# Are there any "Golden Rules" in Orchestration?



## ein fisch (Jul 13, 2016)

title say's everything.. is there a book, a tutorial or anything that covers all the golden rules in orchestration? for example, a book that tells me which notes are good to play with the viola, with the basses, with trombones etc etc etc... i hope you get what i mean.. because of that reason i always composed with full ensembles, but i want to change that, because im feeling like a "cheater" using those ensemble patches XD

i always ask myself while composing "am i even allowed to do this" or "did i just do something wrong".. and i just want to get that question out of my head, because when that question pops up i just get frustrated sometimes and stop my composition and start everything from new (even if it sounded pretty well).. i know it sounds a bit stupid, but its a real problem for me, composing with so much different instruments (brasses, woodwinds, strings, choirs, maybe even synths)..

any opinions, articles, tutorials, book recommendations are welcome! 


Greez


----------



## Flux (Jul 13, 2016)

The Study of Orchestration by Samuel Adler is exactly what you are looking for.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jul 13, 2016)

Dennis, Look, orchestration is a very delicate complex materia, so in general I would adivce besides reading books listening to concert music. But here are few books which are a good companion:
http://composerfocus.com/top-5-orchestration-books/


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 13, 2016)

Kent Kennan's, The Technique of Orchestration is a more compact version of the Adler and easier to manage for the basics. Adler is a great book - more of a Bible with tons of stuff. I would do Kennan and then Adler.


----------



## Anders Wall (Jul 13, 2016)

You'll find some great stuff here:
http://orchestrationonline.com/resources/books/

Thomas book is also great:
http://orchestrationonline.com/product/100-orchestration-tips/

I use, Alfred Blatters....

Best,

Anders


----------



## NoamL (Jul 13, 2016)

I agree with reading Kennan first. it's a great introductory book.


----------



## Reaktor (Jul 13, 2016)

Your question isn't stupid at all. I had same problems around year ago, as I was studying different instrument layers, melody lines and ranges of instruments. I'm still in the middle of my own quest for learning "the well know secrets" (or basics), but my advice is all too simple: listen to music and don't be afraid of going through the walls of realism. 

Most sample based libraries seem to already limit the range of individual instruments (legato), thus giving you the realistic range of each instrument. Simply just try to find music you like. I never was a hardcore classical hobbyist and classical music came to me through cinematic music. Few albums that I have studied time and time again are (for an example) Terminator Genisys soundtrack (great generic & catchy melody lines with hybrid touch), Civilization 5 Beyond Earth, Back to the future 1 soundtrack, Game Of Thrones season 1, Alan Wake soundtrack... Of course there are musically more advanced albums, but these were few which I listened over and over again, and those albums influenced the way I compose my own music.

What I have learned is to trust your own insticts. There is "realism" and there is the composition, which don't have to walk hand in hand if it just sounds good. You will eventually learn what works and what doesn't.

There are certainly few simple tips to get you started, but you should most likely ask more specific questions, such as "which instruments work well layered when playing melody" or "which qualities make good bassline". Fortunately, you are at right place 

Edit: I started orchestral composing just 2 years ago and I'm already lot wiser just by doing and trying. It isnt the fastest and easiest way, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find good teacher over at where I'm living. Its frustrating to try to have dialog with some one who has spent way more time studying music formally, but still being unable to give any new ideas to what I'm doing (such as how to spread chord for different instruments or how to make new moods with uncommon choir-pairs)... Atleast he confirmed that I was already on right track and hadn't done anything wrong.

Edit 2: Just fixed spelling. Writing long msg on iPad is pain in the...


----------



## Prockamanisc (Jul 13, 2016)

Reaktor said:


> What I have learned is to trust your own insticts. There is "realism" and there is the composition, which dont have to walk hand in hand if it just sounds good. You will eventuallu learn what works and what doesn't.


I will respectfully qualify this- know whether you are composing for real players or within a computer. My own experience was that I had ~8 years of orchestral scoring experience, but it was 100% done in computers. When I went to write for live instruments it would sound very flat because computers embellish certain things more than others. My instinct was based on Sibelius' sounds (versions 3-7), and my instincts, therefore, were wrong. You have to pay much more attention to what instruments sound good and in what ranges. That would be my golden rule to give you- know what everyone can do, and what they can do well, and just let yourself go free.


----------



## ein fisch (Jul 13, 2016)

Thanks for all the quick replies!

I already heard about samuel alders' the study of orchestration.. should be kinda good.. i guess i will try that one out then, just wasnt sure if its that what im looking for..

@Reaktor:
Im exactly going trough this right now! For example: Im listening to any Orchestral Piece of music and try to remake it.. and then it starts.. those questions "is it better to place the cello low or high", "is is better to use a taiko or a tom" etc etc etc, and thats extremely frustrating when youre composing something cool but always have that feeling youre doing everything wrong^^

anyways, i guess i have to be a bit more patient then.. and i will definitely have a look at that book..

/Dennis


----------



## Rodney Money (Jul 13, 2016)

"Golden Rules in Orchestration?" 

Yes, the more idiomatic your parts are written, the better we will perform them and the better your music will sound.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 13, 2016)

Nothing beats composing for real players - even if (and maybe especially if) they have limited skills.

