# Orchestration



## 1996D

It seems everything talked about on here is about harmony and tone in general, and orchestration and counterpoint are never discussed.

To the composers here, what individual quirks do you have with orchestration? What instruments do you enjoy combining as to produce unique and beautiful sounds?

And with counterpoint, what instruments have you found work best together?

Mahler said that the clarinet, flute, and piccolo combined produce the most clarity which is true, and I've been experimenting with select brasses with woodwinds to produce a powerful yet penetrating and beautiful sound.


----------



## mikeh375

My great joy is writing idiomatic string technique, the knowledge of which was built up over years of study and professional scoring and recording. The strings are sadly underused in this regard by some composers imv (especially digital composers) which is a shame, because the idiomatic resource has an unlimited wealth of creative options for foreground, background work, intricate rhythmic accompaniments and all manner of figuration and spacing. Added to the fact that they can play whisper quiet through to fff aggression and multiple divisi, the sections potential as a whole in a score is sometimes sadly missed because creativity can be restricted when instrumental potential is not fully assimilated. As a result, aural and musical imagination may be restricted too because of a lack of knowledge. If one can master scoring for strings in an idiomatic way the musical palette is greatly enhanced as is the compositional potential - it can be learnt with sustained study and it's well worth the effort -it's an amazing resource.

Obviously successful contrapuntal scoring is to a large extent also dependant on register, spacing, rhythmic difference, tempo and the general competence of the writing (which should also be appropriately matched in terms of character to an instrument/section), as much as it is to colour. Colour can of course highlight differences between the lines or unify with similarity. But colour can also be used for effect, eg to partially colour another timbre (line), to add weight for balancing, or it can be a complex multi-timbral colour. Octave doublings, accents, changing, morphing timbres, are all possible with an imaginative approach to colour in line. Stark contrasted colour too, in the right circumstances, is as valid a resource as any other.

I'd suggest that in one sense it's not always just a question of what works best in contrapuntal or any other scoring - there are obvious, common, well known combinations that work fine. However colour choice is also about the musical intent. This can range from the staid to the bizarre, from the unison to the antiphonal, from the emotional to harsh and imv, the timbral objective should be decided upon _at the compositional stage_ as the creative decisions taken then can obviously greatly enhance the efficacy of the composition/effect because of the synergy inherent when orchestral and instrumental knowhow informs creativity and vice versa.


----------



## Guest

In view of your comments above, Mikeh375, I think that you'll like this piece ! 
(*Michael Tippett*, _Concerto for double string orchestra_; I. Allegro con brio.)


----------



## mikeh375

ahhh Talking H, I've known and loved it for many years thanks. It's a great piece isn't it? Do you know his Fantasia Concertante on a theme by Corelli? Worth checking out too if not, another masterpiece and immensely moving. Both works of course displaying his contrapuntal mastery.


----------



## Guest

mikeh375 said:


> ahhh Talking H, I've known and loved it for many years thanks. *It's a great piece isn't it?* *Do you know his Fantasia Concertante on a theme by Corelli?* Worth checking out too if not, another masterpiece and immensely moving. Both works of course displaying his contrapuntal mastery.


Hello again, Mikeh375. Yes to both questions. I rather prefer the Doube Concerto, but there you go.


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> My great joy is writing idiomatic string technique, the knowledge of which was built up over years of study and professional scoring and recording. The strings are sadly underused in this regard by some composers imv (especially digital composers) which is a shame, because the idiomatic resource has an unlimited wealth of creative options for foreground, background work, intricate rhythmic accompaniments and all manner of figuration and spacing. Added to the fact that they can play whisper quiet through to fff aggression and multiple divisi, the sections potential as a whole in a score is sometimes sadly missed because creativity can be restricted when instrumental potential is not fully assimilated. As a result, aural and musical imagination may be restricted too because of a lack of knowledge. If one can master scoring for strings in an idiomatic way the musical palette is greatly enhanced as is the compositional potential - it can be learnt with sustained study and it's well worth the effort -it's an amazing resource.
> 
> Obviously successful contrapuntal scoring is to a large extent also dependant on register, spacing, rhythmic difference, tempo and the general competence of the writing (which should also be appropriately matched in terms of character to an instrument/section), as much as it is to colour. Colour can of course highlight differences between the lines or unify with similarity. But colour can also be used for effect, eg to partially colour another timbre (line), to add weight for balancing, or it can be a complex multi-timbral colour. Octave doublings, accents, changing, morphing timbres, are all possible with an imaginative approach to colour in line. Stark contrasted colour too, in the right circumstances, is as valid a resource as any other.
> 
> I'd suggest that in one sense it's not always just a question of what works best in contrapuntal or any other scoring - there are obvious, common, well known combinations that work fine. However colour choice is also about the musical intent*. This can range from the staid to the bizarre, from the unison to the antiphonal, from the emotional to harsh and imv, the timbral objective should be decided upon at the compositional stage as the creative decisions taken then can obviously greatly enhance the efficacy of the composition/effect because of the synergy inherent when orchestral and instrumental knowhow informs creativity and vice versa.*







John Williams does a lot of lazy layering of instruments as you can see in this video. My guess is he uses a premade orchestration software that already combines instruments for you to produce a specific sound. I don't know if this is the case with most movie and TV composers, but it's not a bad sound, it just has very little counterpoint, and sounds prepackaged at times.

I've found the feeling of a piece can easily be adjusted by adding polyphonic counterpoint with heavier instruments or conversely by singling out or creating a beautiful melody of an equally beautiful timbre, all on top of what is already written. What interests me about orchestration is its ability to make make even dull melodies and simple passages sound beautiful, as in the case with John Williams, who finds a way to make music palpable to the common man by focusing on the effect and clear beauty of the sound, while keeping the musical content simple. He does this very lazily and time efficiently too which is impressive in the case he is not using a preorchestrated library.

As far as counterpoint goes, there is no issue in my case but ensuring that everything can be heard. Even Brahms runs into this problem in his symphonies where the counterpoint isn't as clearly heard as in his chamber music. This is an unfortunate part of orchestral writing and I'm still working at solving the conundrum.


----------



## mikeh375

Williams is of course one of the great orchestrators and does not use samples or software at all for his music. In fact he does not even use a DAW for writing, preferring the traditional way of rubber, pencil and manuscript. His short scores for film are famously around 12 staves wide and I know one orchestrator of his who told me at times he felt like a copyist because of the detail in Williams short score.
His timbral imagination and classical background is also in evidence in his concert work resulting in vibrant colourful and purposeful music of which the scoring is as technically solid and astute for purpose as any work by a great writer.


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> Williams is of course one of the great orchestrators and does not use samples or software at all for his music. In fact he does not even use a DAW for writing, preferring the traditional way of rubber, pencil and manuscript. His short scores for film are famously around 12 staves wide and I know one orchestrator of his who told me at times he felt like a copyist because of the detail in Williams short score.
> His timbral imagination and classical background is also in evidence in his classical work resulting in vibrant colourful and purposeful music of which the scoring is as technically solid as any work by a great writer.


I made it clear that it's a very good sound, I'm taking notes as we speak, it just lacks counterpoint and direction to say something more meaningful, but he's a movie composer, that's not necessarily his job. His writing is extremely efficient, no doubt about that.

I do think he lacks creativity in his ability to reach deeper musical structures, he's a lot like Dvorak in that sense, very much of the people, for the people. Although Dvorak did make a much greater effort with his counterpoint as did Tchaikovsky (who is also for the people, but a legitimate creative genius), Williams just takes absolutely nothing from Bach, Brahms, or Mahler. Their work is there to be followed and further developed on.

As far as what made me think he uses software is his curious combinations of glockenspiel + piano or glockenspiel + vibraphone + piano or 2 flutes + clarinet + piano--all playing the exact same thing. I just have never seen a piano used like that, and some of these combinations are undoubtedly to save time on what could be wonderful counterpoint if more effort was put in.


----------



## Larkenfield

There are 231 references to counterpoint and 252 references to orchestration in the forum index, Some of them can be worth looking up. The difficulty with orchestration as a subject is that some listeners may not be that apt in recognizing and identifying musical instruments, so it can put listeners at a disadvantage in understanding what orchestration is. Recognizing the difference between the Oboe and the English Horn sometimes takes practice. As mentioned in another thread, if I were looking for a starting point on the history or study of orchestration, I'd start with the history, expansion, and development of the orchestra because there cannot be one without the other... There's no orchestration without the appropriate orchestra and they have greatly changed over the centuries, and it’s quite a fascinating subject. Then for orchestration also look to the composers who’ve been best known of it, such Rimsky-Korsakov, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Respighi, Ravel, Richard Strauss, and others, to see how the colors and combination of instruments have changed over the years. Mahler frequently used the sopranino E-flat clarinet in his scores to good effect that was not always available to those who came before him. Both counterpoint and orchestration are fascinating subjects which have been discussed to a certain degree. I believe most listeners are more aware of the counterpoint than orchestration because it’s so evident in the works of Bach and the other Baroque composers, though great counterpoint can also be found in the works of Brahms, Chopin, Max Reger and others.


