What's new

Most common orchestration mistakes

I think you might be confusing "information" with "music snobbery", different subjects.

Remember the old adage: "One has to know the rules in order to break them".

Hehe, I was only stating that different people can come to master a skill using different approaches. There is no one-size-fits-all way to learn something in my view. Everyone needs to find what works best for who they are, and develop their style accordingly. If David Gahan studied Debussy and Rachmaninoff, would Depeche Mode have even formed? And if they had, would you be a fan of their music? Interesting question isn't it?

I do not think there is a single orchestration guideline listed on here that I have not broken dozens of times already. As you rightly say, I did not even know these guidelines existed, that's why the various contributions to this thread are so helpful.
 
Since we are talking on writing for orchestra I want to know your opinion on this matter:

I have read that when writing for a first sight recording is not very wise to over notate, so, in my first orchestra recording the parts were "rhythmically sparse", I favored staccato dots vs small note values (sixteenths followed by a silence), and so on.

What are your views on this? Do you prefer to notate the exact rhythms at the risk of putting too much info on the paper, or do you prefer less info at the risk of having to go over it with the conductor?

the classical interpretation of a staccato mark is half value.

So these are the same thing to a classical orchestra. But the first one is much, much more readable. The second one definitely feels like someone just threw their DAW MIDI export into Finale.

For pizzicatos this rule applies even more so. IMO Pizzicatos should be notated as filling their entire beat (meaning mostly quarter notes, and using smaller notes when there are more notes per beat). Notating a more "exact" value of a pizzicato or using a pizzicato with a staccato mark can be confusing. Unless you specifically want to mute the note ringout at a particular time.

Screen Shot 2019-12-13 at 8.55.24 AM.png
 
Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Brahms, Shakespeare, Dickens- we study them because they knew their shit. Remember the old adage: "One has to know the rules in order to break them".
Arnold Shönberg saw his "rule breaking" as a logical progression from his earlier tonal works. A lot of people don't seem to remember that he wasn't just trying to be "edgy."

:edit: Same with Picasso.
 
Its that too, but more that the parts themselves do not flow from note to note.
Here is a short example. In the first bar the notes just jump around, they cross each other, there are big holes in the spacing... the harmony of the chord is there, but the flow of the lines is disjointed. The second example does flow better. Visually it even looks more "compact". I've seen whole scores for large ensembles that look like the first example and although the harmony is there it sounds like a big mess.

This is more of a problem of composition, but it can easily happen when one orchestrates without having the lines worked out first. It becomes more obvious if you print out each players part. In their part there is only the horizontal line... Its amazingly easy to do if one plays "chords" into their DAW. The chord harmony (the vertical) may make sense, but the flow of the lines (horizontal) isn't there, its just blocks of disjointed harmony,

part sample.jpg

This is a great example of a problem mentioned a few times in this thread, VOICE LEADING! This is why it is so beneficial to study counterpoint. Learning to create individual lines that are musical while also managing the big picture (melody, harmony, etc.) will naturally lead to better orchestration. When composing in a DAW it's easy to lose sense of the individual lines of music because of the nature of the process. Even in music that uses non-orchestral instruments, or music that is only synth based and not to be played by live musicians, if you follow these orchestration principles you will end up with a better sounding piece of music.

I teach a pop/rock band, and if I see a guitarist playing full voice barre chords on a funk tune, I direct them to watch some Nile Rodgers masterclasses on YouTube and learn how to use 2-3 note chord voicings, how to set their tone, how to articulate the notes, etc. Range, register, and articulation are basic orchestration fundamentals that apply to all styles of music.
 
Hehe, I was only stating that different people can come to master a skill using different approaches. There is no one-size-fits-all way to learn something in my view. Everyone needs to find what works best for who they are, and develop their style accordingly. If David Gahan studied Debussy and Rachmaninoff, would Depeche Mode have even formed? And if they had, would you be a fan of their music? Interesting question isn't it?

I do not think there is a single orchestration guideline listed on here that I have not broken dozens of times already. As you rightly say, I did not even know these guidelines existed, that's why the various contributions to this thread are so helpful.

Can you post some links to your orchestral works, please? I'd like to hear them. Specifically, the ones where you broke these rules.

Mike
 
Everyone needs to find what works best for who they are, and develop their style accordingly.

