# Struggling with writing for Orchestra



## kd.hebbes

What would you guys recommend?

Obviously its not my samples fault for my lack of ability and experience but I'm using the samples that come with Kontakt 5 to try to learn how to write for Strings, Brass etc. Needless to say it's not going very well. I'm not looking to release any of this just need something to learn on.

I know my biggest problem is I need to spend more time listening to what each instrument can do. I'm listening to a fair amount of stuff involving strings and brass but when I go to imitate some of the textures or things they do in the music its sounds terrible. 

Right now the only thing that doesn't sound terrible is block chords buried under layers of not orchestral samples. I know that I need to work on things myself but can anyone recommend something for me to try. 

Should I soldier it out and spend more time with my current setup?
Are there courses I could take on composition?
A friend of mine has said I should try writing some stuff in Sibelius?

Anything would be much appreciated I've heard some awesome stuff on here already.


----------



## ag75

There is a great orchestration group on Facebook called "Online Orchestration". I would suggest hanging out there for a while. It is chock-full of information and an excellent resource on all things regarding orchestration.


----------



## davidgary73

My recommendation is to watch Mike Verta's tutorials on V.I Technique @ 

http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/category/podcastsandtutorials/tutorials/

Do check out his free for all class @ http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/masterclasses/online-masterclass-free-for-all/

IF you're keen on learning more from Mike, do take one or more of his masterclass @ 

http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/category/masterclasses/

I have learned so much from Mike and his teachings are top notch. 

Cheers


----------



## mirrodin

Orchestration Online is a great resource for getting at the music theory fundamentals as well as getting real, detailed feedback from instrumentalists about practical application. Much of the Orchestration Online group is centered around the concert/performance world of classical music, so there may be some very strict responses or feedback.

Those tips can still apply when writing or orchestrating for a film especially where a real (live) orchestra is used, but the other end of the spectrum you'll find is just grasping at programming techniques based on specific libraries or virtual tool standards.

Firstly, how do you PREFER to make music? Secondly, is what you're struggling with coming apart in your mockup (what you're hearing with the sample sources you have access to), or do you truly feel the samples are not what is limiting what you WANT to hear?

This is why so many of us will invest so heavily in sample libraries (can definitely be a money pit if you're not careful).
The game is two-fold. Production & mixing to get our music sounding as realistic and commercial as possible, and the composing element, where we just want to write something that impacts us and others.

For me, my progression goes hand in hand with what I have access to. I would spend a LONG time learning the tool inside and out, and making quick sketches to attempt new ways of trying to compose with the tools, but i'm also getting used to their playability, how they sound, etc.. So to look back on my past projects and listen to what I've done lately it's a HUGE increase not just in production value but also in the detail and compositional style changes or things I may have only been dreaming I could do back then.

Enjoy the journey!

For some references, check out Daniel James' Youtube review channel. He reviews quite a bit of sample libraries and gives practical demonstrations, and also explains how he builds those demonstrations so you can get a good idea of how he composes and produces as well.


----------



## ed buller

Mike's videos are wonderful. I'd recommend them....

Really the best way to learn is to copy in this instance. Also having a good book on Orchestration to refer to will help too. Are your samples up to the task ? Some of those built in Kontakt samples aren't the best. The VSL stuff is generally pretty good but it is a very cut down affair. Whilst it is important learning what each instrument can do it's also vital understanding how well they play with others. Which combinations always work...and why. It's best to learn how each section ( brass, woodwind , strings ) works together on their own before combining them.

this might be helpful:

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/77-Principles-of-Orchestration-Online

If you can read music try copying a few bars of some orchestral piece that uses the whole orchestra and try and balance your midi so it sounds the same. Pick something where there is a couple of strong ideas. Say the end of Jupiter by Holst ....or The Beginning of Scheherazade by Rimsky Korsakov. Listen to a recording many times and focus on each of the sections before you try and copy. Just do a few bars NOT too many . A good mockup takes time. Remember part of the reason that midi can sound bad is the dynamics. Orchestral instruments have a massive dynamic range. The sound changes dramatically from loud to soft. All sorts of things happen with the timbre that sample libraries find hard to replicate without a lot of programming. When you hear a good mockup you are hearing the result of a lot of midi tweaking going on.

Sibelius with NOTEPERFORMER is an excellent way to get to grips with orchestration if you can read music and have some scores to copy, it can be really quick. Just type in the notes and listen !The NOTEPERFORMER isn't as good as samples BUT it does playback everything you type in . Dynamics and techniques. You can really get a good feel for how things sound with it. It doesn't come with Sibelius you have to buy it separately but it's well worth it .

But Orchestration IS a big subject and learning how to control all those instruments takes time and lot's of practice so don't be disheartened if it doesn't sound great straight away.

e


----------



## Pysmythe

A good orchestral piece to do that on might be one of Mozart's minuets from one of his symphonies, one of the reasons being that the forces he uses aren't too large. I did this years ago and feel like it helped me a lot, plus it was a lot of fun, even though, honestly, I'm not the quickest sight reader in the world.


----------



## JohnG

Sam Adler's book and accompanying CDs / MP3s are great. Goes through each instrument of the "main" orchestra and also has information on entire sections / full orchestra. Still go back to it all the time.


----------



## kd.hebbes

Wow thanks for all the helpful responses. I didn't know what to expect because I'm new to this forum. 

I will definitely check out the Online Orchestration facebook group. I've heard of Mike Verta before I didn't know he did some stuff for free. 

Mirrodin that's a good question. How I prefer to write music. So far as far as electronic stuff its been a mix of learning how to use synths and just writing music with the synthesis. I feel it is part my lack of experience in orchestral music but also the current samples I'm using. 

Ed Buller one of my friends recommended I spend some time with scores. I should give it a shot. I can definitely read music I've been procrastinating because I'm afraid I won't be able to duplicate some of the things from the scores because of my samples. I like the idea of taking a bar or two and really honing in on what makes it sound good beyond the actual notes.

Pysmyhte I'll definitely check out some mozart

John G never heard of the Sam Adler book I'll check it out right after this!

Thanks again guys. This gives me a ton of things to pursue!


----------



## Rctec

What does an orchestra sound like to you? Dry, close mic'ing or ambient? What emotional purpose and space does it fill in your music?
I grew up with listening to orchestras at a very early age, and so - like my German accent - I have a sonic memory of the typical accent of European sound - which is nothing like the dry samples you find in a lot of libraries.
I learned a lot about orchestration when I started out by having to synthesize (analog synth, no samples - yes I'm THAT old!) from scratch a lot of classical music for a dodgy TV series that had no budget. Mahler 5 and Mahler 2nd, Berlioz, Vaughn-Williams... By not only synthesizing the sound of a brass section but the environment it's in taught me a lot. ...and No Presets!
Look at Vangelis and "Chariots Of Fire". He wasn't doing an inappropriate electronic score, because he "thinks' orchestral. Just not in a conventional way.... But really, it was growing up in an environment where I always heard orchestral music that I just instinctively knew how it should sound. How each section's volume and strength complemented and balanced the other -which, of course I now break by shoving microphones close to the basses and generally manipulating the inherent natural balance; by getting instruments that sound beautiful quiet, but you cant hear them amongst the din of a brass-section artificially cranked up on the fader. that's what mixing is all about: Cheat Nature! I think the end-quest is not one of rules found in books, but one of your own personal aesthetic... I like Recording in a big, ambient space like "Air" or "Abbey Road". I really struggle (in the sense I have to create an artificial reverb) with the Hollywood Sound from 'Big Rooms' like Sony and Fox. (The real "Hollywood Sound" is "Starwars", "Raiders", "Bond", "Lawrence of Arabia", "Brazil", "There will be blood", "The English Patient" for me...all recorded in London. I love the local L.A. scoring stages, but I write very differently to and for The Space I'm in. But, really, anything goes. 28 celli at Air, one solo-violin in pretty much a broom closet, drums in underground car parks... I think of orchestration very much in the context of what I want to achieve emotionally and I never see density of notes, size of sections, and tempo detached from the space they are going to be performing in. Same goes for samples. I use very, very few commercial libraries - mainly because they don't sound the way music sounds in my head.
And then again, when I only had an 8-voice, 8 bit sampler, it never stopped or hurt my career from writing embarrassingly over-orchestrated stuff like "Backdraft" or "Crimson tide". ..."Lionking" was all 12-bit samples and the whole 'Circle Of Life' song in the film is just that demo.
So, what am I trying to say? Make sure you have sounds that inspire YOU. I - personally have no use for Vienna stuff, I cant, for the life of me, have an emotional connection with their stuff. But I heard some remarkable music done with it...
What's you favorite orchestral piece - performance and recording? and go from there...
-Hz-


----------



## Sebastianmu

I remember vividly the disappointment when I got my first sample library (Peter Siedlaczeks "Advanced Orchestra", on 5 CDs!) and immediatley fed it with "Mars" from the Planets. It sounded terrible and certainly _curbed my enthusiasm_ about the possibilities of recreating orchestral music on the computer. So, yes, the Kontakt factory library samples might be part of the problem. With high quality samples, on the other hand, you quickly realize what it takes to make them sound good: a convincing space (or, as Hans pointed out: the space that your music needs) and very detailed CC changes.