----------



## mikeh375

1996D said:


> I made it clear that it's a very good sound, I'm taking notes as we speak, it just lacks counterpoint and direction to say something more meaningful, but he's a movie composer, that's not necessarily his job. His writing is extremely efficient, no doubt about that.
> 
> I do think he lacks creativity in his ability to reach deeper musical structures, he's a lot like Dvorak in that sense, very much of the people, for the people. Although Dvorak did make a much greater effort with his counterpoint as did Tchaikovsky (who is also for the people, but a legitimate creative genius), Williams just takes absolutely nothing from Bach, Brahms, or Mahler. Their work is there to be followed and further developed on.
> 
> As far as what made me think he uses software is his curious combinations of glockenspiel + piano or glockenspiel + vibraphone + piano or 2 flutes + clarinet + piano--all playing the exact same thing. I just have never seen a piano used like that, and some of these combinations are undoubtedly to save time on what could be wonderful counterpoint if more effort was put in.


William's film music is a modern age utility music and does not need to conform or answer to anything other than its obligations as a service to the medium - as you say, that's his job. Counterpoint in the way you talk about, i.e. stemming from academicism, CP and tradition (as opposed to foreground, background and orchestral part writing) is not always necessarily a good foil for dialogue and fx in a soundtrack because clarity and simplicity are preferred more often than not in order to dubb the disparate audio elements together in an intelligible way that mostly favours dialogue. Music in particular is often non-digetic and has a bigger spread of sound (stereo, surround sound etc) than the other audio elements which are mainly digetic. It therefore needs special care and attention in the writing, recording and dubbing in order to make it a logical and cohesive part of the whole. These constraints do favour certain styles of composing and scoring. From my own experience, I found that simple middle to lower range writing, without higher octave doubling or lead lines in the scoring blended better with soft to moderate dialogue and a thinner texture was easier to work. Not a hard and fast rule though because almost anything can be dubbed in to work with dialogue and fx, witness some of William's work which has all the complexity of full concert scoring and still manages to work with the other audio elements because of its emotive input, such is his genius.

Perhaps you will consider listening to and getting to know some of William's concert music in order to be a little more informed before you consign his work to not being profound or meaningful in any sense. I recommend the cello and violin concertos. His concert work is more contemporary than the 19thC but assuming from what you say about the romantic masters, if your ears are not ready, or are unwilling to accept such music, you should still be able to assess William's contrapuntal acuity to be one of a composer who understands the technique and uses it as he sees fit.

As to the instrumental combinations you mentioned and the odd conclusion you reached about time saving and missed contrapuntal opportunity, it suggests that do you have a fair way to go with your scoring studies as the combinations are not unusual at all. They are in fact common in film and 20thC scoring and perhaps a study of how a piano is used _within_ an orchestra might be of use at some stage. Remember it is a percussive instrument and so combinations with mallets and percussion are acoustic allies. The piano can also give added bite and brilliance to all combinations of wind and strings and imaginative strokes are always worth exploring.

As your thread is about orchestration here's a few more thoughts. Scoring obviously has to be considered from the players perspective too. The part has to ideally keep the player engaged enough with the work and be satisfying and practical (even if hard) to play. The composer must be aware of the strengths and weaknesses in sound and technique for the instrument and exploit them appropriately (even the weaknesses are usable for effect). Instruments also have character, especially the wind and so one should also develop a feel for for marrying up a particular line with an instrument that feels well suited in timbre for the expression. Successful scoring that considers all the aspects of music making will always make for good ensemble too, especially when the players are to a good standard.

I should imagine Williams was very happy with his efforts and work rate and probably doesn't regret any (apparently) missed opportunities for counterpoint. It is his music after all, music that served a purpose to the highest standards. I might add that I worked with many players who where also on William's recording sessions at Abbey Rd Studios and not one was disparaging towards his work. In fact they love him and his music for all the reasons stated above and many more including outstanding professionalism, for without that in all its guises, technical, musical and personal, one will be immediately found wanting.


----------



## mikeh375

Larkenfield said:


> There are 231 references to counterpoint and 252 references to orchestration in the forum index, Some of them can be worth looking up. The difficulty with orchestration as a subject is that some listeners may not be that apt in recognizing and identifying musical instruments, so it can put listeners at a disadvantage in understanding what orchestration is. Recognizing the difference between in the Oboe and the English Horn sometimes takes practice. As mentioned in another thread, if I were looking for a starting point on the history or study of orchestration, I'd start with the history, expansion, and development of the orchestra because there cannot be one without the other... There's no orchestration without the appropriate orchestra and they have greatly changed over the centuries, and it's quite a fascinating subject. Then for orchestration also look to the composers who've been best known of it, such Rimsky-Korsakov, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Respighi, Ravel, Richard Strauss, and others, to see how the colors and combination of instruments have changed over the years. Mahler frequently used the sopranino E-flat clarinet in his scores to good effect that was not always available to those who came before him. Both counterpoint and orchestration are fascinating subjects which have been discussed to a certain degree. I believe most listeners are more aware of the counterpoint than orchestration because it's so evident in the works of Bach and the other Baroque composers, though great counterpoint can also be found in the works of Brahms, Chopin, Max Reger and others.


Remember too that the 20thC has seen an incredible expansion of the tonal palette, opening up unlimited potential for new sound. It is an ongoing development today of course, especially with the continuing use of electronics. Thankfully music is not standing still in this regard.


----------



## 1996D

Larkenfield said:


> There are 231 references to counterpoint and 252 references to orchestration in the forum index, Some of them can be worth looking up. The difficulty with orchestration as a subject is that some listeners may not be that apt in recognizing and identifying musical instruments, so it can put listeners at a disadvantage in understanding what orchestration is. Recognizing the difference between the Oboe and the English Horn sometimes takes practice. As mentioned in another thread, if I were looking for a starting point on the history or study of orchestration, I'd start with the history, expansion, and development of the orchestra because there cannot be one without the other... There's no orchestration without the appropriate orchestra and they have greatly changed over the centuries, and it's quite a fascinating subject. Then for orchestration also look to the composers who've been best known of it, such Rimsky-Korsakov, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Respighi, Ravel, Richard Strauss, and others, to see how the colors and combination of instruments have changed over the years. Mahler frequently used the sopranino E-flat clarinet in his scores to good effect that was not always available to those who came before him. Both counterpoint and orchestration are fascinating subjects which have been discussed to a certain degree. I believe most listeners are more aware of the counterpoint than orchestration because it's so evident in the works of Bach and the other Baroque composers, though great counterpoint can also be found in the works of Brahms, Chopin, Max Reger and others.


Orchestration should be of more interest to listeners, it's much more interesting than anything else in music theory. It actually requires study, unlike harmony and tone which come naturally to many musical people.


