I actually talk about a lot of that in depth in my Star Trek -TOS Theme thread, if you want to check it out!

One overriding thing which guides my orchestration, though, is that I'm very sensitive to the "sweet spot" of instruments: the range that just sits right with the instrument, that players love to play.  When the instrument and the player are in their favorite range, the sound is best, the attitude is best, the playing is best. I spent a lot of years in the percussion section of orchestras, counting rests and hating life, so when I write, one of my first thoughts is: how can I make this fun for the players?  While not trying to "overwrite," I like to change up the palette for the listener AND for the orchestra.  To date, players have been very vocal with me about how much they appreciate it.  And I think it shows in their playing most times.  They like technically challenging stuff, but not when it's fighting the instrument, or there's not enough breath planned, or the articulations are odd. I remember my second live session, the horns were struggling getting a particular sound out of this low B, and after a couple tries, one of them just says flat out, "Well, it's the lowest fucking note on the instrument!"  He was frustrated.  And I was embarrassed. And mind you, this is one of the absolute A-Call guys in town.  That little moment is with me all the time. You can always tell when players like the material: 1) they smile without meaning to and 2) they take the music home with them.  Believe it or not, that consideration is one of the principle things which guides my orchestrational choices. Let the instrument tell you when to use it, not the other way around.  

_Mike

Wow Mike, I just spent an hour or more reading through the entire star trek thread of yours. What an amazing thread..very informative and I learned a lot and in fact as some others have mentioned it inspired me greatly, as I write this I'm busting out some old scores to go study because your level of dedication is inspiring. I was astounded at the sheer volume of jealous enmity in that thread by 2 bit hacks incapable of seeing another great composer get his due. Well let them eat their hearts out and rot in their bitter envy. Like most readers I for one kept wanting to hear more and more of your methods.

One thing you didn't touch upon in that thread which I hope you can do here is your actual method of writing mockups on paper. Now, what I mean by "method" is, your approach in terms of which parts you write first, do you 'through compose' like Mozart did in the sense that  you write the most important parts first let's say, you write out a good chunk of just the melodic line (whether it be in the violins or etc) and then the accompanying bass for a few dozen measures (or maybe through til the end of the piece). Then you go back and begin working in the 2ndary embellishments like what needs to be doubled and then you add the least important harmonic elements, perhaps certain woodwinds and various inconsequential percussive elements (cow bells, triangles, and what have you).

OR on the other hand do you literally orchestrate everything down through each staff from the opening bar, i.e. you'll write in the bar 1 of violins basses, brass, woodwinds, everything basically..or is it a mixture etc...please go into as much detail as possible into your method.

Much appreciated!!

Oh I guess I should say, I didn't mean to drag the thread off topic, maybe that's what you were politely referring to when you sent me to the other thread, because you didn't want to turn this thread into a similar discussion. If that's the case, my apologies! Feel free to respond via private message if at all.

@mverta said:

I spent a lot of years in the percussion section of orchestras, counting rests and hating life, so when I write, one of my first thoughts is: how can I make this fun for the players?  While not trying to "overwrite," I like to change up the palette for the listener AND for the orchestra. 

I remember my second live session, the horns were struggling getting a particular sound out of this low B, and after a couple tries, one of them just says flat out, "Well, it's the lowest fucking note on the instrument!"  He was frustrated.  And I was embarrassed. And mind you, this is one of the absolute A-Call guys in town.  That little moment is with me all the time.

_Mike

My experience with big bands is so very similar.  I discovered VERY quickly (all those dirty looks--it only takes once!) to take advantage of the idiomatic nature of the instruments (as well as arranging conventions) as much as possible while making it interesting musically.  Everything tunes better, it swings better, and the music requires less rehearsal.

Clark

I started out writing big band stuff!  Bob Mintzer, Matt Harris, John Fedchock, Sammy Nestico; those were the guys who inspired me...

Regarding my writing process, I didn't know that's how Mozart wrote.  Lots of times I'll do that, where I'll write down who has the melody, section to section, and then fill it out later.  That's largely how I did this one.  But I have no "set" process.  Sometimes, if the orchestration is particularly tricky, I'll fully flesh out a section before moving on so I don't forget.  Other times - I do this one a lot - actually, let me detour for a second...

I believe very strongly in writing on paper moreso than on a computer.  I grew up "digital"; my first choice will always be for the convenience of computer-based stuff.  In fact, I started with Finale 1.0, and I had Performer 1.0 way back when.  It was only after many years that I went from the computer to the piano and paper-based writing, and here's one of the main reasons why:  I swear good orchestration "looks" a certain way on paper.  There is something to the weight and density of good writing that appears visually almost like art.  In my head I often can see "blocks" of "color" before the specific notes themselves, and this is how a lot of my initial passes look on paper.  For example, there'll be a fully-realized melody in the horns, say, and then I will just make some scribbles, or shading in the main accompanying group(s).  And then perhaps you'll see runs notated just with squiggly lines in strings and woods, or harp.  So at that point, it's more art than music.  But it gives me a sense of the weight on paper, quite literally taking shape like a painting.  On paper, you can see it all at one time, and from different angles; you can tilt the paper; watch the light play off the graphite as it shines.  There is something organic about it that you just can't get even with a portrait monitor and scroll wheel.  It helps me; it makes my writing better.  Plus, all the great music I'm inspired by was written that way.  So you don't "need" to change things up and use computers to write.  

