# Tricks to avoid over-orchestrating?



## maxiedaniels (Sep 16, 2022)

As someone who never actually took proper orchestration classes of any kind, I'm finding I sometimes waste a TON of time while composing trailer tracks because I'll accidentally over-do layers of strings/horns/etc, making a mix messy, melodies get hidden by too many notes in the same range, etc.

I took a step back yesterday while having trouble, and decided to go to just a piano sound and figure out what notes would be played where, and only let myself use the one sound so I couldn't over-complicate things by having too many notes clustered and sounding messy. I think that worked pretty well, but I would think there's times where you'll *want* instruments playing stuff near each other, no? Does anyone have any tips in terms of simple orchestration no-no's, etc?

I'm working in trailer music and don't plan on working with real orchestras, so I don't necessarily care about things being physically possible to play, but I do want to make sure I don't get way too messy. I've been checking out a lot of 2WEI stuff, and I'm noticing that their parts are actually way simpler than I tend to make things while composing.


----------



## Karmand (Sep 16, 2022)

K I S S


----------



## liquidlino (Sep 16, 2022)

Look in your favourite orchestation book. They typically have a section where they discuss balancing the melody vs texture by giving parts different "scores" - then you just make sure teh scores add up to the same, and it puts you in the ballpark. See this video for an example:


----------



## ryans (Sep 16, 2022)

My approach is to work fast. Try not to over-listen or obsess over certain passages (I know this can be very hard).

I like to get things down, usually kind rough, but have all the elements in place. Then, either take a break, work on another section, part of the mix, etc.

I find when I come back and listen, even after a short break, I instantly hear what it's lacking and what changes (if any) I need to make. I can make them quickly and repeat the process.

Not sure if that's helpful, but that's my workflow (and it's possible I suck)


----------



## Zedcars (Sep 16, 2022)

These courses may help you: https://orchestrationrecipes.thinkific.com/enrollments


----------



## mybadmemory (Sep 16, 2022)

Creating something complex is quick. Stripping down to the core takes ages. This is why we often see artists, regardless of art form, starting out with a lot and ending up with something much simpler. Both over the process of creating a singular piece but also over the span of an entire career.

My process in design is to first flood the screen with every possible idea I have for a complete mess, and then gradually question each and every piece of what’s there until what’s left is what’s actually needed to convey the intended result. The tricky things is that the less you have, the better what’s actually there needs to be. 

Understanding what is essential and what is not is a skill that simply takes time to learn I think.


----------



## Arbee (Sep 16, 2022)

"Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should". I'm not sure who uttered these words first (several folk have been credited), but they've served me well in creative and non-creative endeavours.

Similar in many ways to developing software, the first idea is usually too simple, then it gets too complex, then it starts to rationalise and the important elements start to surface. The "goldilocks principle". Too often, I don't have the patience or the will to wait for stage three and have to learn the lesson yet again 😖


----------



## Joel Wilkinson (Sep 17, 2022)

As others have said, lot's of good resources on orchestration around, Samuel Adler's book is fantastic and really easy to understand with good examples.

One thing that might help is to do more doubling rather than writing new lines. When you look at a lot of classical music and film scores, there are a lot of instruments playing at once but they often share the same line in either unison or octave doublings. This helps to build a thicker timbre and give more clarity to important lines


----------



## Dietz (Sep 17, 2022)

The oldest trick to avoid overdoing _anything_ is to introduce tight deadlines.


----------



## tc9000 (Sep 17, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> Look in your favourite orchestation book. They typically have a section where they discuss balancing the melody vs texture by giving parts different "scores" - then you just make sure teh scores add up to the same, and it puts you in the ballpark. See this video for an example:



If anyone wants a taster of The Secrets of Orchestration, there is a Udemy version (older and much reduced in scale, but superb value for money, especially on sale):



https://www.udemy.com/course/the-secrets-of-orchestration/


----------



## Bee_Abney (Sep 17, 2022)

Arbee said:


> "Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should". I'm not sure uttered these words first (several folk have been credited), but they've served me well in creative and non-creative endeavours.
> 
> Similar in many ways to developing software, the first idea is usually too simple, then it gets too complex, then it starts to rationalise and the important elements start to surface. The "goldilocks principle". Too often, I don't have the patience or the will to wait for stage three and have to learn the lesson yet again 😖


The writer Margery Allingham said that she writes each paragraph three times. Once to get the ideas out, once to tidy things up and add finesse, and once to make it read like it was only written once.