The compositional aspects of it are to vast to be covered in a thread on a forum. Knowing what woodwinds do in which circumstances, what the brass does, what the strings do - and: what you might _want _them to do - comes with experience. The Mike Verta orchestration classes might be a good starting point, though. And they are a bargain! Studying sheet music of things you like also gives you an idea on which devices you'd like to deploy in your pieces.

@Rctec Someone asked you to replicate Mahler symphonies on analogue synths? Who was that scoundrel?! It's crazy!  ... I was always impressed with the samples in the songs from the Lionking, though, because - that was 1994! Did they come from the notorious private LSO sample library, or was that sampled later on?


----------



## Carles

kd.hebbes said:


> Right now the only thing that doesn't sound terrible is block chords buried under layers of not orchestral samples. I know that I need to work on things myself but can anyone recommend something for me to try.


Well, IMO the most important thing is that you're aware about what you would like to do and what you currently do and you self criticism is not happy with it. I think that's a fantastic starting point.
I think you should go deeper on what orchestral music is, and my best recommendation is to listen classical music as it is the actual root.
Rctec last comment is sharpening this very same point (even if he might mean film music) when saying performance/recording.
Recording might be more related to sound (which is already inspiring by itself) but I'd remark -performance-.
Something that you can find often in classical music is different recording/performances of exactly the same piece. By listening versions, once familiar with those you'll find differences between them in terms of expression (and sound too).
If you're able to feel preferences between versions ("I think Abbado is going too slow with the Adagio, or Gergiev too fast in the overture") that mean that you have got proper skills, so "your brain comes equipped with that", now you need to learn the technique in order to have a proper interface between your brain and the resulting sound.

By listening classical masters will teach you about how they do, do not just listen but try to follow who is who within that sonic mass.
Then you'll realize that is not about amount of instruments and start adding them until reaching a super-saturated mass of sound, not at all. It's about emotions, comprising dynamics, tempo and colors. No need to go horns FFF for a melody over a myriad of ostinatos and rhythmic brass-percussion-strings (we are too accustomed to it anyway that no longer impress anyone) you can use instead many alternatives, even a minimalistic one like , two clarinets and a bassoon playing chords, a triangle, some strings pp and/or some soft pizzicatos, and let a so humble flute to soar over all of them... that sounds beautiful for sure. The masters can teach you much of this by just listening and following (no need of a formal analysis, just try to listen and drink some juice of what you're listening).
I'ts about expression, not a stack of instructions to follow in order to get a well sounding mass of sound. What do you want to tell? do you want to express anxiety, love, ira, beauty, stress? try to tell through sounds what do you feel, there are many instrument combinations to achieve that, just try to combine them, just experiment with them, but the most important, play with expression, otherwise is just again a stack of sounds, make them vibrate via CC controllers, you can yell but you can whisper too, just tell emotions, do not be flat.
Regarding realism, libraries can be very important, a good combination of them I'd say. However as much expression you'll add as less obvious the lack of realism, as the listener attention has something interesting to listen other than sound.

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## Rctec

Sebastianmu said:


> I remember vividly the disappointment when I got my first sample library (Peter Siedlaczeks "Advanced Orchestra", on 5 CDs!) and immediatley fed it with "Mars" from the Planets. It sounded terrible and certainly _curbed my enthusiasm_ about the possibilities of recreating orchestral music on the computer. So, yes, the Kontakt factory library samples might be part of the problem. With high quality samples, on the other hand, you quickly realize what it takes to make them sound good: a convincing space (or, as Hans pointed out: the space that your music needs) and very detailed CC changes.
> 
> The compositional aspects of it are to vast to be covered in a thread on a forum. Knowing what woodwinds do in which circumstances, what the brass does, what the strings do - and: what you might _want _them to do - comes with experience. The Mike Verta orchestration classes might be a good starting point, though. And they are a bargain! Studying sheet music of things you like also gives you an idea on which devices you'd like to deploy in your pieces.
> 
> @Rctec Someone asked you to replicate Mahler symphonies on analogue synths? Who was that scoundrel?! It's crazy!  ... I was always impressed with the samples in the songs from the Lionking, though, because - that was 1994! Did they come from the notorious private LSO sample library, or was that sampled later on?



... No, that was just stock stuff I'd sampled over the years, including an African choir I'd done in South Africa! We started The Never-Ending Sample Project after Lion King...


----------



## dcoscina

kd.hebbes said:


> What would you guys recommend?
> 
> Obviously its not my samples fault for my lack of ability and experience but I'm using the samples that come with Kontakt 5 to try to learn how to write for Strings, Brass etc. Needless to say it's not going very well. I'm not looking to release any of this just need something to learn on.
> 
> I know my biggest problem is I need to spend more time listening to what each instrument can do. I'm listening to a fair amount of stuff involving strings and brass but when I go to imitate some of the textures or things they do in the music its sounds terrible.
> 
> Right now the only thing that doesn't sound terrible is block chords buried under layers of not orchestral samples. I know that I need to work on things myself but can anyone recommend something for me to try.
> 
> Should I soldier it out and spend more time with my current setup?
> Are there courses I could take on composition?
> A friend of mine has said I should try writing some stuff in Sibelius?
> 
> Anything would be much appreciated I've heard some awesome stuff on here already.


If you have access to attending live performances by an orchestra it's very helpful as it will teach you balancing their resources and what players can and cannot do. 

If you have an iPad you can try out Notion or if you have some program that allows you to see notation that's also helpful. Not necessarily for the pure musical aspect of it but the graphic nature. Seeing and writing keeping density in mind plus actually seeing the phrases does help to shape your orchestral writing. Some people don't subscribe to formal counterpoint but I still think it has merit. Seeing lines that move in parallel motion helps to sometimes change them to contrary motion. Also, being able to switch from full score to a particular part is helpful- remember you are writing for someone else to play the part, even if you really will just be realizing it with samples.

That said, James Newton Howard once said in. Keyboard interview to write to the strengths of your samples. Treat sampled instruments like a real group. I've written pieces with a specific group in mind and knew where. It's strong and weak players were so I focussed on those instrument choirs and tried to avoid or write simpler for those groups that might struggle.

What Hans said about Vangelis is spot on too- Vangelis used a lot of non sample based sounds in his seminal works like the CS80 strings but he still made them sound lush and they behaved like a large traditional string section. 

Like others said here, listen and read as much as possible. Even one my of university profs said between being a good sight reader of music or having a good ear, develop the ear- after all, music is sound.


----------



## Rctec

Carles said:


> Well, IMO the most important thing is that you're aware about what you would like to do and what you currently do and you self criticism is not happy with it. I think that's a fantastic starting point.
> I think you should go deeper on what orchestral music is, and my best recommendation is to listen classical music as it is the actual root.
> Rctec last comment is sharpening this very same point (even if he might mean film music) when saying performance/recording.
> Recording might be more related to sound (which is already inspiring by itself) but I'd remark -performance-.
> Something that you can find often in classical music is different recording/performances of exactly the same piece. By listening versions, once familiar with those you'll find differences between them in terms of expression (and sound too).
> If you're able to feel preferences between versions ("I think Abbado is going too slow with the Adagio, or Gergiev too fast in the overture") that mean that you have got proper skills, so "your brain comes equipped with that", now you need to learn the technique in order to have a proper interface between your brain and the resulting sound.
> 
> By listening classical masters will teach you about how they do, do not just listen but try to follow who is who within that sonic mass.
> Then you'll realize that is not about amount of instruments and start adding them until reaching a super-saturated mass of sound, not at all. It's about emotions, comprising dynamics, tempo and colors. No need to go horns FFF for a melody over a myriad of ostinatos and rhythmic brass-percussion-strings (we are too accustomed to it anyway that no longer impress anyone) you can use instead many alternatives, even a minimalistic one like , two clarinets and a bassoon playing chords, a triangle, some strings pp and/or some soft pizzicatos, and let a so humble flute to soar over all of them... that sounds beautiful for sure. The masters can teach you much of this by just listening and following (no need of a formal analysis, just try to listen and drink some juice of what you're listening).
> I'ts about expression, not a stack of instructions to follow in order to get a well sounding mass of sound. What do you want to tell? do you want to express anxiety, love, ira, beauty, stress? try to tell through sounds what do you feel, there are many instrument combinations to achieve that, just try to combine them, just experiment with them, but the most important, play with expression, otherwise is just again a stack of sounds, make them vibrate via CC controllers, you can yell but you can whisper too, just tell emotions, do not be flat.
> Regarding realism, libraries can be very important, a good combination of them I'd say. However as much expression you'll add as less obvious the lack of realism, as the listener attention has something interesting to listen other than sound.
> 
> Cheers,
> Carles


...and I meant Classical Music!


