# How to get a good grasp of orchestration and composing



## Nostradamus

Hi,

I need some tips on how to achieve that. I know, there a lots of books available, e.g. from Alexander Publishing. But this is a bit too much. I don't have the time to read 3x 800 pages. Instead, I'm looking for short and usefull information without too much academical ballast. And I need examples (maybe on CD) related to written instructions, the more, the better. But again, I need it "short and sweet".

Any tips?

Maybe I should mention that I play piano and keyboard for some years now and I have a basic understanding of music theory.

Thanks.


----------



## mverta

You're not going to get a "good grasp" of either without a shit-ton of work. If you don't want to put in the time and make the effort, you're not going to get proficient in crafts which take a lifetime to master. Even basic competence takes a lot of study.




_Mike


----------



## José Herring

mverta @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> You're not going to get a "good grasp" of either without a [email protected]#t-ton of work. If you don't want to put in the time and make the effort, you're not going to get proficient in crafts which take a lifetime to master. Even basic competence takes a lot of study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Mike



+1.

Kind of funny post really. I started to respond earlier but then deleted my response cause I thought the original post kind of ridiculous. Just think if you went to a mechanic and the mechanic told you, " I didn't want to learn much about fixing cars, so I didn't really put in the time or the effort, I just kind of wing it. Who needs all that academic bullshit anyway". Would you really have confidence in the guy?

To be sure there is a lot of academic bullshit out there. The dividing line is can the guy who wrote the book really compose music? I've studied a lot of traditional composition books and now I study a lot of synth programming and mixing material. But before I take a guys word as a point of study I always try to figure out if the guy who wrote the book or made the video can do what he says he can do.

So when studying composing, if it's a composer that I admire and he's written a book, I always read it. Sometimes several times. There are gems in those books.

best,

Jose


----------



## JonFairhurst

There is no better place to start than Samuel Adler's Study of Orchestration. Make sure to get both the book and CD. 

http://www.amazon.com/Study-Orchestrati ... 039397572X

It's not overly academic, nor does it load you up with repetitive busy work.

I see music study a lot like math study. Some people need lots of homework and repetition to really get it. Others prefer to learn theoretically and quickly. 

Reading Mike's previous posts, he's a kinetic, repetition kind of learner. That gives him the advantage of being able to do things _now_ and to do them with skill. He's the guy you want when working on deadline.

Me? I'm a theory guy. I want to learn it quickly, test that I can do it, and move on. I've built my skills quickly but not deeply. When I'm on a project, I can sometimes work beyond my level, but I need to reference things, test them out, do a lot of takes, and fix my performance shortcomings with the mouse. I get a lot of bang per buck of study, but I'm not the guy you want on a deadline. Sure, I can focus, work hard, and stay up all night so I can hit a deadline, but Mike can do that too with more to show for it the next day.

Anyway, Adler should suit your learning style, but it's only a start. Peter Alexander's materials (the few titles I have anyway, including Harmony) are more about doing the exercises, which may not suit your style. His online classes center on projects which can work well for people with many learning styles.


----------



## JimmyPoppa

Nostradamus,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant get a *start,* an overview, of orchestration (and composing) concepts. Below are links to several resources that might work for you with the orchestration aspect. 

The first two links are free online courses/forums in the basics of orchestration and arranging. The others have fees but are not overly expensive. None of these are overly complex or super theoretical. Since you play keyboards, you should be able to follow them. You will still have to work through the exercises if you want to be able to actually orchestrate.

FYI: I am a person who went through the whole academic thing and have been making a living as an orchestrator/arranger for more than 30+ years now. I must say that I am still studying very seriously all the time and hope, eventually, to get a "good grasp" on this whole thing. I'm not kidding. 

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/77-Principles-of-Orchestration-On-line (http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/for ... on-On-line)

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/107-Jazz-Arranging-Online-by-Prof.-Chuck-Israels (http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/for ... ck-Israels)

http://www.filmmusicinstitute.com/?page_id=121

http://www.thinkspaceonline.com/co/

http://www.berkleemusic.com/school/cour ... fcode=2285

Hope this helps.

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## StrangeCat

mverta @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> JimmyPoppa @ Fri Apr 01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I... have been making a living as an orchestrator/arranger for more than 30+ years now. I must say that I am still studying very seriously all the time and hope, eventually, to get a "good grasp" on this whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen. Such a beautiful, complex, and rich art.
> 
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...


Yea isn't that the truth! Music is a never ending journey of studying!


----------



## JonFairhurst

It reminds me of what one of my high school teachers would say when a student claimed to be "mature". He'd say, "You're not fully mature until you're dead."


----------



## RiffWraith

"How to get a good grasp of orchestration and composing"

Write, study, listen, read, study, listen, write, read, write, study, listen...

"I don't have the time to read 3x 800 pages."

Then you don't have time to get a good grasp of orchestration and composing. Seriously. As alluded to, mastering this craft takes alot of time, patience, work and dedication. There is no easy way around it; if you want the Cliff's Notes, then you don't really want to master this craft.



mverta @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> You're not going to get a "good grasp" of either without a [email protected]#t-ton of work. If you don't want to put in the time and make the effort, you're not going to get proficient in crafts which take a lifetime to master. Even basic competence takes a lot of study.



A huge +1 to that, and also to Samuel Adler's Study of Orchestration. And yes, make sure to get both the book and CD. 

Cheers.


----------



## Nostradamus

Thanks for all your answers so far.

Well, I love music. I have a very broad interest in styles and genres. I mainly play piano but I also do electronic music, mostly ambient and chillout stuff. I'm a hobbyist but I have some reasons why I want to learn orchestration, besides of pure interest. I don't want to talk about that now because I'm not sure if I fail with my attempts. Orchestration and composing for an orchestra really seems to be a complex, but exciting topic and I'm truly aware that I can't learn it on the fly.

@JimmyPoppa:
Your are absolutely right, of course. What I need is a starting point, a general overview of orchestration and how to work with orchestra libraries. I recently bought EWQL Gold, which I think is okay to "get the feet wet". Thank you for your links. Especially the first one looks promising.

@JonFairhurst
Thanks for your book recommendation. I've already heard about Adler before.

@all:
As I said before I'm aware of the fact that I can't learn such a complex topic in about a week. I play piano for years now (on an upper intermediate level) and I know how many hours of work, patience and discipline is necessary to learn any kraft and art. And due to my experiences I'm not as naive as some of you may think.


----------



## StrangeCat

hey you know electronica styles then your good on production. You could start adding EW to you tracks as just say orchestrated pads, break up a chord with strings and horns and some delay and ton of reverb, kill the High end and through it on a track. your sort of orchestrating a chord. Add your drums dub step whatever, get some bass going, through lead, sax whatever on top, and you have little orchestra in your electronic track.(basic)

So many people can orchestrate but don't have a clue about production.

so many people can do beat style music but do not know anything about basic chord voicing or composition, scales etc.

Doing electronic music it's just good to grasp Jazz, jazz scales and fake book harmony.

Being able to House styles is even better your closer to jazz, you can take that and get even closer to just jazz by trimming away electronic elements and adding in real drums, then you can take that and orchestrate it^_-

It's long road man but I am sure you can do it!

I would start by adding simple stuff to your mixes as you go.


----------



## rgames

IMO: The best way to learn orchestration is to spend a lot of time playing with an orchestra.

Adler's book/CD's are a good second option 

rgames


----------



## JJP

Folks, my money is on this post being an April Fools joke.


----------



## a.leung

Well-i dont know-i think its a valid question actually.

Answer: With the new Logic program out today theres a plug that resides inside it that does everything your talking about WITHOUT having to read up on anything. Check it out. LOGICBAND 11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eNIFtcK ... ata_player


----------



## Nostradamus

JJP @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> Folks, my money is on this post being an April Fools joke.



My money is on you being an April fools joke.


----------



## JJP

Nostradamus @ Sat Apr 02 said:


> JJP @ Fri Apr 01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks, my money is on this post being an April Fools joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My money is on you being an April fools joke.
Click to expand...


It is April, and some would argue that I'm a fool. Sorry, I missed your later post and honestly thought you were kidding us. The reason why it seemed funny was your request to get a good grasp, but needing it "short and sweet". For anyone who has studied this, that sounds quite humorous.

If you're looking for a brief overview, skimming the first link JimmyPoppa provided would be a good start. It's actually an annotated online version of Rimsky-Korsakov's book. Some would question the usefulness of the audio examples, but it's a good resources nonetheless.

Note RK's book is also one of the foundations of Peter Alexander's large work-in-progress. Korsakov's original book is only about 150 pages. The rest is examples from his scores.

As a pianist seeking specific examples, you may also be interested in another book, though is hard to find because it is out of print. Joseph Wagner's Orchestration: A Practical Handbook deals specifically with transferring piano works to orchestra. The book mainly is a series of examples from classical piano literature with explanations of how to orchestrate different figures. Peter Alexander is also in the process of rewriting this book.

Wagner's book is not a good basis for full orchestrational knowledge, but it is a useful way to grab some specific concepts.

Finally note that all of the above assumes a good grasp of basic music theory, i.e. harmony and voice-leading. Placing orchestration ahead of solid harmonic and melodic skills hampers many budding composers these days. Cooking isn't just about spice. There has to be some substance to the food.


----------



## José Herring

The problem with learning traditional orchestration these days is that first you learn how the instruments are suppose to work. Then you have to figure out a way to mock it up with samples. And the two at times are opposed to eachother.

What I do these days for my orchestral parts is to first write it down as if I had the real thing. Then find a way to get what I'm hearing with samples. If I can't get it with the samples then I change what I wrote to fit the samples better.


----------



## JJP

josejherring @ Sat Apr 02 said:


> What I do these days for my orchestral parts is to first write it down as if I had the real thing. Then find a way to get what I'm hearing with samples.


Rock on, brother! =o
I think this is what most of us do if we learned by working with live musicians.


----------



## JimmyPoppa

JJP @ Sat Apr 02 said:


> As a pianist seeking specific examples, you may also be interested in another book, though is hard to find because it is out of print. Joseph Wagner's Orchestration: A Practical Handbook deals specifically with transferring piano works to orchestra. The book mainly is a series of examples from classical piano literature with explanations of how to orchestrate different figures. Peter Alexander is also in the process of rewriting this book.
> 
> Wagner's book is not a good basis for full orchestrational knowledge, but it is a useful way to grab some specific concepts.



+1

I have this. It's hard to find. It can definitely give you an 'overview' with some specifics about orchestration techniques for some standard piano idioms. Also covers some simple instrumental combinations, if I remember correctly. Limited in terms of depth but worthwhile reading for some basics.

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## rgames

Another good way to learn orchestration is to go to rehearsals. In fact, that's better than listening to a live concert because you learn where/how the orchestra cheats. With that understanding, you can better work within the limitations of the instruments. That practical info is a big part of orchestration that often gets missed in today's mockup world where a single alto flute can be heard just fine on top of ff brass...

Remember, though, orchestration is ultimately an artistic decision. So there's no right way or wrong way. There are practical limitations, of course, and those limitations are fairly straightforward (even though VSL gives you repeated 16th notes at 180 bpm on clarinet, good luck actually finding players who can do that). So that piece of orchestration is fairly straightforward. But assigning lines to voices is (mostly) an artistic decision.

If you're talking about orchestrating for samples, then I'm not sure there's much value in studying standard approaches. Do whatever you want! It's much easier to figure out the limitations of samples and how voices sound when blended: just drag the MIDI data around....

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst

rgames @ Sat Apr 02 said:


> If you're talking about orchestrating for samples, then I'm not sure there's much value in studying standard approaches. Do whatever you want! It's much easier to figure out the limitations of samples and how voices sound when blended: just drag the MIDI data around....



So true! Rather than being a true orchestration expert who knows that you need four ff flutes in a given range to compete with the trumpets (or whatever), in the sample world you can just turn up the flute volume, turn down the trumpets and be done with it.

Still, Adler is helpful. You learn that a solo flute can have way more character than a flute ensemble. Even in the sample world it's good to know that a solo flute is best for a passionate, melodic line, while an ensemble sample would be best as part of a woodwind pad - even if you have to cheat the levels.

Frankly, some of the key things I learned from the Adler book/CD had more to do with composition than orchestration. By studying small segments of great compositions, one sees all of what the composer did, not just instrumentation and dynamics. And rather than buying whole scores and not knowing where to focus, Adler provides a variety of examples, cuts them down into manageable bites, and focuses on important aspects. I found that to be really helpful in covering a lot of ground quickly.

I should really go through it again...


----------



## Nostradamus

JJP @ Sat Apr 02 said:


> It is April, and some would argue that I'm a fool. Sorry, I missed your later post and honestly thought you were kidding us.



No problem. I've to admit that my initial post is quite misleading. It *must* appear strange to those who already spend years of learning and practising. 

@all:
Thanks again for all your useful tips. I really appreciate it. You guys are really helpful.


----------



## hbuus

Nostradamus @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I need some tips on how to achieve that. I know, there a lots of books available, e.g. from Alexander Publishing. But this is a bit too much. I don't have the time to read 3x 800 pages. Instead, I'm looking for short and usefull information without too much academical ballast. And I need examples (maybe on CD) related to written instructions, the more, the better. But again, I need it "short and sweet".
> 
> Any tips?
> 
> Maybe I should mention that I play piano and keyboard for some years now and I have a basic understanding of music theory.
> 
> Thanks.



This is a bit like saying: "How do I get a good grasp of accounting in multinational companies? I know how to use a pocket calculator."  

IMO and experience it's very difficult to learn orchestration and composing on your own, without having any kind of formal training in it.

I know this is probably not what you want to hear, but still.

Best,
Henrik


----------



## Peter Alexander

Since my name was invoked at the beginning of this thread, I'm responding.

Alexander Publishing has the world's largest and best titles on orchestration with the only multi-volume series in English with volume four coming out later this year. 

Not one title, not one, has academic ballast in it. Academic ballast is what the other books contain and here's why.

ALL of the orchestration titles we compete against are designed to match the requirements of the regional associations of colleges and schools which grant accreditation to schools which means that at the end of one semester (or quarter) you must turn an original work for orchestra. Orchestration, with rare exception is a 2 credit hour class which means you spend about 24 hours in the classroom. You cannot learn orchestration in 24 hours of classroom lectures. Sorry. Also, in many schools, not all, the teacher is often a harmony instructor, not a composer who orchestrates. This isn't true in all schools, but it is in a lot.

SEE:
How Much Orchestration Can You Really Teach in One Semester
http://www.professionalorchestration.co ... estration/

What you can learn, and should learn is instrumentation, and effective score analysis which enables you to learn both composition and orchestration devices. From this device list, as John Williams' orchestrator Herb Spenser called it, you now have a quiver full of techniques to deploy and express yourself. And you learn it in Professional Orchestration Series since each volume is problem/solution oriented by broad technique and from the Professional Mentor which is the workbook for Volume 1 available for separate purchase. 

Notice I said, "quiver full of techniques." Learning orchestration requires that you have working knowledge of counterpoint (at least through imitation), harmony and composition. 

But even this isn't enough. As I stated in the above white paper, you have to invest time listening. A sample of flute isn't a flute and cannot do all the things a professional player with a flute can do. Listening requires focus, and if you try to multitask while listening, you waste your time. For $16 or so a month, you can join the Naxos Music Library with its 300,000 plus tracks and listen to solo works for each orchestral instrument to hear what's really possible in writing. 

ALL of the instrumentation notes in Volume 1 were edited by members of Sandy DeCrescent's orchestra when Jerry Goldsmith was alive. They are accurate for the scoring stage, and in fact, any stage.

The reason the books have high page counts is because each technique taught is given you in the context of the score so that with analysis you can learn how to write for that technique and get the best results. 

Each volume in Professional Orchestration is dedicated to a specific technique or subject. Volumes 1, 2A and 2B, form the basic vocabulary of orchestration that's not taught in college, nor can it be in 24 class hours.

Volumes 3 and up cover advanced techniques building on the first set.

JOSEPH WAGNER'S PROFESSIONAL ORCHESTRATION: A PRACTICAL HANDBOOK
I'm sorry, but all of the comments made about this book in this thread are largely incorrect.

Alexander Publishing publishes the entire work and if you want it, write [email protected]. We have begun revising the work so that it fulfills its full potential that Dr. Wagner never saw in his lifetime.

The workbook has been re-engraved by Max Tofone (Street Smart Guide to Sibelius 5 and 6 author) and the keyboard examples recorded since to perform the examples requires a keyboard skill of grade 6-8. Now all you have to do is listen and score.

The book was originally designed to compete against Piston's Orchestration and Kennan. And the model for this book, as I write in the introduction to it, was Arthur Heacox's Project Lessons in Orchestration which was taught over several semesters at Oberlin. Wagner modified the approach and codified Heacox's techniques into a table of techniques. 

Wagner's book was organized originally in three primary sections: piano to strings, piano to woodwinds, and piano to orchestra. Each section requires a semester to do all the exercises, but when done, the student has amazing techniques and a palette of alternate ways to score a piece. 

Since all the orchestration basics were already covered in Volume 1, we reduced the book to its core, and re-engraved the entire work so that each section also has the piano examples recorded that the score came from.

Additionally, in the revised edition we're doing, we include for the first time, MIDI mockup insights. Hardly academic ballast.

