# Which Composer is  helpful to listen to when staring to learn Orchestration



## Montisquirrel (Apr 12, 2018)

Hi,

I'm just starting to learn about Orchestration. Have never thought how much fun it is.
I'm wondering if you have any advice which composer / song has a more "easy-to-follow" orchestration. Not sure how to specify my request.

I'm talking about not to complex orchestral music.
Maybe you can post music which helped you a lot when starting out.

Or maybe you can give some advice like:
"Composer X = easy to follow,
Composer Y = advanced stuff,
Composer Z = crazy complex"

I would appreciate some answers


----------



## Levitanus (Apr 12, 2018)

If You don't know how Your input should be orchestrated - Rachmaninov
If You know, how Rachmaninov would orchestrate it, and You don't like the result:

You know Rachmaninov not enough
Probably, Wagner or Shtraus is the better reference
Probably, Williams has written an orchestral version of Your input already 
If You still want more fresh sound - Hindemith for clean music, Honegger for dirty.


----------



## tmhuud (Apr 12, 2018)

How Ravel Orchestrated: Mother Goose Suite.


----------



## Levitanus (Apr 12, 2018)

Montisquirrel said:


> Maybe you can post music which helped you a lot when starting out.


I've started with 1st symphony and 2nd piano concert of Rachm, Carmina Burana of Orf, Firebird of Stravinsky, and with orchestral recordings of Diana Krall and Scorpions for jazz nad rock


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 12, 2018)

Montisquirrel said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm just starting to learn about Orchestration. Have never thought how much fun it is.
> I'm wondering if you have any advice which composer / song has a more "easy-to-follow" orchestration. Not sure how to specify my request.
> ...



If you want epic, you can't miss with Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler (with those three you also pick up one heck of a lot in regard to orchestration).

For pretty (and sometimes ominous) Mozart again. Actually, if you're looking for very accessible, almost Pop composer, he's your man.

Middle ground: break out somebody not quite as known, like Scriabin or Berg, and go to _*town*_ studying even a piece of that composer's work. It will benefit your compositions in manifold ways, plus makes you seem very cool amongst art and film music fanatics when you 
mention knowing a slightly more obscure work.

Oh, and try to stay away from Air, Fur Elise, and Eine Kleine when demonstrating your extensive knowledge. Studied folks are kind of cantankerous and like to pretend they don't like what everyone else does.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 12, 2018)

Ravel is a good place to start if you want to learn -- it's less dense than some other composers' work so you can hear a bit more clearly. Aaron Copland is also good. 

It depends somewhat on what you like. Are you more interested in film? Synths?


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 12, 2018)

I learned a lot about the Americana sound I heard in soundtracks like How the West Was Won and even The First Avenger by diving into Copland's work. He was one of the indisputable greats imo. 

A very cool CD twofer to listen to: Copland and then Goldsmith's Red Pony scores. Both are magnificent.


----------



## CT (Apr 12, 2018)

I think I picked up the most from John Adams, Ligeti, and Holst. Howard Shore, too!


----------



## Montisquirrel (Apr 12, 2018)

Thanks everybody so far. Starting making a playlist right now.


----------



## JJP (Apr 12, 2018)

miket said:


> Howard Shore, too!


I would not consider Shore a particularly good example for learning orchestration.


----------



## fixxer49 (Apr 12, 2018)

JJP said:


> I would not consider Shore a particularly good example for learning orchestration.


how come? (serious question, not trolling.)


----------



## JJP (Apr 12, 2018)

He tends to orchestrate in ways that can't be performed easily and require a lot of punching in the studio. Great film composer, but not the best study for orchestration.


----------



## CT (Apr 12, 2018)

Yeah, it's that peculiar and difficult sound that appeals to me, but perhaps it's not something a beginner would turn to for learning basic principles, true.


----------



## joebaggan (Apr 12, 2018)

Stravinsky Rite of Spring and Bartok Concerto for Orchestra are in the advanced category for sure, but are examples of great orchestration.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Apr 12, 2018)

You can get off to a great start, if you read this book and listen to the musical examples:

"Principles of Orchestration: With Musical Examples Drawn From his own Works" by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Montisquirrel (Apr 12, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> You can get off to a great start, if you read this book and listen to the musical examples:
> 
> "Principles of Orchestration: With Musical Examples Drawn From his own Works" by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
> 
> ...



