# Do you really need formal orchestration training?



## rgames (Jun 21, 2006)

Having written music for small ensembles for years I've recently started to expand my compositional pallette to include large ensembles (e.g. full orchestra). I have a textbook on orchestration (Kenneth and Graham, I think) but most everything in there is pretty well understood by anybody who's played with an orchestra for a few years (e.g. standard instrument ranges, doubling, etc.). While I certainly don't remember exactly the "typical" range of a contrabassoon, I know about where it is and can simply use the book as a reference when it comes down to putting the final score together.

So, in my mind, the orchestration textbook is just a reference, certainly not something that I would "study" to any great extent. I know, however, that many people do and there are a number of supposedly good texts. So I'm curious, what is "orchestration" other than a list of standard playing techniques for each instrument? Things like instrument combinations and the resulting timbre changes are really artistic choices, sort of like deciding to use the color blue in a particular part of a painting.

Thanks,

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Jun 21, 2006)

I usually don't come down on people for asking questions no matter how newby they may seem, but your question presuppose on your part that you know all about orchestration already.

Personally, I think that if you write something for full orchestra and it sounds good then perhaps you don't need orchestration text or to study orchestration.

But until that happens then you shouldn't really assume that you know all about it already just from having been exposed to orchestras. 

Try to write a work for full orchestra. If it's fine then okay. If you fall flat on your ass with a lot of questions then crack open the scores and the Rimsky and Berlioz books. All I know is that a lot of great composers took orchestration very seriously so because of that so did I. I didn't assume that I "knew all about it" before I studied it. I went in with the attitude that perhaps there was something I could learn from Strauss, Tch, Berlioz, Rimsky-Korsakov ect.. You know they could compose a thing or two for orchestra that maybe, just maybe you couldn't.

Jose


----------



## fictionmusic (Jun 21, 2006)

It seems to me you already have been studying orchestration if you are familiar with instrument ranges and doubles etc. Your years of playing with an orchestra (if I understand you correctly) and your writing for small ensemble is just that.
All any text book is is a reference anyway; the real matter is like Jose says, writing for a large ensemble and having it work. 

Even still, the text in question is a great resource and certainly won't do any harm to know inside out. There are others of course (Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov) and I have read many posts about their relative weknesses and strengths. Perhaps your best bet is to get some study scores and see how the masters have done it (especially Stravinsky who arguably was the best esoteric orchestrator...or Berlioz who also is a contender for that distinction). 

Another great idea is taking some un-orchestrated piece and trying your own. If you were to take Pictures at an Exhibition for example, you could compare your ideas with Rimsky-Korsakov's and Ravel's...that should be an education in itself.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Jun 21, 2006)

I would agree with both posts of Jose and fictionmusic. study scores really are a way of measuring up to see if you know what you are doing. if you understand what is going on when reading a score, then you should have a fairly good grasp of orchestration. if you don't understand it, then that needs to be addressed, either through your own research or study.


----------



## Roland Mac (Jun 21, 2006)

I dont think that you need formal training, as in, going to a conservatoire.

I do believe that you need some kind of training, be it self tuition or professional. You need to have familiarised yourself with the orchestral literature, and the works of the major composers. This is important for so many reasons, not just the obvious ones! For instance, if a student spends alot of time reading classical and romantic scores, they also get a familiarity with other aspects of the music (harmony, motif development, voiceleading, form etc), develop their reading skills, and become generally 'comfortable' the full score.

One thing to remember - although you may have the brass tacks down, there is ALWAYS something more to learn. Knowing the basics, and being an expert are very different things, and to reject your studies after grasping the fundamentals would be unwise imo.

Its like anything I guess, you dont master it overnight. It takes time and experience to become the professor!

RM


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 22, 2006)

*"Do you really need formal orchestration training?"*


To do what? Seems like the question isn't complete..............

I'll assume you mean to compose for money? (like in the Hollywood sense)

In that case, I feel that it's simply about "what you can do..... quickly" (combined with who you know, and who's a fan of your work).

But aside from that. I've heard great work form trained guys and I've heard work that is far from inspired/emotionally connected IMO. Ultimately the "greats" have a talent that can't be taught. Not everyone who comes out of a great school is going to be "good", some people come out and know a hell of a lot but never had the talent for composing to begin with. Maybe didn't have the talent for music if you wanna go deeper. But they did have the desire to learn about music-mechanics. Yet, knowing 'how' to do it, isn't the same as doing it 'well', in my opinion. Learning the mechanics makes that talent more realized IMO, the talent that was already there down deep (from birth). But talent has always been, and always will be "innate" by definition. No way around that.

