# Most common orchestration mistakes



## Bullersten

Question for the experienced orchestrators: What are the most common scoring mistakes made by learning composers writing orchestral music?

I can easily hear when my orchestrations do not sound mature, but I find it hard to pinpoint where to start working to improve them.


----------



## JJP

Everything playing all the time (everything sounds homogenous/boring)
Overloading the low end with too much stuff thinking that gives you power (gets muddy)
Believing the french horns are the power instrument of the brass section or believing you need 8+ horns to get a big brass sound
Doubling everything or "dogpile" orchestration (pick a note and everybody pile on)
Forgetting to give brass and woodwinds space to breathe
Not using the woodwinds at all (greatly reduces the color palette)
Relying too much on percussion for rhythmic interest
#1 - Thinking orchestration is the problem when the problem is actually in the composition. That could mean bad harmony, chord voicings, voice-leading, elements fighting with each other, or a weak melody. You can't orchestrate your way out of compositional problems.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

having little understanding of the instruments you're writing for.


----------



## gyprock

Divisi between bagpipes and banjo in full tuttis


----------



## J-M

JJP said:


> Not using the woodwinds at all (greatly reduces the color palette)
> Relying too much on percussion for rhythmic interest



So guilty of these, especially in my earliest tracks. Actively trying to get rid of these...


----------



## d.healey

Using virtual instruments as a guide for the interaction between instruments.


----------



## Kent

In terms of amateur MIDI orchestration (synthestration?), one thing that often sticks out to me is wrong relative volumes of patches.

For example, having a brass patch at fff that's half as loud as a solo flute.


----------



## Farkle

JJP said:


> Everything playing all the time (everything sounds homogenous/boring)
> Overloading the low end with too much stuff thinking that gives you power (gets muddy)
> Believing the french horns are the power instrument of the brass section or believing you need 8+ horns to get a big brass sound
> Doubling everything or "dogpile" orchestration (pick a note and everybody pile on)
> Forgetting to give brass and woodwinds space to breathe
> Not using the woodwinds at all (greatly reduces the color palette)
> Relying too much on percussion for rhythmic interest
> #1 - Thinking orchestration is the problem when the problem is actually in the composition. That could mean bad harmony, chord voicings, voice-leading, elements fighting with each other, or a weak melody. You can't orchestrate your way out of compositional problems.


Jesus, JJP, I was going to go on an orchestration rant, but you nailed all my points already. :middle finger:.

So, I guess I'll just talk about how the Flyers suck, and how we're doomed to another 30 years of sports mediocrity in Philly. 

I'll add a couple more, that are variations of a theme:

1. Using the percussion (esp ethnic percussion) as the driving rhythm in orchestral pieces; Percussion should be (if you want to write great orchestrations) accents and colors, not a drum kit.
2. Registral issues. Writing chords too low in the register, creating harmonic mud. Look up classic "low register limits" in jazz arranging, and make sure your brass and strings don't duck down below those. And, before you say, "Well, Bernie Herrmann and Jimmy Horner did low register chords", look me in the eye, and tell me you're as good as either of those two.... Yeah, didn't think so. Watch your low registral limits.
3. Really thinking about your dynamics. Thinking about how a flute chord in piano would softly color against a harp in mf; thinking about what it means when a trumpet is forte, versus a violin section.
4. Getting off on walls of ethnic percussion as a primary force in your composition. It doesn't sustain formal interest; it's just a cheap hormone trick. Yes, I said it twice. Because it bears repeating.
5. Repeating JJP's thing about working more with woodwinds. For god's sake, every great theme written is stated in a woodwind at some point. Think about it.
There you go. Now go and study Ravel.

Mike


----------



## lsabina

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> having little understanding of the instruments you're writing for.


Exactly. Specifically ranges. Trumpets too high (i.e., always above the staff), flutes too low, etc.
Also, not understanding the power of unison writing or the benefits of melodic content voiced in octaves (or two octaves apart).


----------



## sIR dORT

Please keep this coming everybody. Extremely applicable.


----------



## erica-grace

Not eating enough chocolate before launching your notation program.


----------



## erica-grace

But seriously - and I heard Conrad Pope talk about this in a podcast - playing a five, six, or even seven note chord, and assigning all of those notes to the 1st Violins. Then playing another five, six, or seven note chord, and assigning all of those notes to the 2nd Violins. Then, doing the same for the Violas, Celli, and DBasses.


----------



## sIR dORT

erica-grace said:


> But seriously - and I heard Conrad Pope talk about this in a podcast - playing a five, six, or even seven note chord, and assigning all of those notes to the 1st Violins. Then playing another five, six, or seven note chord, and assigning all of those notes to the 2nd Violins. Then, doing the same for the Violas, Celli, and DBasses.


Not to that extreme of a level, but did that all the time when I was getting into composing initially. Turns out huge block chords in strings don't sound good with VIs and just are dumb period


----------



## ag75

erica-grace said:


> But seriously - and I heard Conrad Pope talk about this in a podcast - playing a five, six, or even seven note chord, and assigning all of those notes to the 1st Violins. Then playing another five, six, or seven note chord, and assigning all of those notes to the 2nd Violins. Then, doing the same for the Violas, Celli, and DBasses.


Can you provide a link to the Conrad Pope podcast? I would love to hear that


----------



## wonshu

ag75 said:


> Can you provide a link to the Conrad Pope podcast? I would love to hear that


Googled that for you (and me...):


----------



## NoamL

When I've orchestrated for composers who don't read sheet music (which is not my main line of work...) the most common error was just less/little/no knowledge of the relationship between register and foreground/background, or in other words orchestrating instruments for their inherent volume & penetrativeness. A good example would be a flute "solo" that was in the bottom half of the treble staff, and starting a maj3rd below that were some lush VlnI and VlnII lines. At mf. Well "I can hear it in the sequencer."  

Another mistake that plagues way more than just illiterate composers, is colliding parts. Just stuff on top of stuff on top of stuff with no clear foreground/support hierarchy. I've done this way too many times. More sound is not better, especially in the context of a real orchestra with limited forces where you have to conserve color. But inside a sequencer there's a strong temptation to 'add another part' because it helps hide how awfully unmusical samples generally are.


----------



## bryla

Dammit. Everything I thought of when clicking the thread has been said.

One thing else could be to understand articulations - not in terms of library patches. Way too many times I've had passages of marcato samples that the composer wanted marcato – and then some of those accented in a rhythmic pattern.

Also: thinking that divisi gives you more power just because it gives you more notes.


----------



## Mornats

sIR dORT said:


> Not to that extreme of a level, but did that all the time when I was getting into composing initially. Turns out huge block chords in strings don't sound good with VIs and just are dumb period



Same here yet a lot of sample library walkthroughs do just this so I thought it was what you were meant to do!

Seriously good tips everyone. I feel like I've been on a course and learned loads already!


----------



## Bullersten

Thank you all for your excellent contributions. Here is my executive summary for all your comments so far in the form of orchestration guidelines:

Use percussions sparsely, mainly for accenting.
Use all orchestral sections to make the overall sound richer.
Spread your harmonies across registers and do not overload the low end.
Learn the capabilities of each instrument (range, articulations, volume, dynamics, etc) and do not rely on VI libraries for that.
Learn how different instruments would interact at different registers.
Do not overuse doubling, especially at unison.
Before blaming orchestration, make sure that the composition stands on its own two feet harmonically and melodically.


----------



## Rob Elliott

All excellent points (and reminders). Maybe one more for mockup folks. LISTEN to YOUR music played live. Be prepare to be surprised - and not always in a good way.  (then extrapolate what you 'learned' to future writing/orchestrations/mockups.) Oh yea - humans have to rest and breath. Jeez!!!


----------



## jononotbono

erica-grace said:


> But seriously - and I heard Conrad Pope talk about this in a podcast - playing a five, six, or even seven note chord



Wish I could play chords with more than 4 notes


----------



## jononotbono

This is an excellent thread! A lot of great advice in here!


----------



## jonathanparham

Amazing resources at VI. I feel Like Alain's Orchestrating the Line series, late Peter Alexander's books, and Norman Ludwin's material cover several of these areas.


----------



## InLight-Tone

Unfortunately, many here in this thread are coming from the point of view that the classical orchestra is the be all end all in music achievement. I beg to differ...


----------



## CT

Who's suggesting that? I just see a lot of valuable insight into this one particular mode of music making.


----------



## jonathanparham

Farkle said:


> There you go. Now go and study Ravel.
> 
> Mike



I was working around the house yesterday and heard, what I thought was a Disney sound track. I wonder over to the playlist and it's Ravel's Daphnis Et Chloe.


----------



## d.healey

InLight-Tone said:


> Unfortunately, many here in this thread are coming from the point of view that the classical orchestra is the be all end all in music achievement. I beg to differ...


Well the OP did specifically ask about writing orchestral music.

If you're writing for a real orchestra then there are certain things to watch out for regardless of the particular genre. If you're writing for a virtual orchestra then many "rules" that apply in the real world can of course be ignored.


----------



## Sears Poncho

1. Lack of bowings/slurs in strings. Nothing can say "I don't know my stuff" more than this. Articulations come next, but bowings/slurs are a must. I don't mean "down bow", I mean logical slurs that can be easily converted into "bowings" by a player.

2. Unison writing in winds. Might work in band, in orchestra = no. 

3. Timpani. They can play 2-3 notes. Not 12.

4. Cues. Put them in. 

5. Parallel 4ths and 5ths are hard to tune, in addition to the "don't use them" from theory class. Don't use them.  If there are 2 flutes, don't have them play 4ths. 3rds or 6ths or octaves etc. are preferred. 

6. Strings can be independent of each other. Block chords with the "explode" function in Sibelius/Finale is for lazy people. They don't have to move together. 5 sections can have 5 different things going on if needed.

7. Brass will drown out strings. One could have 90 violins, doesn't matter. If ya want the strings to be heard, no/limited brass in that section. 

8. Feel free to use different dynamics. FF for Strings and harp. F for brass and percussion if they tend to be, umm, overzealous.

9. Rehearsals? LOL. No such thing. "Run-throughs". I have a new symphony chart being performed tomorrow and Saturday. One rehearsal for the whole show, tonight. That means the orchestra runs your chart, that's it. The parts have to be ready to go, there's no "well, at measure 32 I'd like"... no. Mahler and Ravel get rehearsal time. You and I? Not so much.

10. Don't talk. This goes with #9 a bit but... nobody needs a speech about this section representing man's inhumanity to man. Nobody needs "play this like silken wind in a graveyard". Nobody should need you to say anything. The players read the chart. If it's not self-explanatory to them, don't write it that way. They will get it.


----------



## ptram

Does all the above mean that I can't play low-register closed chords with that 12-horns patch?????

Paolo


----------



## FinGael

Sears Poncho said:


> 1. Lack of bowings/slurs in strings. Nothing can say "I don't know my stuff" more than this. Articulations come next, but bowings/slurs are a must. I don't mean "down bow", I mean logical slurs that can be easily converted into "bowings" by a player.
> 
> 2. Unison writing in winds. Might work in band, in orchestra = no.
> 
> 3. Timpani. They can play 2-3 notes. Not 12.
> 
> 4. Cues. Put them in.
> 
> 5. Parallel 4ths and 5ths are hard to tune, in addition to the "don't use them" from theory class. Don't use them.  If there are 2 flutes, don't have them play 4ths. 3rds or 6ths or octaves etc. are preferred.
> 
> 6. Strings can be independent of each other. Block chords with the "explode" function in Sibelius/Finale is for lazy people. They don't have to move together. 5 sections can have 5 different things going on if needed.
> 
> 7. Brass will drown out strings. One could have 90 violins, doesn't matter. If ya want the strings to be heard, no/limited brass in that section.
> 
> 8. Feel free to use different dynamics. FF for Strings and harp. F for brass and percussion if they tend to be, umm, overzealous.
> 
> 9. Rehearsals? LOL. No such thing. "Run-throughs". I have a new symphony chart being performed tomorrow and Saturday. One rehearsal for the whole show, tonight. That means the orchestra runs your chart, that's it. The parts have to be ready to go, there's no "well, at measure 32 I'd like"... no. Mahler and Ravel get rehearsal time. You and I? Not so much.
> 
> 10. Don't talk. This goes with #9 a bit but... nobody needs a speech about this section representing man's inhumanity to man. Nobody needs "play this like silken wind in a graveyard". Nobody should need you to say anything. The players read the chart. If it's not self-explanatory to them, don't write it that way. They will get it.