And everyone with half a brain understands that continuing developing those one-handed duets for that handsaw and the untuned piano don't get them most likely anywhere.
 
Can you post some links to your orchestral works, please? I'd like to hear them. Specifically, the ones where you broke these rules.

Mike

Oh do not hold your breath!! There is a playlist called "Pure Orchestral" on my soundcloud which is a permanent work-in-progress. Somehow, these tracks still sound clumsy in parts, so the rule breaking you can hear is most likely a lack of skill (or taste maybe) rather than a creative statement.
 
An interesting thing to consider: If someone says "Write/play something that sounds atonal", a surprising number of people can't do it. This actually did surprise me. Years ago I wanted my girlfriend's sister, a semi-pro flautist, to play something "atonal" on a track. She couldn't do it. It's because our perception of "atonal" has a lot of "rules" as well. An interval of a major 7th or minor 2nd would be a good starting point. 7 against 4 will sound weird, I know this. So, the point of "rules" isn't always to be "Man, that's old fuddy-dud music, Poindexter". It can work both ways. Often, the cutting-edge musicians and artists are following more "rules" than the conformist, simply because they are intentionally going against the grain... but they know they are. Far more rare is a person like Charles Ives, who was so out there and groundbreaking that he was probably from a different planet. ;)
 
Oh do not hold your breath!! There is a playlist called "Pure Orchestral" on my soundcloud which is a permanent work-in-progress. Somehow, these tracks still sound clumsy in parts, so the rule breaking you can hear is most likely a lack of skill (or taste maybe) rather than a creative statement.

First, thank you for sharing your playlist. It takes guts to push your stuff out for the world to see.

Second, I find it interesting that you state "the rule breaking you hear is most likely a lack of skill"... I am of the mindset that studying how the great orchestrators successfully write is a way to ensure that one would not break rules due to lack of skill...

and the way to study the great orchestrators is not by ear, but by reading their scores, to see all of the nuance that goes into the passages that just jump out at you.

So, in an earlier post, you mention that you can find exceptions to the idea that you need to read/write sheet music to be an accomplished musician/composer.

I challenge you to name any accomplished orchestral composer who does not know how to read/write and study sheet music. I can't think of any one. And, since this thread is for advice from experienced orchestrators (of which I'm one), and since it's about writing orchestral music, (which it is), then maybe it's important to listen to the advice that you (as the original OP) asked for.

I mean, really? you asked experienced orchestrators for their opinion, then when one gives it to you, you disagree with their statement and state that . That actually smacks of serious ego.

And to say, "we need to be more flexible about learning how to orchestrate", implies a serious sense of self-importance. So, before you become more flexible, have you studied Mendelssohn's tone poems? Tchaikovsky's ballets? Bruckner and Wagner? Stravinsky's big three ballets? Copland's ballets? Debussy's tone poems? Have you actually done the hard work?

No. No you haven't. Because, I can hear it in all three of your tracks. You've dipped and dabbled here and there, and tried to build things with pithy questionnaires, that experienced composers are trying to help you with. But here's the nasty truth.

You have to put in the flight time. You have to listen to these great scores, and figure out how they did it. And no, transcribing is not enough. You need to see how Ravel does arpeggios with artificial harmonics in the strings in his pieces to get that glassy texture.

Okay, I'm getting worked up. I wish you well, I really do. But this cyclical argument really wearies me. People who are pro, who really want to make their craft work, know that it takes daily hard grit work. and there is no substitute for that. So, your choice, man. You can keep listening to random pieces, and fumbling through "orchestral works"... or you can suck it up, deep dive, and start really learning the beauty and majesty of how to write colorful, emotional, dramatic, and narrative orchestral music.

Choice is yours, not mine.

Mike
 
Info on string writing. Much of it should apply to Midi as well.

1. Strings don't tire easily, they can play most of the time. The sound is also easier to deal with than constant winds would be, don't worry about "overworking" the strings.

2. Strings have an enormous range. Take advantage. Don't always used closed voicing, use open voicing and take advantage of the whole range.

3. String players are the most difficult to deal with. You'll see.

4. Pizz-arco. It takes a bit of time to move the bow. Try to have a quarter note rest between transitioning from one to the other.

5. Strings will never be loud enough, and rarely overpower anything unless it's a solo wind etc. Don't worry about the strings being "too loud", it almost never happens. The opposite is the worry, strings will get buried.

