Question About Orchestral Compositions

First of all, let me assure you that I'm quite aware that orchestration takes years to study and cannot be learnt overnight or gained suddenly, unless one possesses a considerable amount of musical talent. However, a question I'd like answered in the simplest terms possible is: is it an unforgivable crime to have instruments not play for many bars or double other sections?

My music teacher at school has repeated that comment quite a few times, but I find it to be hugely ironic, since many highly effective compositions - and even works he has shown the class - feature several pages or more of rests in several sections. In fact, wouldn't it be even more ineffective to have a constant overload of sounds? Would not the power of the full orchestra lose its impact if it were to be used too frequently? As for the second part of the question, isn't doubling useful, to a certain extent?

Is there a rough guide as to how much each of doubling and rests is considered too much, or would it be wiser to simply see "how it sounds" for a would-be composer such as myself who knows not of the ways of orchestration? Thanks!

This is a brilliant guide on orchestration that I have found very useful:Principles of Orchestration On-line - Northern Sound Source It goes to quite great lengths to explain doublings between different instruments and sections.

Would not the power of the full orchestra lose its impact if it were to be used too frequently?

I think that is exactly right.

this is probably one of the more difficult questions a compsoer faces when dealing with a large ensemble... but it ends up having a few practical answers.

For example, the tuba requires a HUGE amount of breath. So it would be impractical for you to write a continuous line for the tuba and still have the poor tubist alive at the end of a symphonic movement without medical intervention. Add to that the ponderous tone of the tuba, and you realize that you need to be very judicious in its use. The idea is that you can add it to loud parts, and a few delicate touches in soft or delicate parts involving the other brass instruments or french horns (for which it makes a very beautiful bass, btw), and still have him sit there for bars on end examining his reflection in the brass and counting empty measures, and this WILL be a normal tuba part - lots of rests. He needs them.

Likewise, some percussion instruments gain in effect by inverse proportion to the amount of their use - the much less is much more philosophy.

I would say conceive your music for the forces you envision. If you then realize that one instrument is underused, consider either removing that single instrument, or at that point go back and judiciously add delicate touches involving it.

However, if your 1st flute has constant material from beginning to end, and the 2nd flute only plays in the final measures of your 300-measure-long piece, then yes, that IS a crime of orchestration. There is no reason for the 2nd flute to not have been there all the way through.

Generally speaking, "2nd" instruments will have a few empty measures more than principals. Likewise, auxilliary instruments (piccolo, cor anglais, bass clarinet, contrabassoon) generally have a bit less material as well.

I know this wasn't a brief reply, but I hope it was simple enough. :huh:

Well let's look the financial site of your question. :laugh: when you pay a huge ammount of money to gather players to play for you think that every rest they have you loose 1 dollar :D haha joking. When it comes to orchestras remember that the only guy that is counting appart from the contuctor is the percussionist. I think you might have some practical problems by pausing a lot of instruments. You should do whatever pleases your ears or the one who is paying you. Musically is not very common to have instruments not playing for like 20-30 bars but there are composers who do it. Why not then?

Musically is not very common to have instruments not playing for like 20-30 bars...

I disagree...

If you have to do it, please separate the silence measures in little segments. It's easier to count 8 measures + 4m + 12m than a 24 measures block. It also permit the silenced musician to follow the music (like, when something important happens, start a new silence group).

Lots of bars of rest (more than 30 for instance) is very natural and unavoidable in works. You shouldn't be dictated by the fact that your musicians don't count. I cheat and give them cues if ever they've got more than 10 bars to count. That's because I only ever work with student orchestras or bands. That also means the music I have to write is what my friend describes as "educational music." That means everyone gets a go at the melody and as a result there's far too much doubling and over-orchestration. I can't help it because if it's not fun for them to play they won't play it. Thus is the nature of educational music.

If John Cage could write an extremely famouse and respected piece consisting just of silence I think it's okay to to have fluxtuation of resting and music in a piece.

This is a website that's really good for orchestration:

The Orchestra

Musically is not very common to have instruments not playing for like 20-30 bars but there are composers who do it.

I disagree. I disagree alot. In Carmina Burana not counting tacets the fourth horn part has 3 throughtout the piece. I rest for 40 bars in Mother Earth, (written by David Maslanka check it out its a cool piece) and I play first Horn in it. It is common for long periods of rest to happen, and in my oppinion it is very effective. As different instrument combinations keep the piece going and interesting.