# Orchestration expert help



## rJames (Apr 14, 2011)

I just wrote this piece for fun and had a hard time orchestrating it. I'd like to get some experts on orchestration to give me some insight on what I should be thinking about (as in improving).

I bought Peter Alexander's, "Principle's of Orchestration," 5-7 years ago and have taken Scott Smalley's course. Otherwise I am self taught.

I have a very strange (to most) philosophy in that I don't like to listen to music a lot and do not want to copy standard orchestration techniques even subconsciously. I guess I can't escape all the music in our culture but I want my music to come from a pristine place.

Well, I guess that just drove off 90% of the respondents but I would love to get someone's expert take on my orchestration.

Any other comments are welcome as well.

http://digitmusic.net/OrchThemes2/37th%20Street%20M.mp3 (37th Street)


----------



## mverta (Apr 14, 2011)

Well you just typed your post in standard English, using accepted grammar and punctuation, so evidently you see the wisdom in communicating effectively via time-tested, universally-understood precedent.

If what you have to say is compelling and interesting, you don't have to invent an entirely new language to say it.


_Mike


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 14, 2011)

Nice cue.

Listening to it on small computer speakers, I personally think you're using the xylophone too much, in fact I'd vary the instrumentation in your accompaniment parts (bum bum bap / bum bum bap / ) more than you are. Or if you're going to repeat it, make the patterns four bars instead of one.

But I like it.

To tell you the truth, I was expecting something way out there from what you wrote above.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 14, 2011)

Orchestration isn't just about what instruments play what and where but also the manner in which the instruments are played of which having some first hand observation and discussion with the real thing would be of some help.

The problems that I hear with the piece is that your samples don't reflect the playing style that would suite this piece well nor the variety of articulations needed in order to make the simple lines more interesting.

edit: When I have more time this evening. Late night. I'll give more specifics. Right now, I'm kind of pressed.

But, I did want to add that you've stumbled onto a piece that has the potential to be a real piece of music, but you're kind of mixing it like its trailer music. The low instruments are too loud and kind of drowning out everything else which would lead to problems in orchestration of which in part is properly balancing the sections.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Apr 14, 2011)

This is a great cue. The build up is very effective. It is cinematic and does have some originality, although I don't think you should need to justify that in your presentation, let the music speak for itself, and it speaks very well. The programming could be more refined maybe, but it sounds pretty full. Well done!


----------



## rJames (Apr 14, 2011)

Thanks to each of you for posting.

@ Mike. Clever analogy. We are forced to use a common language to communicate. That's why I prefaced my post. Who knows? Maybe I'm missing some punctuation.

@Nick. I've used marimba, xylophone and piano. I think the piano translates OK but the exact same sample repeated on the others is highlighting the problem. I wanted the xylophone to hide and add bite but maybe I've have mixed it too high.

@ Jose. More first hand observation is coming slowly. I am used to making the low end bigger and probably too big at the end as well. Mixing like trailer music; busted. I will look forward to any other comments you care to add.

@ Guy. Thank you for the compliment. Very nice of you. Probably too much information but I wanted to focus on orchestration and away from how real or fake it sounds. (Although those comments are welcome)


----------



## José Herring (Apr 14, 2011)

I've listened several times now and I think that the piece has a lot going for it.

Honestly if I think that anybody would notice the things that I hear then I'd probably add more to my comments.

But, in general the only things that really stick out to me is the beginning. I think the low end is too big and aggressive compared to the rest. I also think because of that the xylo is too loud and the woodwinds and high strings are getting lost. I think that the beginning would work better with some sort of pizz pattern down there rather than the stacc strings. Something too dramatic in the low strings. Of course if you do a pizz then the part would have to be altered a little bit to make it more interesting. Also, I think that the violins in the beginning are too noticeably out of tune. Also, some of the connections are a bit too unnatural sounding.

After that the piece really takes off and is just fine. Though I'm not a fan of it, VSL would do pretty good with the opening. That kind of exposed stuff VSL handles pretty well. It's the ensemble stuff that I have a hard time with when it comes to VSL.

I hope it helps in any way. I've stopped pretty much commenting on people's work because it just becomes one man's opinion vs. another. This is just my opinion. Not even too sure that it's even a correct opinion, but an opinion none the less.

best,


Jose


----------



## Casey Edwards (Apr 14, 2011)

rJames @ Thu Apr 14 said:


> @ Guy. Thank you for the compliment. Very nice of you. Probably too much information but I wanted to focus on orchestration and away from how real or fake it sounds. (Although those comments are welcome)



It's kind of hard to critique in this way without a score if your MIDI mock up isn't as convincing (or close to) as a live recording, but with a PDF of a score or something we could look directly at your intents rather than your attempt to re-create your intent.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Apr 14, 2011)

send me a pdf of the score.

We've had this discussion before and I remember your position. Drawing from what Mike Verta said, the point of the book you bought and the series as a whole is to give you the vocabulary with score examples for you to adapt to your own situation.

I don't think anyone is going to re-invent Violins 1 and 2 in unison, for example, but how you use it, that's your point of departure.

But like I said, send it over. I've got a lot on my plate right now, but I'll take a look at it if you want.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 15, 2011)

I like it too.

I'm having the same reaction that I think others may be, which is that there is something else needed, especially at the outset. Personally I would try to find a way to outline the rhythm a bit more so that the 7/8 feel is articulated. It could be from a relatively subtle effect -- broken pizz in the cellos and violas, or something. And I'd try to repeat fewer pitches -- the F# repeats quite a bit at the beginning.

But it is quite a nice piece!


----------



## nikolas (Apr 15, 2011)

Hi Richard,

I think that this is a great idea of a work. I, however, think that it does need a little work in some places. 