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> William's film music is a modern age utility music and does not need to conform or answer to anything other than its obligations as a service to the medium - as you say, that's his job. Counterpoint in the way you talk about, i.e. stemming from academicism, CP and tradition (as opposed to foreground, background and orchestral part writing) is not always necessarily a good foil for dialogue and fx in a soundtrack because clarity and simplicity are preferred more often than not in order to dubb the disparate audio elements together in an intelligible way that mostly favours dialogue. Music in particular is often non-digetic and has a bigger spread of sound (stereo, surround sound etc) than the other audio elements which are mainly digetic. It therefore needs special care and attention in the writing, recording and dubbing in order to make it a logical and cohesive part of the whole. These constraints do favour certain styles of composing and scoring. From my own experience, I found that simple middle to lower range writing, without higher octave doubling or lead lines in the scoring blended better with soft to moderate dialogue and a thinner texture was easier to work. Not a hard and fast rule though because almost anything can be dubbed in to work with dialogue and fx, witness some of William's work which has all the complexity of full concert scoring and still manages to work with the other audio elements because of its emotive input, such is his genius.
> 
> Perhaps you will consider listening to and getting to know some of William's concert music in order to be a little more informed before you consign his work to not being profound or meaningful in any sense. I recommend the cello and violin concertos. His concert work is more contemporary than the 19thC but assuming from what you say about the romantic masters, if your ears are not ready, or are unwilling to accept such music, you should still be able to assess William's contrapuntal acuity to be one of a composer who understands the technique and uses it as he sees fit.
> 
> As to the instrumental combinations you mentioned and the odd conclusion you reached about time saving and missed contrapuntal opportunity, it suggests that do you have a fair way to go with your scoring studies as the combinations are not unusual at all. They are in fact common in film and 20thC scoring and perhaps a study of how a piano is used _within_ an orchestra might be of use at some stage. Remember it is a percussive instrument and so combinations with mallets and percussion are acoustic allies. The piano can also give added bite and brilliance to all combinations of wind and strings and imaginative strokes are always worth exploring.
> 
> As your thread is about orchestration here's a few more thoughts. Scoring obviously has to be considered from the players perspective too. The part has to ideally keep the player engaged enough with the work and be satisfying and practical (even if hard) to play. The composer must be aware of the strengths and weaknesses in sound and technique for the instrument and exploit them appropriately (even the weaknesses are usable for effect). Instruments also have character, especially the wind and so one should also develop a feel for for marrying up a particular line with an instrument that feels well suited in timbre for the expression. Successful scoring that considers all the aspects of music making will always make for good ensemble too, especially when the players are to a good standard.
> 
> I should imagine Williams was very happy with his efforts and work rate and probably doesn't regret any (apparently) missed opportunities for counterpoint. It is his music after all, music that served a purpose to the highest standards. I might add that I worked with many players who where also on William's recording sessions at Abbey Rd Studios and not one was disparaging towards his work. In fact they love him and his music for all the reasons stated above and many more including outstanding professionalism, for without that in all its guises, technical, musical and personal, one will be immediately found wanting.


Just listened to his cello concerto, the problems are the same, it's simple, has no greater structure or direction whatsoever, it's a huge contrast with Bach's cello suites...and he has a whole orchestra to work with ! -- what a waste of resources. I see now that it's not laziness or the fact that he was working for film, but his own limitations. Counterpoint might require a great deal of effort but individual flair has a strong case going as well, as to what results in mentally stimulating music. I enjoyed his concerto at times, but it should've been a cello sonata with a piano to play the very light work load of the orchestra, and for God's sake they should play together! What is there to dissect if no beautiful melodies are ever played at the same time?






At 25:45 that orchestral part should've been played at the same time as the preceding cello part. He just has no gift for creating large contrapuntal structures. I would lock him in a room and play him Brahms' chamber music and Mahler's last 4 symphonies on repeat for a month.

It has nice moments but it's completely naked, it's like a rough draft.


----------



## Vasks

1996D said:


> Just listened to his cello concerto, it's simple, has no greater structure or direction whatsoever
> He just has no gift for creating large contrapuntal structures. I would lock him in a room and play him Brahms' chamber music and Mahler's last 4 symphonies on repeat for a month.


I do not care much for Williams' concert music either, but since the topic is orchestration I think you may be overlooking what Mike said about Williams' orchestra writing skills. I have no doubt the players admire what he wrote for them, even if some of them don't care for the piece. Writing idiomatic parts with occasional challenging moments is just what they relish.


----------



## 1996D

Vasks said:


> I do not care much for Williams' concert music either, but since the topic is orchestration I think you may be overlooking what Mike said about Williams' orchestra writing skills. I have no doubt the players admire what he wrote for them, even if some of them don't care for the piece. Writing idiomatic parts with occasional challenging moments is just what they relish.


Yeah I get it, he writes purely for the musicians rather than the artistry of the piece itself, but Brahms wrote for his violinist friend as well and his concerto is on a completely different stratosphere. It's simply not a valid excuse, but no doubt Yo-Yo Ma enjoyed playing it.

I personally never enjoyed playing music all that much, the mindless technical practising was boring as hell, and improvisation came naturally, which quickly transitioned to composing. Can't really relate to what players enjoy in physically technical parts, even though I'm a very competent pianist in terms of interpretation, much like Leonard Bernstein.


----------



## Vasks

1996D said:


> Can't really relate to what players enjoy in physically technical parts


Well, if you are composing orchestral music and hope to get some of it played, I recommend you try to relate as to how they think.


----------



## 1996D

Vasks said:


> Well, if you are composing orchestral music and hope to get some of it played, I recommend you try to relate as to how they think.


I think my music will be very hard for the conductor, they'll surely want to give it a try. It's not at all focused on the musicians but it should be enjoyable for them too, it's difficult, but doesn't have a focus on technique or virtuosity. If they enjoy interpreting music that has a meaning they will like it.


----------



## mikeh375

1996D said:


> *Yeah I get it, he writes purely for the musicians rather than the artistry of the piece itself,* but Brahms wrote for his violinist friend as well and his concerto is on a completely different stratosphere. It's simply not a valid excuse, but no doubt Yo-Yo Ma enjoyed playing it.


No, you don't seem to get it at all. You are totally missing the point about the relation between composing and writing for players. I see you don't fully appreciate William's concerto and that's fine, it's all subjective anyway for the most part. At least you actively acquired your opinion this time although no-one can truly assess a work on one or two hearings and subsequent familiarity with this work _might_ have made you re-assess the 'compositional advice' you have offered to Williams. 



1996D said:


> I personally never enjoyed playing music all that much, the mindless technical practising was boring as hell, and improvisation came naturally, which quickly transitioned to composing. Can't really relate to what players enjoy in physically technical parts, even though I'm a very competent pianist in terms of interpretation, much like Leonard Bernstein


Unfortunately this can work against your composing and in your quest to learn about ensemble music making. Performing music inculcates the very sense of musicianship you seem to lack empathy for, the very same musicianship that should infuse your composing work if you are to write for fellow musicians. Paradoxically you seem to say that you don't enjoy playing much and yet are a good interpreter, which makes no sense at all because you need all aspects of performance acuity to interpret in a personal and convincing way, a piece of music. It's through the learning, mastering of technical hurdles and assimilating that one understands the music to the extent that one can then interpret it. One _has_ to be capable of and enjoy, playing well in order to interpret. I would advise a rethink if you want to get anywhere close to Bernstein's ability, who as you no doubt are fully aware, was a fine composer with excellent scoring skills as well as a great pianist and conductor. None of those creative/interpretive skills where honed by just instinct alone.

However, keep studying if you want to achieve good creative compositional synergy informed by orchestral skill. The more you know about idiomatic technique, the more creative options you have and in the daring, imaginative moments in your work - the inspired fantasy perhaps - the more likely your best guess at balance and efficacy will work. The learning will last a lifetime if you have the wit and desire for it.

The one thing me and Vasks are really saying here is that for orchestral music, winging it is not enough if one is to achieve a maximal expression in one's music. It invariably ends poorly for a composer who thinks they can achieve great things without the work required to master, or at least have a sensible grip on orchestration. I get the impression that you are not fully trained (yet?) as a composer, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but believe me, when it comes to orchestral music, no conductor will waste rehearsal time on a score shot through with incompetent work - which will be immediately apparent - and no musician will perform satisfactorily, music badly written for their instrument....there is too much reality at stake in the real world.


----------



## Torkelburger

What's evident in the Close Encounters clip is complex layering of various textures and advanced orchestral writing. No need for multiple melodies at the same time. I don't see anything lazy about it. It's in great contrast to the banal homophonic textures film composers overuse today. And I don't think something as contrapuntal as what JW wrote here for a scene in Jaws would ever be attempted in today's films:




Whenever I hear JW's orchestral scores, I notice activity on several layers that you don't usually get from today's composers. There's almost always melodic material, ostinatos, chordal backgrounds, rapid scalar passages and trills, counter-lines, bass lines and pedal points, and much more, usually several all at once in a foreground/middleground/background setting that is rich and complex.
Not everything JW writes is simple. Especially in the concert music such as the flute, violin, and bassoon concertos.

The first movement of this concert piece





(from 0:00 to 6:54) is about 95% contrapuntal throughout and is an example of some very well-written twentieth-century counterpoint in my opinion. There is clearly a sense of direction, defined by a long build-up to a climax at 4:20 and a clearly defined deeper musical structure/arch that ends with a satisfying denouement.

The flute concerto has complex writing and textures, and in a single-movement, also has a long build-up to a climax which is characterized by intense, modern, contrapuntal writing (from 10:38 to 11:14) which gives the piece a sense of direction.






The beginning of the violin concerto has some very nice modern counterpoint as well, continuing for over two and half minutes to a nice build up. Its like a little fugato or invention for solo violin and various members of the orchestra, stating subject and countersubject.


----------



## Guest

@ *Mikeh375*, *Vasks* & *Torkelburger*: very satisfying to read your comments - people who know what they're talking about.


