Ivan, I have to say that your question is so intelligent you obviously know what you're doing already!

But it is a very interesting thread because it is about the most basic process. It's very hard to think about, in fact. Maybe most people do these things without being fully aware of what they're doing. I know I do. If I analyze what I've done - and I would be curious to know if other composers do something similar - any musical idea seems to start as a motif or melody that has a harmonic basis that isn't heard but felt. Also a feeling of some potential - as if you feel more can grow from it.

The writing is really "specifying" making what was abstract into something specific. I just sketch messy things that I myself often cannot read, and then try and do instrumentation and counterpoint. Often things are almost unavoidably for brass, or strings, or whatever because of the emotion of the music. In other words it is just a process of getting what you feel about the music somehow into the actual written-down score. However you do it! Though I am probably more chaotic in composing something than I should be. I sometimes feel as if I have a lot of pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and just keep shaking them and pushing them around until I have an order that seems to conform to their real shape. With film music it is easier in a way because the film demands certain things and rules out others. The form of the music comes from the film.

Ivan,

There probably isn't just one approach to film scoring. All composers would approach the same way if there was and we know this is not true.

In film the scene is most important. What's the scene calling for? A contrast to what's happening visually and emotionally? Such as a painter painting huge mountains decides a little brook in the foreground would be nice. That is to say if huge emotions are being played on the screen you might not want huge music but small, to avoid bombast and cliche'. Or does the scene need to be "helped" such as the pacing on the screen is not fast enough and the director wants you to give a greater sense of urgency musically.

Once you have decided on the best solution to "underscoring" what's up on the screen, the question is how do YOU work best when creating music? If you work from an orchestral pallette (as many of us do) and in this case decided to do a "small" cue: try something. A string line, a clarinet, piano or whatever. If it's working it's working and if it's not it's not. Using the piano to articulate a line or harmony is fine. If you come up with a line that works then you can decide whether it would be better in another instrument. If you are trying to find something harmonically (on the piano) you may find that the piano itself is working best and if not try it in another choir: strings, brass, voices etc.,

Let's say voices work best. Would a solo instrument obligato work? Or does it call too much attention to itself?

I appreciated your mention of the difference between classical forms such as sonata and film. In film the form is given to you in the arc of the scene. I have always appreciated that in film writing because the problem of form (a big issue in abstract music) is already solved for you.

You will get many different replies I imagine on this - all valid I'm sure.

Dave Connor

[quote=William] - any musical idea seems to start as a motif or melody that has a harmonic basis that isn't heard but felt. Also a feeling of some potential - as if you feel more can grow from it.

Thats about a perfect way of putting it for me as I can think of William. Yes, thats how it works for me and I dare say a lot, if not most writers; I would hope so, anyway.

Of course the sonata form is almost always going to be irrelevant within the framework of a film. You are dictated to by a diredtor for a start, and usually they don't adhere to musical law if you take my meaning.

With regard to 4 part writing, you may well wish to stretch the parts up and down on your imaginary score and see what works. Sometimes this may not be necessary. The scene may call for simplicity. Endless computations could occur. Dave considers this very well in his post.

I don't know for sure if this still occurs, but some writers couldn't actually play a musical instrument. They were known as 'hummers' and got good orchestrators to score out the whole deal for them.

Some writers just borrow from different genres for instance and try and fit them to different scenes. I was watching a film last night called The Mark of Zorro. Great fun film. Listen to the filmscore. One minute your'e listening to some kind of Rodrigo balls up and the next your'e listening to Jerry Goldsmiths Alien.

You were right Ivan. You question, albeit a really good one, has finally driven me mad.

One thing I failed to mention is the ultimate goal of relating to the orchestra as a single instrument so to speak. Just as we relate say to a single synthesizer keyboard. If I'm aware of all the "sounds" on a keyboard (anything from extremely electronics sounds, to Rhodes, to whatever) then I have a good handle on how things are going to sound without having to play them (by virtue of familiararity.) I don't have to play a Fender Rhodes patch to know how it's going to sound. I also don't need to play a french horn part to know how it will sound.

It seems to me that ideally - writing for the orchestra should be notes going straight on the page in the actual instrument at conception and then fine tuning using various principles.

For example:
If I hear an aggressive rapid passage in an upper register I'm not just hearing notes but the instrument that will play it, like strings. I may after the fact decide to "strengthen" this passage with a flute (which is an application of an orchestration principle following an original creative idea.) The creative idea was NOT an orchestration question. It was a compositional idea that happened to include all aspects of the sound - aggressive string sound.

Even when composers "sketch" in 4 parts on piano score they don't do it in a vacum. They know already what they're writing and hearing. The orchestration that follows then becomes an enhancement to what was already pretty clear in their mind.

Does this sound right gentlemen?

DC

wow! thanks for all your great answers! in fact I have always had in mind some points like the ones you are mentioning, it makes me think I'm on the good road to film scoring, as despite my lack of a full musical training this is too how I think things should be done! this is so great guys, not only I love this library, but also the pro people writing here, you sure know what you are talking about... I'm investing all that I got for music, leaving other things behind, and scoring without having completed my musical studies, I have done some films following my own instincts, sometimes with great results but also aware of my lack of technique too, but I am always learning something new everyday... [[;)]]

everyone is welcome to leave their opinion on how they like to write music (not only for films) [[;)]]

Regards,

Ivan.

Dave,

That not only sounds right but it is put so well, in a way I never consciously thought of. If you actually have written for orchestra enough, it indeed does become like a single great instrument.

Ivan,

That is great you are investing everything - go for it. (But save at least a little money for food and shelter.)

I'm not sure you really need my answers because you seem to be aware of all the things any good composer worries about. I really like your attitude, and if you get any answers yourself, please let me know! Also, you've got a great approach with learning something new everyday. I just wish most people had that attitude...

