# Alexander Publishing Recommendations?



## YaniDee (Jan 3, 2021)

Found out about an "up to" 70% sale at Alexander Publishing, from a banner on this forum. I'm quite interested in their score analysis and orchestration series..Has anyone purchased any of the material, and can you recommend any in paricular? 






Alexander Creative Media - Music Training Titles for Composers, Songwriters, Orchestrators & Arrangers







www.alexanderpublishing.com


----------



## maestro2be (Jan 3, 2021)

Alexander publishing?


Which lessons are good?




vi-control.net


----------



## YaniDee (Jan 3, 2021)

Thanks..well, it seems "they're all good"...


----------



## Maximvs (Jan 4, 2021)

There is so much great stuff at Alexander Publishing...


----------



## cmillar (Jan 4, 2021)

His revised Rimsky-Korsakov "Volume 1" is a fantastic resource. I bought mine about 25 years ago from him. It's great to have. The most practical, best orchestration book to have for most people.


----------



## Leigh (Jan 4, 2021)

YaniDee said:


> Found out about an "up to" 70% sale at Alexander Publishing, from a banner on this forum. I'm quite interested in their score analysis and orchestration series..Has anyone purchased any of the material, and can you recommend any in paricular?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've found their stuff to be invaluable. I use the Spectratone chart frequently and the Professional Orchestration Vols 1 2a 2b are great resources with lots of score examples.

**Leigh


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 4, 2021)

Buyer beware, but those Alexander orchestration books are about 95% repackaged public domain content, some of it too old for modern use, and some of the small amount of semi-original content is bad info.


----------



## YaniDee (Jan 4, 2021)

Thanks for the info guys...I'm still undecided..I have a decent knowledge of orchestration and theory, I'm wondering if these will help with composition.


----------



## Guffy (Jan 4, 2021)

I bought some of the courses. Good stuff.
Certainly a better option than a 2020 'masterclass' or course from someone who started composing a year ago.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 4, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Buyer beware, but those Alexander orchestration books are about 95% repackaged public domain content, some of it too old for modern use, and some of the small amount of semi-original content is bad info


Buyer beware is ALWAYS good advice, but in this case I think the warnings are a bit misleading.

Peter Alexander was a very talented teacher. His courses are all well thought out, and will be useful for some time to come.

Yes, there is quite a bit of public domain content - but then most of the composers that we study died a LONG time ago.

And there is new material, the Alex North and Bruce Broughton courses were very helpful for me.

And that's the thing, everyone comes to this with a different background, different training, and different goals. I think Alexander Publishing is about as close to universal as they get.


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 4, 2021)

wst3 said:


> Buyer beware is ALWAYS good advice, but in this case I think the warnings are a bit misleading.
> 
> Peter Alexander was a very talented teacher. His courses are all well thought out, and will be useful for some time to come.
> 
> ...



I don't know anything about the courses. If they're good, that's good. Composers need options.

My comment was about the orchestration book mentioned by @cmillar and @Leigh. Whoever wrote the book wasn't qualified to do so. Not sure how that happened, but the book should be avoided. Lots of bad info for which there really isn't any excuse. I assume the publishing company corrected its error and hired someone else to write the courses that are under discussion.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 5, 2021)

Perhaps we are talking about two different books? I am referring to his treatment of RK's Orchestration text. My favorite is "How Ravel Orchestrated Mother Goose".


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 5, 2021)

wst3 said:


> Perhaps we are talking about two different books?



Could be. This one was called "Professional Orchestration."


----------



## Maximvs (Jan 6, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Could be. This one was called "Professional Orchestration."


The Professional Orchestration books by Alexander Publishing are not what you are talking about... those books were written by a true professional orchestrator, Mr. Peter Alexander who also worked closely with Jerry Goldsmith on scoring stages when compiling those books.

Best, Max T.


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 6, 2021)

I couldn't recall the particulars so I dug it out of a storage box to check. It's called Professional Orchestration, by Peter Lawrence Alexander, copyright 2006.

It was gifted to me, maybe 13 years ago I guess, by a well-meaning though unknowing friend who thought that since he had heard me speak about orchestration a few times, I “might enjoy it.” After initially browsing through it for an hour or so I could see that the prose was not book-worthy, the content was about 95% an assembly of public domain scores, charts from two antique public domain books (the R-K and the Widor), and the remainder, which I guess was original, was an unfortunate mess—full of bad info, some perhaps trivial, but some mission-critical. I was puzzled at how this came to be, but pretty much forgot about it until someone brought it up here the other day.


----------



## cmillar (Jan 6, 2021)

The original orchestration books that are based on Rimsky-Korsakoff are fantastic. They first came out in the’90’s I believe. 

Sure, you can augment this enormous book with other orchestration books that delve into more nuance or more modern techniques...but if you want the real basics of what instruments are capable of, you can’t go wrong with his version of Rimsky-Korsakoff’s treatise.