Sincerely - thank you.

Your post made me become aware of how novice I still am in this. Now time to get started in climbing from this bottomless pit - to one day greet the daylight again. 

Many thanks to other posters too. A great thread.


----------



## Damarus

Hey.

I like this thread.


----------



## Maxtrixbass

Excellent points all..

I would add not thinking horizontally, that is the harmony stacks vertically, but the flow of each part is disjointed. I play in orchestras and can spot an "amateur" piece by this alone. The result is music that doesn't really flow through time instead clunking from block to block.


----------



## Maxtrixbass

Rob Elliott said:


> All excellent points (and reminders). Maybe one more for mockup folks. LISTEN to YOUR music played live. Be prepare to be surprised - and not always in a good way.  (then extrapolate what you 'learned' to future writing/orchestrations/mockups.) Oh yea - humans have to rest and breath. Jeez!!!



This is an excellent point. I have had the good fortune to not only play regularly in orchestras, but to have had various pieces played by them. The perspective I got from both of these experiences is invaluable in my solo efforts to recreate that soundscape. You just don't get that by listening to recordings or even sitting in at concerts. Rehearsal times alone are great learning opportunities ("can I hear the basses, cellos and bassoon at measure...").

Oh and I too lament the general lack of woodwinds over the last 20 years....


----------



## InLight-Tone

d.healey said:


> Well the OP did specifically ask about writing orchestral music.


Ah true that, I just started to sense a bit snootiness and my radar went off...


----------



## Bullersten

InLight-Tone said:


> Ah true that, I just started to sense a bit snootiness and my radar went off...



My question was indeed around orchestral music because it is the style I am practicing and butchering on a regular basis =;] Nothing to do with what I see as musical excellence.


----------



## Maxtrixbass

Sears Poncho said:


> 9. Rehearsals? LOL. No such thing. "Run-throughs". I have a new symphony chart being performed tomorrow and Saturday. One rehearsal for the whole show, tonight. That means the orchestra runs your chart, that's it. The parts have to be ready to go, there's no "well, at measure 32 I'd like"... no. Mahler and Ravel get rehearsal time. You and I? Not so much.
> 
> 10. Don't talk. This goes with #9 a bit but... nobody needs a speech about this section representing man's inhumanity to man. Nobody needs "play this like silken wind in a graveyard". Nobody should need you to say anything. The players read the chart. If it's not self-explanatory to them, don't write it that way. They will get it.



#9 Glad its not just me.  On a positive note, getting maybe one run through before a performance will quickly take the slop out of your thinking. My first orchestral run through was a mild disaster. I went back and learned from my mistakes and never presumed I would get a second chance. I still think that way even at home with my virtual recordings. If I'm writing for flute, I need to know about flute...

#10. This is really a great point if you do get live players to play your material and a common abyss that I've seen people fall into: One you hand them the music it is THEIR baby, not yours. Again, it forces the attention to detail before it reaches the player, even if the "player" is you.


----------



## Bullersten

Maxtrixbass said:


> Excellent points all..
> 
> I would add not thinking horizontally, that is the harmony stacks vertically, but the flow of each part is disjointed. I play in orchestras and can spot an "amateur" piece by this alone. The result is music that doesn't really flow through time instead clunking from block to block.



I totally agree with your assessment there but I would put this down to composition problems, and not orchestration.


----------



## JJP

InLight-Tone said:


> Unfortunately, many here in this thread are coming from the point of view that the classical orchestra is the be all end all in music achievement.


3 things:
- No
- No
- Definitely not.

Principles of orchestration work for all genres because they are based upon the physics of how sound and instruments work. The bulk of my work deals with non-classical groups.


----------



## bryla

Just saw a bit of an orchestration tutorial on YouTube which reminded me of this common mistake:
- Thinking orchestration is about doubling.


----------



## CT

JJP said:


> Principles of orchestration work for all genres because they are based upon the physics of how sound and instruments work. The bulk of my work deals with non-classical groups.



I constantly say this to friends who are more active in the songwriter/band/group kind of thing, that they should be "orchestrating" even with that kind of ensemble, rather than waiting for mixing to make it all fit together.


----------



## J-M

miket said:


> I constantly say this to friends who are more active in the songwriter/band/group kind of thing, that they should be "orchestrating" even with that kind of ensemble, rather than waiting for mixing to make it all fit together.



You see this all the time. When I was starting out, I watched a lot of mixing tutorials and in one video the instructor said "a good mix starts with a well written song=every instrument has room to breathe and is in its right place". The genre of music doesn't matter...well, if it's black metal then everything is going to sound like a bunch of angry bees anyways, so might as well turn that gain to eleven. xD


----------



## Maxtrixbass

Bullersten said:


> I totally agree with your assessment there but I would put this down to composition problems, and not orchestration.


Ah, yes, you are completely right. Perhaps confusing the two in the process results in many of the "flailing about" aspects that include parts/lines that individually make no sense.

For example, I wonder how many people start with a "short score", then orchestrate as opposed to loading the "all track template" (or full part music paper..) and having a go at it en masse. Some people can sort the process out, but it seems easier for the composition aspects to go off the rails when the basics aren't nailed down before expanding into a number of orchestrated little pieces.


----------



## Bluemount Score

Damn, music seems to be kinda complicated.


----------



## NoamL

Rob Elliott said:


> All excellent points (and reminders). Maybe one more for mockup folks. LISTEN to YOUR music played live. Be prepare to be surprised - and not always in a good way.  (then extrapolate what you 'learned' to future writing/orchestrations/mockups.) Oh yea - humans have to rest and breath. Jeez!!!



So true about learning the hard way Rob  I made a really embarrassing error in my first LA recording session, several of my cues had considerable tempo automation to make the mockup feel more natural, and it constantly tripped up the musicians. It's much better to give them a flat tempo and just trust them to play "around" the click or even to turn the click off and let the conductor watch the projector and lead the orchestra between hitpoints once they've rehearsed the cue once or twice.

The musicians are our co-artists, they have brains as well... they don't need to be "programmed" the way we program our VIs. I try to keep sheet music pretty minimal looking for the same reason. The musicians know what they're doing! 



InLight-Tone said:


> Unfortunately, many here in this thread are coming from the point of view that the classical orchestra is the be all end all in music achievement. I beg to differ...



I think many of these rules still apply if you're collaging sounds in a more record-production / Remote Control style of music. You're still balancing the same equation - register, mass, color, dynamics.

You just have more freedom with VOLUME and with SPACE, as opposed to a non-striped session where everybody is playing at the same reference volume and they are positioned within the same space. But a tender, quiet solo violin will still have its inherent register (high) mass (soloistic) color (bright/resiny) and dynamics (piano) even if you raise it unrealistically above a mass of Zimmery brass and give it a huge ethereal reverb tail, or whatever other post production trick.


----------



## Maxtrixbass

miket said:


> I constantly say this to friends who are more active in the songwriter/band/group kind of thing, that they should be "orchestrating" even with that kind of ensemble, rather than waiting for mixing to make it all fit together.


Yes yes yes. This is a big pitfall in many many styles of music. I think we've gotten so used to amplification and mixing tricks that can minimize this, but often if just boils down to an "orchestration" that is way out of balance. Those big band horns came in between the vocal lines...

A good orchestration in any style of music mixes itself. There is only so much that can be done to music poorly arranged to try to get that balance back. 

I used to do audio engineering and came in to mix a track from a band that had 29 tracks of guitar. The guitar player kept saying "I can't hear XYZ part". Finally I just muted 28 tracks and he realized that 29th part was already too loud. It was a problem of density...and poor orchestration/arrangement.

Two forte trumpets will bury two violins. Two steam roller guitars will bury the vocal. Its not just volume, but the way the tones intereact. Orchestration is about color for sure, but also about balance....in any style of music.


----------



## Zero&One

That sinking feeling, when you glance from your tablet to your piece and realise it contains most of the “do not’s” here.

Goldmine of info here though, thanks guys!


----------



## NoamL

For some reason HZ has a reputation for being the "piles and piles of layers" guy. He is that on some scores but on lots of them, he just has 3 or 4 ideas going at a time, they're very distinctly colored too.

It's really not that different from the orchestration style of classical composers except it's "liberated" from only using instruments, to using a much larger collection of sound sources, but with the same principle of not using them all the time.

A lot of trailer music drew inspiration from TDK and Inception but isn't as minimalistic:



Thomas Newman is also a master of this concept imo. He might have sounds that only appear one time in one cue in the entire score, and over the course of the score there are hundreds of these little "sound cameos," and they all add this wonderful variety of color without wearing out.


----------



## Rob Elliott

This is a thread that all of us could (should) read each morning BEFORE the start our work for the day.


----------



## Maxtrixbass

Bluemount Score said:


> Damn, music seems to be kinda complicated.




Maybe you are on to something. Maybe one of the biggest orchestration mistakes is to do too much too quickly . Subdivide and conquer..

Let's say you want that big tutti grand finale. It seems more manageable to break it down into smaller steps, such as..

Phase one: a theme (or the like)
Phase two: 4 parts to harmonize/expand the theme
Phase 3: orchestrate one "main" group (ie strings, brass, woodwinds) from the 4 parts
Phase 4-5: Orchestrate the other groups as needed from the same 4 parts

My biggest weak link is brass. I just don't understand them as well as I do strings and woodwinds. In that light I have to really break down the steps when writing for brass or my loose variables really get out of control. In the case of phase 3-5 above, if one of the groups involves brass I have to break down the 4 parts individually as the relate to each of the brass instruments in question. If I just cut and paste the sound may be pretty wonky.


----------



## sbarrettmusic

JJP and Mike pretty much nailed it. Also this x 1000:



NoamL said:


> Another mistake that plagues way more than just illiterate composers, is colliding parts. Just stuff on top of stuff on top of stuff with no clear foreground/support hierarchy. I've done this way too many times. More sound is not better, especially in the context of a real orchestra with limited forces where you have to conserve color. But inside a sequencer there's a strong temptation to 'add another part' because it helps hide how awfully unmusical samples generally are.



To expand on this, sometimes I'll get a cue to orchestrate and I'll find notes in the string midi, for example, that have very strange dissonances, weird half step rubs, or just completely wrong chords, but they are not audible in the rough demo because they are buried under a bunch of thick synths. This tells me that the composer isn't thinking compositionally, but rather in "layers" of sound, adding parts on top of parts until it sounds big enough, or whatever. Obviously this is especially true in the "epic" style of scoring. There is a way to do the "wall of sound" the right way, but it still takes a lot of training and knowledge. Unfortunately the DAW has made this type of writing the most easy and convenient, thinking in tracks rather than musical elements. A good orchestration has maybe 1-3 musical elements happening at once most of the time. As they say, less is more!


----------



## CT

NoamL said:


> on lots of them, he just has 3 or 4 ideas going at a time, they're very distinctly colored too.



This is a key thing that sets Hans apart from the thousands of imitators. He can get away with simple because he knows exactly what simple things to employ, and when.


----------



## J-M

sbarrettmusic said:


> To expand on this, sometimes I'll get a cue to orchestrate and I'll find notes in the string midi, for example, that have very strange dissonances, weird half step rubs, or just completely wrong chords, but they are not audible in the rough demo because they are buried under a bunch of thick synths.



QUILTY! In the heat of the moment some of these things may slip into the piano roll, but I try to check every now then that I have "correct" notes in every part.


----------



## Bullersten

sbarrettmusic said:


> To expand on this, sometimes I'll get a cue to orchestrate and I'll find notes in the string midi, for example, that have very strange dissonances, weird half step rubs, or just completely wrong chords, but they are not audible in the rough demo because they are buried under a bunch of thick synths. This tells me that the composer isn't thinking compositionally, but rather in "layers" of sound, adding parts on top of parts until it sounds big enough, or whatever.



You can advice your customers to do the following: Collapse all tonal instrument parts into a single midi file (removing unison) and play it with a piano patch. Harmonic oddities should stick out more easily.

I actually pushed the screening further by making a script that analyses the file bar-by-bar and identifies the chords and matching scales in each. If it detects a modulation I was not expecting, I know there is a bad midi input in there.