[quote=Tycheth]I'm investing all that I got for music, leaving other things behind,

Steady on, old boy, we don't want to get you into trouble. [:D]

What a great attitude you have. Positive. That makes up for any lack of so called technique in my book. I must have felt like this once.

Envy.

I agree with Paul and William that Ivan has a very good attitude with his balanced self appraisal and tremendous enthusiasm and openness.

It's true that this type of thinking is what brings someone to the tools neccessary for more cogent self expression. "Technique" is just sort of knowing how to hold the paint brush when painting the vistas that seem to come so readily to the human spirit.

Dave

Excellent discussion Folks...

I have a process question. I am a relative new comer to orchestral writing. I have been composing on classical guitar for many years until I recently discovered that it had become impossible for me to play what I was hearing so ultimatley I chose to remove the limitation I had imposed on myself. Now I'm in big trouble!.

It seems to me that great orchestral writing has everything to do with relating to the entire orchestra as one living and breathing singular entity. It's so obvious once the masters have done all the hard work and bring this to light.

In great work everthing so naturally seems to call and respond with grace.
How do you all find your way to this sense? I am wondering if some of the magic is in the patterns that appear on the score itself...kind of an instinct about where things are placed visually to make sense aurally. I realise this is a sweeping and broad topic! I would be interested in your comments around how you witness your scores unfolding.
Thanks!

Robert,

Every imaginable approach will work for you at this stage. Your own suggestion of visual clarity equaling musical clarity is often true.

Here's some tips:

Listen to symphonic literature with the score through both ends of the telescope so to speak. That is, sit back and watch everything go by (perhaps tracking with the elements that the composer is emphasizing such as a melody and how he has managed to draw your attention there.) This cursory approach entrusts the learning process to the subconscious and will prove fruitful all along the way.

Then find a passage of interest to you (which could be two or three measures) and sweat bullets over every note in every instrument while reconstructucting it on the piano, untill you have a total Conscious understanding to where you could explain it to someone else. Try to understand the general intention of the composer in the passage but also try to understand why he might have done something that is not immediately apparent and almost baffles you. That type of detective work can be very rewarding.

All other approaches of score study generally fall somewhere between the first two. Follow one section, such as the strings. First: all strings. Then, follow the upper, then the lower, then notice the viola seems to be married to the upper then the lower. Once you have a handle on what the strings were doing (during say a period in which they were dominating the music) look at what the composer did with other instruments to either blend with or contrast with the strings. When another section (winds for example) are dominating, what are the strings doing? The other permutations in this approach are obvious.

Make mental notes of what unison writing sounds like in each section and what harmonic spreads sound like in each section.What do unison strings sound like against spread harmony in Brass and vice verse. And so on, section by section.

If you a have a MIDI setup you can play around and get immediate feedback on what works. Play a favorite passage from a symphony into a computer sequencer and you will learn a lot.

Don't worry about spending a ton of time on 8 measures or flying through 8 symphonies, you cannot help but absorb. You will also instinctively know what approach to take and when because you will crave what you feel you need at any given time.

Assuming you have at least a basic understanding of composition, all these things will just start showing up in your writing, plus you will know where to look for a certain sound or texture in the literature as well.

Hope that helps a little,

Dave Connor

Dave,

Thanks for the very helpful response. Yes diving headlong into the score of a great work reveals alot.In doing what you suggest I note an almost holographic effect with families of instruments moving to the forfront and back, passing through roles harmoniically, rhythmically, and melodically. There always seem to be several musical dimensions being expressed simulataneously. It's facinating to see how the roles are ever flexible.

I come from a jazz backround where there is a definite sense of the harmonic structure as it relates to the melody in every moment wheather it's written or improvised. The roles of instruments tend to be more static. The bass is most often providing the functional bass movement for instance. In the most general sense in orchestral writing I am observing that any instrument can provide a "bass line"for example. we have this with the addition of enormous textural potential, an extended range, and endless sonic combinations.

I will take your thoughtful comments and work with them!
Thanks again.



Robert

[quote=Robert Weinstein] I am wondering if some of the magic is in the patterns that appear on the score itself...kind of an instinct about where things are placed visually to make sense aurally

Robert I've been thinking that more and more over the last few days based on what I'm doing at the moment. For instance, look at the score for Sibelius' 3rd movement to the Karelia Suite. You may or may not like this particular piece. But the music on the page looks visiually right. Instruments come and go when Sibelius feels its right. It makes musical and visual sense. Even the most avant-garde pieces scored out are the same.
Nothing ever seems to be overcrowded. Mozart scores just look perfect (probably because they are). I've been working all day and I'm probably brain dead and being a little contengious, but I think you make an excellent point. If it looks a mess, then it very well may sound a mess.

Two points on the "score looks right sounds right" postulate.

Musical clarity will often result in a clear score. No doubt however, the clarity found in the score is just that: a result of musical clarity (due to the deliniation of parts and amplification by the composer via the orchestra.)

We, observing after the fact, notice this clarity. But it's doubtful the composer reaches first for a clean page but rather a clear sound. I think this is proven out by the uniqueness of various composers orchestration i.e. Mozart orchestrates like Mozart, Beethoven like Beethoven, Prokofiev like Prokofiev and so on.

Being guilty of the clean page approach myself I can only say that it's probably best as a point of departure (if only in ones mind) that one can leap from into uniqueness and creativity.

I am making a distinction here between the craft of good solid orchestrating as a profession and art in itself (where I believe the clean page approach is appropriate and neccessary) and the ultimate goal of any art form, which is a union between the fresh creative idea and it's perfect expression (which by definition must be unencumbered by too much convention.)

Dave