TIME & LEARNY /   8©d /   8¯> /   8¯P /   ;hø /   ;i /   ;jÙ /   ;jÞ /   M«Ì /   M«î /   W¨v /   W¨³ /   X  /   Xö /   Xíò /   Xîa /   [ÿ /   [Ž@ /   ^Žþ /   ^ /   dŠÛ /   dŠÜ /   d‹¯ /   d‹Þ /   dŽ5 /   dŽÏ /   d# /   dÎ /   h“ô /   h” /   i²' /   i²; /   l2› /   l2È /   w$ /   w$ /   x} /   xÏ /   xN /   xn /   xo /   xom /   ŒXƒ /   ŒXÌ /   š /   µ /   Ž» /   ŽÐ /   ’|ô /   ’}' /   ™ÿ /   ™ÿd /   šB /   šBv /   ¹2 /   ¹Q /   Áµ /   ÁŠ /   Á /   Á} /   Ä`ƒ /   Ä`Ÿ /   Äb /   Äc' /   É?Õ /   É@W /   ÑJî /   ÑK* /   Ñ[c /   Ñ[Ú /   Ñx§ /   Ñxç /   ÖS /   ÖSÀ /   ×¶— /   ×¶Ï /   ×ÖM /   ×Öa /   Øud /   Øu¯ /   Ýr[ /   Ýrá /   ßšg /   ßšº /   áÕ /   á3 /   äV /   äV‹ /   äXÎ /   äXû /   äY• /   äYÌ /   åø /   åø¥


----------



## JimmyPoppa

Peter Alexander @ Sun Apr 03 said:


> ...titles on orchestration with the only multi-volume series in English with volume four coming out later this year.



Peter, 

Is Volume Four labled #3 (or 3A)? The first three volumes are, 1, 2 and 2A. Do you mean that the next one is called 3, even though it's the 4th book? Or did I miss one? Thanks.

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

One of my teachers at Berklee gave me a tip that really helped and has stuck with me 30 years later: don't analyze entire pieces, just pick a short section you like and figure out what's going on.

His point wasn't to ignore the big picture, of course, it was to tackle hills rather than being paralyzed at the thought of having to climb the whole mountain.

This isn't a substitute for Peter's program, but there's an old orchestration book by Mickey Baker - I'll have to try and find it - that was a great overview/introduction. You can take it in very quickly and get started.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Mickey Baker's Complete Handbook of the Music Arranger


----------



## Peter Alexander

JimmyPoppa @ Sun Apr 03 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Sun Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...titles on orchestration with the only multi-volume series in English with volume four coming out later this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Is Volume Four labled #3 (or 3A)? The first three volumes are, 1, 2 and 2A. Do you mean that the next one is called 3, even though it's the 4th book? Or did I miss one? Thanks.
> 
> Be Well,
> 
> Jimmy
Click to expand...


The fourth volume is labeled 3: Orchestrating the Melody By Combining Orchestral Sections.


----------



## Peter Alexander

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Apr 03 said:


> One of my teachers at Berklee gave me a tip that really helped and has stuck with me 30 years later: don't analyze entire pieces, just pick a short section you like and figure out what's going on.



As written above, this is how the Professional Orchestration series is setup, but organized by technique in the low, medium, high and very high registers.

However, to write, you must know song form at minimum to create "the whole mountain" and to know which scoring techniques work best where, and when. This is usually discovered by a learning process called trial and success.


----------



## bdr

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> Mickey Baker's Complete Handbook of the Music Arranger



Yeah! I bought this book about 25 years ago, it's great!

One book that I have bought online that I really like is Creative Orchestration by George McKay. Really pulls apart orchestration and is a good method.

His son Fred runs a website, you can buy a hardcover or a PDF...however although the PDF is complete some of the pages are out of order.


----------



## MichaelL

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Apr 03 said:


> Mickey Baker's Complete Handbook of the Music Arranger



Oh Man, Nick! That was the first orchestration book that I got when I was about 14, that and a book by Russ Garcia(?). A trip down memory lane.

I have Peter's books, and highly recommend them.

Michael


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Again, Peter:

I'm only recommending the Mickey Baker book as an overview/getting started *handbook.* There's no substitute for a comprehensive study of orchestration.

And of course you need to understand form and also the big picture, which is why I was careful to say that Bob Chestnut was only saying that in the molehill/mountain context.


----------



## JimmyPoppa

MichaelL @ Sun Apr 03 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mickey Baker's Complete Handbook of the Music Arranger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Man, Nick! That was the first orchestration book that I got when I was about 14, that and a book by Russ Garcia(?). A trip down memory lane.
> 
> I have Peter's books, and highly recommend them.
> 
> Michael
Click to expand...


Memory lane on Russell Garcia's books. Book I was one of my very earliest on arranging, along with Don Sebesky's. Got book II later and still have them. Also +1 on the Mickey Baker book. Even though he says "Music Arranger" it really is about orchestration.

Nostradamus:

IMO, a lot of orchestrator/arranger types are somewhat collectors of books/courses, etc. on these subjects. No one resource has it all and I'll bet many of the older orchestral types here have full-on libraries of the stuff. There's always something you can find or re-find. learn or re-learn. 

Sometimes I get the feeling people view the study of all these aspects of music (harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, arranging, etc.) as painful drudgery. I don't feel that way at all. I honesty believe if you let yourself get into it, it can be fun. It doesn't have to be a grind or tedium. You can really find pleasure in the process and the discoveries.

Understood that there are all types in the world and, for some, these things hold little interest. That's totally cool. I just want to say that the learning of the 'technical' aspects of music doesn't have to be painful or boring or even hard. It really can be a joyful, positive, fun thing that can bring deep satisfaction.

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## Dave Connor

I did a little lesson trying to illustrate the simplicity with which one could compose a sketch and then orchestrate it (hoping to post it here soon.) I think it's helpful to young composers to feel like they can achieve valid results without having to know tons about the process. They will have to learn a whole lot to be facile in composing and orchestrating of course but they have to start somewhere.

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php/72668-Demonstration-Composition-Lesson (http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/sho ... ion-Lesson)


----------



## David Story

Many wonderful, in depth replies. This may have been mentioned:

Start with the violins. Find the score to a piece you like and listen and follow just the violins.

Then write a 4 bar theme, and variations, for violin. Get a real violinist to play it. Yes, make friends with players.

Next cellos, trombones, oboe, etc.

You don't have to take on the whole orchestra at once.


----------



## JimmyPoppa

mverta @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> Jimmy - just fantastic posts!
> 
> _Mike



Mike,

Thanks. I appreciate your saying that.

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## Nostradamus

David Story @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> Many wonderful, in depth replies.



Yes, indeed. And so many useful information. Thanks again. Now I have to see what works best for me, especially because I've a full time job so I have to set priorities.


----------



## mducharme

I have to say that I have mixed feelings about Peter Alexander's general approach to all of this.

His method of having examples of many different textures, many different ways of presenting a melody, to really imbue the sound on the listener is quite helpful, and is derived from the original Rimsky Korsakov text, but Peter has expanded it substantially.

That being said, I really feel that you lose something in that approach if you use it exclusively. There is a reason why the Samuel Adler text is only one book instead of Peter's full set - after you reach a certain point in orchestration, it is really felt that the you learn the most from actual score study rather than instrumentation details and observations on general practice. From that perspective, I feel that you will learn more helpful orchestration techniques from more extensive study of a single movement than you will by studying snippets of random movements here and there, because you get to see how composers actually develop their melodies through orchestration and changing timbres. This is something that you miss out on if you rely entirely on the "brief section from a larger work" examples.

Having those specific examples is great though, because if you want to know what a particular combination of instruments sounds like, you can look up Peter's example and you know how it will sound. His approach makes it too easy for people to get lazy and not put the effort in to actual study of COMPLETE movements.

I will probably pick up his latest volumes just as "quick references" for specific timbres, but will always prefer doing my concerted study from full scores.


----------



## MichaelL

JimmyPoppa @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> [
> Memory lane on Russell Garcia's books. Book I was one of my very earliest on arranging, along with Don Sebesky's.



I got Sebesky's book in college, complete with records, you know, the vinyl things.
I still have all of those books...along with Peter's books and Jack Smalley's.

If Mike (Verta) wrote a book, I'd buy it. For now, I'll settle for his podcasts.
Made me get out the freakin' Hanon books!

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## Peter Alexander

mducharme @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> I have to say that I have mixed feelings about Peter Alexander's general approach to all of this.
> 
> His method of having examples of many different textures, many different ways of presenting a melody, to really imbue the sound on the listener is quite helpful, and is derived from the original Rimsky Korsakov text, but Peter has expanded it substantially.
> 
> That being said, I really feel that you lose something in that approach if you use it exclusively. There is a reason why the Samuel Adler text is only one book instead of Peter's full set - after you reach a certain point in orchestration, it is really felt that the you learn the most from actual score study rather than instrumentation details and observations on general practice. From that perspective, I feel that you will learn more helpful orchestration techniques from more extensive study of a single movement than you will by studying snippets of random movements here and there, because you get to see how composers actually develop their melodies through orchestration and changing timbres. This is something that you miss out on if you rely entirely on the "brief section from a larger work" examples.
> 
> Having those specific examples is great though, because if you want to know what a particular combination of instruments sounds like, you can look up Peter's example and you know how it will sound. His approach makes it too easy for people to get lazy and not put the effort in to actual study of COMPLETE movements.
> 
> I will probably pick up his latest volumes just as "quick references" for specific timbres, but will always prefer doing my concerted study from full scores.



*Every single orchestration book on the PLANET has score excerpts demonstrating specific techniques.* This includes Adler's, Piston's, Kennan's, Ebenezer Prout's, Cecil Forsyth's, Charles Marie Widor's, Charles Koechlin, Francois Auguste Gevaert's, Professor Kling's, Hector Berlioz's, and Louis Kastner's books (on whom Berlioz modeled his book Treatise on Instrumentation).

The series is called PROFESSIONAL Orchestration for a reason. Across all the volumes, as you noted, all the major techniques and combinations have been meticulously logged by the low, medium, high, and very high ranges in full score format giving you the orchestral vocabulary, and saving you HUNDREDS of hours in looking it up for yourself. 

And it's the only SERIES like it outside of Charles Koechlin's great work which is in Classical French and costs $150 per volume. And there are four of them.

As far studying the complete composition is concerned - Professional Orchestration is the ONLY orchestration book/series that gives you the COMPLETE WORKS as MP3 audio files. 

There's even a separate audio package of complete works featuring a 20-minute "concert" of pieces for each instrument. Complete Pieces, not excerpts.

Professional Orchestration via the Professional Mentor teaches you HOW to approach studying a complete work by learning how to study an excerpt and take that to reduced score, which YOU the reader, are to then apply to studying and reducing a whole work.

Not only that, but if you look at the web site, we sell the complete scores to the works referenced in each volume. We even have DVDs of complete scores performed in concert.

For the study of a complete work, we have How Ravel Orchestrated: Mother Goose Suite which goes through the entire composition! It includes 3-color coded scores, MP3, and links to a video concert of the entire work.

Your assertion as to why Adler is only one book is off base completely.

Adler is one book because it's primary use is in colleges for a one semester course stupidly called Orchestration that's really Instrumentation with some orchestration tossed in. And not much of that. The workbook is designed for teachers to have students do homework and get a grade. 

The experience of many of us who've gone that route in college is that you not only don't learn orchestration in a 24-hour class, but you also can't orchestrate either.

The Adler book is a fine book, but it's a one-size fits all work for the college market and nothing more. 

Before orchestration is composition, first, it's ear training.

I have three videos posted called Learning Orchestration. Scroll down and watch them.
http://alexanderpublishing.com/studyhall.aspx


----------



## mducharme

Yes yes, I know all that. I have almost all those books on my bookshelf right now, excepting the foreign language books in your list. I've read most of them cover to cover. The Forsyth is a particular favorite of mine, even though it is mistitled, it should really be called "Instrumentation". Your books however make the excerpts so detailed, it seems to suggest to readers that they can learn everything from just the partial score study from what you have included. Of course, I know that you do not think this is the case at all, as you obviously understand the value in studying complete scores as the Mother Goose example shows.

The value of detailed score excerpts like yours can be questioned with things like IMSLP available. Are people paying a premium for these detailed partial reprints of scores that are freely available on IMSLP when they can simply be given measure numbers and easily see the example themselves? Again, I plan to buy the later volumes of your series just for the easy "quick reference" they provide for these musical examples, so I am not meaning to diminish your contribution in any manner, please do not take this the wrong way. Even just a list of examples and measure numbers would be very very valuable, and worth a high price, and you provide complete printed excerpts, which goes beyond that.

As to the Adler, and he value of introductory college orchestration courses (which you seem to summarily and unfairly dismiss) we will have to agree to disagree. The input and careful explanations of an experienced instructor, who has done much orchestration, are worth ten times their weight in gold. And, I do feel that, after a certain point, there is very little that an orchestration textbook can teach you besides the basics, at least as far as instrumentation goes. The best sources on Instrumentation are always particular resources for that instrument, and talking to actual musicians, which you also strongly emphasize in your book. As far as Orchestration goes, you can do a compendium of different ways of presenting melody, different types of arrangements, as you have done an excellent job of. But IMO mostly, it's score study, and a lot of careful listening, for the ear training element (which you also emphasize), and interaction with an instructor if available.


----------



## re-peat

Nostradamus,

If you have no plans for ever writing for a real orchestra, I wouldn't bother with all these courses and books, if I were you. Not at this stage anyway. Complete waste of time (and quite likely, very discouraging as well).
These books and courses will tell you, in great detail, about the architecture of a _real_ orchestra, how a _real_ stringsection behaves and which number of _real_ horns you need in order to blend well with _real_ woodwinds, and all that sort of thing. But that's not what you need to know right now. What YOU need to know, is how your _sampled_ violins behave and which particular _sampled_ horn-patch works best with your _sampled_ woodwinds. And which of the _sampled_ spicc patches works best to create nice rhythmic phrases. And most importantly: how all these sampled sounds need to be tweaked, programmed and mixed in order to turn the music in your head into an enjoyable listening experience. (And there's no chapter on any of this in most of the books which have been mentioned in this thread.)

In other words, rather than waste your valuable free time by burying your head for months on end in books which have — at this early stage — little or no relevance to the task ahead ('turning your sample library into an instrument that YOU can feel entirely comfortable with), I would suggest — if I may — to start by (1) familiarize yourself as thoroughly as possible with your sample libraries, (2) fully accept that they are sample libraries and not real instruments (the biggest mistake you can ever make is to confuse the two), (3) start with rendering very simple pieces and always strive, from the very beginning, to get the best possible sound out of your libraries. If it takes 200 sampled violins to get the sound that YOU want, then that's what it takes. Nothing wrong with that. Again: you're not writing for real instruments, you're writing for electronic sounds which do occasionaly sound a little bit like real instruments. Don't narrow your creative possibilities by following rules and guidelines which apply to an entirely different breed of instruments (real ones) than those that you are using (sampled ones). Don't think orchestrally, think sonically.

And once you feel completely comfortable about all this, simply increase the level of musical complexity in your arragements and tackle ever more challenging ideas.

Later on, you might well arrive at a point where your lack of 'proper' orchestration knowledge prevents you from making progress. The day you feel that this is the case, it's time to consider taking things to the next level by selecting a few good books/courses and soaking up all the valuable information that's contained in them.
But maybe that day will never arrive. No problem. Nothing to worry about.

There is, through all of this, only ONE question that you need to ask yourself repeatedly (and reflect on it in a completely honest way, of course): _am I capable of expressing all my musical ideas in a way that serves them best?_ As long as you can answer with an honest 'yes' to that question, you're absolutely fine, books or no books. If however you feel that, for whatever reason, you are producing 'poorer' music than you know yourself to be capable of, then there's work to do.

_


----------



## JonFairhurst

Peter Alexander @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> Adler is one book because it's primary use is in colleges for a one semester course stupidly called Orchestration that's really Instrumentation with some orchestration tossed in. And not much of that...



I tend to agree. And that's why I'd recommend it to the original poster. Adler is something that you can get your arms around in a limited amount of time with a limited amount of effort. It won't turn a novice into a master orchestrator, but it's a good place to start.


----------



## JimmyPoppa

MichaelL @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> If Mike (Verta) wrote a book, I'd buy it.



+1. That's at least 2 sales Mike! What, you say you have 2 careers already, plus a family? Slacker :D 

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## Peter Alexander

JonFairhurst @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Tue Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adler is one book because it's primary use is in colleges for a one semester course stupidly called Orchestration that's really Instrumentation with some orchestration tossed in. And not much of that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree. And that's why I'd recommend it to the original poster. Adler is something that you can get your arms around in a limited amount of time with a limited amount of effort. It won't turn a novice into a master orchestrator, but it's a good place to start.
Click to expand...


Jon, I have the utmost respect for you, but MY book is the best place to start and the PDF bundle we have for Volume 1 is less expensive than the Adler book, comes with audio, Professional Mentor workbook, Spectratone Chart and audio lectures.

With Professional Orchestration you can get to where you want to go faster.


----------



## Peter Alexander

mducharme @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> The value of detailed score excerpts like yours can be questioned with things like IMSLP available.



Cow manure.

It takes hundreds of hours of research and effort to go through dozens of scores to find the techniques, and then locate them in the low, medium, high and very high registers so you have as complete a portrait as possible as to how that combination sounds in each register. 



> Your books however make the excerpts so detailed, it seems to suggest to readers that they can learn everything from just the partial score study from what you have included.



They ARE detailed AND with explanations teaching the reader how to look at the score and teach himself. And not only do I NOT think this, I've never said it. Nor have I ever advertised them that way, not once in 20 years.



> As to the Adler, and he value of introductory college orchestration courses (which you seem to summarily and unfairly dismiss) we will have to agree to disagree.



My company competes against WW Norton. You don't. I talk with college professors all over the US. I don't think you do. I don't know about you but I'm a college graduate who had the one semester intro course to orchestration and it was a joke, or let down if you prefer milder language, as those of us who had such courses in college who "matriculated" to Los Angeles can tell you. IF you can find a school with a qualified instructor to teach orchestration, that IS worth its weight in gold, but these are few and far between since only a few schools have instructors with such practical knowledge. Many if not most of the orchestration teachers in the US colleges are harmony teachers who've been assigned/asked to teach the orchestration class. I speak from the experience of dealing with these instructors throughout the year. So I do know what I'm talking about.

I also offer Alexander University courses with a qualified mentor and I see and hear the caliber of compositions that students who've had a college course in orchestration. 

So I have plenty of practical experience on which to base my comments. 



