Now you´re talking!

...

I have no formula or tricks for making something sound good and don't like people pretending they do. It is knowledge, skill, inspiration which are difficult to come by - no magic formula or "secret" tricks. If you want to argue with that, go ahead.

@William said:

I have no formula or tricks for making something sound good and don't like people pretending they do. It is knowledge, skill, inspiration which are difficult to come by - no magic formula or "secret" tricks. If you want to argue with that, go ahead.

I 99% agree with you on this. However, I must admit that I have used what I consider to be tricks when preparing reduced orchestrations of the standard ballet repertoire. Some of what I do is not strictly speaking real orchestration, but I am faking a sound that really needs more instruments. For example if there is only one flute available, then I need a fake to give the impression of 2 flutes and a piccolo. I consider my soloution to be a trick, simply because it is not the correct way to do it.

DG

New version up:

http://www.buist.org/david/WeddingOverturefullGS3mod3.mp3

Comments welcome!

Enjoyed listening to the latest mix -- having just gotten sound and internet together on one computer again, finally. This may be your intention, but there are a lot of orchestrational effects piled on in a short time, appropriate maybe for an apotheosis after 20 minutes or so, but (for me) not in a single short piece. But they are all used well, and that might be your goal, so it works well.

If you wanted to tame things down some, then it might be worth identifying just what is the central music, beyond "whooshhhh bum bum de dum" (joking here) -- and presenting it more clearly.

Thanks for listening and commenting, Gugliel. My earlier version was criticized for not being "thick" enough. Are you suggesting that I have "overdone" it now? Or is your comment directed more at the melodic/harmonic/rhythmic content than at the orchestration?

Actually the whole piece is intended as an "apotheosis" of sorts. It is meant to be played at the end of the marriage ceremony to accompany the newly weds exit from the church.

I don't think you overdid it at all. Nice piece. My only criticism is try to make things a little less perfectly synced - like the octave strings and in general the attacks on full chords played by the trumpets - because occasionally that makes it sound more electronic and keyboardish. But overall it has a very bright and festive sound, just right for wedding music.

Of course, not for Mathis's wedding. He would pick something by Penderecki to establish a joyous atonal atmosphere. Or maybe do a time-stretched wedding march. And probably scare off his bride in the process.

I wouldn´t know though how to scare my bride even more than I do already...

Let me throw in my 2 cents (that's all it's worth).

These discussions would go great at the 'Faculty House' - the idea that everything is all about 'good writing' is absolutely true. However, most of you guys (me included) are not writing for a 'real' orchestra. That's why you term what you do as 'mock-ups'. Great writing also applies to what you do using virtual instruments. All the tricks you can use to 'fool' the ear are valid as long as the final product sounds 'real' to the listener. I don't get the point of the argument.

If a legato sample is not long enough you pull every trick from every technical corner to make it sound as if it is. Just look at the threads in the VSL forum - it's all about tricks. Even Evan Evans uses tricks which he keeps close to his vest - his stuff sounds great - so what?! 'Nuff said.

drg, to what or whom are you referring? I don´t get you.

QUOTE: "Tricks" are for fools and prostitutes.
There is only good writing, or bad writing.

Hi Mathis,

Sorry for the confusion but I was referring to the 'academic' discussion following William's quote above - it just set me off.

What do you mean? I like irritating discussions too, but didn't understand what you were getting at.

Hey All,

I think William's irritation is well directed... "tricks", with reference to orchestration, aren't really tricks at all, but rather technique. Technique can't really be kept secret, and if it is, it's to the detriment of music as a whole. At the same time, though, there are many "tricks" to making something sound 'live' using samples.

Mind you, one of the best still seems to be that of making every effort to be true to the instruments themselves, and to treat the samples as though they were small fragments of a performance, which you're kind of reanimating... like Dr. Frankenstein. After all (and this is even more the case with VSL than most libraries) that's exactly what they are -- severely fragmented performances. When you put them together in a way that would make sense as an integrated performance, they sound better... surprise, surprise! But then, this isn't really a "trick" at all, is it?... so, William's still got a point.