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 6, 2021)

cmillar said:


> The original orchestration books that are based on Rimsky-Korsakoff are fantastic. They first came out in the’90’s I believe.
> 
> Sure, you can augment this enormous book with other orchestration books that delve into more nuance or more modern techniques...but if you want the real basics of what instruments are capable of, you can’t go wrong with his version of Rimsky-Korsakoff’s treatise.



Thanks.

I just checked, and according to the Introduction and Preface, this edition is the third of what used to have "Rimsky-Korsakov" and "Revised" in the title, which was later renamed as _Professional Orchestration_.

If the earlier editions are as bad as this 2006 renamed version, they oughta be tossed or else kept as a curiosity, but definitely not used as any sort of serious reference.


----------



## cmillar (Jan 6, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I just checked, and according to the Introduction and Preface, this edition is the third of what used to have "Rimsky-Korsakov" and "Revised" in the title, which was later renamed as _Professional Orchestration_.
> 
> If the earlier editions are as bad as this 2006 renamed version, they oughta be tossed or else kept as a curiosity, but definitely not used as any sort of serious reference.


Really...?....please enlighten us


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 6, 2021)

cmillar said:


> Really...?....please enlighten us


I wish it were possible to discuss simple matters like this without people becoming unnecessarily dramatic. I've never found it to be a problem anywhere but here. In professional music circles, discussing objective musical facts is not considered controversial, but normal and necessary—but it would seem that the only acceptable position here is one of affirmation, even if someone says the sky is yellow.

Carry on then.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Jan 6, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> I wish it were possible to discuss simple matters like this without people becoming unnecessarily dramatic. I've never found it to be a problem anywhere but here. In professional music circles, discussing objective musical facts is not considered controversial, but normal and necessary—but it would seem that the only acceptable position here is one of affirmation, even if someone says the sky is yellow.
> 
> Carry on then.



I personally would like your objective reasoning on why to avoid this resource. It will help in making the correct purchase decision then.


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 6, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I personally would like your objective reasoning on why to avoid this resource. It will help in making the correct purchase decision then.


I may try to have a look later on today and do a random sampling of some of the more obvious bits of bad info scattered throughout.


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 7, 2021)

Majorly edited on February 6, 20210:

Here lies the ashes of what was one a very helpful errata list of more than 70 objectively wrong assertions regarding modern orchestration, published in the 2006 edition of _Professional Orchestration_ by Alexander Publishing. It was bad information, not trivial, lots of it—not "nitpicking" or "picking apart" (per @cmillar)—and much of it mission-critical for anyone writing for actual musicians (NOT SAMPLES!). And the list wasn't even complete. Whole sections of the book were skipped.

There was much objection, consternation, obfuscation, goalpost moving, excuse making, tales of scoring stage magic, industry professionals, silly name dropping, marketing speak, and other assorted horse-shit, but an entire month went by without any of the objectors pointing out a single mistake in that errata list of 70+ items.

It had become a dead and done deal until another obsessive (@scentline) came along and resuscitated it, giving it life anew with the attendant hand-wringing and other irrelevancies to the *core issue*. And wouldn't you know it, he objects, but "doesn't have the time" to point out what I supposedly got wrong. Not a single thing. So on what basis is his objection made? Ya got me.

So in order to assuage the trauma brought about by facts, which is a common affliction around here, I am, from the abundance of my charity, removing the list. Problem solved. Let the healing begin.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Jan 7, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> @ALittleNightMusic,
> 
> General comments first, and then specific examples. This is not comprehensive. Usually I just list the error or oddity, but sometimes I elaborate a bit. Mostly these are mission-critical problems, some are not, and nothing is arcane or obscure, but all bread-and-butter stuff. None of this is intended as a personal attack on the author or anyone else, but I am bothered to think that beginners might be mislead and it affect their work. (I know _you're_ not a beginner; I'm just speaking generally as to why I brought it up in the first place.)
> 
> ...


Wow - thank you for taking the time to do this! I think this will be very helpful for forum members. Certainly, it was for me.


----------



## cmillar (Jan 8, 2021)

GenePool, you did a very thorough investigation of that book for sure.

But, still, as a basic 'what instruments can do and are capable of doing', I will quote esteemed LA film composer Bruce Broughton's words from the 'Forward' as a defense of Peter Alexander's hard work:

"....valuable for its sound aesthetic advice"
"...since Rimsky's day the art of orchestration has advanced into sonic areas which he could never have imagined, what he had to say regarding the students "phases" is still worth considerting"
"The book, after all, was written to demonstrate the principles of orchestration, and it does that effectively. As the author points out, the art of poetic orchestration, i.e., creativity, is something which cannot be taught."