----------



## mikeh375

Just listening to the Flute concerto that Torkelburger posted. It's one I've only heard once or twice (I know the others). It shows admirably what an imaginative approach to colour he has and also demonstrates nicely a modern approach to timbral invention with piano and percussion. His formidable technique, one that can speak easily and fluently in tonality and atonality is quite something.


----------



## Torkelburger

Good points. The flute concerto is probably my favorite piece of his and I'd go so far as to say one of my favorite pieces in all of the late 20th century. I'd give anything to be able to write a piece like it. I've actually written a couple pieces with it in the back of my mind. I remember when I first heard it when I bought the CD almost 30 years ago now at Tower Records in Boston. I took it back to my room and used to play my favorite part (the climax outlined in my post) over and over and over again. I even tried to transcribe it once so I could analyze it and figure out what he was doing but gave up after a few bars and just decided to try and get the score (I have never been able to find it). I did, however, get a chance to get the bassoon concerto score a few years later.


----------



## 1996D

Torkelburger said:


> *Whenever I hear JW's orchestral scores, I notice activity on several layers that you don't usually get from today's composers. There's almost always melodic material, ostinatos, chordal backgrounds, rapid scalar passages and trills, counter-lines, bass lines and pedal points, and much more, usually several all at once in a foreground/middleground/background setting that is rich and complex.*
> *Not everything JW writes is simple. Especially in the concert music such as the flute, violin, and bassoon concertos.*
> 
> The first movement of this concert piece
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(from 0:00 to 6:54) is about 95% contrapuntal throughout and is an example of some very well-written twentieth-century counterpoint in my opinion. There is clearly a sense of direction, defined by a long build-up to a climax at 4:20 and a clearly defined deeper musical structure/arch that ends with a satisfying denouement.
> *


I mentioned him for a reason, he's arguably the best film composer alive, and my critique might sound harsh but I think it's more than fair.

That is indeed good composing, the best I've heard from him, shame it only lasts ~6 min.


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> Unfortunately this can work against your composing and in your quest to learn about ensemble music making. Performing music inculcates the very sense of musicianship you seem to lack empathy for, the very same musicianship that should infuse your composing work if you are to write for fellow musicians. Paradoxically you seem to say that you don't enjoy playing much and yet are a good interpreter, which makes no sense at all because you need all aspects of performance acuity to interpret in a personal and convincing way, a piece of music.* It's through the learning, mastering of technical hurdles and assimilating that one understands the music to the extent that one can then interpret it. *One _has_ to be capable of and enjoy, playing well in order to interpret. I would advise a rethink if you want to get anywhere close to Bernstein's ability, who as you no doubt are fully aware, was a fine composer with excellent scoring skills as well as a great pianist and conductor. None of those creative/interpretive skills where honed by just instinct alone.


That's simply not true, it depends on how quickly you understand music. If you understand it very fast the more you practise the technical parts the more you lose passion for the piece--the more you play a piece the more you hate it--especially if you're musically creative (repetition kills creativity), that's why I'm not a concert pianist. It's true that some keep finding ways to play the same thing in different ways, but they don't have true compositional talent, otherwise the urge to improvise something else would overwhelm them--the ideas of a composer come at any time and with fury. Many composers haven't enjoyed practising or even played at all in the case of Wagner.

Back to playing, connecting with the thought of a composer is a very natural thing, you can't practise your way through it, you can either think like him or you can't. The emotional part, which is the most important part, is a gift from God.


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> No, you don't seem to get it at all. You are totally missing the point about the relation between composing and writing for players. I see you don't fully appreciate William's concerto and that's fine, *it's all subjective anyway for the most part. At least you actively acquired your opinion this time although no-one can truly assess a work on one or two hearings *and subsequent familiarity with this work _might_ have made you re-assess the 'compositional advice' you have offered to Williams.
> 
> However, keep studying if you want to achieve good creative compositional synergy informed by orchestral skill. The more you know about idiomatic technique, the more creative options you have and in the daring, imaginative moments in your work - the inspired fantasy perhaps - the more likely your best guess at balance and efficacy will work. The learning will last a lifetime if you have the wit and desire for it.
> 
> *The one thing me and Vasks are really saying here is that for orchestral music, winging it is not enough if one is to achieve a maximal expression in one's music. It invariably ends poorly for a composer who thinks they can achieve great things without the work required to master, or at least have a sensible grip on orchestration. I get the impression that you are not fully trained (yet?) as a composer, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but believe me, when it comes to orchestral music, no conductor will waste rehearsal time on a score shot through with incompetent work - which will be immediately apparent - and no musician will perform satisfactorily, music badly written for their instrument....there is too much reality at stake in the real world.*


Oh come on... It's simple enough to digest on one hearing alone.

I'm still getting better, no doubt, but I'm confident enough in my music to critique Williams the way I did--I'm directly comparing his music to mine, I absolutely hate hypocrisy. Of course the student that doesn't surpass the master is a bad student, so I'm not in any way proud or satisfied of where I'm at. We as composers have as masters all the greats that came before us, and it's our duty to surpass them--when that's not achieved or even attempted--and instead money and fame are sought after, then comes the disdain.


----------



## mikeh375

1996D said:


> That's simply not true, it depends on how quickly you understand music. If you understand it very fast the more you practise the technical parts the more you lose passion for the piece--the more you play a piece the more you hate it--especially if you're musically creative (repetition kills creativity), that's why I'm not a concert pianist. It's true that some keep finding ways to play the same thing in different ways, but they don't have true compositional talent, otherwise the urge to improvise something else would overwhelm them--the ideas of a composer come at any time and with fury. Many composers haven't enjoyed practising or even played at all in the case of Wagner.
> 
> Back to playing, connecting with the thought of a composer is a very natural thing, you can't practise your way through it, you can either think like him or you can't. The emotional part, which is the most important part, is a gift from God.


I'm sorry but that's mainly an amateur outlook, based on personal proclivities and opinion only. 
As for repetition, it is fundamental to acquiring skill in performance (_and_ compositional technique). For performance and interpretation, it's not just about understanding the music on a theoretical level, but also about your felt response to it and in order to glean what that might be and how to play it, familiarity beyond technical mastery, is required and not waning or limited enthusiasm. That is, a freedom to be able to play in an emotionally unhindered way. BTW and on a more pertinent note, one can also improvise so much more liberally, creatively and effectively with well developed musicianship

Composer/pianists with 'true compositional talent'......Rachmaninov, Shostakovich, Britten, Liszt, Chopin, Prokofieff, Huw Watkins, Thomas Ades, Bartok, Bernstein, Mozart, Bach, Scriabin, John Williams, need I go on? 
Nothing regarding composition, performance and musicianship is mutually exclusive, quite the opposite.

I grant you that composing is there within or not, but it needs technical underpinning to support the emotion and that needs practise. The most powerful and effective music is often founded upon 'under the hood' restrictions and technique and that is precisely why it is powerful. You have to find the balance between the objective and subjective that favours your voice. Used correctly, technique can be a search engine for new material and a springboard and foil for inspiration. The rigour can also unify the whole.

God? Well whatever fits your view, others are available. Atheism can write good music too.



1996D said:


> .......
> Of course the student that doesn't surpass the master is a bad student, so I'm not in any way proud or satisfied of where I'm at. We as composers have as masters all the greats that came before us, and it's our duty to surpass them--when that's not achieved or even attempted--and instead money and fame are sought after, then comes the disdain.


That's a fantasy outlook. The truthful likelihood is that you will not be good enough to reach the highest attainments of the great masters (the ones you cited earlier are stylistically irrelevant to todays concert composing anyway so presumably you want to surpass recent masters like Dutilleux, Boulez, Lutoslawski, Carter et al which will entail learning techniques and developing your ear way beyond CP). I'm also quite certain that your puzzling and disparaging attitude towards musicianship could well be a loss to your personal musical and compositional development.

It seems as though we are off topic now and yet I'd try to persuade you further in this regard but you probably wont accept anything from me so I'll wish you luck instead. I'll join in again if the topic re-appears seeing that I know a little about that too.


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> *That's a fantasy outlook. The truthful likelihood is that you will not be good enough to reach the highest attainments of the great masters *(the ones you cited earlier are irrelevant to todays concert composing anyway) and your posts above disdaining musicianship could well be a loss to your personal musical and compositional development. I'd try to persuade you further in this regard but you probably wont accept anything from me so I'll wish you luck instead.


If that were true I wouldn't be composing.

Brahms and Mahler irrelevant, did I get that right?

And I'm not disdaining musicianship...


