# First time writing for strings



## Rossy (Apr 11, 2020)

I have been trying to write some pieces for strings and they always sound fake or just the same every time. I am playing regular triads and was wondering if that's how these sections are accurately written and played?
My question is, if there's a basic chord progression, do the violins, cello and basses play the same notes or would the violins play the root, the cello play the third and basses the fifth?

And advice and questions would be appreciated


----------



## Michael Antrum (Apr 11, 2020)

Hi,

Apologies if you already know this.

This is what we call orchestration - trying to divide the different notes/voices up and assign them the the different voices. As strings are (mostly) a single voice instrument, you will have one voice for each section.

Normally we have the following sections:

Violins I
Violins II
Violas
Celli
Basses

It's extremely common that the way they are broken down is SATB harmony (Soprano, Alto, Tenor Bass). You will find bucket loads of tutorials on the subject on the net and You Tube. Also look up voice leading as that is important too.

Block chords over long periods of time seldom sound great performed by strings, I like to have some movement in them, so arpeggiation is a common technique, as is using extended chords to give a little more character.

You will often find that the the chords and the inversions that you choose will actually self-select the voicing you use.

As regards them sounding fake, well you also need to look into midi CC controls and I always find that if you play everything in, rather than using step entry into your DAW, everything sounds a bit more life-like.

You may also find this of help....


----------



## ism (Apr 11, 2020)

The thing about strings is

- the voice leading. You really need some sense of voice leading. How the individual line maintain their own independence. Unless you're just laying down pads - ie. basically strumming chords as if you're writing for a guitar, then you need to be sensitive to the way the individual voices act independently.

- idiomatic constructions of the arcs. This is related to the above, but strings don't sound great when played naive. The "bloom" that you get in a crescendo is one of the great things about strings as a family of musical instruments (with nothing remotely equivalent on instruments like guitar or piano), and it comes from the way that timbre of the strings changes and the dynamics increase. Similarly the technique string players used to add vibrato and expressiveness is just as important.

This isn't a bad book to get some sense of this:



Or if you're interested in the more perceptual side of the theory, I really love this book too:


----------



## d.healey (Apr 11, 2020)

The voicing will depend on the context.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Apr 11, 2020)

Rossy said:


> I am playing regular triads and was wondering if that's how these sections are accurately written and played?


No.


----------



## ism (Apr 11, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> No.




Well said. 


I'm of course immensely jealous of the insight an actual string player like yourself automatically brings to composition for strings. And fumbling to gain some insight on how to craft a basic sense of idiomatic strings arcs is something I've been on about on quite a few threads.

But wondering if you'd have any ideas for how non-strings players might best build a sense of the idiomatic nature of writing for strings?


----------



## bryla (Apr 11, 2020)

ism said:


> But wondering if you'd have any ideas for how non-strings players might best build a sense of the idiomatic nature of writing for strings?


Read the scores of your favorite string pieces. There’s a plethora of information easily available in the scores.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Apr 11, 2020)

ism said:


> But wondering if you'd have any ideas for how non-strings players might best build a sense of the idiomatic nature of writing for strings?


Look at scores. Lots and lots and lots of them. Do what they do. 

The main concept: 5 string parts- 5 independent voices (if needed). Violin 1 and 2 can do completely different things. Viola is a switch hitter, cello is bass except when it's not. Bass is, well, bass. But they aren't 1 instrument, they are many. Block triads are for keyboard players.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Apr 11, 2020)

bryla said:


> Read the scores of your favorite string pieces. There’s a plethora of information easily available in the scores.


Great minds etc....


----------



## ism (Apr 11, 2020)

Good advice folks. I just wish there was a book I could buy to go with it.

I mean, I have several. But I can't help thinking that there must be a better way to distill some of this pedagogically.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Apr 11, 2020)

I tell you what you might find interesting - is some of the staffpad videos in the staffpad thread showing the orchestration and the sound at the same time.

Pop this up full screen and have a look (With compliments to the composer


----------



## bryla (Apr 11, 2020)

ism said:


> Good advice folks. I just wish there was a book I could buy to go with it.
> 
> I mean, I have several. But I can't help thinking that there must be a better way to distill some of this pedagogically.