----------



## Rctec

...oh, one obvious distinction most people seem to not make: there is a huge difference writing and making a Recording as opposed to a Live Performance... Most the time we are called on to make a recording of music - without the experience that being there and seeing a performer ...well, perform  (for those that understand the German: "Das Auge hört mit" - there is no elegant way to translate that true-ism...)
So you have to learn how to use the studio, your cc 1 and cc 11, your after-touch and everything else to create a sense of performance. And I don't care if this is samples or 'real' musicians. I Have a habit of Not looking at the players during a take, because sometimes I've been seduced by the sheer emotion and excitement on their faces, just to - a few days later - listen to a really boring take 

And, by the way, I don't touch my keyboard or DAW until I've 'heard' the piece, completely orchestrated, in my head. I think both vertically and horizontally in music all the time...

-Hz-


----------



## wpc982

I really do not like "write to your samples", pace Mr Howard. Write from and with your imagination, then try your best to get some sounds that match it.


----------



## SymphonicSamples

Hey Kd , there's a lot of wonderful suggestions in the thread so far . All I could add is , you can also approach it in sections so you don't have to tackle the entire orchestra at once . Start with just strings given they are the most homogeneous of the sections, and then brass and lastly woodwinds , given the winds allow for a great amount of contrasting colors it leaves nowhere to hide when orchestration is lacking .
Select a piece of music that you have a connection with , get the score and input a segment from the score with all string parts . If your not sure , Mahler's Adagietto in Symphony No.5 as an example is truly one of the greatest gifts in classical music , now if that piece doesn't move your soul  Simple on the surface , but when you take the time to really listen how Mahler used the string section , his voicing throughout the strings , how he moves the melody internally , the expressive dynamic range over the movement , the economy of motion in his harmonies , when you listen closely to a piece like this you hear which ranges he uses within the individual parts of the string section and how that impacts on the emotion he was trying to express . How he voices the underlying chords , whats doubled and when , and how all the section is used with the most beautiful efficiency . If you input a number of bars into your sequencer and start applying CC data , trying to match a recording it will slowly take shape , and by doing so note by note you can adsorb some of this . Depending on how long you have been writing for the orchestra she's a monster and it takes a long time to start to tame , and the learning never stops . One thing to remember when writing for orchestra is all composers go through the same growing pains , but stick with it . As Carles said you have desire to learn and are seeking ways of doing so , which over time will get your closer to what you want .


----------



## atw

Rctec said:


> I think both vertically and horizontally in music all the time...



What is this for you?


----------



## ed buller

Rctec said:


> "Das Auge hört mit" -Hz-



oh how many bands rely on THAT !!


----------



## sinkd

Rctec said:


> "Das Auge hört mit"


Genau.


----------



## tack

atw said:


> What is this for you?


I'm interested in Rctec's take too. My understanding is that horizontal means things like melody and themes, development of ideas, etc., while vertical refers to orchestration, how instruments are stacked, mixing, etc.

I wish I had a fraction of the talent needed to be able to hear a fleshed out composition in my head before I hit the piano (or the samples).


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

tack said:


> I wish I had a fraction of the talent needed to be able to hear a fleshed out composition in my head before I hit the piano (or the samples).



Yeah, I wish I could do that too. I'm trying to improve in that regard. But most of the time, I'm too dumb for that.

I'm generally a musically very dumb person. I come up with little pieces of music, often just a few bars, and then struggle eternally on the "horizontal plane", trying to think of - or hear - what actually comes next.

Should I finally come up with something that makes sense, I once again struggle eternally in the vertical plane until it halfway works. It could all go faster and everything, but then again, I also spend a lot of time and energy trying to come up with something halfway interesting. I just can't make myself go with whatever idea or just something that simply works.

I always envied people that hear things "worked out" in their head, and those who have music coming to them easily and naturally. For me, it's actually incredibly difficult work most of the time. Perhaps I'm a person that likes hurting themselves or something.


----------



## dhlkid

I start my orchestra writing using VSL, never fail, and then I will add different flavor to the sounds.


----------



## InLight-Tone

tack said:


> I'm interested in Rctec's take too. My understanding is that horizontal means things like melody and themes, development of ideas, etc., while vertical refers to orchestration, how instruments are stacked, mixing, etc.
> 
> I wish I had a fraction of the talent needed to be able to hear a fleshed out composition in my head before I hit the piano (or the samples).



I would like to hear about his process too. Me thinks you need to have some serious ear training to be able to know what it is you are hearing in your head and then translate that into physical reality. But then again, hearing an entire score of length seems impossible to me. Do tell Hanz?


----------



## wst3

Rctec said:


> <a tremedous wealth of great advice snipped to highlight one bit> that's what mixing is all about: Cheat Nature! I think the end-quest is not one of rules found in books, but one of your own personal aesthetic... <snippity>
> -Hz-



All these old guys (don't ask how I know<G>) share a common perspective that I still find fascinating, and useful.

Best advice I received many years ago, from another remarkable talent - there are two ways to make a recording, you can capture an event for historical purposes, or you can create an event for entertainment purposes. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I sometimes have to remember to think about that...


----------



## dsmo

What Carles said. Do you have access to a classical music station, on radio, satellite, etc? Put it on. Constantly. If you are awake, it should be on. If people think you're weird, guess what, you are. Most people don't like classical. You need to listen to thousands of hours of this music. Over time it will osmose into your brain. Books and courses are of course helpful, but orchestration is about sound. It's the one thing you can't really learn from books.


----------



## Rctec

tack said:


> I'm interested in Rctec's take too. My understanding is that horizontal means things like melody and themes, development of ideas, etc., while vertical refers to orchestration, how instruments are stacked, mixing, etc.
> 
> I wish I had a fraction of the talent needed to be able to hear a fleshed out composition in my head before I hit the piano (or the samples).


Exactly! I've always - since I was a child - heard the full orchestration (I'm not saying it's Good orchestration) in my head...


----------



## Rctec

InLight-Tone said:


> I would like to hear about his process too. Me thinks you need to have some serious ear training to be able to know what it is you are hearing in your head and then translate that into physical reality. But then again, hearing an entire score of length seems impossible to me. Do tell Hanz?


No, I usually hear the whole damn thing... The struggle is how to retain it while battling with samples and synth... One of the reasons I don't use any pre-sets in my synth is because every sound I hear blunts the memory of what is in my head...


----------



## Markus Kohlprath

Man, this is an interesting thread.


Carles said:


> Then you'll realize that is not about amount of instruments and start adding them until reaching a super-saturated mass of sound, not at all. It's about emotions, comprising dynamics, tempo and colors.


One of the best examples for experiencing that effect is the requiem from mozart. He dictated the lacrimosa laying in his bed with a disease that brought him to death. It's unfinished and might be some of the last notes he composed. He didn't have the time to do the orchestration. But for me it's still one of the deepest,emotional pieces in music history. After that the part starts that had been composed entirely by his pupil Suessmayer. It is heavily orchestrated sounding very thick, certainly was a lot of work for him but all the magic of the first parts that had been composed or better sketched by Mozart (and he certainly had it in his head) suddenly is gone. I didn't know about all this when I first listened to the piece years ago but somehow wondered what happend at this point of the composition. Now I know.


