# Orchestration technique



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 12, 2012)

Hello friends,

What are some approaches you use to develop your ideas from simple melody / chords into full orchestra?

When I hear ideas in my head, I almost always hear instrumentation along with it. But, I have found that writing the parts out instrument-by-instrument doesn't work so well... Often times chords are voiced across an instrument group (e.g. horns), across the whole choir (e.g. brass), or even across all the choirs at once (e.g. all high register). 

In order to make sure my part-writing is sound, I'd rather write out those chords and just notate that it's "flutes" or "ww's" or something.

I have seen other composers use staff paper with 4 or 5 empty staves... seems like that might be a good approach. For a recent piece, I used 4 staves - 2 treble and 2 bass. This seemed to work because I had some rhythm very low, as well as low chords, with the melody being in the alto and soprano registers. But, I kind of just stumbled on that approach - adding staves as I needed them. I wonder if there is a more streamlined way to do this?

Firing up the sequencer and just plugging in chords doesn't work for me. I'd rather get all the kinks worked out on paper and use the sequencer mainly for recording. That way, I don't feel like I'm poking around in the dark trying to find missing notes or conflicts. Seeing the parts from the context of the rest of the orchestra helps me solve problems easier... At least with orchestral music.

Anyway, any thoughts you have are much appreciated! Thanks in advance :D 
Marc


----------



## rgames (Aug 12, 2012)

There's no single method, so it's really personal preference.

I usually start with a piano and block most of the track out there. After that, it depends on what I'm writing. If it's for printed parts then I'll use my standard setup in Finale - 4 WW (Fl, Cl, Ob, Bsn), 4 brass (Tpt, Hrn, Tbn, Tuba), 5 strings (Vln I, Vln II, Vla, Cello, Bass). I don't normally write perc in Finale until the piece is mostly done. After I get the piece done using that basic setup, I add the other instruments (bass cl, bass tbn, perc, whatever else I think the piece needs).

If the track is not for printed parts then I'll usually work right in Cubase and drag and drop from the piano track to the others. That's the nice thing about having a standardized template - it's really quick to orchestrate an idea (especially if you use expression maps and they're all basically the same).

rgames


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 12, 2012)

Thank you, sir! That's very helpful.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 12, 2012)

One thought that just came to me...

When writing on the piano, how deep are your harmonies? Do you just write a basic melody + chords in four-parts? Or do you thicken up the harmony with lots of doublings, etc? 

Seems to me that it would need to be somewhat thick if you are translating it directly to your DAW template...

Thanks,
Marc


----------



## Casey Edwards (Aug 12, 2012)

I prefer doing it this way:

http://caseyedwardsmusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Dark-Designs-Sketch.pdf (Sketch)

http://caseyedwardsmusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Dark-Designs-Full-Score.pdf (Final Score)

[flash width=450 height=110 loop=false]http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F45846436&secret_url=false[/flash]


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 12, 2012)

If you're hearing what you want to write, you're moving in the right direction. A production question is whether samples support what you're hearing.

Depending on the score I'm studying, I transpose the score to concert, then create a condensed score of three grand staffs for woods, brass, and strings respectively. If you want, you can later reduce the score to 2 staves to more ably see what was doubled by whom and where. 

The advantage of this approach is that you learn melodic scoring techniques by register which impacts how you structure your voicings (part writing) and to see if the samples you have work well with them. 

Consequently, I don't often start with melody and block chords. Instead, after writing the melody and working out the chords, I more often then not, work things out by register using 3-4 single staves, not assuming the melody will always be on top voiced down. This is a more "counterpoint" approach.


----------



## Arbee (Aug 12, 2012)

A sketch is great for getting ideas onto paper quickly and being able to "see" the music at a glance. A full score can be misleading visually and hard to see any weaknesses in the orchestration. When transferring from sketch to full score I'm always very conscious of voice leading so each part has it's own musical integrity. If I start with a "melody + chords" mindset or a piano sketch, voice leading really helps make the orchestration cohesive.

Not sure if that was the question however, just my 2 cents....


