# How do I orchestrate epic scores?



## mediumaevum

I want to learn how to write music like this:





- with all its elements!

Or perhaps some other great compositions, like the many 19th century compositions.

I have no education in music, but I have been able to write at least some "epic"/film-like scores, using virtual orchestral instruments. I am self-taught.

But I want to take it a step further, to try and achieve a result as great as the above piece.

Where can I learn to orchestrate like this?

I am thinking about taking an online course with tutorial videos, but I can't seem to find any. Evenant Courses have some cinematic course, but it is too much newbie, much of it I already know about. What I need are ideas and more advanced orchestration techniques than the ones I have currently found online.

Can someone help me?


----------



## millionrainbows

Get yourself some good orchestration software.


----------



## mediumaevum

millionrainbows said:


> Get yourself some good orchestration software.


I have already. Software alone does nothing unless you have a good composer to make use of them.

I want to be a better composer.


----------



## Vasks

I hate to be a "Debbie Downer" but you must be able to read music, know plenty about harmonic theory and understand rhythmic notation before you even attempt to compose. And then once you do compose, those early efforts will usually be quite poor. Which means you must be willing to learn from your mistakes or else have an experienced teacher explain your mistakes. It's only after you gone beyond beginning composing that you should think about scoring and then you must come to terms with the issue that while your notation program and its playback component can do anything, that doesn't mean humans can execute what you wrote & scored.


----------



## Neward Thelman

Vasks said:


> know plenty about harmonic theory and understand rhythmic notation.


Hah. You have to know more than plenty.

You have to have it all down to regurgitating theory in your sleep - and I mean deep coma near death unconsciousness.

When dealing with actual classical music, there's so much to it, that if you're not 10000000000% perfect in the application of theory, you're lost.

LOST.

I'd suggest doing what most other folks here seem to be doing - stick with rock and roll. Damned simple. Easy. One simple chord progression is all you need [the simplest one of all]. Actually, you may not even need that.


----------



## Neward Thelman

mediumaevum said:


> I want to learn how to write music like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - with all its elements!
> 
> Or perhaps some other great compositions, like the many 19th century compositions.
> 
> I have no education in music, but I have been able to write at least some "epic"/film-like scores, using virtual orchestral instruments. I am self-taught.
> 
> But I want to take it a step further, to try and achieve a result as great as the above piece.
> 
> Where can I learn to orchestrate like this?
> 
> I am thinking about taking an online course with tutorial videos, but I can't seem to find any. Evenant Courses have some cinematic course, but it is too much newbie, much of it I already know about. What I need are ideas and more advanced orchestration techniques than the ones I have currently found online.
> 
> Can someone help me?


Good luck to you.

If you're not under age 20 - preferably under age 10 or even 5 - learning all of the elements needed to compose any type of orchestral music will probably be insurmountable.

You'll have to learn how to read music - and sight read it. A true composer doesn't rely on musical instruments to compose - it comes to you in your mind. Of course, there are plenty of 3rd raters and still lower raters who've composed at the keyboard [in particular] - and even a few of the immortal ones had done so, to some extent [greater or lesser] - but the truly greatest only used a keyboard [or other instrument] to check and hear what they'd already composed.

Then, you'll have to learn how to score for an orchestra. That - especially today - is a major, major challenge. Scoring's become so refined and demanding, that you really have to have both skill AND talent.

You'll need to read a full orchestral score well, cause you'll be checking other scores to resolve problems and issues in scoring. Believe me - that'll be something you'll be doing ALL the time for many many years. Everyone goes thru that.

The example you've provided is proof of that. Everyone scoring film scores in Hollywood's EXTREMELY talented at it. In fact, most of the time, the composer of the music for a film doesn't even score it. The scoring's handed off to usually a number of specialist orchestrators.

If you really want to write for orchestra well, you have to play in one. There's just no substitute. Any good orchestra musician will tell you that playing always reveals something new about orchestral sound that you just can't obtain in another way.

Even if you manage to acquire the skill needed - absolutely fluent, perfect sight reading and singing - in depth, total command of harmony [theory] - and yous should at least be competent in counterpoint - and orchestration skills - there's still one major major major hurdle to overcome.

And, only you'll be able to answer that FINAL question. The question is:::::

Do you have the talent as a composer to create worthy music?

Unfortunately, talent - the compositional gift - THE GIFT - that -------

------ that's something that can't be taught. Can't teach it. You either have the gift ----- or you don't.

