# How to make complex orchestral music?



## Syneast (Oct 3, 2016)

Putting aside samples and production quality for a moment, how the heck do you go about creating those complex action scores you usually hear in animated family films?

Just as proof of concept, you can go here and listen to Guy Baco's demo named "BatGuy", to hear an example of what I am talking about. Although it's an amazing showcase for VSL, what makes it attractive to me is not the sound—it's the composition, arrangement, orchestration and general flow of ideas.

Ever since I got into orchestral music I have secretly wanted to create something like that. I don't know why because I am just a hobbyist. Call it an irrational obsession. Lately I have been slipping into making more thematic chord/melody type music, which is also very cool, but by doing so I am not really getting any closer to making the kind of music that impresses me the most personally.

So, how do you guys do it? It feels like there is some sort of threshold to pass before I can be comfortable with that style, like it's really simple once I know the right tricks or the right workflow. For instance, do you start with rhythm? Do you sketch out the whole thing with a piano patch before orchestrating? Do you change tempo/beat a lot? How do you get through an entire piece without getting writer's block when every new bar seems to be going somewhere different? If there is no picture to score to, what helps you come up with those new ideas and not rely on repetition? Is it all about practice? If so, how would you go about practicing it?

I am sure there are a lot of different workflows for this kind of style, but my question generally comes down to - how did you learn it? Please keep in mind that I am not classically or musically trained what so ever. Replies that are heavy on the music theory will be read but I can't promise that they will be understood. If I should attempt to answer my own question, that's probably where I should start making some changes.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 3, 2016)

Well, you sort of have to keep trying until you get it where you want it and for me there is no substitute for keeping at it. 

The only "shortcut" I would recommend is to study the masters, whether that's "the originals" like Wagner, Strauss etc. or the very few scores that are actually available for study, like the ones from John Williams. You can find some of his scores here: http://www.alexanderpublishing.com/Departments/Film-Scoring-Channel/John-Williams-Study-Scores.aspx

Studying even a few bars of these scores is pure gold.

A key element of action, apart from variety, is doubling and orchestration. You can see in these scores what's doubled, what's left alone, all of it. A track like "Duel of the Fates" is like a course in orchestrating these kinds of scenes. There's a version of "Duel of the Fates" for a good-sized orchestra in this one: http://www.alexanderpublishing.com/Products/Star-Wars-I--The-Phantom-Menace-Deluxe-Score__HL-spc-04490125.aspx

Please bear in mind that these are not identical to what's found on the soundtracks, and some of the effects are very hard to pull off with samples no matter what libraries we have today. Also, be very careful what you buy -- there are arrangements for wind quintet and other relatively small ensembles that are not what you're looking for.

I realise that Mr. Williams is old school, but one can always add electronics and guitars and "modern" percussion and all that; if your cues are supported by the architecture of a John Williams approach, you at least have something on which to build.

Another way to go is to look into Thinkspace or some other instruction. But you can go a long way with Mr. Williams.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## DocMidi657 (Oct 3, 2016)

Here's a link with some information that may help a bit. http://composerfocus.com/5-orchestration-lessons-from-john-williams-flight-to-neverland/


----------



## erica-grace (Oct 3, 2016)

Check out Mike Verta's videos - an absolute goldmine. I am not sure which of the videos might have action music composition (I have not seen all his videos) - maybe if someone here knows which one, they can say.


----------



## DocMidi657 (Oct 3, 2016)

Mike Verta's "The Race" gets a bit at this.


----------



## ed buller (Oct 3, 2016)

Syneast said:


> Putting aside samples and production quality for a moment, how the heck do you go about creating those complex action scores you usually hear in animated family films?
> 
> Just as proof of concept, you can go here and listen to Guy Baco's demo named "BatGuy", to hear an example of what I am talking about. Although it's an amazing showcase for VSL, what makes it attractive to me is not the sound—it's the composition, arrangement, orchestration and general flow of ideas.
> 
> ...