6. Bartok Pizz can render an instrument out of tune. If you must write one, write it near the end.

7. Col legno. Bows are expensive. Don't.

8. Divisi. It's tricky and can backfire. Good for textures and pads. Can be difficult with melodies. Changes the power of the section.

9. The higher in register you write, the more problems you'll have.

10. When violin 1 is playing in the high register, double with violin 2 an octave lower. Intonation.

11. In the high register, avoid 3rds. Try 6ths.

12. Listen to "Truly" by Lionel Richie, the last minute or so. Listen to the violins. Don't ever do that. It's too high and sounds like garbage. Check it out, you'll agree.

13. Viola is not 3rd violin, it's viola. If anything, it's more "high cello". They love playing on the C string.

14. Don't write too high for viola. Listen to Shostakovich 5 first mvmt, right before it gets to the middle "animated" part. It scares violists to death.

15. Viola jokes aside, viola is the heart and soul of the strings. Use that to your advantage. Think "interesting inner lines" instead of "oom pah". Violins and cellos tend to showboat but the true "string sound" means having a good viola presence.

16. Cello- whenever I see someone doing a sample library demo on youTube, I usually think "Why are they playing so high?". Granted, it "can", and it times should, but the sound is about the middle and lower registers. Like the viola, it's that "inner" and lower sound that is the backbone. It can be a bass instrument as well, it's a switch hitter. But if there is a good string bass presence, it can really fill out the middle and lower frequencies.

17. Cello can take the melody, it projects. Viola doesn't project as much, cello gets the sound out. There's a tendency to always give the melody to violin, but cello can handle it if the section is big enough.

18. Don't be afraid to double melodies with strings. If it's that important, have all of them (except bass) play it, in octaves of course. Rachmaninoff does this in the 2nd piano concerto. Others do too. In symphony "pops" it's done as well. It really shows the volume differences, the fact that you would need all the strings when dealing with a full orch. or with a rhythm section.

19. String bass players can play more than you think. Watch one play "The Messiah" or the 3rd mvmt of Beethoven 5. They don't always have to play oom pah, they can have chops and play licks.

20. There are 2 violin sections. This is probably the one orchestration technique that separates the good and bad writers. They can do the same thing, they can do completely different things. Sometimes for Pops Charts, there will be a "Violin 1 and 2" part, meaning the same part and 2nds play the lower notes if there are any. The orchestrator for this? Lazy, lazy, lazy. Or in a hurry, which is slightly better. Either way, there was a lot of potential that they didn't use. Having 2 independent parts can be huge. Not just melody/harmony, one can play melody and one can do licks, ostinatos, oom pah (Sousa does this all the time, 1sts play melody and seconds oom pah). Realizing the importance of 2 sections really gives a composer more to work with.
 
17. Cello can take the melody, it projects. Viola doesn't project as much, cello gets the sound out. There's a tendency to always give the melody to violin, but cello can handle it if the section is big enough.

Yes, 100%.

When all the strings go high, the cellos are naturally suited to support the violins an octave lower. An even when the cellos are playing alone, a cello melody in the middle of the treble staff can soar above the texture (even feeling more foregrounded than violin material above it in absolute pitch) because it's so high in relative terms to how the instrument is constructed. A viola melody in the same register would not have that soaring quality.

It's really just the same as what "a high note" would be for me, wouldn't be a high note at all for Charlotte Church :shocked:

Screen Shot 2019-12-13 at 2.16.05 PM.png

One more note about writing for low strings is that you should focus your study on later music. With few exceptions (Bach) the Baroque and early Classical composer wrote music that didn't give the low strings a lot of technical challenges or give them an opportunity to really stretch their muscles.
 
Last edited:
First, thank you for sharing your playlist. It takes guts to push your stuff out for the world to see.

Second, I find it interesting that you state "the rule breaking you hear is most likely a lack of skill"... I am of the mindset that studying how the great orchestrators successfully write is a way to ensure that one would not break rules due to lack of skill...

and the way to study the great orchestrators is not by ear, but by reading their scores, to see all of the nuance that goes into the passages that just jump out at you.

So, in an earlier post, you mention that you can find exceptions to the idea that you need to read/write sheet music to be an accomplished musician/composer.