As I mentioned in another post below [if the moderators allow it to appear], it might be better to stick to rock and roll. You don't need any skills. You don't need to know any harmony. You don't have to worry about handling an orchestra. In fact, as the evidence of rock music itself completely demonstrates, you don't even need musical talent. A whole roster of rock so-called musicians had other careers when they fell into rock music. Art school attendees seems to have been the field of choice for tons of hugely successful 1980's era British rockers - even tho many of them weren't talented as artists either.

All you need is the desire to succeed to succeed in rock.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

There is no such thing as compositional talent or gift... that can't be taught and learned.
You don't even have to know traditional notation, if you are not composing for real musicians (video games, trailer music, electronic, pop etc).
Check the Alan Belkin site for some good free books about composition. He also has youtube video series - Harmony and Orchestration. Other good channels are Rick Beato, 12tone, Orchestration online.
There are also many free out of copyright books at archive.org. Orchestration, composition, harmony, counterpoint, form etc. And there are tons of modern music books: go to amazon and just type orchestration - you will find many manuals for different universities.
Many composers and orchestrators give private skype lessons.
Analyze existing scores using sheet music or midi files.
I'm not sure that the music that you linked is epic at all or well orchestrated...
If you are after the "epic" compositions you will have to learn from Beethoven, Mahler, Bruckner, Holst, Dvorak, Liszt, Tchaikovsky etc.
For "epic" and complex orchestrations check Ravel, Stravinsky, Wagner, Strauss etc.


----------



## mediumaevum

Neward Thelman said:


> Good luck to you.
> 
> If you're not under age 20 - preferably under age 10 or even 5 - learning all of the elements needed to compose any type of orchestral music will probably be insurmountable.
> 
> You'll have to learn how to read music - and sight read it. A true composer doesn't rely on musical instruments to compose - it comes to you in your mind. Of course, there are plenty of 3rd raters and still lower raters who've composed at the keyboard [in particular] - and even a few of the immortal ones had done so, to some extent [greater or lesser] - but the truly greatest only used a keyboard [or other instrument] to check and hear what they'd already composed.
> 
> Then, you'll have to learn how to score for an orchestra. That - especially today - is a major, major challenge. Scoring's become so refined and demanding, that you really have to have both skill AND talent.
> 
> You'll need to read a full orchestral score well, cause you'll be checking other scores to resolve problems and issues in scoring. Believe me - that'll be something you'll be doing ALL the time for many many years. Everyone goes thru that.
> 
> The example you've provided is proof of that. Everyone scoring film scores in Hollywood's EXTREMELY talented at it. In fact, most of the time, the composer of the music for a film doesn't even score it. The scoring's handed off to usually a number of specialist orchestrators.
> 
> If you really want to write for orchestra well, you have to play in one. There's just no substitute. Any good orchestra musician will tell you that playing always reveals something new about orchestral sound that you just can't obtain in another way.
> 
> Even if you manage to acquire the skill needed - absolutely fluent, perfect sight reading and singing - in depth, total command of harmony [theory] - and yous should at least be competent in counterpoint - and orchestration skills - there's still one major major major hurdle to overcome.
> 
> And, only you'll be able to answer that FINAL question. The question is:::::
> 
> Do you have the talent as a composer to create worthy music?
> 
> Unfortunately, talent - the compositional gift - THE GIFT - that -------
> 
> ------ that's something that can't be taught. Can't teach it. You either have the gift ----- or you don't.
> 
> As I mentioned in another post below [if the moderators allow it to appear], it might be better to stick to rock and roll. You don't need any skills. You don't need to know any harmony. You don't have to worry about handling an orchestra. In fact, as the evidence of rock music itself completely demonstrates, you don't even need musical talent. A whole roster of rock so-called musicians had other careers when they fell into rock music. Art school attendees seems to have been the field of choice for tons of hugely successful 1980's era British rockers - even tho many of them weren't talented as artists either.
> 
> All you need is the desire to succeed to succeed in rock.


I am unsure what is meant by "talent" or "skill", because as I said earlier, I have been able to write at least some "ok" scores. ("ok" is not enough, I know that. Gifted is the keyword, but I am not trying to be a great gifted composer, I just want to make great music, not for a living but as a hobby).