Hi Geoff,

I just bought this book 3 days ago. (This and "The study of Counterpoint" by Johann Joseph Fux)


----------



## CT (Apr 13, 2018)

Montisquirrel said:


> "The study of Counterpoint" by Johann Joseph Fux



That's a good one. Work through it diligently, and you'll be glad you did... even if you never intend to write like Palestrina. 

For orchestration texts, I recommend the Adler. I still reference it.


----------



## Farkle (Apr 13, 2018)

Lots of good ones here. I have a soft spot for the Russians, for learning orchestration. I think Tchaikovsky is excellent for learning both Bread and Butter orchestration (Symphonies no. 4, and 5), as well as more coloristic orchestration (Nutcracker and Swan Lake Ballets).

Prokofiev is a marvel of tight, excellent orchestration. I recommend the Romeo and Juliet full ballet, as well as Romeo and Juliet Suites 1 and 2. Oh, and Peter and the Wolf.

Ravel: Daphnis and Chloe. Advanced orchestration, but pretty darn required. 

I made this Spotify playlist for my students. It's by no means exhaustive, but it's a pretty fun list of classical composers that generate a "filmic" sound.


<iframe src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/user/farkleberry50/playlist/0iNu3rsWFZ0YrHVtf3okSy" width="300" height="380" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe>


----------



## Jaap (Apr 13, 2018)

I would start with Beethoven, symphonies no.3, 6, 7 and then number 9. This will give you insight in some good basics.
Then move on a bit and check out works from Brahms, Schumann, Elgar, Grieg to get a good grip on the romantic era of composing and orchestrating and finalize it with studying Mahler, Wagner for much more advanced orchestration techniques.
Only then I would move to Ravel as Ravel is a master, but he mastered it all and knew his legacy and if you want to build cars, it is hard to start with building a Ferrari straight away, better learn the basics first.
After that the world is yours and so many things to discover from the 20th century 

And try to grab a copy of Samuel Adlers his book The Study of Orchestration (edit, I see its already mentioned)


----------



## fixxer49 (Apr 13, 2018)

Jaap said:


> I would start with *Beethoven, symphonies no.3, 6, 7* and then number 9. This will give you insight in some good basics.


Schubert Symph. no. 8, allegro is a condensed version of all those  The whole movement has one great example after the next for using the various sections for contrast, melodies, rhythm, doublings, different articulations for effect, etc... i cribbed arrangements from it relentlessly for my senior thesis. Also, check out *Walter Piston*'s Orchestration book, although it doesn't seem to get much love 'round here. [Edit: and also Berlioz/Strauss "Treatise On Instrumentation", which has the greatest foreword ever - especially the final paragraph!]


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 13, 2018)

Debussy.


----------



## gamma-ut (Apr 13, 2018)

miket said:


> That's a good one. Work through it diligently, and you'll be glad you did... even if you never intend to write like Palestrina.
> 
> For orchestration texts, I recommend the Adler. I still reference it.



Agree on Adler. But there have to be better options than Fux for counterpoint today, even for species counterpoint. As a historical document it's great, but there are bits in it that are just plain confusing unless you've studied the history of music of Palestrina's time as well as Fux's - such as the bit fairly early on where the student gets marked down for forcing the harmony "out of mode".


----------



## bryla (Apr 13, 2018)

Whatever music you like. 

You won't get much out of force studying scores you are told are good for you. Take all the suggestions here and skim through a recording of each of them to find what grabs your attention and go study that!


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 13, 2018)

Franz Joseph Haydn. Why? Because you can most easily see the skeletal structure of the music. His simple (although brilliant) orchestration _works_ because _the music is working so well_. Everything since Haydn is an expansion of his basic orchestral forces. If you consider Beethoven orchestration examples are the majority in most orchestration books you realize you are simply going back a single step to an even more stripped down music.

