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.

Thanks everyone for the great advice!

Alex, when you talk about part writing, I am a bit ignorant to what you are refering to. Would a good example of part writing be the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th Symphony?


-BW

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]

Ok....I'm starting to understand what you all are talking about.

I'm actually quite new to all of this. I've been teaching myself how to orchestrate/compose and how to use VSL/midi/Cubase for the past year now and I believe the reason I find it so fascinating is because it seems as if there's almost a limitless supply of information to take in. Which obviously leaves room for limitless experience and growth.

That being said, I am still learning how to read music, though it is not as difficult as I had first feared. I'm pretty sure that most of my sketches make use of part writing. Though it maybe only two parts, Bass and Treble. I'll have to get alto and tenor in there I suppose!

thanks again, you guys have been extremely helpful!

-BW

Haha! You guys are such cards. roll:

No - it's the paint fumes. Whoa!

Horse Opera would also do well to look at Bach's Brandenberg No 3 : Although obviously baroque in stature - well worth looking at for it's construction and all round joviality of composition. Perhaps one of the great works of genius of all time. It's like Bach is patting himself on his stomach with a good drink and good company around him, whenever I hear that particular work.

They make very good bankers Alex - but how would I know. Hahah!

BW,
2 Parts is a good start, don't knock it or think you're not keeping up. Many fine composers wrote two part harmony on more than one occasion and made it sound good. In fact, you're starting at the right end, not trying to write for full orchestra at once.
Why don't you try this?
Write 2 part in the bass and treble clef. Take a good look at middle C, and for the practise, write the 3rd part as close to that as possible. you'd be surprised how musical it can sound.
When you're comfortable with that, introduce a 4th part, but only occasionally, when the bass and treble parts go further apart. I know this seems simplistic, but it's a good way to keep the harmony clean, and understand when and where to add more, and take away. Remember that notes written close together sound better in the treble clef than the bass. (A very general statement, but a good place to start).
A natural way to understand how close notes can be together, according to pitch, is to look at and study The Harmonic Scale. You'l find it in Rimsky Korsakov principles of orchestration on page 67 under the heading Distribution of notes in chords. In that section you'll also see useful tips for chord structure and things to be avoided.
That section is contained in Chapter 3 'Harmony'. Very useful stuff, and you'll see examples of Close and widely spaced part writing. When you've read this section, try it out on your Sequencer, and hear it while you're looking at it. Makes a big difference to understanding what's going on.

Regards,

Alex.

@PaulR said:

Horse Opera would also do well to look at Bach's Brandenberg No 3 :

Actually the Brandenburg Concertos were some of the first things I listened to, I'll have to revisit them...

-BW

ps- I just checked and I only have 4-6, off to the library I go!

So Paul,
Not content with the usual Taurean characteristics, you've introduced one of your own.

Sniffing Magnolia!

[H]

@PaulR said:

Haha! You guys are such cards. [8-)]

No - it's the paint fumes. Whoa!

Hey I wasn't kidding. I know you're a financial genius and I've heard your B3 playing. Wicked in that British way (say hi to Keith for me.) None of us are in Ludwig's league but we each have a little of that I hope. [:)]

Now have a bit of tea son and breathe some fresh air and sit down and stay down.

Aquarius here (Mozart's sign)

Gotta say - really good posts from Dave and Alex here. I quietly learn a lot from this kind of thing and am prepared to admit it. Horse Opera couldn't ask for more than that.

Dave - you should know that Taureans don't believe in the stars - that's why they're Taureans. Hmmm - is that a paradox? [:D]

Hehe - when I went to college in London, I shared for 2 years with an Aquarius - and he was definitely the financial genius - not me that's for sure.

No one is better than Keith! You are in a stronger position to say hello to KE than I am Dave - I think he lives mostly in the US these days after a very messy divorce and ensuing financial mayhem. I bet he doesn't have to paint his house though!

Anyway, back to the grind - and don't expect little treats like this too often!


[:D]