# Thoughts/questions on course structures re: composing and orchestration



## shponglefan (Jan 19, 2021)

Having gone through a couple different online courses, I've noticed the structure of such courses seems to be based largely around a theory first approach. IOW, present a bunch of theory upfront and then eventually get into the orchestration elements.

In comparing to something like learning an instrument, the approach is more a combined theory/practical approach. IOW, you don't start learning piano by first going through a bunch of music theory and *then* to learn how to start playing songs. You start with a single scale and maybe a couple chords, learn some basic pieces built around them, then add more chords or a new scale, and repeat.

The latter feels more like a progressive approach whereby music theory is integrated into the learning of playing individual pieces over time.

I'm curious if there are any orchestration or composing courses built around this approach?

For example: A course that started with just a basic scale, a couple chords, basic tempo, and maybe a couple instruments / articulations. It then goes into writing pieces using just those basics. Then building on that by progressively introducing more scales, chords, instruments, and other compositional elements.

I was partially thinking about this in the context of Orchestration Recipes (https://vi-control.net/community/threads/orchestration-recipes-available-now.100151/). I'd love to see a course that combines that sort of approach to specific compositional examples, but combined with a progressive approach to learning music theory and other compositional elements.

Now I'm not sure if I'm off base in wanting something like this? Are there any reasons to not take this sort of approach to a composing/orchestration course? Is there a reason existing courses are structured how they are?


----------



## NekujaK (Jan 19, 2021)

I don't have an answer to your specific question about available courses that use the approach you describe, but I wanted to offer some thoughts.

Music theory is important to teaching composition because it provides a way of communicating musical concepts through language. You don't actually need need to know music theory to compose a piece of music, but it's extremely helpful when trying to explain why and how a piece of music is constructed.

Of course, it's possible to break down a composition using other natural language conventions, but it quickly becomes problematic when trying to explain musical concepts like why certain chord progressions work, or how certain melody notes function over specific chords, without a common understanding of theory.


----------



## shponglefan (Jan 19, 2021)

NekujaK said:


> I don't have an answer to your specific question about available courses that use the approach you describe, but I wanted to offer some thoughts.
> 
> Music theory is important to teaching composition because it provides a way of communicating musical concepts through language. You don't actually need need to know music theory to compose a piece of music, but it's extremely helpful when trying to explain why and how a piece of music is constructed.
> 
> Of course, it's possible to break down a composition using other natural language conventions, but it quickly becomes problematic when trying to explain musical concepts like why certain chord progressions work, or how certain melody notes function over specific chords, without a common understanding of theory.



For clarity, I wasn't trying to suggest that learning music theory wasn't important. I do think music theory is certainly an important subject. Rather, it's a question of if it's possible to structure a course where music theory, composition, and orchestration is presented in a combined, progressive approach. 

As opposed to presenting the former then moving onto the latter.


----------



## NekujaK (Jan 19, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> For clarity, I wasn't trying to suggest that learning music theory wasn't important. I do think music theory is certainly an important subject. Rather, it's a question of if it's possible to structure a course where music theory, composition, and orchestration is presented in a combined, progressive approach.
> 
> As opposed to presenting the former then moving onto the latter.


I'm sure it's possible. But because theory is the "language" used to describe compositional concepts, it's commonly introduced first so everyone starts with a common reference.

Not an exact analogy, but when you're teaching someone how to write a short story, you want everyone to have a common understanding of grammar, sentence construction, etc.


----------



## shponglefan (Jan 19, 2021)

NekujaK said:


> I'm sure it's possible. But because theory is the "language" used to describe compositional concepts, it's commonly introduced first so everyone starts with a common reference.
> 
> Not an exact analogy, but when you're teaching someone how to write a short story, you want everyone to have a common understanding of grammar, sentence construction, etc.



There definitely needs to be some explanation of the very basics. I just find that courses seem to go immediately go beyond that when discussing music theory.

For example, if I'm watching a module on basic harmony, my immediate thought is, "_okay, now show me how you would compose a piece using just these concepts_". What I would like to see is how those principles would be directly applied.

What I don't want is to move onto more theory about more advanced harmony. Yet I find this is how courses seem to approach these subjects.


----------



## mopsiflopsi (Jan 19, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> For example, if I'm watching a module on basic harmony, my immediate thought is, "_okay, now show me how you would compose a piece using just these concepts_". What I would like to see is how those principles would be directly applied.


It's more on the pop side, but HookPad/HookTheory has some of that approach where theory and practical examples follow closely together. It's in the style of "See how this famous pop song utilizes the concept we are discussing."

As for Orchestration Recipes, I bought and enjoyed it, and while it was helpful to see some examples of orchestration just to have a sense of what possibilities exist, I don't know if I would ever go "Right, I remember hearing that recipe five months ago for a cue that would go so well here." For something to truly click with me, I need to know why it works, not just how it works.