----------



## sbarrettmusic

Bullersten said:


> You can advice your customers to do the following: Collapse all tonal instrument parts into a single midi file (removing unison) and play it with a piano patch. Harmonic oddities should stick out more easily.



Those customers are typically stressing over producer notes, deadlines, etc. hence why finding those discrepancies falls on my plate


----------



## Mike Fox

Maxtrixbass said:


> Excellent points all..
> 
> I would add not thinking horizontally, that is the harmony stacks vertically, but the flow of each part is disjointed. I play in orchestras and can spot an "amateur" piece by this alone. The result is music that doesn't really flow through time instead clunking from block to block.


Could you post an example of this? I'm not sure i follow.

Edit*

Actually, i think i know what you mean. It's like writing different chunks of music, and sloppily glewing it together in hopes that point A will flow to point Z seamlessly?


----------



## Farkle

NoamL said:


> When I've orchestrated for composers who don't read sheet music (which is not my main line of work...) the most common error was just less/little/no knowledge of the relationship between register and foreground/background, or in other words orchestrating instruments for their inherent volume & penetrativeness.



Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, are you SERIOUS, Noam? I can't even imagine that. Damn, I need to sell my services out... I can't imagine trying to actually compete in film and TV without being able to read and write at least a lead sheet for a soloist, let alone an arrangement chart. Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but as a musician, why wouldn't you want to unlock the secrets of Nelson Riddle, Duke Ellington, Ravel, Stravinsky, with reading sheet music? Hell, even the Beatles had that moment in Penny Lane, where Paul sang the picc tpt part to the player, and he transcribed it out on sheet music...

Then again, that's probably why I'm stuck in Philly, with no career to speak of. 

Mike


----------



## NoamL

sbarrettmusic said:


> Those customers are typically stressing over producer notes, deadlines, etc. hence why finding those discrepancies falls on my plate



And during the revision process it's possible to change one part while accidentally forgetting to change other parts that are doubling it!


----------



## Bullersten

Farkle said:


> Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but as a musician, why wouldn't you want to unlock the secrets of Nelson Riddle, Duke Ellington, Ravel, Stravinsky, with reading sheet music?



Maybe because some do not need centuries old music notations to internalise musical information... I find exceptions to the idea that you need to read/write sheet music to be an accomplished composer/musician, all too common to be ignored. Is it telling us something that we find hard to believe? Not that we are no match to them, but more that we should be more flexible and less hellbent on how to approach this craft.


----------



## ThomasNL

d.healey said:


> Using virtual instruments as a guide for the interaction between instruments.


How would you combat this? Most of my time is spend making music with virtual instruments. I try to listen to classical music now and again but i feel like the only real way is by having you music scored by a real orchestra.


----------



## Bullersten

Mike Fox said:


> Actually, i think i know what you mean. It's like writing different chunks of music, and sloppily glewing it together in hopes that point A will flow to point Z seamlessly?



You would hear this on any first draft I come up with. The reason is a mixture between being too keen on the copy/paste functionality and thinking classical music works like EDM.


----------



## mikeh-375

I agree 100% with @Sears Poncho about articulation and bowing for strings. One does not need to know how to mark precise in-depth bowing instructions (but that can be learnt to great advantage), but as bowing is inextricably linked to phrasing and musicality, one needs to know how the music written should be expressed and articulated and be competent enough with the basics to be able to signify the intent.
I utterly disagree with opinions I've read over the years by those who think it not worth understanding or marking in bowing, because players will write in their own bowing. Yes, they do alter bowing, but if one can give them a clue about what is intended, the revised bowing will be more faithful and serve the music better.

It's not that hard to grasp the fundamentals and physicality of bowing, it just requires a lot of study and time. This problem of, quite frankly, examples of ignorance when it comes to idiomatic writing leads to another beef about orchestration for me at least. Poor orchestration is often imv, a result of not considering instruments and their capabilities as individual sound, in combination and expressive potential at the compositional stage - ie the composing being led by the medium and its idiomatic traits and a consequent synergy between utilising instrumental technique and the actual notes written. If one has for example, a good knowledge of string technique and bowing practice, one can exploit to great effect techniques such as jete over a quadruple stop. But doing this one needs to be cognizant of what is do-able in the orchestral string medium before pen even goes to paper - that is the synergy, the technical knowledge informing the creative output - that I find missing in a lot of poorly scored work.

(I should say that my comments are pertinent only to those who want their work performed live and have aspirations beyond a DAW)


----------



## bryla

ThomasNL said:


> I feel like the only real way is by having you music scored by a real orchestra.


Unfortunately this is the way to learn it. When you see how musicians/conductors react to your score and how your vision sounds read directly of the paper (without you need to explain things) is the way you learn orchestration.


----------



## dcoscina

This is probably more a compositional thought but writing with less resources is helpful in developing one’s contrapuntal skills and arranging chops. Having a chamber sized group with single winds and small brass and maybe one percussion player forces you to think about different techniques in order to attain a full sound whether it’s employing more counterpoint, ornaments (trills and fingered trems really thicken the harmonies and make a passage sound active and exciting).

working in notation programs for me at least is immensely beneficial. I’m working on a series of pieces for brass quintet to be performed in 2020 and it’s exceedingly helpful to switch from full score to individual parts. What works as a whole sometimes doesn’t work for the individual. I also can’t stand looking at ties whole notes in notation. Conrad Pope also mentioned that we are writing for players not simply the instrument. Adding some syncopated rhythms even if the instrument line calls for a pedal livens up a part and makes it more engaging for the performer (especially in smaller groups). Going over parts also helps with voice leading and ensuring everything works as it should. 

Additionally, having friends that play in an orchestra is gold. Asking them practical questions about their instrument or even showing them a part from a Score you’ve written usually yields excellent feedback.

this is one of the best topics I’ve seen on this forum btw. Amazingly insightful. Thanks to all who have contributed. It’s been edifying to say the least.


----------



## d.healey

ThomasNL said:


> How would you combat this? Most of my time is spend making music with virtual instruments. I try to listen to classical music now and again but i feel like the only real way is by having you music scored by a real orchestra.


You don't need an orchestra, you just need a few musicians, even one is better than zero. Find local musicians and write a bit of music for them. Facebook makes it pretty easy to find a player and what I've found is musicians know other musicians and are willing to help put you in contact with them.

You should be a musician too if you aren't already.


----------



## Maxtrixbass

Mike Fox said:


> Could you post an example of this? I'm not sure i follow.
> 
> Edit*
> 
> Actually, i think i know what you mean. It's like writing different chunks of music, and sloppily glewing it together in hopes that point A will flow to point Z seamlessly?


Its that too, but more that the parts themselves do not flow from note to note.
Here is a short example. In the first bar the notes just jump around, they cross each other, there are big holes in the spacing... the harmony of the chord is there, but the flow of the lines is disjointed. The second example does flow better. Visually it even looks more "compact". I've seen whole scores for large ensembles that look like the first example and although the harmony is there it sounds like a big mess.

This is more of a problem of composition, but it can easily happen when one orchestrates without having the lines worked out first. It becomes more obvious if you print out each players part. In their part there is only the horizontal line... Its amazingly easy to do if one plays "chords" into their DAW. The chord harmony (the vertical) may make sense, but the flow of the lines (horizontal) isn't there, its just blocks of disjointed harmony,


----------



## Bluemount Score

Farkle said:


> 1. Using the percussion (esp ethnic percussion) as the driving rhythm in orchestral pieces; Percussion should be (if you want to write great orchestrations) accents and colors, not a drum kit.


What are most common examples for ethnic percussion? Taikos? And?


----------



## Farkle

Bluemount Score said:


> What are most common examples for ethnic percussion? Taikos? And?



Djembes, and also Japanese Hand Drums (Daikos, I believe). To a lesser extent, Bodhrans and Frame Drums (for that celtic war sound).

Mike


----------



## d.healey

Bluemount Score said:


> What are most common examples for ethnic percussion? Taikos? And?


I think that depends on the music you're writing. If you're writing "EPIC MUSIC" then massive taiko drums are what you'll find everywhere.

If you're writing something to create a particular feeling or invoke a specific area of the world then you'll probably find yourself using the percussion that's native to that region. Gamalan, gongs, box drums, log drums, tabla, dhol, etc.

There are many many many percussion instruments, probably more than any other instrument family.


----------



## Farkle

Bullersten said:


> Maybe because some do not need centuries old music notations to internalise musical information... I find exceptions to the idea that you need to read/write sheet music to be an accomplished composer/musician, all too common to be ignored. Is it telling us something that we find hard to believe? Not that we are no match to them, but more that we should be more flexible and less hellbent on how to approach this craft.



Opinion noted. FWIW, the above artists I listed were alive an composing within the last 150 years. However, I understand that your post was referring to the centuries old music _notational_ system to internalise musical information. 

Anyways, you have your opinion, but let's not hijack this thread, it's about avoiding orchestration mistakes. I think we've just uncovered another one.

Mike


----------



## mikeh-375

Bullersten said:


> Maybe because some do not need centuries old music notations to internalise musical information... I find exceptions to the idea that you need to read/write sheet music to be an accomplished composer/musician, all too common to be ignored. Is it telling us something that we find hard to believe? Not that we are no match to them, but more that we should be more flexible and less hellbent on how to approach this craft.



It all depends on your goal. If you want to maximise your expression in orchestral writing, you should learn your craft...composition and orchestration.


----------



## dcoscina

I’ve mentioned this before but attending live orchestra performances is gold. Especially if you’re very familiar with the work, that way you can focus on the orchestra and what they are doing. There’s something very different about a live orchestra vs a recorded one. 
It’s worth mentioning that Holst’s The Planets is scored for a heavily fortified orchestra but Shostakovich’s 10th has more Modest resources yet sounds just as big (I’ve heard both live a few times). Orchestration cannot be under valued here.


----------



## Pablocrespo

Since we are talking on writing for orchestra I want to know your opinion on this matter:

I have read that when writing for a first sight recording is not very wise to over notate, so, in my first orchestra recording the parts were "rhythmically sparse", I favored staccato dots vs small note values (sixteenths followed by a silence), and so on.

What are your views on this? Do you prefer to notate the exact rhythms at the risk of putting too much info on the paper, or do you prefer less info at the risk of having to go over it with the conductor?


----------



## Loïc D

Any tips for big band orchestration too ?


----------



## Sears Poncho

mikeh-375 said:


> (I should say that my comments are pertinent only to those who want their work performed live and have aspirations beyond a DAW)


I think your wise comments apply to both real and DAW. A basic understanding of bowings, woodwind techniques, limitations of "real" timpani, ranges in brass etc. will be helpful in mockups and just general musical knowledge.



Bullersten said:


> Maybe because some do not need centuries old music notations to internalise musical information... I find exceptions to the idea that you need to read/write sheet music to be an accomplished composer/musician, all too common to be ignored.



I think you might be confusing "information" with "music snobbery", different subjects. Supposedly, Paul McCartney cannot read music beyond a minimal level. He's one of my musical heroes of course, I don't think anyone thinks "man, that Sir Paul might have made something of himself if he avoided parallel 4ths and knew Detache bowings". I don't know much about Depeche Mode besides how much I like crankin' them in my car. I don't care about their knowledge of Neapolitan 6ths, I like their tunes. 

Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Brahms, Shakespeare, Dickens- we study them because they knew their shit. Remember the old adage: "One has to know the rules in order to break them". 

A comparison= opera singers can sing "normally" too. There are some heavy metal singers who have studied with opera/vocal coaches. Most are like "hey man, I'll sing like a doofus", but the wise ones understand that vocal control and technique is universal. They don't see an opera singer, they see a "singer", one capable of holding a high C for 15 seconds without fainting.


----------



## mikeh-375

Sears Poncho said:


> I think your wise comments apply to both real and DAW. A basic understanding of bowings, woodwind techniques, limitations of "real" timpani, ranges in brass etc. will be helpful in mockups and just general musical knowledge.



My comments do indeed apply to DAW work SearsP. I suppose I didn't want to appear too dismissive hence the qualification as to where it really matters to know the craft and art of scoring. It is also true to say its easy to bluff scoring in a DAW and true to say that folks actually make a living from not knowing the finer points when writing for media. Ultimately though if one does not learn how to do it properly as we both know, it can stymie progress, certainly limit creative options and perhaps worse still, stop you from getting your head above the digital scoring morass and be noticed.