I joined a community orchestra last year, and it has provided a number of benefits:
1) I'm learning violin on the fly. Knowing rehearsal or performance is coming motivates practice.
2) I'm experiencing various compositions and arrangements and getting a feel for how things sound live. I don't just hear the final performance, but during practice, we might isolate a section and varying attendance sometimes "mutes tracks". 
3) I get to do arrangements and compositions. The feedback is amazing. I learn what's easy and hard to play, what sounds good, what voices are buried, etc. Players tell me if I've notated it wrong or if I've gone outside of their range.
4) When performed, I get to see how the audience reacts. 
5) I've made friends with many musicians, which has opened up opportunities like playing duets, going to performances, etc.

When writing for computer, one can say, "hey, it sounds good, so it's good enough." But with a community orchestra, you might know that Kim, the oboe player, has a problem with accidentals, the Nancy, on trombone, can't do fast melodies, or that Randolph, on double bass, gets confused by complex rhythms. That might make you simplify the parts for those players while giving the tough bits to others. Rather than harming one's "art" it forces one to really work their chops to create a successful performance.

Starting by composing for samples is great. Composing for samples when time, money, and players aren't available is fantastic. But composing for real players takes it to the next level. It's like the difference between singing alone in the shower and in public on the stage.


----------



## Rodney Money (Jul 13, 2016)

I will tell you this though concerning the orchestra, remember to cover the high, mid, and low in all orchestral families following the harmonic series as closely as possible for balanced, beautiful chords. Even in the percussion you must ask yourself, "Do I have my lows covered? Bass drums, taiko, timpani, etc. Do I have my mids covered? Toms, snares, bongos, etc. And do I have my highs covered? Shakers, cymbals, triangles, etc. I see so many people make this mistake and wonder why their full orchestral renderings do not sound full. Take brass for example, real brass parts sound best with this orchestration once again concentration on high, mid, and lows and based on the chordal structure of the harmonic series found naturally in our sonic universe: 3 trumpet parts, 4 horn parts, 2 trombone parts, 1 bass trombone part, and 1 tuba part. So many people leave out the tuba in their renderings, but that is the foundation of the brass and gives them their fullness, richness, and girth.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 13, 2016)

I would work on two tracks of study. One, your own thing. You playing around with samples (and synths?) conjuring exactly what it is that you want to say as a composer. Two, a very straightforward analytical study of traditional orchestration. That way you will be versed in the mechanism that is the orchestra no matter stylistic considerations (something uniquely you or something that hearkens to a more traditional sound - or both.)
Ravel's orchestration of Pictures at an Exhibition (from Mussorgsky's original piano piece) is a perfect example of straightforward orchestrating. In one hour of study you will have a far greater understanding of orchestrating (if you're new to the subject.)


----------



## Barrel Maker (Jul 13, 2016)

Golden rules? No, but as someone else wrote, writing idiomatically for instruments is usually the best practice. Understanding why the great orchestrators made their choices is more important than any rule, and knowing when to be traditional (à la Ravel) and knowing when to turn convention on its head (à la Stravinsky) is paramount. Learn how to do both, and you'll have twice the resources at your disposal.

P.S. Study complete scores! Examples are snapshots of time. What came before and what comes after should always be considered.


----------



## Reaktor (Jul 13, 2016)

I give thumbs up for studying scores. For me it was almost no-go due to lack of musical theory and being novice on notation reading.

I have played over 15 years, just for a hobby, drums, guitar and keyboard (made club/dance music around 10 years ago). Strangely enough it's easy to play progressive metal, such as Opeth, without having any experience on notation, other than tablature.

I have advanced ear for music and I "feel" the music under my fingers, but I have been unable to translate it to notation, as well as read notation (other than chords or tabs). I don't know about your musical background, but I simply took few piano lessons to get the basics of notation reading. Additionally I used mobile apps (notation quiz's) to get the hang of notes. It took around 20 hours to get novice at reading. After this I was able to study scores from local library. Even though I lack "hearing by seeing", I was able to discover that individual instruments usually played melody lines with such a simple single note structure with instrument pairs, and I was able to see how certain instruments had their rhytms written for cello etc... more importantly I finally understood why music is transcribed on multiline notation, as it was such an easy way to see whats going on each part of song ("now the high winds enter, violin 1 stops playing but violin 2 seems to be keeping that note, probably a harmonic voice... oh and there isn't trumpets at all, just tuba!").

I guess most of VI users are way more advanced than I am and you should definetly take their advices. I just want to say that even with lack of personal experience of real orchestration I still enjoy studying orchestration through sample based libraried. This field we play at can sometimes feel a bit elitistic, but just spend some *quality* time and do not overcomplicate things.

Edit: maybe few links might be at place from my bookmark archive...

http://composerfocus.com/5-orchestration-lessons-from-john-williams-flight-to-neverland/

http://composerfocus.com/how-to-write-in-the-golden-age-of-hollywood-style-part-1/


----------



## Arbee (Jul 13, 2016)

DennisL said:


> title say's everything.. is there a book, a tutorial or anything that covers all the golden rules in orchestration? for example, a book that tells me which notes are good to play with the viola, with the basses, with trombones etc etc etc... i hope you get what i mean.. because of that reason i always composed with full ensembles, but i want to change that, because im feeling like a "cheater" using those ensemble patches XD
> 
> i always ask myself while composing "am i even allowed to do this" or "did i just do something wrong".. and i just want to get that question out of my head, because when that question pops up i just get frustrated sometimes and stop my composition and start everything from new (even if it sounded pretty well).. i know it sounds a bit stupid, but its a real problem for me, composing with so much different instruments (brasses, woodwinds, strings, choirs, maybe even synths)..
> 
> ...





This is my favourite and the only book I ever recommend (and I have lots of 'em), because it sticks to the core foundations without preaching a particular style, which sadly many music authors do. I got 80% of everything I needed from this modest little book when I started out.