I hope I'm not coming off as harsh, but here goes.

The orchestration is not what's missing, or what's 'wrong' (I despise the 'wrong' and 'right' in music). Apart from what John said in having something to make the 7/8 rhythm feel more articulated, I'd say that it's missing more 'depth'. Let me explain. There are a few places that are complete. There is the melody, a countermelody, the accompaniament, etc. But in other places it's much emptier. It's missing some thickness, not in terms of louder or more epic, but in terms of cleverer rearranging stuff. Your accompany, for example, remains mostly in the 2+2+3, rarely departing from that (apart from the strings around 0:34 I think). And your melody is contradicting the rhythm a little (especially in the beginning which is easy to spot). 

It's all a matter of opinion of course and of choice, right?


----------



## rJames (Apr 15, 2011)

nikolas @ Fri Apr 15 said:


> Hi Richard,



Its Ron, but that happens a lot here at VI. rJames = Ron James rgames=Richard G Ames

Not harsh. I very much appreciate all the "opinions" on what is right. Its widens my horizons.

I deliberately left the 7/8 unarticulated because I didn't want to force 7/8 onto the listener. I wanted the piece to flow... hence the 3 in the melody against the 7 in the rhythm. But maybe you and John are aware of that and still feel that the 7 needs to be clearer. Actually, I was pretty happy with the beginning but worried about the development but now I see both yours, John's and Jose's points.

I know that the piece can remain simple with "cleverer" arrangement but I decided to keep this super simple. I had enough trouble dealing with the dual rhythms and a nat7 in the melody that kept screwing with my ability to do what I wanted to do above it.

@ Casey and Peter. I want to thank Peter especially for chiming in. I was hoping that you would Peter. But I don't want to take that much of your time nor do I want to deal with printing a pdf (which is still one of my weak skills).

I was hoping either of you could comment based on listening alone because my concern is always how it sounds. I assume you can tell more about how it will sound with live players by looking at the score... and that, in itself, is a lesson for me.

So, I've learned a lot from all of your input.

Thank you.


----------



## mverta (Apr 15, 2011)

rJames @ Fri Apr 15 said:


> I assume you can tell more about how it will sound with live players by looking at the score...



Tons more. I can "improvise" a decent orchestration, but with textures of any level of complexity you really need a bird's-eye view of the whole thing to keep track of all your lines and voices. If it's your weak area, strengthen it. Your competition is.


_Mike


----------



## rJames (Apr 15, 2011)

I agree with you. But just to be clear, I can and do look at the score because it is in front of me as I write.

In this case I was literally talking about Peter and Casey needing to see the score to talk about my orchestration.

But in any case, there is no doubt you can be more precise with both eyes and ears.

I try to avoid competition.


----------



## Casey Edwards (Apr 15, 2011)

rJames @ Fri Apr 15 said:


> I agree with you. But just to be clear, I can and do look at the score because it is in front of me as I write.
> 
> In this case I was literally talking about Peter and Casey needing to see the score to talk about my orchestration.
> 
> ...



I don't "need" it to make a comment, but I feel that in order to give you an actual detailed comment on the orchestration and not base it on a MIDI mockup alone, which is actually not bad at all, but your MIDI input isn't always going to be a direct representation of what you print on paper. That was my point, not trying to sound smug because I enjoyed your piece, but so much more we can do with a score. Go with what Mike said, and begin to strengthen your scoring skills. It's part of learning orchestration anyways, being able to write what you conceive.


----------



## rJames (Apr 15, 2011)

Sorry Casey. I didn't mean it like you "NEEDED" a score to comment but more like you didn't comment and asked me for the score. That is sort of like needing the score before you want to comment. The difference is probably just the difference of writing vs speaking with infliction.

I wasn't trying to demean you or Peter. I don't know you but have seen your name in a thread and maybe have heard some of your music. Can't remember which right now. But I am fully aware of Peter's expertise and would have loved input from both of you even if it was cursory.

I think I have what I was looking for. No one panned my choice of instruments (except for too much xylophone) and no one said where is the brass or where are the woodwinds. Or that my approach is too odd. I think the orchestration of this cue must be somewhere in the realm of OK.

I am quite satisfied with my skills as they grow and develop. Things are going well commercially. But my philosophy, as described in my OP means that I don't understand common definitions. (I learned a lot in the "melody" thread just by listening to repeat's examples of beautiful melodies) I like to explore common definitions but don't feel like I have to be bound by them after I learn about them. 

Maybe our definition of orchestration is different. Again, see my OP and you'll understand why.

I think of orchestration, in a simplistic way, as choice of instruments. After that its about how the different timbers blend or contrast, add (or bolster) accents between sections, variety, ... going from a piano sketch to a full orchestra. Orchestration as a verb not as a noun.

I'm not saying that is the true and complete definition. I was wondering if I had used the (midi) orchestra well to realize my sketch.

I can't play piano well and write every note into the score. So, I am fairly familiar with it.


----------



## skyy38 (Aug 8, 2011)

I like it but it sounds a tad "mushed together".

Here's an orchestra layout scheme, if you don[t already have one:

https://smartsite.ucdavis.edu/access/content/group/59bdf0b4-ad07-473e-8050-fe67d7119d35/Music10/00Images/Instruments/orchestr.gif (https://smartsite.ucdavis.edu/access/co ... chestr.gif)


----------



## bryla (Aug 8, 2011)

You spamming skyy38?

I've never seen an orchestra set up this way. Have you?


----------



## skyy38 (Aug 8, 2011)

No Spam.

Yes, this is a valid set-up and I HAVE seen it for real!


----------



## steb74 (Aug 8, 2011)

bryla @ Mon Aug 08 said:


> You spamming skyy38?


completely unnecessary :roll: :roll:


----------