If moderators allow it, I will try and point to my best composition so far:
http://www.talkclassical.com/46498-knights-courage.html

It is not classical, but its not "rock and roll" either, personally I would place it in the genre of a medieval-inspired soundtrack (though not medieval, not classical).

Care to listen to it and tell me wether or not I got so-called "talent", enough talent to achieve my goal of writing great music (later)?

I know there are plenty of soundtracks out there that sounds way better, but so long it is not horribly sounding, I hope I can develop my "skills".


----------



## EdwardBast

Neward Thelman said:


> Good luck to you.
> 
> You'll have to learn how to read music - and sight read it. A true composer doesn't rely on musical instruments to compose - it comes to you in your mind. Of course, there are plenty of 3rd raters and still lower raters who've composed at the keyboard [in particular] - and even a few of the immortal ones had done so, to some extent [greater or lesser] - but the truly greatest only used a keyboard [or other instrument] to check and hear what they'd already composed.


This is grossly misinformed. Mozart and Beethoven composed at the piano, as did countless others among the greats. Do you think Chopin, Liszt, Schumann and Scriabin composed in their head and then went to the piano to see if it worked?



Neward Thelman said:


> If you really want to write for orchestra well, you have to play in one. There's just no substitute. Any good orchestra musician will tell you that playing always reveals something new about orchestral sound that you just can't obtain in another way.


This too is silly. The counterexamples are legion.

More generally, Vasks, who is an actual, accomplished composer, said everything that was necessary on this issue without being vitriolic, condescending and misinformed.


----------



## JAS

I think that there is a good reason that schools that teach writing film scores do so over a substantial period of time and only after a considerable amount of related musical training. There probably will never be a simple youtube "how to" video on the subject (unless perhaps as a joke) or a book on _Writing Film Scores for Dummies_. The subject is probably further complicated by the fact that truly epic film scores are mostly out of favor these days and for the foreseeable future with those who produce movies. Once John Williams is no longer active (an event that I am still hoping is far off), the game is pretty much over.


----------



## mediumaevum

JAS said:


> I think that there is a good reason that schools that teach writing film scores do so over a substantial period of time and only after a considerable amount of related musical training. There probably will never be a simple youtube "how to" video on the subject (unless perhaps as a joke) or a book on _Writing Film Scores for Dummies_. The subject is probably further complicated by the fact that truly epic film scores are mostly out of favor these days and for the foreseeable future with those who produce movies. Once John Williams is no longer active (an event that I am still hoping is far off), the game is pretty much over.


I wasn't talking about a simple youtube tutorial. What i meant by tutorials, is a course offered online with tutorial videos of say 45 min. each and with many parts, say 20 hours. Once purchased, the course should be downloaded or offered online for a lifetime, like many other online courses.

The course itself should require basic musical knowledge, including the ability to make 'catchy themes' and perhaps even the ability to make countermelodies and chord progressions. It should not be for those who can't make a chord, or can't make a melody on their own, or those who don't even have music software or the VSTi's needed.

You should have all those things already, before starting the course, which should focus mainly on advanced orchestration techniques, like learning how to organize the entire thing, making an interesting build-up or prelude, the peak and ending - stuff like that, using examples and analysis of 19th century masters.


----------



## JAS

I suspect that it is far more effective to have direct interaction between the student(s) and the instructor (presumably someone who has actually composed film scores himself/herself). I doubt that there would be a market sufficient to create the video series you are proposing.


----------



## mediumaevum

JAS said:


> I suspect that it is far more effective to have direct interaction between the student(s) and the instructor (presumably someone who has actually composed film scores himself/herself). I doubt that there would be a market sufficient to create the video series you are proposing.


Ok, what about an online course in orchestrating a melody like Brahms?


----------



## Vasks

mediumaevum said:


> If moderators allow it, I will try and point to my best composition so far:
> http://www.talkclassical.com/46498-knights-courage.html
> 
> It is not classical, but its not "rock and roll" either, personally I would place it in the genre of a medieval-inspired soundtrack (though not medieval, not classical).
> 
> Care to listen to it and tell me wether or not I got so-called "talent", enough talent to achieve my goal of writing great music (later)?


Well, I did go and listen to it. It sounds like you have the skill to score via software. Everything seemed to work. You said at that link you didn't think of it as film music but it sure sounds like it to me. So if you have music reading skills (which you said you didn't at the start of this thread...which lead me to reply as I did) to input what you did then you should be able to go to a place like http://IMSLP.org and study a Brahms score. It seems a bit confusing as to what you can or can not do by what you say.