----------



## rgames (Jul 13, 2016)

The best way to learn orchestration is to play with an orchestra.

Adler's book is a distant second.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jul 13, 2016)

rgames said:


> The best way to learn orchestration is to play with an orchestra.
> 
> Adler's book is a distant second.



Play with a good orchestra...unless you're writing for student orchestras where the zillionth oboe part will be missing.


----------



## Reaktor (Jul 13, 2016)

Btw, you might be interested of Brian Morrels "How film and tv music communicate" books. They are free (donationware) and available as PDFs over here:

http://www.brianmorrell.co.uk/filmbooks.html

These are bit more complicated and might go over your head (atleast did for me year ago), but they make interesting night reading and are full of sheet examples from well known movies (Jurassic Park, E.T., Star Trek etc.)


----------



## micrologus (Jul 14, 2016)

_The Principles of Orchestration_ by Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov in the interactive version by Garritan is a great resource. You can find it here: http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/77-Principles-of-Orchestration (link) and here: link 
It's interesting to see how a great orchestration sounds good, even with a little sample library like Garritan.


----------



## ein fisch (Jul 14, 2016)

micrologus said:


> _The Principles of Orchestration_ by Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov in the interactive version by Garritan is a great resource. You can find it here: http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/77-Principles-of-Orchestration (link) and here: link
> It's interesting to see how a great orchestration sounds good, even with a little sample library like Garritan.



Thats something i was looking for all the time!! Thank you very much


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 14, 2016)

rgames said:


> The best way to learn orchestration is to play with an orchestra.
> 
> Adler's book is a distant second.



I'm playing with an orchestra and it really helps, but I disagree with the above statement. Most of the musicians in my local orchestra wouldn't be able to orchestrate a thing and without study, they never will.

Maybe the order is something like this:
1) Listen actively to well-orchestrated music.
2) Study orchestration in order to learn ranges, articulations, strengths, and weaknesses for each instrument.
3) Play with an orchestra to better understand where instruments (and their players) shine and where they fall apart. If you can't play, see if you can attend rehearsals. Many college orchestras have open rehearsals where you just walk in and sit down.

Independently, first write for samples. When you're ready to put yourself out there, write for people.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 14, 2016)

There is a generally accepted rule or key to orchestrating that you often hear and certainly applies in my case working professionally as an orchestrator: To be able to write for each group (choir) in the orchestra. Strings, Winds, Brass, Percussion, Voices etc. It's not unlike having the ability to write "idiomatically" as people have said. It is also a good way to study: each group individually. Another reason the Kennan book is so darn good as you orchestrate the same Bach chorale over and over in different choirs and keys.

The opposite of this however is the pure art of orchestrating where there is almost no rhyme or reason to what is on the page but the sound is perfect. Honegger is a good composer to study for that kind of thing. His 3rd Symphony (slow movement) for example. Debussy can also be baffling that way as can Stravinsky. And believe it or not, no one more than Beethoven. People often think he's prior (and therefore inferior) to the modern, bright, Rimsky-Korsakov school which is truly absurd. He's as good as ever was and orchestrated his music perfectly. The fact that there are more examples of his music in orchestration books than anyone else shows that scholars are well aware of that fact.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 14, 2016)

Possibly the best practice I ever had was when taking a composition/orchestration class online with Peter Alexander. He assigned an instrument, required the inclusion of some specific articulations, and provided a poem to inspire the idea or feeling of the piece. From that, we wrote solo pieces.

This approach provided multiple challenges. Obviously, we needed to learn the range and capabilities of the instrument. Beyond that, we needed to write idiomatically. In addition, we needed to write horizontal lines, rather than block chords, accents, or some other isolated sounds that can't stand on their own, musically. And because we were all writing for samples, we needed to take the capabilities of the libraries into account. 

Maybe the biggest challenge with solo lines is the need to balance simplicity and complexity. Make it too simple and it's dull and childish. Make it too complex and it can sound like just a bunch of random notes. I think that the key is to understand the underlying chords and rhythm and to write a line that communicates the underlying structure without having to play all the notes. It's kind of like writing a sentence with missing words and letters, yet the reader knows exactly what you are saying. 

D u no w? I mn?

Consider the practicing musician. When you can play your part and it makes musical sense, it's really fun to practice solo. When it's just a bunch of random stabs at notes at random rhythms, it's no fun to practice. And when each individual line is musical and breathes, the whole piece comes to life. When each line is scattershot, it doesn't take much for the piece to fall apart.

For instance, we are playing Mozart's 25th Symphony, 1st Movement. I can play my Vln 1 part front to back and it all flows. You can tap your foot and know exactly where the harmonic structure is going. There are moments when Vln 1 just plays some repeating notes while others take the melody, yet even the simple, repeating notes drive the piece forward. Add the other parts, which are also musical, and the piece just gets richer and richer. In fact, the solo lines are so good that you could probably really screw up the dynamics between the different sections and it would still sound wonderful.

Not all music is so linearly melodic, but one can still write lines that make musical sense. Do that and the piece will work with any number of orchestrations.


----------



## Naoki Ohmori (Jul 16, 2016)

Arbee said:


> This is my favourite and the only book I ever recommend (and I have lots of 'em), because it sticks to the core foundations without preaching a particular style, which sadly many music authors do. I got 80% of everything I needed from this modest little book when I started out.




I was looking for that kind of book! Thanks for the info.