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> That's an amateur outlook, based on personal experience and ability only.
> As for repetition, it is fundamental to acquiring skill in performance (_and_ compositional technique). For performance and interpretation, it's not just about understanding the music, but also about your response to it and that you only find with familiarity beyond technical mastery, not superficiality.
> 
> *Composer/pianists with talent....Rachmaninov, Shostakovich, Britten, Liszt, Chopin, Prokofieff, Hugh Wood, Thomas Ades, Bartok, John Williams, need I go on?*
> Nothing regarding composition, performance and musicianship is mutually exclusive, quite the opposite.
> 
> I grant you that composing is there within or not, but it needs technical underpinning to support the emotion. The most powerful music is often under such under the hood restrictions and that is why it is powerful.
> God? well whatever fits your view. Atheism can write good music too.


There are as many composers or more that weren't fond of practising pieces, not everyone has the will to do that. If anything it is a minority of composers that are virtuosos. Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Rachmaninoff. The rest played but not at world class level, they simply didn't have time to practise; composing as you know is very time consuming, or should be.


----------



## mikeh375

Torkelburger said:


> Good points. The flute concerto is probably my favorite piece of his and I'd go so far as to say one of my favorite pieces in all of the late 20th century. I'd give anything to be able to write a piece like it. I've actually written a couple pieces with it in the back of my mind. I remember when I first heard it when I bought the CD almost 30 years ago now at Tower Records in Boston. I took it back to my room and used to play my favorite part (the climax outlined in my post) over and over and over again. I even tried to transcribe it once so I could analyze it and figure out what he was doing but gave up after a few bars and just decided to try and get the score (I have never been able to find it). I did, however, get a chance to get the bassoon concerto score a few years later.


I hunted for the cello concerto score to no avail. I was writing one of my own at the time and like you and the flute conc, I had this piece in the back of my mind as a model until I started writing, then all plans went out of the window sort of as the atonality fought against the pan tonality. Thanks for reminding me of the flute concerto, I really enjoyed it (again).


----------



## mikeh375

1996D said:


> If that were true I wouldn't be composing.
> 
> Brahms and Mahler irrelevant, did I get that right?
> 
> And I'm not disdaining musicianship...


You'll learn. Composing is about you yourself, it's not a competition, its a journey of self musical discovery. Where you end up is not as important as the journey, which you should undertake with all you can offer.
You missed my edit, I added that they are not _stylistically_ relevant, (to our times) no prob.


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> You'll learn. Composing is about you yourself, it's not a competition, its a journey of self musical discovery. Where you end up is not as important as the journey, which you should undertake with all you can offer.
> You missed my edit, I added that they are not _stylistically_ relevant, (to our times) no prob.


Mike, I respect your opinion and your intelligence. We are trying to do completely different things as composers; you seem to do it for your own enjoyment and as a means to make a living, while I'm aiming at something else. There is a true sense of responsibility to fulfill a potential even though composition is more so part of an education, much like philosophy, rather than something grounded in the real world. I'd love it if my music could have a political effect, and that's the expectation, I don't think I could do it otherwise. The good thing is that I have time on my side and you never know when society might change - the appreciation of art often changes with it - it might be 15 years, it might be 30.

But I think I understand your music better now and what you seek to do and accomplish.


----------



## mikeh375

1996D said:


> Mike, I respect your opinion and your intelligence. We are trying to do completely different things as composers; *you seem to do it for your own enjoyment and as a means to make a living*, while I'm aiming at something else. There is a true sense of responsibility to fulfill a potential even though composition is more so part of an education, much like philosophy, rather than something grounded in the real world. I'd love it if my music could have a political effect, and that's the expectation, I don't think I could do it otherwise. The good thing is that I have time on my side and you never know when society might change - the appreciation of art often changes with it - it might be 15 years, it might be 30.
> 
> But I think I understand your music better now and what you seek to do and accomplish.


Yes I made a living from composing, true enough, there are not many who can say that sadly. In doing so, no price was paid with loss of personal artistic integrity, the job was just that, ridiculously easy at times and sometimes executed with no integrity at all when the clock was ticking, such was the nature of either the brief and/or the clients. The real price paid was time away from those I love. 
You're wrong on my motives though. You said yourself it's not an easy thing to do and you're right, there is only enjoyment when it goes well and satisfaction when a cohesive piece has been achieved. Then it's on to the next push. I've always composed, I had no choice in the matter, it was and still is, just what I do.

The one piece I can think of in recent history - an undoubted masterpiece from all aspects imv - that had any right at all to change the world is Britten's War Requiem. It is intensely moving and resonates within after hearing for quite sometime afterwards (with me anyway), but it hasn't ultimately changed a thing because it cannot.
Politics as a creative wellspring is as valid a reason to compose as any other of course, but in our time, I doubt whether or not music has any pragmatic impact beyond itself. Even the receptive listener will move on after a while and probably to some J Bieber. A more noble aspiration for one's music imv might be Michael Tippet's...to offer succour. Now we both know music _can_ do that.


----------



## mikeh375

Back on topic...these might be useful.

http://andrewhugill.com/manuals/clarinet/articulations.html
https://archive.org/details/OrchestralBowings1991
http://naspaa.hostcentric.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/book.pdf


----------



## EdwardBast

I have enjoyed the discussion, but haven't participated because the topic in general terms and in the abstract doesn't much interest me. Discussing specific orchestration problems and pieces would, if anyone should decide to do that.


----------



## mikeh375

yep...I'm in on that Edward...anything in mind? I'm always interested in distribution of notes vertically - enclosing, juxtaposition and so on. Stravinsky eked out some marvellous timbre with new approaches to that particular facet as did Mahler, by leaving big gaps in the vertical space at times.


----------



## Torkelburger

1996D said:


> It seems everything talked about on here is about harmony and tone in general, and orchestration and counterpoint are never discussed.
> 
> To the composers here, what individual quirks do you have with orchestration? What instruments do you enjoy combining as to produce unique and beautiful sounds?
> 
> And with counterpoint, what instruments have you found work best together?
> 
> Mahler said that the clarinet, flute, and piccolo combined produce the most clarity which is true, and I've been experimenting with select brasses with woodwinds to produce a powerful yet penetrating and beautiful sound.


In reply to the OP--

My favorite beautiful sound of the orchestra is the very cliched cellos and horns in upper register unison, simulating the tenor singing voice. I also love the Jerry Goldsmith upper register violin unison cantabile, without the lower octave doubling, even in modern settings it sounds good. So simple but effective.

We periodically get asked here about instrumental combinations and which ones are good, etc. Have you ever read Rimsky-Korsakov's orchestration book? He goes into quite some depth about each and every possible instrumental combination there is. Hundreds or thousands of them. And discusses their pros and cons (flute is overpowered here, or flute blends well here…etc. etc.) Each and every nuance (certain instruments in unison, in octaves, two octaves apart, etc.) You should check it out if you haven't read it yet.

Do you get the chance to compose for a live (not computer) orchestra that often (and get a live performance)? I never have, and most composers today do not. It is extremely rare. So while I had directed study in orchestral composition in college and have studied orchestral composition for years, I'm afraid I don't have much hands-on experience producing unique sounds for the orchestra. If I was to try, I would start by studying the scores of Toru Takemitsu for sure as his orchestral sounds I find the most unique and attractive. But I am a fairly conservative composer overall and so my style of orchestration is very basic and straightforward.

Most composers today, including myself, compose for small groups they know personally or for contests (hosted by small groups). So you are constrained by the instrumentation to orchestrate for. When I compose for them, I make sure I exploit all the different combinations I can so as to give a variety to the sound of the music and keep it interesting. Got to make sure everything stays balanced though. Sometimes you get really weird and unique instruments. Toy pianos seem to be popular now. Also, the popular thing now with chamber groups over the past couple years is having a group with the same instrumentation of Pierrot Lunaire. This is less than ideal as there is only one bass instrument, the cello, and even that only goes to a low C below the staff. So that has its own orchestration problems.

With counterpoint, I'm old-fashioned. I like hearing large groups of the same instrumental families play counterpoint. 1) choir 2) brass quintet 3) string orchestra. In an orchestral setting, I like woodwinds, usually two of the same (two oboes, two bassoons, two flutes). The contrapuntal ww writing in Beethoven's 9th is a particular favorite. In modern music my favorite is Bartok's Duos for Two Violins.

Even though you didn't ask, but since I have a big mouth (haha)--Things that bother me about (other people's) orchestration are when the writing is unidiomatic for the instruments the music is written for, or when the composer writes for the orchestra the same way you write for the piano. I hate when the orchestration is ALWAYS in two parts (you can tell it was written on piano-two hands), and when the bass is always in octaves and never has melody or interest. Stuff like that. Basically, a lot of modern film music.