----------



## mikeh-375

LowweeK said:


> Any tips for big band orchestration too ?



Yes... as a general rule only, close spaced section chords for fast moving material and wider spacing for slow moving harmony tends to work well. When scoring for 5 saxes, one can try 5 part drop 2 spacing. That is, in a five note closely spaced chord, drop the 2nd from top note down an octave for good spacing if the saxes are 2 alto, 2 tenor and a baritone. Not a rule to be slavishly followed, but it is worth remembering. All other spacings are available as in orchestral scoring and the imagination allied to knowledge is as always one of the most powerful ways to score.


----------



## nolotrippen

Rob Elliott said:


> All excellent points (and reminders). Maybe one more for mockup folks. LISTEN to YOUR music played live. Be prepare to be surprised - and not always in a good way.  (then extrapolate what you 'learned' to future writing/orchestrations/mockups.) Oh yea - humans have to rest and breath. Jeez!!!


"humans have to rest and breath"

danged humans


----------



## Nicktwo85

This is genuinely one of the best threads I've seen on here. Some really great information / insights.


----------



## jonathanparham

Rob Elliott said:


> This is a thread that all of us could (should) read each morning BEFORE the start our work for the day.


I have some arranging to finish, been procrastinating on the forum, and then I read all the posts. . .


----------



## dcoscina

I don't know about everyone else here, but a concert work, even a 3 minute one, takes weeks for me to compose, orchestrate, revise, orchestrate, revise, lather rinse repeat. When I compose in a DAW, there's a fair bit of ostrich in the sand going on, but when I'm staring at Dorico and only listening via NotePerformer where sonic distractions aren't present, I'm all too aware of the shortcomings of the piece and tweak it over and over.

Composing in DAWs is fun. Instant gratification. Immediate. Enjoyable.
Composing in notation is work. Rewarding, but it's work. A lot of it.....

EDIT- one other point worth noting- Notation programs more or less force one to think horizontally because of the ergonomics. DAWs foster the chordal, vertical playing. This leads to some of the issues discussed in this awesome thread.

One final observation: whenever I'm truly composing, I'm normally using a 4 octave Korg MicroKey or some little keyboard. I'm not on my Kurzweil PC3x because I don't need that kind of range when plodding away in Dorico. Liszt, revered as the master pianist, had this to work on when composing. I even noticed Alan Silvestri uses a Nektar 5 octave controller with Cubase/Dorico. 

Moral of the story- composing is not the same as playing.


----------



## Bullersten

Sears Poncho said:


> I think you might be confusing "information" with "music snobbery", different subjects.
> 
> Remember the old adage: "One has to know the rules in order to break them".



Hehe, I was only stating that different people can come to master a skill using different approaches. There is no one-size-fits-all way to learn something in my view. Everyone needs to find what works best for who they are, and develop their style accordingly. If David Gahan studied Debussy and Rachmaninoff, would Depeche Mode have even formed? And if they had, would you be a fan of their music? Interesting question isn't it?

I do not think there is a single orchestration guideline listed on here that I have not broken dozens of times already. As you rightly say, I did not even know these guidelines existed, that's why the various contributions to this thread are so helpful.


----------



## NoamL

Pablocrespo said:


> Since we are talking on writing for orchestra I want to know your opinion on this matter:
> 
> I have read that when writing for a first sight recording is not very wise to over notate, so, in my first orchestra recording the parts were "rhythmically sparse", I favored staccato dots vs small note values (sixteenths followed by a silence), and so on.
> 
> What are your views on this? Do you prefer to notate the exact rhythms at the risk of putting too much info on the paper, or do you prefer less info at the risk of having to go over it with the conductor?



the classical interpretation of a staccato mark is half value.

So these are the same thing to a classical orchestra. But the first one is much, much more readable. The second one definitely feels like someone just threw their DAW MIDI export into Finale.

For pizzicatos this rule applies even more so. IMO Pizzicatos should be notated as filling their entire beat (meaning mostly quarter notes, and using smaller notes when there are more notes per beat). Notating a more "exact" value of a pizzicato or using a pizzicato with a staccato mark can be confusing. Unless you specifically want to mute the note ringout at a particular time.


----------



## Kent

Sears Poncho said:


> Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Brahms, Shakespeare, Dickens- we study them because they knew their shit. Remember the old adage: "One has to know the rules in order to break them".


Arnold Shönberg saw his "rule breaking" as a logical progression from his earlier tonal works. A lot of people don't seem to remember that he wasn't just trying to be "edgy."

:edit: Same with Picasso.


----------



## lsabina

LowweeK said:


> Any tips for big band orchestration too ?



😄


----------



## sbarrettmusic

Maxtrixbass said:


> Its that too, but more that the parts themselves do not flow from note to note.
> Here is a short example. In the first bar the notes just jump around, they cross each other, there are big holes in the spacing... the harmony of the chord is there, but the flow of the lines is disjointed. The second example does flow better. Visually it even looks more "compact". I've seen whole scores for large ensembles that look like the first example and although the harmony is there it sounds like a big mess.
> 
> This is more of a problem of composition, but it can easily happen when one orchestrates without having the lines worked out first. It becomes more obvious if you print out each players part. In their part there is only the horizontal line... Its amazingly easy to do if one plays "chords" into their DAW. The chord harmony (the vertical) may make sense, but the flow of the lines (horizontal) isn't there, its just blocks of disjointed harmony,



This is a great example of a problem mentioned a few times in this thread, VOICE LEADING! This is why it is so beneficial to study counterpoint. Learning to create individual lines that are musical while also managing the big picture (melody, harmony, etc.) will naturally lead to better orchestration. When composing in a DAW it's easy to lose sense of the individual lines of music because of the nature of the process. Even in music that uses non-orchestral instruments, or music that is only synth based and not to be played by live musicians, if you follow these orchestration principles you will end up with a better sounding piece of music.

I teach a pop/rock band, and if I see a guitarist playing full voice barre chords on a funk tune, I direct them to watch some Nile Rodgers masterclasses on YouTube and learn how to use 2-3 note chord voicings, how to set their tone, how to articulate the notes, etc. Range, register, and articulation are basic orchestration fundamentals that apply to all styles of music.


----------



## Farkle

Bullersten said:


> Hehe, I was only stating that different people can come to master a skill using different approaches. There is no one-size-fits-all way to learn something in my view. Everyone needs to find what works best for who they are, and develop their style accordingly. If David Gahan studied Debussy and Rachmaninoff, would Depeche Mode have even formed? And if they had, would you be a fan of their music? Interesting question isn't it?
> 
> I do not think there is a single orchestration guideline listed on here that I have not broken dozens of times already. As you rightly say, I did not even know these guidelines existed, that's why the various contributions to this thread are so helpful.



Can you post some links to your _orchestral _works, please? I'd like to hear them. Specifically, the ones where you broke these rules.

Mike


----------



## Henu

Bullersten said:


> Everyone needs to find what works best for who they are, and develop their style accordingly.



And everyone with half a brain understands that continuing developing those one-handed duets for that handsaw and the untuned piano don't get them most likely anywhere.


----------



## Bullersten

Farkle said:


> Can you post some links to your _orchestral _works, please? I'd like to hear them. Specifically, the ones where you broke these rules.
> 
> Mike



Oh do not hold your breath!! There is a playlist called "Pure Orchestral" on my soundcloud which is a permanent work-in-progress. Somehow, these tracks still sound clumsy in parts, so the rule breaking you can hear is most likely a lack of skill (or taste maybe) rather than a creative statement.


----------



## Sears Poncho

An interesting thing to consider: If someone says "Write/play something that sounds atonal", a surprising number of people can't do it. This actually did surprise me. Years ago I wanted my girlfriend's sister, a semi-pro flautist, to play something "atonal" on a track. She couldn't do it. It's because our perception of "atonal" has a lot of "rules" as well. An interval of a major 7th or minor 2nd would be a good starting point. 7 against 4 will sound weird, I know this. So, the point of "rules" isn't always to be "Man, that's old fuddy-dud music, Poindexter". It can work both ways. Often, the cutting-edge musicians and artists are following more "rules" than the conformist, simply because they are intentionally going against the grain... but they know they are. Far more rare is a person like Charles Ives, who was so out there and groundbreaking that he was probably from a different planet.


----------



## Farkle

Bullersten said:


> Oh do not hold your breath!! There is a playlist called "Pure Orchestral" on my soundcloud which is a permanent work-in-progress. Somehow, these tracks still sound clumsy in parts, so the rule breaking you can hear is most likely a lack of skill (or taste maybe) rather than a creative statement.



First, thank you for sharing your playlist. It takes guts to push your stuff out for the world to see.

Second, I find it interesting that you state "the rule breaking you hear is most likely a lack of skill"... I am of the mindset that studying how the great orchestrators successfully write is a way to ensure that one would not break rules due to lack of skill...

and the way to study the great orchestrators is not by ear, but by reading their scores, to see all of the nuance that goes into the passages that just jump out at you.

So, in an earlier post, you mention that you can find exceptions to the idea that you need to read/write sheet music to be an accomplished musician/composer.

I challenge you to name any accomplished _orchestral composer_ who does not know how to read/write and study sheet music. I can't think of any one. And, since this thread is for advice from experienced orchestrators (of which I'm one), and since it's about writing orchestral music, (which it is), then maybe it's important to listen to the advice that _you_ (as the original OP) asked for.

I mean, really? you asked experienced orchestrators for their opinion, then when one gives it to you, you disagree with their statement and state that . That actually smacks of serious ego.

And to say, "we need to be more flexible about learning how to orchestrate", implies a serious sense of self-importance. So, before you become more flexible, have you studied Mendelssohn's tone poems? Tchaikovsky's ballets? Bruckner and Wagner? Stravinsky's big three ballets? Copland's ballets? Debussy's tone poems? Have you actually _done the hard work_?

No. No you haven't. Because, I can hear it in all three of your tracks. You've dipped and dabbled here and there, and tried to build things with pithy questionnaires, that experienced composers are trying to help you with. But here's the nasty truth.

_You have to put in the flight time. _You have to listen to these great scores, and figure out how they did it. And no, transcribing is not enough. You need to _see_ how Ravel does arpeggios with artificial harmonics in the strings in his pieces to get that glassy texture. 

Okay, I'm getting worked up. I wish you well, I really do. But this cyclical argument really wearies me. People who are pro, who really want to make their craft work, know that _it takes daily hard grit work._ and there is no substitute for that. So, your choice, man. You can keep listening to random pieces, and fumbling through "orchestral works"... or you can suck it up, deep dive, and start really learning the beauty and majesty of how to write colorful, emotional, dramatic, and narrative orchestral music. 

Choice is yours, not mine.

Mike


----------



## Sears Poncho

Info on string writing. Much of it should apply to Midi as well.

1. Strings don't tire easily, they can play most of the time. The sound is also easier to deal with than constant winds would be, don't worry about "overworking" the strings.

2. Strings have an enormous range. Take advantage. Don't always used closed voicing, use open voicing and take advantage of the whole range.

3. String players are the most difficult to deal with. You'll see. 

4. Pizz-arco. It takes a bit of time to move the bow. Try to have a quarter note rest between transitioning from one to the other.

5. Strings will never be loud enough, and rarely overpower anything unless it's a solo wind etc. Don't worry about the strings being "too loud", it almost never happens. The opposite is the worry, strings will get buried. 

6. Bartok Pizz can render an instrument out of tune. If you must write one, write it near the end.

7. Col legno. Bows are expensive. Don't.

8. Divisi. It's tricky and can backfire. Good for textures and pads. Can be difficult with melodies. Changes the power of the section.

9. The higher in register you write, the more problems you'll have.

10. When violin 1 is playing in the high register, double with violin 2 an octave lower. Intonation.

11. In the high register, avoid 3rds. Try 6ths.

12. Listen to "Truly" by Lionel Richie, the last minute or so. Listen to the violins. Don't ever do that. It's too high and sounds like garbage. Check it out, you'll agree.

13. Viola is not 3rd violin, it's viola. If anything, it's more "high cello". They love playing on the C string. 

14. Don't write too high for viola. Listen to Shostakovich 5 first mvmt, right before it gets to the middle "animated" part. It scares violists to death. 

15. Viola jokes aside, viola is the heart and soul of the strings. Use that to your advantage. Think "interesting inner lines" instead of "oom pah". Violins and cellos tend to showboat but the true "string sound" means having a good viola presence.