I challenge you to name any accomplished orchestral composer who does not know how to read/write and study sheet music. I can't think of any one. And, since this thread is for advice from experienced orchestrators (of which I'm one), and since it's about writing orchestral music, (which it is), then maybe it's important to listen to the advice that you (as the original OP) asked for.

I mean, really? you asked experienced orchestrators for their opinion, then when one gives it to you, you disagree with their statement and state that . That actually smacks of serious ego.

And to say, "we need to be more flexible about learning how to orchestrate", implies a serious sense of self-importance. So, before you become more flexible, have you studied Mendelssohn's tone poems? Tchaikovsky's ballets? Bruckner and Wagner? Stravinsky's big three ballets? Copland's ballets? Debussy's tone poems? Have you actually done the hard work?

No. No you haven't. Because, I can hear it in all three of your tracks. You've dipped and dabbled here and there, and tried to build things with pithy questionnaires, that experienced composers are trying to help you with. But here's the nasty truth.

You have to put in the flight time. You have to listen to these great scores, and figure out how they did it. And no, transcribing is not enough. You need to see how Ravel does arpeggios with artificial harmonics in the strings in his pieces to get that glassy texture.

Okay, I'm getting worked up. I wish you well, I really do. But this cyclical argument really wearies me. People who are pro, who really want to make their craft work, know that it takes daily hard grit work. and there is no substitute for that. So, your choice, man. You can keep listening to random pieces, and fumbling through "orchestral works"... or you can suck it up, deep dive, and start really learning the beauty and majesty of how to write colorful, emotional, dramatic, and narrative orchestral music.

Choice is yours, not mine.

Mike

On this one, I see as many vituperations as contributions to the thread's question I must say. Not a great ratio...

Self Importance?! I am not really sure how you got to that conclusion, but I think after listening to my tracks, you will understand that it would be crazy for me to have an ounce of self importance when it comes to making orchestral music... I am a self taught guitar player in the Rock/Metal genre who loves creating music for my own consumption. I am not pretending to be anyone I am not.

Why would I have a disagreement on orchestration with a professional when I barely know anything about the subject? Well I have absolutely no reason nor interest in doing so... Ah, maybe you got frustrated about my point about leaving people freedom to learn their own way! If this is the case, do not take it personally. I just can not understand why anyone would impose their way of learning to another. I just need to know what to learn and it is more than enough for me. It has always been my way of operating and I am very happy with the way it has worked out for me in other fields. The thread's title is "Common orchestration mistakes" and not "Best way to learn orchestration" for this very specific reason.
 
Last edited:
Info on string writing. Much of it should apply to Midi as well.

1. Strings don't tire easily, they can play most of the time. The sound is also easier to deal with than constant winds would be, don't worry about "overworking" the strings.

2. Strings have an enormous range. Take advantage. Don't always used closed voicing, use open voicing and take advantage of the whole range.

3. String players are the most difficult to deal with. You'll see.

4. Pizz-arco. It takes a bit of time to move the bow. Try to have a quarter note rest between transitioning from one to the other.

5. Strings will never be loud enough, and rarely overpower anything unless it's a solo wind etc. Don't worry about the strings being "too loud", it almost never happens. The opposite is the worry, strings will get buried.

6. Bartok Pizz can render an instrument out of tune. If you must write one, write it near the end.

7. Col legno. Bows are expensive. Don't.

8. Divisi. It's tricky and can backfire. Good for textures and pads. Can be difficult with melodies. Changes the power of the section.

9. The higher in register you write, the more problems you'll have.

10. When violin 1 is playing in the high register, double with violin 2 an octave lower. Intonation.

11. In the high register, avoid 3rds. Try 6ths.

12. Listen to "Truly" by Lionel Richie, the last minute or so. Listen to the violins. Don't ever do that. It's too high and sounds like garbage. Check it out, you'll agree.

13. Viola is not 3rd violin, it's viola. If anything, it's more "high cello". They love playing on the C string.

14. Don't write too high for viola. Listen to Shostakovich 5 first mvmt, right before it gets to the middle "animated" part. It scares violists to death.

15. Viola jokes aside, viola is the heart and soul of the strings. Use that to your advantage. Think "interesting inner lines" instead of "oom pah". Violins and cellos tend to showboat but the true "string sound" means having a good viola presence.

