@Horse Opera said:

What's funny is, I was thinking now that I have the solo strings library, I should really write a string quartet and see how capable I am when reduced to just four instruments.
-BW

That's a very good idea - course, it doesn't have to be strings - could be woodwinds for example. I did something recently that was just strings and a single clarinet using the VSL library and it's very refreshing - and one almost thinks one's just been released from jail.

And it doesn't have to that long either. Too many pieces I hear on a personal level are far too long. They go on and on and on and on and on. Think about doing something in the 1.30 to 2 minute range - that way you need to state what you're wishing to state within stricter parameters and get the hell on with it.

Based on your filmscore subject - this is more to the point than writing something that last for 5 minutes plus.

True, I was thinking of doing a piece that would be a string quartet and a woodwind quartet (an octatet?) because I am quite smitten with the clarinet and it's siblings.

I agree with you on the length of pieces. Especially when one is still in the embryonic stages of learning. It is far too daunting to try to write a large, epic, cohesive piece. I found that out early on.

I've mostly been working on quick sketches that rely on one or two themes and just try to find interesting ways of orchestrating the same music.

I've also found that less is indeed more with a lot of things. I actually wrote one of my favorite pieces with no violins! When I first started I thought that I should try to cram as many instruments as possible, but this is actually in bad form, especially if one is tryint to write piano passages, which I am quite fond of. Anyways I'm blathering!

-BW

@Horse Opera said:

I agree with you on the length of pieces. Especially when one is still in the embryonic stages of learning. It is far too daunting to try to write a large, epic, cohesive piece. I found that out early on.
-BW

Well yes - most large scale things are daunting for everyone - and not everyone has the time to be bothered - or they use an orchestrator(s). Most orchestration is doubling anyway - when it gets really interesting, it's always recognizable as just that - very interesting. It depends why musicians want to write for a full orchestra in the first place.

Anyway, I'm covered in paint here and need to get back to work.

The value when working with four voices is that the emphasis is in the part writing, which is the basis for good composition. Good part writing is the lost art right now. Anything that doesn't reduce down to strong relationships among it's basic parts will not sound good small (quartet) or large (orchestra.)

Working with a string quartet or other small ensemble gives the transparency to see what you really have and whether it really works.

Dave Connor

@dpcon said:

Working with a string quartet or other small ensemble gives the transparency to see what you really have and whether it really works.

I agree completely. That's the main reason why I think I should attempt a quartet. Do people do quintets with 2 cellos, or is that rare?

Also, I'm listening to the quartets of Beethoven, Mozart, Bartok and Shostakovich, any other suggestions?

-BW

BW,

The advice you just got from Paul and Dave is the foundation of what separates average composers from great ones. Dave mentioned the lost art of part writing.
The single most important skill to have. Today's music, and that's a definition by opinion more than an accepted fact, is missing in a sizable percentage the skill and craft of part writing.
I won't speak for Paul or Dave, but in my days as a music student part writing was an ongoing lesson, and i scribbled hundreds of 32 bar, 4 part attempts, tearing up, changing, editing in the search for good, reliable part writing. It was an essential skill that i rely on more than ever today.
If there is one skill that, with determinaton and practise, will give you a better chance of getting your ideas into a musically interesting piece, it's part writing.
Write it down first. Then input it, then listen, and hear where it doesn't work.
And again. And again. Until you get past the conscious effort of remembering what goes where, and instinct takes over, and you can invent and playback in your head, 4 part inventions that work, and make sense.
Dave also mentioned transparency. As well as the important point he made about hearing everything work, you also get to learn just how different instrument combinations work or don't work together, and then the library of 'sound' ideas increases in your head.
If you approach part writing as an interesting challenge and an essential skill for now and the future, it will be easier to write piece after piece searching for the best result. Paul made a great point of keeping them short. 32 bars is easier to analyse than something 200 bars long. Start small, work up to the bigger stuff.

Write 4 part until you can do it in your sleep.
Then add an extra voice, and do that unitl it works.
Then another, and so on.
Before you know it, you'll be writing for full orchestra with confidence, variety, and interest, without the feeling of taking something on that's too big, and get overwhelmed.
I wish you the very best in this and the future. You've asked one of the most musically intelligent questions you can, (In my opinion.) and that bodes well for the future

Regards,

Alex.