"Fortunately, this revised and augmented edition by Peter Alexander, along with consistent, relentlessly critical listening of your own work, should do a great deal in making the mysteries of musical expression somewhat less formidable"


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 8, 2021)

cmillar said:


> GenePool, you did a very thorough investigation of that book for sure.
> 
> But, still, as a basic 'what instruments can do and are capable of doing', I will quote esteemed LA film composer Bruce Broughton's words from the 'Forward' as a defense of Peter Alexander's hard work:
> 
> ...



Thanks, but you give me too much credit. I wasn't thorough; I gave it a random page-through. I skipped whole sections, and didn't write down much of what I caught. Mostly just the stuff that made my teeth hurt.

Thank you for telling me who Bruce Broughton is, but I have known him for years now (which I would much rather not have ever said here). That's all I will mention about that except that I genuinely have nothing but _good_ things to say about him other than that he has tons more talent and ability than almost every _more-famous_ film composer who is worshipped around here on a regular basis. One thing else I won't do is to ever ask him about what went on with his slight and decidedly _not_ hands-on involvement with this book or what parts he was shown as being representative.

Now away from fallacies and on to the substance of the matter: if you would help me out here by listing any of the specific errors and unacceptable oversights that I cited that you think me to have gotten wrong, I will make the necessary corrections and make it known that I did so. I don't know if my page numbers will be the same as your earlier edition, but I would think they should be fairly close.

Also, it would be interesting to know how much bad, mission-critical info pertaining to this important subject that any self-respecting composer should be happy to be walking around with, oblivious to it all. I would wager that there are many composers who might have a much lower threshold for this kind of thing than you. I know for a fact there are at least _some_ who take this subject seriously.

Moreover, how is it that so many basic orchestration facts can be so wrong in such a book, and how is it that the vast majority of instrumentation knowledge required of a composer can be completely left out of a publication that touts itself as the go-to knowledge-base for orchestration? And we're talking about basic stuff, here. Not a difference of opinion on whether a certain bassoon multiphonic should be categorized as having a two-second onset or a four-second one.

Anyway, you've apparently been using this book for a quarter of a century and are pretty happy about it, but I am guessing that plenty of other composers might have standards not entirely aligned with yours. As for me, I promise not to prevent anyone from buying it and memorizing it cover to cover so they can reap the rewards of same and learn the hard the way.
____________________

Addendum: By the way, I don't know when you read my list, but I edited it a few hours after I posted it yesterday to be more specific as to how awful the single paragraph on crotales was.

Crotales are pinged, scraped, and (especially) bowed in more instances of underscore than anyone could count, including by Jerry Goldsmith (Poltergeist), who was mentioned earlier in this thread as having something significant to do with this book(!), so it's a little weird that in an orchestration book supposedly geared towards not only the concert stage but also the scoring stage, they would be confused with finger cymbals.

Finger cymbals come in pairs and are typically tuned a minor 2nd apart so as to obscure a definite pitch, most often C7+Db7. Whereas crotales, standards-wise, come in two 2-octave sets, the higher one being the more common. And either Zildjian or Paiste, I forget, makes (or at least used to) an upper extension of five little ones, providing a cumulative range for all three sets of C6—F8, written 15mb. _Now_ you know something about crotales _and_ finger cymbals that your Orchestration Bible couldn't tell you, all provided free of charge.

I'm a little worn out on this subject so that will probably do it for me now, but I will review your errata list of my errata list whenever I can, should you provide one.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (Jan 8, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Buyer beware, but those Alexander orchestration books are about 95% repackaged public domain content, some of it too old for modern use, and some of the small amount of semi-original content is bad info.



Yes, I agree. There is a clear amount of "marketing funnel" in them. Overall it reads as if Napoleon Hill or Dale Carnegie wrote an orchestration book. 


My personal view of the orchestration books I have read I would call the following the most influential on me and thus my desert island bookshelf (besides a book on how to get off a desert island) would consist of

Adler - This would be the all-purpose book
Henry Brant - This is the more advance and philosophical book
Bladder - deeper dive into the nuts and bolts of individual instruments
Gardner Read: I love his books, and he has so many. Perhaps the Thesaurus Of Orchestral Devices
Gould: Behind the Bars


My second list would be 

Piston
Kent Kennan
McKay

Each of those books filled in some gaps for me. 

I would also place a strong point of transcribing by ear things like: Zin,zin zin a violin (Marvin Hamlish version) Peter and the Wolf, Young persons guide to the orchestra.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (Jan 8, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> but I will review your errata list of my errata list whenever I can, should you provide one.


Fun !!


Gene Pool said:


> I'm just speaking generally


Understood. 


Gene Pool said:


> (And sorry, no time to proofread.)


Me too! Also know, everything I write below is just banter. Like have having a beer and talking shop. I liked the points you raised very much and am simply --- out of complete boredom with my life at the moment- wanted to chime in.


Gene Pool said:


> more obvious bits of bad info scattered throughout.



The 9 keys. What is that? Rubbish.
He never completed them, but in my opinion, this again is where the marketing funnel seems to take over. As you pointed out 95% is all public domain stuff anyway.