> The best sources on Instrumentation are always particular resources for that instrument, and talking to actual musicians, which you also strongly emphasize in your book.



Correct.



> As far as Orchestration goes, you can do a compendium of different ways of presenting melody, different types of arrangements, as you have done an excellent job of.



Thank you, but not quite accurate. I've provided and continue to provide the in score context the list of 1000 devices that the late Herb Spenser, John Williams' orchestrator, said you needed to know to be successful. Out of that you build your device list through these compositional technique excerpts.

What you're describing is not orchestration, but composition. 



> But IMO mostly, it's score study, and a lot of careful listening, for the ear training element (which you also emphasize), and interaction with an instructor if available.



Not quite.

If you bothered to read my White Paper called How Much Orchestration Can You Teach in One Semester? which I wrote for teachers and provided the link to on page 1 of this thread, you will learn that in 24 class hours you cannot learn orchestration. Sorry. _But you cannot learn orchestration in a 24 classroom hour course._

In the SINGLE course taught in the senior year called orchestration, you can learn one of the most important success skills in a composer's quiver, and those in this forum who write 100% full time for a living know that the key skill that makes this possible is _the ability to teach yourself._ You don't have to be an auto didact to do this. You can learn it.

The chief success skill you can learn in 24 class hours is how to study and analyze a score, along with learning basic instrumentation issues for each orchestral instrument. 

And you only have 24 hours in a college class to teach this life skill.

So in one 24 hour class, you can learn some instrumentation and how to teach yourself through score study.

Tonight I read through Beethoven Symphony #1. You can do all the score analysis you want, but if you don't bring to the table knowledge of harmony, homophonic writing, poiyphonic writing, and counterpoint, along with understanding orchestral weighting, you will never fully grasp what's going in that score or any score.

But then there's the other aspect I constantly "preach" and that's going to live concerts and seeing a work performed live. 

After going through the score with MP3, I then went to YouTube and found several performances of B. Symphony #1 movement 1 and watched the execution of various parts that blended bowings of detache and spiccato at rather rapid speeds. Since that symphony isn't being played in my area any time soon, it was a fair substitute.

Score analysis cannot tell you that. You have to see it and hear it and then humble yourself by going up and asking the musicians various questions about the performance of their parts. 

And in the absence of that, a good YouTube video is better than nothing.

A technique is a technique. Violins 1 + Violins 2 in unison is a technique that's used in classical, game scoring, film/tv scoring and writing for Sarah Brightman. It's sound and impact emotionally changes depending on the size of the ensemble the technique is being used in, the register, and the harmonic/compositional environment.

This is aural learning and comes from listening to lots of different composers in lots of different styles in various historical periods. 

Best of luck with Space: 2099.


----------



## MichaelL

[quote:12b77f0f63="Peter Alexander @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:54 am"]

Cow manure.

It takes hundreds of hours of reseaò C   Èjþ C   Èk C   Èl C   Èl9 C   Èo3 C   Èoˆ C   Èoò C   Èpj C   ÈsK C   Èu C   Èuˆ C   Èv C   ÈvÑ C   ÈwG C   Èz’ C   ÈzË C   È| C   È|^ C   È‹5 C   È‹c C   È‹» C   È‹ë C   ÈM C   Èw C   È‘ú C   È’1 C   È’œ C   È’ó C   È”V C   È”Ý C   È– C   È– C   È—C C   È— C   È˜ C   È˜4 C   È˜Œ C   È˜¨ C   Èš C   Èšœ C   Èš© C   Èš· C   ÈšÑ C   Èš÷ C   È›~ C   ÈžÂ C   Èžì C   Èžý C   È  C   È * C   È¡¹ C   È¡î C   È¢Î C   È¢ù C   È£® C   È¤ C   Èª‰ C   È«1 C   È«ª C   È«ë C   È¬S C   È¬° C   È·I C   È·¬ C   È¸ C   È¸ C   Èºä C   È» C   È»½ C   È¼A C   È¼ð C   È½$ C   È¾; C   È¾o C   È¾ž C   È¾¶ C   ÈÄ‰ C   ÈÄ” C   ÈÈR C   ÈÈh C   ÈÌé C   ÈÍM C   ÈÍä C   ÈÎ C   ÈÎ¿ C   ÈÎÜ C   ÈÏ C   ÈÏ* C   ÈÏ€


----------



## mverta

Wow... gloves off! 

I think learning orchestration is like learning how to fuck: there are some basic techniques most everyone agrees on, but what you do largely depends on the result you want, what style you like, and who your audience is. And you can study all the references you have -enthusiastically- but you still learn the most hands-on. 

In both cases, I'm largely self-taught. But after tons of putting things on stands for friends and students, and building a lot of experience, I found the academic texts invaluable tools to help me contextualize, organize, and see over-arching relationships within the discipline. In short, experience taught me how to make something work; academics taught me WHY it worked, which ended up giving me more confidence in using techniques.

Since I feel composition and orchestration are inexorably linked, I truly feel the study should be exciting and fun. It is so cool when it just "sounds right!"


_Mike


----------



## germancomponist

mverta @ Wed Apr 06 said:


> Since I feel composition and orchestration are inexorably linked, I truly feel the study should be exciting and fun. It is so cool when it just "sounds right!"
> _Mike


+1

And not to forget the influence from our libraries, when we hear our arranging when composing.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Peter Alexander @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Tue Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Alexander @ Tue Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adler is one book because it's primary use is in colleges for a one semester course stupidly called Orchestration that's really Instrumentation with some orchestration tossed in. And not much of that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree. And that's why I'd recommend it to the original poster. Adler is something that you can get your arms around in a limited amount of time with a limited amount of effort. It won't turn a novice into a master orchestrator, but it's a good place to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jon, I have the utmost respect for you, but MY book is the best place to start and the PDF bundle we have for Volume 1 is less expensive than the Adler book, comes with audio, Professional Mentor workbook, Spectratone Chart and audio lectures.
> 
> With Professional Orchestration you can get to where you want to go faster.
Click to expand...


Peter, I didn't intend to dis your bundle. I don't own it, so I can't compare it. All I can say is that I found Adler easily digestible, which may be enough for the original poster.

However, I did take most of your introductory online class (until work and personal life tossed in a wrench) a few years ago and found that to be extremely helpful. We studied each instrument and composed a solo piece for each one based on images from specific poems and specific requirements (e.g. include non-vibrato, vibrato, trills, and flutter-tongue.) The benefits went way beyond learning about writing for each instrument. Being solo pieces, we had to compose in a way to imply chords. We had to struggle between simplicity (boring) and complexity (random) to create works that are interesting and coherent. Most of all, it forced us to compose horizontally, rather than vertically.

To me, this hands on approach was spot on. I learn theory and from example well, but the learning is never very deep. Repetitive workbook learning is a poor match for me - my brain goes numb with boredom so the experience fails to build meaningful connections and doesn't take root - and it builds resentment (my experience, anyway). The very best approach for me is to learn while creating. With projects, I'm focused and motivated so I can put in hours and hours of quality time. I learn and re-learn an array of skills simultaneously that help me to create practical results. Most of all, the learning has an emotional connection and creates a web of relationships that cements it in my mind.

I also find analysis of favorite works to be helpful. Unlike a string of notes in a workbook, when one studies a favorite passage of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or Stravinsky, we have a deep mental memory of the piece already. Study it deeper and the lessons tend to stick with you.

Peter, do you have plans for online courses going forward?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"I think learning orchestration is like learning how to fuck"

But birds and bees don't orchestrate!


----------



## MichaelL

mverta @ Wed Apr 06 said:


> I think learning orchestration is like learning how to fuck




Nah...I had to learn how to _orchestrate_. :lol:


----------



## mducharme

Peter Alexander @ Wed Apr 06 said:


> My company competes against WW Norton.



Really? Do any major Universities use your text over the Adler or other established texts? I am curious to find out.


----------



## sevaels

Hey Peter,

You have a lot of material on your site.

I'm curious about your qualifications.

Can you provide a full list of credits and a link to some of your music (mock-up or live)?

Thanks ahead of time.


o[])


----------



## mverta

Hey, Ducharme - that way lies damnation. You, too sevaels. 

Peter's qualifications are readily apparent by studying the material he provides. If you're qualified, you'll know he is, as well. No curriculum vitae can tell you that, and academic endorsement? Forgive me, but I tend to view most academic musicians, and their academic music, as tastes to avoid.

Peter's got great info to dispense, and does so thoroughly. That is a truth absolute.


_Mike


----------



## sevaels

Hey Mike,

Great points.

I should clarify:

Don't assume bad intentions. I'm curious in the same way I was about Scott Smalley's course. You put it better than I:



> Forgive me, but I tend to view most academic musicians, and their academic music, as tastes to avoid.



I'd like to know the knowledge is derived from real world experience as a composer and orchestrator and nothing else. 

A credit list and completed work is the best way that I know of to assess whether the material is right for me (before spending money)...and currently I can't seem to find anything of the sort (I may be missing something obvious in which case link away!).

I'm always on the hunt for great courses! :D 

Honestly that's my only intent. o-[][]-o 

Anyways, your testimonial speaks highly so that's kinda what I'm looking for.

Thanks!
RJ


----------



## mverta

I hear you, I've just found that a lot of the best real-world guys aren't necessarily the best teachers, and vice-versa. Some of my favorite teachers really knew how to dispense info they didn't really know how to control in any way I was into. Ideally, you get a person who's both, but boy is that rare. Very special, though...!


_Mike


----------



## sevaels

Hah yeah that's my experience exactly!

I've had teachers where each session was revelation after revelation. I've had others (same price BTW) that weren't quite as effective.

In the end I just screen things for practical experience as much as I can and it seems you've had the same experience.

It's certainly not meant to question someone in a devilish way.

Again thanks for chiming in and helping out! :D


----------



## mverta

mducharme @ Wed Apr 06 said:


> I react the way I do from personal experience.
> 
> Let me set the way-back machine for.. oh.. 2004/2005.
> 
> 1. Me, as a young composer wanting to move up from sound modules to samplers, logged into that "other forum that shall not be named"
> 2. I discovered the postings of this wondrous new string library called "Kirk Hunter Concert Strings", not to be confused with the current "Kirk Hunter Concert Strings" product - this one was different. Peter Alexander was at full force pushing this product.
> 3. I ignored the postings by people who were questioning how the demos could have been done with far mic's because they were totally dry. Peter gave assurances that those were far mic recordings in a concert hall and talked about how great the product was.
> 4. Trusting Peter, I bought the product, and the Kirk Hunter Concert Brass when it came out.
> 5. Suddenly, Peter cuts off relations with Kirk Hunter, an email was sent out that something in the product was not as advertised.
> 
> Now, that took me a bit by surprise. Peter was championing the heck out of the product, and something was not as advertised? What was not as advertised that I paid for?
> 
> (Listening to the samples today (the discs sit up on my bookshelf as we speak), I do not hear a difference between the close and far mic samples. The far mics sound dry to my ears, like those postings said years ago. That makes me wonder....)
> 
> Anyhow, I wound up throwing what was a lot of money for me at the time on the product. I quote from the email: "large portions of the Concert Series Library do not comply with Mr. Hunter's own published specifications".
> 
> As an impressionable, young, naive composer, I trusted Peter, and he let me down. So, forgive me if I do not automatically take everything he says as the Gospel truth. I was bitten by that once before.



Well thanks for letting us know that you're bringing personal baggage about an unrelated issue from 7 years ago to bear in the form of a hopelessly biased taunt in this thread. You'd have done better to just say, "I can't really think straight or comment about this because I bear Peter too many grudges from the past." 


And for what it's worth, your story sounded circumstantial to me. I'd just be carrying around a smoking gun of truth before deciding to libel a person you may not 100% be sure is guilty of what you accuse him of. And if you really want closure on the issue, take it up with him in a PM. As it is, I think it becomes hard to take your input seriously, once you've copped to that sort of pre-disposition. I mean, think about it!


_Mike


----------



## mducharme

The question I asked before is perfectly reasonable. Maybe there are many universities using his text. I am curious to find out, and I do not think it's an unfair question.


----------



## MichaelL

mverta @ Wed Apr 06 said:


> [
> Well thanks for letting us know that you're bringing personal baggage about an unrelated issue from 7 years ago to bear in the form of a hopelessly biased taunt in this thread. You'd have done better to just say, "I can't really think straight or comment about this because I bear Peter too many grudges from the past.
> _Mike





+1 

Man...that is not going to be that last time that happens to you, if you expect every piece of software to live up to it's hype -- or its demos. It's just not going to happen. And even if it does, don't blink because it will be obsolete almost as soon as the ink is dry on your next score. In other words, it would be sitting on the shelf by now anyway. 

Did you try to take up the matter with Kirk Hunter? After all, it was his product that didn't deliver what was promised -- at the time. Did you try to upgrade to the next version of the product?

I have Peter's series. I really like the option of adding the audio examples, so I didn't have to go hunting for them. 

BTW...it sounds like you already have a sh*tload of books, AND you study IMSLP scores. What are you looking for that you don't already have? 

_Michael


----------



## mducharme

MichaelL - I think all the work Peter has done in showing all the various combinations of instruments is excellent, as I said in my previous posting, because it lets you hear an example of what that combination sounds like presenting a melody in a particular register. It is really Rimsky Korsakov's method but just expanded well beyond the original scope with many more examples. I am not trying to diminish Peter's work in this regard as I think it is really really valuable for that as I said before. I should like to have that available, because I like to know exactly how something will sound before I write it. I know already how most combinations will sound, but never exactly. Peter has created a virtual encyclopedia of these things.

What I am looking for is I often get asked by people what orchestration book they should get, etc. Same thing as the original poster asked. I do not know what to suggest to them as every book has its positives and negative aspects. I find myself suggesting the Kennan most often for introductory orchestration, but it really doesn't do you much good once you get past the beginner level. It's better at getting through the materials in an understandable way. Samuel Adler's book is full and detailed, but throws everything at you at once, and without a teacher it can be hard to pick out what is important and what isn't for a beginner. I got Peter's Professional Orchestral vol. 1 back when it was called "revised rimsky korsakov", and I also found it addressed things in an unusual way, and throws in materials that are interesting but needlessly confusing early on, and also does not really have examples (from what I can see) of music after stravinsky and prokofiev - schoenberg etc appear to be absent, probably due to a focus on tonal music and techniques that apply directly to that. Maybe they turn up in the revision or in newer volumes, I don't know. Also the book is really huge because of the examples - it's great to have all of those easily accessible but it takes up a lot of bookshelf space, and I'm sure it's expensive to print all those pages. My suggestion was that perhaps instead of all the completely detailed printed examples he could just include a list of scores with measure numbers, as an alternative that might cut down on the bulk of the volumes.

The orchestration teachers I know have been fairly uninterested in the Peter Alexander series, they are in the academic mainstream. Peter says he is competing with WW Norton, but the film and media market is just a piece of the customer base of WW Norton. I am curious as to whether he has made inroads elsewhere in established academic institutions or whether he is seeing the same thing. I'm sure he has a big customer base in the film scoring circles, as that's really where his books seem to be focused.


----------



## Ashermusic

IMHO Peter's stuff is geared to those who aspire to be working pros. What you learn in school does not necessarily have the same exact goals.

Peter and I both studied orchestration with the late great Albert Harris. I learned more practical orchestration form him in 6 months that I learned at the Conservatory, which really was not orchestration but instrumentation.

Assuming you have studied instrumentation you can learn more practically what you need to know for professional orchestration work by an in depth study of a Ravel piece that any text by Adler, Kennan, etc. 

I don't own Peter's stuff but looking at what he has on his site, this looks to me like a great resource for those who aspire to understand professional orchestration for TV and film.


----------



## Ashermusic

Thought better of it.


----------



## mducharme

Ashermusic @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> I am friends with both Kirk and Peter, not in a social way, but in that we have conversations and talk about DAWS, samples, real orchestras, and the business. They each have their version of what went down and they each sincerely believe their version of what went down.
> 
> What is consistent in both narratives was that neither one was out to mislead their customers. Sometimes things just go wrong without ill intent.
> 
> You had a bad experience and that is unfortunate but that does not mean Peter did not tell you what he believed to be true. You are entitled to believe what you wish but it is not relevant to this thread as Mike said.. Peter offers what he says he offers, it is right there on the website, and it is certainly a very viable approach to the task of learning professional practical and it looks to me to be more practical approach than studying the traditional orchestration texts, not that they do not also have value.



Hi Jay,

Thanks for your note.

Please note - I do not feel that Peter had any ill intent. If he had, he never would have sent that email out to the customers and cut off the relationship in the first place. That showed that he does care that the customer gets what they have been advertised. I apologize if that was misinterpreted from my posting.