----------



## mediumaevum

Vasks said:


> Well, I did go and listen to it. It sounds like you have the skill to score via software. Everything seemed to work. You said at that link you didn't think of it as film music but it sure sounds like it to me. So if you have music reading skills (which you said you didn't at the start of this thread...which lead me to reply as I did) to input what you did then you should be able to go to a place like http://IMSLP.org and study a Brahms score. It seems a bit confusing as to what you can or can not do by what you say.


Sorry, I must clarify (my fault):

It is not film music, because it is not used in a film.

I can't read sheet music, but that doesn't matter as long as I have a MIDI-file to study.
Thanks for the tip!


----------



## Neward Thelman

EdwardBast said:


> This is grossly misinformed. Mozart and Beethoven composed at the piano, as did countless others among the greats. Do you think Chopin, Liszt, Schumann and Scriabin composed in their head and then went to the piano to see if it worked?
> 
> This too is silly. The counterexamples are legion.
> 
> More generally, Vasks, who is an actual, accomplished composer, said everything that was necessary on this issue without being vitriolic, condescending and misinformed.


" Do you think Chopin, Liszt, Schumann and Scriabin composed in their head"

Yes. They tended to use a keyboard as an adjunct to composition. With most great composers, melodies came into their consciousness unaided. Lot's of them said so. You may read that in their biographies.

Beethoven specifically said that music came to him, and he added "I don't know from where".

Curiously, at least during the Romantic period, many composers said that inspiration would come to them while they were taking walks.

A little bit of research - well, actually, a lot - will reveal to you that at least during the 19th cent, composition at the keyboard was already being frowned upon. European conservatories stressed breaking the habit for students who tended to form it.

That said, even tho Mahler and Strauss avoided composing at the keyboard [Bruno Walter specifically tells us that Mahler very early in his career did so], there are stories of Strauss still sitting down at the piano on occasion when composing.

However, Bruckner and Mahler very specifically only used a piano to test out their work. All of that's been documented.

Beyond all of that, any real composer can tell you that it's futile trying to pick out something at the keyboard. It may work to get started, or for something simple.

BUT - once ideas start flowing - once music starts coming - you can't be trying to play it as it comes. Too much - too fast. Way to fast. All you can do is scribble it down as it flows and keep up.

Get it - or loose it. Forever.

That's not to say that there isn't a whole pile of practical work in working out a full composition. Putting all of the connecting pieces together - making it into a whole piece of music - polishing it - that's where a keyboard proves useful - and that's the stage of composition that's responsible for people such as you thinking that composition is done at the piano.

And, yes, there are exceptions to everything I've said. There are those who actually do compose at the keyboard [or msome other instrument], from start to finish. Mostly, they've been Tin Pan Alley songsters, rock and rollers, etc.

Oh - incidentally - John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" and the Mahler 9th - not from a keyboard.


----------



## Neward Thelman

mediumaevum said:


> I am unsure what is meant by "talent" or "skill", because as I said earlier, I have been able to write at least some "ok" scores. ("ok" is not enough, I know that. Gifted is the keyword, but I am not trying to be a great gifted composer, I just want to make great music, not for a living but as a hobby).
> 
> .


OK Medm. Don't worry about it. Forget all of that.

Continue doing what you're doing - learning what you can - and using your God-given muse. That's the most important thing. Don't let it to waste.

You're doing the right thing. Keep going.

Best regards,
NT


----------



## Neward Thelman

BabyGiraffe said:


> There is no such thing as compositional talent or gift... that can't be taught and learned.
> You don't even have to know traditional notation, if you are not composing for real musicians (video games, trailer music, electronic, pop etc).
> .


"There is no such thing as compositional talent or gift"

You can't be serious. You must be joking. Firstly, most people have little or no ability to even begin learning music - that's not a jibe - it's reality. So, narrowing down from the general population to the subset of those with some musical ability - music educators have known since as far back as the ancient Greeks that some people had greater talent and musical gifts, while others had less, and most had far less talent than those with supreme talent.

Taking all of the people who can play a music instrument at a high level - meaning, far better than the friend that everyone has who can strum a guitar and sing some popular ditties - even among those there are very, very few who can actually compose music. To my knowledge, neither Maxim Vengerov nor Itzhak Perlman nor Lang Lang, nor thousands of other musicians compose - despite performing at a very high level.