----------



## SymphonicSamples (Jul 17, 2016)

I bought a few of the top suggested books in the past and to be honest like a lot of things in learning, unless you have a certain amount of musical foundation as you enter into orchestration books a lot simple washes over you. Some things that I found helpful in the past were not focusing on the entire orchestra, but one section at a time. Listening to Quartets by Haydn for example (which are easy to digest and rather beautiful and pure in nature) whilst reading though with the score allows you to see how his four part harmonies work and how the use of different ranges for the instrument together effect the emotion response as you listen. Or listen to the most sublime Adagio in Mahler's Symphony No.5 , incredibly simple on the surface but one of the most perfect pieces of music through his orchestration of the string section. Also as some will suggest take a piece you love, get the score and focus on a small section and try transcribing some of it and check your efforts against the score. How many parts did you brain differentiate and hear ? Difficult to begin with but with practice a world of learning can open up and intern make the books much more valuable to you. Golden rules ??? not sure really. But try and listen to a wide range of orchestral music both for large and small ensemble. Try to learn how to write four part harmonies properly and then apply the same learning to the sections of the orchestra and then break the rules to suite your vision


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 17, 2016)

scott smalley has a class and that has some interesting rules.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 17, 2016)

Flux said:


> The Study of Orchestration by Samuel Adler is exactly what you are looking for.



I agree -- Adler's book is excellent and far better than Kennan's [edit: if you're writing for professionals]. Another good source is Peter Alexander's course, which, like Adler, focuses on great repertoire with tons of examples (both score and audio).

The other "great orchestration course" is to buy some of John Williams' so-called study scores, which Peter Alexanders' website sells. Analyse his doublings in the brass, his octave choices, his woodwind decisions and what he does with violas -- take any eight bars from just about any piece and that's an arranging / orchestrating course right there.

Adler's book has hundreds / thousands of examples (audio and score) from great repertoire, as does Peter A's.

Kennan is way too cautious on range and difficulty. Kennan's book is ok if you are going to write for a shaky college or community orchestra, but if you have professionals, it's far too timid.

[edit: I have heard good things about Scott Smalley's class too, as gsilbers suggests. It is focused on film scoring specifically, if my info is correct.]


----------



## rgames (Jul 17, 2016)

JonFairhurst said:


> I'm playing with an orchestra and it really helps, but I disagree with the above statement.


Well, John Williams agrees with me  There are a number of interviews where he attributes his success as an orchestrator and composer to time spent playing with orchestras. He doesn't mention any books. I've heard the same from countless other composers I highly respect.

Orchestration is about the practicalities of moving music off the page. Such practical knowledge is best learned in practice.

That knowledge can be partially gained by listening to performances (recorded or otherwise) but the vast majority of it comes in sitting through rehearsals. That's where you learn what the musicians do to get the music off the page. It's also where you hear the music broken down into individual sections. The more intimately and thoroughly you have that experience the better you will orchestrate.

Learning orchestration from a book is like learning to play basketball from a book. Sure, it might help a little bit, but how much benefit is the book compared to just playing a bunch of basketball?

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 17, 2016)

Maybe the bigger item than playing in an orchestra or reading books is desire. Without that, no amount of playing with a group will help - and the player will have no motivation to seek or read the book.


----------



## mverta (Jul 17, 2016)

The Golden Rule of Orchestration is: If it doesn't sound good, don't do it.

We learn by doing. I learned by playing in orchestras and putting compositions on the stands, for friends, fellow students - anyone - constantly. This way, when examining scores, I had an experienced context to put my them in, otherwise you're just copying things you've seen without having any understanding why.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 17, 2016)

John Williams had the luxury (and curse) of growing up in an era when the only way to make music was working with musicians. He was a session piano player in Los Angeles before he worked into being a regular composer, so he knew the landscape. As you may know, he even was an orchestrator / arranger / band leader when he served in the armed forces (I think Korea?) He mentioned it at a concert he conducted at the Bowl.

For good or ill, most young composers today barely get the chance once a year to work with an ensemble greater than 5-10 players, and some almost never do. 

You can learn a heck of a lot from Adler's book. I was lucky enough to orchestrate for cartoons in the 1990s, when WB and Disney still scored a lot of cartoons live. While scoring with an orchestra may be the ideal way to learn, many of those practical lessons can be gleaned to a surprising extent from a good book that breaks down -- with copious audio examples -- orchestral works from the past. Ideally, one would have a superb orchestra showing up every week and one could study scores and then experiment with that live group to hear in person what works. But few have that chance now.

One bit of advice -- whenever you can possibly do it, get at least a handful of live players on your job. Even if it's solo trumpet and a few strings, or a wind soloist and fret player -- whatever -- just to practice and remind yourself how magic you can be.

I realize you're being kind of jokey when you write it, Richard, but the basketball analogy (or any active sports analogy) is off base (har-har). Basketball involves muscle memory and physical experience. Orchestrating -- not really.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 17, 2016)

JohnG said:


> I agree -- Adler's book is excellent and far better than Kennan's [edit: if you're writing for professionals].


The Kennan book has things not found in other orchestration books such as the continuous re-orchestration of a Bach Chorale for different instrumental groups. For someone starting out, it's highly useful. Same with the Piston book where he breaks down elements of traditional scores into 3 different levels of importance (also not found in other orchestration books.) Rimsky-Korsakov offers another approach and so on. Jerry Goldsmith never had the Adler nor did John Williams (in formative years) so it's a matter of study philosophy, not the books themselves. I think the Adler is great and the new gold standard but not to the total exclusion of others.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 17, 2016)

@Dave Connor -- I am not saying one can't learn something from Kennan. Of course one can; I have a copy too. But for a professional orchestrator trying to work in media with professional musicians, I feel it's too cautious and basic. And as much as I admire him, I think a bit the same of Rimsky-Korsakoff's book.

