The second quote is reasonable, but the first one is simply dumb.

...

...

Well, I´m always good for Ordnung und Disziplin! [:D]

I have no clue about instrumentation, I never went through some real theoretical breakdown. If there´s a question about instrumentation popping up and I think I can answer it (which is rarely the case) I´ll answer it.

Though I hate to contradict the great Bruckner I agree with that first quote being wrong. The main reason is some of the musicians I admire most - for example the great Blues players - never learned any rules but just absorbed them. Learning should probably be unconscious anyway. If you are interested you will learn almost instantly without rules. If you are not you will forget every rule a few minutes after learning it. Though maybe rules can inspire you sometimes. I remember being told to avoid all parallel fifths in music theory. I did so in the class exercise, but then went home and wrote an entire piece based on parallel fifths. I felt much better afterward.

@hermitage59 said:

There have been many threads and discussions here about orchestration and it's role in the whole composition process. Those who have read my collection of posts will understand i consider it essential as a skill, equal to composition.

Are you interested?
Regards to you all,
Alex.

Go for it Alex - however, I'm not quite sure what you mean and how it would work.
This would mean members having to post examples of work - or just snippets from work they are having trouble with?

I would be no use anyway, because my ideas about orchestration are shall we say, a little different.

I'm more interested in the Herrmann style of orchestration and even more so in that 'sound'. That sound is based on weird micing techniques tht Herrmann discovered when working for CBS radio - but a lot of members don't like it. They want everything to sound like a 'real' orchestra' when it's being played live in an auditorium. I have no interest in that particularly, because when things come out of TV speakers, it's not really relevent.

Anyway, very quick, garbled ramble here because I now find i have to go out for a walk (if you can call it that in my case) along the beach. Humph!

@Another User said:

Of course I am continously learning, try to improve every day, but nobody will ever stop me again writing my own music, especially not prussian rulekeepers. My advise: Never listen to that phrase, just start making music.

This is the year 2005, why do we teach people 1850-style? Do we have not moved on in our culture? Why is it always "Ordnung und Disziplin" (i.e. order & discipline, these so called german values)

Well of course [:)]
You must have met some really strange teachers.
I am a german music teacher myself. When I was a little younger (I'm still 27) I had the same attitude: Why should I learn such stuff? Why can't I write my own music? Why am I not allowed to do this or that (even when it sounds great) and so on...

Today I suffer from these thoughts cause I realized that I can't combine perfect clean composing style with my creativity all the time. We are talking about symphonic instrumentation and composition. Jazz is something totally different as well as Herrmann is (He was a genius in his own way. I currently teach Psycho score at school).
I admit that the first Bruckner quote is unfair because you need to know the context in order to understand what he meant when he said that to his students (after he did he always blinked with his eyes and said "But if you take a little freedom you have more [:)]. But he always knew that you need all the tools that are available in order to compose with your total creativity in action.

That so called Ordnung und Disziplin is absolutely fine - it was in 1850 and still is today. There's so much music junk out there cause so many talented musicians think they only need their creativity. And everyone wonders why their music is forgotten soon after it's composed. Those old guys survived until today - there's a reason for that [[;)]]

Best Regards

To All,
I was thinking of a pool of ideas, related directly to at least basic guidelines for where each instrument sounds generally best, that sort of thing. For example, unless you do it for a reason, you don't try to write flutes below bassoons.
There are certainly no hard and fast rules, nor should there be. But there are some principles that can in effect, unlock more of the creative process. Not all knowledge is bad, it's just the delivery that can be daunting, and sometimes a complete waste of time. (e.g. uninspired, mechanical instruction)

There are certain styles that have a particular sound, for example Beethoven is quite different to Tchaikovsky. Why?
And John Williams writes in a different way to Bernstein.
And where do they put the instruments to create that sound?

Which combination of instruments at what dynamic level produce an organ sound without the organ?


I've had a couple of emails already from people who would like to read music and understand a little more about the process and why. It may be useful, and potentially fruitful.





Regards

@ralf said:

Jazz is something totally different as well as Herrmann is (He was a genius in his own way. I currently teach Psycho score at school).

What do your students think of the Psycho score Ralf? Where did you get the score btw - I have been trying to get Herrmann scores for years without any luck so far.

Here we go with some tips and tricks.

The orchestra is generally thought of as 4 separate families, Strings, Woodwind, Brass and Percussion.
However, sometimes this way of understanding creates a reluctance in composing to mix them unless in loud passages (Tutti). And there acertain combinations that fit together better than others.

Strings and woodwinds are fairly close bedfellows. But because of the differences in tone, a woodwind instrument at a fairly medium dynamic marking, say mf, can easily stick out and not blend so easily.

It is a general guideline that in normal 'play' at a medium dynamic, 1 w/w instrument will equal a section of strings, based on tone and naturally more penetrating sound.

So, marking the w/w one dynamic marking lower can help. This doesn't affect the strings, but the tone of the w/w e.g. clarinet tends to thicken the sound without
being noticed.
Strings= mf
Clarinet=mp

Like any guideline this is not hard and fast and depends what you're trying to do.