----------



## Max Bonsi (Jan 20, 2021)

Maybe it is not what you're asking for but you could try M Verta masterclasses, I feel here on VI Forums it's sort of Love/hate but in my vision in a path for learning composition/orchestration is really not bad, less theory and a lot of good points...

just my 2 cents

Max


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 20, 2021)

You could give scoreclub a try


----------



## shponglefan (Jan 20, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> You could give scoreclub a try


I have. I subscribed to it earlier this year and went through the ear training and foundation courses.

It's not quite what I'm after in terms of the OP, though.


----------



## shponglefan (Jan 20, 2021)

Max Bonsi said:


> Maybe it is not what you're asking for but you could try M Verta masterclasses, I feel here on VI Forums it's sort of Love/hate but in my vision in a path for learning composition/orchestration is really not bad, less theory and a lot of good points...
> 
> just my 2 cents
> 
> Max



I've watched a number of Mike Verta's lectures. They're fine for specific topics, although I don't look at them as a structured courses.

In the OP, I was thinking more along the lines of something that's combined with music theory, composing, orchestration, in a progressive manner, more akin to learning an instrument.

I'm not sure if what I'm envisioning actually exists in the world of composing courses...


----------



## shponglefan (Jan 20, 2021)

mopsiflopsi said:


> It's more on the pop side, but HookPad/HookTheory has some of that approach where theory and practical examples follow closely together. It's in the style of "See how this famous pop song utilizes the concept we are discussing."
> 
> As for Orchestration Recipes, I bought and enjoyed it, and while it was helpful to see some examples of orchestration just to have a sense of what possibilities exist, I don't know if I would ever go "Right, I remember hearing that recipe five months ago for a cue that would go so well here." For something to truly click with me, I need to know why it works, not just how it works.



Thanks, I'll check HookTheory out. Hadn't heard of it before.

Also just to clarify my reference to Orchestration Recipes wasn't intended as a literal version of that. Rather, I just wonder what a progressive music theory/orchestration course would look like that focused on specific examples of music composition in the process.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 20, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> I have. I subscribed to it earlier this year and went through the ear training and foundation courses.
> 
> It's not quite what I'm after in terms of the OP, though.


that's like nothing - there's a course map.


I general, he advises you actually do these things in each course - i.e. write motifs/develop them in motivic mastery, write melodies in each mode in modal mastery, ect.

Then it leads into OTL - which is the natural progression once you're good at writing melodies/harmonies/parts.

the foundation courses and ear training are basically just things so that if you try any of the real courses it doesn't just go straight over your head. It sounds like you've dipped your toes in a lot of things and sunk your teeth into none. Maybe spending time with the learning material you have will help you more than expecting another solution, when some of the ones listed are viable for learning the craft.


----------



## shponglefan (Jan 20, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> the foundation courses and ear training are basically just things so that if you try any of the real courses it doesn't just go straight over your head. It sounds like you've dipped your toes in a lot of things and sunk your teeth into none. Maybe spending time with the learning material you have will help you more than expecting another solution, when some of the ones listed are viable for learning the craft.


That's a fair assessment, but that's not really what I'm trying to get at in this thread.

My question in the OP is simply wondering why there aren't courses for composing/orchestration structured in a manner similar to something like learning an instrument. E.g. where the various elements of learning the subject matter are presented in a more combined/progressive manner.

Funny enough it was actually ScoreClub that kinda led me down this thinking. Going through the Foundations course I realize I needed to firm up more of the basics. So for the past couple months, I went back to focusing on learning instruments (piano / guitar) and practicing scales and chords. But then when looking at how instrument lessons are presented, they don't require taking a course in diatonic harmony or memorizing a bunch of scales before learning how to play a piece.

Admittedly, I'm probably not explaining what I'm looking after very well. I just have this vision of something in my head and I'm wondering if it exists.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 20, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> But then when looking at how instrument lessons are presented, they don't require taking a course in diatonic harmony or memorizing a bunch of scales before learning how to play a piece.


Ofcourse, because playing the instrument is a very small piece of the puzzle.



You don't need a significant amount of training as a violin/viola/cello/bass player to play this piece, but the mastery of writing it is a whole different league. The practical way to learning the compose orchestral music is to bite off pieces you can chew... if you even have to THINK about practicing scales/chords then there is absolutely no good reason you should be instructed to voice a melody, counterpoint, and harmony within the woodwind section. 

There's nothing practical, as the scope of the craft is simply immense - and trying to half ass all of it simultaneously is a recipe for disaster. There isn't a way to stumble through the whole thing and then come back and shapen it over time. 

For the sake of sanity - what are your top 3 orchestral composers?


----------



## shponglefan (Jan 20, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> Ofcourse, because playing the instrument is a very small piece of the puzzle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




For point of clarification, I'm not suggesting such a course structure in the context of immediately becoming a master. Obviously a person reaching for mastery of a subject is going to have to have a comprehensive understanding and experience of all the aspects of composing and orchestration.

Rather, I'm talking about taking courses from the perspective of a beginner and the way courses are structured to convey knowledge over time.