----------



## Torkelburger

I also meant to suggest these “unique” combinations in regards to more modern orchestration (and speaking as a professional tuba player and fanatic):

Tuba and piccolo – example in Robert Simpson’s 3rd Symphony second mvt.
Tuba and oboe – couple examples in John Williams’ film scores
Tuba and clarinet

And as a tuba player my favorite things to play or hear a tuba play besides supporting the whole orchestra with loud bass notes in my powerful register, is playing in extreme registers (the low guttural notes often combined with raspy trombones, and playing high above the staff).


----------



## Torkelburger

1996D, do you have a score you are working on you could post that you wanted feedback on or had a question about? Or a soundfile? Was there a particular problem you were working on?



> yep...I'm in on that Edward...anything in mind? I'm always interested in distribution of notes vertically - enclosing, juxtaposition and so on. Stravinsky eked out some marvellous timbre with new approaches to that particular facet as did Mahler, by leaving big gaps in the vertical space at times.


Yes! Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms (mvt. 1) comes to mind in that regard (the recurring E minor chord).

While we wait for 1996D to site any specific orchestration problems or questions--

Maybe this could be an interesting topic regarding vertical distribution of notes, potential orchestration problem, and John Williams (so we can all take part)-

It is often said in orchestration textbooks that when scoring a chord (triad for example) for full tutti orchestra, the chord should be spelled completely in each choir (ww's, brass, strings) (this is for traditional, not contemporary/modern context). But take a look at the very first chord here:





It is a Bb Major chord, however, the only choir playing the complete triad is the brass, and only in the horns and trumpets even then. Everyone else is simply playing a Bb. All winds and all strings. Even the trombones, which might normally be doubling the trumpets at the octave (or thereabouts) are not. If I was orchestrating for him, I would have suggested either having everyone play Bb, or spelling the chord in all choirs, but not leaving it as is.

So:

This was before computers. How did he know this would work? Or is this a problem? Does it work? Why or why not? Where did he get this idea from (are there any pieces in the repertoire that do this)? Is it pointless to have the chord in the trumpets and horns because you can't hear it anyway? This seems like a mistake a beginner would make, but it's kind of brilliant too.

My opinion is that it works (and is quite effective), even though there are some performances and recordings where the effect is lost and unbalanced, but when it works, it is very dramatic and impressive. Most of the time the brass chord comes through and you can hear all the pitches. As a conductor I would make sure of it. But I am shocked the second and third trumpets (and horns) can come through at all.

I don't know. Maybe this is no big deal. Feel free to ignore. Just came across my mind when reading above posts.


----------



## mikeh375

Good example Torkelburger. Fwiw, here's some musings on that chord and perhaps why it is scored as it is ..other interpretations are available of course...

His choices it seems to me are all about the musical intent rather than scoring formula and the intent and art must take precedence over the science right? The singular Bflat note (in all octaves, but particularly trp1) is his priority - a sort of "..and Williams said let there be music and there was" moment. A single note with utter supernova brilliance (ok I'll stop waxing lyrical) to grab the attention. All the doubling and spacing seems designed to reinforce and enhance that particular notes power and impact and bring it into an even sharper relief than any other chord member and although the triad is complete in the trumpets and was always going to shine in that register regardless of whats above and below, it is noticeable that the 8va doubling of the 3rd and 5th is limited to the triadic range immediately above the bones, i.e an octave below the trp triad. Distributed to a weaker sonic comparatively speaking, (vlas double stop/hrn2 for the 3rd and an even weaker hrn3 on the fifth), the middle range 3rd and 5th are in effect background filler and because of the disparity in balance, the upper brilliance is emphasised even more so I feel. As you suggest TorkelB, one could have easily achieved an equable balance in tutti across the full triad and acoustic spectrum with well known formula to create a full on orchestral slam but Williams chose not to do this because he wanted a forceful clarity on one note in a particular register. 

Flts and picc play where they can contribute best, with upper partial strengthening and similarly the obs and clts blended octave reinforcements of each other also contribute to the upper winds with 8va support. 

Musically, the bones are in fanfare mode and the unison makes sense, no need for harmonic blocking in as they are a priority line. Note that the trpts are marked sfz and the rest sffz for perhaps a more democratic balance or at least one not too divorced between top, middle and bottom. Williams is quite aware of how overpowering the trpts could be untamed and attempts to guard against it.

Let's face it though, in that register and close spacing it's all about the trumpets and what other key would one choose to showcase them in a brass march? - bflat tpts, bflat tenor bones,double horns in f and bflat and tuba (in bflat?)

Anyway, some thoughts that might have touched on the creative decision to score as he did.

BTW it's nice to know I'm not the only Simpson fan. I particularly like his quartets, but the symphonies too.


----------



## Torkelburger

Very good points, thanks for the insight!


----------



## 1996D

Torkelburger said:


> I also meant to suggest these "unique" combinations in regards to more modern orchestration (and speaking as a professional tuba player and fanatic):
> 
> Tuba and piccolo - example in Robert Simpson's 3rd Symphony second mvt.
> Tuba and oboe - couple examples in John Williams' film scores
> Tuba and clarinet
> 
> And as a tuba player my favorite things to play or hear a tuba play besides supporting the whole orchestra with loud bass notes in my powerful register, is playing in extreme registers (the low guttural notes often combined with raspy trombones, and playing high above the staff).


That's interesting, I'm working on a piece that absolutely needs to be perfect because it has a meaning behind it; it's a symphonic poem of kinds, through-composed, on a philosophical concept, and orchestration is crucial in getting the exact feeling right.

Now working on how to get the power right without it getting clunky, perhaps the oboe would give a nice sound to the tuba, and cellos and horns do indeed sound nice, I already have the darkest part of the piece on that combination, with double basses and bassoons as well.

Another issue is when you start pieces they tend to take time to build up and they get better as your passion grows throughout the piece, the creative energy expanding with each passing creation. Beethoven in his 3rd I think wrote the first movement last, so it would be explosive and grand, and it is indeed that, probably the best first movement ever written.

But if not working in reverse, I believe it is in revision that first movements can truly be elevated. If you're trying to project a specific idea it's crucial that you are properly warmed up creatively and that's hard to do when beginning a piece, so revision seems to be the only way.

I'm almost done, composed like a madman these last days, it just needs more beauty in the finale, and the first 10 min are perhaps rather dull, because they're a sort of buildup; those minutes need to be maximized through ornamentation, perhaps more percussion. It's the part of the philosophy that I can relate the least to, so it's been hard to project the desired feeling, perhaps more studying is needed.

The goal is to make every minute interesting in a way that keeps you locked in; it is thematically like that and creative musically in a way that encourages complete attention, but it needs more beauty in the buildup. Maybe adding some beautiful melodies as counterpoint and additional orchestration is the answer, though it's important not to make the piece too heavy.

What are some creative combinations that produce beauty but no loud sound? Harp, glockenspiel, celesta, are already in use with woodwinds. Perhaps different kinds of string effects?


----------



## Heck148

1996D said:


> Back to playing, connecting with the thought of a composer is a very natural thing, you can't practise your way through it, you can either think like him or you can't. The emotional part, which is the most important part, is a gift from God.


Huh??


----------



## 1996D

Heck148 said:


> Huh??


It's what the best players and conductors have, the ability to stop time and display what the composer wrote in its full glory. All the technical things are unimportant compared to that: the spiritual connection between the composer, the player, and God: complete synergy.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> great counterpoint can also be found in the works of Brahms, Chopin, Max Reger and others.


I think it would be more appropriate to switch "Chopin" in your sentence with "Mendelssohn" or "Wagner", cause frankly Chopin isn't really in league with those masters in counterpoint.
But I think the most beautiful Chopinesque counterpoint is found in Ballade Op.52:
the canonic section at 6:38 consists of A Bb D and C# G B switching registers using invertible counterpoint. Not dazzling or mindblowing by the standard of other masters, but respectable and functional enough to spice up the style of music he wrote, I think.