J.

That is what I meant, yes, JBM. If you are really a composer, i.e. if you have any composing talent at all - everything else is mere technique, which you can either learn from a book or from a school or a big shot composer or just figure out on your own if you simply work at your own music carefully. There are no secrets or tricks. That is bullshit. The ultimate "trick" is love of what you are doing. That will teach you everything you need to know.

I would never make it as a teacher. I'd send everyone home after one day.

@William said:

....There are no secrets or tricks. That is bullshit....

That statement will have Shore, Howard, Zimmer, Elfman, Grusin and the boys rolling in the aisles. Academically, what you say is true but naive - it does NOT apply to the world in which I've been making a very comfortable living for 25 years. There are secrets and tricks and that's no bullshit!

They're not secrets or tricks to me - everything discussed here is nothing but technique, and can be learned with a little application.

You guys are in some sort of semantic/ethical battle... There is something kind of smug, though, about calling techniques "tricks", and certainly about keeping them secret. I think that's what's annoying William. I mean, can there be "secrets" in a score of Bach, Mahler, Berio, or Rihm? Of course not. Because they're published for everyone to see and to learn from. It may be the case that someone "did it first", but that means little once a new technique has become established. After that point, everyone uses it according to their taste, and a dialogue begins -- a process which provides the basis for developing a musical culture. If we all walked around speaking our own secret languages, we wouldn't get much done... But then, this is all "academic", isn't it?

The keeping of secrets may, on the other hand, be one of the things that keeps "very comfortable" composers very comfortable! [;)]

My secrets:

1) that quintuplets are the new triplets
2) that ornamentation is long overdue for a comeback
3) that multi-octave scales produce the best polytonality (and the most
bearable kind of homophony - see 4)
4) that homophony should be reserved for special occasions only
5) that key signatures should be banned, regardless of whether
the music itself adheres to a given scale
6) that the closest one should come to direct repetition is to repeat
the pitches while varying the rhythm, or vice versa, but never to repeat
both verbatim

Now everyone can make music exactly like mine! (huh? wait a minute... come to think of it... why would anyone want to?...) [;)]

J.

Hi William and JBM,

I'm not trying to start any kind of argument. I essentially agree with both of your positions. But I'm not talking about music the way it used to be done. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent reading scores and then listening to recordings - trying to figure out how these guys did what they did.

But I'm referring to the highly techological world in which we now find ourselves living and working. It does all boil down to semantics. What William calls technique, I'm calling 'tricks', let me now call them 'techniques'. There is no one I know of in this business today who doesn't have a host of 'techniques' which thet're not willing to reveal. It's a highly competitive business after all - why give away 'trade secrets'?

I could sit here and try to figure out what some guy is doing but by the time I figure it out, the train may have already left the station and some other guy with a 'bag-of techniques' is making hay.

Just try to write one of these guys who are successful - asking them how they do 'such-and-such' - just don't hold your breath waitng for the answer. It ain't coming! But there's nothing wrong with that, at least, I don't think there is. This is not academia - I know, I've spent many of years in that environment and I loved every minute of it but now, I have to pay for my tuna sandwiches at the 'Faculty Club'!

At the end of the day, it's really is a pleasure to exchange ideas with you - I appreciate all your work and your dedication to music. Thanks.

Just a sidenote: I was never interested in keeping any secrets. My experience is that whenever I told of something unusual I did (maybe a trick?) I got something new in return. That way I learned most of my techniques. That´s also the way how this forum works and why you and I can aquire an amazing amount of knowledge here.
Keeping secrets is therefore not recommended.
(Well, actually speaking of myself, I couldn´t do no other anyway, that´s how I´m constructed. [[;)]] )

jbm, I love your secrets. Watch out, I´ll steel them! [:D]