When Shostakovitch would hear a piece of orchestral music, he would immediately convert it to a piano version in his head. When listening to a piano piece he would do the opposite and orchestrate it - in his head. He knew it is the _essential _musical idea that is the key to it's realization through instrumental means. This is why the oft-recommended Ravel (a prince among orchestrators) insisted that his orchestration of the piano piece, Pictures At An Exhibition include the piano version underneath. It was for the sake of the student Ravel did that. He was saying, _Everything I've done here is based entirely on something that can be reduced to two hands on the piano_. Stravinsky said something similar when he said, _Can not everything be said on the piano? 
_
You can wade through the score to Mahler's 5th where the Basses are divisi by the the 3rd page but even that score was played on the piano by the composer to astonishing effect. It's all in the writing.


----------



## JJP (Apr 13, 2018)

Dave Connor said:


> Franz Joseph Haydn. Why? Because you can most easily see the skeletal structure of the music. His simple (although brilliant) orchestration _works_ because _the music is working so well_.
> **snip**
> It's all in the writing.



I love this. 

Dave is dead on target with his post. Often far too much is made of orchestration. You can't have good orchestration without good writing.

As I've said before in this forum, beginning composers often want to jump to orchestration before they have basic harmonic and compositional knowledge. You can't understand orchestration unless you truly understand what's happening in the music itself.


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 13, 2018)

@JJP I think I may have enjoyed your posts more than you did mine. I was having a bit of a chuckle wondering if the fellow who was inquiring about Howard Shore's orchestration knew he was being answered by Mr. Shore's orchestrator : )


----------



## ed buller (Apr 14, 2018)

i'm going to confuser the issue even more with a suggestion to add to the excellent ones already .

Pictures at an Exhibition . The music is by Mussorgsky for the piano. Ravel did the best orchestration. Boosey and Hawkes have a score that has the piano at the bottom and the orchestra above. 

Ravel was one of the truly great orchestrators . Remember older music ( Mozart, Hadyn et al ) used much smaller orchestra's that didn't have standard instruments of today, Trombones being one.

Ravel was a master at clear well defined orchestration. Pictures at an exhibition has almost a complete list of textures and combinations ( tutis and smaller ) .

Listen to the piano version then try and guess how Ravel orchestrated it. What moods and colors he used. The promenade section which occurs in between each painting is the same basic musical idea but with lots of variation in orchestration . We first hear it as a fanfare . Perfect bit of well balanced brass writing. But later it's scored for strings and woodwinds. 

The end section ( Great Gate of Kiev ) is huge. Full tuttis with blasting brass. 


good luck

e


----------



## enyawg (Apr 14, 2018)

Orchestration has been many things to many composers. It has been a servant of the great, a support to the mediocre, and a cloak for the feeble. It's past lives enshrined in the works of the great dead, its present pants after the exertion of recent progress, and its future lies as completely hidden and crouching at the beginning of the 21st century.

Adam Carse and -JG-


----------



## fretti (Apr 14, 2018)

Jaap said:


> I would start with Beethoven, symphonies no.3, 6, 7 and then number 9. This will give you insight in some good basics.
> Then move on a bit and check out works from Brahms, Schumann, Elgar, Grieg to get a good grip on the romantic era of composing and orchestrating and finalize it with studying Mahler, Wagner for much more advanced orchestration techniques.
> Only then I would move to Ravel as Ravel is a master, but he mastered it all and knew his legacy and if you want to build cars, it is hard to start with building a Ferrari straight away, better learn the basics first.
> After that the world is yours and so many things to discover from the 20th century
> ...


Have to back up (at least) Brahms (here I would recommend symphony no.2) and Beethoven simply because they wrote some of the most beautiful symphonies in my opinion (absolutely arguable; but thats just my taste in classical music).

I am no orchestrator so please correct me someone if I am wrong with any of my statements here)) but I'd say that Harry Gregson-Williams has done some great orchestral works (e.g. Narnia; but I guess "recent" movies in general are hard to study as they use so much sounddesign and add so much stuff afterwards nowadays).