Gene Pool said:


> –Everyhing you do in orchestration, every option and decision, is based on instrumentation, which is confirmed in part by the fact that the two best orchestrators, Ravel and R. Strauss, wrote better for instruments than anyone (although Straus had a few questionable moments).



True. However, there is a distinction that is common to find. Books on "instrumentation" like the Alfred Bladder focus on the individual instrument. They usually go more in-depth than orchestration books. 

The distinction being orchestration deals with the blending/balancing of more than one instrument.

None of this is perfect. Just like arranging vs orchestration. You may see "arranging for strings" and it is vague about how it is different than "orchestrating for strings. 

That said, I think this is the point of trying to be made. Reading a book like "Oboe Unbound" will give you in-depth fingerings for multiphonics (instrumentation), while the score of the Strauss Oboe concerto would have examples of orchestration. 

You can't have one without the other. It is just like making the point that orchestration is composition.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (Jan 8, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> –Why does the book avoid the use of actual pitch names? Saying A2—G5 is the standard, but the book would say it as A one octave below middle C to G two octaves above middle C. Makes no sense.


You know...... I hate these things personally. 


Gene Pool said:


> –Where’s the notation?


That's what I prefer. 

I hate the A2-G5 stuff, even though it is getting more and more popular. Few reasons


Gene Pool said:


> most often C7+Db7


When I read the above it first looks like chord symbols. I see C7 augmented, and Db dominant seventh. I understand perfectly what you wrote. It's just I have read so many chord charts that is my first reaction. Additionally, I had to do a fair amount of figured bass.

The final reason why I hate it has to do with transposing instruments. If we talk about C4 in the context of say guitar is that sounding or written. For me: notation is the way to go.


Anyhow, I enjoyed your list. Nice work.


----------



## cmillar (Jan 8, 2021)

I got a lot of information from the Alexander Orchestration books, and still find them a good resource. 

So... good for me.

They are what they are, and other orchestration books are what they are. I have many others on hand too, but certainly won’t get into nitpicking them.

I have music to write and an instrument to practice. Will have to tune back in another time.


----------



## YaniDee (Jan 8, 2021)

There seem to be some strong opinions on this matter! I'll ponder this and possibly wait for the next sale, as I just spent this months budget on VSL Andromeda. But don't let me interrupt gentlemen, carry on..


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 9, 2021)

I see from @Gene Pool 's post that p4ths are apparently a difficult double stop for strings according to this book. Actually they are not, in isolation and with a little preparation, they are in fact quite straightforward. The 4th shape does cramp the hand a little, forcing the fingers slightly out of the natural position that they lie in along the fingerboard. This is because the finger that plays the higher note is pulled in a little closer to the hand (palm). But with a moment for preparation they are not a really an issue and can be incorporated in real time flow too if circumstance allows.

The attachment below was one I posted in @mixingvenom's 'Supersymmetry' thread in member's compositions (a piece well worth a listen), as a possible solution to his written music that consisted of awkward triple stop 5ths. As you can see vlns 1+2 have p4ths in their construction and these stops are perfectly fine, making as they do, the original verticals more practical and reliable.

A student reading that p4th's are "particularly difficult" and taking that statement as correct will probably tend to not use them and have lost a valuable resource until they knew better, because there are many a combination of multiple stops that contain a fingered p4th as well.


----------



## cmillar (Jan 9, 2021)

Yes, one thing I really love about the Alexander book is the string information which is laid out very well. 

Terrific resource for all the “stops” and techniques that can be used.

Are there are other orchestration texts out there? Sure!
Other texts that deal with more ‘avant-garde’ techniques? Sure!
Other texts that include more musical examples from the last century? Sure!

Plenty for all...much to learn without having to pick any books apart...unless you’re trying to convince a publisher to select your own manuscript to replace some other text book or you’re writing a doctoral thesis or something.

Better yet! We can all just ask some real live instrumentalists as to what they can or cannot do!


----------



## crossrootsdoc (Jan 9, 2021)

As I understand though Alexander Publishin1g also has some great video material. What say you all?


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 9, 2021)

Dr. Shagwell said:


> True. However, there is a distinction that is common to find. Books on "instrumentation" like the Alfred Bladder focus on the individual instrument. They usually go more in-depth than orchestration books.
> 
> The distinction being orchestration deals with the blending/balancing of more than one instrument.


(Looks like your spell checker turned Blatter into Bladder, which made me have to hit the head.)
____________________

My view is that the term “orchestration” is misleading and confuses the matter, but that’s the term we’re stuck with, so there you go. The word “orchestrate” imparts unnecessary baggage by implying _orchestra_, whereas the real goal we’re talking about is _writing for instruments_, and there are different levels of that. Writing for one instrument is the first level; writing for two is another, on and on until you’re writing for a 100-piece instrument called an orchestra. If the term orchestration means _for_ “orchestra,” then once the tutti ends and you have a short unaccompanied flute solo, have you ceased to orchestrate? The flute solo is no longer orchestration?