Well books will only get you so far. Take your favorite string piece and get the score. If you are in doubt which voices get the root then try to analyze which voices get the root. Then you may find there’s no system to this then try to write some of the chords in a piano staff and try to play them. Now there might seem to be a pattern. 
if you want to know which voices play the melody then look for places where the melody is in different voices and look for what the other instruments are doing at the same time. 
seriously a lot can be distilled just by looking at the score. Whenever you have a question you just find the answer in your favorite score. 
that’s basically what the pros do except their library of favorite scores and references are greater than those starting out. Start now by building your own library of references.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Apr 11, 2020)

_'Good composers borrow, great composers steal....'_

Ivor Stravinsky


----------



## Saxer (Apr 11, 2020)

You can have divisi and all that... but when starting I recomment: play one voice per section. No chords on orchestral midi tracks except percussion and harp. Good orchestration is a bunch of monophonic lines.

After writing (or playing) a few bars: listen to every single track soloed. Sing along every single line while listening to it. If it's boring for you it will be boring for the musician who has to play it. Musicians don't like to play boring music. They play much better when they like what they have to play. When they like it they will play better. Your music will sound better if it's interesting to play. Doesn't mean you can't have eight bars of whole notes. But after that some fun should happen! Treat your DAW tracks like living musicians.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Apr 11, 2020)

Saxer said:


> Treat your DAW tracks like living musicians.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 11, 2020)

Even though he lived A Long Time Ago, Tchaikovsky knew a thing or two about string writing (and orchestration in general). Get on Spotify, find a piece you like and then study the score.

Here's a link: 

If you can't read music and you want to be great at composing for orchestra, I urge you (nicely) to force yourself to learn a little. Otherwise you can thrash around for 100 years and not know what you can learn in a few pages of Alan Silvestri, John Williams, Debussy etc.


----------



## NoamL (Apr 11, 2020)

@Rossy post some examples of your work & we can all help you with specifics as well.


----------



## ism (Apr 11, 2020)

Here's an article on orchestration that might help

https://www.evenant.com/music/a-practical-approach-to-orchestration


----------



## Rossy (Apr 11, 2020)

NoamL said:


> @Rossy post some examples of your work & we can all help you with specifics as well.


Once I get the nerve to I will


----------



## Rossy (Apr 11, 2020)

Good orchestration is a bunch of monophonic lines

Now that's magic advice for me


----------



## Living Fossil (Apr 11, 2020)

Rossy said:


> Good orchestration is a bunch of monophonic lines



Read the latest post by GenePool carefully.

There are myriads of way to a good orchestration.
Some rely on a bunch of monophonic lines, some don't.
It depends on what you want to achieve with your orchestration.
Therefore, the first step is to learn by studying existing works.
That's not only the first step, but one that most composers maintain through the whole life.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Apr 11, 2020)

Rossy said:


> Once I get the nerve to I will


There's no judgement here. Music is so enormous and vast. There are many areas that I am absolutely terrible/novice at, and I've been in the music biz for 35 years. "Talent" is arguably the most overrated thing in the universe. "Experience" matters. So, whenever you get that nerve, realize that we're all in the same boat even if it doesn't look like it at first.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 11, 2020)

Gene Pool said:


> Another thing you have to tackle before you get to orchestration



IDK, @Gene Pool . I hate to tell anyone he/she has to learn "this" or "that" area before attempting to write or orchestrate. Even though I've studied quite a bit, I take the opposite approach, actually, which is to learn something when I need to know it to achieve a particular effect.

Sure, it's great to work through Debussy, Wagner, R. Strauss and all the big guns; it's good to take courses in orchestration and learn textures.

But man, it takes a long time. And I also feel that I learn a lot better when I'm trying to _use_ whatever concept it is, right then, in an actual composition.

So I say, "you have permission to attempt whatever you want," and have at it, nice though knowledge is.

[That said, if you can learn from books and classes at some point in your life, that study really helps to move fast enough to keep up with a professional's schedule, so I'm definitely not knocking study. And, at a minimum, having a few scores around helps to solve problems by imitating what others did afore ye.]