Bat Guy is an obvious homage ( unless it's from it ! ) to Tim Burton's BATMAN. I huge part of that sound is intervallic restrictions. IE limiting what notes you use. Then Transposing them ( usually by minor 3rds or semitones )It's also fairly chaotic with parts overlapping and a strong pulse. If you take it apart it's a lot happening in a short period of time....which is why composers working on action cues earn there're pay ! Best thing to do is to take it apart in your DAW bar by bar. Or buy the real thing here: http://www.omnimusicpublishing.com/batman.html

you'll learn heaps


e


----------



## MA-Simon (Oct 3, 2016)

For me personally, there is a different problem.

I can play in this style on my piano. Probably not _that_ fast, like in that track, but its mostly gestures and stuff that comes automatically to me: When I try and not think about. The moment I start to think about what I do, it gets messy.

Then I open up my daw and its all gone.
I see Kontakt and my endless, gigantic library folders and "poooof!".

It's really "easy" to just play this kind of stuff on the piano on the go, but inserting all those notes and adjusting the midi data... _i can not do it_.

I end up opening different string libraries, and endlessly adjust sounds and ambiences and never get anything done. I am always frustrated with legato articulations absolutely never doing what I want them to do. So most of the time I end up just closing projects in frustration after fiddling for about 2-3 hours and move on to more interesting things. (Which I can do, since I don't have to earn a living with music.)
I am not ashamed to admit this, but I am to impatient to spend days and weeks adjusting computerdata, trying to get it to sound naturally, like it does in my head. It never worked.

What I can say is that approach to music is a lot more improvisation.
I can not actually read sheet music that well. I had piano lessons when I was 8-14. But it never really clicked.
Then with 17-18 I got my first experience with digital music. Using free soundfonts and a cheap keyboard.
I ended up playing a lot of music from videogames. Never playing by sheets, but "roughly" improvising by ear. 
And I learned so much stuff by experimenting and finding out "how to play" by myself. I think I have started to invent my own bits and small mechanics for playing, because I never got properly taught how I should be playing.
In a crazy twisted way, this has helped me a lot.
Now I can just sit at a piano and play all day long, never thinking about the notes. Unfortunally, that is probably also why I can't produce anything worthwhile in a music program.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 3, 2016)

I don't know, Jerry. I love old school but I don't think studying counterpoint except in the absolutely most general idea of it has helped me in any way whatsoever as a composer. Cool exercise though!

If you have time and you're in university or living with your parents still, then sure, you can study everything and "work your way up." I don't regret at all the time spent studying bygone music and I like singing it every week with a choir. 

I don't know about the OP but, personally, I'm too impatient and lazy now to do anything beyond going straight to the source and learning as directly and fast as possible whatever it is. Or just improvising on a weird scale or grabbing two or three chords I like, analysing it a bit to work out if it means anything or has any coherence analytically, and then knocking it into shape.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 3, 2016)

I see you feel strongly about it and that's cool. But for someone who wants to get into modern action scoring, I think it's "the long way round" to go via to the 16th or 18th century. Which I'd have to argue is pretty old school! Fun, sure, but I think there are lots of ways -- including your suggestion about singing -- to get at voice leading.

edit: Also, there's another thread about harmony that's quite relevant. http://vi-control.net/community/thr...th-harmonic-options.56265/page-2#post-3998199


----------



## jonathanprice (Oct 3, 2016)

I'd suggest replicating BatGuy. If you're pencil-to-paper, do a takedown first and then use your VIs to re-create it. It's a very intimate way to study a score. You'll internalize the general techniques and be able to use them for your own work.


----------



## KEnK (Oct 3, 2016)

MA-Simon said:


> It's really "easy" to just play this kind of stuff on the piano on the go, but inserting all those notes and adjusting the midi data... _i can not do it_.
> 
> I end up opening different string libraries, and endlessly adjust sounds and ambiences and never get anything done.


To both Simon and Syneast-

I suggest going the old school traditional rout to orchestral writing.
That means piano piano piano.
Forget the libraries until you have a decent piano structure that is cohesive and screams at you
to orchestrate it.