My core belief is that you/we/they are either born "with it" or born "without it" [Talent -- talent to emotionally connect w/others through music]. How much you/we/they foster that innate talent is ultimately up to the individual. Seems logical to think that the more you know the more that talent will flourish.

Not sure you can ever be done learning music, though.... but I do think some folks believe that talent can be learned through training. I don't believe that at all. I'd say you need both to be great. 


My disclaimer is that it really doesn't mater what other composers think of your work. What do "the people" think of it? 

How many unemployed Jazz players respect Kenny-G? You follow? 

How many unemployed composers respect Zimmer's work. You follow? 

My opinion.......


Do your thang, man........


----------



## Scott Cairns (Jun 22, 2006)

I think the talent is a given in the sense that you must be able to deliver each and every time as a professional composer.

In regard to; "Do you really need formal orchestration training?"

I think that depends on your aspirations as a composer.  Are you planning to write a lot of orchestral music professionally, work with an orchestra? The training cant hurt.

Just as an aside, I have an hours rehearsal with a symphony orchestra tomorrow. I have them for the next two Firday afternoons and they will be performing one of my pieces in a concert. The only reason this came about is because I decided to take orchestration lessons at my local conservatorium. 

As a student, I get access to incredible resources like this, a no pressure situation to see if my music translates well from midi-mockup to live playing. For me, the lessons have been more than worth it.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 22, 2006)

Scott --- post it once you track it, then we'll tell you how "unrealistic" it sounds... til you tell us it's actually real players. :mrgreen:


----------



## Daryl (Jun 22, 2006)

I don't think that everyone needs formal training, as long as they study somehow. If you have played in an orchestra then the chances are that you understand, in a rudimentary way, how the instruments work and interact and can therefore learn by studying scores. However, for some people it is necessary to be pointed in the right direction in order to have the tools to understand the scores. How much tuition is required before self study is possible depends on the individual.

D


----------



## rgames (Jun 22, 2006)

Thanks for all the replies,

I agree that formal training can help tremendously, particulalry in learning how to spell shords, decide harmony and voice leading, etc. I've spent many hours over scores trying to pick the brains of those who do it so well...

My question was specifically about orchestration, though, not musical training in general. The text that I have gives the instrument ranges, recommends doublings, describes the tone qualities of the standard instruments in different registers, etc. Very mechanical stuff. Absolutely necessary, but not the sort of thing that one would spend a lot of time studying.

I'm not an expert by any means but it's obvious even to me that you'd never put a flute solo in the low register on top of a forte brass section (though my sequencer and samples can make it sound just fine). It's also obvious to me that an Eb soprano clarinet in its extreme upper register has a very shrill, strident sound. These are the types of information that I get out of the orchestration text I have. Surely there's more - that's what I'm looking for help with.

My reson for posting is not to claim competence in orchestration - quite the contrary. I'm confused about what these multitude of texts explain that most orchestral musicians don't already know from experience. I'm certain that most folks on this board have forgotten more about orchestration than I'll ever know so I'm hoping for help in understanding where to direct my studies and improve my compositions.

Maybe I've just completely missed the boat when it comes to orchestration and there's more to it than I'm capable of comprehending...

Thanks again,

rgames


----------



## PaulR (Jun 22, 2006)

rgames @ Thu Jun 22 said:


> My question was specifically about orchestration, though, not musical training in general.
> 
> Maybe I've just completely missed the boat when it comes to orchestration and there's more to it than I'm capable of comprehending...
> Thanks again,
> rgames



What does the word ' orchestration' mean to you? To me it simply means 'colour'. When you write a piece of music, how do you write it? Do you write it on a keyboard? Does the tempo and key of a piece you write suggest any 'colours' to you? 

A bricklayer builds a wall at the bottom of your garden. You assume he knows how to build a wall i.e. write. Does he use all the same bricks - or does he mix them up a bit. Is it all the same patterned way of laying bricks - or are there subtle interesting changes.
The wall is the writing - the use of different patterns and bricks is the orchestrating. That's why a lot of walls at the bottom of people's gardens are boring.

:razz:


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 22, 2006)

rgames @ Wed Jun 21 said:


> Having written music for small ensembles for years I've recently started to expand my compositional pallette to include large ensembles (e.g. full orchestra). I have a textbook on orchestration (Kenneth and Graham, I think) but most everything in there is pretty well understood by anybody who's played with an orchestra for a few years (e.g. standard instrument ranges, doubling, etc.). While I certainly don't remember exactly the "typical" range of a contrabassoon, I know about where it is and can simply use the book as a reference when it comes down to putting the final score together.
> 
> So, in my mind, the orchestration textbook is just a reference, certainly not something that I would "study" to any great extent. I know, however, that many people do and there are a number of supposedly good texts. So I'm curious, what is "orchestration" other than a list of standard playing techniques for each instrument? Things like instrument combinations and the resulting timbre changes are really artistic choices, sort of like deciding to use the color blue in a particular part of a painting.
> 
> ...