----------



## vincewebb (Sep 17, 2022)

I've also struggled with this pitfall. Nevertheless I think the approach of 'throwing everything at the wall' can be a good one - initially - as long as you then take sufficient time to go through and refine the arrangement as the focus of the piece becomes apparent.

A useful arranging rule of thumb is the 'rule of 3': try not to have more than 3 complimentary ideas occurring at any one time. You might want to check out Ear Opener on YouTube for more general advice on arranging. 



Lately I've been experimenting with deliberately constraining my arrangement from the start by thinking more in terms of a fixed ensemble when writing. I avoid ensemble patches in general and problem solve about how to get the sound in my head to sing with the finite resources available. 

I've found my arrangements immediately started to pop a bit more - not to mention the benefit of additional mental clarity that goes along with this approach!

Crucially once the arrangement has taken shape you can then go ahead and add in supporting layers, use ensemble patches etc. Do whatever necessary to polish up the sound - throw realism to the wind if you want a larger than life sound. But this is all comes after the track has a clear identity, which you're then supporting during the 'production' phase. 

If you're curious I recently posted a video on my YouTube Channel showing this way of working:



Good luck!


----------



## ed buller (Sep 17, 2022)

Look at any JW score...empty. Large tuttis are rare and doublings though frequent, always have a clear purpose. Avoid cutting and pasting. Every time any color is doubled it will lose something . Have a reason for doing so. Doublings at pitch especially !!. A piccolo and tuba ( wrath of khan ) is a much more interesting texture than a clarinet and flute.

Try to stick to the rule of three. And bass !!! again in JW hardly any. Where there is it's usually Double bass and Tuba but a lot of the time there is none

best

ed


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 17, 2022)

maxiedaniels said:


> Does anyone have any tips in terms of simple orchestration no-no's, etc?


The most important thing – in this case – is to raise the awareness for the fact that instruments come with overtones that occupy the range above the played note.

The amount and intensity of the overtones, but also the possible lack of overtones is a crucial aspect in instrumentation and lots of "rules" (which of course are rather advices than rules) deal with this fact.

So my first advice would be that you take some time to get familiar with the spectral impact of a certain chord/texture etc.
Play a chord and try to identify which frequency range it occupies.
Or play a bass line with different instruments (also different note lengths) and look how it affects the melodies above.

The reason why there are lots of doublings in the octave above (or even double and triple octaves) in the literature is often to be found that the "main" register is somehow obscured by instruments from below and so the clarity of the melody gets restored by adding higher registers (which were called the _"clarino"_ register btw.)

Dense tuttis with masses of instruments playing at the same time can produce a wonderful sound ifthe arrangement is done in an adequate way.
It's no wonder that Bruckner's music – who was familiar of registration being a famous organist – is full of huge and loud tuttis that nevertheless still ound "transparent"

One of the most common mistakes that I hear in many tracks of non trained composers is to translate the registers from the piano to orchestral instruments.
Woodwinds may sound (much) lower in an orchestral context and the midrange of strings gets easily obscured by louder brass joining a passage.

Also: with the bass register keep in mind that in order to produce a clear function you don't need to keep a low note. Often you don't even need to keep a chord.
The brain perceives the note and holds it until a new note in a neighbouring range is played.
(Recitativos in baroque and early classical music are extremely interesting to study in this regard)


----------



## muk (Sep 17, 2022)

It's not about rules in orchestration, or music theory. It's about understanding how something is perceived, and then use that knowledge to make the musical statement that you want to make in a concise way. For example - and this is something that does translate from the piano to the orchestra: a chord in the lower registers in close harmony will sound dense and muddy. If the same notes are spaced further apart they will sound clear and open. It's not that one is forbidden always. It's the composer's/orchestrator's job to know the effect each voicing has, and choose according to their needs.











