Sketching or not?

Hi.

When you want to write a piece for orchestra, do you make a sketch first? 

I mean two issues:

1. A general plan of parts (Form).

2. A version piano-like.

I sketch out all my musical material first in a piano partiture before I arrange it for whatever kind of ensemble I end up choosing.  But I think that can also hold you back since the orchestra is capable of so much more details and density than a piano.  I've heard that John Williams uses a piano partiture for each respective section of the orchestra: woodwinds, brass, percussion, strings (and I think 8-bit music theory does the same thing).  I sometimes resort to writing for the string orchestra (5 staves) with doubling indicated for some other instruments.

I don't generally ever write down a formal plan.

If I'm in the earliest stages of inventing thematic material, I'll work at the piano and sketch it out with pencil and paper. But that's really just to get it written down so I don't forget it. From there I'm immediately thinking of orchestral voicings and instruments. Ideas usually come into my head in the order texture first, then instrumentation, then notes, so tone color is an essential aspect from the beginning. I never, ever write a piano piece first and then orchestrate it.

I'll develop a plan for the form of the piece in my head as I go, but I don't write it down.

It so depends on how ideas present themselves. I usually "hear" ideas played by an instrument other than the piano and sketch them out on paper. I may check harmony that comes along with them on the piano or organ. But whenever I practice (lounge-styled) improvisation at the piano I record the sessions just in case anything useful crops up...rare but it's been known.

If I do work something at the piano I usually make text notes of what instruments/group(s) come to mind. I've also drawn very rough graphical sketches where I don't want to lose a mood/idea but can't quite think of how to notate it at the outset. 

Hi, thanks four your answers.

What I do:

I usually write in the computer (software), although sometimes I jot down things in paper.

I almos always make a sketch regarding the Form, unless it is something very short. I think it's the way for me to glue all the parts and make something bigger.

I never use the piano as a sketch when I write for orchestra. I don't know why, as it was mentioned before, I imagine the colors and textures. ....

On 8/14/2022 at 2:51 AM, Luis Hernández said:

Hi.

When you want to write a piece for orchestra, do you make a sketch first? 

I mean two issues:

1. A general plan of parts (Form).

2. A version piano-like.

 

I generally plan it out in a formal sense and sometimes also, as is the case with my first symphony, in a narrative sense, but a piano sketch, I've only done that for when I was stuck on deciding what to do next. I did such a thing for my symphony. But like the actual composing, vast majority of it is straight onto the orchestral score. Here's that bit of sketching I did for the symphony. I ultimately decided on Idea #1.

On 8/14/2022 at 1:51 AM, Luis Hernández said:

Hi.

When you want to write a piece for orchestra, do you make a sketch first? 

I mean two issues:

1. A general plan of parts (Form).

2. A version piano-like.

I wish there were a simple answer to this, as I'm still not sure if I've discovered my method of orchestral composing.

First things first: I collect at least 3 good themes/motifs. These are usually teased out on the piano, but sometimes on the violin/viola, and sometimes just in my head. After that, I just run with it. I have a rough idea of how the piece will start and how it should end and what the middle should sound like, but that almost always changes as I begin writing. The orchestral voices, colors, and timbres speak to me; this theme ought to be carried by the woodwinds, and oh! wouldn't that sound good as a brass chorale!

After I have sizeable amount of bars written, I create a mockup of the sounds and listen to it over and over and over until it becomes second nature to me. Then I go in and slash it up, cutting some parts, drafting others, squeezing in transitional passages, etc., until it begins to sound more cohesive.

Eventually I finish or, more likely, give up on the project.

On 8/17/2022 at 9:57 PM, Tónskáld said:

After I have sizeable amount of bars written, I create a mockup of the sounds and listen to it over and over and over until it becomes second nature to me. Then I go in and slash it up, cutting some parts, drafting others, squeezing in transitional passages, etc., until it begins to sound more cohesive.

Eventually I finish or, more likely, give up on the project.

This is pretty important to me too: deciding what to prune and what should be replaced; prune density-wise and content-wise, creating alternative trial versions. If at this point I haven't scrapped the piece I'll leave it for at least a month so I can bring fresh ears to criticise it, make final changes - or possibly then scrap it. I sometimes create and print off a short score (orchestral sections each on 2 staves) before scrapping it in case something is usable later on. 

I don't, generally.

"Sketching" has its place but its main advantages mostly are about keep the composer focused on actually composing in a world full of mostly-digital distractions.

However, it has a number of pretty serious drawbacks.

• The piano, similar to the strings, has a pretty even timbre across its entire pitch range. This means you can easily compose all sorts of great lines for piano and strings, but are never really in the best registers for any of the winds and brass and now your piece will need to be possibly adapted to numerous different keys in order to "work" for orchestra.