As I mentioned previously, melody is the stumbling block. While harmony may be taught - and is thus available to everyone - and so is notation, sight reading and sight singing, voice leading, counterpoint - etc. - melody is something God either gave you or didn't. For the overhwhelming humans on the earth - it's a case of "didn't".

Indeed, a subject of a future thread of mine is whether we've actually run out of new melodies, or composers with the gifts to produce new, memorable, immortal melodies.

But, even in those aspects of music which may be taught and learned, talent comes into play. Not just in music. A welding school has thousands of students. A very few of those thousands rise above their peers and become exceptionally superb craftsmen. All of the students received the same level of instruction - yet a few are just superior. It's like that in almost every corner of life. Some people are geniuses - most of us fall somewhere in the middle of the herd.

All of that said, yes, in some forms of music - or music entertainment - you can get by with either very minimal talent [even none, in some cases], or simply a great desire to create music [with no particularly outstanding talent] and a driving work ethic.

Among those categories would be a lot of 20th century and post-20 century radicalism. For example, the Scandinavian "composer" who came up with a piece that consisted of nine hours of silence - no music, no sound - just silence - strikes me as more of a dorm-room-stoner-idea guy than a musical talent - besides doing John Cage one better.

In dodecaphony, you don't need a compositional gift. All you need to do is follow the crossword puzzle-type rules of composition. Anyone can do it. Well, anyone who can learn music theory. Yes - I know the radicalist argument very well - almost anyone can do it, but to make the dodecaphonic music worthy and memorable, you need talent.

Ooops - there it is. That T word again. Talent. Even in dodecaphony you need something to make that atonal misery sound like something more than just pointless, seemingly interminable - well, misery.

And, as I've noted many times previously, in pop music today you don't really need much - if any talent. Lot's of "boy" bands have proved that. More seriously, today's popular music's afflicted with then same difficulty as classical music and jazz - the unavailability of new, original, memorable melody. In pop/rock today, mostly you can just reuse some previous melody - and many [I'd say most] popular artists do exactly that.

The stinging irony is that today's listeners don't care. You can take a melody straight from Lennon-McCartney - or any previous pop 'artist' - and just stick your words to it - stick your instruments or laptop generated sounds - and pow - you've got a hit. People just don't care. All they care about's how you play what you've stolen.

If they like your style [of music theft], then you've got an audience. I've confirmed that over the last 10 years or so with people whom I either know or have met. And, adding to that evidence, just see the responses of the rockers posting in my 'Classical Music Really Is Doomed' thread - particularly the post of the individual who stated that some female pop-rocker was the "greatest musical genius of our time". You may listen to her - he thoughtfully provided a link - and hear her re-cycled, totally unoriginal melodies for yourself - not a single new or original one in the entire collection.

So, in certain narrow applications, such as those I've just enumerated and similar ones, you probably can get away with just a bit of on-line learning, as you've noted.

But, to give to the world something new - powerful - immortal - that - THAT - that takes a gift. THE gift.

Go in peace.


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

I am guilty of not reading these posts, although i'm sure somewhere in that gargantuan wall of text are some pretty respectable points.


----------



## EdwardBast

Neward Thelman said:


> " Do you think Chopin, Liszt, Schumann and Scriabin composed in their head"
> 
> Yes. They tended to use a keyboard as an adjunct to composition. With most great composers, melodies came into their consciousness unaided. Lot's of them said so. You may read that in their biographies.
> 
> Beethoven specifically said that music came to him, and he added "I don't know from where".
> 
> Curiously, at least during the Romantic period, many composers said that inspiration would come to them while they were taking walks.


Of course melodies come to people when they are walking and so does inspiration. And after the initial inspiration, composers of piano music composed at the piano because, duh, it was the most efficient way to do it. Beethoven composed at the piano. So did Mozart. These were real composers, hence your thesis is wrong.



Neward Thelman said:


> Beyond all of that, any real composer can tell you that it's futile trying to pick out something at the keyboard. It may work to get started, or for something simple.
> 
> BUT - once ideas start flowing - once music starts coming - you can't be trying to play it as it comes. Too much - too fast. Way to fast. All you can do is scribble it down as it flows and keep up.
> 
> Get it - or loose it. Forever.


Scribbling to keep up? Nonsense! Many composers were virtuosic improvisors at the keyboard. For any of these, improvising what one is hearing is obviously faster and a surer way to catch fleeting ideas that scribbling. In fact, it is likely that for someone like Beethoven, improvising was faster than thinking.