In regards to this statement:

"_if you even have to THINK about practicing scales/chords then there is absolutely no good reason you should be instructed to voice a melody, counterpoint, and harmony within the woodwind section._"

My response is... well, why not?

What would be the issue with arming a person with a C major scale, a couple chords and a 4/4 tempo, and then presenting an example of writing for a woodwind quartet using those elements? I recognize it probably won't result in some masterful piece of music, but that's not the intent. The intent is instruction to convey specific concepts using a simplified set of principles.

Then in subsequent lessons, more scales, chords, complex tempos, modulation, etc., could be added, in conjunction with learning to write for different instruments/sections.

Is there anything inherently wrong with this?

Perhaps it's just my own naivety, but I am trying to understand why course material is structured in a certain way.




> For the sake of sanity - what are your top 3 orchestral composers?



May I ask what the intent of this question is? I don't want to necessarily derail the thread, so I'm not seeing how this is relevant?

(Plus, the answer will vary depending on whether we're talking classical, contemporary, film score, etc. I don't really have a specific "top 3" broadly speaking...)


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 20, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> May I ask what the intent of this question is? I don't want to necessarily derail the thread, so I'm not seeing how this is relevant?
> 
> (Plus, the answer will vary depending on whether we're talking classical, contemporary, film score, etc. I don't really have a specific "top 3" broadly speaking...)


Why don't you answer it and then discover the intent? If you have to answer the question differently based on why I'm asking it - then all you're doing is trying to skirt the point that's going to be made. You could try to play a game of chess, but you'd only be hurting yourself by turning it into a game. 

The classical/contemporary/film doesn't matter really - as long as they are actually composing for orchestra(not hybrid). If you're just interested in the modern hybrid style - then it literally doesnt matter, everything is a shiny keyboard patch and knowledge of orchestration is irrelevant.


----------



## shponglefan (Jan 20, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> Why don't you answer it and then discover the intent? If you have to answer the question differently based on why I'm asking it - then all you're doing is trying to skirt the point that's going to be made. You could try to play a game of chess, but you'd only be hurting yourself by turning it into a game.



Okay. Vivaldi, Strauss, and Holst.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 20, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> Okay. Vivaldi, Strauss, and Holst.



All 3 lived and died without this style course being taught. The oldest(vivaldi) I tried to dog up his first score, and despite being raised early on violin in the first place his earliest works are for solo violin and clavier.





__





Violin Sonata in C major, RV 1 (Vivaldi, Antonio) - IMSLP: Free Sheet Music PDF Download







imslp.org





Melody, harmony, and counterpoint. 

Infact he basically only wrote these for years. 





__





List of works by Antonio Vivaldi - IMSLP: Free Sheet Music PDF Download







imslp.org





What RV numbers does it get to before any serious instrumentations occur? 

He published hundreds and hundreds of simple works, working up to small things like violin and 2 woods(3 players) overtime. 

These developments took years and years as well. He didn't just start with stings, 4 woodwind sections, 4 brass sections, percussion, and piano. 

The youngest, Strauss - essentially just wrote for piano/piano + single instrument for years and years. Looks like his first orchestral piece was 11 years after his first piece (piano only)



These composers are some of the greatest to ever live, and it's kind of crazy to think that 200 years didn't change anything - and maybe if they couldn't master the orchestra simultaneously, then it might be naive to think that if it was reasonable or effective, it wouldn't have already been done centuries ago. 

The fact that hundreds and hundreds of years later and piano sketch(i.e. reduction) to orchestra is still the almost exclusive way that it's taught(and the greats use) should be a sign that the course doesn't exist because it's impractical. The bulk of the people who progress fast are great at piano, and do their own transcriptions/mockups of things to learn how they work. I.e. tons of time, hardwork, and no hand holding, no shortcuts.

We have the perk of having entire orchestras available virtually but it doesn't allow us to skip any steps when it comes to learning.(might be more of a distraction than anything else, which is why again, the best orchestral composers I know still write on piano and staff paper)


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 20, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> Okay. Vivaldi, Strauss, and Holst.



On a side note, vivaldi as a whole is like the polar opposite of mars and zarathustra 

And did want to say that it's not like a gotcha or anything, but if nobody you look up to learned that way, let's just assume someone over the last few centuries would have been more brilliant than you or I and built a better mouse trap. 

Availability I'm sure is also a portion of why they didn't write for orchestra earlier on, but even proclaimed composers back then didn't just jump into orchestral writing even if they were vastly more prefered over their older mundane and less noteworthy contemporaries who would have been writing for orchestra.


----------



## mopsiflopsi (Jan 21, 2021)

@ProfoundSilence Thank you for your informative post but I think it's ultimately unhelpful.

1) Not everyone who wants to learn orchestral music has an end goal of becoming a classical composer who will go down in history. Just because someone looks up to Vivaldi does not mean they want to become Vivaldi.
2) If one aspires to be a media composer for this day and age, they can hardly afford to wait 10+ years before they go out looking for a client who won't be happy with just piano pieces. 
3) If you went back in time and set Strauss up with a home studio and a sample library that put the best players in the world at his fingertips, and hooked him up to 21st century internet to learn about all the variety of music and knowledge we have today, I'll bet you anything he wouldn't have waited 11 years to attempt his first mockup.