@Horse Opera said:

Also, I'm listening to the quartets of Beethoven, Mozart, Bartok and Shostakovich, any other suggestions?

-BW

Keep listening [H]

That's some of the greatest music ever written (for any medium) you've listed there.

What I would do is study the most basic text on four part harmony and practically memorize the rules. Then I would look and see what rules they follow religiously and what rules they break freely. Not for the rules sake but for the sound that results from these principles.

Example: When the third is in the bass of a major triad do not double it in the upper voices. See if they break this (which can happen because smooth voice leading may require it) and how they treat it or relieve it or whatever.

Sounds like fun really.

Dave Connor

Edit. Alex mentioned Paul's idea of brevity which is spot on because excercises should be short. Brahms used to write four part as well as countrapuntal excercises then throw them away. People thought he was throwing away masterpieces. We see the masterful results in his music.

DC

BW,
Here's another exercise that gave me a much greater understanding of writing for full orchestra.
Take 8 bars of a full score. (Busy part with lots going on). Rewrite onto 4 staves, 2 treble, 2 bass, ensuring you get the pitch right. (KB's sound one octave lower etc.)Length of notes isn't crucial, write it all as minims. Take note of how many notes appear in unison (Same pitch). In a C chord, you might have 4 C4's, 3 G4's, etc.
Take out all but one note of each pitch.
Now reduce to a piano stave. Take out any further duplicates.
And then look carefully at what you have left.
4 Part harmony? Maybe an added colour note here and there?
And Paul's point about doubling is demonstrated clearly.
Now, if you can, listen to the full orchestra playing, while you look at the reduced piano score. You'd be surprised what you can actually hear, with the simple visual prompt in front of you.

Regards,

Alex.
p.s. My first exercise in this was Beethoven's First. A wonderful example of simplicity in orchestration, and harmonic structure.

BW,
If you want good examples of scores, you have the best two books on the market full of them (IMHO)

Regards,

Alex.

BW, a reasonable example.
Consider the stately introduction.
Although the first statement of phrase is written low in a fairly low pitch, the repeat with a lovely descant by the bassoon, and clarinets predominant in the harmony give you a clearer idea of part construction. Note that Ludwig uses a simple repetition of rhythm to give the work 'motion', enabling him to write with more freedom when the bassoon plays the descant. Explanation is, the chords are simple, and don't become difficult at all. The Rhythmic repetition gives 'colour' without requiring additional notes or auxilary lines to make the work interesting. This is orchestration. The chord structure is harmony, and i've heard many a composer confuse the two. They are related (Melody, Harmony, and Rhythm), but not always the same. Too many composers search for chords to give a piece interest, and Melody and Rhythm don't alwayss get their fair share. It's an important reason why much of today's film music sounds so much the same with pondorous long chords, stacked on top of each other. All basic harmony and little variety in melody or Rhythm. (Or to use a thoroughly English phrase, all meat and no potatoes!)
More examples.
In your Treatise (Berlioz/Strauss) go to examples 66 and 73.

And to your other point, something we've all done is to overorchestrate, and good examples of how to write Orchestral Tutti's without overdoing it can be found in the appendice at the back of Rimsky Korsakov's Principles of Orchestration.
(Single Tutti Chords)

Regards,

Alex.

Thanks again Alex. I will try out everything you've mentioned. Maybe once I get some pieces together I can post them and you guys can tell me what I'm doing wrong. [:)]

BW

Brahms. Huh. Typical Taurus!

[:D]

@Horse Opera said:

Alex, when you talk about part writing....what you are refering to? -BW

Part writing or 4 part writing (based upon the four main registers of the human voice) is the art and science of the relationship of these 4 voices to each other. These voices are like building blocks which can be stacked upon each other in different ways as they move linearally through time. They may be constructed well or poorly i.e. strong and resonant relationships or weak cancelling resonance, relationships.

These differences between weak and strong relationships are easily heard by the discerning ear and therefore certain rules were long ago established to help the student/composer avoid the resulting weak or bad sound.