----------



## einei

as people pointed out you need to get used to the sound and listen a lot. One way obviously is to listen to recordings, but what really helped me was playing and listening to live classical music. Orchestral live music of course is great but listening to performances of smaller ensembles (string quartets, wind quintets, piano trios etc...) really gave me an understanding of how these instruments sound on their own, what they are capable of achieving sound wise and emotionally and how the fill the space they are in. It also made me realize that you don't always need an orchestra. 

Besides that the Samuel Adler books + exercise book and CD's are a must have if you want to get serious about writing for orchestra. It's expensive but worth every penny... And analyze scores as much as you can. If you hear a passage from a piece that you like, get the score and analyze it. I would start "simple" for e.g with pieces from Mozart. Then as an exercise try to imitate that texture with your own phrases or chord progressions.

Anyways I´m by no means an expert on writing for orchestra, and still have a very long way to go but these are things that really helped me.


----------



## Rctec

einei said:


> as people pointed out you need to get used to the sound and listen a lot. One way obviously is to listen to recordings, but what really helped me was playing and listening to live classical music. Orchestral live music of course is great but listening to performances of smaller ensembles (string quartets, wind quintets, piano trios etc...) really gave me an understanding of how these instruments sound on their own, what they are capable of achieving sound wise and emotionally and how the fill the space they are in. It also made me realize that you don't always need an orchestra.
> 
> Besides that the Samuel Adler books + exercise book and CD's are a must have if you want to get serious about writing for orchestra. It's expensive but worth every penny... And analyze scores as much as you can. If you hear a passage from a piece that you like, get the score and analyze it. I would start "simple" for e.g with pieces from Mozart. Then as an exercise try to imitate that texture with your own phrases or chord progressions.
> 
> Anyways I´m by no means an expert on writing for orchestra, and still have a very long way to go but these are things that really helped me.


I have a dreadful but sneaking suspicion that we learn our musical 'accents' from listening a lot as very young children, and that it gets harder and harder to internalize that as we grow older and our language is formed...


----------



## blougui

Rctec said:


> I have a dreadful but sneaking suspicion that we learn our musical 'accents' from listening a lot as very young children, and that it gets harder and harder to internalize that as we grow older and our language is formed...



I should check that somewhere, like in a book of Oliver Sacks as I'm almost sure it's documented now : I too think it's a very very young ability, something like drawing (translate from 3d to 2d)and painting (colors). You can learn it for sure, hone your skills and work hard your way to reach something lets say "professional" to keep it simple but some early talent will make the difference in the end, both in terms of efficiency and creativity/orginality.

erik


----------



## einei

Rctec said:


> I have a dreadful but sneaking suspicion that we learn our musical 'accents' from listening a lot as very young children, and that it gets harder and harder to internalize that as we grow older and our language is formed...



Unfortunately I think it's true... I grew up in a classical household (my dad is classical pianist and my mom is a straight snob in that matter, that will flatly refuse to play anything "non classical") so I don't know how it feels like to getting used to it when you are older. But when I went to college, which was mostly focused on contemporary music, I definitely could see some people struggling with things such as phrasing, ritartandos, and interpretation in certain types of music, just as I had a harder time with other types of music such as Jazz... Not the technical performance aspect but as you said "accents"....


----------



## tokatila

blougui said:


> I should check that somewhere, like in a book of Oliver Sacks as I'm almost sure it's documented now : I too think it's a very very young ability, something like drawing (translate from 3d to 2d)and painting (colors). You can learn it for sure, hone your skills and work hard your way to reach something lets say "professional" to keep it simple but some early talent will make the difference in the end, both in terms of efficiency and creativity/orginality.
> 
> erik



Which book? I'm very interested in this since for some reason I was only one in our household to listen to classical music, almost exclusively (not counting Bill Conti and Vince DiCola  ) to the teens.

So might this mean that I have thousands of hours of brain molding happened already? Yeah, I'll take that! No wonder I love subito FFs after pps and almost never do anything in Major key. Since as a kid my diet was 70% Beethoven 20% Brahms and 10% Tchaikovsky, Schumann and Chopin combined. And always thought in my teens that Mozart was mostly unbearable, too chirpy and happy-happy-joy-joy.


----------



## Rctec

tokatila said:


> Which book? I'm very interested in this since for some reason I was only one in our household to listen to classical music, almost exclusively (not counting Bill Conti and Vince DiCola  ) to the teens.
> 
> So might this mean that I have thousands of hours of brain molding happened already? Yeah, I'll take that! No wonder I love subito FFs after pps and almost never do anything in Major key. Since as a kid my diet was 70% Beethoven 20% Brahms and 10% Tchaikovsky, Schumann and Chopin combined. And always thought in my teens that Mozart was mostly unbearable, too chirpy and happy-happy-joy-joy.


There is no more profound and deep composer than Mozart! Listen to the 40 bars long "Ave Verum Corpus", or the second movement of the Clarinet concerto. Let's not even mention the "Requiem"...


----------



## muk

Mozart didn't dictate his Requiem, nor did he write it lying sickly in his bed. That fiction stems from the Foreman movie 'Amadeus'. He wrote as far as he got before becoming deathly ill, and then stopped. The introitus was completely finished in all parts at that point. For the Kyrie and the Dies irae he had written detailed drafts. For the Lacrimosa a draft of only 8 measures exists. Joseph Eybler and Franz Xaver Süssmayr completed the requiem after Mozart's death comissioned by his widow Constanze.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Rctec said:


> I have a dreadful but sneaking suspicion that we learn our musical 'accents' from listening a lot as very young children, and that it gets harder and harder to internalize that as we grow older and our language is formed...


Couldn't agree more! I'm sure this has to do with the idea that usually our greatest inspirations always come early in our lives... And then I like to think that's also maybe because as adults we listen differently, through a not-so-fortunate filter of judgements we've let ourselves develop in us. What I like to do now is always remember not only to try to listen with the same sense of fascination and inferiority i had as a child (which i can precisely remember having), now i don't care if its John Williams or Trent Reznor, which some people consider the perfect symmetry for "quality" in film scoring, but if you're honest and humble, you'll always find something that they do better than you which you can then be inspired by. And also then there is this other unfortunate thing that started to happen years on with me is: struggling not to forget to go back and listen to everything that I loved and cement that, because even those childhood gems tend, sadly, to get squashed out through all of our "information age"...

So for me the important idea is the "attitude" behind the listening, independent of the music itself!


----------



## AlexandreSafi

tokatila said:


> Which book? I'm very interested in this since for some reason I was only one in our household to listen to classical music, almost exclusively (not counting Bill Conti and Vince DiCola  ) to the teens.
> 
> So might this mean that I have thousands of hours of brain molding happened already? Yeah, I'll take that! No wonder I love subito FFs after pps and almost never do anything in Major key. Since as a kid my diet was 70% Beethoven 20% Brahms and 10% Tchaikovsky, Schumann and Chopin combined. And always thought in my teens that Mozart was mostly unbearable, too chirpy and happy-happy-joy-joy.



Tokatila, I'm pretty sure the book is "Musicophilia: Tales of music and the brain", by the way... did you listen to these, i'm sure they can blow your mind, a little, yes some do have the "alberti bass" in:





Hans, this one's for you, by this genius underrated English composer:


----------



## tokatila

AlexandreSafi said:


> Tokatila, I'm pretty sure the book is "Musicophilia: Tales of music and the brain", by the way... did you listen to these, i'm sure they can blow your mind, a little, yes some do have the "alberti bass" in:
> 
> Hans, this one's for you, by this genius underrated English composer:




Thanks, I will check that book. 

I pretty much still listen only to classical music and have grown older, so I have managed to widen my repertoire since my teenager years. However I still almost never choose Mozart, when there are much more finer choices *for me* available. When I listen to Mozart I always tend to choose minor pieces, like 25th symphony, which is a fine example of Sturm&Drang period and actually one of my Mozart Favorites. But those "beautiful" pieces, I appreciate them, but they don't really "touch" me like other composers do.

Btw; if you like Mozart 25th, another fine example from Sturm&Drang period is Papa Haydn's 39th, especially 1st movement.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath

muk said:


> Mozart didn't dictate his Requiem, nor did he write it lying sickly in his bed. That fiction stems from the Foreman movie 'Amadeus


You are right probably. Has been a long time since I read the mozart biographies. But this is not the point. The point is that the few notes he wrote for the lacrimosa made an incredible piece of music and have so much more meaning than all the heavy orchestrated parts suessmayer made for the rest of the piece. It was meant as an example for what is important in music and that it is not necessarily a lot of instruments put together as carles mentioned.
And I agree that probably what we experience in early childhood has a deep impact.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Back to the original question, you'll like this i'm sure:
http://www.mikeverta.com/Posts/The_Minds_Ear.mp3
-A.s.-


----------



## muk

Markus Kohlprath said:


> You are right probably. Has been a long time since I read the mozart biographies. But this is not the point.