On mouse traps: People lived for tens of thousands of years before the mouse trap was patented in 1894, not because the inventor of mouse traps had an unprecedented genius that had eluded the entire history of humankind up to that point. Technology, technique, pedagogy are all things that we constantly improve on generation after generation; we collectively get "smarter" as we build up on what came before. One doesn't need an IQ higher than that of Vivaldi or Strauss to find a better way, and one should not be discouraged from trying.


----------



## gamma-ut (Jan 21, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> But then when looking at how instrument lessons are presented, they don't require taking a course in diatonic harmony or memorizing a bunch of scales before learning how to play a piece.


Broadly, I agree with the idea that a composition course could be structured differently. You might want to take a look at Bruce Cole's Composer's Handbook. It doesn't really handle orchestration/instrument arrangement as such but takes a very different path to handling the learning of composition to most books and one that is more akin to learning an instrument.

However, in instrument lessons, scales and modes are often implied - it's just not necessarily spelled out because you're not expected to learn all twelve major keys at once. But the material's presented so that it doesn't go out of key until more accidentals or key changes are introduced. And guitar lessons will quickly move onto things like blues scales, but using an easy key to start off with.


----------



## youngpokie (Jan 21, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> My question in the OP is simply wondering why there aren't courses for composing/orchestration structured in a manner similar to something like learning an instrument. E.g. where the various elements of learning the subject matter are presented in a more combined/progressive manner.


I don't know about scoreclub and verta courses, but in formal education you follow several courses or study tracks in parallel, and each of them is progressively more complex. 

You don't study them in a same lesson though. Your other example (simultaneous composition and orchestration for woodwinds) seems to suggest this as an approach. I think that would be at a minimum distracting and ultimately it will be an incredibly frustrating experience.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 21, 2021)

mopsiflopsi said:


> @ProfoundSilence Thank you for your informative post but I think it's ultimately unhelpful.
> 
> 1) Not everyone who wants to learn orchestral music has an end goal of becoming a classical composer who will go down in history. Just because someone looks up to Vivaldi does not mean they want to become Vivaldi.
> 2) If one aspires to be a media composer for this day and age, they can hardly afford to wait 10+ years before they go out looking for a client who won't be happy with just piano pieces.
> ...



Modernity has very little to do with learning ultimately how to compose orchestral music. It gives you access to toys to learn faster but it doesnt skip steps for you. 

Making hybrid music with orchestral sample libraries has nothing to do with orchestration so none of the rules matter. If you want to write convincing orchestral works you need to know how to orchestrate. 

Have fun orchestrating if your ability to arrange is bad. Have fun arranging if your part writing is bad. Have fun partwriting when if melodic writing is bad. Have fun writing music when if have to actively spell out chords and count half and whole steps to figure out the key you are trying to write in. 

It's simply science fiction my friend... Who would ask to design a course where you are learning biology, and anatomy - ohh wait the end goal is to be a cardiologist so might as well start by learning cardiology in biology 101. Want to become an astronaut? Is it reasonable to start doing simulations while you're also learning to pilot a biplane - all on the same day you got your learner's permit?

Each step requires proficiency in the last... Learning about a picardy third when you can't voice a perfect cadence and don't know how to spell out the key you're in to input the correct pitches seems silly - now try doing that while trying to remember what registers of the woodwinds would blend with the chord you're trying to voice in the first place. 

I already know all my theory stuff in and out and i feel like there is a ridiculous amount I have to learn about orchestration before I'm any good at it. Have some respect for the craft - the orchestra is an incredibly easy thing to mess up.


----------



## mopsiflopsi (Jan 21, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> It's simply science fiction my friend... Who would ask to design a course where you are learning biology, and anatomy - ohh wait the end goal is to be a cardiologist so might as well start by learning cardiology in biology 101. Want to become an astronaut? Is it reasonable to start doing simulations while you're also learning to pilot a biplane - all on the same day you got your learner's permit?


You are kinda countering your own point (must be all the counterpoint training! haha sorry, couldn't resist). Indeed, one does not study physics and aerodynamics for ten years, and then sit down to fly a space shuttle to Mars one day without having done any simulations in the meantime. That's what the OP is asking. A way to have the practical simulation experience with reduced and tightly controlled variables (limited chords, instruments, etc) and reinforcing the theory with hands on experience.



ProfoundSilence said:


> I already know all my theory stuff in and out and i feel like there is a ridiculous amount I have to learn about orchestration before I'm any good at it. Have some respect for the craft - the orchestra is an incredibly easy thing to mess up.