Neward Thelman said:


> That's not to say that there isn't a whole pile of practical work in working out a full composition. Putting all of the connecting pieces together - making it into a whole piece of music - polishing it - that's where a keyboard proves useful - and that's the stage of composition that's responsible for people such as you thinking that composition is done at the piano.


Alas, what you are describing as practical work is what composers call composing. And by people like me I presume you mean those with doctoral level education in music?



Neward Thelman said:


> And, yes, there are exceptions to everything I've said. There are those who actually do compose at the keyboard [or msome other instrument], from start to finish. Mostly, they've been Tin Pan Alley songsters, rock and rollers, etc.
> 
> Oh - incidentally - John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" and the Mahler 9th - not from a keyboard.


Beethoven worked out the basic ideas for complex works like the Eroica at the piano, meticulously making numerous sketches before he even had the basic themes completed. He wasn't working out details. Other exceptions include people like Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff. I believe Shostakovich could sometimes play entire pieces at the piano before anything was notated.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> Of course melodies come to people when they are walking and so does inspiration. And after the initial inspiration, composers of piano music composed at the piano because, duh, it was the most efficient way to do it. Beethoven composed at the piano. So did Mozart. These were real composers, hence your thesis is wrong.


Agreed. Working things out at the piano is not lesser composition. Tchaikovsky is another who composed at the piano by extemporising, as have so many, both Bach and Handel are prime examples. It's a bit of both. Sometimes you have an idea first then you sit at the piano and work some things out (especially so for piano writing and if you're a good pianist). Other times you're just improvising and something emerges, then you jot it down and work on it from there.

For orchestra writing there is indeed an element of 'head' writing since the average composer doesn't have an orchestra in the broom cupboard for testing things out. However since the advent of software that lets you hear what you've written, the 'head' writing has been eased somewhat. I've scored a fair number of wind ensembles in my time and in the old days of just paper and pencil there were sometimes mistakes (usually mistakes for transposing instruments) and these showed up during band practice. When writing out counterpoint parts I still 'hear' it as I'm writing it down, but then I might play it back and change a few bits. It's better than writing it, trying it out with players, then changing it later...rinse, repeat. That can be slow, though you do learn from listening to the players' remarks.

The software is like using the piano, but you get the ensemble you want right in front of you. Really anyone turning up their nose at this and calling it 'not real composition' is not thinking straight. I don't doubt for a moment that composers past would have made use of this facility.

There are a lot of young folks wanting to write Hans Zimmer-type film scores, many with not much theory under their belts or experience writing for ensembles (real or virtual). I'd say if a person hasn't even tried piano and solo instrument, or trio/quartet, they're probably putting the cart before the horse with full orchestra writing.
It's true there are good people composing with only a smattering of theory and who can't even read standard notation, but I find that these tend to have stylistic limitations or can't fully express any great ideas they might have. It's not great when you think you've innovated something only to be told it's just a known quantity like e.g. a _Neapolitan sixth_. People who lack a basic theory background waste time re-inventing the wheel.


----------



## Petwhac

Some interesting opinions expressed in this thread!! 

To mediumaevum I'd say: You'll do yourself a favour if you put the time in and learn some theory, harmony and counterpoint and to read the dots.

However, if you are using a DAW and VSTs then there might be midi-files out there for sale or free.

You could also ask someone like the game and film composer Daniel James (look him up and just write to him) he's pretty successful and I'm pretty sure he's not particularly a 'reader'. He does a lot of youtube tutorials on VSTs etc and I'm sure he'd respond.


----------



## Portamento

take some time to learn music theory, as many others have said. You can be selftaught but it is a long and hard road to success. Much easier to learn how music works first.


----------



## jamesnnnnn

Trust me, those guys that say it takes years, it really does.
I am trying to learn music since 2009.
I was like you, I will not read a book, I can hear how notes sounds, I can make it to sound good without theory.
You can not, I can not, no one can.
One of the strongest reasons why no one can is that instruments sound similar, instruments can be crunchy, can be soft, anything, and you'll never know did you miss a note, or it is just articulation, expression, dynamic, modwheel or whatever making that noise on particular position in a track.
Once again, I lost years on that, and right now I am reading a book, and I can say after so many years I know really basic theory stuff like what are intervals, what are scales (even i use helpers in piano roll to not miss a scale notes), triads, inversions...yeah it looks like i know nothing, but trust me this can take years not to read and know about it only, but to read and also practice them and train ear to know which chord sounds good and where, its more important than theory. 