When I think back to school times I remember that Mozart was always favorable to analyse as he was relatively straight forward and didn't overcomplicate things but still had some great instrumentation (his symphony 40 in g-minor is a really great piece of classical music).
Verdis Dies Irea: don't know if that is actually crazy complex (haven't seen the sheet music in a long time) but it's a great example for bombastic; but has (obviously) choir in it so I don't know if you want that as well(?).
Also Smetana - Ma Vlast (= My homeland) is great, especially the second part Die Moldau (Vlatva; the moldau, don't know how it is referred to in english) wich is best known out of the six; the third part ("Sarka") would be my favorite out them all though...
I think most other big names of classical music were already mentioned somewhere here...

Also a question for all professional orchestrators: do you orchestrate film scores differently when you know that the composer likes to add synths/sounddesign and layer the recordings with samples or is that irrelevant for your work?


----------



## bryla (Apr 14, 2018)

fretti said:


> Also a question for all professional orchestrators: do you orchestrate film scores differently when you know that the composer likes to add synths/sounddesign and layer the recordings with samples or is that irrelevant for your work?


It means a lot since the prelay tracks take up Sonic space that you have to be aware of. However you should have a good idea about that in the composers mockup demo.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 14, 2018)

Since lots of people like to spend here, here's what will give you some incredibly inspiring insight into 20th century orchestration (both from a compositional and orchestration perspective this is widely known as one of the greatest pieces since Wagner):

This first: 

And if you read music:




You will gain TONS off of these resources, as long as you commit to them. Strauss' way with compressed harmonies is borderline superhuman.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 15, 2018)

Ravel!


----------



## DoctorGuitar007 (Apr 16, 2018)

Holst, 'The Planets'. Hugely influencial on modern film music but also in addition to the full score there is a two piano version available arranged by Holst himself, and I found it really enlightening to look at the piano arrangement and see how the material was assigned to the orchestra.


----------



## Loïc D (Apr 16, 2018)

I'd suggest Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade.
His "principles of orchestrations" are must-read even if a bit outdated now.
He's illustrating most of the rules with excerpts of his own work.

On the other hand, I really enjoy reading scores from Joe Hisaishi ou Ryuichi Sakamoto.
Where you realize that what sounds "simple" is not that "simple"


----------



## ed buller (Apr 20, 2018)

LowweeK said:


> I'd suggest Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade.
> His "principles of orchestrations" are must-read even if a bit outdated now.
> He's illustrating most of the rules with excerpts of his own work.





Most excellent suggestion. Rimsky was an Average composer. moments of brilliance but a lot of what he wrote was a bit dated but he was one of the greatest orchestrators . Scheherazde is his masterpiece and full of fantastic colors 
e


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Apr 20, 2018)

Montisquirrel said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm just starting to learn about Orchestration. Have never thought how much fun it is.
> I'm wondering if you have any advice which composer / song has a more "easy-to-follow" orchestration. Not sure how to specify my request.
> ...



So I am most of all self trained / studied person and my advice would be apart from the other suggestions: Learn to know how orchestral instruments timbre sound like in different ranges and different dynamics. I spent with that a lot of time getting familiar with that and trying to build upon that basic small examples of orchestration. E.g. when I was familiar of how a french Horn Ensemble would sound like in their meat register what happens when I stack some trombones in unison on top of them or an octave below? How does that new "blend" sound like and what does it create? I did that micro orchestrations examples with a lot of other instruments in the orchestra too and practised all kinds of little scenarios. Using a book and studiying scores helps also to "get to know" certain devices from composers but when you don´t understand the characteristics of the instruments and therefore what effect they have you don´t understand the "why" did the composer that, but only what which helps you to replicate it but not when it is right. The why you find out out when you get an understanding of "the instruments voice" and what effect it can cause. I find the why therefore often more important than the what because it lets you understand the motivation behind a certain gesture. My general advice: Start with basic examples. So don´t start with complex rousing arrangements because it will confuse too much in the beginning and you get lost. Maybe some Prokofjev? Peter and the wolf? I still think that such work is a good starting point for such things. Sure there are plenty of other examples in history of music.