And here's another thing.  A lot of stuff - a lot of great orchestration - sounds like total shit on the piano.  There are a lot of dense, dark things that will totally work on strings and in trombones or bassoons, that when attempted on the piano, sound so awful you don't understand why any composer would think it would actually work!  Ditto a lot of polytonal stuff.  But that's important - they had to KNOW it would work.  Their imagination was more engaged; they had to rely on a greater internal sense for what instruments could do, because they couldn't just pull up a cello pass and test it.  Yes, it's more convenient to be able to, but I've found that having to know those instruments so well one can "hear through" the piano makes for better orchestration and composition.  It's like taking the safety net out from under the tightrope.

I have an okay ear, but my goal is one day to be able to take pen to paper without ever actually having to hear the music.  I know exactly why - I'm afraid of going deaf.  It's an irrational fear, but hey, it's my hangup.  I'm afraid of losing my ability to write music, because contribution through music is how I derive my worth. So that is what drives a lot of my process: potentially unhealthy pathology. :)

_Mike

Mike I know exactly what you're talking about and it's one of the foremost reasons I was interested in your approach. I too try to strictly compose on paper as much as possible and stay away from both piano and computer other than to correct/check myself or on really difficult passages.

And on paper I feel, like you said, better able to visualize my music by using more areas of the brain for example as you said kicking in some sort of higher 'art' frequency and allowing that to help. What I mean by that is, sometimes on paper I don't simply get inspired just by the aural/sonic manifestations in my mind or inner ear, but by actual visual stimuli or mental/visual projections of how certain things "should look" on the score. And similarly alot of times on paper I do things you can't do in a notation software...for example many times you will get a fleeting idea that is so great that you can't hesitate even for a second to lose it because none of us have perfect control over our inner ear and so sometimes the grandest little flights of fancy and imagination can disappear within seconds and as such as I'm hurriedly rushing to notate it on paper I will often make otherwise inexplicable markings. As an example let's say I'm notating a melody in the violins and I want a certain accompaniment by the cellos that's very fast moving and sweeping, at the moment I don't want to focus on the 'craft' and mechanical harmonic/contrapuntal devices because as soon as I do I might lose that inspiration I just had for the original melody which I'm still writing as fast as I can before it disappears, so instead of turning that inspiration-channel off and focusing on writing the mechanical harmonic runs in the cellos, I might visualize the "MOTION" of the cello run as I can vaguely/distantly hear it in my mind so I will notate a vast sweeping line falling from the top of the staff then bending and arcing back upwards...then later as I'm done notating the melody I will return to that and actually mechanically place all the proper note lengths and accidentals and all that on this artistic sweeping 'line' that I just drew.

Also, many of the 'exercises' you mentioned in the star trek thread I myself have done though apparently not as regularly as you, but I try as often as I can to do all of the things you mentioned, well at least I used to more than I do now. But I used to listen to pieces and notate them as well, not exactly 'random' pieces, in my case it was pieces that were difficult for me to hear what the orchestration or harmony was so I would set myself up a challenge of trying to notate them just by litsening several times and then compare (well I wouldn't notate the entire piece or movement, usually just the first minute or two).

I also do speed exercises with my minor projects, for example if I'm working on something for someone, even if it has no deadline or a very loose deadline that's far away I will try to play a game with myself and pretend that the deadline is looming and give myself a certain amount of time to finish it. But by far my most important and regular (on a daily level) exercise is constantly listening to new music ACTIVELY, and what I mean by that is I never just listen to music for the sake of it, almost ALWAYS I am ACTIVELY attempting to decipher every single harmonic progression and orchestration that I'm hearing, and if I am stumped as is often the case then I will make an effort to locate the score and figure out how the certain effect was done that I couldn't figure out from listening. I too in a sense do this out of a slight fear of losing my hearing because it was only through his incredible skill of relative pitch and musical craft/technique that people like Beethoven or Smetana were able to continue creating masterpieces even after their hearing was lost because obviously after a certain point, your actual hearing becomes less important. I can write pretty decent pieces of work now strictly on paper without ever having to tap a single note on a keyboard or play into a computer because I know decent theory and can see and 'hear' each effect of every progression or note in my mind as it relates to the other notes and harmonies on the paper. This is sadly a skill that's dying fast and most modern hollywood composers like Hans Zimmer would not be able to even recreate Twinkle Twinkle Little Star on paper without the aid of a computer because their background is not of music composition but of pop and rock music and they don't have that extensive theory and ear training, they rely more on 'plonking away at the computer/keyboard' as Zimmer once said himself.

That's why I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of major hollywood composers are nothing more than really clever melody writers and rely more on orchestrators who would be more like you, guys that can compose their asses off in technical terms.

Oh and if it's any consolation, your method of composing preserves your hearing for far longer than the computer composers who are sitting all day long with headphones blasting their attempts into their ear drums. Similarly I'll spend half the time on paper in quiet solitude and am mostly on the computer only in the inputting/mixing stage.

It's amazing to think how incredible an inner ear and theory knowledge the masters of yore had. There are masterpieces like Bach's b minor mass for example that he literally never heard performed in his lifetime and yet it is perfect, that means he wrote all that wondrous counterpoint for so many voices without ever having the aid of a real orchestra or a computer program, it was done all through technique and the inner ear/relative pitch/solfege. Same goes for many works of Mozart, Schubert, and everyone else in between. Now that is a skill I envy.