Excluding percussion, the next combination of W/W and Brass is fairly close too.
The W/W tends to soften the brass sound, and the brass in turn add weight to the W/W. Again this depends on markings. At a soft volume, e.g pp, the trombones and tuba blend fairly well with bassoons and clarinets, as do the horns, giving the W/W a weightier feel without the penetrating tone.

More to follow.

Regards,

Alex.

And in addition there are a couple of instruments that help the blending process.

Bassoons have long been written with French Horns, as they add a little sharpness and timbre without sticking out. Likewise, a combinatin of Bassoons, Clarinets and French Horns can create a smooth full sound at a soft dynamic without any of the instruments sounding out of place.

It's also intersting to note that one brass instument, trumpet or trombone generally equals 2 horns. So when you write a brass section piece it's worth bolstering the horns to match the sound more closely and get better balance.

Regards,

Alex.

This is generally true for horns and W/W as well. 2 Horns to one clarinet seems to blend well.

Strings and Brass are further apart and it's normally harder to blend the two families. The tones are quite distinctive and tend to stay separate in the 'ear'.

So, back to our link instruments.

Strings at mf
Trumets and trombones at mf

Bassons and horns, or clarinets and horns provide a useful link and help merge the two families closer together.


Next, we want to thicken the Cellos a little in an accompanying part, possible longer notes. French horns are good at this, and 2nd or 4th horns provide a nice blend with cellos for a fuller sound, without destroying the sound of the cellos. This again depends on dynamics. The clarinets too are useful, especially with the violas. If the violas are written against full sections of 1st and second violins, it's possible and helpful to add the clarinets to the violas to bolster their part(Again the horns can fill this role if they are written below middle C or close to it). Makes an interesting sound too.

More to follow,

Regards,

Alex.

It's fairly important to note that horns don't behave like other sections.

Horn players in a modern orchestra tend to be specialist 'high or low' musicians.
Because of the nature of the instrument and the demands placed on it, the Horn section is generally split as follows:

1st Horn=High
2nd Horn=Low
3rd Horn=High
4th Horn Low

And high or low means pitch.


Alex.

@hermitage59 said:

And high or low means pitch.

Oh, I thought you meant drinking level..

That's in another section under 'Instrument Families........Consumption!'

Regards

Alex!

@PaulR

My pupils (at the age of 16) were very impressed and thought that Herrmann did a good job with the Prelude. The shower scene was a little different though. They laughed about the melon cut sounds... Oh well - those young folks today...

I agree that it's very difficult to get your hands on Herrmann sheet music. I found the first bars from the prelude in a school book as piano arrangement. The scores are not that hard to find I think...

@Another User said:

They laughed about the melon cut sounds... Oh well - those young folks today...

...perhaps because it is such a horror/thriller staple these days. The original becomes a cliché because it was original...

@ralf said:

@PaulR

My pupils (at the age of 16) were very impressed and thought that Herrmann did a good job with the Prelude. The shower scene was a little different though. They laughed about the melon cut sounds... Oh well - those young folks today...

I agree that it's very difficult to get your hands on Herrmann sheet music. I found the first bars from the prelude in a school book as piano arrangement. The scores are not that hard to find I think...

\
@Ralf

Can't get the Herrmann scores anywhere, which is a pain, because the one mockup I would do would be the opening to Vertigo - just for the hell of it. Naturally, it would be really good! [:D] [:P]

Yes, your pupils sound very well educated - the very best score ever written to film, arguably. And also, in my view, they are quite correct to laugh at certain points in Psycho because a lot of it is supposed to be funny in a typical perverse Hitchcockian way. That was the nature of Hitchcock - humour and lots of pratical and dirty jokes on and off the sets of all his films.

@Wellsdeckers

That is of course quite correct. Psycho set the seal on the genre. A style within the genre that has been copied to the point of destruction and of course Hitchcock KNEW what he had created at the time - also being the unacredited producer - thus owning a very large part of the film.

Interestingly, and perhaps not so coincidental, one of his old sparing buddies Michael Powell made a similar style of film in the same year as Psycho - called Peeping Tom. Powell was one of our foremost directors of all film history - a genius of sorts. Ironically, Peeping Tom was slaughtered by the critics and destroyed Powell's reputation totally - whereas on the other side of the Atlantic, Psycho didn't get accepted by critics all that well either, and yet, made Hitchcock one of the most bankable directors of all time, if he wasn't already.

Nowadays, both Psycho and Peeping Tom are regarded as classics within their particualr genre and obviously quite rightly so.

Of the nine or so films Herrmann scored for Hitchcock, not one of them was even nominated for an Oscar - not even Vertigo, North by Northwest or Psycho. In the year 1960, when Psycho was released (no joke intended) - nominations for filmscore included Sparticus, The Magnificent Seven etc.

Naturally, the Academy gave it to Exodus. Who the f88k remembers that these days. [:D]

@PaulR said:

[quote=ralf]@PaulR
Naturally, the Academy gave it to Exodus. Who the f88k remembers that these days. [:D]

That's why they call it "HollyWood"... :cry
(my late reply but very interesting point @paulr)

jacKuLL