Basically you need both, theory, trained ear, and most important will. 
And first of all, start from piano, make rock edm pop songs, when you get good at it, go ahead and easily learn orchestral.
When I say good at EDM, pop or rock, it does not mean you need to lose time on mixing and mastering, just make some tunes they will inspire you, when you crate something nice with just bass, guitar, lead, pluck or whatever it will give you morale more than if you right now start immidiatelly with orchestral and you ll live up many disappointments, which i do living now honestly, even i read and understand many things about instruments in classical music, still its not enough...


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

EdwardBast said:


> This is grossly misinformed. Mozart and Beethoven composed at the piano, as did countless others among the greats. Do you think Chopin, Liszt, Schumann and Scriabin composed in their head and then went to the piano to see if it worked?
> 
> I never bothered to confirm this with an actual search, but I heard a rumor that Beethoven often would compose in the fields.
> 
> And to add to the discussion. Aural skills are a big element to composing; those who don't have very good aural skills usually would require a piano. I think it's really a matter of preference.


----------



## Rowy

How about studying music theory and music composition? Don't study online though. Try a real teacher and have lessons face to face. Better yet, if you're young enough, study at a conservatory of music. I know that more and more people think that the internet is the answer to all of your problems, but it isn't. You still need a good ol' teacher that takes you under his or hers wings.

Unless it's just a hobby. Then again, writing orchestral music in a classical style, I don't think that will work as a hobby.


----------



## JeffD

To the original poster: Like any other endeavor, there is a lot to it. And I applaud your going right at it and not wondering around looking for a front door.

What I would suggest is, first of all, to listen a lot and keep some kind of formal notes about what you like and why, what you don't like, and why. You have probably done some of this. The more detailed the better. The more listening the better.

At some point, depending on your commitment, some formal training may be appropriate. But formal training without ideas and passion is kind of pointless. So however you get yourself "learned up" your passion and interest will push you ahead.

Also, I think the idea of "orchestrating a melody" is kind of limiting. Its the way many people see things, I know. Sort of take a catchy melody that you can hum, add a bunch of stuff, obfuscate a bit, and there it is.

I prefer to think about the orchestra piece "having" a melody, having something the piece is musically about. An orchestral piece is like a novel. And if you could tell the story in a single page, then there would be no need for the other 356 pages.


----------



## Larkenfield

Sometimes my breath is taken away by the ambition that some relative beginners or intermittent students have. And sometimes they ask questions that I imagine they would already have the answer to if they were more resourceful or were as talented as they imagine themselves to be or they're serious about succeeding. For instance, books on advanced orchestration are fundamentally easy to find: http://composerfocus.com/top-5-orchestration-books/

Not to seem unkind, but the master composers of the 19th century did not rely on electronic software to write their works. Can you write down something that you hear in your head without it? Do you know the range of each orchestral instrument? Have you studied the lives of the great composers to see what formal education they had, the private lessons they had, the conservatory training they had, the years of practice they had? In most cases it was rigorous and exacting, and they did it because they were absolutely driven - and I suspect they went through it all because they knew at heart that it was their destiny.

The same with writing for the cinema. Think of the musical training and background that went into a film score such as 'The Red Violin' by John Corigliano. But it doesn't mean there's no place for you in music, if you're driven. Sometimes it's not that someone doesn't have good ideas, but they just don't have the personal training to truly liberate their creativ imagination and get those notes down on paper in a way that others can understand. Unless you have the ability to get into music conservatory, I'd look into getting an education at a school such as the Berklee College of Music to establish your credentials. To succeed in music not only requires talent and training... It also requires luck. So wishing you the best of luck.

Berkeley College: https://www.berklee.edu


----------



## Paul T McGraw

mediumaevum said:


> I want to learn how to write music like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - with all its elements!
> 
> Or perhaps some other great compositions, like the many 19th century compositions.
> 
> I have no education in music, but I have been able to write at least some "epic"/film-like scores, using virtual orchestral instruments. I am self-taught.
> 
> But I want to take it a step further, to try and achieve a result as great as the above piece.
> 
> Where can I learn to orchestrate like this?
> 
> I am thinking about taking an online course with tutorial videos, but I can't seem to find any. Evenant Courses have some cinematic course, but it is too much newbie, much of it I already know about. What I need are ideas and more advanced orchestration techniques than the ones I have currently found online.
> 
> Can someone help me?