16. Cello- whenever I see someone doing a sample library demo on youTube, I usually think "Why are they playing so high?". Granted, it "can", and it times should, but the sound is about the middle and lower registers. Like the viola, it's that "inner" and lower sound that is the backbone. It can be a bass instrument as well, it's a switch hitter. But if there is a good string bass presence, it can really fill out the middle and lower frequencies.

17. Cello can take the melody, it projects. Viola doesn't project as much, cello gets the sound out. There's a tendency to always give the melody to violin, but cello can handle it if the section is big enough.

18. Don't be afraid to double melodies with strings. If it's that important, have all of them (except bass) play it, in octaves of course. Rachmaninoff does this in the 2nd piano concerto. Others do too. In symphony "pops" it's done as well. It really shows the volume differences, the fact that you would need all the strings when dealing with a full orch. or with a rhythm section.

19. String bass players can play more than you think. Watch one play "The Messiah" or the 3rd mvmt of Beethoven 5. They don't always have to play oom pah, they can have chops and play licks.

20. There are 2 violin sections. This is probably the one orchestration technique that separates the good and bad writers. They can do the same thing, they can do completely different things. Sometimes for Pops Charts, there will be a "Violin 1 and 2" part, meaning the same part and 2nds play the lower notes if there are any. The orchestrator for this? Lazy, lazy, lazy. Or in a hurry, which is slightly better. Either way, there was a lot of potential that they didn't use. Having 2 independent parts can be huge. Not just melody/harmony, one can play melody and one can do licks, ostinatos, oom pah (Sousa does this all the time, 1sts play melody and seconds oom pah). Realizing the importance of 2 sections really gives a composer more to work with.

This is tremendous. Anyone up for doing the Brass, Woodwinds or Percussions version? =;]
 
Also, not understanding the power of unison writing or the benefits of melodic content voiced in octaves (or two octaves apart).

Im asking this in a 'want to learn' context. Explain to me what this means exactly and give me an example of how to do this.
 
One for the winds: PLAYERS NEED TO BREATHE NOW AND THEN.

Also, a good orchestrator should be aware of the different colors that each woodwind instrument has depending on the register: the flute can not play truly forte in the low register, nor piano at the highest. The oboe is very thin at high. Bassoon is really heavy at the low register. Each one of the WW is almost like a multi-instrument if we speak about timbre variations
 
One big one I see all the time...

Beginners often don't save something for the big moments. Don't use all your power when it's not needed. If you know there will be a big, loud point in a composition, save some of your brass for that moment. We hear volume in relation to what comes before or after. If you have blown everything you have throughout the chart, there's nothing left for the big moment and it sounds weak.

I guess this refers back to my first point about not having everything playing all the time.

Related to this is the idea of orchestrating dynamics. If a section is piano or pianissimo, the entire orchestra doesn't need to play. Likewise, if something is building, start small and add elements. Similarly, if it is dying away, remove elements.

These things sound like common sense, but they are often forgotten.
 
2. Unison writing in winds. Might work in band, in orchestra = no.
This has been a great thread and I have learned a lot. I was just curious about this claim about woodwinds. I am an amateur and I try to learn from transcribing and studying scores. I've studied a lot of Shostakovich lately (specifically the fifth symphony), and it seems to me like he often have flutes, oboes and clarinets doubled so that e.g., the two players of each section play a third apart and this is doubled (sometimes an octave apart and sometimes unison) by flutes, oboes and clarinets.

You consider this bad orchestration, or does the fact that they play two note chords change anything?
 
One big one I see all the time...

Beginners often don't save something for the big moments. Don't use all your power when it's not needed. If you know there will be a big, loud point in a composition, save some of your brass for that moment. We hear volume in relation to what comes before or after. If you have blown everything you have throughout the chart, there's nothing left for the big moment and it sounds weak.

I guess this refers back to my first point about not having everything playing all the time.

Related to this is the idea of orchestrating dynamics. If a section is piano or pianissimo, the entire orchestra doesn't need to play. Likewise, if something is building, start small and add elements. Similarly, if it is dying away, remove elements.

These things sound like common sense, but they are often forgotten.
This is a great technique!!! It's the contrast that makes things seem much bigger or smaller than what they actually are!!!! It's like writing a paragraph with nothing but exclamation marks!!!! That exclamation mark loses it's impact pretty fast!!!!!!!!!!
 
Top Bottom