16. Cello- whenever I see someone doing a sample library demo on youTube, I usually think "Why are they playing so high?". Granted, it "can", and it times should, but the sound is about the middle and lower registers. Like the viola, it's that "inner" and lower sound that is the backbone. It can be a bass instrument as well, it's a switch hitter. But if there is a good string bass presence, it can really fill out the middle and lower frequencies.

17. Cello can take the melody, it projects. Viola doesn't project as much, cello gets the sound out. There's a tendency to always give the melody to violin, but cello can handle it if the section is big enough. 

18. Don't be afraid to double melodies with strings. If it's that important, have all of them (except bass) play it, in octaves of course. Rachmaninoff does this in the 2nd piano concerto. Others do too. In symphony "pops" it's done as well. It really shows the volume differences, the fact that you would need all the strings when dealing with a full orch. or with a rhythm section.

19. String bass players can play more than you think. Watch one play "The Messiah" or the 3rd mvmt of Beethoven 5. They don't always have to play oom pah, they can have chops and play licks. 

20. There are 2 violin sections. This is probably the one orchestration technique that separates the good and bad writers. They can do the same thing, they can do completely different things. Sometimes for Pops Charts, there will be a "Violin 1 and 2" part, meaning the same part and 2nds play the lower notes if there are any. The orchestrator for this? Lazy, lazy, lazy. Or in a hurry, which is slightly better. Either way, there was a lot of potential that they didn't use. Having 2 independent parts can be huge. Not just melody/harmony, one can play melody and one can do licks, ostinatos, oom pah (Sousa does this all the time, 1sts play melody and seconds oom pah). Realizing the importance of 2 sections really gives a composer more to work with.


----------



## NoamL

Sears Poncho said:


> 17. Cello can take the melody, it projects. Viola doesn't project as much, cello gets the sound out. There's a tendency to always give the melody to violin, but cello can handle it if the section is big enough.



Yes, 100%.

When all the strings go high, the cellos are naturally suited to support the violins an octave lower. An even when the cellos are playing alone, a cello melody in the middle of the treble staff can soar above the texture (even feeling more foregrounded than violin material _above_ it in absolute pitch) because it's so high _in relative terms_ to how the instrument is constructed. A viola melody in the same register would not have that soaring quality.

It's really just the same as what "a high note" would be for me, wouldn't be a high note at all for Charlotte Church 






One more note about writing for low strings is that you should focus your study on later music. With few exceptions (Bach) the Baroque and early Classical composer wrote music that didn't give the low strings a lot of technical challenges or give them an opportunity to really stretch their muscles.


----------



## Bullersten

Farkle said:


> First, thank you for sharing your playlist. It takes guts to push your stuff out for the world to see.
> 
> Second, I find it interesting that you state "the rule breaking you hear is most likely a lack of skill"... I am of the mindset that studying how the great orchestrators successfully write is a way to ensure that one would not break rules due to lack of skill...
> 
> and the way to study the great orchestrators is not by ear, but by reading their scores, to see all of the nuance that goes into the passages that just jump out at you.
> 
> So, in an earlier post, you mention that you can find exceptions to the idea that you need to read/write sheet music to be an accomplished musician/composer.
> 
> I challenge you to name any accomplished _orchestral composer_ who does not know how to read/write and study sheet music. I can't think of any one. And, since this thread is for advice from experienced orchestrators (of which I'm one), and since it's about writing orchestral music, (which it is), then maybe it's important to listen to the advice that _you_ (as the original OP) asked for.
> 
> I mean, really? you asked experienced orchestrators for their opinion, then when one gives it to you, you disagree with their statement and state that . That actually smacks of serious ego.
> 
> And to say, "we need to be more flexible about learning how to orchestrate", implies a serious sense of self-importance. So, before you become more flexible, have you studied Mendelssohn's tone poems? Tchaikovsky's ballets? Bruckner and Wagner? Stravinsky's big three ballets? Copland's ballets? Debussy's tone poems? Have you actually _done the hard work_?
> 
> No. No you haven't. Because, I can hear it in all three of your tracks. You've dipped and dabbled here and there, and tried to build things with pithy questionnaires, that experienced composers are trying to help you with. But here's the nasty truth.
> 
> _You have to put in the flight time. _You have to listen to these great scores, and figure out how they did it. And no, transcribing is not enough. You need to _see_ how Ravel does arpeggios with artificial harmonics in the strings in his pieces to get that glassy texture.
> 
> Okay, I'm getting worked up. I wish you well, I really do. But this cyclical argument really wearies me. People who are pro, who really want to make their craft work, know that _it takes daily hard grit work._ and there is no substitute for that. So, your choice, man. You can keep listening to random pieces, and fumbling through "orchestral works"... or you can suck it up, deep dive, and start really learning the beauty and majesty of how to write colorful, emotional, dramatic, and narrative orchestral music.
> 
> Choice is yours, not mine.
> 
> Mike



On this one, I see as many vituperations as contributions to the thread's question I must say. Not a great ratio...

Self Importance?! I am not really sure how you got to that conclusion, but I think after listening to my tracks, you will understand that it would be crazy for me to have an ounce of self importance when it comes to making orchestral music... I am a self taught guitar player in the Rock/Metal genre who loves creating music for my own consumption. I am not pretending to be anyone I am not.

Why would I have a disagreement on orchestration with a professional when I barely know anything about the subject? Well I have absolutely no reason nor interest in doing so... Ah, maybe you got frustrated about my point about leaving people freedom to learn their own way! If this is the case, do not take it personally. I just can not understand why anyone would impose their way of learning to another. I just need to know what to learn and it is more than enough for me. It has always been my way of operating and I am very happy with the way it has worked out for me in other fields. The thread's title is "Common orchestration mistakes" and not "Best way to learn orchestration" for this very specific reason.


----------



## Bullersten

Sears Poncho said:


> Info on string writing. Much of it should apply to Midi as well.
> 
> 1. Strings don't tire easily, they can play most of the time. The sound is also easier to deal with than constant winds would be, don't worry about "overworking" the strings.
> 
> 2. Strings have an enormous range. Take advantage. Don't always used closed voicing, use open voicing and take advantage of the whole range.
> 
> 3. String players are the most difficult to deal with. You'll see.
> 
> 4. Pizz-arco. It takes a bit of time to move the bow. Try to have a quarter note rest between transitioning from one to the other.
> 
> 5. Strings will never be loud enough, and rarely overpower anything unless it's a solo wind etc. Don't worry about the strings being "too loud", it almost never happens. The opposite is the worry, strings will get buried.
> 
> 6. Bartok Pizz can render an instrument out of tune. If you must write one, write it near the end.
> 
> 7. Col legno. Bows are expensive. Don't.
> 
> 8. Divisi. It's tricky and can backfire. Good for textures and pads. Can be difficult with melodies. Changes the power of the section.
> 
> 9. The higher in register you write, the more problems you'll have.
> 
> 10. When violin 1 is playing in the high register, double with violin 2 an octave lower. Intonation.
> 
> 11. In the high register, avoid 3rds. Try 6ths.
> 
> 12. Listen to "Truly" by Lionel Richie, the last minute or so. Listen to the violins. Don't ever do that. It's too high and sounds like garbage. Check it out, you'll agree.
> 
> 13. Viola is not 3rd violin, it's viola. If anything, it's more "high cello". They love playing on the C string.
> 
> 14. Don't write too high for viola. Listen to Shostakovich 5 first mvmt, right before it gets to the middle "animated" part. It scares violists to death.
> 
> 15. Viola jokes aside, viola is the heart and soul of the strings. Use that to your advantage. Think "interesting inner lines" instead of "oom pah". Violins and cellos tend to showboat but the true "string sound" means having a good viola presence.
> 
> 16. Cello- whenever I see someone doing a sample library demo on youTube, I usually think "Why are they playing so high?". Granted, it "can", and it times should, but the sound is about the middle and lower registers. Like the viola, it's that "inner" and lower sound that is the backbone. It can be a bass instrument as well, it's a switch hitter. But if there is a good string bass presence, it can really fill out the middle and lower frequencies.
> 
> 17. Cello can take the melody, it projects. Viola doesn't project as much, cello gets the sound out. There's a tendency to always give the melody to violin, but cello can handle it if the section is big enough.
> 
> 18. Don't be afraid to double melodies with strings. If it's that important, have all of them (except bass) play it, in octaves of course. Rachmaninoff does this in the 2nd piano concerto. Others do too. In symphony "pops" it's done as well. It really shows the volume differences, the fact that you would need all the strings when dealing with a full orch. or with a rhythm section.
> 
> 19. String bass players can play more than you think. Watch one play "The Messiah" or the 3rd mvmt of Beethoven 5. They don't always have to play oom pah, they can have chops and play licks.
> 
> 20. There are 2 violin sections. This is probably the one orchestration technique that separates the good and bad writers. They can do the same thing, they can do completely different things. Sometimes for Pops Charts, there will be a "Violin 1 and 2" part, meaning the same part and 2nds play the lower notes if there are any. The orchestrator for this? Lazy, lazy, lazy. Or in a hurry, which is slightly better. Either way, there was a lot of potential that they didn't use. Having 2 independent parts can be huge. Not just melody/harmony, one can play melody and one can do licks, ostinatos, oom pah (Sousa does this all the time, 1sts play melody and seconds oom pah). Realizing the importance of 2 sections really gives a composer more to work with.



This is tremendous. Anyone up for doing the Brass, Woodwinds or Percussions version? =;]


----------



## DS_Joost

Bluemount Score said:


> Damn, music seems to be kinda complicated.



Funny thing is that once you "get it" it's just as easy/difficult as creating an EDM banger. They really aren't different. You just orchestrate more lines. That's it.


----------



## Robert_G

lsabina said:


> Also, not understanding the power of unison writing or the benefits of melodic content voiced in octaves (or two octaves apart).



Im asking this in a 'want to learn' context. Explain to me what this means exactly and give me an example of how to do this.


----------



## mikrokosmiko

One for the winds: PLAYERS NEED TO BREATHE NOW AND THEN. 

Also, a good orchestrator should be aware of the different colors that each woodwind instrument has depending on the register: the flute can not play truly forte in the low register, nor piano at the highest. The oboe is very thin at high. Bassoon is really heavy at the low register. Each one of the WW is almost like a multi-instrument if we speak about timbre variations


----------



## JJP

One big one I see all the time...

Beginners often don't save something for the big moments. Don't use all your power when it's not needed. If you know there will be a big, loud point in a composition, save some of your brass for that moment. We hear volume in relation to what comes before or after. If you have blown everything you have throughout the chart, there's nothing left for the big moment and it sounds weak.

I guess this refers back to my first point about not having everything playing all the time.

Related to this is the idea of orchestrating dynamics. If a section is piano or pianissimo, the entire orchestra doesn't need to play. Likewise, if something is building, start small and add elements. Similarly, if it is dying away, remove elements.

These things sound like common sense, but they are often forgotten.


----------



## gussunkri

Sears Poncho said:


> 2. Unison writing in winds. Might work in band, in orchestra = no.


This has been a great thread and I have learned a lot. I was just curious about this claim about woodwinds. I am an amateur and I try to learn from transcribing and studying scores. I've studied a lot of Shostakovich lately (specifically the fifth symphony), and it seems to me like he often have flutes, oboes and clarinets doubled so that e.g., the two players of each section play a third apart and this is doubled (sometimes an octave apart and sometimes unison) by flutes, oboes and clarinets. 

You consider this bad orchestration, or does the fact that they play two note chords change anything?


----------



## Mike Fox

JJP said:


> One big one I see all the time...
> 
> Beginners often don't save something for the big moments. Don't use all your power when it's not needed. If you know there will be a big, loud point in a composition, save some of your brass for that moment. We hear volume in relation to what comes before or after. If you have blown everything you have throughout the chart, there's nothing left for the big moment and it sounds weak.
> 
> I guess this refers back to my first point about not having everything playing all the time.
> 
> Related to this is the idea of orchestrating dynamics. If a section is piano or pianissimo, the entire orchestra doesn't need to play. Likewise, if something is building, start small and add elements. Similarly, if it is dying away, remove elements.
> 
> These things sound like common sense, but they are often forgotten.