If we had time enough we should all go back to the olden days and work forward. We should learn species counterpoint from Fux, understand the development of each instrument and the evolution of the orchestra and how it came to be what it is. 

But I am too lazy for that and have never found that, for example, my counterpoint studies have directly helped my writing. Sure, contrary motion is good; independent lines are good; making sure each line is singable and outlines the harmony is good; but I wouldn't say that imitative counterpoint is the only way to get at those ideas. 

I'd rather start with something more recent and that I can use immediately in writing for media (Wagner? R. Strauss? or John Williams who distilled all the great ones?).


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 17, 2016)

JohnG said:


> @Dave Connor -- I am not saying one can't learn something from Kennan. Of course one can.


John, Economy of time of learning is actually the reason I recommend Kennan's book. In some way a foundation has to be laid I'm sure you agree. In this case a single piece of music (Bach chorale) is learned and then systematically orchestrated in numerous ways for different instrumental groups and combinations. This unburdens the student to a certain extent which I think is helpful in the vast universe of orchestral writing. As I said though, I feel the same about an aspect of Piston's book which also simplifies in a very helpful way. As you said, score study is probably the ultimate teacher which has always made up the majority of my studies and what I always recommend. My suggestion of the Kennan is for those just getting started having a limited, compact book to learn the basics as quickly as possible.


----------



## mverta (Jul 17, 2016)

You can go to any high school or college and put up a flyer asking for volunteers to play things you've written and get an unbelievable amount of experience that way. They don't even have to be good players; in fact, learning how to make amateurs sound good is an amazing ability to learn in and of itself. I've done this myself, I recommend it only slightly behind daily transcription, and it's cheap (or free). No excuses; go get it!


----------



## JohnG (Jul 17, 2016)

Well, Mike, while amateur players might be ok in the "something is better than nothing" category, it could encourage over-cautious writing.

If you put even a few bars of one of John Williams' more exciting scores in front of high school or college players (unless they are unusually good) you get an out-of-tune disappointment that doesn't begin to reflect what a professional group can do. Players around town talk all the time about how hard Williams' stuff is, for every section. That string line in the Hedwig theme (the quiet, very fast one that is near the beginning of "Sorcerer's Stone") is a good example. Sounds easy.

In fact, as I'm sure you'd agree, it's sometimes that "just on the edge of playability" in the hands of a great professional that adds the excitement and verve that grabs me and, I think, many people.

My own student writing had two sets of players: students and professionals. I actually think I learned very little, personally, from the students' efforts because they just couldn't begin to play the material. The pros taught me the opposite -- that I was not being bold or nearly demanding enough; that I was writing overly easy-to-play stuff that just wasn't that fun to listen to.

But, different experiences for each.


----------



## rgames (Jul 17, 2016)

JohnG said:


> I realize you're being kind of jokey when you write it, Richard, but the basketball analogy (or any active sports analogy) is off base (har-har). Basketball involves muscle memory and physical experience. Orchestrating -- not really.


I'm not joking!

I think learning music theory can be done with roughly equal parts listening to recordings, studying textbooks/scores and just writing a bunch of music. You can do all of that alone in a room.

But I think learning orchestration benefits immensely more from experiencing it along with other musicians than from listening to recordings and/or reading about the topic. Sitting through hundreds of rehearsals across a wide variety of musical styles will get you 99% of what you need to know to be a good orchestrator. The books are a handy reference for specific details (what's the lowest note on an oboe?) but the general intuition you gain benefits much more from first-hand experience in rehearsals. I think the same can be said for learning to play basketball, so I stand behind that analogy!

And yes, rehearsals are much more important than performances because rehearsals are where the musicians go through the process of figuring out how to make actual music from your score. And, of course, the notes they play are not necessarily the ones you wrote or in the style you intended...! Learning what they do and don't like (and what they can and cannot do) is a major part of orchestration (arguably the entirety of it). Knowing those preferences and limitations will allow you to anticipate them in your scores and adapt so that your vision of your music is a better match to what the musicians actually play.

Again, as I said above, orchestration is mostly a practical endeavor, certainly more so than music theory. You can get entirely up in your head with music theory so it lends itself to time spent alone up in your head. But orchestration is much more about a shared experience, so the best way to learn it is to share those experiences.

rgames


----------



## mverta (Jul 17, 2016)

JohnG said:


> Well, Mike, while amateur players might be ok in the "something is better than nothing" category, it could encourage over-cautious writing.
> 
> If you put even a few bars of one of John Williams' more exciting scores in front of high school or college players (unless they are unusually good) you get an out-of-tune disappointment



We're not talking about John Williamses putting virtuoso pieces up. We're talking about those of us who are still learning, perhaps at the very beginning, whose pieces might be, perhaps, somewhat less virtuosic than what JW might craft at 70 years of age.

I keep my advice short, practical, and effective. Put the book down on the table, put your music up on the stands. Reading books before earning any experience _might_ teach you something useful. Having your music performed at any level _will_.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 18, 2016)

Well, to each his own. I've seen your advice in the past and it is, indeed, short.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 18, 2016)

mverta said:


> ...Having your music performed at any level _will_.



I tend to agree with this. Playing in an orchestra is one thing. Many people do it without learning composition and/or orchestration. And, yes, attending practice can be more instructive than a full, polished performance. But there's nothing like actually doing it - composing, arranging, and notating. And the work is opened it up to real players, one can get real-life feedback.