Then go only for strings for a while.
String ensemble pieces are awesome and that is going to be your orchestral backbone.
Be methodical and patient.
Don't refine "one measure at a time".
Just get the cellos (for ex.) in there for the whole piece using only shorts longs and pizz.
Save the details for a later pass.
You might feel you're getting something done that way

k


----------



## Saxer (Oct 4, 2016)

MA-Simon said:


> I can play in this style on my piano. Probably not _that_ fast, like in that track, but its mostly gestures and stuff that comes automatically to me: When I try and not think about. The moment I start to think about what I do, it gets messy.
> 
> Then I open up my daw and its all gone.
> I see Kontakt and my endless, gigantic library folders and "poooof!".
> ...


I know what you mean... everybody here knows it... though I wish I could play stuff like that on a piano.

But it's simple: record yourself playing piano. Always. Simple dictaphone or by phone. And forget about the recording while playing. After a few weeks import some 'good days' into your daw, cut together some nice parts, adjust the click to your playing tempos and start to orchestrate.


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 4, 2016)

JohnG said:


> I don't know, Jerry. I love old school but I don't think studying counterpoint except in the absolutely most general idea of it has helped me in any way whatsoever as a composer. Cool exercise though!



Wow, not my experience, Two years of species counterpoint was invaluable to me, since film score music is more horizontal then vertical with the great ones.


----------



## Carbs (Oct 4, 2016)

Batguy is really channeling Elfmans Batman score (obviously) so maybe stop by http://www.omnimusicpublishing.com/batman.html and pick up that score to study it.


----------



## DocMidi657 (Oct 4, 2016)

This is a great thread! I think one of the questions the original poster is getting at is that the piece he presented for proof of concept "changes gears very quickly and very often" like every few measure which results in a frenetic yet very exciting feel compositionally. (idiomatic of this genre) Instead of say a longer 4 or 8 measure melodic statement. 

Can anyone address that aspect not orchestrally so much but from a compositional approach? Does one think when composing that way say "I am going to write something for 1 and 1/2 bars and suddenly write something else for 2 1/2 measures etc. or is there some connective tissue in there?


----------



## Paul T McGraw (Oct 4, 2016)

Hopefully @Guy Bacos himself will see this thread and comment. I am in complete sympathy with the OP as I also wish I could write with the facility and skill demonstrated by the example. Academic knowledge is not enough. I have plenty of academic knowledge of music theory and harmony and form. I have concluded that putting together a piece of music as complex and artistically effective as the example requires a wide range of skills that must be mastered individually. These skills can be divided into a set compositional skills, and a set of orchestration skills. And the orchestration skills must include mastering the use of the sample libraries one has available to use. For example, conceptualizing a piece that requires the cellos to play double stop harmonics is useless if one does not have great samples of cellos playing double stop harmonics. A person becomes proficient with an instrument through lots and lots of practice. I am confident that @Guy Bacos did not have the same level of compositional ability when he wrote his first piece of music. So composing, and composing for virtual instruments, will improve with lots and lots of practice. And Guy has had lots and lots of practice as witnessed by his prolific work.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 4, 2016)

@DocMidi657 That's why I'd go straight to Williams (or Elfman, or Silvestri....etc.). Omni publishing has a few, and alexander publishing (link above) sells the Williams scores at a slight discount to list.

_Kid: "hey dad, I want to play ice hockey"

Dad: "first spend three years learning figure skating"_

Yes, figure skating will help with ice hockey. But some kids want to play ice hockey.

If you're 16 years old, being patient enough to get some training in the 18th century stuff is ok, but if you're 35 and trying to change / enhance your career when maybe you have responsibilities, do you really have a couple of years (and the determination) to start with species counterpoint? And is it _really_ useful? To me, it's bonkers.

Honestly I learned just as much playing and singing pop music in front of a crowd. It's good to remember what makes people stand up and dance, a lot more important in my opinion than a bunch of old fashioned harmonic rules that are so totally used up and exhausted that they were rejected by composers far greater than most of us will ever be.