3:10
6:38


----------



## Heck148

1996D said:


> It's what the best players and conductors have, the ability to stop time and display what the composer wrote in its full glory. All the technical things are unimportant compared to that: the spiritual connection between the composer, the player, and God: complete synergy.


interesting....that really doesn't relate to my own experience, or that of most performers I know, or have worked with...first off. if you're a busy musician, you are playing tons of music, overlapping services, and often obscure or relatively unknown composers...trying to commune, or spiritually connect with each and every composer is rather impossible...I guess if you play only a few concerts a year, you could spend the time probing the psyche of the composer....for the workaday musician 
that really doesn't work. we communicate by way of the printed score, what the composer wrote...we use our knowledge, training and experience to perform to the best of our ability....technical ability is extremely important, but so is training, and so is "spirit", or musical sense, awareness....we always try to plug into the style, the "personality" of the music, which is a form of connecting to the composer's original expressive content...Considerably different approaches are applied to, say, Mozart, Brahms, Shostakovich. for me, god has nothing to do with it


----------



## 1996D

Heck148 said:


> interesting....that really doesn't relate to my own experience, or that of most performers I know, or have worked with...first off. if you're a busy musician, you are playing tons of music, overlapping services, and often obscure or relatively unknown composers...trying to commune, or spiritually connect with each and every composer is rather impossible...I guess if you play only a few concerts a year, you could spend the time probing the psyche of the composer....for the workaday musician
> that really doesn't work. we communicate by way of the printed score, what the composer wrote...we use our knowledge, training and experience to perform to the best of our ability....technical ability is extremely important, but so is training, and so is "spirit", or musical sense, awareness....we always try to plug into the style, the "personality" of the music, which is a form of connecting to the composer's original expressive content...Considerably different approaches are applied to, say, Mozart, Brahms, Shostakovich. for me, god has nothing to do with it


What part of 'very natural' and 'the best' don't you understand? You don't need to work at it, you either connect spiritually or you don't. Repetition can make your passion grow to an extent but the passion is a faculty.

Drive, passion, strength, this is what music is about and a connection to God is what gives you this, because it's not only that but also restraint, goodness, and reason -- composing is tremendously spiritual, and so to properly project, the playing has to be also.

Whatever you believe in is irrelevant, spirituality is what makes the great composer and the great musician.


----------



## Vasks

1996D said:


> composing is tremendously spiritual .


Have you not heard the expression: "_Composition is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration_"?


----------



## Heck148

1996D said:


> What part of 'very natural' and 'the best' don't you understand?


I understand the concepts most thoroughly, but they have nothing to do with the convoluted, contrived pov you've put forth...if it works for you, great....I have no idea what you are talking about, and I'm certainly not going to argue over a premise based upon any "god", a fictitious concept for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Enjoy your evening


----------



## KenOC

Just a note that I was listening, with some attention, to Scheherazade in the car today. What tunes, what harmonies, what orchestration! We’ve all heard this so often that it slides by beneath our consciousness, but…what a smashing work!

Little wonder that so many composers came to Nikolai to learn orchestration.


----------



## Heck148

Back to the original topic - orchestration - one of the things I love about 20th century music is the great development of orchestral sonority....
we have composers like Vaughan Williams, Prokofieff, Sibelius, who made such great use of the bass instruments - wonderful lines for tuba, bassoons, low clarinets, horns, celli, bass - different combinations - solo or soli...if done poorly, it creates a thick muddy mess....but with the truly skilled orchestrators - like those aforementioned, it expands the timbral range and the melodic pitch range of the orchestra to a huge degree....
then we have Shostakovich, Ravel, Stravinsky, who so thoroughly and creatively explored the different combinations of instruments....


----------



## mikeh375

1996D said:


> .....
> ............Drive, passion, strength, this is what music is about and a connection to God is what gives you this, because it's not only that but also restraint, goodness, and reason -- composing is tremendously spiritual, and so to properly project, the playing has to be also.
> 
> Whatever you believe in is irrelevant, spirituality is what makes the great composer and the great musician.


Not that you imply this outright and being reasonable here, there is surely no supernatural or spiritual exclusivity on the qualities of drive and passion nor reason and goodness - these are also natural, evolutionary human traits. Composing is in a sense spiritual, granted, but not necessarily in the guise of religious dogma or a God of whatever form, variation or sex. A composer needs a lot more than spirituality in his arsenal to achieve greatness, whereas a performer needs a developed artistic sensibility in order to connect with the music, one that is not obliged to be steeped in spirituality. This sensibility is inculcated in formative years through training and becomes enhanced with maturity.

Other successful options for a composing paradigm are available and one needs to be mindful of them too in all the talk of a God. Of course any variation of belief can be considered vital and valid if it motivates the work but conversely no belief is necessary to create good music. Similarly, belief in a God or a spiritual doctrine does not guarantee a masterpiece nor a decent performance. Hard work and talent _does_ have a chance of achieving those lofty aims on its own though.


----------



## arpeggio

The advantage amateur musicians, like myself, is that, even though we may only rehears once a week, we live with a work for several weeks. As a result I will gain insights into a work that I normally not get just by listening to it.

I understand the plight of the professional. They only have three or four rehearsals and they have to perform. This is why I am in awe of professionals.

I recently heard the Marine Band perform Maslanka's _Child's Garden of Dreams_. It was the greatest performance of the work I have ever heard. I was discussing the performance with the conductor after the concert and learned they only spent three days rehearsing it.


----------



## mikeh375

re combinations, this might be useful. It's a little dry and to the point, but can open the mind to different ways.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Orchestral-Combinations-Science-Instrumental-Tone-color/dp/0810848147/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=read+orchestral+combinations&qid=1575447771&sr=8-1

This for clarinet..

https://heatherroche.net/2014/04/04/on-clarinet-articulation/

This for a neat intro to all instruments from the Philharmonia Orchestra....

http://www.philharmonia.co.uk/explore/instruments

Two sites for the harp...

https://www.15secondharp.com/writing-for-the-harp

http://composingforharp.com

For String techniques....

https://www.hidersine.com/education/technique-videos/violin-technique-videos

and this...

https://orchestrationonline.com/orchestration-tips/horns-practical-range-of-stopped-notes/

Finally and highly recommended.....

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33900/33900-h/33900-h.htm


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> Not that you imply this outright and being reasonable here, there is surely no supernatural or spiritual exclusivity on the qualities of drive and passion nor reason and goodness - these are also natural, evolutionary human traits. Composing is in a sense spiritual, granted, but not necessarily in the guise of religious dogma or a God of whatever form, variation or sex. A composer needs a lot more than spirituality in his arsenal to achieve greatness, whereas a performer needs a developed artistic sensibility in order to connect with the music, one that is not obliged to be steeped in spirituality. This sensibility is inculcated in formative years through training and becomes enhanced with maturity.
> 
> Other successful options for a composing paradigm are available and one needs to be mindful of them too in all the talk of a God. Of course any variation of belief can be considered vital and valid if it motivates the work but conversely no belief is necessary to create good music. Similarly, belief in a God or a spiritual doctrine does not guarantee a masterpiece nor a decent performance. Hard work and talent _does_ have a chance of achieving those lofty aims on its own though.


It doesn't matter what you believe, I'm not describing a doctrine, it's simply the most straight forward way to explain. Music comes from the spirit, it's something primal and natural, and reason is that as well, you have it or you don't, you can't cultivate something out of thin air.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that composition and performance are gifts, and of course you work, but that doesn't make it better or worse, it's just what you have to do to express your gift. The gift is the ability to feel, to love seemingly without limits.

Heck148 didn't get that... "trying to commune, or spiritually connect with each and every composer is rather impossible...I guess if you play only a few concerts a year, you could spend the time probing the psyche of the composer."

You don't need to do that because all composers are human beings, and if you have the gift of empathy and your mind is similar enough, you can connect very easily with their music, you don't need to probe the psyche. In this way music is purely spiritual--it's the only way to explain the immediate connection.


----------



## Heck148

I can quite readily connect with composers' music....i don't need to have empathy with them as persons...i dont have the time or energy to commune with them as persons...music-making is not just spiritual....it is physical, intellectual, expressive....


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> It doesn't matter what you believe, I'm not describing a doctrine, it's simply the most straight forward way to explain. Music comes from the spirit, it's something primal and natural, and reason is that as well, you have it or you don't, you can't cultivate something out of thin air.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that composition and performance are gifts, and of course you work, but that doesn't make it better or worse, it's just what you have to do to express your gift. The gift is the ability to feel, to love seemingly without limits.
> 
> Heck148 didn't get that... "trying to commune, or spiritually connect with each and every composer is rather impossible...I guess if you play only a few concerts a year, you could spend the time probing the psyche of the composer."
> 
> You don't need to do that because all composers are human beings, and if you have the gift of empathy and your mind is similar enough, you can connect very easily with their music, you don't need to probe the psyche. In this way music is purely spiritual--it's the only way to explain the immediate connection.


I think I understand what you're saying here, that sort of sense or ear for music, either you have it or you don't, but I don't see it as spiritual, and I believe it can be cultivated over experience, when you hear from great composers. I'm assuming you don't mean that composition is like writing something out already inspiring through some spiritual rapport. It is only a guide in the muck.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> I think I understand what you're saying here, that sort of sense or ear for music, either you have it or you don't, but I don't see it as spiritual, and I believe it can be cultivated over experience, when you hear from great composers. I'm assuming you don't mean that composition is like writing something out already inspiring through some spiritual rapport. It is only a guide in the muck.