As such, it's not possible to give a set of rules for orchestration that you need to follow. There are guidelines, as @Living Fossil mentioned. They are incredibly helpful to know. Ulitmately, though, you need to develop experience of what is perceived how, and you need to develop your own sensitivies about how to orchestrate in the context of your own music. That's only possible through studying a lot of great music, reading about orchestration, and orchestrating yourself a lot. There is no shortcut for that, but spending the time will be rewarding.


----------



## GtrString (Sep 17, 2022)

Try creating simple and short guidelines for yourself, like always have a reason to add something. 

And if you can't find a reason, don't add. Of course you should experiment also, but still if you can't find a qualifier, disable the part (you may find it later). 

Such guidelines can add up, and be part of your signature sound, so there is that..


----------



## Arbee (Sep 17, 2022)

The biggest clue I've found that I'm making progress - the clearer and more transparent my arrangement, the easier it is to mix and to achieve clarity and apparent loudness.


----------



## tc9000 (Sep 17, 2022)

Don't be tempted to mix your way out of the mud! I was always trying to fix muddy mid and low end with EQ. Nope: I needed (still need to!) to orchestrate better for clarity.

I wish there were better visualisation tools for harmonic analysis - maybe there already are?

That said, I should probably stop looking for the easy way out and continue learning orchestration and harmony.


----------



## Arbee (Sep 17, 2022)

tc9000 said:


> Don't be tempted to mix your way out of the mud! I was always trying to fix muddy mid and low end with EQ. Nope: I needed (still need to!) to orchestrate better for clarity.


This^^. Occasionally it's worth persevering but rarely.


----------



## TonalDynamics (Sep 17, 2022)

muk said:


> It's not about rules in orchestration, or music theory. It's about understanding how something is perceived, and then use that knowledge to make the musical statement that you want to make in a concise way. For example - and this is something that does translate from the piano to the orchestra: a chord in the lower registers in close harmony will sound dense and muddy. If the same notes are spaced further apart they will sound clear and open. It's not that one is forbidden always. It's the composer's/orchestrator's job to know the effect each voicing has, and choose according to their needs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In addition to the great advice by muk and Living Fossil, I want to point out that you need a solid understanding of the ranges and timbre not only of each section, but of each instrument _within_ each section:

Each instrument in the orchestra has a range which it is not only limited to, but within that range, there will be another range wherein they sound 'best' for a particular playstyle; lots of quick staccato Cb. bass lines in the C0-C1 range for example have the potential to ruin your track, and you could for instance write for piccolo in D4-D5, or for Oboe in D3-D4, but why not just use some kind of flute, or English Horn, respectively?

You'll get a lot more fluidity and musicality from those instrument choices within the range that they 'do best', and this is almost always the case; Stuff like harmonics or pizzicato can bend or break these rules, but as a general guideline and like someone else said, 'just because you can write outside an instrument's effective range, doesn't mean that you should'.

Take the Tuba, for instance: You're writing some brass harmonies. You _could_ utilize a tuba in D4-A4 for some kind of Dmin/Fmaj harmony, but you have horns and 'bones for that depending on how bombastic you want it to sound. On the other hand, a nice descending Dmin scale from D4-D3, and then say C2 > landing on F1 for the Fmaj., makes a lot of sense because it's a descending counterpoint and the tubas are only stepping on the horns momentarily.

So it's a lot of thinking about what a section is doing that determines its relative range within your orchestration.

It is impossible to separate timbre from notes, and 'pitch' is only one of the factors relevant when learning to orchestrate; within that 'comfort range' that each instrument possesses, certain notes will not only sound best, but me more fluid for the player to perform _and_ possess richer overtones and dynamic range, and this phenomenon actually does come through in samples.

So yeah my advice is, learn not only the instrument ranges (important), but which specific register those instruments work best in depending upon articulation, beginning with a focus on instrumentalism and virtuosity (some might not approve of this approach, but you can learn a staggering amount about the capabilities of each instrument, and by extension each section, by listening to solo performances)

Best of luck, and Godspeed!