This is a great technique!!! It's the contrast that makes things seem much bigger or smaller than what they actually are!!!! It's like writing a paragraph with nothing but exclamation marks!!!! That exclamation mark loses it's impact pretty fast!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Sears Poncho

gussunkri said:


> You consider this bad orchestration, or does the fact that they play two note chords change anything?


I should have been more clear. Having the same instrument playing in unison is what I meant, and of course there are tons of exceptions. But intervals are good and exactly what I was meaning. Especially in oboes, having oboes in unison is a notorious "nope". There are examples of flutes in unison like the 3rd mvmt of Tchaik. 4, first mvmt of Mahler 4, etc. And I've done it with every instrument including oboes. It's just better overall if one doesn't make a habit of doing it. 

With "pops" arrangements, one can easily give the top note of a chord to flutes, the second note to oboes etc. Overall, this is lazy. That's what I was kinda going after. It's quick though and arrangers have to work very quickly. Finding the time to build balanced chords that avoid using the same instrument in unison will be worth the time, everything will be a lot richer sounding.


----------



## Sears Poncho

The first chord- pretty lazy. The second one will sound so much better...


----------



## jononotbono

Such a good thread and learning a lot. Thanks!


----------



## nolotrippen

*John Barry, The Lion In Winter, 1968, is one of the most expertly orchestrated pieces for me. Just give it a listen to see what you think: *


----------



## gussunkri

Sears Poncho said:


> I should have been more clear. Having the same instrument playing in unison is what I meant, and of course there are tons of exceptions. But intervals are good and exactly what I was meaning. Especially in oboes, having oboes in unison is a notorious "nope". There are examples of flutes in unison like the 3rd mvmt of Tchaik. 4, first mvmt of Mahler 4, etc. And I've done it with every instrument including oboes. It's just better overall if one doesn't make a habit of doing it.
> 
> With "pops" arrangements, one can easily give the top note of a chord to flutes, the second note to oboes etc. Overall, this is lazy. That's what I was kinda going after. It's quick though and arrangers have to work very quickly. Finding the time to build balanced chords that avoid using the same instrument in unison will be worth the time, everything will be a lot richer sounding.


Aha! Now I understand! Thank you.


----------



## lsabina

Robert_G said:


> Im asking this in a 'want to learn' context. Explain to me what this means exactly and give me an example of how to do this.


Well, unison flute and clarinet would give you a different COLOR than unison flute and oboe on a melodic line, etc. 
Sometimes a melody played by one instrument (or a unison presentation such as the above mentioned combinations, for example) can get lost within a fairly full orchestration and will need reinforcement at the lower octave (or higher octave). This will impart melodic PRESENCE.
Doubling two octaves apart (such as flute and trombone) starts imparting melodic POWER (for lack of a better term).
On a piano, try playing a melody separated by one or two octaves...you can hear the difference easily.
To a lesser extent, you can do the same for chords. Forgive me for switching to jazz, but a common big band brass voicing is 4-way close in the trumpets doubled exactly an octave lower in the trombones. Check out the Sammy Nestico chapter in Rayburn Wright’s “Inside the Score” (Kendor Music pub.).


----------



## Robert_G

Interesting.....simple, yet ive always made sure to have all areas of the lows, mids, and highs active for the main parts of the song....but ive never thought of playing a melody in unison with say a trombone and violin 2 octives apart. 
Love the helpfulness here.
Thanks


----------



## purple

The most common mistake I hear in orchestral demos on this website and elsewhere is people not knowing what an orchestra or various instruments are supposed to sound like. Writing lines on instruments that simply wouldn't be written by someone who had experience playing or even listening to said instruments. It's a big pet peeve of mine when people create demos or review videos where they just noodle on an instrument in a way that makes no sense, and consequently sounds bad and unrealistic or choppy-if the instrument can't do that in real life, it probably can't in sample form either, because they didn't record it doing that.

Listen to live performances of the instruments to want to write virtual mockups of. If that's an orchestra, listen to orchestral music. If it's a jazz big band, listen to some big band music.

The other common mistake is just putting the mod wheel at 127 and writing an entire "piece". It needs some phrasing. It needs to breathe. I've heard amazing libraries torn to shreds by people posting demos like that and causing others in the forums to rethink their decision to buy something, even if previous demos had been mostly good. Again, I think the only way to learn this and have it ingrained is to listen to more music in the style you want to write.


----------



## purple

But also, listen critically. If you want to know what instruments go together well, the only way to do that IMO is to listen to music and analyze it. You liked the timbre in that last phrase? Ok, now figure out what the instruments were. Use the score if you have to.

I supposed you could also get an orchestration book, but who reads these days?


----------



## bryla

purple said:


> I supposed you could also get an orchestration book, but who reads these days?


Those who are serious about it.


----------



## Bullersten

purple said:


> The most common mistake I hear in orchestral demos on this website and elsewhere is people not knowing what an orchestra or various instruments are supposed to sound like. Writing lines on instruments that simply wouldn't be written by someone who had experience playing or even listening to said instruments. It's a big pet peeve of mine when people create demos or review videos where they just noodle on an instrument in a way that makes no sense, and consequently sounds bad and unrealistic or choppy-if the instrument can't do that in real life, it probably can't in sample form either, because they didn't record it doing that.
> 
> Listen to live performances of the instruments to want to write virtual mockups of. If that's an orchestra, listen to orchestral music. If it's a jazz big band, listen to some big band music.
> 
> The other common mistake is just putting the mod wheel at 127 and writing an entire "piece". It needs some phrasing. It needs to breathe. I've heard amazing libraries torn to shreds by people posting demos like that and causing others in the forums to rethink their decision to buy something, even if previous demos had been mostly good. Again, I think the only way to learn this and have it ingrained is to listen to more music in the style you want to write.



Using a narrow dynamic range and poor accenting seem to be recurring points in the thread. A lack of musical references in the genre is to blame but the quest in music production today for supreme loudness probably does not help.

My question is: Phrasing issues can be sorted out at orchestration stage (through adding accents, slur, etc) while preserving the notes, but is it the same for dynamic range? I imagine that a phrase could not be played pp or ff without sounding clumsy in one the renditions?


----------



## Uiroo

Sears Poncho said:


> 7. Col legno. Bows are expensive. Don't.


But can't you just ask them to bring a cheap Bow, just for that? 
I thought given enough time they could swap the bow during the performance, maybe?

Great tips, by the way, thanks so much!


----------



## Bullersten

bryla said:


> Those who are serious about it.



On this point, I have Walter Piston's but a printed book format is not great to learn orchestration. For learning how instruments sound and interact, and all you can have in a printed book are score snippets which do not help in understanding colour and tone. A multimedia format is probably much better to learn, and printed books better for reference.


----------



## jononotbono

Uiroo said:


> But can't you just ask them to bring a cheap Bow, just for that?
> I thought given enough time they could swap the bow during the performance, maybe?
> 
> Great tips, by the way, thanks so much!



All professional String players carry cheap bows for that exact reason. Some even use Pencils.


----------



## mcalis

When it comes to Woodwind orchestration, I can highly recommend this class by Thomas Goss. His channel is an excellent resource for further study.


----------



## mikeh-375

purple said:


> I supposed you could also get an orchestration book, but who reads these days?




That is depressing and one reason why some folk do not know what they are doing. Read the texts and study scores over a sustained period if you want to be any good, there are no shortcuts to excellence.


----------



## Bullersten

mikeh-375 said:


> That is depressing and one reason why some folk do not know what they are doing. Read the texts and study scores over a sustained period if you want to be any good, there are no shortcuts to excellence.



Hmmm, why so sad? If I were a highly skilled professional, it would be comforting and certainly not depressing to know that my peers are not anywhere close to matching my skills... Maybe I am not artistic enough to understand these considerations


----------



## mikeh-375

What's sad is that some will never realise their full potential.


----------



## Uiroo

Bullersten said:


> Hmmm, why so sad? If I were a highly skilled professional, it would be comforting and certainly not depressing to know that my peers are not anywhere close to matching my skills... Maybe I am not artistic enough to understand these considerations


If I were a highly skilled professional, it would break my heart to see talented peers not living up to their potential by putting in the hard work necessary to write the masterpiece only they could write.


----------



## Kent

Bullersten said:


> On this point, I have Walter Piston's but a printed book format is not great to learn orchestration. For learning how instruments sound and interact, and all you can have in a printed book are score snippets which do not help in understanding colour and tone. A multimedia format is probably much better to learn, and printed books better for reference.


It (Wright’s book) comes with the recordings.


----------



## Tice

I was wondering if this thread could really use a more hands-on approach and actually analyze works submitted to it so we have real-world examples of what good and bad orchestration is when it's still in mock-up form?


----------



## Kent

Uiroo said:


> If I were a highly skilled professional, it would break my heart to see talented peers not living up to their potential by putting in the hard work necessary to write the masterpiece only they could write.


Yep. And we all do better when we all do better - it raises the bar for what the clients expect and for what standards we hold ourselves to.


----------



## Bullersten

mikeh-375 said:


> What's sad is that some will never realise their full potential.





Uiroo said:


> If I were a highly skilled professional, it would break my heart to see talented peers not living up to their potential by putting in the hard work necessary to write the masterpiece only they could write.



Honourable, selfless and delivered in unison. Great answers!


----------



## Saxer

One common beginner mistake is thinking of an orchestra like a band. Like drummers are for the groove, strings do pads (keyboarders job), brass do big hero lines or woodwinds the main melody (singers job). Basses do bass lines (like a electric bass player). Or using the string staccato ostinatos as a kind of rhythm guitar or hihat job to keep the track running.
Once you get into these roles for the sections you can't get out of it without loosing the groove or the harmonic structure. You run into the loop trap. So the tracks get boring rather soon.

Another mistake is using a harmonic pad like brass or strings and let other melodic lines play against it. Like a C-maj as a pad and have the melody play from the note e to f and back in slower tempi. In a live situation you will get asked from one of the string section players: bar 67: we play the note e until bar 69 but the oboes behind us are changing to f at bar 68. Is that on purpose? Is is Csus oder Cmaj? If you get those questions in a recording situation you'd better have a good answer.

In a band with rhythm guitar and pads there's no problem when a singer sings "against" a sustained chord. He/she will simply overpower ist and it doesn't hurt somebody. But in an orchestra you have to be aware that every finger on the keyboard pad is somebody sitting there playing exactly that and only that note in this moment. It's more like having two singers, one singing the e-f change and the other one singing the e at bar 68.

So it's much more helpful to see the orchestra as an a cappella choir. A lot of single and monophonic voices. So starting with single sections like strings only is a very good start. Maybe not as fun as hitting epic sample stacks but much more effective.


----------



## YuHirà

> 3. Timpani. They can play 2-3 notes. Not 12.



I'm not sure what you meant (maybe you meant for one single timpano?) but if you are lucky to have 4 or 5 timpani, it's possible to play more than 3 notes. And timpani have pedals nowadays.

But of course, it's a good advice and I agree on the fact that you have to be really cautious.



> Using the percussion (esp ethnic percussion) as the driving rhythm in orchestral pieces; Percussion should be (if you want to write great orchestrations) accents and colors, not a drum kit.



I see your point, it's certainly a mistake if it becomes a habit and a lazy way to compensate a lack of orchestral ideas but we cannot say either that it's not possible to write a great orchestral piece with a driving rythm in percussions 



> Parallel 4ths and 5ths are hard to tune, in addition to the "don't use them" from theory class. Don't use them.  If there are 2 flutes, don't have them play 4ths. 3rds or 6ths or octaves etc. are preferred.



Maybe I'm a bit picky, but I think it's debatable. There are good theorical reasons to write parallel 4ths or 5ths for the woodwinds: quartal harmony, medieval feel, etc...

In an ideal world, these tuning issues should not happen and could be avoidable by working with performers; therefore, is it really an orchestration mistake? Maybe I'm wrong but I'm not sure. If there are not intended for a good reason as I mentionned before, parallel 4ths and 5ths seem rather a writing mistake IMHO.

On the contrary, in my opinion, 2 Flutes playing unison are really an orchestration mistake, especially because you can avoid it very easily.




> 12. Listen to "Truly" by Lionel Richie, the last minute or so. Listen to the violins. Don't ever do that. It's too high and sounds like garbage. Check it out, you'll agree.