----------



## christianhowes (Aug 12, 2012)

Let me second what Arbee's saying about the importance of awareness of voice-leading to creating a sense of textural fullness. Part of that, for me, is feeling that voices are dedicated to a particular end - rhythmic drive, or offbeats, or counterpoint, or a fluid bass line; anything - rather than just filling out harmony, just filling in a strictly necessary note.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 12, 2012)

> I have seen other composers use staff paper with 4 or 5 empty staves... seems like that might be a good approach. For a recent piece, I used 4 staves - 2 treble and 2 bass. This seemed to work because I had some rhythm very low, as well as low chords, with the melody being in the alto and soprano registers. But, I kind of just stumbled on that approach - adding staves as I needed them. I wonder if there is a more streamlined way to do this?



Goldsmith and Mancini both worked with very complete condensed scores. A sketch score is for outlining ideas.

Step 2 is the more complete condensed score. From Judy Green Music Goldsmith used a custom 2 system 13 stave pad similar to P515 and Mancini used one similar to P507. I know because I copies of several of their scores they gave me.

Both used these two different pads as mini-complete pads modeled after the Berlioz sketch pad which is a full page score miniaturized. The top staves followed the standard order of woodwinds, brass and strings. 

All of their condensed scores were complete, meaning all the notes that were going to be performed were down on paper. No one added to their scores.

Step 3 at their level was sending the condensed score to the orchestrator who transferred the condensed to full score, and from there to the copyist. 

From a procedural basis, start with paper big enough to handle your ideas rather than trying to add staves.

Just remember - sketch is for ideas, condensed for the whole score with all notes in a smaller format. 

http://www.judygreenmusic.com/?p=order&f=P


----------



## Arbee (Aug 12, 2012)

Perhaps digressing a little but I think with so much happening in the bass end and with percussion these days, perhaps the sketch pad needs a complete overhaul. For example, I've started playing around with an extended grand staff and percussion staves for sketching. It certainly helps me see the lower parts of a score more clearly without ledger lines (or octave transposition), and the rhythmic structure.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 12, 2012)

Good point. Goldsmith actually had a percussion stave added to his custom pad for non-pitched percussion.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 13, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Sun Aug 12 said:


> If you're hearing what you want to write, you're moving in the right direction. A production question is whether samples support what you're hearing.



Hi Peter, thanks very much for your reply. I have learned a lot by visiting your website and using some of your training materials 

Sample-wise, I have fairly high-end libraries, so I can't claim that is causing any problem I have. I am just trying to write "legit"... I feel that is the best way to realize the ideas I have in my head.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 13, 2012)

Arbee @ Sun Aug 12 said:


> When transferring from sketch to full score I'm always very conscious of voice leading so each part has it's own musical integrity. If I start with a "melody + chords" mindset or a piano sketch, voice leading really helps make the orchestration cohesive.



I think that good voice-leading is everything. In jazz, classical... any music, really.

So, I completely agree and understand, and think this is where solid four-part writing comes into play.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 13, 2012)

christianhowes @ Sun Aug 12 said:


> Let me second what Arbee's saying about the importance of awareness of voice-leading to creating a sense of textural fullness. Part of that, for me, is feeling that voices are dedicated to a particular end - rhythmic drive, or offbeats, or counterpoint, or a fluid bass line; anything - rather than just filling out harmony, just filling in a strictly necessary note.



Christian, my experience is that proper four-part writing takes care of much of this. Chords resolve properly as they change, and each line has its own distinct playable melody. It's far more than filling out the chords. I think I get (and agree with) what you are saying.

My comment on filling out comes from looking at all these rich and lush orchestral scores and seeing all these clusters of notes... sometimes it seems every damn note of the chord is played in 3 or 4 registers! Sometimes doubled in the same octave, sometimes doubled 8va or 8vb, sometimes interlaced. The possibilities seem endless. I think I once read one of Peter Alexander's texts where he said pro orchestrators know a million devices (techniques, tricks, whatever you want to call them) and knowing which device to use to achieve the desired affect is how you are successful.