----------



## composer_nico.maximilian (Sep 17, 2022)

maxiedaniels said:


> As someone who never actually took proper orchestration classes of any kind, I'm finding I sometimes waste a TON of time while composing trailer tracks because I'll accidentally over-do layers of strings/horns/etc, making a mix messy, melodies get hidden by too many notes in the same range, etc.
> 
> I took a step back yesterday while having trouble, and decided to go to just a piano sound and figure out what notes would be played where, and only let myself use the one sound so I couldn't over-complicate things by having too many notes clustered and sounding messy. I think that worked pretty well, but I would think there's times where you'll *want* instruments playing stuff near each other, no? Does anyone have any tips in terms of simple orchestration no-no's, etc?
> 
> I'm working in trailer music and don't plan on working with real orchestras, so I don't necessarily care about things being physically possible to play, but I do want to make sure I don't get way too messy. I've been checking out a lot of 2WEI stuff, and I'm noticing that their parts are actually way simpler than I tend to make things while composing.


 To the 2WEI thing. The work like Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL. The orchestration is very similar and you don't need to use the fff section on the majority of sections. Maybe for a few seconds. But you will get closer to the sound by using lower dynamics.


----------



## youngpokie (Sep 17, 2022)

maxiedaniels said:


> I took a step back yesterday while having trouble, and decided to go to just a piano sound and figure out what notes would be played where, and only let myself use the one sound so I couldn't over-complicate things by having too many notes clustered and sounding messy.


One useful technique is to take such a piano piece and divide it into sections that "lead to" and build tension towards the climax. When the sections are divided, you could then plan the instrumentation from the climax itself (tutti) and work your way backwards towards the intro, etc. This technique essentially works to distribute the instrumentation into these sections based on dynamic and emotional intensity. It also creates better sectional contrast and helps "conserve" the orchestral resources until the most crucial moment of the piece.


----------



## Semproser (Sep 17, 2022)

I think a big part of over orchestrating comes down to whether you like the sound of things raw or not. If you're using a bunch of sounds that you think sound good in a mix but don't stand on their own, you'll want to cover them or blend them with other things that might not really need to be there otherwise. 

Think about Pizza. The 3 flavours of cheese, tomato and bread are enough for most people because they taste good on their own and together make a good mix. Some like to add one or two extra ingredients for extra flavour, but really it isn't necessary.

Meanwhile pasta doesn't have a particularly flavoursome taste whilst being a large part of the meal. So you compensate with lots of flavour in sauces, meats and vegetables prepared in interesting ways mixed with likely a bunch of spices. You need the spices and ingredients because you want really want to eat a plain bowl of pasta - and because of that, its much easier to screw up than pizza because you've got a more delicate balance to make.

So if you want to keep it simpler, use sounds you want to hear own their own.


----------



## composer_nico.maximilian (Sep 17, 2022)

Semproser said:


> I think a big part of over orchestrating comes down to whether you like the sound of things raw or not. If you're using a bunch of sounds that you think sound good in a mix but don't stand on their own, you'll want to cover them or blend them with other things that might not really need to be there otherwise.
> 
> Think about Pizza. The 3 flavours of cheese, tomato and bread are enough for most people because they taste good on their own and together make a good mix. Some like to add one or two extra ingredients for extra flavour, but really it isn't necessary.
> 
> ...


Yes but I don't think there is really any music that make sense when you separate the individual parts. Who would listen to the Trombone divisi of a big band recording?


----------



## Semproser (Sep 18, 2022)

composer_nico.maximilian said:


> Yes but I don't think there is really any music that make sense when you separate the individual parts. Who would listen to the Trombone divisi of a big band recording?


I could have been more clear about this. More like, if you isolated the Trombone divisi of a big band recording, it would be of sound good quality and you could tell it's real because it comes with all the human quirks - hopefully played well together without any weird happenings. It wouldn't sound offensive.

But if the only Trombone VST you've got is BBCSO or something worse and for what you're trying to do it just doesnt sound very good for a multitude of digital reasons that the real band doesnt suffer from, but you *really really* want Trombone in there, there's a drive to to thumb it in anyway and then cover it up with something else. 