We're not trying to invalidate or disrespect the value of your learning. If it worked for you that way, it's awesome. Very happy for you. Your insistence that everyone else should also learn precisely the same way you did is what I'm finding objectionable. In any case, not gonna continue this debate further.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 21, 2021)

mopsiflopsi said:


> You are kinda countering your own point (must be all the counterpoint training! haha sorry, couldn't resist). Indeed, one does not study physics and aerodynamics for ten years, and then sit down to fly a space shuttle to Mars one day without having done any simulations in the meantime. That's what the OP is asking. A way to have the practical simulation experience with reduced and tightly controlled variables (limited chords, instruments, etc) and reinforcing the theory with hands on experience.
> 
> 
> We're not trying to invalidate or disrespect the value of your learning. If it worked for you that way, it's awesome. Very happy for you. Your insistence that everyone else should also learn precisely the same way you did is what I'm finding objectionable. In any case, not gonna continue this debate further.




I mean I'm not just being a neysayer. Not to put you on the spot but do you have anything to show your ability to write for the orchestra? 

If someone who has reached a level that I'd be happy with knows a faster way to become proficient I'd be all ears. All the ones I've seen progress "quickly" were both very good at piano as well as quick with transcription. I'd be interested to see what materials were used as well. I would prefer to be wrong about this, but the only magical bullet seems to he transcribing a lot.(as far as bang for your buck)

Edit: seems you're fresh, if you know someone who actually knows thier stuff and learned differentlybim all ears. 

But I can't see some one who has the skills and knowledge agreeing that it's feasible to teach it radically counterintuitive.


----------



## mopsiflopsi (Jan 21, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> I mean I'm not just being a neysayer. Not to put you on the spot but do you have anything to show your ability to write for the orchestra?
> 
> If someone who has reached a level that I'd be happy with knows a faster way to become proficient I'd be all ears. All the ones I've seen progress "quickly" were both very good at piano as well as quick with transcription. I'd be interested to see what materials were used as well. I would prefer to be wrong about this, but the only magical bullet seems to he transcribing a lot.(as far as bang for your buck)
> 
> ...


I know I said I wasn't going to continue the debate but this is the internet after all and I can't resist. 

To answer your question, no, I don't have anything to show to prove any measure of mastery. In case I have not been clear on this up to this point, nobody is questioning your competence or indeed trying to compete with your abilities as a composer. What I am taking issue with is your assertion that not only is there currently not a better way to learn orchestration (you may be right to an extent), one should not even bother trying to find a better way because it's all futile. 

I have a visceral reaction to the latter, because it ignores the fact that different people absorb information differently. There are people with learning differences that the mainstream education systems completely write off, but they flourish when taught differently. There are people who have the inner drive and cognitive skills to focus intensely for years, and then there are people who would greatly benefit from having a little fun along the way to keep themselves motivated. 

It's not about getting "there", whatever that point is (you seem to define it as a point that you personally would be happy with). It's about finding a way to keep going, to keep learning, and if they can learn enough bits to make a living with it along the way, who cares if they didn't learn it the right way or do it as well as Vivaldi.



Gene Pool said:


> What is your recommended approach for learning how to compose for orchestra?


I am not recommending anything. I'm hoping for / seeking ways of learning that put more emphasis on producing little bits of music as you learn the theory, while @ProfoundSilence is of the opinion that there is only one proper way to go about it and it must start with knowing theory inside and out before attempting to use the orchestra in any way.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 22, 2021)

I really am not trying to point out if you have mastery, I'm willing to look at any example of someone capable that learned another way...

but the reality is that each piece is a tool - and the amount of theory need to effectively arrange is less than needed to compose if you ignore all harmonic theory, but even to arrange(and eventually orchestrate) someone else's melody/harmony - you need a good amount of theory to effectively write parts/voice, and then you need a knowledge of 12 instrument families not even counting percussion to orchestrate your arrangement of someone elses melody/harmony. 

I'm saying this - because I'm not seeing anyone who both knows what is needed first hand to do it correctly and also agrees with the premise that you can simply combine it all in one. 

Infact - MITA(the newest kid on the block) starts the EXACT same way - building blocks from the ground up, melodywriting(they use plainsong) and then 2-4 part plainsong(voice leading) as well as basic harmonic theory - arrangement - ect, before really teaching much of anything. And it's set up roughly the same as my theory textbook from 2005. All of those things are seperate from orchestration(infact he says he's going to teach orchestration seperately from the core concepts of MITA - for the same exact reasons traditional approaches do). His method of part writing is a little different, but it's still the same progression in terms of what is introduced and when. 

Verta is the most "fused" when it comes to this, but he expects you have a baseline of theory as well - before breaking down the individual concepts of melody, harmony, voicing, arranging. Infact he often says you should be able to write a simple pop tune before you try to compose for orchestra. He's the most intermixed on these concepts - as he feels like orchestration and composition are more or less linked, but when he talks about orchestration he goes throught he same exact thought process as scoreclub for instance(notes first, then orchestrate based on goal and practicality of register)

Scoreclub has another approach(orchestrating the line) which is pretty cool, some nice concepts, but again - comes down to basics, melodic writing, counterpoint, harmony/modality, THEN orchestration. All of which follows the same path everyone else does.

effective orchestration at an advanced level requires knowledge of intervals and how they are perceived - something that is literally entry level stuff, but is absolutely essential down the line.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 22, 2021)

mopsiflopsi said:


> I am not recommending anything. I'm hoping for / seeking ways of learning that put more emphasis on producing little bits of music as you learn the theory


on a side note, almost everyone of the new and interesting programs available have the same mantra when it comes to this - practice, practice, practice.