----------



## Sears Poncho (Apr 11, 2020)

JohnG said:


> IDK, @Gene Pool . I hate to tell anyone he/she has to learn "this" or "that" area before attempting to write or orchestrate. Even though I've studied quite a bit, I take the opposite approach, actually, which is to learn something when I need to know it to achieve a particular effect.


Here's what people need to do:

write something. 

I'm a stickler for the rules.... but just write something. Anything. If it has parallel 5ths, so be it. If the horns are out of range, you'll learn when a horn player plays it and then calls you bad words and stuff. I agree 1000% John, there's no "order" even though there could be or maybe even should be. 

And if people write when they are "ready", that would leave me out as I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm not ready at all. Write something. Read some scores. Write more. Learn some theory. Write more, learn some modes. Repeat until death.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 11, 2020)

The quick, get-up-and-running answer is what Sears Poncho said (in so many - so few - words): keyboard parts often don't work for strings, and if your triads sound synthy, that's why. Strings are linear instruments.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 11, 2020)

Gene Pool said:


> Thank you, JohnG, but my advice is directed only to those who are truly serious about this. Lazy people and people who make excuses don't concern me. If a guy wants to ride motocross but can't ride a bike, whoever wants to help him will tell him he needs to learn the latter before he attempts the former. I respected the OP enough to tell him the truth.



That's your truth, @Gene Pool and of course that's up to you.

As advice to others, I very respectfully disagree. I never try to place impediments between people and their impulse to write a poem, paint a picture, grow a plant, or make up some music. It is daunting enough to compose; I never agree with placing a list of complex, tedious topics you must learn before you're allowed to write for strings/the orchestra/etc. No matter how useful.

As you go along, sure, the more you know about music, the better. People who keep pointing to Paul McCartney or some other musical prodigy and allege that "he didn't need no stinkin' theory" are wrong-headed, but so is anyone who risks burying the would-be artist with learned-ness.

In fact, as useful as musical study has been for me, I think being a decent composer arises also from the experience of playing sports, falling in love, losing someone, reading books, travel -- life. That's a lot more important to my way of thinking.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Apr 11, 2020)

JohnG said:


> As you go along, sure, the more you know about music, the better. People who keep pointing to Paul McCartney or some other musical prodigy and allege that "he didn't need no stinkin' theory" are wrong-headed,


Sir Paul listening to Brandenburg #2 on BBC radio: "Wow, that small trumpet surely has an interesting sound. Let me ring George Martin and see if we can get one for my new Penny Lane song."



JohnG said:


> I think being a decent composer arises also from



...................failing. 'Cause we all do. And falling on your face in many aspects of music, well, I've done it so many times that (insert joke here).



Gene Pool said:


> The order only pertains to those who are looking to get from point A to point B in the most efficient manner possible.


OK......

but that would leave out basically the entire music world.
It's not that I don't see your point, and perhaps it is a valid point, but only in a test tube. In the real world, it doesn't quite work like that. Study the incredibly scientific graph I have provided. It's the most accurate thing I've ever seen.


----------



## Mishabou (Apr 11, 2020)

JohnG said:


> That's your truth, @Gene Pool and of course that's up to you.
> 
> As advice to others, I very respectfully disagree. I never try to place impediments between people and their impulse to write a poem, paint a picture, grow a plant, or make up some music. It is daunting enough to compose; I never agree with placing a list of complex, tedious topics you must learn before you're allowed to write for strings/the orchestra/etc. No matter how useful.
> 
> ...



Damn amen to that..great post JohnG!


----------



## ism (Apr 11, 2020)

Trying to do something, failing spectacularly can give you insight into how to go about learning something. So long as you fail quickly. 

I think it’s as true for something like mathematics. Having a huge library of mistakes to draw on is at least as important as one’s ‘correct’ knowledge.


----------



## NoamL (Apr 11, 2020)

Rossy said:


> Once I get the nerve to I will



think it'd be useful, because right now we're giving you a bunch of general advice and it may not be applicable to what you're struggling with or the changes you need to make to create the most idiomatic writing for strings. That being said all of the advice so far is pretty good!