Frankly, I find that the first thing I do when trying to write for a movie or game is to throw out everything I've learned. Then bring it back when I have some material and I can think about it. Does training help? Yes, especially in meeting deadlines.

@Paul T McGraw Agree 100%


----------



## KEnK (Oct 4, 2016)

DocMidi657 said:


> ...from a compositional approach? Does one think when composing that way say "I am going to write something for 1 and 1/2 bars and suddenly write something else for 2 1/2 measures etc. or is there some connective tissue in there?


I've talked about this in other threads- forgive me if you've already heard it.
For me, especially when writing a more complex piece, I will start w/ a structural schematic often before I've written a single note or theme. It's a map of the whole.
Maybe like this-
Intro A B riff1 B2 C riff2 B2 A riff3 Outro

For arguments sake riffs 1 2 & 3 will be octatonic runs, related but different from each other.
Part A will be dominant chords moving in minor 3rds and tritones
B will have a lydian feel w/ some chromatic movement
C will be long tones- slower, somehow majestic.
Because of what we're trying to write stylistically- I'll change the meter and tempo often.

The whole thing can be 3 minutes or 30 seconds
(in which case it might serve as an intro for a longer developed piece.)

You can see the piece is already taking shape and not a single note or chord has actually been written.
Then I throw some ideas at the wall and see what sticks.

Piano only at this point- until my structure is fleshed out a bit.
Themes and motives can be made to fit within the over-all structure.
This piece is well on it's way to being formed w/o a single note being committed-
and as lose structure, it can serve as a model for several pieces-
or a varying unit of a larger work.

This is one way to get structural coherence- it works for me

k


----------



## DocMidi657 (Oct 4, 2016)

Thanks so much KEnk! That is exactly what I was wondering when approaching writing this kind of a "quick phrase" changing piece... for lack of a better word. As we all can approach the task in different ways that is an excellent approach you laid out. I watched a Chic Corea video where he said before he composes a piece and before he plays a note at the piano he thinks about the piece in terms instrumentation, style, harmonic ideas etc. He said the better he defines the ideas in his head before he improvises ideas and sketeches for the composition the better the piece is realized when he sits at the piano to work out the ideas.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Oct 4, 2016)

Quick and dirty answer: "Complexity" in orchestral writing is a result of putting together quite a few different elements that move next to each other and react to each other's movements. In order not be overwhelmed by this complexity, I think it is essential to understand that the music is made up of elements _that are simple in themselves_. You just need _more _of these than in a simple melody-chords-bassline structure. What you need is a good understanding of the chord-scale-system and at least a basic understanding of counterpoint. Both will help you to figure out how you can have different lines moving at the same time. It's essential to understand scales in order to know what you can put into the counterpunctual forms. It's also important not to be scared! Any note can work together with any other note, if you _make _it work. Being able to sketch out things on the piano also helps.


----------



## Paul T McGraw (Oct 4, 2016)

jsg said:


> Hi Paul, here's a symphonic movement from my 8th symphony you might enjoy. I certainly couldn't have written it when I was first learning composition. That's why I tell my students that music theory is like the scaffolding of a building, necessary in the beginning, but at some point it's dismantled. I think of theory as the foundation on which to build a craft, but it is not the craft itself.
> 
> http://vi-control.net/community/threads/2nd-movement-from-symphony-8.56328/



I am listening to your composition for the second time right now. As a classical music enthusiast I am very impressed with your work. I will post further on your thread. I don't want to hijack this thread.


----------



## KEnK (Oct 4, 2016)

jsg said:


> Dismissing and ridiculing the intellectual part is hip nowadays


My primary instrument is guitar, and my performance forte is jazz.
I also play classical guitar, Bach being some of my favorite things to play.
Because I've studied theory (and still do) I've learned to recognize all the the motivic interplay that Bach had such a command of.
And this has worked it's way conceptually into my jazz improvisations.
It gives my playing a sense of unity and structure- as opposed to simply harmonic noodling.