I disagree with some of my colleagues answers here, especially as I'm pulsing through Volume 2 of Professional Orchestration and preparing it for printing in a few weeks. 

I see that there are two issues in orchestration. The first is instrumentation and the second is color and register.

Instrumentation involves knowing sufficient performance facts about individual instruments to write for them in such a way that the parts lay well and are easily playable. The first such book built on this premise was written in 1541. The next major text was written in France by a fellow named Kastner, but his work was overshadowed by Berlioz' work, and that largely of Berlioz' bigger reputation as a composer. But both Kastner and Berlioz had it right when they named works Treatise on Instrumentation. All the major texts follow this line (through Kennan, Adler and my own Professional Orchestration Volume 1). 

Instrumentation, through listening, attending live performances, and listening to recorded works for solo instruments, can teach you the color of a specific instrument, but not combinations of instruments.

Orchestration is the step beyond instrumentation because now you're learning colors of combinations and the registers they speak best in.

Knowing these colors and the registers they speak best in is what ultimately separates the professional from the amateur. Here, I'd bring in your word, "formal" in the sense that formal means identifying the color, identifying its registration, and then through listening, learning what it sounds like so that when you hear it in your mind, you know what it is you're hearing and you can produce it.

Time is money. Once you have it, you don't have to research it again.

Study scores are important because this is where the devices are found! There are lots worth studying, but a few really worth the time are Ein Heldenlaben, Mother Goose Suite, Pictures at an Exhibition, The Planets, Carnival of the Animals, Appalachian Spring, and Sinfonia Antartica plus Five Variants on Dives and Lazarus by Vaughan Williams. I'm sure others can quickly add to the list. 

My thought processes here are to learn the devices, their registrations, and see where and how I can apply them in my music. One place where I would go back to the score is if I'm working with samples. Here, I want to see how close the samples, not my writing nor my application of various orchestral devices, represent the live application.

I'd like to suggest that orchestration applies to instruments of the orchestra not a style of writing. Orchestral devices are applicable across styles. If violins in the high register doubled by violas an octave lower works in Carmen, why wouldn't the same device work in an arrangement for Sarah Brightman? 

I hope this helps to answer your question.


----------



## rgames (Jun 22, 2006)

Peter Alexander @ Thu Jun 22 said:


> I see that there are two issues in orchestration. The first is instrumentation and the second is color and register.



That's a good point - I guess instrumentation is just the "mechanical" part but orchestration takes it further to the "artistic" part. It's the "artistic" part that I'm looking for good references on.

The genesis of my question comes from the fact that I've read three books related to composition: one on harmony and voice leading, one on counterpoint, and one on orchestration. After reading the texts on harmony/voice leading and counterpoint I felt like I learned quite a bit and was able to write better music. I did not, however, feel like I gained much from the orchestration text because it focused so much on the "mechanical" part. I've looked through the contents of other orchestration books and they all seem to be 90% focused on the "mechanical" part, as well.

rgames


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 22, 2006)

rgames @ Thu Jun 22 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Thu Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> > I see that there are two issues in orchestration. The first is instrumentation and the second is color and register.
> ...



There are historic reasons for this. Instrumentation texts pre-suppose that you've had compositional training at some level. Orchestration comes out of the compositional model, which is why so many pros take a score, reduce it to sketch level, then re-orchestrate back. 

I have a harmony series called Applied Professional Harmony. Starting in the second third of the book, you're building chord progressions but applying orchestral sounds to them if you have a library or a good synth. 2/3 of the way through you're arranging your first song. And as you do it, you have a well of beginning colors to draw from. 

In counterpoint, once you get to three-parts, you're at the core of setting up a flowing model. And as you move from three to four parts, you set up your abilities to move from "trios" to "quartets." From there, form and practical analysis to move to larger musical forms. 

All the while, your vocabulary develops.


----------



## pdzl (Jun 22, 2006)

Peter Alexander @ Thu Jun 22 said:


> If violins in the high register doubled by violas an octave lower works in Carmen, why wouldn't the same device work in an arrangement for Sarah Brightman?



Very interesting post Peter!

