# How do you go about studying an orchestral score?



## aburgess (Jun 26, 2014)

So I'm trying really hard to improve my orchestration and compositional skills. I have found a few scores that I want to study and I have begun analyzing them.

So far I am sticking with analyzing the harmonic content and color combinations used. Once that's done, I want to look at the voicings and counterpoint more closely.

I wanted to ask you all: how do you analyze scores? What type of analysis has been most beneficial to you? How do you mark your scores? (mine's quickly becoming a mess) Does anybody do piano reductions?

Basically anything that would be beneficial for somebody starting to do orchestral analysis would be very helpful. My knowledge of musical theory is strong, but I'm relatively new to the orchestral world.

Thanks!


----------



## JSmit (Jun 26, 2014)

What has helped me a lot was the Spectrotone chart of Alexander publishing.
It gives you a very nice overview of the orchestral instruments and how they are related to each other soundwise. And all that in nice colours


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jun 26, 2014)

For me, studying an entire score is too much information. I can't take it all in.

What I do is find a bar (or a few bars) that for some reason seems special to me. Then I'll focus on those bars to find out what it is about them that is making me feel that way.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 26, 2014)

I always make a handwritten piano reduction per group except percussion at first to get a clear idea how the composer is working with voicing, dynamics, colours, effects etc per group. 

The second thing I do is pick out certain parts of the full score which I find interesting in the way different dynamics, counterpoint, harmony or whatever is used and I make a reduction per melody and/or hamony. 
With this method I am learning how the composer is working with spreading melody and harmony over the orchestra and how he deals with colouring effects, different dynamics and all the things you want to learn 

With this way of working I am not only learning very detailed how the orchestration is, but you also get a clear idea how the composition is build and learn about counterpoint and harmony as well. Because I am writing all the notes down you look differently to a score when you just watch the score and listen to the music. In fact I prefer to study a score without a performance and try to imagine the full piece in my head.

I prefer (but that is personal) to use handwriting instead of clicking it in a computer because I can sit on a table with score and paper next to each other and make notes in the score as well if I want.


----------



## rgames (Jun 26, 2014)

The best way to learn orchestration is to play with an orchestra. The second best way is to conduct an orchestra. The third best way is to attend rehearsals (not just performances - rehearsals are a better way to learn orchestration).

Regarding how to study a score, it depends on what you're looking for. Most often I go to a score when I can't figure out a harmonic progression. So for me, score study is usually writing in the harmonic lead sheet at the top of the score.

Sometimes there are voicings I can't quite figure out, so in those instances I go to the score and look at the individual lines to see how they're voiced.

I also regularly use scores to understand the overall structure of a piece, so I make a lot of annotations of themes, restatements, notes on how transitions are realized, etc.

One thing is for sure: regardless of what I'm looking for, the score has to be on paper so I can record my thoughts quickly and efficiently. Computers and tablets are a pain for that sort of thing... Long live paper!

rgames


----------



## Jaap (Jun 26, 2014)

Interesting Richard that you put playing in an orchestra before conducting an orchestra when it comes to learning orchestration. Can you elaborate that?
My personal feeling would be that with conducting you learn more. I conducted quite a lot of works and it was extremely valuable in understanding every aspect. I have however never sat in an orchestra as musician so I can't comment on that and I am really curious what your thoughts are about that.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 26, 2014)

Richard might be speaking from his own experience, but in the professional world no conductor would ever stand in front of an orchestra without knowing rather more about orchestration than many, if not most of the players. I certainly agree that there are lots of useful things to be learned as a player, but not knowing these things and then having the arrogance to stand in front of the players and try to tell them what to do, is not a good idea, IMO.

But then again, I might just be speaking from my own experience. :wink: 

D


----------



## JB78 (Jun 26, 2014)

Totally agree with Jaap about seeing the score differently when you actually "take it apart" instead of just looking at the score.