No reason to think that the study of tonality or even music history isn't relevant.


----------



## Paul T McGraw (Oct 4, 2016)

jsg said:


> Composers don't follow rules, the "rules" of music theory are not rules at all, but generalizations and principles formed from studying thousands of the best compositions. If theory and counterpoint are "bonkers", then why do so many of the best composers study, teach and write books on it? Composers interpret those rules very differently and ignore them when a style or aesthetic calls for it. Mozart studied 16th century counterpoint, 20th century composers study 16th, 18th and 20th century counterpoint (including set-theory and dodecaphonic theory). As Beethoven once remarked, music is a bridge between the intellectual and the sensual. Dismissing and ridiculing the intellectual part is hip nowadays, but maybe you're just rationalizing because you started late, I don't know...



Both approaches, the academic approach and the non-academic approach have worked in the past for some people. While most famous composers have studied theory, counterpoint, harmony and form, there are examples (Danny Elfman, Paul McCartney, etc) that could not even read music notation. Personally I prefer an academic approach for my studies, but I am sure that it all depends on what works for each person.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 4, 2016)

jsg said:


> maybe you're just rationalizing because you started late, I don't know...



Nice. We have a disagreement, that's all. 


“Whether one calls oneself conservative or revolutionary, whether one composers in a conventional or progressive manner, whether one tries to imitate old styles or is destined to express new ideas - one must be convinced of the infallibility of one's own fantasy and one must believe in one's own inspiration.” -- Arnold Schoenberg

FYI I didn't start late.


----------



## Mithrandir (Oct 4, 2016)

jsg said:


> John,
> 
> Didn't mean to be offensive, sorry, I don't have a lot of patience for the idea that music theory, as an adjunct to composition isn't vital and of great value. It's strange that you quote Schoenberg, who wrote and taught theory! I don't want to be offensive to you, but I disagree with your attitude about theory and don't think it is healthy.
> 
> Jerry



Just because he wrote and taught theory doesn't mean he considered it an integral part of his process of composing.


----------



## Mithrandir (Oct 4, 2016)

Then we agree.


----------



## dgburns (Oct 4, 2016)

This is one of those thread titles that one would review 30 years into making music and fundamentally think differently about the topic. Especially if one were to have 30 years worth of one's own music to analyze and rationalize.

Rinse lather repeat, iterate,analyze and evolve.

just sayin'


----------



## Sebastianmu (Oct 4, 2016)

I do think most of the rigid restrictions of pre-20th century counterpoint are only relevant if you want to recreate a specific 'period' sound. Coming from a musicology-background, I had to unlearn quite a lot of this rule-based thinking in order to get to the sound that I was longing for in my own writing. I think, John's point was exactly that: if your goal is a specific sound, the study of 18th century counterpoint might not be the first thing you have to look into. That doesn't say that you can't learn anything from studying it!


----------



## ed buller (Oct 4, 2016)

Sebastianmu said:


> I do think most of the rigid restrictions of pre-20th century counterpoint are only relevant if you want to recreate a specific 'period' sound. Coming from a musicology-background, I had to unlearn quite a lot of this rule-based thinking in order to get to the sound that I was longing for in my own writing. I think, John's point was exactly that: if your goal is a specific sound, the study of 18th century counterpoint might not be the first thing you have to look into. That doesn't say that you can't learn anything from studying it!



Hallelujah .....

e


----------



## ed buller (Oct 4, 2016)

jsg said:


> If you have a progression, say, a polychord such as a F-major triad above a C#minor triad, you have essentially 6-part counterpoint. How those 6 voices proceed melodically will determine whether the progression really works, in that sense one can move from any chord to any chord; if the voice-leading is skillful the progression can work, if the voice-leading is not skillful, the progression won't work.



yes this is absolutely true. I just wish that counterpoint books started with this.....it's the species stuff that I find hideously outdated . But smooth voice leading and connections of inner parts is a fundamental skill that is vital IMHO.

e


----------



## ed buller (Oct 4, 2016)

jsg said:


> 1On the other hand, I think studying 16th century CP (species counterpoint) can still be useful because sometimes by imposing strict limitations on inventing music one can learn how to work in confined conditions. There's some value in that...



there is. As ENO said _… In my experience, the instruments and tools that endure (because they are loved by their users) have limited options.
_


----------



## Syneast (Oct 4, 2016)

Wow, I did not expect to get such a great response to this thread because I kind of felt that I was asking a stupid question, but it seems like a lot of you share my interest in knowing the inner workings of this kind of music.