I think my bag of tricks is pretty lean! Guess I need to get back to studying and reducing some scores  Doesn't seem like there's any other way to really learn what I need to know.

Thanks to everyone for their comments.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 13, 2012)

Casey Edwards @ Sun Aug 12 said:


> I prefer doing it this way:



Hey Casey, thanks for providing this. This is terrific!


----------



## Casey Edwards (Aug 13, 2012)

marclawsonmusic @ Mon Aug 13 said:


> Casey Edwards @ Sun Aug 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer doing it this way:
> ...



Not a problem. I prefer 3 staves for every section, but was limited to 1 stave for percussion in this one. You work with what you've got!


----------



## JohnG (Aug 13, 2012)

marclawsonmusic @ 13th August 2012 said:


> I am just trying to write "legit"... I feel that is the best way to realize the ideas I have in my head.



Maybe. The idea that there is a legitimate way of writing and orchestrating and that, by implication, other methods are illegitimate bugs me. I never go from a piano to a full orchestration. I write straight for the whole thing, though I don't fill in every note from the very beginning.

For me, it's iterative. I write sometimes melodies, but just as often write some rhythmic material and alter the melody afterwards. And of course "melody" might be just a motif, not a tune that would be singable. 

My point is this: don't get too tangled up in some idea of an orthodox way of composing. Especially with the tools we have now, there is no single "correct" way of writing.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 13, 2012)

Thanks, John. Good point there...

There is definitely a part of me that feels somewhat intimidated and that there is a "right" way of writing orchestral music. That's probably too rigid.

But there's another part of me that, when I hear a very Williams-ish horn line in my head, I want to be able to pull that off in my own music. That's what I meant by "legit" - just tight and buttoned up orchestration that communicates the music very clearly.

Does that make sense?

Ultimately, I think I'm just trying to figure out the best workflow. Coming from a songwriter background, I will probably always start from the piano. After that, it's a bit more murky. It's probably best to get all of the known elements laid out first... the arrangement, underlying rhythm, melodies and counter-melodies... then fill in the blanks from there.

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud here. You've clearly given me some good food for thought. 

Thanks again for your response,
Marc


----------



## JohnG (Aug 13, 2012)

If you like John Williams, you can copy his orchestration style a bit by investing in the scores themselves, which are available in a very easy to read "signature" edition. Our own Peter Alexander sells them here:

http://www.alexanderpublishing.com/Departments/Composing-and-Film-Scoring/John-Williams-Study-Scores.aspx (http://www.alexanderpublishing.com/Depa ... cores.aspx)

It can be hard to sort out the essential architecture of a full score by looking at all the notes together, but J Williams' work is usually pretty clear (at least the big theme-based material). 

One way to approach writing is to write in the "main" bits first. That might be a melody and a bass line, or a melody and a rhythmic idea. Then you can think about what will make the rhythm really work, and whether or not you need a countermelody.

For traditional orchestration there are several very good books. I prefer Sam Adler's "The Study of Orchestration" and its accompanying CDs (a separate purchase). I would recommend against buying any orchestration book that does not have CDs or MP3s with it to illustrate the examples.


----------



## Arbee (Aug 13, 2012)

The issues of weight and harmonic density are ones I struggle with. Not so much the "how to do it", but simply defining my personal taste. I prefer more open and less dense orchestration, others prefer thick and very rich orchestration. I really don't think there's one right way. Unfortunately I've found too many books on the subject where the author has strong views about "the right way" rather than just simply supplying the tools.

The orchestrations I've done and been happiest with over the years have been those that went straight from head to paper rather than via piano. They just seemed cleaner and more cohesive somehow, but horses for courses.....


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 13, 2012)

*I spoke to John Graham before posting this.*

Because of John's endorsement of the Adler book, I'm responding re: the Professional Orchestration series. The link below is to a bundle that competes directly with Adler.

http://alexanderpublishing.com/Products/Professional-Orchestration-Vol-1--Basic-Study-PDFMP3-Bundle__ProOrch-BasicStudyPDF.aspx (http://alexanderpublishing.com/Products ... dyPDF.aspx)

*1.* The impetus of the Professional Orchestration series came directly from my interview with John Williams' orchestrator, Herb Spenser. Being new to Los Angeles, Herb Spenser said that to be successful you needed to know a 1000 (not a million) orchestration devices. 