One foundational principle is contrary motion. if a voice (say the top or soprano voice) moves downward, than moving the bass (or another of the remaining 2 voices) upward will be neccessarily strong. In principle generally but if another fundamental rule is broken and this same movement results in an octave (cancelling resonance) then you may still have poor construction. If the remaining 2 voices are interjected in a way to relieve or strengthen this weakness then you have solved a musical problem (which is much of the essence of composition: problem solving or filtering out weaknesses or making things work.

Bachs Remenschneider collection of Chorales (for voice) is a textbook of unerring musical construction in 4 part writing.

Dave Connor

@PaulR said:

Brahms. Huh. Typical Taurus!

[:D]

You're saying that a typical Tauras is a musical genius?

What sign are you again?

DC

BW and Dave,
I was busy writing when the internet connection died.
And maybe that's a good thing, because Dave explained it far more succinctly than the explanation i was struggling with.
So the basics.
From the top down, and assume that middle C is C4.

Soprano
Alto
Tenor
Bass

4 parts, and the building blocks for harmony, and part writing.
For the following assume one semibreve/wholenote per bar.
First chord C major consisting of (bottom up) : Bass voice C3. Tenor Voice G3.
Alto voice E4. Soprano voice G4.
Next bar.
G major chord consisting of (bottom up) : Bass voice G3. Tenor voice B3. Alto Voice D4. Soprano Voice G4.

In this basic example you can see Dave's point of contrary motion.
The bass voice goes up from C3 to G3. The Alto voice goes down from E4 to D4.
This is considered a strong motion. Note the soprano voice can stay the same as G4 is common to both chords. (This a common trick of Beethoven's, and if you play this cadence with strings, you'll hear the strength of leaving the soprano voice as is. Use the example of the introduction of Ludwig's 7th, and you'll hear quite clearly the common note in the upper voices (either Alto or Soprano) sustained in pitch and voice for more than one bar.)

I very respectfully suggest BW, that you invest in two books. Harmony and Counterpoint. (A third book to add is part writing.)
These will, if you decide to purchase, become important reference books on your musical journey, and will prove invaluable time after time.
Dave has also pointed you in the right direction for guidance and study. Whatever Bach wrote, he understood the construction of 4 part writing, (and invention) and listening and studying to the Chorales will prove invaluable.

Good luck and my regards,

Alex.

@PaulR said:

Brahms. Huh. Typical Taurus!

[:D]

You're say that a typical Tauras is a musical genius?

What sign are you again?

DC


Ummm - Taurus. [:O]ops: [:O]ops: [:O]ops:

BW,
You'll also no doubt see in the example i gave, that in the second chord (G) the bass note and soprano note end up in octaves. This isn't a good idea (generally) as it weakens the structure, although many composers past and present have broken this rule with varying results. I gave it as a basic example of contrary motion.
I don't know if you understand the principle of inversions, so i'll give a brief example.

A three note C chord in ROOT position consists of: C4,E4,G4.
A three note C chord in 1ST inversion consists of: E4,G4,C5.
A three note C chord in 2ND inversion consists of: G4,C5,E5.

When you begin constructing your 4 part harmony, and you wish a smooth transition from one note to another it's good to remember inversions.
The example i gave for contrary motion was as follows.
1st chord: C3 G3 E4 G4
2nd Chord G3 B3 D4 G4

The bass is doubled in octaves with the soprano line.
Alternatives?
1st chord: C3 G3 E4 G4
2nd chord: B2 G3 D4 G4

You'll note that the bass line has gone down to the third of G. This is quite common in earlier music, but should be used wisely. Also note that your next chord because of the B2 could be C major again or A minor. (The minor of C)

Regards,
Alex.

No worries Paul, we already knew your sign and your genius.

British keyboard players you know? You guys f***ing ROCK! (and write a decent ditty as well.)

DC

Paul,
I've never seen a more blatant attempt to elicit attention!
And there's me thinking Taureans were calm, patient, types.

Certainly blown that illusion out of the water!

Regards,

Alex.

(Not Taurean)
[H]