However, this entire process has made me skeptical (which is probably healthy) of messages from marketing machines. And, speaking totally frankly, I had found some inaccura® E   ¹ÍÂ E   ¹Í× E   ¹Î E   ¹Î6 E   ¹Îë E   ¹Ï E   ¹ÖÄ E   ¹Ö÷ E   ºaÇ E   ºb E   º‹  E   º‹+ E   º‘è E   º‘ô E   º›» E   ºœÉ E   ºô¿ E   ºôî E   »1\ E   »1Ÿ E   »x! E   »x2 E   »Žò E   »E E   »­ E   »­ E   »®Ÿ E   »¯n E   »ðq E   »ðÂ E   ¼1 E   ¼Æ E   ¼û E   ¼ E   ¼I¾ E   ¼IÔ E   ¼’§ E   ¼“A E   ¼¥¸ E   ¼¥Ë E   ¼© E   ¼©ê E   ½]â E   ½]ó E   ½¨ E   ½¨R E   ½²ó E   ½³  E   ¾#+ E   ¾#? E   ¾eî E   ¾eð E   ¾´` E   ¾´Ë E   ¾ÍŽ E   ¾Í­ E   ¿¡® E   ¿¡é E   ¿¨` E   ¿¨z E   ¿±ð E   ¿² E   ¿¸œ E   ¿¸º E   ¿º# E   ¿ºS E   ¿»¤ E   ¿»º E   Àfy E   Àf E   ÀÏ_ E   ÀÏŸ E   Á\ž E   Á\Ü E   Áa% E   Áaz                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  œ E   Á–ë E   Á×‚ E   Á×õ E   ÂTk E   ÂTr E   Ã  E   Ã ä E   Ãd E   Ã} E   Ã$ E   Ã5 E   Ã*) E   Ã6Â E   ÃV  E   ÃVÍ E   Ãk€ E   Ãk‘ E   ÃxR E   Ãx€ E   Ã…N E   Ã…x E   Ã¢ E   Ã¢= E   Ã¼ë E   ÃÙÅ E   ÃÚ* E   Ãúq E   Ãû  E   Ãÿæ E   Ä ø E   ÄU E   ÄU! E   Ä|‰ E   Ä|å E   Ä‹¾ E   Ä‹Ç E   Än E   Ä– E   Å E   Å& E   Å;â E   Å<& E   ÅCœ E   ÅC± E   Åiš E   Åi¸ E   Åy¨ E   ÅyÌ E   Å‰b E   Å‰‚ E   ÅÊ] E   Æ E   ÆQ E   Æ5œ E   Æ5± E   Æ7 E   Æ77 E   Æ8Î E   Æ9 E   ÆuŒ E   Æu£ E   Æué E   Æv E   Ævð E   Æw. E   Æy£ E   ÆyÎ E   Æz^ E   Æz§ E   Æ„W E   Æ„~ E   Æˆƒ E   Æˆ¸ E   ÆÄV


----------



## Nostradamus

mverta @ Wed Apr 06 said:


> Wow... gloves off!
> 
> I think learning orchestration *is like learning how to fuck*: there are some basic techniques most everyone agrees on, but what you do largely depends on the result you want, what style you like, *and who your audience is*.



Well, who is my audience in this case? My neighbour?

Sorry, couldn't resist ... 8)


----------



## Nostradamus

re-peat @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> Nostradamus,
> 
> If you have no plans for ever writing for a real orchestra, I wouldn't bother with all these courses and books, if I were you. Not at this stage anyway. Complete waste of time (and quite likely, very discouraging as well).
> These books and courses will tell you, in great detail, about the architecture of a _real_ orchestra, how a _real_ stringsection behaves and which number of _real_ horns you need in order to blend well with _real_ woodwinds, and all that sort of thing. But that's not what you need to know right now. What YOU need to know, is how your _sampled_ violins behave and which particular _sampled_ horn-patch works best with your _sampled_ woodwinds. And which of the _sampled_ spicc patches works best to create nice rhythmic phrases. And most importantly: how all these sampled sounds need to be tweaked, programmed and mixed in order to turn the music in your head into an enjoyable listening experience. (And there's no chapter on any of this in most of the books which have been mentioned in this thread.)



That's a good point. However, I want to learn at least the basics of orchestration anyway. The reason is that I'd like to know what I'm "talking" about and it's a very interesting topic. Maybe I can combine both parts. I know that there're books about MIDI orchestration, but I don't know if they are worth the money.


----------



## mverta

Yes, in my experience knowing how a real orchestra behaves is critical to understanding how to make a virtual orchestra sound like a real orchestra. The inevitable limitations of the virtual palette which you encounter you begin to compensate for, but it is still good to have a solid understanding of what it is you're trying to copy!


----------



## JonFairhurst

Nostradamus @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> ...I know that there're books about MIDI orchestration, but I don't know if they are worth the money.



I've never bought one. MIDI orchestration is so dependent on the sequencer, sampler, libs, and synths that any book would be unlikely to match my tools. I find reading this forum and doing projects to cover the MIDI side better than any book possibly could.

Peter Alexander's online course was based on MIDI in that we composed and rendered the result for each instrument. Pretty much all major sequencers and libs were owned by the students. It was VERY cool to hear the solo compositions and people's explanations about what they did and how they worked. We could hear when a good lib was poorly performed - and when a poor lib was well performed. We could also hear a variety of approaches to mastering. Unlike a forum where people advocate and dis various tools and libs, the class was an opportunity to hear them - one instrument at a time - in action.


----------



## mducharme

I agree with Mike Verta on this - I feel that misunderstanding the capabilities of the instruments results in writing stuff that sounds wrong because you are doing things that would not be playable. I much prefer to write stuff keeping the actual instruments in mind.

A long time ago I discovered that there were a great deal of different subjects that go into being a composer. I have been studying harmony, counterpoint, form, 20th century techniques, music history, ear training, sight singing (solfege), harmonic and melodic dictation, orchestration and composition for the past 7 years or so (not all at once and not in that particular order). There is a lot that you can get into once you start at it. I have learned a whole ton from this approach over this time, and I think I'm a better musician because of it.

I sometimes feel though that I spent too much time studying the materials and not enough time actually composing music. I was thinking "I'll write more once I know exactly what I'm doing" - but I've come to the conclusion that even though I can study a lot, I will never know exactly what I am doing, and I am a lot better off writing than spending too much time studying.


----------



## Ashermusic

mverta @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> Yes, in my experience knowing how a real orchestra behaves is critical to understanding how to make a virtual orchestra sound like a real orchestra. The inevitable limitations of the virtual palette which you encounter you begin to compensate for, but it is still good to have a solid understanding of what it is you're trying to copy!



Agreed but with the caveat to be informed by it is not to be imprisoned by it. I will write this for samples that I would not write for a real player because it sounds good with them and vice-versa. Sounding "real" is not nearly as important as sounding "good" and the 2 are not always the same.


----------



## Aaron Sapp

I find it a waste of time for young up-and-coming composers to bury themselves in academia - at least at first. To me there are two aspiring composer camps: 

1) Reads, talks, listens to music, but sometimes writes it.

2) Writes all the time. Reads, talks, listens to music sometimes. 

In the long run, the guy who actually sits his ass down and writes will be the one to improve. As Mike pointed out, to achieve a level of basic competence is already a feat to behold. I've probably written thousands of pieces/ditties before I made a dime off of music. Sure, 99% of it was crap, but with each piece, you learn something new. Write a piece, try something, it doesn't work out, you don't repeat that mistake again. You try something new, it works out - add that to your arsenal of tools. Pretty soon, after a couple thousand pieces, you've developed quite a vocabulary of tools you can instinctively call upon and have reached a level of proficiency beneath which you do not sink. This crap takes time and there are absolutely no shortcuts. None. Zip. Nada. Want to get better? Quit flappin' your gums, find a piano and get ta' plinkin'. No way around it.


----------



## MichaelL

Aaron Sapp @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> I find it a waste of time for young up-and-coming composers to bury themselves in academia - at least at first.



Even the writers/players that I know who went to school learned 99% of what they know outside the classroom -- through their own initiative.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Sounding "real" is not nearly as important as sounding "good" and the 2 are not always the same."

Why didn't you say so before, Jay?


----------



## re-peat

Nostradamus @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> That's a good point. However, I want to learn at least the basics of orchestration anyway. The reason is that I'd like to know what I'm "talking" about and it's a very interesting topic.


Nostradamus,

No, problem, learn all you feel you need to. It'll be very interesting and useful, absolutely. I simply wanted to suggest that -- especially for someone like you, who seems to have a broader musical perspective than a strictly orchestral one -- there's no sensible musical reason whatsoever to enter (or fall) into the trap of stupidly 'trying to copy a real orchestra' with a virtual-orchestra-equipped computer. And, believe me, it is a trap. And a most frustrating one too, both for yourself and, later on, for your audience.

Despite what other people keep saying in this thread: you do NOT need to have a solid foundation in 'real orchestration', in order to produce excellent sounding work with libraries like EWQLSO. If anything, the traditional rules might very well work against you because, like I said earlier, they were arrived as a result of observing a completely different type of instruments. No one in his right mind will ever insist that you first go study the characteristics and behaviour of real paint, colorants, brushes and canvas before you are able to start working in Photoshop or CorelPainter, now will they? Same thing.

You can safely disregard all the written chapters on orchestral balance and section dynamics, instrumental blending, understanding the expressive characteristics of the instruments, etc. ..., because none of this applies to your virtual orchestra. Not one bit.
Not to mention the fact that sample libraries, even the very best ones, are at this moment in time nowhere near refined, rich and expressive enough yet, to assume that the classic rules of orchestration might even begin to apply to them. It's just silly to even think that, I believe.

The best thing you can do, it seems to me -- and I apologize if some of the preceding and/or following sounds a bit patronizing, it is certainly not intended that way --, is to focus completely on whichever tools you choose to work with. Learn all there is to learn about the instruments at your disposal, don't mistake them for what they are not, consider the musical implications of their particular strengths and limitations, and simply use all your creativity and musical instincts to render your music in what you consider is the best possible way.
Far better, and much more relevant than studying traditional orchestration, it seems to me, is to learn about the various techniques required to produce good sounding electronic music (compression, reverb, eq's, mixing, ...). Because, whichever way you look at it, that is in fact what you will be doing with EWQLSO. It may sound a bit like an orchestra (hopefully, anyway), but it *is* electronic music. No more, no less.

(As a somewhat off-topic aside: I never understood why, of all the millions and millions of musical possibilities that a DAW has to offer -- a galaxy of musical things which it can accomplish with breathtaking perfection --, the mock-up crowd keeps insisting on asking it to do precisely the one single thing which it isn't good at : emulating real, living instruments.)

And another thing: I might be wrong, but I often have the impression that maybe some of the people who insist that you NEED a thorough grounding in traditional orchestration, give this advice more out of a need to justify (or feel good about) the path they themselves happened to have taken, rather than for any objective musical reasons. Of course, these people will say this, because denying it also means acknowledging that all this traditional orchestration knowledge -- which indeed requires years of study as well as the investment in many a book and/or course -- is perhaps not as essential to someone working with sample libraries, as they would like you to think it is.

Like I said in my previous post: I really believe that you only need to study those things which enable you to surmount whatever musical obstacles you find on your way, those things that allow you to express your musical ideas in a way that serves them best. If, one day, this happens to include traditional orchestration, then by all means, go ahead. But don't let anyone tell you that a solid knowledge of traditional orchestration is a necessary prerequisite before being able to produce fine-sounding work with orchestral sample-libraries. It isn't.

_


----------



## shadoe42

I think Ned's comment is sound advice. Well to a point. For one thing as this thread illustrates if you ask people for advice say 10 people... you will get up to 10 different answers  

Someone else said the one who writes will be the one who improves. And its music...experiment...if it sounds good..its correct 

Now with that being said let me contradict myself and say there is often VERY good advice to be found. But in the end you have to follow your own heart so to speak. I have gotten very good advice from people here. A lot I have followed. But occasionally it goes against what I was trying to accomplish and therefore I have to make a choice to agree to that advice or go my own way(apologies to Fleetwood Mac)

Of course my own comments here are coming from someone who is a hobbiest with this type of music. I get paid doing far different stuff hahaha.


P.S. Ned just listened to your new epic intro....tasty stuff


----------



## Ashermusic

Just to clarify my opinion, as usual those holding an extreme opinion on either side of are wrong IMHO. To say having a firm grounding in traditional orchestration is essential to making sample library based work sound good is wrong. To say that it is not at all helpful is equally wrong.

It helps to have it and it helps to know when to let it go. 

My musical journey started 54 years ago. One of the few things I can absolutely state is that no technical knowledge you can acquire ever does your work anything but good if you know when and how to apply it.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> "Sounding "real" is not nearly as important as sounding "good" and the 2 are not always the same."
> 
> Why didn't you say so before, Jay?



It is one of those essential truths that cannot be stated too many times, much like "those on the political far left are equally as wacky as those on the far right." :lol:


----------



## re-peat

Ashermusic @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> Just to clarify my opinion, as usual those holding an extreme opinion on either side of are wrong IMHO. To say having a firm grounding in traditional orchestration is essential to making sample library based work sound good is wrong. To say that it is not at all helpful is equally wrong.
> 
> It helps to have it and it helps to know when to let it go.
> 
> My musical journey started 54 years ago. One of the few things I can absolutely state is that no technical knowledge you can acquire ever does your work anything but good if you know when and how to apply it.



That is true of course, but my point is that (1) the rules/guidelines of traditional orchestration are based on sonic and musical phenomena which simply can’t be recreated inside a DAW (not even with best tools and libraries) and hence have little relevance to any work done inside a DAW and (2) that these same rules tend to force one to operate within a very small field of creativity: the desperate attempts at emulating a real orchestra. Not only is this very small (when compared to the endless musical possibilities that a well-equipped DAW has to offer, I mean), but it is also precisely the area where music-made-with-a-computer is at its least convincing.

_


----------



## Ashermusic

re-peat @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> Ashermusic @ Fri Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify my opinion, as usual those holding an extreme opinion on either side of are wrong IMHO. To say having a firm grounding in traditional orchestration is essential to making sample library based work sound good is wrong. To say that it is not at all helpful is equally wrong.
> 
> It helps to have it and it helps to know when to let it go.
> 
> My musical journey started 54 years ago. One of the few things I can absolutely state is that no technical knowledge you can acquire ever does your work anything but good if you know when and how to apply it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true of course, but my point is that (1) the rules/guidelines of traditional orchestration are based on sonic and musical phenomena which simply can’t be recreated inside a DAW (not even with best tools and libraries) and hence have little relevance to any work done inside a DAW and (2) that these same rules tend to force one to operate within a very small field of creativity: the desperate attempts at emulating a real orchestra. Not only is this very small (when compared to the endless musical possibilities that a well-equipped DAW has to offer, I mean), but it is also precisely the area where music-made-with-a-computer is at its least convincing.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Agreed. But re: #2, sadly, sometimes we are called upon to do it anyway.


----------



## Nostradamus

Ashermusic @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> Just to clarify my opinion, as usual those holding an extreme opinion on either side of are wrong IMHO. To say having a firm grounding in traditional orchestration is essential to making sample library based work sound good is wrong. To say that it is not at all helpful is equally wrong.



This is why I asked how to get some basic knowledges before I start to dig deeper. First I just need enough information to start because I don't even want to use a library without any clue what orchestration is all about.


----------



## mverta

The fact is most people are not trying to use virtual orchestras in some "on its own terms" context, wise as that may be. They're absolutely trying to substitute a virtual one for a real one, for any number of justifiable reasons.

So while semantic juggling can go on for rounds, you still end up back where your instinct says you should be, Nostradamus, which is that acquired knowledge is power, and unless you're a deliberately obtuse, dogmatic and rigid thinker, are never worse off for having more knowledge.

While perhaps the most artistic and complex aspects of internal balance, such as we might achieve through truly skillful orchestration, do essentially not apply to the virtual palette, I still hear a lot of basic sectional-balance issues in a lot of mock-ups, which can absolutely be avoided with even a rudimentary understanding of the discipline. In some mock-ups, I've heard solo flute samples hold their own in the octave above middle-c, at mp or so, against trumpet sections playing f. Stuff like that, while extreme, isn't actually that uncommon, and if you don't truly know which instruments produce which tones at what power in which ranges, it becomes next-to-impossible to adjust your vi template to behave predictably/convincingly. Getting my sectional balances right is easily the part of template building I spend the most time on, and the most time tweaking. But, when it's right, you can trust even a virtual orchestration moreso than you might think. But without an internalized sense for what is right (and a lot of reference recordings and scores), that will elude and frustrate you.

Go with your gut; learn, and be powerful. 


_Mike


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Okay Jay, I'll take the bait yet again.

You know, I personally have never heard, say, synthy-sounding sampled strings sound right in an imitative/orchestral/acoustic context. Of course synth strings can sound great - the classic example that comes to mind is Herbie Hancock Headhunters - but if you're using samples of real instruments then you want them to sound realistic. I sure do, anyway.

Yes you treat them differently from real instruments, yes you have a license to play things that real instruments couldn't play, yes there are lots of synthetic sounds that sound fantastic in their own right, and yes pop recording production doesn't relate directly to reality (how many times have you seen a drummer hitting a snare while standing inside a box with a plate in it, or the same guitarist simultaneously standing 15' away from your left and right ears - i.e. standing 30' away from himself at the same time).

But I just don't understand your insistence on pretending that there's no context in the acoustic world for a sampled flute.

Then again I also don't understand how you can know beyond a doubt that the Republicans are factually wrong about something while simultaneously insisting that their opinion is equally worthy of respect to yours. 

Anyway, we do agree that orchestration is something you never finish learning. An FFF minor third at the bottom of the bass clef isn't likely to sound right with samples or real instruments.


----------



## Peter Alexander

I'm sorry to report this to you, Nostradamus, but there's no _Wii Orchestration Method_.

In the Old Testament, there are 6 Hebrew words ALL mistranslated as _teach_. Here they are below. What do you want? What are you prepared to commit to? Minutes per week? Hours per week? What?

*lamad* - to urge to go in a specific direction, prodding as using a stick with an ox.

*yarah* - to point out the direction to go.

*zahar* - to advise caution.

*yada* - to provide experience

*shanan* - to sharpen

*alph* - to show through example

You started this thread, not by asking a basic and reasonable question to help you determine a course (yarah), but criticizing and trashing our company's Professional Orchestration series by saying that they were full of academical ballast.

I'm not a kid. I've been teaching and training in different venues for a lot of years. So when I see a post like yours, to be brutally frank, I question your seriousness and teach-ability.

If you just want to have fun with orchestral sounds, then go buy EW QLSO Gold or GPO, and play and have fun. That's a perfectly valid approach. And lots do it.

http://alexanderpublishing.com/Products/EastWest-QLSO-Gold-Complete__EW-179.aspx (http://alexanderpublishing.com/Products ... W-179.aspx)

The only "genuine" rule in orchestration is to write within the instrument's range, and QLSO Gold only has the actual instrument ranges in them. So you're safe. 

But as Jerry Goldsmith once so wisely said, "Orchestration is for the orchestra, not a Korg M1."

