|
Reorchestrating old pieces can be quite worthwhile and I'm sure you can bring out hidden elements in old pieces by new arrangements, so in principle I'm all for it. However, I got to agree with Daniel in a sense: I somehow get the "bigger = better" from the first post and I just don't understand the emphasis on this aspect. A huge orchestra size surely isn't the only way to bring out the "majestic glory" of this piece, as you call it. Like Daniel, I'd personally find it much more interesting to bring out your individual interpretation of that piece through a more "modest" orchestration which draws its power from how you use the instruments in detail, instead of how many.
Don't take me wrong, I'm sure an increase in sound mass wasn't the only thing you were going for and that you indeed want to sensitively orchestrate the piece with the experience and techniques that are to our disposal now in the 21st century. I just was a bit confused by the emphasis on orchestral size.
Also, I'm definitely not against opulence. I love opulence, hey I even love bombast. But the most obvious solutions aren't always the ones that will actually have the greatest effect in the direction you want.
But I'm in not saying you shouldn't go for it and write for a huge orchestra. It's possible that this will in fact be the best way to realise your vision. You have to see that for yourself.
Best luck, anyways!
|