 True, that was a little overpedantic. Sorry for that, it's a deformation profesionnelle. In any case it is very true that Mozart needed only few notes to express something profoundly deep and touching. As Brahms said: “It is not hard to compose, but what is fabulously hard is to leave the superfluous notes under the table.”


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Precisely, it's never been about the runs, or how fat you make that apple pie, it's about that one pernicious musical idea!


----------



## blougui

I was indeed talking about Musicophilia.
The brain of Mozart is an interesting reading too. It's in french, though and talks about memory, elaborating from a famous anecdote about young Amadeus transcripting a long piece of music (15mn)he heard with his father in a church.
I'm afraid we're not equal in that matter - and Alexander I guess it has more to do with brain plasticity at a young age rather and the difference between individuals rather than an "adult-filter" that would confuse our judgment. 

erik


----------



## Patrick

Long time vi-control lurker here and I finally made an account just to thank everybody for threads like this one. It is such a joy to see how helpfull and nice people on this forum are, thank you for all your great advice and for sharing your music and often fascinating experiences making it. <3


----------



## tack

Rctec said:


> No, I usually hear the whole damn thing... The struggle is how to retain it while battling with samples and synth... One of the reasons I don't use any pre-sets in my synth is because every sound I hear blunts the memory of what is in my head...


Now that sounds like the kind of problem I'd like to have. What tricks have you adopted to keep your ideas from fading away? Quick sketches on paper? Humming into a recorder? 

One of the things I remember Mike Verta saying is that when he's composing he'll sketch out the basic structure of the idea on a score pad and it's so high level that he calls it an "art project." It's just enough to remind him where the idea was going until he can get it inputted into the computer.

But your work is so steeped in sound design I imagine it's not nearly so easy (or "easy"). It's hard to sketch out the high level structure of your ideas when a sound in your mind's ear isn't easily translatable to anything that already exists.


----------



## Rctec

tack said:


> Now that sounds like the kind of problem I'd like to have. What tricks have you adopted to keep your ideas from fading away? Quick sketches on paper? Humming into a recorder?
> 
> One of the things I remember Mike Verta saying is that when he's composing he'll sketch out the basic structure of the idea on a score pad and it's so high level that he calls it an "art project." It's just enough to remind him where the idea was going until he can get it inputted into the computer.
> 
> But your work is so steeped in sound design I imagine it's not nearly so easy (or "easy"). It's hard to sketch out the high level structure of your ideas when a sound in your mind's ear isn't easily translatable to anything that already exists.


...I don't usually write things down until I get to the studio. I keep thinking that if I cant remember it, it can't have been that good....Henry Jackman keeps telling me to make a folder on my computer to stick the rejected tunes in - for later use, by I cant really be bothered. I'd rather sit there and struggle - which I know is foolish. But, that's just me...


----------



## sleepy hollow

Rctec said:


> I keep thinking that if I cant remember it, it can't have been that good....


Certainly a good way to reduce the cognitive dissonance. 


Rctec said:


> Henry Jackman keeps telling me to make a folder on my computer to stick the rejected tunes in - for later use, by I cant really be bothered. I'd rather sit there and struggle - which I know is foolish. But, that's just me...


Listen to your friend and give it a try. Doesn't have to be a folder on a hard drive, there are more elegant ways to capture an idea. Many moons ago, I decided to capture everything and learnt quite a lot whenever I revisited the collection - not about music though; more about myself and a couple other things.

Then again, your 'system' seems to be working out quite well for you. 

(btw, the struggle won't stop, once such a folder is established. It's all good! )


----------



## Ivan Mayboroda

Rctec said:


> I have a dreadful but sneaking suspicion that we learn our musical 'accents' from listening a lot as very young children, and that it gets harder and harder to internalize that as we grow older and our language is formed...


24 years... do you think I'm too old to "rebuild" myself? Guess I wasn't blessed with the chance of listening to a lot of classical music during my childhood. And if your theory is right... well lets just say I wouldn't want to end up writing post-Soviet pop songs.


----------



## trumpoz

Ivan Mayboroda said:


> 24 years... do you think I'm too old to "rebuild" myself? Guess I wasn't blessed with the chance of listening to a lot of classical music during my childhood. And if your theory is right... well lets just say I wouldn't want to end up writing post-Soviet pop songs.



Of course you can rebuild yourself, but your musical roots will always be there and will always influence your work. The great Jazz Tenor sax player Jester Young was a musician during the swing, bebop and post-bop era that continued to develop as a musician, and those languages of jazz are vastly different....... He still sounded like Lester Young, just with a slightly different musical accent.


----------



## JacquesMathias

kd.hebbes said:


> What would you guys recommend?
> 
> Obviously its not my samples fault for my lack of ability and experience but I'm using the samples that come with Kontakt 5 to try to learn how to write for Strings, Brass etc. Needless to say it's not going very well. I'm not looking to release any of this just need something to learn on.
> 
> I know my biggest problem is I need to spend more time listening to what each instrument can do. I'm listening to a fair amount of stuff involving strings and brass but when I go to imitate some of the textures or things they do in the music its sounds terrible.
> 
> Right now the only thing that doesn't sound terrible is block chords buried under layers of not orchestral samples. I know that I need to work on things myself but can anyone recommend something for me to try.
> 
> Should I soldier it out and spend more time with my current setup?
> Are there courses I could take on composition?
> A friend of mine has said I should try writing some stuff in Sibelius?
> 
> Anything would be much appreciated I've heard some awesome stuff on here already.



Well, what can I say here? Lots of great advice.
I started playing guitar at the age of 9, from my father. At the same time, I was already taking classical lessons from an excellent teacher. For me, rock and classical music started all at the same time, I played both, and they developed simultaneously. I remember mentally replacing a Van Halen solo by a strings ensemble, or a Mozart violins' line by guitars.

I relate to rctec theory that if you listen to orchestral music when you're young you''ll probably internalize it better, therefore, be able to reproduce it easier, due to the fact that all the elements are familiar to you. It will be easier if you've started younger, but not impossible if you're starting old, just more difficult.

1) I think that the only useful thing I can add to this discussion is: before I started composing exclusively for Music Libraries, I used to write strings, brass, woodwinds arrangements, for other artists. I did many, many of them. That helped a lot, because, by the time I had written 80 arrangements, I kind of internalized the sound/timbre of the instruments I had been writing for. Going through the process of:
-> Writing the arrangement
-> Selecting all the articulations yourself on Sibelius/editing the parts, etc
-> Going to the studio, listening to the musicians opinions about what works, what doesn't.
-> Talking to the engineer about how the mic position can enhance your arrangement. Is is super delicate? How about super-close ribbon mics to enhance the proximity to the listener, therefore giving the listener all the performance details? Is it super aggressive and loud? Which mics/techniques can help? Why?
-> After that, take it home, grab a cup of coffee and listen/read to your arrangement marking what really worked, what didn't. If you have access to all recorded mics, listen to how each one of them sounds like. Internalize that.


2) kd.hebbes, it seems for me that you're having problems writing all the expression that a line is supposed to have. I used to practice by selecting a strings quartet passage and playing the lines with software synthesizers leads. Use a Cut-off filter for timbre/tone, and any general volume control for a final level (CC 07 probably?). Yeah, you can do that with your sample libraries, but you''ll be trying to solve two problems at once: a) expression (tone/level) b) inherent weirdness of samples. That's why I loved to practice with synths. After you manage the basics, load your sample libraries and start thinking how you can manipulate them to achieve the same smoothness that you have - hopefully - achieved with synths. At this point, don't use any fancy new library yet, just load one sustain patch, try to get everything you can from that. For me, it worked pretty well. Tip: If you haven't yet, investigate the SIPS script. Mine gold.

After you manage that at a certain level, you"ll catch yourself achieving good results with any library, if:
a) your phrase makes any sense to the instrument you're writing it for
b) you know how that phrase is supposed to sound/be played (all the nuances...)
c) you know how to program that
d) you know how to use EQ/Comp at your advantage
e) you know how real rooms sound like


Don't give up. It's not easy. The worst comments/reviews I have received made me more hungry to get it right.