Those of us here who are fervent about learning orchestration are so because we know the music within us that wants to escape. And so, to many, we foolishly commit hours listening, going to concerts, studying scores, talking to musicians, and writing, to have skill and cunning in our work so that when our music is heard outside our heads by others, it says exactly what we wanted it to say, not what we hoped it would say.

Consequently, there is joy in the learning. We don't commit all those hours, even to the extent of having XM in our cars with the various classical and film music channels, because we're masochistic, but because there is an indescribable joy associated with finishing, and with hearing your music, and hearing it played well. 

As best as possible at Alexander Publishing, we try to make learning a joy. And I have letters saying we do, but they're from people who wanted to learn, and did.

A few things can be taught the Sesame Street way. Other things, like orchestration, simply require that you be able to focus and be willing to put your butt in a chair and do the work. 

Or are you waiting for "the Count" to make an appearance and count out, "1! 2! 3! 4! 4/4 time!"

All 6 Hebrew words have been demonstrated with you in this thread.

So, again, what do you want?


----------



## Nostradamus

Peter Alexander @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> I'm sorry to report this to you, Nostradamus, but there's no _Wii Orchestration Method_.



When I read this I must smile because I needed two minutes until I got what you mean with "Wii Orchestration Method". :D 



> What are you prepared to commit to? Minutes per week? Hours per week? What?



I mostly play piano. And, as I said, I have a full time job so my time is a bit limited. 



> You started this thread, not by asking a basic and reasonable question to help you determine a course (yarah), but criticizing and trashing our company's Professional Orchestration series by saying that they were full of academical ballast.



C'mon, calm down. Since I don't know your books (besides of the excerpts you provide on your website) I can't and don't criticize them. My remark concerning academical ballast was not related to any particular books. It's just that I don't want to spend my time with dusty and dry academic stuff.



> I'm not a kid.



I*m not either. This is why I needed some time to understand your first sentence.



> I've been teaching and training in different venues for a lot of years. So when I see a post like yours, to be brutally frank, I question your seriousness and teach-ability.



I already wrote about my intentions. And again: calm down. No reason to disbelieve in my teach-ability.



> If you just want to have fun with orchestral sounds, then go buy EW QLSO Gold or GPO, and play and have fun. That's a perfectly valid approach. And lots do it.
> 
> http://alexanderpublishing.com/Products/EastWest-QLSO-Gold-Complete__EW-179.aspx (http://alexanderpublishing.com/Products ... W-179.aspx)



Thanks, but I already have EWQL Gold.



> But as Jerry Goldsmith once so wisely said, "Orchestration is for the orchestra, not a Korg M1."



Very well said. Thanks god I've a Yamaha workstation. :lol: 



> As best as possible at Alexander Publishing, we try to make learning a joy. And I have letters saying we do, but they're from people who wanted to learn, and did.



Okay. jokes apart, let my try to explain: what I want is something I'd call a "vertical approach" of learning. This means I really want to learn as I stated previously, but I need practical results which I can use as fast as possible (no, that doesn't mean within minutes!). And then, after learning some basics, I can dive into more (complex) aspects of orchestration. The opposite is the "horizontal approach": you learn and learn, read books about theory and so on but you may need months until you feel prepared to start your own "experiments" in orchestration.



> A few things can be taught the Sesame Street way.



However, I prefer the Muppet Show way. 8)


----------



## mducharme

Sorry to side-track this thread again...

Peter,

Looking back on some things I said..

I was wrong to have criticized the Professional Orchestration series when I do not own the latest edition of it. My remarks were based on the older revision of the first book which I have at home. I had found inaccuracies in it before, and based on my previous past experience (the aforementioned story), I had assumed that this was likely true of the newer editions. Looking back it it, I realize that was a mistake, that I should not jump to conclusions about the newer edition of your book simply because there were some things I did not like in the old edition and past experiences.

More importantly, I should not have brought up that old story. I certainly did not mean to suggest that you did that on purpose, because I certainly do not think so, and I have never thought so. I was reacting to Mike Verta's implication that your approach should not be questioned by anybody, and was already in a bad mood from what I took as being a sarcastic comment "Best of luck with Space: 2099" in your post to me. I then posted the story to demonstrate that it is good to question these things sometimes. Unfortunately, being in a bad mood already, I was not thinking clearly at the time, and so I should not have posted that - that was not the best way of going about things.

So I apologize to you for what I have said.


----------



## Peter Alexander

@Mducharme.

1. Thank you.

2. It was not sarcastic. I took my time to go to your web site and hear your music. It was meant sincerely.

3. In the years you've had the book I haven't had a note from you asking me any questions about what you consider to be inaccuracies. I'm easy to find. My posts carry my name. The web site always has an email address you can write in and ask questions about.

In the decade that book has been out, I think I've had a total of 3-4 questions about what was written in it. Since I don't know what you're referring to, please write us at [email protected], not here, with the page # and your question. 

I can only tell you that the instrumentation notes were checked by members of Jerry Goldsmith's orchestra. In particular, the entire string section was double checked by the late Paul Shure, Jerry's concert master, who played under Toscanini.

Again, please write us at the address I gave above. We'll get back to you with an answer.

Peter


----------



## Peter Alexander

> Okay. jokes apart, let my try to explain: what I want is something I'd call a "vertical approach" of learning. This means I really want to learn as I stated previously, but I need practical results which I can use as fast as possible (no, that doesn't mean within minutes!). And then, after learning some basics, I can dive into more (complex) aspects of orchestration. The opposite is the "horizontal approach": you learn and learn, read books about theory and so on but you may need months until you feel prepared to start your own "experiments" in orchestration



We teach by your method called "vertical". Our approach is:

DTLD

*D* = Define
*T* = Teach
*L* = Learn
*D* = Do

Everything you want to accomplish starts with composition. The simplest way to start is with Applied Professional Harmony 101 where you begin with building chord progressions (pads) and then record them with strings, brass, and woodwinds. Then you build up to writing your own songs and recording simple arrangements of them with melody, pad, bass line and optional drums depending on your sequencing program. It takes 3-4 months to go through this book.

http://alexanderpublishing.com/Products/Applied-Professional-Harmony-101__978-0939067886.aspx (http://alexanderpublishing.com/Products ... 67886.aspx)

There's no academic ballast in ANY book we publish. That's why the word "professional" is in the titles.


----------



## nikolas

Peter Alexander @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> There's no academic ballast in ANY book we publish. That's why the word "professional" is in the titles.


I'm sorry but I'm starting to get nervous and a tiny bit bothered with this whole issue about 'academic', etc... I know you didn't mean bad, nor that 'ballast' includes anything bad in its meaning (as far as I know of), but somehow it seems that you think academics live in a world of their own and a non professional one at that. :-/

Same goes with Mikes' comment about academics taste, etc...

*IF* a portion of what was taught in the academic world was being applied in media music, we would have a much better result I think. 

I'm a huge fan of 'learn about something and THEN ditch it". 

Sorry for sidetracking this thread yet once more... o-[][]-o


----------



## Nostradamus

Peter Alexander @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> Everything you want to accomplish starts with composition. The simplest way to start is with Applied Professional Harmony 101 where you begin with building chord progressions (pads) and then record them with strings, brass, and woodwinds. Then you build up to writing your own songs and recording simple arrangements of them with melody, pad, bass line and optional drums depending on your sequencing program. It takes 3-4 months to go through this book.
> 
> http://alexanderpublishing.com/Products/Applied-Professional-Harmony-101__978-0939067886.aspx (http://alexanderpublishing.com/Products ... 67886.aspx)
Click to expand...


Thanks. Although I have some basic understanding of harmony this book may be a good addition. I'll check it out.


----------



## Dave Connor

nikolas @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> I'm sorry but I'm starting to get nervous and a tiny bit bothered with this whole issue about 'academic', etc...



Oh yeah, very silly uniformed comments criticizing what school, what composer, what era? What compositional program, teacher or student? What mode of thinking, what style? How about narrowing things down to a century or half century (and pick a continent so I can begin to understand what academy has so deeply troubled you? Athens? Oxford? The local middle school?) I mean give me a scintilla of anything specific so I have a clue that you have a clue of what you're talking about. You know, the kind of carefully laid out critical thinking and essaying of a viewpoint that you would learn in... academia.

I will speak up though in defense of John William's music here because as _we all know_ he is probably the most heavily influenced composer by the academic world living today. What academic world? Do you own research.


----------



## adg21

nikolas @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> *IF* a portion of what was taught in the academic world was being applied in media music, we would have a much better result I think.
> 
> I'm a huge fan of 'learn about something and THEN ditch it".
> 
> Sorry for sidetracking this thread yet once more... o-[][]-o



I agree. I think Bill Evans puts it nicely in this video...the value of knowing exactly what you are doing. Knowing vs approximating/winging-it
http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/bill-evans-on-writing/


----------



## mverta

For the record, I wasn't knocking academics; I was knocking "academic music" and academic musicians, which in both cases is intellectually sound, yet totally soulless. But I'm certainly not criticizing going to school or studying or learning!


----------



## re-peat

mverta @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> I was knocking "academic music" (...) which (...) is intellectually sound, yet totally soulless.


Would you care to give a few examples of that, Mike? Music which you consider soulless. I'm genuinely interested. (And I promise that I won't reply, no matter which names you mention.)

_


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> Okay Jay, I'll take the bait yet again.
> 
> You know, I personally have never heard, say, synthy-sounding sampled strings sound right in an imitative/orchestral/acoustic context. Of course synth strings can sound great - the classic example that comes to mind is Herbie Hancock Headhunters - but if you're using samples of real instruments then you want them to sound realistic. I sure do, anyway.
> 
> Yes you treat them differently from real instruments, yes you have a license to play things that real instruments couldn't play, yes there are lots of synthetic sounds that sound fantastic in their own right, and yes pop recording production doesn't relate directly to reality (how many times have you seen a drummer hitting a snare while standing inside a box with a plate in it, or the same guitarist simultaneously standing 15' away from your left and right ears - i.e. standing 30' away from himself at the same time).
> 
> But I just don't understand your insistence on pretending that there's no context in the acoustic world for a sampled flute.
> 
> Then again I also don't understand how you can know beyond a doubt that the Republicans are factually wrong about something while simultaneously insisting that their opinion is equally worthy of respect to yours.
> 
> Anyway, we do agree that orchestration is something you never finish learning. An FFF minor third at the bottom of the bass clef isn't likely to sound right with samples or real instruments.



I don't want to take this OT so we can discuss that in another thread. I will only say "synthy" and "real" when relating to samples are subjective terms VSL strings sound more "real" than Omnisphere's but there are a lot of cues where the latter might sound "better".


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I taught 5 years at university, and have spent 15 years away from it now. The way I understand what Mike meant and what many people experience is that music made by people in school (students, teachers) tends to be exploratory more than expressive. Put another way, generally, the music I've heard in an academic context has appealed more to my head than to my heart/feet. It doesn't help, of course, that there's very little genuine critique of one's work (aside from the prof's notes), lots of niceties, and no chance of losing work because your music is bad.


----------



## Ashermusic

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Dave Connor @ 9/4/2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean give me a scintilla of anything specific so I have a clue that you have a clue of what you're talking about. You know, the kind of carefully laid out critical thinking and essaying of a viewpoint that you would learn in... academia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What bit you in the ass? What a nasty bit of posting.
Click to expand...


I don't read that post as nasty, Ned. I think Dave is calling for intellectual clarity rather than just broad assertions.


----------



## Ashermusic

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> I taught 5 years at university, and have spent 15 years away from it now. The way I understand what Mike meant and what many people experience is that music made by people in school (students, teachers) tends to be exploratory more than expressive. Put another way, generally, the music I've heard in an academic context has appealed more to my head than to my heart/feet. It doesn't help, of course, that there's very little genuine critique of one's work (aside from the prof's notes), lots of niceties, and no chance of losing work because your music is bad.



It depends on the school and the era.

The problem is indeed because music at universities is and SHOULD be exploratory, in this era that probably means non-tonal and post-serial, which people, mistakenly IMHO, automatically label as less expressive. And obviously. college students' compositions are unlikely to be as fully realized as a working pro's should be.

As for the teachers. it depend on the individual. Darius Milhaud taught at McGill for instance, and there is certainly lots of expressiveness in it once you get comfortable with the musical lexicon.

Burt Bachatrach studied with him and said he would be a little embarrassed by the fact that his work was so tonal and melodic and Darius told him, and I paraphrase "Burt write what you feel. There is nothing wrong with a good melody."


----------



## mverta

By academic music I mean music that has all the right parts, does all the "right things," follows all the rules, yet isn't inspiring or interesting or entertaining in any way. Some people are drawn to academics for the security of having rules to follow as though that will guarantee them interesting music. But it usually ends up sterile and lifeless, for all its academic and analytical cohesion.


----------



## Nostradamus

Maybe I should be a bit more precise on what I really want. I know that I'll never be a professional musician, let alone a professional orchestrator. I also know that the time I can spend on learning is a bit limited. Bearing this in mind I need some advice on how to start. I need something in a condensed form that allow me to start without completely being in the dark. Impossible?


----------



## Dave Connor

Ashermusic @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> I don't read that post as nasty, Ned. I think Dave is calling for intellectual clarity rather than just broad assertions.



Precisely.


----------



## nikolas

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> From my reading, Dave is wondering whether Nikolai has a clue about what he's talking about. Pathetic, given that Nikolai is a teacher, and, based on what I hear in his concert works, he probably knows more than many members about so-called 'academic' music.
> 
> And he's being quite sarcastic in the second line.


It's Nikola*s*! :evil: _-) 

And Dave, was probably following my line of thinking, from what I can tell, since he knows about me! 

We do need to remember that _some_ training is needed for any kind of music. What a death metal fan finds awesome might strike me as impossible! Same goes for 'academic music' (by which I'm referring to contemporary concert hall music, assuming this is what we're talking about).

EDIT: Nostradamus: It's a difficult matter and in some terms orchestration IS linked with composition (but not always...). The safe way to start is to keep working, getting scores that you have the recordings and study them, get your scores and recordings posted and in general be as active as possible. There are a lot of book available, most of them posted here (in fact I can't think of any other book, except Leibowitz course, but I think it's out of print, which is a huge pity and I'm not sure if Peter has mentioned it since he does know about it), so take a pick. Most are good, there's little doubt about that. You will not get 'everything', but you will get something to start working.

Ultimately you need excersizes to work on, and someone to correct them. It's quite difficult to do it any other way. So any book, which is not designed as a course with excersizes will not help you quite as much as another which IS intended as a (self taught) course.

You have enough info by now, so it's up to you to take it with you and do the best you can.


----------



## PoppaJimmy

Nostradamus @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Maybe I should be a bit more precise on what I really want. I know that I'll never be a professional musician, let alone a professional orchestrator. I also know that the time I can spend on learning is a bit limited. Bearing this in mind I need some advice on how to start. I need something in a condensed form that allow me to start without completely being in the dark. Impossible?



Nostradamus,

I think the earlier parts of this offered several realistic options that can help you. After those ideas were brought out, and since your question was mostly answered, I think people here started exploring wider points of view on a (apparently) very provocative subject, as they often do. That makes for an interesting thread with a lot to think about (thanks for starting it).

Look to the first couple of pages of the thread and there's quite a lot that, IMO, can give you what you're asking for. The consenus appears to me to be that you are still gonig to have to be willing to do, at lease some, work if you want a 'grasp' of composition and orchestration, no matter which of the mentioned approaches you take. There's no way around that, that I can see. Good luck.

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## Dave Connor

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> From my reading, Dave is wondering whether Nikolai has a clue about what he's talking about. Pathetic, given that Nikolai is a teacher, and, based on what I hear in his concert works, he probably knows more than many members about so-called 'academic' music.
> 
> And he's being quite sarcastic in the second line.



My post was entirely in support of Nikolas, Ned - entirely.

In your earlier post you mentioned some specific things that can actually be addressed: i.e. I can begin to comprehend your actual viewpoint and engage you seriously in a discussion because you actually said something. A broad indictment using a catch phrase or pejorative term such as _academic_ doesn't contain any information small or large to address. It's not a poor argument - there is no argument there. That it's made as a clear, bold, informed statement launches it into a very antagonizing bit of reading and I think v.i. deserves better.

To make a point, everyone here should consider that from Bach (both student then teacher in the academic world of his time) to Beethoven to Mahler to nearly all the Russian composers of the 20th century: all of them poured out of the academic institutions of their time. In the case of John Williams, he is the embodiment of numerous composers who actually ran and created the curriculums of major U.S. academic institutions in the last century. He adopted their language and actually quotes them quite literally - constantly.

So I am hoping this kind of thing ends. If someone wants to say they don't like such and such a composer or school of composition taught at such and such a school - fine. Or even that it may be hard to find traditional composition in some of the university system or that orchestration requires a lifelong study beyond what you can learn in a typical college term - fine. Such things have been said here. A broad indictment however rarely fails to include the owner in the camp he finds so offensive.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

My definition of academic music is that it's self-conscious *to the point of paralysis.* (Please read the emphasis - that qualifies what I'm saying!)

A few years ago I played cello in a local community college orchestra (for a *very* short time!), and the teacher of the ensemble wrote insane amounts of music that was all based on rules. It was exquisitely annoying.


----------



## Dave Connor

Yes, Nick but I understand you studied at Berklee. How did you find that? And would you be bothered by a blanket indictment of the program whether intended or unintended? (one of my major points in all this.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Not wanting to go OT but nonetheless sabotaged by me, Jay wrote:



> I will only say "synthy" and "real" when relating to samples are subjective terms VSL strings sound more "real" than Omnisphere's but there are a lot of cues where the latter might sound "better".



Sure, and you can mix sawtoothy sounds in with strings to make them sound fuller too. I wouldn't have to be spiking your arguments if you just said that there are times when synthetic string washes sound better than realistic sampled strings.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Dave, what I got of out studying at Berklee is priceless (and I finished two years before MIDI came along, which for me was a further blessing, since I didn't have to learn about that at the same time). A blanket indictment of the program would simply be stupid; the level and quantity of talent at that college is incredible, both among faculty and students.