• Sample libraries for the orchestra are all actually pretty terrible when compared to what a real orchestra can do, but a piano (or piano patch) doesn't suffer from the same playability issues. So what will happen very often is that you will compose a fantastic piece for your piano or maybe in Finale or something, but then find that your samples simply cannot convincingly even play what should be very simple lines. Looking at you, tenuto passages...

This is actually the main reason I don't compose full-orchestra pieces anymore: The samples are simply too unwieldy and inefficient at realizing orchestral music that sounds like actual orchestral music unless you invest quite a bit of money on different libraries and all sorts of time into esoteric "tricks" with audio.

• The instrument that you write for influences the lines you will come up with, given what is idiomatic, what articulations are possible, what its timbre sounds like etc. The piano is obviously much more limited than basically all of the main orchestral families in this regard, so you may find yourself producing some rather bland orchestrations because it's almost necessarily an afterthought when "sketching".

• Lastly, it sucks down more time by creating several more steps in order to go from "idea" to "finished piece" and the concept or direction of the piece will be much more abstract. Neither of these are good things.

For example, on what wound up being the only full-length piece I've released this year, I knew right away that I wanted to use JV-1080 sounds mainly, and I knew that it needed a live saxophone. So the only "sketching" I did, was playing with the JV sax patch to give the saxophonist an idea of what I wanted stylistically and how the melody goes.

Having this clear vision for the piece and actually using the sounds of the instruments I'd be using in the finished product to compose with resulted in no compromises or bottlenecks whatsoever and also improved my ability to write for live players.

The same will happen to you with the orchestra or any other ensemble. Eventually, you will just go straight for horns or oboes + flutes if that's what you need rather than coming up with a piano line and trying to figure out what it actually is later. It will also improve your ability to actually compose for these instruments.

AngelCityOutlaw, it does depend on several slants: ones basic developmental line across the years. (I started composing before daws and samples arrived. I had to make do with a piano or an organ); the genre(s) one's working in; ones experience of orchestral/ensemble playing and having to prepare ones own works for performance; Ones basic musical gifts such as being able to hear something inwardly with a reasonable chance of writing it down; finally...a sense of musical adventure and experiment. 

It's true that today's opportunities for hearing ones work live - played even badly - are less than they were so wannabe composers have to study scores and learn an instrument to get the hang of notation. (Same applies to the broader subject of "sound organisation which will probably be played through loudspeakers anyway.) Musical education has become an industry so composition studies lead students down avenues (curricula) that may be wasting their time and, dare I say, killing spontaneity and aural imagination. (My nearest college in Brighton doesn't bother to teach people how to listen to scores, read them and be able to create the sounds in ones head. Sure, they're taught technical analysis but that isn't the same thing.)

I use a piano to check if my thoughts are in line with what I've drafted. It's no use for checking sustained passages obviously (not for the sort of stuff I write) but the piano's percussive attack does force attention to "harmony". I've long since got past "thinking piano" while using it to check what will end up orchestral. But I'm not a great pianist. I studied a few difficult bits to develop dexterity in the interest of composing. I'm no judge of my own work but my feelings are that I compose better for instruments than piano. I talk to musicians a lot, which I'm sure bores many but with a couple of beers in the offing they're often ready to help.

I still believe that the secret behind competent scoring is intelligent listening and score study. Analysis is needed to find out how a composer of a particular sound did it! Analysing construction however is for those determined to do what others have already done.

But I suppose it's ultimately up to many things in ones musical upbringing that develop the mind in a particular direction.

On 8/21/2022 at 3:06 PM, AngelCityOutlaw said:

• The instrument that you write for influences the lines you will come up with, given what is idiomatic, what articulations are possible, what its timbre sounds like etc.

Yes, and there's another aspect that's often forgotten in this era of samples: once you've decided that you need a particular instrument, you've accepted an obligation to give that highly skilled and creative person something worthwhile to do. This varies across the orchestra, of course; nobody expects the tuba to be playing every minute. But if you really need 8 horns for a giant climactic moment, the rest of your piece probably shouldn't be a pianissimo cantilena for strings. I remember playing E-flat clarinet on a graduate-student piece in college, where I sat silent for all but about 20 seconds of the 15-minute duration. It was my only assignment on that concert, and there were entire rehearsals where I literally did nothing because the conductor didn't need to work the fortissimo sections. A colossal waste of time -- and not just mine.

   I do both--

  I will make a plan based on the piece type and form--sonata, rondo,  theme and variations...etc...

   The I will  work on a grand staff and usually another staff for melodic ideas/other.  I will mark chords, progressions as well.

  This follows having thematic material at hand.

   Generally, for me, the more planning the better.   This leaves more time to deal with technical matters and greatly reduces frustration.