Of course, the better the player's skills match the piece, the better the potential feedback. In my case, I've done a bit of arranging for my local community orchestra, so I know which players are strong and where specific weaknesses are. Like many creative endeavors, limitations can actually be good. By writing to the strengths of the players, we get a potentially better performance.

On a recent piece, the most negative feedback I got was from some better musicians who showed up just a couple weeks before the performance. I had to shoehorn their parts in without changing the parts of the existing amateur players or harming the balance of the existing piece. No surprise that their parts were weak and were a bit out of their core range. (The things we do to avoid parallel fifths!)

It's definitely harder to do an arrangement for a group where you don't know who will show up! But that's the real world at the amateur level. And if that's your target, doing it well is part of the art.


----------



## Reaktor (Jul 18, 2016)

One thing I'd like to point out here is the problem of studying with live players due to natural causes, such as cultural differences.

I'm sensing here over and over again that quite a few of members have been or are members of live orchestra. Having been an exchange student in USA and having seen high school / college traditions, I can understand how joining a club could give you a good start on understanding orchestral music... BUT there are countries which don't have this tradition *at all*.

Over here at Finland our school system doesn't support any kind of marching-band culture. Orchestras are very few, due to lack of income from sponsors and most of 'em are professional. The only way to get into that kind of circles is by taking at least ~5-7 years of studying at multiple levels, so that's a no go for someone who simply wants to learn cinematic composing at age.

It's kind of interesting that Finnish culture does put quite an effort on band-playing. There are literally thousands of schools supported by government, as well as established by business, but their main focus is on band playing.

Some Finns here might disagree with my viewpoint, but even though public music academies do have string and brass -lines, they are very focused on solo studying and/or small 3-6 chamber groups. Community colleges vary quite a lot by location, but at least at Mikkeli the only courses offered are Dixie / Big Band -lines... Thing's are most likely very different in culture-rich cities, such as Kuopio, Tampere & Helsinki.

(edit: I took a personal study-trip over ~130 miles away to Kuopio, just to listen 80 members strong youth orchestra playing Williams... it was my first live symphony orchestra experience at the age of 32, even though I have spent most of my life playing music)

I'v been trying to find a teacher for the same reasons stated by DennisL - I simply couldn't trust my instincts due to not having anything to really reflect to on my choices on layering / harmonizing. Since the lack of theory & notation, I really took the hard road by doing, doing, and doing more (and also studying notation, theory, and sheets). I followed the rule which Mike said, "If it doesn't sound good, don't do it". Over the time I started finding which pairs work well and how to spread instruments.

Still, I hope to find someone who could coach stuff I'm working with and try to break those chains which I'm still a bit locked up with. I'v been trying to contact multiple VG composers over here at Finland, but at the time being I haven't been able to find anyone with time or skills (as well as fitting genre/mood)... Darn, if guys like Petri Alanko or Henri Sorvali would just have spare time... 

ps. Finnish members, don't hesitate to contact if you wish to give a try for remote coaching / teaching.


----------



## Rodney Money (Jul 18, 2016)

All in good fun, lol, my non-serious, incorrect, off the top of my head summary of R-K's The Principles of Orchestration book:

Soprano: flute, trumpet, violin 1
Alto: oboe, horn, violin 2
Tenor: clarinet, trombone, viola
Bass: bassoon, tuba, cello, and double bass

Brass+Woodwind=neutral sound takes edge off brass.
Brass+Strings=you can hear both families.
Woodwinds+Strings=Woodwinds blend in better than brass.
Woodwinds+Brass+Strings=awesome tutti, duh.
Percussion: color, accents, sorry no details on tuning a timpani.
Harp: I hope you already know about pedaling cause Rimsky's not gonna tell ya!
Voices: don't cover them up.

"There you go. Now, you don't have to read the book, JK."


----------



## Arbee (Jul 19, 2016)

There's an old saying - "bite off more than you can chew, and chew like hell.". Exposing myself to the sarcasm of top players with my orchestrations early in my career certainly accelerated my learning curve! The same players were extremely complimentary some 12 months later when I encountered them again.


----------



## re-peat (Jul 19, 2016)

A bit surprising that no one makes a distinction between orchestrating for a real orchestra and orchestrating for a virtual one. As if the two are the same thing. Which they're anything but. Fundamentally different in just about every respect.
I would even argue, as I did *here* and *here*, that if you're working with a virtual orchestra, traditional orchestration books and/or courses can do just as much harm to your work as they may help improve it.

Some of the reasons why I am rather suspicious of transplanting the methods and techniques of traditional orchestration onto working with virtual instruments, are:

*(1)* Traditional orchestration assumes the presence of an entirely different species of instruments. (People may believe all they want that virtual is getting close, the truth is that the difference between real and virtual remains as huge and unbridgeable as it ever was.)
*(2)* Likewise, traditional orchestration assumes a wealth of choices and options (with regard to articulations, dynamic differentations, contextual phrasing, organic blending, intra-orchestral resonance, precise numbers of players, unusual timbres, exploiting acoustic energy, … ) which the virtual orchestrator simply does not have.
*(3)* Traditional orchestration isn’t aware of the millions of limitations, as well as the gazillion of possibilities (seemingly ‘unrealistic’ as some of these may be) intrinsic to the virtual idiom.
*(4)* Traditional orchestration needn’t, for obvious reasons, be bothered (and is therefore never concerned with) dozens and dozens of considerations which are essential to the success of a virtual orchestration — decisions pertaining to artificial space, artificial dynamics, frequency clutter, frequency distribution, blends, uneven soundquality of sample libraries, conflicting sonic ‘stamps’ of various libraries, and so on and so on … the list is endless.
*(5)* In virtual orchestration, you are very much the slave of what you are sold by a developer. The developer ― his taste, vision, competence, attention to detail (or sloppyness) and musical insight (or lack of all these things) ― is almost as big a factor in the orchestral sound you end up with as you yourself are. Dozens and dozens of decisions, often very important ones, which are almost completely yours when writing for real instruments (and so they should be), aren’t yours at all when working with virtual instruments.
*(6)* A big part of the art of virtual instrumentation/orchestration is the art of illusion, deception and make-believe (assuming that a more or less believable orchestral sound is the goal of course). And this is an aspect which is completely alien to traditional orchestration. Every single element, musical or physical, which is self-evident in a real orchestra ― and, as a consequence, obviously remains undiscussed in orchestration books ― requires a whole lot of very specific knowledge, carefully selected tools and often plenty of effort and elaborate trickery to make them a (hopefully) convincing ingredient of the sound and the performance of your virtual orchestra.

Not suggesting that you don't need to know anything about traditional orchestration — the basics will certainly prove useful (and furthermore, any sort of lack of knowledge that prevents you from expressing what you want to express should be seen to and corrected —, merely saying that there's a vast amount of knowledge and expertise that you need to have just as much (if not more so) and about which you won't find a single syllable written in any traditional orchestration book.

_


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 19, 2016)

Yep, I agree Piet.. While it helps to be informed by what the real guys you do not want to be imprisoned by it with a virtual orchestra.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 19, 2016)

such a great post, Piet.

Curiously (at least to me), my old East West Quantum Leap Symphonic Orchestra library -- the 2004-era one, not the new one -- while it doesn't _sound_ nearly as good as the more up-to-date libraries, seemed very accurate to me when moving from mockup to replacing with live players. In other words, I can't remember ever being startled or disappointed or really even surprised by what the live version sounded like when compared with the virtual version. Certainly, the live version was better, but somehow that library produced a very reliable facsimile of what the eventual sound would be like.

One huge exception: unison doubles. Unison doubles is one of those elements so common in orchestrating for live players that I find sounds completely different with most samples. Mostly bad, unfortunately. Even Rodney's funny summary of Rimsky-Korsakoff's orchestration tips is a good example of a list that works for live, but probably not at all the same for samples because of all the considerations Piet enumerated.


[note: I have received free products from East West, although not the one mentioned here.]


----------



## Rodney Money (Jul 19, 2016)

JohnG said:


> such a great post, Piet.
> 
> Curiously (at least to me), my old East West Quantum Leap Symphonic Orchestra library -- the 2004-era one, not the new one -- while it doesn't _sound_ nearly as good as the more up-to-date libraries, seemed very accurate to me when moving from mockup to replacing with live players. In other words, I can't remember ever being startled or disappointed or really even surprised by what the live version sounded like, compared with the virtual version. Certainly, the live version was better, but somehow that library produced a very reliable facsimile of what the eventual sound would be like.
> 
> One huge exception: unison doubles. Unison doubles is one of those elements so common in orchestrating for live players that I find sounds completely different with most samples. Mostly bad, unfortunately. Even Rodney's funny summary of Rimsky-Korsakoff's orchestration tips is a good example of a list that works for live, but probably not at all the same for samples because of all the considerations Piet enumerated.


Hello my friend, didn't you mention one time how well bass clarinet and cello mix in live music, but you have not found that to be true in samples?


----------



## JohnG (Jul 19, 2016)

yes exactly, Rodney. In general I find those doubles disappointing in sample-land. They are superb live.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 19, 2016)

re-peat said:


> A bit surprising that no one makes a distinction between orchestrating for a real orchestra and orchestrating for a virtual one.


To me there's a world of difference between "Rules of Orchestration" and "Midi Mockup with Samples." With one you have the instruments of the orchestra standardized over three centuries and the other the use of sample libraries going back a few decades up to yesterday's release. For the latter you would need as many rules as there are libraries. We've seen some of those 'rules': _How to EQ LASS 1st violins _and that kind of thing. As many rules as there are instruments within countless libraries now. This compared to {say} writing for two Bb clarinets in a professional orchestra. Two different worlds which I thought was clear by the thread title. In any case I have always thought that real-world orchestration when using samples usually sounds the best. At least the first order of business when orchestrating with samples. After that, do what you have to do to get it sounding as good as possible.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 19, 2016)

I think that the common theme is, "know for whom you are writing and orchestrating."

LA session players? Your personal, half-baked, set of samples? High school band? 2nd year students? There's no wrong answer here. It all depends on the project goals.

If it's a bad match, you'll be disappointed. If it's a good match, it *might* be good.


----------



## AllanH (Jul 19, 2016)

This has been a really interesting thread to read. I doubt I'll ever get a full orchestra to play my music, so I've never really thought much about how interesting a particular part is to play. 

I would be very interesting to spend a day or two with a real orchestrator to understand his/her work and thought-process. There is clearly a lot of skill involved.


----------



## Udo (Jul 19, 2016)

re-peat said:


> A bit surprising that no one makes a distinction between orchestrating for a real orchestra and orchestrating for a virtual one. As if the two are the same thing. Which they're anything but. Fundamentally different in just about every respect.
> I would even argue, as I did *here* and *here*, that if you're working with a virtual orchestra, traditional orchestration books and/or courses can do just as much harm to your work as they may help improve it. ......................




The Guide to MIDI Orchestration 4e by Paul Gilreath. Check the reviews to see if it suits you.