Like Stephen I rarely look at a full score either, mostly because there's almost always some sections that I either don't like or isn't as fascinated by compared to the really cool parts.

My process is usually like this: 

(I work mostly in Sibelius)

1.) Listen to a piece of music that I hopefully have the score to.
2.) Write down the times of the sections that really stick out as especially interesting.
3.) Go straight to the first cool section and start transcribing as much I possibly can hear.
4.) Check my transcription in the score. Add that pesky woodwind doubling I always seem to miss and correct anything that I've might gotten wrong.
5.) Copy everything into Sibelius so that it's basically identical to the score.
6.) Look through the music for Elements (a term Dick Grove used and covered in the CAP homestudy course I've taken) it's basically things like Ostinatos, counterlines, Pads etc...I color-code each Element so it's easy to see that the woodwinds are part of the Melodic pad in the strings for example.
7.) Reduce the score (in a new sibelius project) to as few staves as possible. I keep all the notes in but in the process you get rid of all the eventual doubling throughout the sections of the orchestra. Occasionally if it get's messy to keep all the octaves in when trying to analyze the reduction I remove them during that process. 
8.) Analyze the harmony/counterpoint, how the melody relates to the harmony etc...
9.) Do a Main Thing Sketch (a concept I learned from Ron Jones) basically it's a reduction to one or two staves where only the most important thing at any time is notated. Usually the melody but also any prominent accompaniment pattern when the melody is resting. Basically try to reduce the piece to what the composer thought was the most important thing to hear. What's really helpful by doing this step is that you sort of can see what came first in the compositional process, and it makes a lot of the accompaniment figures make more sense in how the composer came up with them. At least for me 
10.) Usually notate the first reduction by hand with pencil and paper, try to do this by memory as well. By this time I have spent enough time with the music that I can remember it.
11.) Compose my own version of the music. I try to stick pretty close to the original. Usually do it in the reverse order as well. a Main Thing version, a more fleshed out reduction, and finally the full orchestration. If I really like it or not sure if it will work with samples I do a mock-up as well. Since I got NotePerformer I've noticed that I don't do the mock-up as often, probably should though


Hope this helps!

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Jaap (Jun 26, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> Richard might be speaking from his own experience, but in the professional world no conductor would ever stand in front of an orchestra without knowing rather more about orchestration than many, if not most of the players. I certainly agree that there are lots of useful things to be learned as a player, but not knowing these things and then having the arrogance to stand in front of the players and try to tell them what to do, is not a good idea, IMO.
> 
> But then again, I might just be speaking from my own experience. :wink:
> 
> D



I fully agree on that. There is however a difference in learning orchestration as composer and as conductor in my opinion. When conducting an orchestra I am not looking at the score via my composer mind set. As conductor I am with the players trying to help them and finding a way together on how to perform everything well and in that way give care to the composers score. Of course one needs to understand every aspect of every instrument to know before hand where some technical difficulties may arise in certain instruments and how to practice them correctly etc etc.
If I wouldn't know an orchestra well it would be a hell to conduct one because musicians know within minutes if you have knowledge or not and if they discover you don't have the knowledge you are going to face a hard time in earning the respect and let the orchestra work with you.


----------



## rgames (Jun 26, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> Richard might be speaking from his own experience, but in the professional world no conductor would ever stand in front of an orchestra without knowing rather more about orchestration than many, if not most of the players. I certainly agree that there are lots of useful things to be learned as a player, but not knowing these things and then having the arrogance to stand in front of the players and try to tell them what to do, is not a good idea, IMO.


I don't think any decent conductor would do that, either. It seems like you're implying that's what I'm saying, but it's not.

Regardless of what instrument you play, you learn about all of them after several decades of rehearsals and performances. You learn how they sound in their different ranges, how they blend, relative loudness, what causes problems on each instrument, how the orchestra adapts to those problems, etc. That's why rehearsals are better than performances - that's where all those issues arise and are dealt with. By the time you hear the performance, the orchestration issues are taken care of and, if the orchestra is good, you don't know what they were.