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 11, 2020)

I don’t see the two positions here as necessarily exclusive. One can tackle something that is basically over their head and at least get their hands dirty a bit while simultaneously making a serious study of things - hopefully at least somewhat systematically. (A teacher would be most helpful in most cases.) Eventually the twain should meet.


----------



## Zero&One (Apr 11, 2020)

Dave Connor said:


> I don’t see the two positions here as necessarily exclusive.



I agree. 
If this were a Heart Surgeon forum, then saying "just keeping trying dude, you only learn from your failures" probably isn't the best advice.

Musicians have the luxury of both time and artistic freedom to a larger degree.

To OP, I would highly recommend you check out @Mattia Chiappa recent video posts series. I'd also recommend checking his Patreon, you get the projects/scores, well worth your time, effort & money.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Apr 12, 2020)

Gene Pool said:


> The competent reader


Now you're just being a dick.

Out of morbid curiosity, have you ever actually written for an orchestra? Because several of us in this thread write for pro orchestras for a living, every day.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Apr 12, 2020)

You remind me of an old Russian saying,

_"The smallest dogs have the biggest bark"_


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 12, 2020)

Gene Pool, I thought your post was very clear and indeed objectively good advice. You shouldn’t be taken to task in any way for that kind of thing and for a controversy to arise in any way is an unfortunate internet phenomenon I’m all too familiar with. There was a quality in John’s remark that I tend to agree with in not discouraging someone’s impetus to learn even though it may not be particularly efficient (though not void of learning by laboring in some way in a chosen field.) Which is to say that it seems to me there needn’t be acrimony between any parties here since these two approaches often do go hand in hand in the early stages of music learning.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Apr 12, 2020)

I am very much influenced by the idea of arranging visual leitmotifs, particularly whilst combined with a highly quasi-orchestral approach to procedures. In short, the intricacy must never generate the substance. One of my most pre-recorded influences is the concept of informing triadic tetrachords, which develops my polychord and causes my aerophone to become somewhat multi-extended. The juxtaposition and presenting of contrasting quartal choreographies dominates much of my work, and I have an avid interest in mixing the avant-garde with the cultural, the dramatic with the large-scale, and the developmental with the electroacoustic. Recently, I have started to embrace relationships as a strongly-contemporary alternative to established forms of triadic dissonance-oscillations, which has made my work creatively Expressionist. It is plainly obvious that the act of modulating poly-polytimbral novelties causes one to become eclectic (and sometimes even radical), which is why I deny this approach, preferring instead to simply sense microtonally. 

One of my most quartal influences is the concept of challenging collaborative hemiolas, which spatialises my chord-structure and causes my element to become somewhat operatic. Unlike traditional relationships, I aim to develop rhythms, including a highly textual art that incorporates all notions of post-Schoenberg experiences. To compose is a natural desire, but my current compositional activity seeks to re-compose all microtones. It also develops and visualises popularly-textual meaning-transcriptions. I coined the term 'chord-structure-isorhythm-music' to describe my most radical approaches to pianistic composition. I have found that distorted systems, in combination with multi-timbral reverberations enable me to popularly examine brand-new fanfares in a highly unified and extremely quartal way. To put it concisely, the post-pre-recorded forms of any given performer must never clash with the ultimately avant-garde endeavour of layering isorhythms wherever possible.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Apr 12, 2020)

__





The Contemporary Classical Composer's Bullshit Generator






www.dominicirving.com


----------



## Zero&One (Apr 12, 2020)

All this from triads 😂
Hope OP doesn’t ask about scales next


----------



## Rossy (Apr 13, 2020)

Michael Antrum said:


> I tell you what you might find interesting - is some of the staffpad videos in the staffpad thread showing the orchestration and the sound at the same time.
> 
> Pop this up full screen and have a look (With compliments to the composer



Perfect but, but it's still over my head.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Apr 14, 2020)

Rossy said:


> Perfect but, but it's still over my head.




It probably seems all rather daunting at first. In fact, I've often thought there is nothing difficult in music, but rather that there is an awful a lot of it. The secret is to break it down and understand it in manageable chunks.