If you want to write big, its not really a problem because it *can* probably hide in the mix just fine. But if you're actively trying to write simpler, you can't use VSTs that produce a sound you don't like because they'll be more exposed. 

Does that make more sense?


----------



## TonalDynamics (Sep 18, 2022)

Semproser said:


> If you're using a bunch of sounds that you think sound good in a mix but don't stand on their own


This is a big reason I write in sections, particularly with VI;

My take on this is that if a section or solo doesn't sound good on its own, then it has no place in the piece: You must rearrange, edit performances, mix properly, etc., until it is fully capable of standing on its own (assuming it has enough notes to play during the phrase in question)


----------



## dgburns (Sep 18, 2022)

Trailer tracks are not my specialty, and I admit the rules of engagement are different from underscore. I don’t think orchestration advice for underscore is always applicable to trailers. Trailers seem to have gotten alot more ‘aggressive‘ and seems to me there is an angst to the tone in them. I guess invoking the notion of heavy tension currently is considered to be referencing a story that is ‘important, or epic’.

For regular underscore, the one thing I noticed is that people generally don’t raise the question of why you did NOT double a part or line, especially when it all seems to work in the way the composition is played. An orchestra has alot of colours, and in order to successfully exploit them all ( again IMHO ) you should establish a small slice of it in order to move away from that and create interest by establishing and revealing other aspects of the orchestra or sound pallette. It’s still amazing to me that you can tease a much bigger picture of something by revealing disparate instrumentation. The mind naturally fills in the gap. This should make one question just how filled out the outline should be in order to successfully have the listener realize the ‘big picture’ you are implying. This is the orchestrator’s path and cross to bear.

One point though, in my opinion, doubling sections is about increasing the volume mostly, and at the same time having the new intruments add their flavour, which can be good, or not depending on dynamics chosen. The old masters and orchestrators had the players in front of them and tried stuff out all the time, which led to a general idea of what worked and what was felt to be less effective. It’s easy these days to overcome some of the things that made the less effective orchestration choices in the past because we can artificially correct the natural way the instruments sound together. One example is the heavy use these days of short stroke strings, which are always made to sound much louder then they would when played for real.


----------



## ibanez1 (Sep 18, 2022)

tc9000 said:


> Don't be tempted to mix your way out of the mud! I was always trying to fix muddy mid and low end with EQ. Nope: I needed (still need to!) to orchestrate better for clarity.
> 
> I wish there were better visualisation tools for harmonic analysis - maybe there already are?
> 
> That said, I should probably stop looking for the easy way out and continue learning orchestration and harmony.


This is very important. I always go back to conflicting or overpowering voicing in the low end and clean that up first. One tool you might find handy for this is the hornet plugin called MultiFreqs. You can slap it on a lot of tracks and it will overlay the frequency contribution of those tracks to the mix. You can then isolate problem instruments that stick out too much or see that 3-4 instruments are competing too much in a certain range.

I plan on using this a lot more going forward.


----------



## NoamL (Sep 18, 2022)

It helps to go back to pen and paper. A 4 stave sketchpad should be able to hold all your ideas, most of the time only 3 staves are necessary.

in the DAW it is all too easy to create an accompaniment part, and then add another and another, without thinking or seeing how they all relate to each other. Sometimes these are the same musical idea but spread across a big pitch spectrum - that creates richness but reduces clarity. You only need 3 notes to create a triadic harmony, if those notes are doubled an octave higher or lower, it should be for a reason!






The reduction below uses 2 or 3 staves almost all the time - even for action music. If you did the same reduction but without using multiple layers per staff, (but also, leaving out the details of some independent percussion parts) it would be 3 to 4 staves for almost all of the cue.


----------



## NoamL (Sep 18, 2022)

I think this part here is particularly notable:






I'll bet you someone writing this cue in a DAW (and straining to add musical impact to the spaceship liftoff) would use a lot wider doublings than JW did here. But because JW can see the entire cue on paper his doublings are VERY controlled. In particular the traditionally-correct voicing of the first inversion AbM chord - lots of emphasis on Ab, less on Eb, and *only one *C appears in the voicing. Same with the maj7 chords.