FWIW, I once read my same opinion stated by none other than John Williams. I felt much more secure in my opinion when I found that out 

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jun 26, 2014)

Jaap @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> Interesting Richard that you put playing in an orchestra before conducting an orchestra when it comes to learning orchestration. Can you elaborate that?


Because we musicians often do things that we don't tell the conductor about


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 26, 2014)

By far the best tip I ever heard, from a teacher at Berklee:

Just pick a passage. Don't try to analyze the whole thing.

(What was his name? Fantastic old guy...Bob someone...an old-time arranger, always hilarious...at least three classic quotes I'll aways remember...)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 26, 2014)

Bob Chestnut.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 26, 2014)

And I see Stephen beat me to it.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 26, 2014)

The telescopic approach is what I have always used:

1. View the entire score at once for {say} an entire movement or section of a piece. So you are generally taking note of what instrumental group(s) are playing and catching the obvious things such as high winds entering and doubling the high strings or lower winds entering doubling the low strings. The same approach with brass and percussion. In essence you are looking at the score graphically and absorbing the comings and goings and the sonic changes as well as the weight of the orchestra changing (along with either graphic changes and/or dynamic changes as notated in the score, noticing for example an entrance of an instrument that was so subtle it wasn't heard or the opposite with a single instrument entering and taking over one's attention.) The most important thing about this approach is to stay relaxed and let it all go by. Your subconscious is doing far more than you know.

2. Focus on a group such as strings with the same relaxed graphic approach. You will automatically be more detailed in your observations because you are observing less information then a full orchestra. Now do the same with the Winds then Brass then Percussion.

3. Zoom in on one or more parts of a section such as 1st Violins or 1st and 2nds or perhaps Violas as well. See how they are formed together either linearly or chord-wise. Notice when the Violas are working with the upper or lower strings or both. Observe the weight of the strings when Cellos are handling the bass duties (or at least the bottom part) and when the Basses are in (a world of difference!) Also see if Cellos and Basses are in unison 8va or in a chordal or linear relationship.

4. Do step three with all the choirs (Winds, Brass, Perc.)

5. Now go to that section where you loved the writing and orchestration (a brass passage in a John Williams, or Elgar score or low winds in Mahler or Strings in Beethoven et. al.,) and break down every single beat until you can play it from memory so that you completely understand how it was executed if not conceived: these guys are often genius level and hard to penetrate, yet their craft is on view in abundance and that's largely what you're studying.)

This approach can be applied to any section, part of a section (only clarinets or bass clarinet etc.,) and for any reason. So you may be studying the 1st violins strictly for their melodic content or just their average range or how often they are playing or how often they're muted. You may be studying the flutes and how often there is just a single one playing and how well can you hear it: did the composer bring other sections down for a solo passage or did it hold it's own against all the strings for example? If so why? Was it in a bright register to be heard? Why is it doubling another wind or brass instrument when it is in a register where it's weak? On and on - there's no end to it but also no end to how fascinating it is to study this particular art.


----------



## bcarwell (Jun 26, 2014)

I think a very valuable too is being able to listen to a small chunk of score looped and watch it over and over muting various instruments and playing small subsets.

One way is listening to/watching the scores done for Noteperformer in Sibelius. See the recent post ("Lots of new video scores on You Tube...) listing the many scores now available which includes the following listing: 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL ... SA2WPg6i6H

Another way is to download a score, get the MP3 and play the MP3 so you can slow it down and loop it in your DAW or a standalone slow down/loop program like Song Surgeon.

I recall that Garritan also had a whole orchestration course for free which had score excerpts and the accopmanying music.

And don't forget Norton scores which conveniently highlights the parts that stand out for ease of following the score- I find them for almost nothing at Half Price Books.

Hope that helps some.