In music we love to use terminology and jargon, for example you will hear the term submediant, which basically is another way of saying the sixth. And that is what makes the whole thing seem inpenetrable when starting off. In my industy, we often joke that we love jargon and terminology as it enables you to charge more....

So first, I'm assuming here that you understand notation. If you don't then I strongly suggest you stop now and learn it. It shouldn't take more than a few days to get the basics down, a few weeks to be comfortable and you will have it for the rest of your life. A basic working knowledge is all that is required (I often say it's like being able to speak a language, but unable to read it. Just think how much you are missing out on !).

So, assuming we have basic notation under our fingertips, try this exercise. Take a piece of music you like for a string quartet - I would recommend something with a relatively slow tempo at first as it will be easier to follow. There's loads of good stuff out there on the internet for free.

Take a small musical section or phrase - say 12 bars. Write it out by hand on some manuscript paper, leaving a blank stave below. Then on this blank stave, collapse all the notes into chords. You probably wont be able to do this exactly, as not every note will change at the same time (which is what gives the piece some movement). But you will find that you are building block chords. Try and identify them. You have then just reverse engineered the music - the polar opposite of what you are trying to do.

So if you like something, break it down into its constituent parts and put it back together again. If you like a particular phrase, motion or voicing in the music - shamelessly steal it for use in your own music. (I promise I wont grass...)

I find that the act of writing something out whilst concentrating on it reveals the patterns inside the music. In fact some of the greatest and most beautiful music you will ever hear is built on some of the most basic chord progressions and simplistic harmony you will ever come across.

The magic is when someone takes a basic progression and a simple melody, and turns in into something truly beautiful. And when you study how they did it, it is often the case that the genius lies in the simplcity of it all.

Hope this helps, it's how I learned the basics, and whilst it seems boring at first, what happened to me is that I had a couple of lightbulb moments which really opened my eyes. But you have to discover them for yourself - just like you have to learn to ride a bike for yourself - no-one can do it for you.

And when you do come across specific questions that you are stuck on, post them here. There is a bunch of really talented people here who are practically falling over each other to help out. I have had so much help here over the years, and despite all the nonsense you sometimes see, it is a really friendly place.

Best of luck.


----------



## youngpokie (Apr 14, 2020)

Michael Antrum said:


> there is nothing difficult in music, rather that there is an awful a lot of it. The secret is to break it down and understand it in manageable chunks.



I think this really nails it, and it's one of the most important insights I have seen into why unsystematic self-study of music can be both truly inspiring but also very frustrating at times.

The more you learn, the more simplicity you discover hidden just beneath the surface, and there will be a staggering amount of these tiny building blocks. But while some of them immediately produce results, others are too subtle or less usable "out of the box" as it were, because they depend on others, like the components of an operating system that progressively build on top of other components.
Often, with self study without a system, the frustration happens when these building blocks are learned out of sequence and we can't really use them well - and feel we're stuck.

Systematic study (e.g. school-conservatory path) teaches these building blocks in order, and with a lot of practical exercises to ensure we can internalize them. But it has its own significant drawbacks - first, it takes years and that's the time many people on this forum simply don't have to dedicate to it. Second, a lot of formal systematic study is really boring and it kills inspiration. Learning notation is a foundation of formal study, but unless you did it as a child it's as tedious as watching paint dry. Only chorale part writing comes close. And there are these libraries you just bought, waiting...

And so when we start learning music as adults we are confronted with a real problem - there is no system designed specifically for adults and their very different needs. We have various ad hoc courses teaching some of the components. Or, we are referred to books that come from the field of formal study, and are meant to a totally different profile of student.

My very personal opinion is that a self-study for adult without prior music training needs to follow a different path, one that allows to learn the building blocks that are useful immediately. Starting with the basic intervals, then the T-S-D-T framework, followed by chord substitutions to enrich it, followed by harmonizing and orchestrating melodies and so on. They do not depend on knowing notation immediately so this can be deferred, but they do allow us to keep creating and know that we're moving forward, rather than give up in frustration and walk away.