The work is spiritually draining, creativity is closely related to love in that it costs a great deal, but the ideas do come in your head as a gift: it's working them out that drains you, the very acceptance of them is draining, not in the moment but after you're done you feel it.

But it does come out of something unexplained, there is no plan, no method, inspiration is something mystical, and technique only serves to express it at its full potential, to organize it--that's where reason and taste come in play.


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

1996D said:


> John Williams does a lot of lazy layering of instruments as you can see in this video. My guess is he uses a premade orchestration software that already combines instruments for you to produce a specific sound. I don't know if this is the case with most movie and TV composers, but it's not a bad sound, it just has very little counterpoint, and sounds prepackaged at times.
> 
> I've found the feeling of a piece can easily be adjusted by adding polyphonic counterpoint with heavier instruments or conversely by singling out or creating a beautiful melody of an equally beautiful timbre, all on top of what is already written. What interests me about orchestration is its ability to make make even dull melodies and simple passages sound beautiful, as in the case with John Williams, who finds a way to make music palpable to the common man by focusing on the effect and clear beauty of the sound, while keeping the musical content simple. He does this very lazily and time efficiently too which is impressive in the case he is not using a preorchestrated library.
> 
> As far as counterpoint goes, there is no issue in my case but ensuring that everything can be heard. Even Brahms runs into this problem in his symphonies where the counterpoint isn't as clearly heard as in his chamber music. This is an unfortunate part of orchestral writing and I'm still working at solving the conundrum.


John Williams doesn't use any computers or software. Just a Baldwin piano, a pencil, and manuscript paper. He also orchestrates and conducts his own music. He's a genius.


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

mikeh375 said:


> My great joy is writing idiomatic string technique, the knowledge of which was built up over years of study and professional scoring and recording. The strings are sadly underused in this regard by some composers imv (especially digital composers) which is a shame, because the idiomatic resource has an unlimited wealth of creative options for foreground, background work, intricate rhythmic accompaniments and all manner of figuration and spacing. Added to the fact that they can play whisper quiet through to fff aggression and multiple divisi, the sections potential as a whole in a score is sometimes sadly missed because creativity can be restricted when instrumental potential is not fully assimilated. As a result, aural and musical imagination may be restricted too because of a lack of knowledge. If one can master scoring for strings in an idiomatic way the musical palette is greatly enhanced as is the compositional potential - it can be learnt with sustained study and it's well worth the effort -it's an amazing resource.
> 
> Obviously successful contrapuntal scoring is to a large extent also dependant on register, spacing, rhythmic difference, tempo and the general competence of the writing (which should also be appropriately matched in terms of character to an instrument/section), as much as it is to colour. Colour can of course highlight differences between the lines or unify with similarity. But colour can also be used for effect, eg to partially colour another timbre (line), to add weight for balancing, or it can be a complex multi-timbral colour. Octave doublings, accents, changing, morphing timbres, are all possible with an imaginative approach to colour in line. Stark contrasted colour too, in the right circumstances, is as valid a resource as any other.
> 
> I'd suggest that in one sense it's not always just a question of what works best in contrapuntal or any other scoring - there are obvious, common, well known combinations that work fine. However colour choice is also about the musical intent. This can range from the staid to the bizarre, from the unison to the antiphonal, from the emotional to harsh and imv, the timbral objective should be decided upon _at the compositional stage_ as the creative decisions taken then can obviously greatly enhance the efficacy of the composition/effect because of the synergy inherent when orchestral and instrumental knowhow informs creativity and vice versa.


How do I learn this technique?


----------



## mikeh375

^^^^ consistent and focused study and hard work over a prolonged period. You can either do it yourself, with a tutor or within an institution but do be determined and keep at it. Also study and listen to scores and copy sections of music out onto a couple of staves as this is far more instructive than cursory glances over 30+ staves as you just listen. You will then discover how balance and blending is achieved.
I guess you already know of the standard texts on orchestration and there are some online sites that are good. This one is helpful...

http://andrewhugill.com/OrchestraManual/


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

Thanks for the link. I'm a classical guitarist but self taught in theory and composing. I picked up Walter Piston Orchestration and Harmony books. I'm also trying to learn piano.


----------



## mikeh375

ClassicalMaestro said:


> Thanks for the link. I'm a classical guitarist but self taught in theory and composing. I picked up Walter Piston Orchestration and Harmony books. I'm also trying to learn piano.


Self learning is inevitable and desirable imv when it comes to creativity, just so long as you are motivated and prepared to put the work in because you will come out the other end all the better for it. 
You've got two excellent books there. I also recommend Adler's book on orchestration as it also comes with CD examples.


----------



## pianozach

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^^ consistent and focused study and hard work over a prolonged period. You can either do it yourself, with a tutor or within an institution but do be determined and keep at it. Also study and listen to scores and copy sections of music out onto a couple of staves as this is far more instructive than cursory glances over 30+ staves as you just listen. You will then discover how balance and blending is achieved.
> I guess you already know of the standard texts on orchestration and there are some online sites that are good. This one is helpful...
> 
> http://andrewhugill.com/OrchestraManual/


I'll concur.

While I don't exactly hear the Classical music in the same way, when it comes to pop and rock I don't hear it the same way as a "typical" person does.

I'll hear it, well, "exploded". I hear the arrangements, the parts, the pieces, and am occasionally called on to create karaoke versions, which I find to be barely an inconvenience. I hear the components, and recreate them, even virtual guitar parts.

I've created some virtual scores for musical theatre and operetta, and have used two different methods: The first, and surprisingly not as effective method, is to play every single orchestral part, one at a time, until I've got the finished piece. It often comes out sounding a bit accordion-ny. The second is to simply "make up" parts, often a section at a time, without too much regard for the score arrangements. This method ends up sounding far better.

But the approach to both is considerably different.


----------



## Forster

Bumping this thread as the subject has cropped up elsewhere recently, I'll ask whether composers began to change their habits of orchestration when recorded sound came in and enabled audiences to hear subtleties that might be missed in the concert hall.


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> Bumping this thread as the subject has cropped up elsewhere recently, I'll ask whether composers began to change their habits of orchestration when recorded sound came in and enabled audiences to hear subtleties that might be missed in the concert hall.


If we talk only about pure, traditional orchestration/scoring then I don't think there was a change in approach. Fundamentally, apart from the creative aspect (which obviously changed dramatically over the 20thC), orchestration is based on acoustics, ensemble playing/balance and live performance - actual physical principles and circumstances. The score's aim has to be to prioritise the success of the performance and clarity of the music by giving due consideration to the aforementioned as well as other considerations, _in a live context_. These principles and techniques become even more important if a composer is timbrally adventurous.

There's much more to say about music from the mid20thC cf, and its exploitation of recording techniques but so far as traditional orchestration is concerned, subtleties and complexity have to be calculated by adhering to, or at least understanding proven methods in order for successful perception by the listener (_and musicians_) in a live performance. Recording technology is not a concern in this regard....helpful?


----------



## Forster

mikeh375 said:


> If we talk only about pure, traditional orchestration/scoring then I don't think there was a change in approach. Fundamentally, apart from the creative aspect (which obviously changed dramatically over the 20thC), orchestration is based on acoustics, ensemble playing/balance and live performance - actual physical principles and circumstances. The score's aim has to be to prioritise the success of the performance and clarity of the music by giving due consideration to the aforementioned as well as other considerations, _in a live context_. These principles and techniques become even more important if a composer is timbrally adventurous.
> 
> There's much more to say about music from the mid20thC cf, and its exploitation of recording techniques but so far as traditional orchestration is concerned, subtleties and complexity have to be calculated by adhering to, or at least understanding proven methods in order for successful perception by the listener (_and musicians_) in a live performance. Recording technology is not a concern in this regard....helpful?


Yes, very helpful, thanks. It's nevertheless interesting how often listeners give preference to one recording over another on the basis of the balance of sound; objecting to muffled oboe, or inaudible flute etc. Some of these subtleties might well be lost in the concert hall, especially given how many halls were not really designed for the best acoustics.


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> Yes, very helpful, thanks. It's nevertheless interesting how often listeners give preference to one recording over another on the basis of the balance of sound; objecting to muffled oboe, or inaudible flute etc. Some of these subtleties might well be lost in the concert hall, especially given how many halls were not really designed for the best acoustics.


 One can sometimes explain a recordings attributes, good or ill to the mic placement and/or mixing, rather than the orchestration itself. At other times - quite often in fact - the role of the conductor in securing balance and even asserting their own balance and musical preferences will be decisive too.


----------