_Thus, the objective of the Professional Orchestration series is to provide you with orchestration vocabulary organized where appropriate by the low, medium, high, and very high registers per solo instrument, soli section, and devices created from combining orchestral sections or instruments._

*Volumes 1, 2A, and 2B cover the basic orchestration vocabulary.* Volume 1 covers solo instruments and instrumentation notes. v2A is the only orchestration text covering the 63 main string section writing techniques across the low, medium, high and very high registers, while the focus of v2B is woodwinds and brass vocabulary. 

*Edited by Hollywood studio musicians.* All of the instrumentation notes in v1 were edited by members of Sandy DeCrescent's studio orchestra used by Goldsmith, Horner, Williams and many others. 

Thus, Professional Orchestration is the first orchestration series to come out of the scoring stages of Los Angeles.

*The v1 Bundle*
The v1 download bundle (the above link), is the direct competitor to Adler at a radical savings. The bundle comes with:

*a.* Professional Orchestration Volume 1

*b.* MP3 audio of a majority of the book's score excerpts with the complete work or movements, and timings in spreadsheet format. The complete work or movement is given since succeeding volumes pull from the same core works, to hear the excerpt in the context of the whole movement, and to satisfy school listening requirements so that students can listen away from the library. Please note that score selection was based on scores recommended to me by leading Hollywood orchestrators.

*c.* The Professional Mentor Workbook

*d.* The Spectrotone Chart (created by 4x Academy Award nominee for best film score Arthur Lange;

Here's the content of the Professional Mentor™ workbook:

1. Lesson Planner
2. Score Analysis Guide
3. Orchestral Sketchpad PDF
4. Spectrotone Analysis Guide
5. Spectrotone Range Sheets
6. Recording Spectrotone Combinations
7. VSL Self-Study MIDI Mockup
8. Professional Mentor Writing Assignments
9. Orchestral Sample Library Evaluation Spreadsheets 

Whether for individual use or the college classroom, the Professional Mentor workbook also comes with seven (7) Professional Mentor™ Audio Lectures on how to study and learn:

1. Professional Mentor Overview
2. Score Analysis Overview
3. Spectrotone Analysis Overview
4. Spectrotone Range Sheet Assignments
5. Recording Spectrotone Combinations
6. VSL Self-Study Overview
7. Professional Mentor Writing Assignments Overview

Courtesy of the VSL and Jay Bacal, we've included 13 MP3/MIDI files by individual instrument to help you learn the techniques of MIDI Mockup. 

*Price Comparison*
The above Professional Orchestration download bundle is $79.95USD vs. over $200USD for Adler.

Thanks, John, for the opportunity to share this.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 13, 2012)

Arbee @ Mon Aug 13 said:


> The issues of weight and harmonic density are ones I struggle with. Not so much the "how to do it", but simply defining my personal taste. I prefer more open and less dense orchestration, others prefer thick and very rich orchestration. I really don't think there's one right way. Unfortunately I've found too many books on the subject where the author has strong views about "the right way" rather than just simply supplying the tools.
> 
> The orchestrations I've done and been happiest with over the years have been those that went straight from head to paper rather than via piano. They just seemed cleaner and more cohesive somehow, but horses for courses.....



I don't know what books you're referring to as to the "right way", but many of the points you bring up depend on the style of writing and the size ensemble.

Orchestral Weighting, often termed dynamic equivalents, simply means understanding the dynamic levels in which there is balance or whether one color predominates over another based on section or ensemble size. 

For example, regardless of the style you're writing, it still takes 2 FH at _f_ to equal 1 tpt at _f_.

If I'm understanding how you're meaning harmonic density, I think you'll find that that's composer/work/ensemble size dependent. So in this area, if you're looking for "the answer" there isn't one. It's all dependent. 