----------



## Rossy (Apr 14, 2020)

I cant thank everyone enough for all this knowledge and I am doing my best to absorb all this information. I hope to post my first attempt at a piece later today, petrified dosen't come close to letting everyone hear this.
I am taking a course, COMPLETE Music COMPOSITION AND FILM SCORING Guide and learning a lot but the going is slow, patience is truly a virtue. 
I do have one question, there is a part in my piece where the chord progression is f major, c minor and a minor, I want the orchestra to follow this progression so do play triads with an ensemble or have the violins, violas, cello and bass, play the roof notes together? 
I honestly cant thank everyone enough for their wise contribution to this thread and helping me create what I feel deep inside, you have no idea how much it helps.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Apr 14, 2020)

If you’re a Layman like me, here’s a basic method for orchestrating your strings....

If your block chords sound good, just record them in. If this isn’t sounding realistic in the whole mix (which sometimes it does), go into piano roll view and copy each line from the chord into its own track. So if it’s violin triad’s, you’ll have three violin tracks. In this case, assign a legato violin patch to each, and tweak/edit accordingly; just remember to delete each one after they are moved to their own track. I learned this from watching one of Christian Henson’s videos.....it works! And at the same time, you learn how to orchestrate.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Apr 14, 2020)

Rossy said:


> I do have one question, there is a part in my piece where the chord progression is f major, c minor and a minor, I want the orchestra to follow this progression so do play triads with an ensemble or have the violins, violas, cello and bass, play the roof notes together?



I hate to say this, but the answer is - it depends....

What a terrible thing to say - a complete cop out you might say, and you'd be right.

However, it's a bit like asking us which is the best route for you to get to work, when we dont know where you live, and we dont know where you work, or even if you have a car, a bike or travel by public transport.

In short, we don't know enough about the context of your music to answer. You might be talking about a military sounding theme with a march like rhythm, or a lush, romantic sweeping theme, or a thundering brass adventure theme. All of these would suggest a very different way of orchestrating it.

For example, for a pulsing action theme, you might use a series of ostinato patterns in the strings (they are a bit of a cliche in films these days).

(BTW an ostinato is a continually repeated musical phrase or rhythm - remember to love the jargon and use it at all times so you can charge more...)

For a romatic sweeping theme you might use a pedal tone in the bass, with some arpegiation in say the violas, and some moving slower tones in the cellos.

But even if you told us all this, you'd probably find everyone would suggest you to do it a slightly different way. In fact if you asked me on Sunday when I was drinking a cold beer in the garden, I would probably suggest one way, and if you asked me today (just after I had hit my thumb with a hammer hanging a picture for my wife), you'd get a somewhat different musical mood.

Only you know the sound you hear in your head, and the best way of getting that out of your head, and onto the paper or into the computer, is to find a piece of music with a similar feel/vibe to what you are after, take it apart and rob it.

At least that way you are in control of your music, rather than the other way round.

PS:

One last thing - you mentioned playing a triad with an ensemble patch. Ensemble patches are pre-orchestrated for you. So if you are playing a high strings patch, it's likely to have the both violin sections, violas, and sometimes even the celli in there. Kind of like a Pot Noodle, all ready to go just add hot water, or in this case middle C. It will sound fine, even though it might not be very good for you. Much better to make your own noodles from scratch.

But playing a triad with one of these patches is very likely to sound unrealistic, as you are effectively playing three/four complete orchestra sections simultaneously. Imagine you making a three layer pot noodle - say Brazilian BBQ Steak, Chow Mein and the rather alarmingly named Bombay Bad Boy. Now mixing all three of these together doesn't sound a good idea, and whilst you may come up with something wonderful, you are more likely to end up feeling slightly ill.

So whilst orchestrated patches are quick and easy, but if you want to learn to orchestrate properly - stay off the pot noodles is my advice.

(My first library was Symphobia, and I absolutely love it. But I grew out of it, and ultimately found it limiting. But I still use it for quickness, and it sounds fab.)


----------



## Rossy (Apr 14, 2020)

Michael Antrum said:


> I hate to say this, but the answer is - it depends....
> 
> What a terrible thing to say - a complete cop out you might say, and you'd be right.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply (I hope your thumb gets better)
I now realize I have a lot of studying to do. There are lots of music I luv that contains orchestration and I'll start to look at how it's broken down.


----------