Heck, I don't agree :-( Undoubtly a matter of taste. In pop music, it's very common, and it never bothered me :-(




> What works as a whole sometimes doesn’t work for the individual. I also can’t stand looking at ties whole notes in notation. Conrad Pope also mentioned that we are writing for players not simply the instrument.





> This is a great example of a problem mentioned a few times in this thread, VOICE LEADING! This is why it is so beneficial to study counterpoint. Learning to create individual lines that are musical while also managing the big picture (melody, harmony, etc.) will naturally lead to better orchestration.



I think it's really the main key for a great orchestration. It's so satisfying to write great individual lines. I think we should sing every single voice we write to be sure that it's pleasant to play. Because, when performers are happy, it leads to a better performance.

For instance, when you write a brass choral, voice leading tends easily to be a bit static (repeating notes in the inner voices). But if you elaborate further, you can use voice crossing to create melodic interest and avoid repeating notes in the same line. In the end, the overall result is the same for the listener but it's more interesting for the performers.


----------



## Sears Poncho

Uiroo said:


> But can't you just ask them to bring a cheap Bow, just for that?
> I thought given enough time they could swap the bow during the performance, maybe?
> 
> Great tips, by the way, thanks so much!


I was being a tad sarcastic.  There's a way to hit the bow with the tip and make is sound the same. The pencil trick works. In the last mvmt of Symphonie Fantastique by Berlioz there's a famous col legno spot. People just do it. Then whine after. 



Robert_G said:


> .but ive never thought of playing a melody in unison with say a trombone and violin 2 octives apart.


Brahms Symphony #1 2nd mvmt: Violin solo with solo horn doubling 2 octaves below. I think the most important rule about rules= you can make up your own rules. Solo violin and solo horn makes no sense at all.... but he was Brahms. The violin part is in the upper register, so it has a chance to be heard. And hopefully the horn player really knows how to play quietly. I think all of us might think of French Horn as "that John Williams Theme Instrument" but it can be serene and soft, providing the player can pull it off.

Even weirder, the Nutcracker Overture. There are no bass instruments. Something that everyone has heard a zillion times, but there are no celli, no basses, no brass (except horn). The only instrument that could be considered "bass" is bassoon, that's it. That's the cool part of being Tchaikovsky and Brahms, you can do whatever you'd like.


----------



## Sears Poncho

YuHirà said:


> I'm not sure what you meant (maybe you meant for one single timpano?) but if you are lucky to have 4 or 5 timpani, it's possible to play more than 3 notes. And timpani have pedals nowadays.


Having 4-5 timpani means having the timpani player bring 4-5 timpani. That's not luck. It's torture. 
Many orchestras have "cartage", players who play Harp etc get money for lugging it. TImp too. They sometimes have a "per kettle" fee. Management would really appreciate it if you use a smaller amount. They write the checks. 

I write "retune" in the part. Yes, they can play many notes if they have time to retune, in a section where it's not obvious. It's more an example of the "practical" side which composers and arrangers need to pay attention to. Sure, my masterpiece has 6 timpani. Tell that to the timpani player. Better yet, make sure its a summer parks concert in the middle of nowhere with a small rickety stage that they have to lug them up on. Since the timp player already hates you, might as well go all the way!


----------



## mikrokosmiko

Sears Poncho said:


> Having 4-5 timpani means having the timpani player bring 4-5 timpani. That's not luck. It's torture.
> Many orchestras have "cartage", players who play Harp etc get money for lugging it. TImp too. They sometimes have a "per kettle" fee. Management would really appreciate it if you use a smaller amount. They write the checks.
> 
> I write "retune" in the part. Yes, they can play many notes if they have time to retune, in a section where it's not obvious. It's more an example of the "practical" side which composers and arrangers need to pay attention to. Sure, my masterpiece has 6 timpani. Tell that to the timpani player. Better yet, make sure its a summer parks concert in the middle of nowhere with a small rickety stage that they have to lug them up on. Since the timp player already hates you, might as well go all the way!



But he could have two sets of timpani or more, like Berlioz. But the writing should be done taking into account that there would be several players, and not as if it were a piano


----------



## purple

bryla said:


> Those who are serious about it.


I had to in school, and it's been useful to me. But I could see it not being necessary to all. I studied classical music and I write in a more traditional style, but for people who want to do more "contemporary" work those books may not be all that enlightening. Perhaps more important for working composers to learn these days is knowing how to mix and edit midi.


----------



## Sears Poncho

mikrokosmiko said:


> But he could have two sets of timpani or more, like Berlioz. But the writing should be done taking into account that there would be several players, and not as if it were a piano


Of course.

I think my point is about "reality" when dealing with a real orchestra. Those fortunate to have as many timp at their disposal usually have names like "John Williams" or maybe "Johnny Williams" if it's Lost in Space.  For the rest of us, we get 3 timpani. One player.

There are some pieces in the standard rep with 2 harps (although they are usually performed with only one). The Berlioz has 2. Verdi -La Forza del Destino, Mahler 9. The Planets maybe? So, if any of us here write something as good and as popular as The Planets, we can ask for 2 harps. Until then, we're lucky if we get 1. 

As far as timpani, it's interesting to look back, way back, at it's history and use. The Messiah for example. It's in #44 and #53. Out of 53 pieces it is in 2 of them, both in D major. And 44 of course is the Hallelujah Chorus. Tonic and Dominant, that's what it did. 

Beethoven #5- IMO the beginning of the big, angry, bombastic symphony sound. The timpani plays the same two notes throughout. C (tonic) and G (dominant). That's it. The timpani parts back then didn't even have key signatures. 

Dvorak New World- Prominent timp part. 1st mvmt has a rare 3 different notes. 2nd movement has 1 note, d flat. 3 and 4 have 2 notes, same notes. Again, think how prominent the timp is in New World. So, this was the last symphony written by a guy who died in the 20th century. And it's playable with only 2 kettles, very easy to retune for those other notes. 

The point of all this, having 3 composers from 3 periods, is to realize what the traditional timpani "does". In today's world, I'm sure the timpanist gets a workout recording superhero soundtracks. But in the symphonic world the timpani pretty much was a force for tonic and dominant, to keep motion happening, supply a beat here and there, and was often ceremonial like in Messiah where it plays the 2 big tunes. And it's easy to "overuse" it. And in addition of the practical/financial aspects of hiring timpani, it can be an interesting challenge to use only 3, one has to be creative and use pedal points, use inverted chords etc.


----------



## mikrokosmiko

Sears Poncho said:


> Of course.
> 
> I think my point is about "reality" when dealing with a real orchestra. Those fortunate to have as many timp at their disposal usually have names like "John Williams" or maybe "Johnny Williams" if it's Lost in Space.  For the rest of us, we get 3 timpani. One player.
> 
> There are some pieces in the standard rep with 2 harps (although they are usually performed with only one). The Berlioz has 2. Verdi -La Forza del Destino, Mahler 9. The Planets maybe? So, if any of us here write something as good and as popular as The Planets, we can ask for 2 harps. Until then, we're lucky if we get 1.
> 
> As far as timpani, it's interesting to look back, way back, at it's history and use. The Messiah for example. It's in #44 and #53. Out of 53 pieces it is in 2 of them, both in D major. And 44 of course is the Hallelujah Chorus. Tonic and Dominant, that's what it did.
> 
> Beethoven #5- IMO the beginning of the big, angry, bombastic symphony sound. The timpani plays the same two notes throughout. C (tonic) and G (dominant). That's it. The timpani parts back then didn't even have key signatures.
> 
> Dvorak New World- Prominent timp part. 1st mvmt has a rare 3 different notes. 2nd movement has 1 note, d flat. 3 and 4 have 2 notes, same notes. Again, think how prominent the timp is in New World. So, this was the last symphony written by a guy who died in the 20th century. And it's playable with only 2 kettles, very easy to retune for those other notes.
> 
> The point of all this, having 3 composers from 3 periods, is to realize what the traditional timpani "does". In today's world, I'm sure the timpanist gets a workout recording superhero soundtracks. But in the symphonic world the timpani pretty much was a force for tonic and dominant, to keep motion happening, supply a beat here and there, and was often ceremonial like in Messiah where it plays the 2 big tunes. And it's easy to "overuse" it. And in addition of the practical/financial aspects of hiring timpani, it can be an interesting challenge to use only 3, one has to be creative and use pedal points, use inverted chords etc.



+1 to everything

But we have introduced the term "realism" here. I think that with the virtual instruments we have 2 options: trying to replicate how a real orchestra would sound (with painstaking effort) or thinking of them as a new medium with no limits. That said, I could be interested (why not) in having an orchestra with 25 timpani players and 66 tubas. But even in that case, knowing about how to orchestrate in the classical way is going to help to manage these sonorities. 

Maybe, if we're talking about virtual orchestration, a BIG error would be "thinking that this piece would sound like this if played live"


----------



## Bullersten

mikrokosmiko said:


> +1 to everything
> 
> But we have introduced the term "realism" here. I think that with the virtual instruments we have 2 options: trying to replicate how a real orchestra would sound (with painstaking effort) or thinking of them as a new medium with no limits. That said, I could be interested (why not) in having an orchestra with 25 timpani players and 66 tubas. But even in that case, knowing about how to orchestrate in the classical way is going to help to manage these sonorities.
> 
> Maybe, if we're talking about virtual orchestration, a BIG error would be "thinking that this piece would sound like this if played live"



The thread covers both mistakes made in:
1. Building a score for a real orchestra
2. And, making VI mock ups to emulate an orchestral performance

If you do not intend to write music that can be played live, I think you are most likely facing mixing issues rather than orchestration ones.


----------



## bryla

I’ve only ever had a minimum of 4 timpanis. I don’t understand the idea of only playing tonic and dominant on them unless you are writing in a classical idiom. Since the invention of the pedals timpanists can play chromatically. They have their limitations and having played it I might have an advantage but I almost never feel limited in notes. Only thing can be in fast passages to keep in mind the tuning of the pedals but again timpanists are specialists and are good with their feet.


----------



## purple

Bullersten said:


> The thread covers both mistakes made in:
> 1. Building a score for a real orchestra
> 2. And, making VI mock ups to emulate an orchestral performance
> 
> If you do not intend to write music that can be played live, I think you are most likely facing mixing issues rather than orchestration ones.


I think these sorts of issues start at the orchestration itself, though. A good library doesn't need too much mixing to make it work if you are orchestrating in a way that is idiomatic to the instruments you have used.


----------



## jbuhler

bryla said:


> I’ve only ever had a minimum of 4 timpanis. I don’t understand the idea of only playing tonic and dominant on them unless you are writing in a classical idiom. Since the invention of the pedals timpanists can play chromatically. They have their limitations and having played it I might have an advantage but I almost never feel limited in notes. Only thing can be in fast passages to keep in mind the tuning of the pedals but again timpanists are specialists and are good with their feet.


There's nothing like writing for a good timpanist who you know is good with the pedals and likes to use them. It spoils you though.


----------



## TimCox

It's probably been mentioned but thinking that everyone has to be doing something at all times. Sometimes you play. Sometimes you rest for 28 measures. Sometimes you Tacet for the whole piece.


----------



## JohnG

purple said:


> I supposed you could also get an orchestration book, but who reads these days?



Methinks written ironically.


----------



## purple

JohnG said:


> Methinks written ironically.


Somewhat. But also I think not every composer _needs_ to study true orchestration. I think it's worth doing for pretty much anyone but I understand that people have limited time or money to invest in a study that may not be relevant to their specific field of the music industry.


----------



## JohnG

Well, I don't subscribe to all the individual tips, but I do subscribe to knowing what you need to know to get the job done.

If you are writing only electronically, you don't necessarily need to know a lot of academic stuff or orchestration as such. Those who've had the training often argue that knowing that stuff would potentially make even electronic music "better," but it's a pretty tough case to insist on. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.

*Players Aren't Robots*

If you want to write for big orchestras and yet you're unable to learn the vocabulary that all they have spent years learning, that is a deficit. It will take longer to resolve problems or you might even run out of time before things are fixed. But if you are in that position -- you have the orchestra but not all the knowledge you need -- at least make the effort to be humble. It is possible to get a very unfortunate outcome if one compounds lack of knowledge with dismissiveness or a Great Artist pose.

If they run your piece and it takes you 10 minutes to run down each thing you want changed, it can deflate the energy and positivity in a big hurry.

Put another way, if they don't like you and think you're a pretentious know-nothing, that is bad.


