All good comments above to which I would add that the more active a note’s function is, the greater caution might be considered in doubling it. If it already calls attention to itself for some reason, doubling other notes may create better balance. It may not though, so the underlying theory is important.

In a triad, the root defines its tonal center and the fifth reinforces it. The third however is arguably the most active member because it defines the quality of the chord as major or minor. In context, it also frequently implies the tonal center. In other words, if a listener hears only an isolated chord, the root needs to be there as tonal reference along with the third to define its quality; the fifth simply reinforces things but could also be omitted without changing the listener’s perception of what the chord is. If the chord is not isolated but heard in a musical context, the arrangement itself almost always offers tonal reference. In that sense, the root could theoretically be omitted along with the fifth as the ear will fill in the blanks if it hears the third. These obviously aren’t absolutes; just general concepts.

Adding the orchestration layer to things may change everything, but the same general theory still applies. If there is a truckload of trombones playing the root in unison, it may take all the horns to get the third to be heard at all, depending upon what the winds and strings might be doing. Everything needs to be considered in context.

As a general rule of thumb, there is usually not a problem doubling the fifth. This is true to a lesser extent for the root, as it can sometimes over accentuate the individual chord’s tonality over the arrangement’s. The last doubling choice and the one to be the most cautious with is usually the third.

@evanevans said:

If I got 4 horns, I do 4 part harmony. (G3, C4, E4, G4) -or- (E3, G3, C4, E4)

Same way you would do it with human voice. The brass is very similar to human voice as far as blending goes.

Evan Evans

G3 + G4 or E3 + E4 = parallel octaves; definantly less/not a problem in brass writing, but still problematic in choral writing. i never liked Palestrina much, but it still amazes me how applicable his vocal conventions are today...

Good comments, Martin Bayless --- definitely agree with you that caution is necessary on doubling the third. A major third can be very effective, doubled at the octave, but it's a rather special sound and not to be used just because you have four horns and one triad! Same, as Evan says, for voice -- you'd not double the third of a major triad except for special effect.

Also, how often do you have ONE chord to orchestrate? There are almost always issues of all the rest of music: voice leading, melodic outline, relative texture, structural markings.

One very important reason to not double the third is intonation. The third is a *very* relative pitch, and very subjective. And if the the two thirds played/sung by two players don´t exactly, and I mean *exactly* match, it will sound awful.

I don´t agree with the critique on Evan's octave. The Palestrina rule is related to horizontal voiceleading in connecting chords and has nothing to do with writing an vertical octave as a sound.
As a matter of fact, you will find an octave in any Palestrina motett every one or two seconds.

@gugliel said:

...how often do you have ONE chord to orchestrate?...

Obviously never (or at least extremely seldom :wink[:)] ). My point was simply to help those who might not have been over this territory to think about the static structure of a chord as a foundation for its (much more important) musical context.

@mathis said:

I don´t agree with the critique on Evan's octave. The Palestrina rule is related to horizontal voiceleading in connecting chords and has nothing to do with writing an vertical octave as a sound.

Very good point and thank you for making it. I was speaking solely in terms of horizontal movement and could have been clearer. Of course there are many examples of veertical octaves in music and in that sense Evan's comments are perfectly consistent.

In the end, the two solid choices are as follows, and anything else will be less than optimum:

1) 2 horns in octaves on either the third or fifth (the root octave sounds terrible)
2) Have one guy sit out, and use 3 horns on 3 notes

In film music, it has become a standard to have 6 horns, 2 per note, and if you are doing a 4 note chord, such as a Maj7, to have the root and fifth doubled, depending on the voicing. Bottom and 2nd from top basically. There are all different ways to balance the horns with different voicings.

it is rarely necessary to have just the horns on a chord however. I can't think of very much music by world renown master composers where they employed just the horns in chords. So obviously you have support from the other brass and strings. Certain woodwinds can be used in delicate passages coupled with the horns, but not necessarily on the same notes. You can choose notes from the overtone series as well (you know, like violin harmonics on the 35th! lol ).

Evan Evans

P.S. My point about thinking of the brass like voices was textural. And I actually disagree with you that choral writing must adhere to those strict rules. I write for chorus like I write for brass, and it never sounds any bigger any other way. Of course there are umpteenth-million different subtle ways to achieve delicate voicings with the choir in subsets of the optimum choice, I do concede that. [;)]

@evanevans said:

...I actually disagree with you that choral writing must adhere to those strict rules.

I never said that. Given the development of music, I prefer to think less in terms of rules as opposed to conventions within a particular style period. As 21st century composers, we have a wealth of conventions on which to draw - not be strictly shackled. That the nature of these conventions has been evolutionary suggests to me that they aren't categorically appropriate. I'm trying not to say, "rules are made to be broken" because it offers a crutch to young musicians looking for an excuse not to learn these conventions. Maybe something clearer might be "learn everything you can about what works musically and why. If it's Palestrina that works, apply it. If it's Stravinsky, don't forget Palestrina (he didn't) but use Stravinsky. If your own music calls for its own conventions, develop them in the context of the many great minds that have come before you."

I think academia's great failing is arrogance. With pedantic adherence to rules (which is helpful early on if one is to really learn them), if a musician is stifled along the way, he becomes polarized/defensive and cuts off his most important resource, knowledge. This happened to me and it wasn't until years later that I fell in with some academics that possessed a greater level of security and commitment who taught me the real "rules." All academics aren't arrogant; just some of the bad ones. The good ones are brilliant and my hope in mentioning it here is that young musicians reading this will seek out the best possible teaching they can find and embrace it. Yeah, it might involve a little self discipline (read disciple) but the only thing I can think of that could be healthy and strict at the same time might be a general dedication to music. Everything else is fair game…

Sorry, end of mantra less it hijack the thread. Yes, there are similarities between the brass choir and the vocal one. My point is that conventions which came from vocal writing suggest greater adherence to solutions drawn from its development, and caution in thinking of them as simply interchangeable with other choirs. In other words, I’d probably be a little more cautious writing parallel fifths in the voice than the brass, but wouldn’t hesitate to do it in either if it worked.

@evanevans said:

...I actually disagree with you that choral writing must adhere to those strict rules.

I never said that. Ok. Sorry. And FWIW I don't have time to read the rest of your post right now (off to pick up my son). But just wanted to say right off the bat that I was sorry for pinning you on thinking that.

Later.

peace,
Evan Evans

IMHO, let one rest a second [;)] That of course added nothing really useful to the contribution I guess...

No apology necessary, Evan. We agree on many things and where we haven't, it seems there's been good reason for it - which, in and of itself, is an opportunity to learn something by looking at it another way.

My point in clarifying it was not really directed to you as to others reading this in an open forum who might be negatively influenced by our comments. That's not to suggest that my comments are even worth reading, or not. But young musicians attempting to rationalize their way out of taking a tougher road will sometimes grasp at anything to make themselves "right." Unfortunately, I speak from experience and it was costly and time consuming to make up; a mistake I hope most will avoid.