-JM


----------



## ag75

All of the great orchestration books stress score reading. I recommend picking up a copy of a score to one of your favorite orchestral pieces and finding out how the orchestraor got that "sound". http://imslp.org is an incredible website that host a ton of public domain full scores. Start there. 



kd.hebbes said:


> Wow thanks for all the helpful responses. I didn't know what to expect because I'm new to this forum.
> 
> I will definitely check out the Online Orchestration facebook group. I've heard of Mike Verta before I didn't know he did some stuff for free.
> 
> Mirrodin that's a good question. How I prefer to write music. So far as far as electronic stuff its been a mix of learning how to use synths and just writing music with the synthesis. I feel it is part my lack of experience in orchestral music but also the current samples I'm using.
> 
> Ed Buller one of my friends recommended I spend some time with scores. I should give it a shot. I can definitely read music I've been procrastinating because I'm afraid I won't be able to duplicate some of the things from the scores because of my samples. I like the idea of taking a bar or two and really honing in on what makes it sound good beyond the actual notes.
> 
> Pysmyhte I'll definitely check out some mozart
> 
> John G never heard of the Sam Adler book I'll check it out right after this!
> 
> Thanks again guys. This gives me a ton of things to pursue!


----------



## mirrodin

tack said:


> I'm interested in Rctec's take too. My understanding is that horizontal means things like melody and themes, development of ideas, etc., while vertical refers to orchestration, how instruments are stacked, mixing, etc.
> 
> I wish I had a fraction of the talent needed to be able to hear a fleshed out composition in my head before I hit the piano (or the samples).


My biggest problem is in realizing my "visions". I can hear a full song and every instrument and/or vocal going on from start to finish at least for a motif from the very moment it hits me.

From there, I'll do whatever it takes to realize it as best I can.  If I have to just record myself humming and beatboxing melodies and rhythms just to get a basic idea down and start aligning it in a session to mockup over... Hey, that's what it takes!

Do whatever helps YOU get your ideas out of your head. There are no rules, only results.


----------



## Parsifal666

Rctec said:


> There is no more profound and deep composer than Mozart! Listen to the 40 bars long "Ave Verum Corpus", or the second movement of the Clarinet concerto. Let's not even mention the "Requiem"...



Though it's Kammermusic, Beethoven's Opus 132, the Heiliger Dankesang movement.


----------



## dannymc

> My recommendation is to watch Mike Verta's tutorials on V.I Technique @
> 
> http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/category/podcastsandtutorials/tutorials/
> 
> Do check out his free for all class @ http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/masterclasses/online-masterclass-free-for-all/
> 
> IF you're keen on learning more from Mike, do take one or more of his masterclass @
> 
> http://mikeverta.com/wordpress/category/masterclasses/
> 
> I have learned so much from Mike and his teachings are top notch.



that's the first time i've watched a Mike Verta video. watched the first 2.5hours of it and found myself in fits of laughter at times. not just because of his in depth knowledge of the LA porn industry but the fact that he appeared to be getting more a more tipsy as the video progressed 

but on a serious note it was good to hear his opinion on going to university to learn how to compose film score, in short a waste of time, until you at least know what you're doing. i could never understand how one would think by going to lectures in a class room would result in you becoming a better composer. yeah the theory is all good to know but surely its down to doing it on the job and learning more and more each day through experimentation trial and error, tips from other composers and from classical composer scores. you wouldn't learn how to play football or golf from a book and expect to be as a good as a professional. this is not to be confused with people who go to the likes of Julliard to be master pianists or another instrument, that's perfectly understandable. i'm only starting orchestration but seriously from what i can see so far you can learn this yourself without spending money & time in university. 

i'd say its the same in other genres of music, i mean the idea of going to university to study rock music amazes me and must really amuse the U2's of the world.


----------



## Parsifal666

dannymc said:


> that's the first time i've watched a Mike Verta video. watched the first 2.5hours of it and found myself in fits of laughter at times. not just because of his in depth knowledge of the LA porn industry but the fact that he appeared to be getting more a more tipsy as the video progressed
> 
> but on a serious note it was good to hear his opinion on going to university to learn how to compose film score, in short a waste of time, until you at least know what you're doing. i could never understand how one would think by going to lectures in a class room would result in you becoming a better composer. yeah the theory is all good to know but surely its down to doing it on the job and learning more and more each day through experimentation trial and error, tips from other composers and from classical composer scores. you wouldn't learn how to play football or golf from a book and expect to be as a good as a professional. this is not to be confused with people who go to the likes of Julliard to be master pianists or another instrument, that's perfectly understandable. i'm only starting orchestration but seriously from what i can see so far you can learn this yourself without spending money & time in university.
> 
> i'd say its the same in other genres of music, i mean the idea of going to university to study rock music amazes me and must really amuse the U2's of the world.




Some would argue doing that leads to sterile technicality, the kind of thing Punk and Grunge raged against. I've studied Wagner and Beethoven extensively, but I'll take Chuck Berry over Dream Theater any second of the day. Just me (no offense to DT fans).


----------



## mpalenik

Parsifal666 said:


> Some would argue doing that leads to sterile technicality, the kind of thing Punk and Grunge raged against. I've studied Wagner and Beethoven extensively, but I'll take Chuck Berry over Dream Theater any second of the day. Just me (no offense to DT fans).


Excuse my ignorance, but what does Dream Theater have to do with Wagner and Beethoven? According to Wikipedia, they're a progressive rock band, but I didn't feel like reading the entire article to get the reference. Given your username and avatar, you're obviously a Wagner fan.


----------



## mpalenik

Hah, ok, I just looked up Dream Theater on Youtube. I kind of get it. I also now have to ask someone who in the band he was in 14 years ago was the big dream theater fan.


----------



## Allen Constantine

Rctec said:


> ...I don't usually write things down until I get to the studio. I keep thinking that if I cant remember it, it can't have been that good....Henry Jackman keeps telling me to make a folder on my computer to stick the rejected tunes in - for later use, by I cant really be bothered. I'd rather sit there and struggle - which I know is foolish. But, that's just me...



Well, I am working in the same manner and although I feel down at some points, I struggle more and succeed.


----------



## rJames

Hi Kd.
My advice for a beginner using the orchestra is to think more horizontally... in terms of a single melodic line. Don't try to blend the orchestra with synths to make a hybrid piece when you are learning.
Make one single melodic line sound great using cc11 (and or cc1) to create dynamics as if one player (or a professional section) is playing it with emotion. Do that with each instrument. Make a flute melody sound real. Make an oboe melody sound real. Make a cello melody sound real. Dynamics; loud, soft, crescendo, decrescendo.
Once you can make a horizontal line sound like it is being played by real people, you have a start. Always use that much detail on everything you write.
Ask yourself what function an instrument adds. I'm talking generalizations here. Will you use a piccolo to start a dark dramatic, ominous piece? Will a snare drum work? Clarinet? How about cellos? Contrabassoon, Bass viol, timpani, bass drum roll.

What does a piccolo do? What can it add?
Again, generalities... but what do the instruments do for the music? What is light and airy. What is dark and sad or evil?
What does a snare drum do?

After you've conquered one melodic line per instrument or section, start to think about rhythm. What is a guitar's function in a pop piece? Rhythm. Learn how to create rhythm in the woodwinds. Rhythm in the strings. etc.

What function does a horn provide? Don't forget about rhythm in the horn section...

Now whether you have an idea or you have to force yourself to write. Use those things; realistic playing of a melodic line, rhythm from a musical section (as opposed to from the percussion section). To make something more complex.

Get creative with your rhythm from the strings, woodwinds and brass.

Ron


----------



## Parsifal666

Sometimes I'll start with a String Quartet template in Finale, combine it with SATB. From there I add everything else. Finale has gotten much better to work with now that it accepts the East West libraries as well as Kontakt and Alchemy. At least in my opinion.


----------



## NoamL

My advice is don’t use more instruments than you need.

I think you might be chasing the wrong idea with using the orchestra as supportive block chords.

*A 90piece orchestra is not that large in order to sound massive: it's that large in order to provide contrast.*

Horizontal contrast means the colors are constantly, kaleidoscopically changing. Vertical contrast means everyone has independent and interesting parts that collide, interact or converse with each other. Contrast = excitement.

Of course John Williams can do this in his sleep:



Every instrument is trading off someone else to drive the piece forward.

