 'Tarantella', 'Jeux d'Eau' from AdP, and 'Funerailles' from HPeR).

Another one worth mentioning; Rachmaninoff. Again, a composer who should have stuck with his main instrument. Now, there are a few exceptions here, too (Isle of the Dead, piano concerti), but his purely orchestral Symphonies are pretty much dull. He certainly had a handle on the sonorous capabilities of the piano, and even on an orchestra backing up a piano, but not on an orchestra by itself. He actually left the orchestration of some of his Etudes-Tableaux up to one of the greatest orchestrators ever, Otto Respighi, because he knew he wasn't that great at it. Like Dvorak, he had more talent for turning a melody than bringing the melody out in an orchestra; like Liszt, he knew how to make it work better on a piano than anywhere else, and like countless aspiring composers, he was a master of counterpoint and harmony who occasionally got carried away with making his music too thick for the listener.

My top two are Tchaikovsky and Bruckner. Tchaik has some creative moments, to be sure, but overall I find his orchestral music to be pretty bland. I'm certain this will get me a thumbs-down, because I think many people think the opposite. But I just find his orchestration to be pretty predictable.

And I'm saying Bruckner, even though I'm not sure I'm willing to call him a "great" composer.

Just my two cents.

I bet I'll get a load of abuse from this but I'm going to say Mozart.

I'll give him his due... he was churning out music at an incredible rate and his music was popularly played while he was still alive, unlike most other composers, but where is the originality?!?!

It's all basic chordal triads, regular phrases and cadences, very pretty little tunes that you can hum down the street, but it's those features that annoy me!

I for one do not want to hear three pages of V7, I repeated over and over again just to stretch the piece out and make it a decent length. And the predictability of it just annoys me, Mozart wrote more maths than he did music.

Here comes the abuse...

*hides under a rock*

You're right about Schuman, while he had a gift for melody, his orchestration is so bland. right out of Addlers text book . . .

Milton Babbitt was an awful orchestrator. He took total serialism too far when he decided to let the row override acoustic considerations of his orchestration.

I always hear that Chopin was a poor one. And they all refer to his two Piano Concertos..stating that being a pianist, his arrangements of the orchestra parts also seem like piano parts..and that there is no real "dialog" between the orchestra and the piano, etc..