In this regard, I think an effective orchestrator is a lot like the Food Network's Iron Chefs in that you have to pull from a wide variety of sources to understand how best to approach the current assignment. Like an Iron Chef, this is all skill development that takes time, listening and thinking, as composing and orchestrating _is_ an interior and intellectual life.


----------



## Arbee (Aug 13, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Aug 14 said:


> I don't know what books you're referring to as to the "right way", but many of the points you bring up depend on the style of writing and the size ensemble.
> 
> Orchestral Weighting, often termed dynamic equivalents, simply means understanding the dynamic levels in which there is balance or whether one color predominates over another based on section or ensemble size.
> 
> ...


I should have probably been a little clearer, by weight (yes, probably not the right term) I meant predominantly choices about octave doubling, not dynamic balancing which IMO is more scientific and easier to come to grips with.

I prefer books/courses that are not too subjective or indoctrinating. I'd hate to think students are led to believe there is only one right way to do things. As we all know, breaking the rules once you know them produces some of the most magic moments (as it does with cooking, one of my other loves  ).

Harmonic density, I mean how extended the chords are and how they are voiced - from thick divisi clusters to more open voicings that pick out only the most relevant notes. Once you gain experience across classical, jazz and rock for example, it's easy to drown in choices regarding how far you go on almost every level between simplicity and rich complexity.

Interesting topic, I should probably get some work done :oops:


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 13, 2012)

@Arbee - all the work on dynamic equivalents has been done by ear by composers, most of whom were composer/conductors.

Your use of density reminds me of Dick Grove.

The "breaking the rules" thing is totally academic stemming from trying to teach mathematically 4-part counterpoint in freshman harmony while delaying the study of counterpoint until the junior year.

The only four absolute rules I know of in orchestrating for live people (not sample libraries) are:

1. Write within the range of the instrument;
2. Make the parts as idiomatic as possible;
3. Eventually the bow runs out;
4. Contrary to public opinion, wind and brass players need to take a breath.


----------



## bryla (Aug 14, 2012)

Peter, rule no. 1, 3 and 4 all fall within rule 2  we should all just have rule 2 as our desktop background


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 14, 2012)

Hey Peter, thanks for the info on the Pro Orchestration series.

I remember that I bought one of these volumes from your website a while back (1-2 years ago), but at the time my sight reading skills were not good enough to make practical use of it. I also think the Mp3 files might have been a separate purchase back then...

That said, I'm going to dig around my hard drive and see what I have. I've learned a lot in the past couple years and also work in Finale regularly now. Doing those score reduction exercises was very intimidating back then, but I think they will be much easier now.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback. This has been a very helpful thread.
Marc


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 14, 2012)

JohnG @ Mon Aug 13 said:


> If you like John Williams, you can copy his orchestration style a bit by investing in the scores themselves, which are available in a very easy to read "signature" edition. Our own Peter Alexander sells them here:
> 
> http://www.alexanderpublishing.com/Departments/Composing-and-Film-Scoring/John-Williams-Study-Scores.aspx (http://www.alexanderpublishing.com/Depa ... cores.aspx)
> 
> ...



Thanks for this feedback, John. The J Williams scores are on my short-term buy list for sure. Maybe I'll use last night's gig money to pick up one or two of them! :D

I have read Rimsky-Korsakov's book, and might even have one of Peter's Pro Orchestration volumes somewhere on my computer. I come to the classical world with little training, so I have had quite a bit of ramp-up on all the technical terms, instruments, jargon, sight-reading, part-writing, etc, etc. 

Like any writer, my goal is simply to realize what is in my mind, but there's been quite a bit of ramp-up when it comes to orchestral writing.

Anyway, thank you for your time and for everyone's contribution to this thread. I am finding that the VI control forums are a terrific resource! =o 

Marc


----------



## clarkcontrol (Aug 14, 2012)

My favorite word here is idiomatic/idiom.

I find that when I'm comfortable with the rules, I have no desire to "break" them. This is mostly because the music loses transparency whenever I do. Imagine attempting a traditional (idiomatic) Shakespearean production in every way except when Romeo says "Juliet" with a southern drawl. Fail. One moment destroys the whole deal. 