Some tell you to write x bars daily, transcribe x bars daily - the more structured ones(MITA and Scoreclub) have assignments for many of their courses, although nobody can hold your feet to the flame on them.

Thomas goss's orchestration class started small with sections and had assignments regularly.

I haven't tried evenant's stuff(seems marketed to a different audience) but I'd be absolutely amazed if most of the same teachings weren't structured in there, even if watered down to a more digestible/less strict form than something like scoreclub.

Scoreclub though is probably the most well made and efficient classes. Some of the people like @SimonCharlesHanna Seemed to have progressed rapidly, and I know he was a scoreclub member. If anyone - I remember his early orchestral balance tests(which was alright, but didn't stand out) and now everything I hear from him is great and fresh. If I were in a hurry(and not just enjoying a healthy balance of technology, personal experimentation and then learning from others in that order) with orchestration I'd probably shake him down for how he got so good so quick. Guys like Verta are full of knowledge but it's also someone who's been steeped in experience for decades and decades of writing music. I don't know how long saxer has been writing, but similiarly - the advice of someone who took the VERY LONG WAY AROUND is going to be kind of muddied - because it happened slowly over time, and it might be hard for them to even pinpoint the exact things that helped them progress effectively, although I'm sure they have probably gleaned some insight into things they did that didn't help much, and what they might have done different if they had to start over - but if you find someone that has made rapid progress, speak to them - see what they did... and if they cracked the code, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.

You just can't walk before you crawl, and you can't run before you walk, and you can't be a pole vaulter before you can run. as someone Learning to pole vault(metaphorically) the idea of trying to meaningfully teach someone bits of pole vaulting while they are crawling trying to stand up for more than 2 seconds and balance before falling back down seems obviously impossible. A certain amount of proficiency is required to progress to each layer of composition, and even the MOST BASIC components of music are essential - and the greatest composers are actively paying attention to the most basic components while crafting effective music.



mopsiflopsi said:


> I know I said I wasn't going to continue the debate but this is the internet after all and I can't resist.



On the contrary, this is a discussion board and I'm happy to discuss this topic - and I'm glad you're participating. Our points in this journey are different, our back grounds are different, our dedications are different as well as goals - but despite that, we both leverage to gain if there's a better solution. That said - one of the things I regret is trying to run before I could crawl, which caused a lot of time undoing the half-assed-ness I'd subjected myself to early on with plenty of things. My ability to play keyboard is one of them - as it's always been something that I could kind of stumble through because I was a guitarist, but never sat myself through piano basics to develop good left hand technique and hand independence. Drumming I learned with the intent of being a metal drummer and some really basic stuff I skipped and it took a long time to go back and learn basic stuff that I still needed to do as a metal drummer. Heck even my window to music, which was guitar - I started learning on my own, so had to go back and teach myself alternate picking when I could 'pretend shred' by tremelo picking and moving my fingers fast... and I had to unlearn basic fingerings because for the first 2 years I didn't use my pinky. Even my first theory class was a massive waste of energy, because the book I learned from half assed every concept into "baby bites" but I didn't understand any of it well - and the college book I bought next laid it out correctly, causing me to have to unlearn half ass concepts to replace with not just the "correct" information - but the logic behind it so that I could understand it rather than just "do it". That's the most minor(pun intended) issue out of all of those listed - luckily I started with pen and paper, choral writing, and then midi(before virtual instruments) so much like early video game music - I focused on effective melody writing, good arrangement, and good and efficient voice leading/part writing. I didn't own notation software so I had to program midi with limited parts on guitar pro/powertabs(and ofcourse you only have 2 guitars and a bass in most standard metal groups).


----------



## Saxer (Jan 22, 2021)

I like the initial approach. It's mainly what all beginners do. They i.e. learn a chord on the guitar and another one and maybe a third one. Then they sing along with their chords and start improvising/composing a simple melody. When they learn a new chord it will probably be used in the next song... but they don't need a course for that. It's playing around with your possibilities.

You can do the same with you DAW and samples. Play around until something sounds good. Same approach. Make a string pad and play A minor and D minor. Play oboe on top. Nice. Don't need a lesson for that.

But orchestration is another thing: you write for other instruments to play your ideas. If you use your own voice to improvise melodies you will probably never write melodies out of your voice range. And you will not write chords you can't play. For monophonic instruments you have to split out your chords into single notes for individual players. You have to know the instrument ranges to find the best instrument for your melody or you have to transpose everything to get your favored instrument to play your melody in a perfect range... and immediately you are in this theory area. 