I like to summerize things for my own pleasure, so here are some of the things from this thread so far that really make sense to me:

1. Study the scores of the masters of this style while listening
2. Watch Mike Verta's classes
3. Devote yourself to doing the hard work
4. Actually learn music theory for a change (embarrassingly enough I had to google counterpoint)
5. Try and try again
6. Replicate your favorite pieces by ear
7. Sketch with piano and expand it layer by layer
8. Make sure your samples are up for it
9. Have a clear idea of the structure before writing anything
10. Change meter and tempo frequently
11. Don't be scared of experimenting
12. It will come with experience

I must say I am really pumped to try some of these things out for myself now. I think I am going to find a piece that I like and preferably the score for it as well, and then try to replicate the most interesting few bars as closely as I can. I also want to try to create an original piece with a simple piano patch and flesh it out once I know what it's going to do composition wise. I probably need to study music theory if I want to get anywhere with this, but I think I will have to learn it as I go, because I need some kind of real world connection to be able to get the information in.

The one I like the most, because I feel like it applies to me the most, is probably this one: *
11. Don't be scared of experimenting*


----------



## Mike Fox (Oct 4, 2016)

jsg said:


> don't worry about results.



This is a brilliant statement. Often times I've found myself not being able to even start writing a song, because I am worried about the end result. Worry hinders everything. I think fun, passion, and imagination should be the top priorities when It comes to writing music.

"Don't worry about the future. Or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum." - Mary Schmich


----------



## Guy Bacos (Oct 5, 2016)

Paul T McGraw said:


> Hopefully @Guy Bacos himself will see this thread and comment. I am in complete sympathy with the OP as I also wish I could write with the facility and skill demonstrated by the example. Academic knowledge is not enough. I have plenty of academic knowledge of music theory and harmony and form. I have concluded that putting together a piece of music as complex and artistically effective as the example requires a wide range of skills that must be mastered individually. These skills can be divided into a set compositional skills, and a set of orchestration skills. And the orchestration skills must include mastering the use of the sample libraries one has available to use. For example, conceptualizing a piece that requires the cellos to play double stop harmonics is useless if one does not have great samples of cellos playing double stop harmonics. A person becomes proficient with an instrument through lots and lots of practice. I am confident that @Guy Bacos did not have the same level of compositional ability when he wrote his first piece of music. So composing, and composing for virtual instruments, will improve with lots and lots of practice. And Guy has had lots and lots of practice as witnessed by his prolific work.



Appreciate the post Paul. 

I don't value Batguy very high, it's ok. 

As for the process, often what I like to do is listen to each articulation that the library offers and for each articulation try to envision a passage with it, for certain articulations I may find them very cool and base the piece on them. It's normal when composing with samples you don't have the same freedom as writing for real musicians. Like writing for a specific player knowing he is very good for playing a certain virtuoso style, and so you write for that, he looks good and the music sounds good.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 5, 2016)

jsg said:


> Dismissing and ridiculing the intellectual part is hip nowadays, but maybe you're just rationalizing because you started late, I don't know...


This from a fellow who said he would _never talk that way _to someone on a forum_. _Hurling an insult at a fellow composer for simply stating his preferences of study and the usefulness of centuries old music practice. Yet if you point out a purely technical aspect of his work (as I and many others did) in regards to it's _sound_ - you get a total meltdown. Filled with a ton of the vitriol he just proclaimed he would never spew: quantum beyond anything sent his way. In fact the criticisms were meant to be helpful as is the case here in the majority of responses when we are asked to listen to a piece of music.