Care to answer that question of yours? I'm curious as to why.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 23, 2006)

I kind of agree with Midphase on this one. I started to get better at samples when I abandoned the idea that I would get anything that sounded close to anything that John Williams is doing with a 104 piece orchestra. I personally think that if I had a 104 piece orchestra that I could make it sing, but since I don't I started to look more at Danny Elfman and Hans Zimmer, because I know that their stuff could be played with samples.

But I do see the merit in mocking up live pieces. I noticed that Simon, Craig, TJ and some of the other top midi guys have really gotten very flexible dynamically and also in terms of good instrumental choices.

In the end I think that you have to go with what your abilities are in each medium. when working with samples I write in a specific way that I know I can achieve with my samples. When writing for live players I throw that shit away and just write for the players and hope that the samples can give me somewhat of a good sound to atleast get the point across for a demo or to hear how the parts work together.

It's the same for writing for any ensemble. Part of orchestration is knowing what group you're writing for and trying to figure out what they can play.

For example. If I'm doing an arrangement for a professional symphony orchestra I usually know that their sight reading chops are limited(as well as they're timing). If I only have 1 two hour rehearsal, I'll write with that in mind. But, If I'm doing a session in LA where the musicians lives depend on sightreading and there's a click involved I'll go for it. Why not. Even the 5th choice player in LA can sight read anything you put in front of them. You know it because if they've fucked up in a session then you know that that guy isn't working. So if he's in front of you he's a good reader. period. It's not the same for a professional symphony orchestra. They usually don't have to sight read much. 

So practically speaking you'd orchestrate completely different depending on what ensemble of players or samples you have.

Jose


----------



## Ed (Jun 23, 2006)

josejherring @ Fri Jun 23 said:


> I kind of agree with Midphase on this one. I started to get better at samples when I abandoned the idea that I would get anything that sounded close to anything that John Williams is doing with a 104 piece orchestra.



Well, TJ can, but he isnt human. :neutral:


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 24, 2006)

pdzl @ Thu Jun 22 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Thu Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> > If violins in the high register doubled by violas an octave lower works in Carmen, why wouldn't the same device work in an arrangement for Sarah Brightman?
> ...



The point is this: Violins in octaves with violas are violins in octaves with violas whether it's opera, jazz, pop, whatever. You go to the classics to learn the devices then learn to apply them in your music. 

You have to know what it sounds like and in what registers the device works best in (common practice, NOT rules!).

Now we come to samples. You know what the device sounds like with the orchestra, but will samples pull it off? Some will, some won't. For those that do, that's one more color in your sample pallette you didn't have yesterday.

For those that don't, when you do a mock up prior to putting parts on the stand, even if it's not on the money, you know it's going to work on the stands.

Basically, before orchestration is composition, orchestration is first ear training.


----------



## Tobie (Jun 27, 2006)

As someone who has been trained at music college (although in composition not directly orchestration - then again I don’t think you can be taught how to compose but that’s another discussion!!) I would have to say that learning the instruments ranges has almost very little to do with orchestration. This is such a basic part of orchestration that its almost irrelevant. Now knowing _how_ the ranges sound of instruments, the different colours, combinations and techniques - that is the important part. I personally feel that orchestration is so wrapped up with actual composition that I don’t really distinguish the two. The skill in orchestration is achieving a colour that best suits the emotions that you are trying to put across - there are no set rules, but there are many common practices that can serve you well.

The best place to learn orchestration is to study lots and lots of scores and listening to the music.
If you are writing with samples the next level of orchestration is being able to score this out - this again is a completely different aspect of orchestration that is a hugely important skill and difficult. How to voice all the parts, split difficult passages between instruments . How to write the effects that you hear on your samples might not be as straightforward as you think.
I've just finished a large orchestral work that took about a month to write (using samples) and has/is taking _months_ to score out!! Do I want 2 flutes for that passage or 1, should I split this string line that’s difficult between VL 1 and 2 or split VL1, will the brass over balance the woodwind at this point etc etc. its easy in samples to make it sound correct, but that’s not necessarily how it will translate live.

As for the original question - for every technique that can be formally trained you can have someone just as good that has had no formal training. BUT studying in some form of another, whether through lots of listening or scores or just performing will always make you better. Some aspects of orchestration like actually physically writing out the score does need formal training, but at the end of the day many aspects of orchestration are a gift. You can learn all the different techniques you want from books, but it has to be instinctive. There are many great orchestrators in the film world who are not great composers and lots of composers who cant orchestrate.

Its a great skill but its a difficult one that should no be over looked. (especially as its easy to make things sounds good and big with samples!!!)