I'd always recommend to play an instrument in a band or ensemble or orchestra. You have to know what other instrumentalists do and whats easy or hard for them and what sounds good or bad. You have to play a lot of music together with other musicians. Hard enough in pandemic times... but you have to get the language... the musical language like chords and scales and sounds and dynamics and styles - and the words for that to exchange or transport the ideas to others. If you have that you will like the theory courses because it's either there and you can skip it or it's exactly what you are looking for.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 22, 2021)

I name drop you thorsten and you show up LOL.

Coincidentally youtube just fed me this



Hahaha the cautionary tale of this person could not have reflected the exact problems I outlined by trying to evade the standard approach

coincidently, I'm now seeing the thumbnail and recognize B's V after glancing at the first 2 measures. Just a reminder of how fluency is foundational and effects your ability to even digest new information... Imagine if I was trying to figure out what scale degrees those were by checking the sharps and flats and pulling out a circle of fifths... Wouldn't allow me to study that score very fast. Also worth noting that the incredible simplicity of dum-dum-dum-DUHHHHH, is 2 pitches and a rhythm - and yet you play that single sequence on any instrument, and everyone knows it immediately and has it stuck in their head. All built around that brain dead simple motif - and efficiently milked into a masterpiece.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 22, 2021)

In reading the Berlioz/Strauss manual on orchestration Strauss mentions learning to write for string quartet first. Conrade Pope JW's orchestrator mentioned that he is constantly studying chamber music for each section of the orchestra, strings, ww, brass, percussion. 

I like those approaches.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 22, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> *p* samples



Gotta be drug free too, random drug screenings


----------



## dhmusic (Aug 3, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> Learning about a picardy third


dafuq is this Starship Enterprise music theory...

Is this when you program a DX7 lead with a locked maj 3rd harmony and just shred riffs over all the dialog with "the sound of the future"?


----------



## szczaw (Aug 3, 2021)

Saxer said:


> You have to know the instrument ranges to find the best instrument for your melody or you have to transpose everything to get your favored instrument to play your melody in a perfect range... and immediately you are in this theory area.


Or you can just get software to do it for you.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 4, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> dafuq is this Starship Enterprise music theory...
> 
> Is this when you program a DX7 lead with a locked maj 3rd harmony and just shred riffs over all the dialog with "the sound of the future"?


it's when you're in harmonic/melodic minor - and the final cadence you land on a major I chord instead of the i chord.


----------



## dhmusic (Aug 4, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> it's when you're in harmonic/melodic minor - and the final cadence you land on a major I chord instead of the i chord.


Oh gotcha that thing. I call that "when JRPGs do "jazz hands" just before the loop restarts"

Like towards the end of FFVI - "Decisive Battle"


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 4, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> Oh gotcha that thing. I call that "when JRPGs do "jazz hands" just before the loop restarts"
> 
> Like towards the end of FFVI - "Decisive Battle"


Off the top of my head don't recall a Picardy 3rd in that piece


----------



## Montisquirrel (Aug 4, 2021)

mopsiflopsi said:


> 3) If you went back in time and set Strauss up with a home studio and a sample library that put the best players in the world at his fingertips, and hooked him up to 21st century internet to learn about all the variety of music and knowledge we have today, I'll bet you anything he wouldn't have waited 11 years to attempt his first mockup.


I bet he wouldn't write anything but he would have thousands of comments in online forums and watched thousands of YouTube reaction videos.


----------



## dhmusic (Aug 4, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> it's when you're in harmonic/melodic minor - and the final cadence you land on a major I chord instead of the i chord.



(music school reject here so I could be totally out of my depth...)

Isn't the picardy cadence pretty much any implied/expected minor i resolution being substituted for a major I

Either way it probably needs a better name like "Ionian Surprise" or something. You know, for when a composer is feeling just a little bit "extra"


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 4, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> (music school reject here so I could be totally out of my depth...)
> 
> Isn't the picardy cadence pretty much any implied/expected minor i resolution being substituted for a major I
> 
> Either way it probably needs a better name like "Ionian Surprise" or something. You know, for when a composer is feeling just a little bit "extra"




What bar do you see A major? 

That section starts on an F major, has a few chromatic approaches, and a 3/4 suspension - no Picardy thirds though.


----------



## borisb2 (Aug 4, 2021)

Montisquirrel said:


> I bet he wouldn't write anything but he would have thousands of comments in online forums and watched thousands of YouTube reaction videos.


and then one day he would find out that he can procastinate forever by talking in forums about libraries


----------



## dhmusic (Aug 4, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> What bar do you see A major?
> 
> That section starts on an F major, has a few chromatic approaches, and a 3/4 suspension - no Picardy thirds though.



Huh I think we might actually be using two pretty different (likely complimentary) theoretical approaches. To someone like me I read this and struggle to find an emotional context to latch on to. That's probably where my professors lost me with traditional music pedagogy. Also I just like don't do bass clef/alto clef/alt clef etc...