A lot of the excitement comes from the fact that he is writing as if he had three independent brass sections (and the mix spatially distinguishes them further): trumpets, horns, low brass. Notice that the trumpets and horns only play together at 2:30, notice how much _*overkill*_ that sound is. Yet this sound is a standard patch in Albion, Symphobia, etc. If you play with the patches these libraries give you it's easy to get suckered into writing the brass as one big choir.

For a more accessible, transparent but still really impressive approach, here's Randy Newman:



And here's Henry Jackman doing the same thing in a hybrid score:



If you don't have a dense polyphonic idea you don't NEED a lot of players and variety of color. So Michael Giacchino on LOST can get away with 4 trombones, strings, piano/harp, and perc. Sure he stretches that with a lot of extended techniques and cool stuff... but basically it's painting with four colors. And it works because the musical material is correspondingly simple:



So: orchestrate according to the size of idea you have. If it's "a tune and chords" you don't need the orchestra.

A lot of people seem to take _Pirates_ as their point of departure to write 'huge' string brass unisons of simple musical material. To that I say, listen closer. Those huge orchestral ostinatos are just one thing on one fader in the final mix. It's one color, that HZ assembles in a *"cheating nature"* collage of sounds.



How many elements can you hear? If you don't hear that fife doing rhythmic stuff (NOT the solos, I mean at e.g. 1:00), then listen again


----------



## NoamL

Actually, here's a wonderful example of that "cheating nature" idea. Wanna hear what Pirates sounds like in an unmanipulated concert perspective?


----------



## GULL

Rctec said:


> Exactly! I've always - since I was a child - heard the full orchestration (I'm not saying it's Good orchestration) in my head...



Always able to create what you heard in your head? Ever thought its good as it sounds in your head?


----------



## Rctec

AlexandreSafi said:


> Tokatila, I'm pretty sure the book is "Musicophilia: Tales of music and the brain", by the way... did you listen to these, i'm sure they can blow your mind, a little, yes some do have the "alberti bass" in:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hans, this one's for you, by this genius underrated English composer:



George Fenton! Totally Underated and not only a world-class composer, but a dear friend. ...And I remember hearing "Shadowlands" in the theatre and just marveling at his brilliance!


----------



## Rctec

NoamL said:


> Actually, here's a wonderful example of that "cheating nature" idea. Wanna hear what Pirates sounds like in an unmanipulated concert perspective?



NOOOOOOOOOOOO!


----------



## NoamL

Yeah it's worlds apart! The score's specific perspective and mix is so key to the... pirateness? pirattitude?


----------



## Sebastianmu

It actually worked better than I expected.


----------



## Rctec

GULL said:


> Always able to create what you heard in your head? Ever thought its good as it sounds in your head?


Never even gets close to sounding as good as it does in my head!


----------



## GULL

Rctec said:


> Never even gets close to sounding as good as it does in my head!


True


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Rctec said:


> NOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Well Hans... Be prepared, because even after your death, Pirates Of The Caribbean will probably be the most concert-friendly & showy piece you've ever made, and that's a compliment! Now i do wonder... As a cinephile yourself, did you have any specific Nooooooooo in mind? I couldn't help but have the Darth Vader one in mind as soon as I read your expression of shock!


----------



## Jetzer

I wouldn't say it's the most concert-friendly. I'll never forget the fear on the faces of the orchestra just before they performed Pirates as part of a film music evening.


----------



## samphony

Rctec said:


> No, I usually hear the whole damn thing... The struggle is how to retain it while battling with samples and synth... One of the reasons I don't use any pre-sets in my synth is because every sound I hear blunts the memory of what is in my head...


Hans. How can that be? Whenever I read about you or saw an interview of you it feels like. "Die selbe Seele gefangen in einem anderen Körper"


----------



## skyy38

mirrodin said:


> Firstly, how do you PREFER to make music? Secondly, is what you're struggling with coming apart in your mockup (what you're hearing with the sample sources you have access to), or do you truly feel the samples are not what is limiting what you WANT to hear?
> 
> This is why so many of us will invest so heavily in sample libraries (can definitely be a money pit if you're not careful).



Why DOES most everyone spend so much money on sample libraries? ( I'm assuming multiple and different sample sets-orchestral)

Isn't it better just to pick up one kit and work it until you've got it cold?

It seems we hear more about technology and money in the world of MIDI than we do actual music. We are musicians first, after all, right?


----------



## wst3

I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you why I've spent more on sample libraries than almost any other category except microphones and guitars...

when I was a wee lad they let me loose in the electronic music lab at the local music college. They had an ARP 2500, an ARP 2600, a couple Odysseys, a Mini-Moog, and a Moog Modular, along with the required tape decks and other accessories.

It was possible - if not unrealistic<G> - to mock up my compositions without torturing the music students (I was still 6 years away from college, so getting the college kids to play my pieces was a bit tricky - although it did happen a couple of times). And this sparked an interest in realizing compositions electronically. Never be as good as live players, but a great way to see if you are on the right track - or more likely to discover when you are on the wrong track!

I'll spare you the intervening years - along came the Mirage, the DX7, and all that other amazing stuff when it seemed like there was a breakthrough every month. By the time the Akai 900 and Ensoniq EPS arrived it was possible to what passed as passable without resorting to crime. Or if you were rich there was the Kurzweil 250... and if you were really REALLY rich there was the Synclavier!

GigaStudio changed everything. No, really, if you don't recall the introduction of GS you missed a real treat!

Since then we moved to Kontakt, and of course the folks developing libraries for Kontakt haven't been sleeping at the wheel...

So it is not difficult to get caught up in a pattern where a new library offers that ONE feature that you've been longing for with the current library you are using. In many cases it is probably defensible, if not practical.

I'm trying really hard to work with what I have these days because I lost a LOT of time last year when I upgraded all my general orchestral libraries. I'm still wrestling with VEPro, but that's a case of trying to streamline my workflow - fortunately I can still fall back on old habits when I have real work to do<G>!

Thing is, I'm not certain my way is the best way. I did upgrade from Albion 1 to Albion ONE this past holiday season, and added Cinematic Strings 2 as well. The later has proven to be one of the smartest purchases, while the former is still a bit of a learning project for me. So I'm batting 500?

And while I don't expect to spend a lot of money on libraries this year, I will keep reading about new developments, just in case someone answers all my wishes...


----------



## Carles

skyy38 said:


> Why DOES most everyone spend so much money on sample libraries?


I guess because we do expect that sample libraries will do what we are not able to do ourselves. It's easier to blame on the libraries than accepting that we need to learn more and essentially also to work more.

Writing music is one thing, and how this performs is just another world.
Let's say that you're a composer accustomed to write for live musicians. You write the thing and a bunch of -human beings- is reading that and adding their own tasteful (or not) expression, so the paper translates well to the audience. It sounds alive, expressive and with some character (it should at least). Real instruments are not limited to a set of articulations and they can cover any written scenario.

Now you get the same music written on paper and rather than live musicians you enter the data into a sequencer and plug some virtual instruments.
The result is a flat and lifeless mass of sound. Then it's kind of logical to blame the VI's because the same thing would sound well in the former scenario (live musicians). As you can hear demos from other people using X library and it is sounding more alive and expressive we tend to believe that the given library is doing that by itself.
When you purchase the library and realize that is still sounding flat and lifeless, the logical consequence is thinking that "this library is not for me", so you try next (and next, and next).

With libraries, you and only you have to be the main performer, and not a single performer but a multiple one as you have to play/program everything track by track (quite a few on orchestral music) care about the detail and make them sounding good together. No library can do that for you.

"Isn't it better just to pick up one kit and work it until you've got it cold?"

Right. By doing that you'll spend less money on (fake) hope but rather spend time on learning what's going on with VI's. The former won't solve your problem (plus will create a new problem, a financial one) while the later will teach you how to express yourself via VI's (the same than you need to spend time learning to play a physical instrument).
But it's true that not all VI's can play well all scenarios, then is when you need to acquire more VI's because some instruments (even only one within a given collection) are the most responsive for your specific phrase or motive or whatever, so at the end you have an orchestra made of bits and pieces from several libraries and you are using one or other depending on how responsive they are on a given scenario (or even a single note).
Then is when you need also to learn how to create the illusion that all of them are playing in the same space (while they are coming from very different recording circumstances) and begin spending on plugins too and spending time on how to use these :D


----------



## skyy38

tack said:


> I'm interested in Rctec's take too. My understanding is that horizontal means things like melody and themes, development of ideas, etc., while vertical refers to orchestration, how instruments are stacked, mixing, etc.
> 
> I wish I had a fraction of the talent needed to be able to hear a fleshed out composition in my head before I hit the piano (or the samples).