----------



## JJP

Regarding timpani and what they can and can't play, sure you can always hire more timpanists and get more drums. However, in the real world we have limitations of budget and space on the stage or in the pit. 

Writing bucketloads of notes for a timpani with lots of tuning is indeed possible, but may require lots of practice to get right. It also may sound like a ringing mess if the notes are in rapid succession because a composer or orchestrator didn't account for the need to mute the ringout and whether it's physically possible within the phrase. Good orchestration requires an understanding of the physical limitations of the instruments and knowing how to work with those limitations.

There are ways to do almost anything with any ensemble, but that's not good orchestration. You could hire one timpanist for each pitch, but things start to get absurd and introduce more difficulties than simply being a good orchestrator.

I can make my house fly given enough reinforcement, cables, and helicopters, but it's hardly an efficient use of anyone's resources or my house.


----------



## JohnG

purple said:


> Somewhat. But also I think not every composer _needs_ to study true orchestration. I think it's worth doing for pretty much anyone but I understand that people have limited time or money to invest in a study that may not be relevant to their specific field of the music industry.



Bruv the title of the thread is common orchestration mistakes.


----------



## Sears Poncho

bryla said:


> I don’t understand the idea of only playing tonic and dominant on them unless you are writing in a classical idiom.


Correct. All knowledge is good knowledge. This is where the timpani came from. What someone does with it in 2019 is really their business. But, an example of something...

A few years back, a local singer wanted to do an Aria by a composer that lived around Mozart's time, I forget the name. Since it was obscure, the score had been lost over the years and didn't exist. I wrote an orchestration. Only a part with the solo soprano existed. It was easy, took 2 hours and got a check.

So a little knowledge of the past helped me pay the rent. This is good. The more we all know, the more versatile we are. The more employable we are. Maybe, the more we can enjoy music, past and present, who knows. 


bryla said:


> I’ve only ever had a minimum of 4 timpanis.



Its not up to me. It's up to the various orchs. LA Phil and Boston can afford as many timpani as it takes. Others, not so much. As I mentioned, cartage can be paid per kettle. Saving the orch money makes them say "let's hire this guy again". I had one orch fight me over an English Horn in a pops chart, they didn't want to pay doubling. They won.

There's also the matter of rentals and additional performances. One orch might allow 5 timps, no problem. Then another orch might say "Hey, that's a good chart, can we rent it too?" but that orchestra might only go with 3. 3 is safe, no orch will flinch with 3 timps. 



jbuhler said:


> There's nothing like writing for a good timpanist whom you know is good with the pedals and likes to use them. It spoils you though.



Yes. The problem is when that good timpanist calls in sick.  The guy in the orch. I write for frequently is a monster, he can play anything. Other orchs. like Civic Orchestras might not have that kind of player and that kind of budget so I tend to play it safe.


----------



## purple

Sears Poncho said:


> Correct. All knowledge is good knowledge. This is where the timpani came from. What someone does with it in 2019 is really their business. But, an example of something...
> 
> A few years back, a local singer wanted to do an Aria by a composer that lived around Mozart's time, I forget the name. Since it was obscure, the score had been lost over the years and didn't exist. I wrote an orchestration. Only a part with the solo soprano existed. It was easy, took 2 hours and got a check.
> 
> So a little knowledge of the past helped me pay the rent. This is good. The more we all know, the more versatile we are. The more employable we are. Maybe, the more we can enjoy music, past and present, who knows.
> 
> 
> Its not up to me. It's up to the various orchs. LA Phil and Boston can afford as many timpani as it takes. Others, not so much. As I mentioned, cartage can be paid per kettle. Saving the orch money makes them say "let's hire this guy again". I had one orch fight me over an English Horn in a pops chart, they didn't want to pay doubling. They won.
> 
> There's also the matter of rentals and additional performances. One orch might allow 5 timps, no problem. Then another orch might say "Hey, that's a good chart, can we rent it too?" but that orchestra might only go with 3. 3 is safe, no orch will flinch with 3 timps.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The problem is when that good timpanist calls in sick.  The guy in the orch. I write for frequently is a monster, he can play anything. Other orchs. like Civic Orchestras might not have that kind of player and that kind of budget so I tend to play it safe.


Yeah, and people might just land a gig scoring something that calls for older styles in which knowledge like this is helpful in providing the best/most appropriate work.


----------



## Sears Poncho

purple said:


> Yeah, and people might just land a gig scoring something that calls for older styles in which knowledge like this is helpful in providing the best/most appropriate work.


I think most good composers/orchestrators should be able/are able to do a reasonable job with a country song, a rap song, an epic movie theme, a big band piece, etc. It's all the same in the grand scheme of life.

Shostakovich made an arrangement of "Tea for Two". To me, it really humanizes him and the symphonic repertoire in general. The guy who wrote the Leningrad Symphony and some of the most tragic music in history made a pops chart of "Tea for Two". This is it....


----------



## Bullersten

Sears Poncho said:


> I think most good composers/orchestrators should be able/are able to do a reasonable job with a country song, a rap song, an epic movie theme, a big band piece, etc. It's all the same in the grand scheme of life.



As a side note, my understanding of what is expected from professionals in the field has just improved dramatically. So thank you. 

I was imagining that the norm was to focus on developing a unique style and become a specialist on that basis. But it does make more business sense to first become a competent all rounder to cover all types of requests.


----------



## DS_Joost

Sears Poncho said:


> I think most good composers/orchestrators should be able/are able to do a reasonable job with a country song, a rap song, an epic movie theme, a big band piece, etc. It's all the same in the grand scheme of life.
> 
> Shostakovich made an arrangement of "Tea for Two". To me, it really humanizes him and the symphonic repertoire in general. The guy who wrote the Leningrad Symphony and some of the most tragic music in history made a pops chart of "Tea for Two". This is it....




You give very, very good advice here @Sears Poncho! I guess you wrote down where my EDM banger comment came from. It was slightly tongue in cheek, but not altogether untrue. Funny thing: I started making said "EDM bangers" and rolled almost silently over into film music. After years of doing it I really learned that music is, well, music, regardless of genre.

I write for film now. But I sure as heck also go back to my EDM roots from time to time, in which I became a lot more proficient once I combined my old technical knowledge with my more newly found orchestrational experience!


----------



## Batrawi

It all boils down to one simple golden rule: 
_*"less is more"*_

actually I started following this rule lately and my writing has improved a lot gradually to the point that my musical sheet became blank.. 
I call this piece "the sound of silence"...


----------



## Bluemount Score

I find it quite interesting to see how many of the posts above were made by people who obviously let there music be played by an actual, real orchestra. The imagination alone is an incredible dream for someone like me who "grew up" with samples. And I ask myself very often, what I am "allowed" to do with my virtual samples and what might be very much impossible with the real thing and if that even matters at all.
I'm sorry, this is a whole different topic. Though by the title of this thread, it isn't all about the real orchestra.
An orchestration mistake could be making a real musicians life unnecessary hard, or by making someting sound bad.
Whatever, this indeed is a very interesting thread and I'm thankful for the advice.


----------



## bryla

Sears Poncho said:


> The guy who wrote the Leningrad Symphony and some of the most tragic music in history made a pops chart of "Tea for Two"...



... in under an hour


----------



## Sears Poncho

Bluemount Score said:


> I'm sorry, this is a whole different topic. Though by the title of this thread, it isn't all about the real orchestra.


I own more libraries by Heavyocity than any other company. Like many of us of a certain age, Tomita was a profound influence, as was Carlos and Hearts of Space. It's all connected- real, fake, schmake. Tomita did an amazing job orchestrating his _The Planets. _Tomita knew his stuff, he was a trained composer with lots of experience writing for film and TV. It shows. He created otherworldly music that had never been heard before, but it was obvious that there was a guy behind it all who knew symphonic music, knew how to write, and knew how to "interpret" the classics. I don't consider his work any less "real" than a symphony recording.


----------



## JJP

Sears Poncho said:


> I think most good composers/orchestrators should be able/are able to do a reasonable job with a country song, a rap song, an epic movie theme, a big band piece, etc. It's all the same in the grand scheme of life.



This is excellent advice. I've had to orchestrate or arrange all of the above at some point. That's what's expected of a versatile musician in the professional world.

The only real exception is if you have a definitive style for which you are known, people see you as carrying the banner of that style, and are willing to pay you a premium for it.


----------



## Hadrondrift

bryla said:


> ... in under an hour {"Tea for Two" by Shostakovich}


Yeah, impressive, didn't know that one. This inconspicuous guy is for me one of the greatest orchestration geniuses of the 20th century. The orchestral timbres and emotional arcs he builds are ingenious. And he can really pull that power brass stunt. You have to get used to his sometimes idiosyncratic melodic lines, though. And his late symphonies, well, uhm, might help to be Russian there...


----------



## Zedcars

Batrawi said:


> It all boils down to one simple golden rule:
> _*"less is more"*_
> 
> actually I started following this rule lately and my writing has improved a lot gradually to the point that my musical sheet became blank..
> I call this piece "the sound of silence"...


I'd love to hear that piece. Is it on Soundcloud?


----------



## lux

on the topic of reading orchestration books and studying scores, one little thing which learning orchestration helps achieving, just to make an example, is creating crescendos without using automation. Or creating colors, many colors, from combinations.

The most common error I often see in orchestrations is the writing of static and heavy parts for instruments sections. Moving parts in combinations is the key to make a composition breath imo.

My own most common orchestration error is that sometimes I simply completely forget adding specific orchestral sections as a whole . On a recent track posted on these boards I simply forgot adding the harp. It was screaming for some harp. But it wasnt there. I simply forgot loading in the template and it went out.


----------



## Zedcars

Some great advice here, in Thomas Goss’s Intro to Orchestration Part 6: Biggest Mistakes:


----------



## Bluemount Score

Zedcars said:


> Some great advice here, in Thomas Goss’s Intro to Orchestration Part 6: Biggest Mistakes:



Video is not available for me? Anyone else?


----------



## Loïc D

Same for me on the (i)phone, but plays fine on a computer.


----------



## Zedcars

Bluemount Score said:


> Video is not available for me? Anyone else?


Not sure why it’s not working. But if you go to YouTube and type in “Intro to Orchestration Part 6: Biggest Mistakes” it should come up. His channel name is OrchestrationOnline. He also has a website full of fantastic resources:









Orchestration Online


Community of Orchestrators containing resources for composers, musicians, and arrangers of all ages and levels of professional experience.




orchestrationonline.com





(Funny thing is, I quite often get ‘Video Unavailable’ problems with YT videos on this forum. Other people also get it)


----------



## Zedcars

Bluemount Score said:


> Video is not available for me? Anyone else?


It seems the one I posted was blocked in Germany by Sony due to a copyright claim. Here is the unblocked version that Thomas Goss uploaded:


----------



## Bluemount Score

Zedcars said:


> was blocked in Germany by Sony due to a copyright claim.


That very well explains it, thank you!


----------



## Hywel

I have kept coming back to this thread to remind myself of some of the golden nuggets of orchestrational advice... Last visit, I copied and pasted the posts that I felt were most relevant to me and I intend putting them on a notice board so that I can review them often!

My thanks to all those that have contributed their experience and knowledge.


----------



## Iswhatitis

Hywel said:


> I have kept coming back to this thread to remind myself of some of the golden nuggets of orchestrational advice... Last visit, I copied and pasted the posts that I felt were most relevant to me and I intend putting them on a notice board so that I can review them often!
> 
> My thanks to all those that have contributed their experience and knowledge.


The problem I hear most often is way too much repetition. I hear this a lot in major film scores too where either the composer had no time to develop the score which is the studios fault or they just don’t like writing that scene and didn’t care. You will notice this the most in action sequences when the drums and percussion just keep repeating the same thing over and over. It’s amazing how many of the biggest A-list composers are guilty of this too.


----------



## JohnG

I agree with @Gene Pool when he says, "give the benefit of the doubt to the composer," and "composers care." 

Particularly in an era when post production is a bit chaotic, with constant editing and even story revisions, what you see and hear in the cinema is not necessarily what the composer imagined. Some director /editor teams will slice up music and move it to new places; mute the percussion (or brass or strings or....); and simply re-compose the music by handing stems to a music editor to make something where music might not even have been spotted. It's not under our control, alas.

In short, what you hear in the movie might not be what the composer intended.


----------