Knowing the idiom well means that the rules and the architecture are totally invisible to the listener and plain and simple to the scholar. If it's done well, it looks easy and sounds totally natural. If only most of the rules are followed, the music lacks stylistic focus and often will sound clouded or awkward. Or amateur.

I think this is because some people believe if they don't break some rules then their music won't sound original or fresh. It took me a while to find out that this is exactly the opposite in practice.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 14, 2012)

I'm struggling with your use of the word rules. What rules are you referring to? In Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faune, Debussy uses constant structure voicings in the string of R573 and there's no "traditional" voice leading or "rules" followed.


----------



## mducharme (Aug 14, 2012)

Any "rules" were written after the fact by authors to describe what happened 95% of the time in music. The hallowed rules of harmony were created by textbook authors, describing the practice that they saw in their study of the repertoire of the common practice period. If you look at any grouping of college-level harmony textbooks, you will see they have a slightly different set of "rules", most often in terms of doubling, with the most frequent contradiction being doubling for first inversion triads. This is because each textbook author has individually studied the literature and created their own series of instructions as to how to best reproduce the common practice style.

One hallowed rule of harmony is the spacing between tenor-alto and alto-soprano not exceeding an octave. Yet I bet you could not get through 4 or 5 Bach chorales without finding spacing that exceeds this. It is not that Bach made an error - it is that he decided that the positive effect of the continuation of that line in that voice made up for the negative effects of the excess spacing.

Even if you ignore the fact that a lot of Bach's music breaks the rules, we are not in the common practice period anymore - the 20th century was a time of great change. The hallowed "rules" began to vanish.

The rules have benefited me in my writing mostly in terms of ear training. Often, I find parallel 5ths or octaves objectionable in voices that are established as being independent. The study of harmony and careful listening has attuned me to this. However, some situations, I would argue, allow for parallel 5ths/8ves between independent voices without being objectionable to the ear. You should not be afraid to trust your ears, and your musical sensibilities, over some textbook rule. The rules were placed as guidelines, not absolutes.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 14, 2012)

Thank you, Michael, but my clarifying question was directed to ClarkControl to better understand what his definition of rules is.


----------



## mducharme (Aug 14, 2012)

Hi Peter, my apologies - my response was also directed at clarkcontrol. Sorry for any confusion! (I probably should have prefaced my response with "clarkcontrol - "). I believe we are on the same page (or pretty close) as far as the "rules" go, I was merely adding my own opinion on the subject, for clarkcontrol to consider.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 14, 2012)

I am anything but a scholar when it comes to music... I am a self-taught rock musician who plays bar shows and concerts around town.

But, I know good common sense when I see it. Some of the "rules" do make sense... At least, to me. For example, in part-writing, one is told to always resolve the third of the dominant (V) to the root of the tonic (I).

This just makes good sense because that minor second interval naturally pulls the ear back towards the root note. I guess that's why it's called idiomatic.

So, when I use the terms "legit" or "proper" when referring to orchestration, I'm referring to things like this... I'd like to uncover more of these concepts so I can integrate them into my writing.

I didn't realize there was so much debate surrounding orchestration. This discussion is fascinating. I never went to music school so I imagine a lot of these things are debated in the classroom too. 

Great thread... thanks to everyone for chiming in,
Marc


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 14, 2012)

As some know, I've also got a harmony book series in motion (Applied Professional Harmony) and here I teach a) guidelines and b) stylistic considerations. 

Now Marc, in your example, in "traditional" harmony I would agree. But in "jazz" harmony what if the root of the chord has been substituted with the 9th and the root is in the bass?

This is why in MY teaching approach I start first with triadic chord connections based on common tones, then 4-part harmony by common tones, and use what Schoenberg called the Law of the Nearest Way to guide chord motion and voicing leading. 

Once the student is secure in making these connections and playing them with strings, brass, etc., they can now function for most pop music applications.

But after that, we then look at stylistic considerations. If I want a jazz sound, there are "rules" for that. If I want to emulate Debussy harmony, there are "rules" for Debussy.