----------



## gusttsilis (Aug 8, 2006)

Your response was the most enlightened of all


----------



## Wes Antczak (Nov 20, 2006)

Another thing to consider is the question of time.

I think if you study with someone who has already travelled the path and gone through all of the inevitable mistakes they might be able to show you in a much shorter period of time something that perhaps might have taken you several years to arrive at on your own (if at all).

Having that teacher feedback is important too, imo, in addition to just reading something in a book. What if you think you're getting it right but are in fact misinterpretting something?

So in that regard I think having an actual teacher can be most invaluable.


----------



## Hermitage59 (Nov 20, 2006)

Mozart, Beethoven, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, etc.. all studied 'formally'. Rimsky Korsakov had 7 years writing for military bands as well as orchestras, before he felt he was competent enough to take on his most challenging work.

I figured if it was good enough for them, then me going to a Conn, and studying was the right path. It's not for everyone, but the training certainly won't hurt. And i'm with Dave Connor on this one. Having reference books handy makes good sense, even for us older farts, who've been writing more formally for a while. (Rimsky Korsakov and Berlioz are two sound choices. Lot's of score segments, and musical devices to observe and learn from.)

Jose makes a good point about film writing, and samples. If that's what you want to do, then listening and learning from the guys who are successful will probably help, although (putting on the tin hat and flak jacket) a lot of modern film music is plagarised from classics, so studying the masters is going to help too.

Scores, as Craig and others wrote are invaluable, and in themselves, are good 'reference books.' And erstwhile colleagues here have mentioned many modern classical and romantic era composers. I'll be boring and suggest Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner,Mahler,Liszt, Sibelius, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev, Smetana, and Shostakovich to add a few more to the mix. Ludwig and Wolfgang (building on Bach and Handel) provided much of the foundation for the others, and if you're interested in the 'bricks and mortar' of soundly orchestrated construction, then these chaps will provide it, in their scores. As Peter A wrote, the devices are there in scores, and it's a matter of building an instinctive mental library. 
One thing's for sure. If you have talent, then training will provide an opportunity to discipline, polish, develop and hone that talent, giving it a chance to mature, and take you further than you may have decided you could have gone.

And while i have the tin hat and flak jacket handy, it would be a good idea to write for live players in a fairly even balance with writing for sample performance. A lot of people seem to write to their own capability in sample performance, limiting themselves to what THEY can currently, physically do, instead of giving their talent free rein, and developing their sample performance skills UP to the level of their writing.

Alex.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 20, 2006)

Well, I always say college is the best place for most people to study music when people ask about it in threads like this. But I actually do think you can learn orchestration on your own pretty well these days - although a good course is going to speed up the process. The main thing is that you need to go through the humiliation of standing in front of ensembles and realizing that you've written something they can't possibly play. I can't think of any substute for that.

Sample libraries might get you 85% of the way there, but they don't complain when something doesn't work because it's not balanced well or isn't playable. Real instruments can't do everything samples can do (and v.v.).


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 20, 2006)

Folmann @ Tue Nov 21 said:


> I personally believe listening to music is the most important learning tool.



Have to agree with that.


----------



## Waywyn (Nov 21, 2006)

From a guitar players point of view I would say, that there is not a big difference being a guitar arranger, composer, player towards a composer for orchestra - well, on the very basic level it is all about creating music for instruments, but of course the orchestra has some more, but that doesn't matter really. It is all about colors.

Look at Mark Knopfler or Allan Holdsworth. These guys doesn't read or understand theory stuff at all, they just do music and play (well, Holdsworth does, but he created his own theory universe - it is crazy, you should watch him creating and remembering scales for example).

This is another major example of "It's in your head or not". Some people are good at things, some people are just brilliant, some suck. They don't have to learn how to do triads and to learn to sing in pitch. They just do it. Like others can drive like hell and get one with cars, like others who can shoot away the glow of the cigarette in the night a few hundred meters away with a sniper rifle and never had a gun in their hands before 

With this in mind I don't wanna say, that if it's not in your head you are completely lost, you can of course learn and study it, but generally you are much more advanced when it's already there, so you don't have to learn it and can care about much other things on a higher level.

I see everything like a big cabinet with a huge amount of drawers.
Some people already got some drawers open, some people have not. Some people have drawser which are jammed, they simply can't open it (like there are people out there who doesn't hit a note, no matter what they try) and some people just easily open one by one.


----------



## lux (Nov 21, 2006)

I think some basis are important because give me the opportunity to see and understand what I miss in my knowledge and let me decide about learning it or not.

A bit of formal knoledge usually helps me to understand better how much I'm ignorant about things


----------