It's more abstract than this in my mind. The note names themselves feel like extra information. For that section I'm hearing a wash of color that roughly translates to:
- "Aeolian gear shift to Lydian (heroic bias - I, vi, emphasis)
- "Picardi gesture through modal borrowing at measure 17, beat 3"

So to my ears at least, the Picardi cadence occurs within the context of a brief modulation. Not sure if that makes sense or if it's even technically correct, but to me it works like of a combo chain in a fighting game lol - The important part being the strategic element of surprise. How it's achieved is certainly relevant, but secondary to successfully implementing it with intention.

Honestly though I just wanted to mention FFVI because I think you mentioned it on the board at some point and I made a mental note of it

kind of a roundabout way of saying "oh, hai" I guess


----------



## mopsiflopsi (Aug 4, 2021)

Montisquirrel said:


> I bet he wouldn't write anything but he would have thousands of comments in online forums and watched thousands of YouTube reaction videos.


Or would necro a 200 year old thread.


----------



## borisb2 (Aug 4, 2021)

mopsiflopsi said:


> Or would necro a 200 year old thread.


imagine a 200 year old thread about Spitfire BBCSO - London calling, or Hoopus .. how many pages they might have accumulated over the years


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 4, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> Huh I think we might actually be using two pretty different (likely complimentary) theoretical approaches. To someone like me I read this and struggle to find an emotional context to latch on to. That's probably where my professors lost me with traditional music pedagogy. Also I just like don't do bass clef/alto clef/alt clef etc...
> 
> It's more abstract than this in my mind. The note names themselves feel like extra information. For that section I'm hearing a wash of color that roughly translates to:
> - "Aeolian gear shift to Lydian (heroic bias - I, vi, emphasis)
> ...




heres the problem, music theory isn't about rules, it's about understanding and language. The thing is, I can communicate the idea that I have because I know what it's called - you're unable to communicate what you're hearing because you don't know what it's called. 

Likewise, when I say picardy third, it's not clicking. Each of these concepts is just another neat little tool, and often times what your teachers failed to mention is that each "rule" can probably reversed in the right context. Maybe you unironically took learning music theory too seriously to the point that you didn't want to take it seriously. Worth another shot, but you'll get there. If what you're doing gets stale to you, you'll look for something to open things up for you.


----------



## dhmusic (Aug 4, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> heres the problem, music theory isn't about rules, it's about understanding and language. The thing is, I can communicate the idea that I have because I know what it's called - you're unable to communicate what you're hearing because you don't know what it's called.
> 
> Likewise, when I say picardy third, it's not clicking. Each of these concepts is just another neat little tool, and often times what your teachers failed to mention is that each "rule" can probably reversed in the right context. Maybe you unironically took learning music theory too seriously to the point that you didn't want to take it seriously. Worth another shot, but you'll get there. If what you're doing gets stale to you, you'll look for something to open things up for you.


Yeah you're probably right haha. I have a long way to go for sure. Maybe I should consider taking a course or something... 🤔

Do you ever do mockups as a learning tool? Seems like a decent alternative to score copying (or whatever that practice is called) for someone who can't really read music too well.

I came across a Vivaldi track yesterday I hadn't heard before that might be fun to try mocking up - "La Stravaganza" Concerto no.2 in E minor, RV 279. I like the first movement.

It sounds kind of hard though lol. But it's a cool track, have you heard it?


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 5, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> Yeah you're probably right haha. I have a long way to go for sure. Maybe I should consider taking a course or something... 🤔
> 
> Do you ever do mockups as a learning tool? Seems like a decent alternative to score copying (or whatever that practice is called) for someone who can't really read music too well.
> 
> ...


Haven't, check out scoreclub 

It's quite easy to digest


----------



## dhmusic (Aug 5, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> Haven't, check out scoreclub
> 
> It's quite easy to digest


I checked it out and that looks pretty sweet! 

Really comprehensive it looks like, but it would definitely slow me down. I have some music education "deficiencies" I'd have to make up for first and if I did it the only benefit I'd get is like some weird insecure validation from music peers I don't really even know. Like I said before we come from very different music philosophies. It's like Yin & Yang.

I learn through immersion first and if needed will follow up with analysis. A lot of people prefer that approach. In fact I'd argue doing it the other way around is pretty silly and counterintuitive. It certainly works for some people, but it definitely does not work for many others

Alain is freaking great though and his music has def had some influence on me. Scoreclub looks perfect for people who thrive on a more traditional path. I'm just interested in more heretical forms of musical alchemy. I wonder if he needs a mockup assistant though... I've always wanted to do the intro to ender's game haha. Maybe I'll send it to him.


----------



## dhmusic (Aug 5, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> Okay. Vivaldi, Strauss, and Holst.


why does everyone forget Rehespigi??? 😭

lol jk. that's a powerful trio right there


----------



## osterdamus (Sep 12, 2021)

shponglefan said:


> Thanks, I'll check HookTheory out. Hadn't heard of it before.
> 
> Also just to clarify my reference to Orchestration Recipes wasn't intended as a literal version of that. Rather, I just wonder what a progressive music theory/orchestration course would look like that focused on specific examples of music composition in the process.


Did you venture down the Hooktheory/Pad path? If so, how was the experience?


----------