Apologies but I wasn't unable to respond to his verbal abuses (including a a bizarre psychoanalysis such as the one quoted above towards another forum member) since the thread was locked following his childish tirade.


----------



## Paul T McGraw (Oct 5, 2016)

Guy Bacos said:


> Appreciate the post Paul.
> 
> I don't value Batguy very high, it's ok.
> 
> As for the process, often what I like to do is listen to each articulation that the library offers and for each articulation try to envision a passage with it, for certain articulations I may find them very cool and base the piece on them. It's normal when composing with samples you don't have the same freedom as writing for real musicians. Like writing for a specific player knowing he is very good for playing a certain virtuoso style, and so you write for that, he looks good and the music sounds good.



I have listened to every piece that you have composed that is posted on the VSL site, as well as your Soundcloud pieces. The fact that the samples themselves inspire or spark your creativity makes a lot of sense to me. I have my own favorite pieces of yours of course. For sheer fun and delight in the beauty of the samples I would have to say "A Springtime Caper" is my favorite. I know it is not your most serious and challenging composition, but I just love that one.

But I (and I am sure many others) would really like to hear which of your many compositions you consider your highest accomplishment. And which you simply like the best?


----------



## Syneast (Oct 6, 2016)

Guy Bacos said:


> I don't value Batguy very high, it's ok.


It's interesting how different levels of knowledge, talent and experience make us value a piece so differently. To you it's ok and to me it's highly impressive. I have much to learn. 



Guy Bacos said:


> As for the process, often what I like to do is listen to each articulation that the library offers and for each articulation try to envision a passage with it


Thanks for sharing. This makes a lot of sense, and it perfectly explains the chaotic feel of the track. Maybe it helps a lot to have interesting articulations beyond the shorts, longs and legatos then.


----------



## wbacer (Oct 6, 2016)

erica-grace said:


> Check out Mike Verta's videos - an absolute goldmine. I am not sure which of the videos might have action music composition (I have not seen all his videos) - maybe if someone here knows which one, they can say.


Definitely check out Mike's class, "How to Score a Film in 7 Days." The class runs long, about 8 hours but as the movie is playing, he explains every cue, a lot of which are action scenes and you get to download each cue as a mp3. The main theme that runs through the class is the use of modulation and repetition. Mike does a great job explaining how he uses octatonic scales and odd meter, 5/8, 7/8 etc to create action cues. Highly recommended.


----------



## Rodney Money (Oct 6, 2016)

How to make complex orchestral music: base your piece on the personality of a middle school girl.


----------



## MoteMusic (Oct 8, 2016)

There's a lot of great advice here! I would offer a similar approach to what Kenk does, but mine totally relies on scoring to paper/staffpad (very lovely software), because I have to be able to scribble a piece in shape only.

By writing a piece in non note-specific symbols but with important melody lines clearly shown, and getting as creative with the orchestration ideas as I want, I'm not slowed down by the inevitably more time-consuming aspect of the actual harmony of the thing. When I approach from a harmony first perspective by composing a piece just on a piano stave first for example, the result is always far more clear-cut, and doesn't lend well to chaotic action or lively dashes.

So I'll sketch the piece in symbols, and I will also write plenty of notes to myself so that the contour of the piece is very clear. I need to at least know when the piece is rising/falling in energy, tempo and volume, so that I can then build the harmony and orchestration effectively.

Note that I usually make sure that I have at least two decent thematic ideas beforehand so that I can then easily smash them up into motivic ideas and play around with them in an energetic context where the melody is less important than how the music feels. Trying to build these while writing the piece is tough, because again it leans me too far towards overt melodic sections even when I don't want them. Don't get me wrong, such things are important in action-y music, but I like being able to really choose where to put them!

Mike Verta's tips from "The Race" have also been great for me on repetition and modulation, and on chucking themes around to different sections all the time so it never gets stale or static. For some reason I often remember things best when I've heard someone say them, and his voice sometimes actually pops into my head with chunks of advice from that lesson.


----------