And, of course, when we say “writing for instruments,” we’re really talking about writing for _musicians who play a certain instrument or instruments_. I got that mindset from a book on Pablo Casals, who said:

_“Imagine! They call me a great cellist. I am not a cellist; I am a musician. That is much more important.”_

So, you’ve gotta remember that scoring for, say, oboe, is really writing for a complex of man + machine—a musician who expresses her or his musicianship through an acoustical machine called an oboe. The do’s and don’ts of scoring for that complex are a big part of the task, but understanding _the nature of human musical expression through an oboe_ is the essence of the matter.

But with that in mind, the task of orchestration—writing for instruments—obviously has its components. And since it’s a complex task, those components have to be methodically divided into discrete areas of study, the first of which is instrumentation. Instrumentation is not a separate subject apart from orchestration. You don’t learn instrumentation, and _then_ began the study of orchestration. You begin the study of orchestration by beginning with the first and most essential task: instrumentation. It is, simply, the first component you have to achieve some level of understanding and competency in if you’re going to efficiently apply the subsequent components.

And because much (not all) of the task of instrumentation is so data-driven and comprises such a large portion of the study of orchestration, some people mistakenly view it as a separate subject rather than being the first and most essential component of a larger one. The depth of the subject of instrumentation is why some books may be devoted mostly or entirely to instrumentation, which further causes some to view it as a separate thing. But everything else you do in “orchestration” is based on it. Every decision and detail is based on and influenced by what you understand about it.

So...

The study of ORCHESTRATION (WRITING FOR INSTRUMENTS):

1) Instrumentation;
2) next component;
3) next component;

So on and so forth.

If your ultimate goal is to write competently for orchestra, then you have to be able to write for each of the orchestral instruments on a singular level without combination. Then you start combining single instruments in small numbers, at the “choir” level, i.e., string choir, woodwind choir, brass choir, in quartet or quintet form, or just trio if that’s as many musicians as you can get together to play it, etc. After which you start combining the choirs, and then you’re ready for the orchestra. It’s odd to see people loading up samples you’d need 200 musicians to pull off and see them say, _“Hey, this is my first attempt at orchestration!”_

Of course, people can do what they want, but if getting from point A to point B as efficiently as possible is important to you, with a subject like this you’ll remember that “haste makes waste,” and go about it methodically, step by step, in the logical order. If someone wants to write for orchestra, the real kind, (s)he really needs to write at least one unaccompanied piece for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn, trumpet, trombone, tuba, violin, viola, cello, and double bass that includes (1) a cantabile melody, (2) a lyrical section, and (3) a section displaying energetic dexterity and fluency of movement (or three shorter pieces covering such varying ground)—and, ideally, afterward having it played by the type of competent musician who will give you valuable feedback. If for some reason you can’t have it played, at least join woodwind, brass, and string forums and post a pdf for people to look at and tell you what’s good, what could be better, and what figure or phrase is problematic or impossible.

After that it’s the small combinations, then onward and upward.

As far as learning instrumentation goes, you start off with a decent book about it to get you oriented. After that, every time you work with one or more musicians, you go in with at least one question (but a few, really) for all or some or one of them—something you need to know more about. I used to do it with one of those little flip books like detectives use in movies to write down what their interviewees say, and then switched to doing it with the iPhone in 2008. I’ve still got dozens of the old notebooks in a box somewhere, but once I’d fill one up, I would consolidate everything in it under appropriate headings—some of it in prose, but much of it in charts, tables, and notation examples. All of which became my go-to reference sheets years ago, replacing my original orchestration books. My first understanding of multi phonics was mostly from Bartollozi, but musicians have helped me whittle his lists down to the practical choices, and also to categorize them by the parameters you have to think about with multiphonics. I’ve yet to come across a single musician who didn’t want to answer my questions if (s)he wasn’t in a rush to get on the road. They all want composers, arrangers and orchestrators to write better for them, and they don’t think very well of those who can’t be bothered to pursue it, though they will keep it to themselves. Moreover, you never stop learning about instrumentation. There's always something else you didn't quite know.
____________________

As an aside, what instrument are composers typically the worst at? Harp! Harpists have resigned themselves to having to edit, sometimes heavily, the parts that are put on their stand, whether by a great composer or by a run-of-the-mill kind. They even have common edits for this or that harp part in the standard repertoire that they share amongst themselves. Ravel is the only composer I've never heard any harpist say that (s)he had to edit? Sounds about right.


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 9, 2021)

cmillar said:


> Yes, one thing I really love about the Alexander book is the string information which is laid out very well.
> 
> Terrific resource for all the “stops” and techniques that can be used.