Bob


----------



## José Herring (Jun 26, 2014)

Some very good ideas presented here. Can't really add to this, but a bit of person experience.

Get a piece that you know well. Backwards and forwards. Get the score. Look at the score and don't ask why, but rather how. This for some reason tripped me up. Kept on asking myself why a composer wrote what he did. Trying to fit it into my own framwork of understanding. Then I changed the question and all scores became accessible. 

Though the first question I ask is "what?", then "how", from that you'll get to understanding why. For most of my life I had it backwards.


----------



## bryla (Jun 27, 2014)

Dave is making a good point that I also talked about in my scoresome.wordpress.com blog. You have to observe and ask yourself a lot of why-questions that you have to figure out.


----------



## clarkus (Jun 27, 2014)

There's not much in the way of bad advice here.

I'd just like to add to it by piping up that I have gotten a lot from the quick perusal of scores as well as the detailed dissection of them.

One of the best things I ever did was a group that I was part of with a few guys that met on Tuesday nights and listened to orchestra music & chamber music while looking @ the scores.

One of our little gang was a good pianist & he would sometimes pick something out & play it. 

On other occasions since I have dug in deep, and gotten into detail. 

But to listen to the whole piece and to follow along teaches you invaluable things abut the whole arc of a well-written piece of music and about notation, even if it is too much to take in in detail as it flys by.

I am ALSO afraid some of these well-meaning suggestions make this sound like bitter medicine that a composer must drink down. It's FUN. It's the written language for what we know and love, splayed out in all its obsessive glory.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 27, 2014)

bryla @ Fri Jun 27 said:


> Dave is making a good point that I also talked about in my scoresome.wordpress.com blog. You have to observe and ask yourself a lot of why-questions that you have to figure out.



The only problem being that you'll never get to why unless you first ask, what and how.

I'll give you an example. 

I was studying a portion of Mozart Requiem. First I learned "what" the progression was. Then, I learned "how" it was progressing. Then I figured out why Mozart wrote it that way. If I had started with "why" it would have sent me into a loop that last a lifetime. Most of my professors were constantly stuck in "why". But, when I asked, what without trying to figure out why, then "how" without worrying about why. It took all of 15 minutes to nail the entire movement and then I learned it so well that I've written it in many different permutations and nobody has ever even recognized that I was writing Mozart's Requiem.

Prior to that I was asking why and I spent a week on that piece not making any progress. When I switched to "what" and then "how" everything became clear.

So before you hop on the "why" question, I invite you to try it out. Take a piece and without any judgement just figure out "what" it is, then "how" it's put together, then "why" won't be any struggle. It will be apparent.


----------



## aburgess (Jun 27, 2014)

Wow. This is all really fantastic advice.
Thanks for all the tips!
I appreciate it and I sure have my work cut out for me!


----------



## JB78 (Jun 28, 2014)

clarkus @ Fri Jun 27 said:


> I am ALSO afraid some of these well-meaning suggestions make this sound like bitter medicine that a composer must drink down. It's FUN. It's the written language for what we know and love, splayed out in all its obsessive glory.



I can't speak for anyone else here but I love studying scores, especially since learning some effective ways to do it. There's really no right or wrong way, so many ways of looking at the same score and still get something useful out of it. It's probably best to learn as many approaches as possible, try them all out and from that devise the system that works best for you. I just know that I'm slooow and really need to break it apart to feel I got a firm grip on it and actually internalize it.


----------



## Norman (Jun 29, 2014)

Hi,

I love doing orchestral analyzes with my students as it gives them more information that any lecture could. I mark my scores with thirteen different categories. i.e. tessitura, doubling, dovetailing, harmony etc.

When I first do an analysis I create a form outline that helps me understand the major sections, keys, important instrumental colors, and other pertinent information. This technique was shown to me by Dr. Daniel Kessner and it has proven to be invaluable.

You can check my books out at 

http://www.musicnewapproach.com


Norman Ludwin


----------