So lets take an example: Lets say that you have written a slight uptempo melody on the middle C and your intention is that you want something "heroic" and "with emergy". So around the middle there are a couple or quite a lot of instruments in the orchestra who probably could perform that melody but not every instrument would translate "the term" of "heroic energy" that good. So there comes the point in knowing _what instrument would translate that approach more effectively_. And that is what I mean. Sure those choices are also a part of clichee culture to a certain extent. It is like: Oh well we want heroic so there is the french horn thing option, thats not always the case. But maybe you get an idea. I always say: practise the basic principles before you move into more complex choices where you create lets say more ambiguous orchestrations.

And before I forget: Just dismiss my idea here, when you feel it doesn´t wrok for you because what works for me doesn´t mean it could work for you or others. I am just presenting here my own experience and people have so many different ways in learning things. Chose your way what you get most comfortable and effective with. It did help for me, 4 years ago my orchestration was pretty much in the basement and now I am in the 1st floor (Empire State Building) which is definitely an improvement.


----------



## bryla (Apr 21, 2018)

douggibson said:


> In particular Dave Connor, Bryla, and JJP: I have read your posts over the years and I have an absolute tremendous amount of respect for each of you both professionally, and personally. How you don't drop F-bombs around here I will never know.


Thank you for that!
Recently I'm orchestrating / arranging an average of 1 hour of music every month that is not composed by me. Being taken through vastly different compositional styles and references and having to translate that into a playable orchestral score is what I love doing and have worked on doing fairly well and fairly efficient.
Doing this on a regular basis and working with players is by far the best way to learn as you said. 

I spent many years just with samples (you can find my posts here going 10-12 years back with crappy samples and crappy orchestration). What people do with samples today I've never been able to! But I've not always been able to write for orchestra. 
You can study and study and write and write but at the end of the day learn much more if you just sit with a clarinetist and experience the registers and breaths. 

As Sammy Nestico writes in his book (and I'm paraphrasing)
First day I wrote a melody in school I turned up with the same melody for everyone. Turned out that different instruments read different clefs.
Next day I learned about clefs and wrote the melody in different clefs and gave it to the musicians. Turned out that different instruments transposed differently.
Third day I learned about transpositions and wrote the melody according to the transpositions. Turned out the different instruments sound differently in their respective registers.

... or something to that effect - but I think the story is apt.

I still take all the principal players parts with me after each session. Go over them once and make notes to my self. Maybe something in my template should be tweaked or maybe I should consider doing a specific thing differently.


----------



## Montisquirrel (Apr 21, 2018)

Great answers here by *everybody*. Thank you for taking your time to write down all these information


----------



## JJP (Apr 21, 2018)

@douggibson I don't know where you find the time to post so much delightful info. I wish I had time to read all of it now.



douggibson said:


> you are about to make a pizza. It's dough, cheese and sauce. Really how bad can you f*** it up ?



Have you ever had pizza made by someone who didn't make the the dough properly? I have. It led to needing a dental crown replaced. 

I think we are both saying the same sorts of things and are mostly differing on semantics, mainly because of the limited format of conversing through a forum.


----------



## dcoscina (Apr 21, 2018)

Jaap said:


> I would start with Beethoven, symphonies no.3, 6, 7 and then number 9. This will give you insight in some good basics.
> Then move on a bit and check out works from Brahms, Schumann, Elgar, Grieg to get a good grip on the romantic era of composing and orchestrating and finalize it with studying Mahler, Wagner for much more advanced orchestration techniques.
> Only then I would move to Ravel as Ravel is a master, but he mastered it all and knew his legacy and if you want to build cars, it is hard to start with building a Ferrari straight away, better learn the basics first.
> After that the world is yours and so many things to discover from the 20th century
> ...


Very much this! Studying Beethoven early symphonies will demonstrate great economy in orchestration and will lay the foundation. I’d stay away from Mahler, Stravinsky and Ravel until much later as they didn’t conform to standard practices because of their skill at writing for orchestra. I’m still wrapping my mind around Das Lied von der Erde after 20 years. Sublime but extremely detailed, textured, subtle arranging.


----------