Those are xerox copies of the Widor book which you can download for free at IMSLP:

https://imslp.simssa.ca/files/imglnks/usimg/4/42/IMSLP288291-PMLP30093-C.M._Widor_-_Technique_of_the_Modern_Orchestra.pdf
You can see from the two screen caps below that the second example (from Pro Orchestration) is just a copy of the first example (original 1904 Widor Orchestration book). In the copy version the staves have been spaced farther apart, and the text of the first has been replaced with a more modern font to make it look less antique. But substantively identical.

It's like this throughout.

WIDOR ORCHESTRATION BOOK (1904):






PRO ORCHESTRATION BOOK (2006):


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (Jan 10, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Moreover, you never stop learning about it. There's always something else you didn't quite know.


Very nice post. Lots of great advice is contained within. 

Best wishes


----------



## Lucindus (Jan 11, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> If someone wants to write for orchestra, the real kind, (s)he really needs to write at least one unaccompanied piece for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn, trumpet, trombone, tuba, violin, viola, cello, and double bass that includes (1) a cantabile melody, (2) a lyrical section, and (3) a section displaying energetic dexterity and fluency of movement


Thanks to you and Shagwell, this has turned into one of the most interesting orchestration threads on here in a long time. But I am curious now where you draw the distinction between _cantabile_ and _lyrical_. Those terms have always been interchangeable to me.


----------



## Gene Pool (Jan 11, 2021)

Lucindus said:


> But I am curious now where you draw the distinction between _cantabile_ and _lyrical_. Those terms have always been interchangeable to me.


Good question. Adjectives can only take us so far, so I'll do better by way of two examples, both taken from Dvorak's 9th symphony.

Cantabile: 1st theme of the Mvmt. II

Lyrical: 2nd theme of Mvmt. III


----------



## scentline (Feb 4, 2021)

As a fan of Alexander Publishing books, I recently communicated with the late Peter Alexander’s wife, Caroline and I asked her to look at Mr. Gene Pool’s criticism about the Professional Orchestration. This his is how she responded:


Dear Jinho,

All of Peter's books were read by industry professionals before release and he implemented any edits or corrections they suggested.

As shown on the product page for Professional Orchestration Volume 1, the book was "written on the scoring stages in Los Angeles, with instrumentation notes edited by the elite film studio musician community." Peter lists who those people were in the "Thanks" section at the beginning of the book. He also listed all of the sources he used in preparing the book in the opening pages and in the Bibliography.

I do not have the budget to pay to have his books proofread again and they have already been checked and edited by professionals. To my knowledge, there have been no changes to the instrumentation notes since the book was first published over 25 years ago. I'm not aware that anyone has brought up any issues before.

I'm living with such severe stress that I've been suffering symptoms of a heart attack over the past week and it would be unwise for me to view this thread now. When my health is better I will look at what Gene Pool has said. If there is anything that I can verify as an error that was not updated in later releases of the book, I will look to make changes in a future update.

I genuinely appreciate your concern for Peter's work.

Best wishes,


Caroline Alexander
Alexander Creative Media

***

Peter had such a big heart and contributions for Vi-control and media composer community over many years as many members here already know.

No one reads only one book for this humongous subject. We should cross-check on all kinds of references. Also no one is perfect in this arena. If someone has enough knowledge and experience in this long joirney, s(he) would be able to see what can be applied immediately and what needs to be applied with more careful considerations.

Thanks for pointing out those errors. It made me think that I’ll look at the books and watch the videos of Peter with even more enthusiastic questions and curiosity.

Constructive criticism has certainly benefits, but if we don’t have “why not” spirit or in oppposite way, we have to stick with all same traditional principles and mannerisms, there will be no fresh art in this mundane late post modern culture and doomed music industry.

p.s. The screenshot below shows the legendary orchestrator and composer who worked for Hollywood many years, Mr. Conrade Pope’s comment to my posting about the Alexander Publishing books on his Facebook page a couple of years ago.


----------



## Gene Pool (Feb 5, 2021)

@scentline,

I'm not sure if you noticed, but I included page numbers in the errata list to make it easy for people to check against the book. I think it should be a simple matter of you going through and noting all the things I got wrong. It's been up for a month now and so far no one seems to have done that. I'll be happy to edit the list if you'd have time to do that at some point, and will highlight the edits in red.

You may have noticed that for the most part I only indicated what and where the bad information was, but provided no solution to the problem, but this was deliberate since I do not work for free.


----------



## creativeforge (Feb 5, 2021)

scentline said:


> As shown on the product page for Professional Orchestration Volume 1, the book was "written on the scoring stages in Los Angeles, with instrumentation notes edited by the elite film studio musician community." Peter lists who those people were in the "Thanks" section at the beginning of the book. He also listed all of the sources he used in preparing the book in the opening pages and in the Bibliography.
> 
> I do not have the budget to pay to have his books proofread again and they have already been checked and edited by professionals. To my knowledge, there have been no changes to the instrumentation notes since the book was first published over 25 years ago. I'm not aware that anyone has brought up any issues before.
> 
> ...