This avoids the "learn the rules/then break the rules" mentality which I think stifles more learners than it helps because you start thinking there's a right and a wrong way to do things, and that can be paralyzing. 

My APH 101 and 102 are good, but if you just want to shoot through a harmony book and get your chops up in a year or less, get this harmony book by Schoenberg which is a writer's approach vs. a mathematical approach to harmony:

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Harmony-100th-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0520266080/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345006545&sr=8-1&keywords=schoenberg+harmony (http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Harmony-10 ... rg+harmony)

You have to do it on a piano, but oh the rewards!

@Mike - Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## clarkcontrol (Aug 15, 2012)

I'm really talking about "idioms" and as an extention, the "rules" that are a subset of a particular style. that's why I began my post as I did. 

Peter has outlined the general process quite well here, and I personally use a method that's very similar to JohnG's approach when writing orchestral music. So my argument is not about process, it's about the product. 

I won't belabor the technical details, but theory is only the first step. Understanding and applying style is an entirely different animal. 

The problem I encounter is that I get clients that think they have to break rules in order for their music to be original. Or more precisely, they want to ignore stylistic convention because they believe their music transcends style. They might describe their music as "jazzy-techno-hip-hop-polka but with folksy prog-rock tendencies" or some such nonsense. I mean, I like all those styles but do I really want ketchup and chocolate syrup on my Indian chicken curry? No. Do I really want to mix plaid and paisley? No. 

There are geniuses like Beethoven or Stravinsky who reinvented certain concepts, but this doesn't give one permission to ignore accepted practice to stroke the ego.

NOW, this all pertains to the individual who wishes to make a legitimate cultural reference with their music. Being authentic is absolutely key in getting the message across. If you want a jazz big band sound, then you'd better understand altered dominant voicings and how they spread across 15 horn players. 

But if the intent is an ackward parody, then knock yourself out.

So really all I'm saying is this: The more I deviate from accepted practice, the more diluted the music becomes.

So my apologies to everyone for pulling this thread OT...

Edit: I'm not saying bending rules is bad per se, but as I add more and more rule bending, whatever music im working on loses it's stylistic identity. So I have to be veeerryy careful when I do it because I almost always dislikes the result. I used to be a bit of a jazz snob right out of college (did some tours etc) so when I heard charts that had weak voicings (read: not idiomatic) or rhythms, it was unsatisfying. It sounded like someone was trying to be clever. 

Please no offense is meant by any of this! I enjoy mixing genres and techniques, like adding electronics to orchestra, or jazz to r&b, but boy I feel so cheesy sometimes when I do!! I almost always pull out the electronics and replace with VSL (or make it ALL electronic!), for instance. So to those who are better at it I salute you. 

Thanks guys! ....and now back to your regularly scheduled program...


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 15, 2012)

@clarkcontrol: I don't think you've pulled the thread off track at all. Your point on styles and idioms is really spot-on. If one decides to write a tune in <insert_style_here>, there are certain conventions that are part of that world that really define how things sound... otherwise, why choose that style to begin with?

@Peter: You make a very good point. I am not exactly sure how a 3rd would resolve to a rootless tonic with a 9th in the bass! I guess it depends on proximity 

All I know is that a good melody can work wonders. There's a reason why all of us know the "Jaws" theme. And there's hardly a kid out there who can't hum "Star Wars". Some of us might even remember the themes from "Super Mario Bros" (including that bass riff when you're below ground :D). And, that was 8-bit video game music... Talk about idioms!

Hmmm... makes you think... I was about to say that there is an "orchestral film music" idiom, but I'm not even sure that's right... Williams doesn't sound like Horner, and Goldsmith doesn't sound like Zimmer. But all of these are well-known "orchestral film music" composers.

Maybe the key is just writing something memorable and compelling... regardless of the idiom?

Either way, great food for thought... I think I'll get another glass of wine. Cheers o-[][]-o o-[][]-o


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 15, 2012)

@Marc - I gave that example because it doesn't resolve. It's a stylistic issue!

Goldsmith taught: Be a composer who writes for films, not a film composer. The examples you picked exemplify that.


----------