----------



## R.G. (Sep 21, 2022)

maxiedaniels said:


> ...but I would think there's times where you'll *want* instruments playing stuff near each other, no?


Yes there are, and it'll be an important technique for you to learn a bit further down the road.


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 22, 2022)

1. Arrangement is definitely one of the secrets to good orchestration. Start with a basic sketch on piano, keep it simple. Work out your ideas at this stage. No doubled notes, no b9s (unless you're going for ominous).
2. Start with only 2 parts (pick from melody, harmony, ostinato, counterline, etc.). Keep this stage simple; can add complexity later.
3. When one line plays many notes, make other lines with longer notes, and visa versa.
4. Try to keep lines no closer than a 3rd apart.
5. Learn the Overtone series. Natural order of the Overtone series is wide space between notes in the bass, and closer as the octaves increase towards the treble higher notes. The natural note series from bass up is R-R-5th-R-3rd-5th-b7th. This is mother nature's series, not man-made.
6. Learn the orchestra instrument ranges.
7. Finish the sketch. Disregard the temptation to start assigning instruments at the sketch stage, even if you already have a certain sound in your head.
8. Once sketch is finished, assign instruments based on the notation. This is where understanding the ranges of the various orchestral instruments comes in. If you have a melody in the top portion of the treble staff, say in ledger lines, you should instantly realize instruments in a bass range won't work for that line, and even a clarinet in that high range will be iffy. So probably a flute or piccolo, or violin is gonna' work. After a while, where a line is played on piano will reveal the type of orchestral instrument and range that will fit.


----------



## GC Nothern (Sep 30, 2022)

Just don’t put anything in that you’re not putting in for a specific reason


----------



## Gothi (Oct 7, 2022)

maxiedaniels said:


> I'm finding I sometimes waste a TON of time while composing trailer tracks because I'll accidentally over-do layers of strings/horns/etc, making a mix messy, melodies get hidden by too many notes in the same range, etc.


Well, that is actually my technique for composing. I start with a fixed percussion loop. Then overcompose, then lay it all out in seperate sections until they do not cluster. This means that some riffs may be directed to breaks only, while others may be divided in A and B parts. From here, I might add further voices, bridges, C-parts etc. Are you sure it can't be turned to your advantage?

Freya's peace
Gothi


----------



## Saxer (Oct 8, 2022)

One main thing I had to learn (and still do) is thinking different when coming from a band background. 
In a band (pop, rock, jazz) the roles are rather fix: drums for the basic groove, bass with rhythm and bass notes, guitars and keyboards for chords and movement in mid range, solo instruments and vocals for melody. And when a groove starts it might change in different song parts but it rarely ever stops. 
So one problem for me was mainly: if there's some backing pattern running (ostinato, groove, pad, texture, bass) how do I get out of it without dropping the energy? And if I keep patterns going I inevitably end in over-orchestrating because the only thing I can do is adding.


----------



## Arbee (Oct 8, 2022)

Saxer said:


> So one problem for me was mainly: if there's some backing pattern running (ostinato, groove, pad, texture, bass) how do I get out of it without dropping the energy? And if I keep patterns going I inevitably end in over-orchestrating because the only thing I can do is adding.


I agree, it's a weird paradox to me that it feels like jumping off a cliff emotionally to interrupt a good groove and/or good sounding patch, but the payoff from doing so can be so enormous and you have something to come back to.


----------



## Gothi (Oct 8, 2022)

Saxer said:


> So one problem for me was mainly: if there's some backing pattern running (ostinato, groove, pad, texture, bass) how do I get out of it without dropping the energy?


There are some ways to do that. In the example below we wanted to get out of the main groove and into some unpredictable developments.
For a completely different B part we simply changed everything: The key (Cm to Am), the mode (C aeolian to A phrygian), and the meter (6/8 to 4/4). There were still a few overlabs in rhythm and timbre to glue it together, but not much. There is also a c part where we go back in aeolian but not in key. First towards the end everything returns to the original key and meter. So it goes like IN, OUT, OUT, IN with the chronology of the parts


----------