Thank you @scentline - What a kind gesture to reach out to her this way, with grace and respect. I wrote her too recently, and it is getting really hard for her, as you read.

It's heartbreaking to read of such a situation for Caroline. Covid NOT helping. I hope she will find a way to move forward. She has been really intent on preserving Peter's legacy, and at great personal and professional cost. And now Brexit throws a wrench in the whole thing again complicating life for artists and small businesses. :(


----------



## scentline (Feb 5, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> @scentline,
> 
> I'm not sure if you noticed, but I included page numbers in the errata list to make it easy for people to check against the book. I think it should be a simple matter of you going through and noting all the things I got wrong. It's been up for a month now and so far no one seems to have done that. I'll be happy to edit the list if you'd have time to do that at some point, and will highlight the edits in red.
> 
> You may have noticed that for the most part I only indicated what and where the bad information was, but provided no solution to the problem, but this was deliberate since I do not work for free.


I will certainly check them out when I have time. I am very busy because I am recently taking a music production and technology course at a college. There are lot of research works for sound engineering and music software skills to catch up as a composer. Thanks for your intelligence and critical eyes.


----------



## scentline (Feb 6, 2021)

creativeforge said:


> Thank you @scentline - What a kind gesture to reach out to her this way, with grace and respect. I wrote her too recently, and it is getting really hard for her, as you read.
> 
> It's heartbreaking to read of such a situation for Caroline. Covid NOT helping. I hope she will find a way to move forward. She has been really intent on preserving Peter's legacy, and at great personal and professional cost. And now Brexit throws a wrench in the whole thing again complicating life for artists and small businesses. :(


Thanks for your gentle and kind comment, @creativeforge. I was also sorry to hear such a warm-hearted and thoughtful lady is struggling in this COVID crisis. I sent my sincere prayers for her.

Honestly I don't know much about how Brexit is going on because I am currently residing in the US, but I hope you can stay strong in this hard time, too.


----------



## mducharme (Feb 6, 2021)

I wanted to jump in and provide some feedback. Some of you may remember that several years ago I essentially attacked Peter for what I felt at the time was taking advantage of the consumer. I must say that I deeply regret that attack as I did not understand his personal circumstances, and I was younger and more brash and stupid. I apologized at the time, and reached out to apologize again a few years later, not realizing that he had passed on only a few days before I had contacted him.

From my current understanding, Peter was a talented composer who received all requisite training at the highest levels and who worked with Jerry Goldsmith, acting as his computer technician. As I understand it, Peter wanted to become a working film composer - unfortunately, health issues got in the way. Due to the health issues, the best way for him to provide for his family wound up being writing music textbooks. He had accumulated knowledge from the courses that he took, combined with his personal experience with the film composers that he was able to deliver through the textbooks.

I would take Peter's work in that light - he didn't necessarily have a huge amount of personal experience writing for orchestra as a side-effect of the health issues (at least not as I am aware, please correct me if I am wrong), but he studied with and worked for some of the greatest composers, and learned various things from them and from his formal education. His knowledge is not to be entirely discounted in that regard. However, I agree with @Gene Pool about basically everything he has stated. I feel that you should take Peter's writings for what they are - he was well educated and worked with some of the greatest film composers of all time. At the same time, due to unfortunate personal circumstances, his actual personal experience working with orchestras was more limited, and so his knowledge can have some crucial gaps.

In summary, I wouldn't advise people not to buy or study from his textbooks, and would instead suggest that he has some valuable knowledge to contribute. However, I would caution against taking Peter's advice as gospel in all regards. I have had pieces performed by symphony orchestras on several occasions now, and I would not be comfortable writing an orchestration textbook even though I feel I know the subject well and can teach it well. I take reading Peter's works as though if I was reading an orchestration textbook that I tried to write - there may be some fantastic pieces of knowledge in there, but there may also be some incorrect information. I would probably recommend using another orchestration textbook (ex. Adler) as a trusted source in that regard. Even then, I've heard guitarists complain that Adler's information about the guitar is really inaccurate, so that demonstrates that even if you have a ton of experience, you can still get things wrong from time to time.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (Feb 6, 2021)

I think the biggest red flag or critique is that most of his book is simply a xerox copy of other people's work. If you look at post #35 of Gene Pool's therein lies what I find off-putting about this book. So much of it is public domain material that is simply repackaged. 

****To be fair: I believe there was an option to have access to the audio files of the musical scores and examples. I have never seen or heard this. I have only reviewed the book itself. 

It's like a "sampled book". 

This is in no way a personal attack, it's simply a provable fact. 
(See Gene Pool's post 35 on the strings.)


----------



## mducharme (Feb 6, 2021)

Dr. Shagwell said:


> So much of it is public domain material that is simply repackaged.