I'm just trying to redefine what it is people are talking about when they use the word "academic" as a dis. Studying music - or anything else - as an academic discipline is a good thing!


----------



## Dave Connor

I figured Nick, as Jay said I was asking for definition, for clarity. Sure, everyone basically gets the idea of dry academia I would think. But in fact as you said, it's a realm where priceless treasures abound and where our heroes often seem to come from.


----------



## rgames

One of the first things I ask when having discussions on this topic is this: how many of your favorite composers/musicians have advanced degrees in music? For me, it's not many.

Academic study is not, per se, a good thing or a bad thing as applied to the arts (clearly it has its place in the sciences). Where it gets confusing is in the difference between *proscriptive* study and *descriptive* study.

A descriptive study simply provides insight into the way things are without making claims on what they will be. It is simply an observation and says "this is how it is."

A proscriptive study, however, is predictive: it says "this is how it will be", usually on the basis of some type of rules or heuristics (as in the sciences, which can, of course, be based on observation).

Where I think academic musicians have gone wrong in the last 50 years is that they've shifted to a proscriptive study of music.

The arts and humanities should, in my opinion, always be studied descriptively. In other words, the new ideas happen outside of academia but the academics help to clarify what, exactly, it is that makes the new ideas *good* new ideas. Because it is an artistic study, these observations change with time and tastes.

Academic approaches over the last 50 years seem to have forgotten that society judges what makes good art, not professors. There's no relativity or Newtonian mechanics that they can use to prove their points, so a proscriptive approach makes no sense in an academic study of the arts.

People figure out what they like, *then* they figure out why they like it.

Then it changes...

rgames


----------



## Peter Alexander

Excuse me, but *I* and my company were criticized for our Professional Orchestration series containing "academical ballast" said by someone who had not seen one book, nor owned one.

I said they were not and that other books were, and I stand by that because part of making your living as a writer is knowing the field and who your competitors are.

Go to books.google.com and type in Percy Goetschius. Then download for free _The Material Used in Musical Composition_, which for many decades was the standard harmony text in schools until ultimately it was replaced by Piston.

Now go to page 244, *Figuration or Broken Chords. Accompaniments.*

The material on the following pages was written in 1889 and is not in any major harmony book in 2011.

From the late 1800s through the early 20th century music methods like this were equally balanced between knowledge and skill. In other words, knowing something intellectually wasn't enough. You had to be able to do it. It was expected that the music student using this book could sight read and play piano at Grade Level 2 or better. 

This material teaches you how to take four-voices and on the spot, create either an instant keyboard arrangement or a three-part arrangement, counterpoint if you will. There are plenty of references to actual works for additional study, so this is not theoretical.

Some time in the early 1920s, how we were taught changed and moved from skill-based instruction to intellectual based instruction. 

In another field, Stephen Covey, author of _The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People_ did a survey of success literature and found that up to the early 20th century, success literature focused on character, but that in the early 20th century, it had shifted to technique.

I can go subject after subject in music for a span of several hundred years showing how music education drifted from results driven titles to titles that require the student to merely turn in homework, get a grade and pass an exam, but not necessarily prove their skill.

The associations of colleges and schools in each region call these proficiency levels. 

Here's another example.

In orchestration, in the 1920s, Oberlin's Arthur Heacox created a dandy method called _Project Lessons in Orchestration_ which took several semesters to complete. The book was based on the "wild" notion that you learn orchestrating by orchestrating. The students also had to prepare parts so their work could be performed in class for critiquing. 

Later, Joseph Wagner revised this approach and we publish Wagner's book under the title _Professional Orchestration: A Practical Handbook_. Like Heacox, the Wagner book also takes several semester*s* to complete. Adler: maybe a dozen or so pages to a subject that takes three semesters to learn.

This is why I took and will continue to take umbrage with statements that we publish is academical ballast. That's the other guys. Not Alexander Publishing. And I have plenty of examples for counterpoint, composition, harmony, advanced counterpoint and harmony to make my case.

My company has never gone down that road, and we won't.


----------



## nikolas

Peter,

I'll just offer an idea to the table and leave it at that:

Things are NOT as they used to be back in the late 1880s... The available information about harmony (for example), was _somewhat limited_ (sorry for the term, it's not correct) to tonality. If you ad everything that's been around, it becomes quite apparent on why it's so difficult to do 4 voice harmonizing on the spot on the piano anymore. 

You still want to discuss how educational practices have changed over the least 130 years?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Dave, Nikolai... LAS, and everyone: sorry for my utterly poor reading of Dave's post. I apologize to Dave especially. 
Idiotic posts by yours truly erased (well, at least those in this thread).


----------



## mverta

I can't tell if people understand that my use of the term academic has very little to do with academics or not...


----------



## mducharme

nikolas @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Peter,
> 
> I'll just offer an idea to the table and leave it at that:
> 
> Things are NOT as they used to be back in the late 1880s... The available information about harmony (for example), was _somewhat limited_ (sorry for the term, it's not correct) to tonality. If you ad everything that's been around, it becomes quite apparent on why it's so difficult to do 4 voice harmonizing on the spot on the piano anymore.
> 
> You still want to discuss how educational practices have changed over the least 130 years?



+1

And, BTW, there is an undergraduate Harmony text currently in print that does cover the type of stuff that Peter described, albeit in a different manner: "Harmony through Melody" by Horton/Ritchie, which treats the figuration patterns as "melodic figures" of various varieties which can be linked to each other or used in various arrangements. It uses this as a prelude to a Schenkerian study, but as part of it, the student creates two-voice instrumental pieces using the melodic figures.


----------



## nikolas

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Dave, Nikolai... LAS, and everyone: sorry for my utterly poor reading of Dave's post. I apologize to Dave especially.
> Idiotic posts by yours truly erased (well, at least those in this thread).


I also got confused, but I PMed Dave and got it sorted, before I got to post! :D

Mike: It IS understandable, but it's quite common in music to link the work with the composer... :-/


----------



## Peter Alexander

nikolas @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Peter,
> 
> I'll just offer an idea to the table and leave it at that:
> 
> Things are NOT as they used to be back in the late 1880s... The available information about harmony (for example), was _somewhat limited_ (sorry for the term, it's not correct) to tonality. If you ad everything that's been around, it becomes quite apparent on why it's so difficult to do 4 voice harmonizing on the spot on the piano anymore.
> 
> You still want to discuss how educational practices have changed over the least 130 years?



Of course! But you're missing my point, Nikolas. The books at that time through the early 20th century were skill driven.

You have to update, but within the context of making learning skill driven. And you use the modern tools we have available today to aid that, which is what happens in APH 101. You write a chord progression exercise that you created with basic guidelines. Then, you sequence and record your answer. 

This way, as soon as you create it, you record and hear it.

That's skill driven. It's gradable in an academic context. And the student develops writing, keyboard, sequencing and recording skills from one original seven-bar chord progression he or she created starting in Dorian, then working through each of the modes.


----------



## nikolas

EDIT: You edited your post, so this is not applicable anymore...

Perhaps there's a way to offer the same teaching principals in more dissonant techniques... (again the term is somewhat incorect, but I don't want to mix contemporary with dissonant. It's NOT the case)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Richard, when I was at Berklee it was always understood that the rules are descriptive. Every teacher emphasized that.

Yet if you don't follow them you had better know what you're doing, because a trumpet will kick a low flute's ass every time. If you write the root of a chord over the b9, you had better know how to handle that or it will sound like ass every time. In traditional harmony, parallel fifths will sound wrong every time.

And so on.


----------



## Dave Connor

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Dave, Nikolai... LAS, and everyone: sorry for my utterly poor reading of Dave's post. I apologize to Dave especially.
> Idiotic posts by yours truly erased (well, at least those in this thread).



I wasn't offended Ned and in fact understood your sense of "nasty post" because it rather was. It wasn't in response to Nikolas is all and you see that now so no big deal. 

I wasn't defending academia as some perfect thing. I was asking the question if anyone criticizing it in a general way realized that the guy that most of us admire totally {J. Williams} is the most academic sounding composer alive (he models on _academic_ composers). The issue may be addressed as a semantic one but it seemed to me there was little realization that the preponderance of impact from the academic world upon All Of US is music that we all love very much. It has all the life, creativity and skill that we say that academia can't lead us to. When in fact it has been leading us to a considerable degree all along.


----------



## Peter Alexander

nikolas @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> EDIT: You edited your post, so this is not applicable anymore...
> 
> Perhaps there's a way to offer the same teaching principals in more dissonant techniques... (again the term is somewhat incorect, but I don't want to mix contemporary with dissonant. It's NOT the case)



Again, it's not just the content. It's developing a system where once the technique you teach is learned, the student must apply it immediately. When you have that, you now have results driven training.


----------



## Peter Alexander

> I was asking the question if anyone criticizing it in a general way realized that the guy that most of us admire totally {J. Williams} is the most academic sounding composer alive (he models on academic composers).



I'm not understanding this sentence, Dave. The composers I work most with in academia embrace, by their words, art music, which is a more intellectual style rooted in avant garde and serial music.

I don't see how _Memoirs of a Geisha_ fits that.

In listening to John Williams style, there's a lot of Mahler, Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev, and George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Method.

I'm not trying to be contrary with you, I'm just not understanding your position.


----------



## Dave Connor

Richard, advanced degrees are an aspect not previously mentioned (at least not by me) so you may be initiating something worth focusing on. I welcome (and decried the lack of) specific aspects that may be discussed. If I say, _Shostakovich went to college and studied privately with Alexander Glazunov_ then I have rendered a general criticism of academic thinking, teaching etc., as invalid to those who {say} love the score to Close Encounters. Of course if we then find out Shostakovich got an advanced degree in composition then maybe your feelings on the matter are tempered by this fact.

Mike, yes I understood your first clarification of your ultimate position on study et. al., and that you are in no way criticizing it.


----------



## Dave Connor

Peter Alexander @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> I was asking the question if anyone criticizing it in a general way realized that the guy that most of us admire totally {J. Williams} is the most academic sounding composer alive (he models on academic composers).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not understanding this sentence, Dave. The composers I work most with in academia embrace, by their words, art music, which is a more intellectual style rooted in avant garde and serial music...
> 
> In listening to John Williams style, there's a lot of Mahler, Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev, and George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Method.
> 
> I'm not trying to be contrary with you, I'm just not understanding your position.
Click to expand...


Peter you may not realize that you are in fact confirming my original point in that you have been very specific in your remarks. So you are saying something which _can_ be responded to. Something that can't be done with broad statements.

You will see that I mentioned criticism of the lack of teaching traditional composition as perhaps a valid one toward academia (to address an inherent point in your statement.) You probably know that Stephan Sondheim studied with Milton Babbit, a rather severe serialist. So I cannot dismiss Babbit for a second even if I have an intense dislike of his music (I'm not saying I do.) So once again I find that I cannot generally or in this case specifically criticize academia for facilitating one of the truly great popular composers of our time. You also probably know that Babbit read his student just right and refused to emphasize serial technique and insisted on Sondheim exhausting his tonal inclinations in his studies. So knowing that, I now flat out admire this model academic serialist composer. (My opinion is informed being a major point here.)

Is there a single composer you mentioned in that list that didn't earn a degree and go through an extremely rigorous musical education? In JW's case he actually fancy's the American academics more than anyone you mentioned (to my ears anyway.) Just not the current ones but his own generation and earlier.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I'm going to pick up George Russell's book - thanks for mentioning it, Peter.

*edit* After checking the price, I think I'll pass for now! *edit*


----------



## JJP

:D 
I love these largely academic debates over semantics.
o[])


----------



## Ashermusic

JimmyPoppa @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> A couple of years ago I went to a week-long Contemporary Composers festival held here in Las Vegas; this one: http://neonmusicfestival.blogspot.com/. This was all pure concert music, by today’s most contemporary, modern and yes, academic composers. Many of them were University professors or had very advanced degrees. None of them were film/TV/game composers or anything even remotely close to that. These were Art for Art’s sake composers at the very edge of modern composition.
> 
> All of them were, of course, trained in every aspect of the techniques of composition and orchestration. You can see from the list that the only one whose name I suspect many here might know would be Augusta Read Thomas: http://www.augustareadthomas.com/ who is quite well known in that world. She was the main guest and gave several talks on her music.
> 
> I went every day, to all the lectures and seminars as well as all the performances. Obviously, I heard a LOT of extremely ‘academic’ music. Most of the lectures were by the actual composers of the pieces we were hearing, often explaining in depth the conception and/or intention behind the music as well as, of course, the techniques used to create them.
> 
> The thing I want to point out here is that, without exception, every single one of those composers was utterly, intensely passionate about what they were doing. They weren’t thinking of themselves as creating ‘dry, academically correct’ works. In many cases, they were breaking every rule known to musical mankind. They understood that their music was mostly inaccessible to the general musical public, and they do care about this. However, that is not the guiding force behind what they do.
> 
> They have no interest in repeating what has been done before. They totally get that those past masters took their music to the highest levels and they have the greatest admiration for them. Some of the composers play older classical music as well as Jazz or other more popular music.
> 
> However, the overriding impulses that drive them are more purely artistic: discovery, creation, finding new languages, pure self-expression, intellectual and artistic satisfaction. Even those words are inadequate. Mostly, I was strongly impressed by the deep, heartfelt passion they felt and that they truly were attempting to express in their music. They simply had no desire whatsoever to use the methods of the past to do this.
> 
> I certainly wouldn’t want to say that all academics feel this way. However, I can say that many whom I’ve encountered or studied with over the years certainly do.
> 
> It may be a huge leap for most of us to hear the emotion, the heart and soul in modern academic music. The tools they are using simply may not resonate for the majority. However, maybe we shouldn’t assume that, just because _we_ don’t hear it or feel it, it’s not there. Maybe they are simply speaking in a language we don’t understand. As often as not, they themselves are still searching for that language. That, in many cases is what Art is all about.
> 
> Be Well,
> 
> Jimmy



Very well stated, sir.


----------



## mverta

Hmmm... sorta sounds like an ad hoc rationalization to me, but... takes all kinds, I guess. Personally, I approach art as a unifying experience, with my aim to find the experiential common ground which unites the most people, and people, are, by and large, all the same. So the idea that what I might be doing is simply beyond the comprehension or tastes or understanding of most people, to me, defeats the purpose, and sounds pointedly indulgent and masturbatory. 

_But this is why I produce tonal music._ And the fact that virtually everyone I've ever met who actually professes to like most of that "art" stuff is either a pretentious asshole or lying, just so they can be "that guy," (present company excepted, of course), is likely a product of my lack of experience with the community in general, because mostly I find we have almost nothing in common on any level.

Certainly, I know that a few scant months into my studies at USC, when the head of the department capped off months of preaching general disdain for John Williams and all film music by saying the idea of using music "as a form of self-advancement makes [him] sick," as he sat there in his threadbare corduroy jacket with patches on the sleeves, that pretty much ended my association with formal education; especially because I'd just come from a performance of a John Cage piece, and feeling like the kid in The Emperor's New Clothes, told him I was probably going to be rejecting a career in that kind of music in favor of having an actual income.

I dunno, I guess it's important to us to draw lines and borders around all this stuff, but truly, when it comes to that area of music, I can only intellectually support it, in a very abstract sort of way. I get why the art needs it to challenge the borders. But I also don't get worked up or angry about it, or feel defensive in the light of it, mostly because my predominant feeling about that sort of music is precisely that I don't feel anything about it. Apathy. 


A few of you may be inclined to get all panty-bunched at that opinion; please try not to, if you can. It really doesn't matter, and I'm not making assumptions or judgments on any of you. Truly. I just really find that whole subset of music unpleasant, but not passionately enough so to even discuss it. I just like hearing the sound of my own voice.


_Mike


----------



## Dave Connor

JJP @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> :D
> I love these largely academic debates over semantics.
> o[])



That's not what this is in my case. I'm addressing a fundamentally different issue. I said you _can_ call it a semantic issue but it is decidedly not. It has to do with understanding the full ramifications of making a statement that actually undoes any validity of that statement. In common parlance, _knowing what you are talking about._ That is not a semantic issue since neither deft or poor handling of semantics necessarily indicates whether there is any depth of understanding on someone's part. There is a musical term for what I'm talking about: jive.


----------



## nikolas

Jimmy: As someone who belongs in that party of composers (not the LA one, but anyhow), but also dealing with more commercial types of music I can safely tell you that my passion of contemporary music is HUGE! I also happen to love the sound of my voice (*ahem* the clicking on the keboard), and feel the need to 'educate' ('train'?) the audience so that they can attach to my works and the works of similar styles.

Peter: I understand you. But we need to remember that not all books are designed as self existing courses! The Adler book is not one, nor is the Blatter one. The Persichetti book on 20th century harmony is probably much more a course book than the previous one I mentioned (for example). I doubt Adler is ditching the idea of practice orchestration. In fact I've never ever seen a teacher who didn't think practicing orchestration is not crucial (or anything else). And, again to my knowledge, all my teachers were very firm on listening to what you're writing, regardless of the style, aesthetic, or other.


----------



## Peter Alexander

nikolas @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Peter: I understand you. But we need to remember that not all books are designed as self existing courses!



Ours are. That's my corporate direction. Always has been.

We try to write these books and other materials as if you were snow bound in South Dakota and only had that book to work with. Some titles we're more successful with than others in this regard, but that's our training goal.

DTLD: Define, Teach, Learn, Do.


----------



## nikolas

In which case I would assume a book that isn't going in the direction you think is right shouldn't be judged, right? Or compared to the matter actually! 