EDIT: Supplementary material like audio files, PDFs, etc. are available from the publisher.


----------



## ein fisch (Jul 21, 2016)

I never thought that this Topic will get so much replies. Thanks for all the Opinions and Suggestions.

I guess ive got my point now: I will just keep on working on orchestral music, and be frustrated every day, and learn from it.. i guess, after reasing trough this thead, the only golden rule (atleast for me) is patience! :D



AllanH said:


> This has been a really interesting thread to read. I doubt I'll ever get a full orchestra to play my music, so I've never really thought much about how interesting a particular part is to play.
> 
> I would be very interesting to spend a day or two with a real orchestrator to understand his/her work and thought-process. There is clearly a lot of skill involved.



Totally agree with that.. Its bad im abit young & untalented, and do not have my place in the music business yet → dont even know any good composer / orchestrator in my country.. i really really hope i will have the privilege for that somewhen xD

Cheerz
Dennis


----------



## JohnG (Jul 21, 2016)

DennisL said:


> I will just keep on working on orchestral music, and be frustrated every day, and learn from it



ha! that is my life!

------------------------------
An old story about Pablo Casals, one of the greatest cellists in history:

_When the great cellist was aged over 90, one of Casals' students sees him heading off after a lesson. The student asks, "Maestro, where are you going?" 

Casals replies, "to practice."

Astonished, the student asks, "But why, maestro?"

"So that I can improve."_


----------



## SymphonicSamples (Jul 26, 2016)

I've already shared some thoughts earlier in the thread but came to the conclusion that there are some Golden Rules one could follow. Deep breath ... Here goes...

The Golden Rules of VI-Control Orchestration Club

#1 YOU _do not talk_ ABOUT VI Orchestration Club.
#2 YOU _do not talk_ ABOUT VI Orchestration Club.
#3 If someone say "Stop" OR goes limp and taps out of time, the piece is over.
#4 Only one composer per orchestration.
#5 One piece at a time.
#6 No Braaams, NO ensemble patches.
#7 Pieces will go on as long as they have to.
#8 If this is your first time at VI Orchestration Club, you have to share a piece.

So there you have it. Now taking members


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jul 26, 2016)

NO! Use your ears like every composer did before you. I went through some of Peter Alexanders Orchestration courses and almost lost my mind, with all due respect. Too much detail, no room for instincts. If you're writing for samples, all the rules go out the window. "Use a flute in unison with Violins 1 to clarify the line", well now we have multiple libraries and synths and what not to clarify the line.

Of course if your goals are to sound like 18th century Mozart, then YES, slavishly follow ALL the rules, (but who wants to live in the past. Been there done that...


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 26, 2016)

People who know the traditional rules break them better than those making them up as they go along, with the exception of the really gifted people. But there are a whole lot less of those than those who kid themselves in to believing that they are.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jul 27, 2016)

That's true somewhat Jay though I think learning the language of music matters most, i.e., chords, scales and the like then speak freely as you wish...
"Any tone can succeed any other tone, and any tone can sound simultaneously with any other tone or tones, and any group of tones can be followed by any other group of tones, just as any degree of tension or nuance can occur in any medium under any kind of stress or duration." Persichetti


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 27, 2016)

InLight-Tone said:


> That's true somewhat Jay though I think learning the language of music matters most, i.e., chords, scales and the like then speak freely as you wish...
> "Any tone can succeed any other tone, and any tone can sound simultaneously with any other tone or tones, and any group of tones can be followed by any other group of tones, just as any degree of tension or nuance can occur in any medium under any kind of stress or duration." Persichetti



I believe that the guy you quoted knew a little about the traditional techniques  He is in fact illustrative of my point. He broke the rules brilliantly because he knew them thoroughly.


----------



## AllanH (Jul 27, 2016)

I'd say that one of the reasons to follow classic orchestration and harmonic style is that this is what the listener is "expecting". While non-standard music, orchestration or progressions might be interesting to the trained ear, they can be jarring or confusing to most listeners.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Jul 27, 2016)

AllanH said:


> I'd say that one of the reasons to follow classic orchestration and harmonic style is that this is what the listener is "expecting".


Just to chime in quickly: I really think the "audience-expectancy-argument" is heavily overrated - generally, but specifically in regard to matters of orchestration. People nowadays have so little knowledge of the western standard repertoire of classical orchestral music, that it's influence on their expectations is utterly neglectable. More often than not, their first encounters with orchestral music in their lives will be from film music or even game music! And if you listen to some of HZs early orchestral pieces, you'd have to conclude that they upset a whole lot of expectations that someone might have derived from listening to Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler all day long. Does it matter? I don't think so.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 27, 2016)

InLight-Tone said:


> ...I went through some of Peter Alexanders Orchestration courses and almost lost my mind, with all due respect. Too much detail, no room for instincts...



Like all courses, there are a variety of ways to teach and a variety of students who learn differently. 

Peter's courses have some real gems. That said, I bought the harmony book, and some of it was lists of four voice options. The lists do me no good. In my case, I learn the concepts, theories, and rules and can then come up with whatever four voice stack that I need. As me to memorize a bunch of tables and my mind goes numb. On the other hand, some people do well with rote memory but have a hard time making sense of abstract concepts.

A friend of mine does the rote thing. Years ago, he bought me the giant book of guitar chords for my birthday. After it went on the shelf, I never expect to open it. I'm just not wired that way.

But I think it's important to learn this stuff one way or another. Without that knowledge, one might come up with something that sounds really great one day, not understand why, and never be able to repeat it or build from it.


----------