Yes, that is true - I do have the first volume of Peter's orchestration book on my bookshelf, and can confirm that it contains a lot of copy and paste from public domain material. That is a big part of the reason why I felt a bit "gypped" by Peter at first and launched my attack back in 2012 or so, which I now deeply regret. As I stated in my previous post, there are certain mitigating circumstances involved here. It is hard to make money from music in the best circumstances, and the health issues that Peter went through were certainly not the best circumstances.


----------



## cmillar (Feb 6, 2021)

Can't we all just leave this alone? What's the point of it all?

When Peter Alexander published his book, he was merely trying to make a more accessible version of the old Rimsky-Korsakov treatise. Which he did very well.

Many of us bought the book in the '90's and got tremendous use out of it. Alexander was among the first to recognize the "new" importance of incorporating MIDI instruments into a composer's arsenal.

Can people criticize his work for one thing or another? Sure....as can people criticize any textbook or treatise.

Anyways, his book is at arm's-length away for me at all times when I'm needing to more about some string terminology or techniques that are playable by string players. It's invaluable, and has been for 25 years.

We're starting to sound like we're living in the late 1800's here. Let's move on.


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 6, 2021)

What an interesting and insightful thread!
Yet it is a bit sad to see such highly educated people quarreling.

A bit from my perspective: Peter Alexander, as many here may know, was a good friend and well respected member in this very forum and its predecessors. He used this forum to offer an orchestration course that did exactly this:



Gene Pool said:


> If someone wants to write for orchestra, the real kind, (s)he really needs to write at least one unaccompanied piece for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn, trumpet, trombone, tuba, violin, viola, cello, and double bass that includes (1) a cantabile melody, (2) a lyrical section, and (3) a section displaying energetic dexterity and fluency of movement (or three shorter pieces covering such varying ground)—and, ideally, afterward having it played by the type of competent musician who will give you valuable feedback.



... except that instead of having the compositions played by live musicians they were to be rendered with samples by the composers themselves. Certainly not a way to get feedback from musicians but an excellent opportunity to develop individual midi wrangling chops.

This course (I can not even remember whether it was free or given for a small fee) also used Peter's books. Since I have a background as a prof. strings player (and occasionally did work as 'concert master', that is the guy who decides about bowings, divisi and stuff for the group) I certainly noticed that Peter's knowledge of the finer details of strings playing was somewhat indirect, theoretical. But, Peter and his book inspired to compose, to learn, and there are issues in other orchestration books as well.

I remember especially warning Peter and the learner's group about the overly use of double or triple stops for orchestral strings (especially if used as a replacement for proper 3 or 4 part writing). The problem with that is of course that there are no really simple rules about when multiple stops are comfortable to play and when not (well, they exist but they are not necessarily always true). I would always recommend to avoid them as good as you can except when you are writing a friggin Bach or Ysaÿe style solo caprice. For tutti sections, use them if you want 'that special color' that double stops provide. Exception is the occasional closing chord where you might need an extra note, but beware of creating mud and rumble in the lower register. Writing stuff like the Widor/Alexander ninths chords or perfect 4ths en masse for an orchestra recording session where time is precious means asking for trouble. But fear not, the players will nonverbally communicate to each other within a blink of the eye and play it divisi anyways when it fits, without you, the composer even noticing it, and will save your day. 

So, the best advice that I was able to give then was to communicate via notation to the players what you want to hear as a result but to leave the detailled decisions about how to do it to the players themselves as far as possible. This has not changed. Always remember: What is the difference between theory and practise? Theoretically there is none, but in practise there is.

So, if your aim is to competently write for live players, then it would be clever to proceed like Gene Pool suggested: Take the books as a starting point but then have your work performed, recorded, reviewed and ask for feedback and individual explanation.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (Feb 6, 2021)

Hannes_F said:


> Peter Alexander, as many here may know, was a good friend and well respected member in this very forum and its predecessors.



I was unaware of this. That does help explain some of the replies. 

Please let me clarify that in no way did I personally slander Mr. Alexander. 

My critique was on the book itself, and not the person. 



mducharme said:


> Yes, that is true


Thank you mducharme for verifying my post. 



mducharme said:


> As I stated in my previous post, there are certain mitigating circumstances involved here



Also to clarify I was/am unaware of the specific circumstances you mention. 
I have no doubt he was a very nice person, and obviously had a deep passion for music.

I came across "Professional Orchestration" while still in my University teaching position about 10-12 years ago. What I couldn't understand (and still unclear of) is why he could not attribute credit to his sources. It would only have taken a paragraph and in my opinion, would have benefitted the work greatly. Plagiarism issues aside it would have also given the reader a proper context with which to view the work. 

That said; if someone learns from the book then that is a positive thing. If the person buying the book is aware of the repackaged nature of it and does not care, neither do I.



cmillar said:


> Can't we all just leave this alone?


Yes. I shall make this my last reply. I just wanted to clarify that I was unaware Mr. Alexander was a friend and former member of this forum. 

Best wishes to all.


----------