And since we're at the matter, I think that some things can be self taught while others are more difficult, and some are impossible. Music theory can be self taught, it's just info with applications that are simple to try out and test. Harmony and counterpoint are rather difficult to be self taught, because after you do anything you need somehow to check what you've done. I've been teaching harmony and counterpoint for a few years and I can tell you, especially in the beginning I've never ever seen a student so self conscious to be able to not make errors (talking about classical era harmony and baroque counterpoint, right? Cause I really dislike the idea of 'errors' in music). With composition things are much more difficult to pin down. Tons of composers are self taught and quite bright and amazing! So they MUST have found a way to make it work. Others are in dire need of guidance. :-/ But ultimately, if you're working on concert hall works you WILL need to have workshops (and this is why DAWs are not enough) and this is where it goes from difficult to impossible: You can't really learn composition and orchestration (for concert hall works, right?), without having your works performed. Not only to listen to what you're doing, but to also learn about the difficulties of each instrument, the idiomatic writing for each one, etc. 

If you want to work and produce works to be recorded, then you don't really need the above (since overdubbing and track clicking and other recording techniques will make these issues disappear), but for anything to be performed live... well you still have to know about these stuff.

Just to be perfectly clear: I have none of your books and I'm NOT talking about your books! I am discussing on a much broader sense... And to make myself even more clear: I'm well aware that each individual has different learning skills...


----------



## Nostradamus

Peter Alexander @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Excuse me, but *I* and my company were criticized for our Professional Orchestration series containing "academical ballast" said by someone who had not seen one book, nor owned one.



NO, I DID NOT criticize your books and your company. Hello? Everything okay?


----------



## Nostradamus

nikolas @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Just to be perfectly clear: I have none of your books and I'm NOT talking about your books! I am discussing on a much broader sense



Maybe I should add this to my sig.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

mverta @ 9/4/2011 said:


> ... the fact that virtually everyone I've ever met who actually professes to like most of that "art" stuff is either a pretentious asshole or lying, just so they can be "that guy," (present company excepted, of course), is likely a product of my lack of experience with the community in general, because mostly I find we have almost nothing in common on any level.



I know plenty of artists who really like contemporary art, music. Out-there stuff. They're not pretentious, they just have a different response to art than most people. Now, I'm a fan of the 10% rule (probably made up...): 90% of art is crap to just OK, 10% is anywhere from good to outstanding. I believe that this applies to commercial works as well. So if you go to a contemporary music concert at a university, and you come out thinking that most of it was bad, it could be that it's because you need to go to many more concerts, since the odds are low that any one piece will really move you. But when it happens, it will be a rare, special feeling, because you will feel a bit like you're part of an reconnaissance mission, helping to forge new paths, new musical/sound direction.

If you haven't spent some considerable time with it, Bebop sounds like chaos. Same thing with a lot of contemporary art, not all, but a lot of it. It demands some investment of time in order to understand, appreciate how this form of art works. Not many people are willing to spend that time on something truly new, even disturbing.


----------



## Ashermusic

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> mverta @ 9/4/2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the fact that virtually everyone I've ever met who actually professes to like most of that "art" stuff is either a pretentious asshole or lying, just so they can be "that guy," (present company excepted, of course), is likely a product of my lack of experience with the community in general, because mostly I find we have almost nothing in common on any level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty of artists who really like contemporary art, music. Out-there stuff. They're not pretentious, they just have a different response to art than most people. Now, I'm a fan of the 10% rule (probably made up...): 90% of art is crap to just OK, 10% is anywhere from good to outstanding. I believe that this applies to commercial works as well. So if you go to a contemporary music concert at a university, and you come out thinking that most of it was bad, it could be that it's because you need to go to many more concerts, since the odds are low that any one piece will really move you. But when it happens, it will be a rare, special feeling, because you will feel a bit like you're part of an reconnaissance mission, helping to forge new paths, new musical/sound direction.
> 
> If you haven't spent some considerable time with it, Bebop sounds like chaos. Same thing with a lot of contemporary art, not all, but a lot of it. It demands some investment of time in order to understand, appreciate how this form of art works. Not many people are willing to spend that time on something truly new, even disturbing.
Click to expand...


Excellent post, Ned.


----------



## Ashermusic

mverta @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Hmmm... sorta sounds like an ad hoc rationalization to me, but... takes all kinds, I guess. Personally, I approach art as a unifying experience, with my aim to find the experiential common ground which unites the most people, and people, are, by and large, all the same. So the idea that what I might be doing is simply beyond the comprehension or tastes or understanding of most people, to me, defeats the purpose, and sounds pointedly indulgent and masturbatory.
> 
> _But this is why I produce tonal music._ And the fact that virtually everyone I've ever met who actually professes to like most of that "art" stuff is either a pretentious asshole or lying, just so they can be "that guy," (present company excepted, of course), is likely a product of my lack of experience with the community in general, because mostly I find we have almost nothing in common on any level.
> 
> Certainly, I know that a few scant months into my studies at USC, when the head of the department capped off months of preaching general disdain for John Williams and all film music by saying the idea of using music "as a form of self-advancement makes [him] sick," as he sat there in his threadbare corduroy jacket with patches on the sleeves, that pretty much ended my association with formal education; especially because I'd just come from a performance of a John Cage piece, and feeling like the kid in The Emperor's New Clothes, told him I was probably going to be rejecting a career in that kind of music in favor of having an actual income.
> 
> I dunno, I guess it's important to us to draw lines and borders around all this stuff, but truly, when it comes to that area of music, I can only intellectually support it, in a very abstract sort of way. I get why the art needs it to challenge the borders. But I also don't get worked up or angry about it, or feel defensive in the light of it, mostly because my predominant feeling about that sort of music is precisely that I don't feel anything about it. Apathy.
> 
> 
> A few of you may be inclined to get all panty-bunched at that opinion; please try not to, if you can. It really doesn't matter, and I'm not making assumptions or judgments on any of you. Truly. I just really find that whole subset of music unpleasant, but not passionately enough so to even discuss it. I just like hearing the sound of my own voice.
> 
> 
> _Mike



I had a very different experience. I was writing pieces that were kind of Poulenc-ish when I started studying at Boston Conservatory with the late Avram David. Every week he would play me a non-tonal piece and largely I was disinterested, at least consciously.

One week, he turned the lights down and said, "Relax, and truly listen.." He put on Luciano Berio's "Circles", and I sat their listening and grinning like an idiot. It simply blew me away It still does.

Avram said, "Oh, what do you know, so perhaps there CAN be non-tonal pieces you like?"

The next week he played me Boulez" "Le Marteau Sans Maitre." Loved it. Did not love Stockhausen's "Groupen" to his disappointment and still don't.

I didn't suddenly love everything but I now heard that music in a different way. It no longer sounded foreign to me any more than as an English speaker listening to someone speak French, of which I understand some.

One of the most moving moments I had in a concert hall came later. It was Avram's piece called "For Yves Klein" a duet for piano and oboe. The oboe player was told to randomly play exercises from an oboe exercise book while Avram played gospel chords, also chosen randomly from patterns. It was incredibly moving and powerful.


----------



## mverta

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> I know plenty of artists who really like contemporary art, music.



Of this I have no doubt. I don't create art for artists; I create it for the majority, instead. The majority out there isn't into those helicopter-crash sculptures, big blank white canvases with a dot of blue paint on them passing as masterpieces, or urine art. When it comes to the art part, I make sure my music is academically sound - that part is for the musicians.

As for exposure; trust me, I've heard more contemporary music than I ever cared to. I am happy to wear whatever pejorative badge comes with simply not digging a note of it on any emotional level, be it pedestrian, shallow, narrow-minded, whatever. Call me whatever you like, but I will actively avoid exposure to it. It just sounds like noise to me, despite the fact that I understand it.

But I'm glad some of you earnestly like some of that stuff. That's what music's for, in my book.


_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic

mverta @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Sun Apr 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty of artists who really like contemporary art, music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of this I have no doubt. I don't create art for artists; I create it for the majority, instead. The majority out there isn't into those helicopter-crash sculptures, big blank white canvases with a dot of blue paint on them passing as masterpieces, or urine art. When it comes to the art part, I make sure my music is academically sound - that part is for the musicians.
> 
> As for exposure; trust me, I've heard more contemporary music than I ever cared to. I am happy to wear whatever pejorative badge comes with simply not digging a note of it on any emotional level, be it pedestrian, shallow, narrow-minded, whatever. Call me whatever you like, but I will actively avoid exposure to it. It just sounds like noise to me, despite the fact that I understand it.
> 
> But I'm glad some of you earnestly like some of that stuff. That's what music's for, in my book.
> 
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...


Mike, not that you need to but perhaps out of simple intellectual curiosity (and maybe some respect for me if you have any) take the challenge. Turn the lights down, "Relax, and truly listen" and listen to Luciano Berio's "Circles."


----------



## mverta

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

By the way, in terms of getting people to listen to new and challenging things: You have to win their confidence, first. You have to speak to them in a way that tells them you understand them, is interesting, entertaining, and relate-able. Once won over, then you can give them kernels of something new to try, and build up their palette that way. Otherwise, it's just off-putting.

_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic

mverta @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Okay, I'll give it a shot.
> 
> By the way, in terms of getting people to listen to new and challenging things: You have to win their confidence, first. You have to speak to them in a way that tells them you understand them, is interesting, entertaining, and relate-able. Once won over, then you can give them kernels of something new to try, and build up their palette that way. Otherwise, it's just off-putting.
> 
> _Mike



So did I do that with my little story?


----------



## mverta

Yes and no?  I was actually just talking about the general idea that certain types or levels of art are inherently more challenging and demanding of listeners, and the way you get them to go there is in little bites, wrapped in tasty fried dough with sugar on it.


_Mike


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I remember a great composer and dear, older friend/colleague who once told me that he couldn't care less about filling the halls, appealing to a wider audience. He was fine with making music that only relatively few people can enjoy, as it allowed him to do exactly what he wanted, with no compromise. Nothing wrong with that, in my book. I suppose to some people, the only thing that counts is touching as many listeners as possible; success is measured in quantity, not quality.

PS: While some of my soundtrack work has been heard by hundreds of thousands of people, the 2 cds/dvd that were put out on a small local electroacoustic label have sold maybe 800-1000 copies, total. Guess which music I will listen to, enjoy when I want to look back on my musical career in 25 years?


----------



## mverta

Yes, Ned, it's just a philosophical choice. And quantity/quality are not mutually exclusive in the hands of a master. My philosophy is that making music for yourself and a handful of people "on your own terms" is masturbatory, and an abdication of a great responsibility. Music can be a great gift; if you can give it, give generously to as many as possible. When I have guests over to my house, I try and create food they will enjoy, not food that _I_ want to serve. Philosophical choice. But it has nothing to do with filling concert halls. That's commercial in nature, and a by-product/afterthought. For me, the work has be contributory first, and we'll worry about marketing later. Certainly, when I look back, I will want to have created work that touched as many people as possible; made as significant a contribution to the quality of life for as many as I can. I just don't feel I was given whatever innate ability I have to spend it on myself and a few of my musicians friends, that's all. Just a philosophy. You asked which of your music you will listen to and enjoy in the years to come. That's the difference. I don't listen to my own work.


_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic

Well, Charles Ives, who I consider to be the first truly American concert hall composer, sold insurance very successfully, partly because he never wanted to have to worry about how his music would be received.

If this was masturbatory, well, a whole lot of other people have since had orgasms.


----------



## mverta

Yeah, sounds masturbatory to me. Glad it worked out, anyway. 

Again, just a philosophy. You gotta go with your gut. My gut feels better when I put others before myself.


_Mike


----------



## Peter Alexander

mverta @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Yeah, sounds masturbatory to me. Glad it worked out, anyway.
> 
> Again, just a philosophy. You gotta go with your gut. My gut feels better when I put others before myself.
> 
> 
> _Mike



Mike - you're going to be a fine dad.


----------



## mverta

Well, certainly if things keep going the way they are, as I notice my son figures the universe revolves around him anyway.  And, of course, it sorta does 


_Mike


----------



## David Story

Ashermusic @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Well, Charles Ives, who I consider to be the first truly American concert hall composer, sold insurance very successfully, partly because he never wanted to have to worry about how his music would be received.
> 
> If this was masturbatory, well, a whole lot of other people have since had orgasms.



Ives is full of folk tunes, I think that's a big part of why he's still performed. A relatable iconoclast...


Sure, Mike is a good dad, his kids will see a man who puts others before himself.


----------



## Daniel James

Nostradamus @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Maybe I should be a bit more precise on what I really want. I know that I'll never be a professional musician, let alone a professional orchestrator. I also know that the time I can spend on learning is a bit limited. Bearing this in mind I need some advice on how to start. I need something in a condensed form that allow me to start without completely being in the dark. Impossible?



Haha Sorry if someone has already offered a more useful answer than 'Thao shallt amount to nothing unless he reads books x y and z, and then does 10 years of school' I got to page 2 and it had already broken down into the usual semantically off topic rantfest that a question like this normally carries with it. :D

I am by no means an orchestrational or composition master but neither do I think my music is terrible. I have never read book x y or z. I did however go to college to learn how to perform, as the singer in a rock band so I can only tell you what I did to get going.

The way I got to where I am now is pretty much by watching films and listening to scores to hear what types of music worked in what situations. Once I thought I had a good idea on what a sad, happy, exciting etc music sounded like I set about finding ways to create that with the sounds I have (which are not always orchestra based)

Also another tip is to watch youtube videos (ie like my ones). Personally speaking I find it easier to learn, when I see someone else do something. You could perhaps check out some of my behind the score vids on my youtube page http://www.youtube.com/user/dazexus and see how I achieve certain sounds.

Keep in mind if you are looking to get into film score, electronic and synth music is just as acceptable as orchestral (or a hybrid of the two). So if you can write great music which helps to bring out the intended emotion, then thats all you need. Not that I am saying you should bypass classical orchestration, but if you dont have the time to learn it then try learning ways to achieve something which creates the right emotion..be it with synths, a guitar, a trashcan...whatever.

Don't let anyone here or elsewhere tell you what good music 'should' be or how you 'should' score a scene because their opinions are based around their musical taste and experiences.

Hope this helps mate, remember to do your own thing :D

Dan


----------



## rJames

In regards to the last 10 or so posts in this thread, creating music that is accessible to the general public by staying within bounds of tonal and melodic tradition is really just eating up and regurgitating what has been written before. Not that it is a bad thing. In some cases it is quite admirable (I am a John Williams fan myself).

But the world needs more composers who are willing to take bold steps and face the chance of rotten tomatoes that may come flying their way on the off chance that in the next year they are hailed as a genius by the admiring throngs.

BTW I was almost sure the world revolved around me. Everything seems to be centered right here.


----------



## Revson

Since "art music" found a home in academia, it's naive to think there hasn't been assimilation to academic culture, whose raison d'être is after all research and the advancement of knowledge. 

Composition in academia hasn't escaped this gravitational pull, the result being a distorted emphasis on novel technique and complexity.

When I was at USC, no question that writing for the sake of beauty and musicality, without conscious use of "cutting edge" contemporary technique, was viewed with mild amusement and disdain. Moreover, no way you'd progress and obtain a degree in composition.

When I quit the department and looked for a composition teacher on my own - I was referred to a graduate student and teaching assistant. I remember saying at our first meeting something like "there's more music in a thimble full of Beatles than all the academic music I've heard combined" (oh to be young, foolish and angry again...). He smiled wryly and said "I think you're probably right." Studying with him was a brilliant experience.

And maybe things have changed for the better - last I checked he was chair of the department across town.


----------



## Nostradamus

@Daniel James: thanks for your refreshing post.  And "extra thanks" for your YT videos. Lots of interesting stuff.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

You KNOW that on some forum somewhere, a contemporary music composer has posted, "There's more music in one of Scelsi's notes than in all the Beatles repertoire combined".


----------



## nikolas

Thing is that you enter an institution to learn about composition, etc... Once you do, you are free to chose whatever style you want, but you can't really expect to get into a uni for 4 years and learn only how to write Zimmer tunes... :-/


----------



## JohnG

Daniel James @ 10th April 2011 said:


> Haha Sorry if someone has already offered a more useful answer than 'Thao shallt amount to nothing unless he reads books x y and z, and then does 10 years of school' I got to page 2 and it had already broken down into the usual semantically off topic rantfest that a question like this normally carries with it. :D
> 
> I am by no means an orchestrational or composition master but neither do I think my music is terrible. I have never read book x y or z. I did however go to college to learn how to perform, as the singer in a rock band so I can only tell you what I did to get going.
> 
> The way I got to where I am now is pretty much by watching films and listening to scores to hear what types of music worked in what situations. Once I thought I had a good idea on what a sad, happy, exciting etc music sounded like I set about finding ways to create that with the sounds I have (which are not always orchestra based)
> 
> Also another tip is to watch youtube videos (ie like my ones). Personally speaking I find it easier to learn, when I see someone else do something. You could perhaps check out some of my behind the score vids on my youtube page http://www.youtube.com/user/dazexus and see how I achieve certain sounds.
> 
> Keep in mind if you are looking to get into film score, electronic and synth music is just as acceptable as orchestral (or a hybrid of the two). So if you can write great music which helps to bring out the intended emotion, then thats all you need. Not that I am saying you should bypass classical orchestration, but if you dont have the time to learn it then try learning ways to achieve something which creates the right emotion..be it with synths, a guitar, a trashcan...whatever.
> 
> Don't let anyone here or elsewhere tell you what good music 'should' be or how you 'should' score a scene because their opinions are based around their musical taste and experiences.
> 
> Hope this helps mate, remember to do your own thing :D
> 
> Dan



Very good advice. Including "remember to do your own thing."


----------



## JPRmusic

Every composer has to determine who his target audience is and then ask, is he hitting that mark. If it's a commercial project, you'll probably need mass appeal. Or if the composer is trying to stretch boundries, that's a target as well. And tonal or atonal will depend on your specific goals. Sometimes these things wonderfully intertwine.

When I was studying at a Conservatory years ago. We were doing a daytime performance of a choral piece that had no tonal center. We mostly sang clusters of notes on "ng" which sounded more like humming. At the dynamic peak of the piece, a student oblivious to the concert going on, walked through the lobby whistling the tune from, "Singing in the Rain." The whistling reverberated through the hall. The funny part was, it fit.