You know, Rctec sounds an awful lot like Hans Zimmer......


----------



## skyy38

Rctec said:


> No, I usually hear the whole damn thing... The struggle is how to retain it while battling with samples and synth... One of the reasons I don't use any pre-sets in my synth is because every sound I hear blunts the memory of what is in my head...



You know, there's a couple of neat inventions out called pencil and paper.


----------



## tack

skyy38 said:


> You know, Rctec sounds an awful lot like Hans Zimmer......


Oh now you're just being absurd.


----------



## ModalRealist

When I started composing I used "Sibelius Student" with sounds provided by a 1999 beige-box motherboard. The sound was awful, but I barely heard it: that something in the world made a real sound which aped - however poorly and faintly - the sound in my head made me ecstatic.

Fast forward to 2013 and there I was with my freshly opened DVD case of Kontakt 5. Because of the amounts involved, it took me all of a month from then to invest in any "proper" libraries. Yet I wrote a lot of good (for me, at least!) music that month. Just using the Factory Library and the Chapman Trumpet from Embertone (my first library and an impulse purchase...). Of course, I'm not convinced that the "recordings" are any more listenable than the old 1999 motherboard's efforts! But the music was there.

Now, I wouldn't swap the samples I have now for the Kontakt Factory Library. But... Neither can I confidently say: "The music I wrote this year, is better than that music I wrote, back in that month in 2013."

I do rather hope I've improved over my self from the last millennium though..


----------



## mirrodin

I for one think it has to do with authenticity. It's also the competition in the industry - more and more clients are expecting polished realistic sounding sound recordings (even if it's a mockup).

I don't think the argument is that the sample libraries are inhibiting us creating good music. Any "smart" composer will learn his/her tools inside out. Now, if we're talking about being lazy and relying on things like premade phrases the likes of what Native Instruments have put out with their Emotive Strings Library and Action Strings Library, or SonoKinetic with their Vivace, and even Tutti Libraries in the hands of a novice or amateur, will simply abuse them and it will be apparent.

If we're all here for the same goal, to better our orchestrations, compositions, arrangements, productions, mixes, etc.. then I for one won't assume that because the topic of "products" is discussed so much is because they're looking for things to do their job for them, but because we're all in search of the same perfection/betterment of our craft.


----------



## tarantulis

I would second the recommendations for Adler's book and the Visual Orchestration courses. I'm currently working my way through both of these and I'm getting a LOT out of it.

You and I are in the same boat, and we've got a long road ahead of us. My advice is going to echo what other members have already said, but here's my two cents: Instead of diving right into the deep end, work on "writing idiomatically", i.e., study and write for one instrument at a time until you have a basic understanding of each. That means listening to a lot of solo performances (e.g., albums with just 1-2 instruments), researching the range and "sweet spots", studying score sheets to hear/see its placement and relationship with other instruments/sections, and working on writing solo pieces and making them sound realistic.

Start going to the symphony every few months or better yet, if you're like me and think a $110 ticket for nosebleed seating is absurd and elitist, find some local ensembles in your area and check out a few of their shows. Who knows, you might even make some valuable connections along the way.


----------



## JonFairhurst

tarantulis said:


> ...work on "writing idiomatically", i.e., study and write for one instrument at a time until you have a basic understanding of each.



^^^^
This.

It seems like writing for solo instrument would be easier than writing for an ensemble. In many ways, it's more difficult. It forces one to do the following:
* Imply the underlying rhythm.
* Imply the underlying chord structure.
* Use motifs, such that the melody doesn't feel random.
* Write horizontal phrases that start, flow, and end.
* Work within a limited range.

I took a group, online composition class taught by Peter Alexander and his approach was to assign compositions one solo instrument at a time. He would require that we incorporate certain idiomatic elements (like runs and trills for flute) and he would provide a poem to introduce a theme, mood, and inspiration.

Many of the student compositions sounded like just a bunch of notes - and these were from pretty good composers. Those lines might work when the rest of the orchestra provides a context, but removing the context can be like wearing a Speedo in public - if you haven't exercised, it won't be pretty.

Consider Mary Had a Little Lamb or Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star. These are elegantly simple melodies that we pass from generation to generation. They don't need accompaniment. And yes, they use each and every one of the five points above. Creating such great, simple melodies is harder than it seems. That's why the Happy Birthday copyright owners are able to keep charging big bucks for those 25 notes.

The most important skill I gained was to write horizontally. To enable each instrument play lines that (mostly) make sense. (Inner harmony parts are often still odd, but at least they flow.) I'm still learning - and will be as long as I can - but I'll never forget the lessons I learned in Peter's class.


----------



## synergy543

Yes Jon, Peter's class was very inspiring for me too. The discipline of concentrating on one instrument at a time and learning how to write for it idiomatically was most valuable. It was an eye opener forcing those solo instruments into speedo outfits!
It was a great experience and I wish it could have been carried on further (though we can each do that on our own now). For those of us that got to experience the class, it was was great study. I miss Peter's contributions to the forum as he had a unique perspective and his comments were often very interesting and enlightening. Peter RIP.


----------



## tarantulis

synergy543 said:


> Peter RIP.



Hold on. What?


----------



## JohnG

Peter died not too long ago, Dave.

I like his stuff and Adler's too.


----------



## tarantulis

JohnG said:


> Peter died not too long ago, Dave.



Christ.

I found his Visual Orchestration courses so inspiring that I actually sent him an email a few nights ago thanking him for his dedication to the subject. And I *never* do that. I'd read several books on orchestration, taken a handful of online courses as well...for me, Peter's stuff absolutely takes the cake, and there's a notebook's worth of hastily scrawled writing on my desk to prove that. VO is different from today's rambling, off-the-cuff POV "tutorials" in that it was carefully prepared and organized from a student-professor standpoint. I'll admit I was a bit skeptical going in, having read comments online that made it sound like it was just a guy reading off Powerpoint slides, but those people could not be more wrong, and I suspect that they must be too accustomed to the instant gratification mindset of 21st century thinking to understand or appreciate the value of a good lecture.

OP, if you get nothing else out of this, let it be a sincere endorsement of Mr. Alexander's work. It's worth every penny.

R.I.P.


----------



## vewilya

I don't believe it! Have lots of his teaching materials on orchestration at home. He wrote a really nice book called _http://www.alexanderpublishing.com/Products/How-Ravel-Orchestrated--Mother-Goose-Suite-PDF-BookAudio-Bundle__978-0-939067-45-9PDFBUN.aspx (How Ravel orchestrated Mother Goose)_! Always liked his stuff and the way how he was sharing his knowledge. Rest in peace Peter. Thanks for everything.


----------



## vewilya

AlexandreSafi said:


> Tokatila, I'm pretty sure the book is "Musicophilia: Tales of music and the brain", by the way... did you listen to these, i'm sure they can blow your mind, a little, yes some do have the "alberti bass" in:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hans, this one's for you, by this genius underrated English composer:



Wow. That George Fenton piece is beautiful. Didn't know him. Will check him out.... Thanks for sharing...


----------



## JohnG

vewilya said:


> That George Fenton piece is beautiful. Didn't know him.



He's a master. Check out his score for "Ever After." Not a note out of place.


----------



## Vischebaste

JohnG said:


> He's a master. Check out his score for "Ever After." Not a note out of place.



I'm late to this thread, but was drawn in by the mention of George Fenton. I'd like to add his score for "The Company of Wolves" to the "Fenton masterpieces" list - insanely dense, complex, experimental, genre-spanning, melodically gorgeous and just generally sublime. The music stretches over practically the entire film with barely a moment of silence and yet still manages to (hugely) add, rather than subtract. It's a great film in its own right, but I watch it regularly for the soundtrack more than anything.


----------



## Silence-is-Golden

JohnG said:


> He's a master. Check out his score for "Ever After." Not a note out of place.


And the music for EARTH, that fabulous movie/documentary that has been around some years ago.
Beautiful pieces on there.....


----------



## Dave Connor

Fenton is absolutely great. He has that kind of command of his art that just knocks you out. So many times when a score would grab my attention in catching a film on TV, I would look it up to see who the composer was and see his name. I lost count how many times that happened.


----------