The OP may not have any interest in this question any longer, but just in case the OP is still looking for resources I know of several "online" courses available, some more informative or inspirational than others, and if you have the time and money to absorb all of what is out there, I think you could gain enough knowledge to accomplish your goal. In my experience the most important traits needed to accomplish a big goal are desire and persistence. If your goal was to become famous, or make a lot of money, or teach at a university, it would be different. But you wrote that you want to do this as a hobby. So why not go for it! It is assuredly better for our brains to study and become absorbed with music than to sit on the sofa binge watching Netflix TV shows. I have tried at least one course from each of these and they are at a minimum entertaining and often illuminating and inspiring. Google these names:

Thinkspace Education
Scoreclub.net
Art of Composing
AlexanderPublishing.com

There might be others but as I said, I have tried at least one course from each of these sites.


----------



## mediumaevum

Paul T McGraw said:


> The OP may not have any interest in this question any longer, but just in case the OP is still looking for resources I know of several "online" courses available, some more informative or inspirational than others, and if you have the time and money to absorb all of what is out there, I think you could gain enough knowledge to accomplish your goal. In my experience the most important traits needed to accomplish a big goal are desire and persistence. If your goal was to become famous, or make a lot of money, or teach at a university, it would be different. But you wrote that you want to do this as a hobby. So why not go for it! It is assuredly better for our brains to study and become absorbed with music than to sit on the sofa binge watching Netflix TV shows. I have tried at least one course from each of these and they are at a minimum entertaining and often illuminating and inspiring. Google these names:
> 
> Thinkspace Education
> Scoreclub.net
> Art of Composing
> AlexanderPublishing.com
> 
> There might be others but as I said, I have tried at least one course from each of these sites.


Thanks, I actually came back because I really want to learn how to compose epic classical music.

I want to learn the theory, but I'd like it for free... if possible.

Does anyone know where I can learn classical music theory for free, preferably high quality youtube tutorial series?


----------



## Frasier

Yes, you need to learn a bit of theory but that's most useful for controlling what you do and getting to what you want faster. For orchestral music, study is plain essential. Being able to read a score and construct an ideal performance in your mind is hard at first so you start with something simple. Listen to it while following the score then try to hear it inwardly while looking at the score alone - just a part of it at first. Take every chance to practice.

You learn how to lay out chords for various densities of orchestration; you learn how instruments sound in their different registers so you can balance them properly - everything works at p or quieter but at ff matters change. You need to learn how and when to double and how to dovetail woodwinds. You need to learn how to handle a full orchestral tutti with brass. You learn how to define instrumental entries with clarity. There's a lot to it and study will reveal how composers produce the effects they do. _You have to develop a good inner ear._

Basic "music theory" doesn't teach you these things and there are precious few useful orchestration textbooks. One good aspect of theory is that once you learn to recognise progressions composition becomes easier. You know how to achieve the progressions you want. Also, theory doesn't teach you the art of melody writing. It may teach you for example how to write a fugue but whether you can apply that is down to your ear and ingenuity.

Quite honestly, a beginner can't do better than studying later Beethoven (except his choral efforts). His woodwind writing is exemplary. Likewise in the later works his string writing. For full orchestral tutti heavy on brass, Bruckner or Elgar's symphonies.

Another thing is to learn an instrument well enough to join a local ensemble/orchestra so you can have at least some of your things tried out. (Be aware that you might be writing "down" to players' abilities rather than the instrument's capabilities but a lot can still be done.) Any strings, horns, bassoons are always in short supply.

If you do have a set of samples / virtual instruments, try everything out honestly! It's all too easy to bluff it by making, say, a flute's bottom C fff in the mix but in a live performance that note would be lost against mf in the ensemble (unless it was the lowest note in the harmony).

Finally, there's nothing wrong with composing as you go. Play around with it until you get the progressions and sounds you want. A bit slow but you learn a fair bit.

I still compose on music paper, have shunned software which is a) hugely overpriced; b) inconvenient in the earlier stages and c) far too slow for just sketching. Also even the best is pretty limited in what you can notate. I like to have as many sheets, versions of passages laid out on the table when consolidating stuff as need be, not keep swapping files. Just me, though.

...


----------