----------



## mverta

Yes above all be inventive. Set a piano on fire and push it down an elevator shaft while having a group of naked hari krishnas sing the French national anthem. Nobody's ever done that before. Now where's my P.H.D?


----------



## Ashermusic

mverta @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Yes above all be inventive. Set a piano on fire and push it down an elevator shaft while having a group of naked hari krishnas sing the French national anthem. Nobody's ever done that before. Now where's my P.H.D?



Actually, that sounds better to me than the score that just won the Oscar


----------



## Guy Bacos

mverta @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Yes above all be inventive. Set a piano on fire and push it down an elevator shaft while having a group of naked hari krishnas sing the French national anthem. Nobody's ever done that before. Now where's my P.H.D?



lol


----------



## givemenoughrope

I love this ^ (the 'Singing in the rain' story). Awesome. Sort of Ives-ish, right?

For me, there IS more music in one Scelsi note (or actually several rubbing together) than the Beatles; this month anyway. I'm sure next month will be different. On another note, isn't Scelsi sort of like the solution to getting around writing wallpaper/pads? I though his music was used to great effect in Shutter Island (unlike some other pieces). 

It's difficult to imagine that the creation of any great piece of art or machinery isn't driven by selfish desires at the deepest level. There's no way that Ives or Scelsi wrote their music for anyone but themselves which I have much more admiration and connection to than those writing music intending for it to be liked first and foremost. It's like a hanger-on who really wants everyone to like them as opposed to being themselves. 

I'm enjoying this way more than I ought to:
http://soundcloud.com/soaringmusic/jwil ... super-slow


----------



## nikolas

mverta @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Yes above all be inventive. Set a piano on fire and push it down an elevator shaft while having a group of naked hari krishnas sing the French national anthem. Nobody's ever done that before. Now where's my P.H.D?


Mike, I think you are mixing 'academic music' with 'avant garde'. Even as a joke it seems a little bizarre, but really: LOL! (you do know that the piano on fire HAS happened before (but not pushing it down an elevator shaft... LOL)


----------



## mverta

Well there you go, Nikolas: I'm cutting-edge!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

No, this is cutting edge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5lgaE-qZY

o=? o=? o=?


----------



## JPRmusic

If you could sample falling pianos at different velocities...1st floor, second floor, etc.

Had a friend years ago who swore to me that he was writing a song in 15/16 time. He played it for me and I easily counted 4/4 as he played _(he had a 16th rest at the beginning.)_ He said, no, no, no, it HAS to be 15/16. 

He was trying to be unique, just like everybody else.

Of course, I've developed my own personal compositional style over the years. It's a genre called "Direvative" or "Cliche"


----------



## givemenoughrope

Mike, just curious where you stand on Adams, Crumb, Ligeti or Penderecki/Lutoslawski. 

I don't know much about Berio's Circles but I do really like Sequenza 7 for Oboe. It's exciting music and I haven't a clue whats going on in regards to analysis. It honestly doesn't sound that 'out' to me. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npLqXW-Q ... re=related


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

15/16 is very cool for action and dark metal, me thinks.


----------



## JPRmusic

It was a smooth classical guitar piece, definately in common time. But he felt one little 16th rest made it un-common. We collaborrated on several pieces and did some decent work together way back when.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Mike V wrote:



> By the way, in terms of getting people to listen to new and challenging things: You have to win their confidence, first.



You may have something specific in mind, but on the face of it I think the 20th century was all about pushing the boundaries in all directions. They may shrink again, but we've gone through 12-tone to pointillism to percussion to electronica to 3-chord rock to free jazz to...you get the idea. I think listeners' ears are pretty sophisticated at this point.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Speaking of Scelsi, check this out (the middle section rocks): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tScH89jmcVM

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6_e43O-KRg


----------



## mverta

givemenoughrope @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Mike, just curious where you stand on Adams, Crumb, Ligeti or Penderecki/Lutoslawski.



Super-useful stuff when I'm looking for effects in a horror score that consist of noise more than music. Honestly. Beyond that?...

It must be nice never to have to worry if anybody actually likes one's music. "It's not _supposed _be to be 'good,' it's supposed to challenge our preconceptions of tonality and modality in a transient manifestation of a-temporal structure." "Uh-huh, well to 99.9% of the universe is sounds like an oboist just doing random stupid honking shit on his instrument." "Well it's above most people, yes." 

Whatever. I call bullshit on the whole thing, but my opinion matters even less than this type of music does.



Sincerely,

Mike "Has No Future as a Diplomat in Any Capacity" V.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Bruno Maderna, Concerto for Oboe and Orchestra #1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG1dLkM_1vk


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

mverta @ 11/4/2011 said:


> Super-useful stuff when I'm looking for effects in a horror score that consist of noise more than music. Honestly. Beyond that?...



The universe of complex emotions that the 20th (and 21st) Century have given rise to. Really messy, hard to grasp stuff, starting with, for eg, the Civil War, WW I and II, Marcel Duchamp, Einstein, the computer, the moon, DNA, etc, and continuing to this day. This music is absolutely made for expressing our incredible world, and our very modern life in it.


----------



## mverta

I hate to break it to you, but mankind ain't learned nothin' new under the sun in 10,000 years. It's the same shit over and over and over. They say those who don't study history (I do, obsessively) are doomed to repeat it. But those who study history learn quickly that a good working definition for "history," is: people repeating it. But we're supposed to. People are the same, and always have been; we all have the same few lessons to learn. 

We didn't invent Civil War, and "revolutions" like going to the moon and the computer have been seen before. Heading out around the world in boats was far scarier than going to the moon: at least the astronauts had some idea where they were going. And salt was once far more prized than the iPad will ever be. DNA and scientific "revolutions," aren't profound either. What Galileo had to say was profound, and they locked him in his house for the rest of his life for suggesting it. Fared better than Bruno, though; they just set him on fire. We don't do that stuff, anymore, because it ain't so shocking, what science has to say. And philosophical ground? Covered. 

This idea that the 20th and 21st Centuries offer anything distinctive or unique can only be supported in a vacuum of isolation. Intellectual, philosophical, scientific, and sociological issues have enjoyed far more dramatic shifts than we're likely to see again. When one ruler dominates 9/10ths of the known world again, and every country and border is re-drawn, then I'll listen. And even that's been done a few times before. Perhaps the only thing distinctive about our little go-around here is the concept of instantaneous global communication. Now, instead of the world waiting for news, it arrives in picoseconds. Okay, that's a nice new flavor.

It's not a particularly complex one, though. The social, economic and cultural consequences of such have, again, had no shortage of parallels in history. There was a time the world clamored for the new and foreign spices of The Orient, too, and was changed by it. Same with the introduction of snuff to Europe. Syphilis, too, for that matter.

Inventing stuff which transforms the whole world is about as old-hat as colonialism. We didn't invent that, either, incidentally, for all of you who get worked up about about one country getting in the business of another.


And at the end of all that misconception, you suggest that a lot of a-tonal noise is the conduit for "grasping" it? Christ, even _I_ don't weigh music down with that sort of contributory responsibility.

But I suppose if you think the 20th Century was somehow complex in its dynamics, and your take on it is that it's "hard to grasp," and "messy," then it would follow that a lot of hard to grasp, messy "music," would appeal to you. But you may find more solace in conceding the fact of the utterly unoriginal banality which actually defines human dynamics in the modern world. 'Cause there ain't no modern world. It's just the same shit, repackaged. History, repeating. So we've got company, and precedent. They got through worse, it's going to be okay; ain't no big thing. So play a little tune that people can whistle while they work, why don't ya?



_Mike


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

The American Civil War was the first modern war, different from all the others - you should know that.

Maybe something a little more popular will bring you over to the messy music?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN2zcLBr_VM

And the commentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQa4DL17Aug


----------



## givemenoughrope

Amazing post, Mike. I disagree with pretty much all of it. 

Back to music: At some point the language that Williams adopted had to be the newest thing on the block, right? And by the time he got his hands on it the bugs had been thoroughly worked out. So, I guess there is nowhere else for music to go past John Williams? Is that what you're saying? That's all that is going to 'move' the general public in a soundtrack? I mean...there's a reason why people remember Kubrick's films as having great soundtracks, right?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

"Mon dieu! It's 1912 all over again..."


----------



## mverta

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Apr 11 said:


> The American Civil War was the first modern war, different from all the others - you should know that.



There was absolutely nothing, zero, nada, zip, new about the dynamics of the American Civil War. I know you're not talking about the warfare tactics, because those weren't new, and the weapons themselves don't mean anything; they don't change the motivation, intent, or destructive capability of the warfare. Humans were killing by the millions long before the US was a twinkle in anyone's loins. And civil war-like conflict is about as old as it gets. Once you rule out motivation, consequence, and tactics, I would love to hear what you think sets it apart. 

Givemeenoughrope: Williams music was not, nor is not the newest thing on the block. New doesn't have much value, as the continually pervasive success of the centuries-old monomyth teaches us, because the life lessons learned by humans have always been the same. We tell the same stories, over and over, repackaged, and have since the beginning of historical record, because whether you're living in the year 2, or 2000, you still want to know what life's about, you still have to struggle with your failures and temptations, you learn what parts of your society you accept and which you reject, you learn to love and be loved, or fail in the attempt. There have always been the greedy, the giving, the rich, the poor, the powerful, the disenfranchised, the apathetic, the passionate. Artists, conquerors, poets, murderers. Motivations have never changed, and the stuff on top is just window-dressing. 

Williams music is as pervasive as it is precisely because it has at its roots the simplest, most time-tested qualities. It's not the woodwind runs that makes it; it's the storytelling. Thematic, monomyth-like storytelling structure, on top of which all sorts of niceties - the very sorts of things which are, say, decade-specific - are placed. Things like particular harmonic progressions or tonalities. Certainly the "sound" of Williams takes much of this from pieces in the not-so-distant past, and surely, his successors will stand on his shoulders and do a few more flips and variations, as well. But in the end, if the music doesn't maintain connection to the solid melodic roots upon which all enduring music is built, it will be nothing more _than_ the fleeting product of its window-dressing tricks.

So does that type of music have places to go? It has places it _will_ go; qualities that will evolve, but if it changes its core - it's ages-old core - then it isn't that type of music anymore. So in a sense, it wasn't new to start with, it won't be new tomorrow, and never needed to be. The "new" stuff; the "evolving" stuff, is the packaging. And if there's one thing history teaches us, it's that there are unlimited ways to repackage the same product over and over. That's basically the definition of life.


_Mike


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Mike, I agree with everything you're saying. Collectively we're the same animal we always were.

And yet if you look closer, every single person who ever lived is unique. We're vastly more alike than different, but we all have something special to offer the world.

That's why Penderecki doesn't sound like the Beach Boys and why life is actually worth living.


----------



## mverta

Nick -

The concepts aren't mutually exclusive, as you so rightly point out! But Hitler was unique, too.* In the end, my personal approach to my music is exactly the same as my approach to life. I do my best to invoke Ghandi's "be the change" mantra, while conceding that for all my melodies and harmonies, my positive-karma contribution is still out-gunned 10:1 by the vagina machete rapes, genocides, and prom-night-babies-in-trash cans. That doesn't stop me from trying to find the ways in which I can connect with the most people, in the most positive way I can, in the spirit of giving. In many ways, I truly embrace the idea that my motivation is precisely _not_ unique, and that I am not special, and that I don't need to foster the illusion that that's my primary function in life. Since there's precedent for both great people and great music, I'd like to do that, if I can. It's not new, and it's not unique. But I dig it.


_Mike


----------



## Peter Alexander

Some historians consider the Civil War to be the first technological war because of the use of the telegraph which for that time meant instant communication, and the use of trains for rapid troop movement.


----------



## givemenoughrope

Mike, do you watch a lot of Glenn Beck?


----------



## mverta

Well, since technology wasn't really pervasive at all much before the civil war, it doesn't strike me as much of a coincidence that it would be considered the first one.  Pretty sure the Gulf War could be considered the first war to use computers, as well.

But the point here is that technology has little to do with warfare. It's just the packaging. Warfare is about motivations, consequences, and destruction, and whether you're braining the Big Cave Tribe with rocks because of their heathen worship of trees, or flying planes into skyscrapers because of Westerners heathen lack of worship of Islamic Law, it's the same shit. Ideologies, in motion. Rigid, dogmatic, zealous ideologies in motion. 


_Mike


----------



## mverta

givemenoughrope @ Mon Apr 11 said:


> Mike, do you watch a lot of Glenn Beck?



He was nice to my wife when he interviewed her, but other than that segment, I've never seen his show. I don't tend to listen to a lot of the talking heads on the big glowing rectangle.


_Mike


----------



## givemenoughrope

I take that as a 'yes.'

Take this how you want but people who seem so sure about everything in the world and have a definite answer for everything, utilizing their own doublespeak, are really off putting to me. How you are connecting a line from your notion that the 20 century has just been more of the same to John Williams being the only true musical storyteller is just bizarre. The pandering vs. masterbation theory is also. I wonder if it's ever occurred to you that even the last 5-10 years have seen big changes or maybe that Debussy might sound as out to Bach as Scelsi sounds to you. Keep making good mockups!


----------



## mverta

Which part, the "never," or the I-don't-really-watch-television part?



givemenoughrope @ Mon Apr 11 said:


> Take this how you want but people who seem so sure about everything in the world and have a definite answer for everything, utilizing their own doublespeak, are really off putting to me.



Take this how you want, but I've never professed to have definite answers for anything. I have _my_ answers. I don't present them "IMHO," because, IMHO, IMHO is bullcrap. If you think your opinion is important enough to be read by the entire planet on a forum, you're not humble in the first place. However, I also know that people who are secure in their opinions aren't threatened by mine, as I am not by theirs. And as for how off-putting my irrelevant opinions are to you, you might find something else to get worked up over, inasmuch as I hadn't really considered you an authority on how I should conduct my life up to now. 

I also note that aside from hurling a few pejoratives my way, you didn't really mount any kind of argument to my (doublespeak) position, apart from your contention that I think JW is the only musical storyteller, which I don't, and never said. But you did find time to make sure I knew how off-putting you think I am. For all the righteous superiority you accuse me of, at least I'm not intentionally hurtful.






_Mike


----------



## givemenoughrope

I'm not threatened by your opinions at all, merely baffled. 

And I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I figured the guy that dishes it out (calling Scelsi and Ligeti 'noise'..really!?) could take it if it didn't go over his head. 

Get over yourself.


----------



## mverta

My friend, I'd say you have all the rope you could ever need.


Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get over myself. Could take all day.


_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic

Mike, is a blunt guy and he does not sugar coat his opinions but I do not find him to be unresponsive to a cogent disagreement. 

Also, he can back them up with examples of excellent work. I am far more put off by people who express strong opinions who cannot personally.


----------



## mverta

In fact, Mike has a nearly pathological love for being pwned in an argument, on accounta the whole brain-gets-bigger benefit and all. But I'm usually 9-innings into having thought about my own position prior to verbalizing it, so it may take awhile 


_Mike


----------



## givemenoughrope

Ashermusic @ Mon Apr 11 said:


> Also, he can back them up with examples of excellent work. I am far more put off by people who express strong opinions who cannot personally.



Jay to the rescue. I can't beat anyone in the JW cloning dept. but once I get done with these spots I'll get back to my Scelsi rip-offs and post them for Mike to shit on. 

And Mike, the rope is for you: give 'em enough rope...


----------



## mverta

givemenoughrope @ Mon Apr 11 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Apr 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Mike, the rope is for you: give 'em enough rope...piss off
Click to expand...


 The defense rests.


_Mike


----------



## givemenoughrope

You're the defense?! PISS OFF!


----------



## mverta

givemenoughrope @ Mon Apr 11 said:


> You're the defense?! PISS OFF!


----------



## givemenoughrope

Keep posting those great mockups, Mike. I learn a ton from them. (Seriously, no sarcasm.)


----------



## mverta

I will, and I'm glad you find them helpful! (Seriously, no sarcasm.)


----------



## muk

Wow Mike, what a mood you've been i? About that argument: There are millions who like to listen to Justin Bieber because to them it sounds great. Then there are others who might find it superficial and boring


----------



## mverta

Let's clarify: Justin Bieber doesn't write any music. Superficial or not there's a musician behind there somewhere. But, you've never heard me defend substanceless music, just because a million people like it. I advocate both truly academically skilled AND approachable at the same time. The balance. My wife does the same thing with her best-selling math books: they're actually solid, great math books, AND they look and read like teen magazines. Solid, approachable. And that's why they do so well and are making such a difference. We share a philosophical approach.


Oh, and by the way, I've been in a totally fine mood, just chilling at the airport.


----------



## Ashermusic

givemenoughrope @ Mon Apr 11 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Apr 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, he can back them up with examples of excellent work. I am far more put off by people who express strong opinions who cannot personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jay to the rescue. I can't beat anyone in the JW cloning dept. but once I get done with these spots I'll get back to my Scelsi rip-offs and post them for Mike to [email protected]#t on.
> 
> And Mike, the rope is for you: give 'em enough rope...
Click to expand...


It's not like Mike and I are buddies, I'm just calling it like I see it.

And btw, I was not implying that you also cannot deliver the goods as I don't know you or your work.


----------



## muk

Ah, now I understand your position. Makes we want to hear some of your music in full (and read one of your wifes novels ). Well, I'm off to reconsider my position


----------



## skyy38

Take it bit by bit then:

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/77-Principles-of-Orchestration-On-line (http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/for ... on-On-line)


----------



## Dave Connor

Just for fun: the Civil War is indeed considered the pre-cursor to modern warfare for several reasons including trench warfare, the first rifled and repeating weapons (meaning far greater accuracy and killing power.) There were vast improvements in gunpowder, fuses and explosive charges. Also numerous innovations in tactics from Lee and other military geniuses in the South as well as Sherman's tactical innovations and even Grant's. The first truly functional submarines and the first ironclad battle ships. It's the mold for the 20th century which is a terrible but very true fact

That war was a quantum leap forward in warfare on almost every level and is widely known for it.


----------

