Orchestration: PART 1 (woodwinds) discussion

Ah, yes forgot to mention them. I noticed something I have not seen before and I don't know how it is played. It is the very first note in Flute I, it was two phrase markings.

Ah, no, the short one is a tie, meaning the second "C" is not articulated (basically, it makes one long note the length of the combined tied notes).

The other is a phrase marking, meaning that the notes under the long slur are not tongued. It is important that you start considering the use of slurs for phrases.

Let me give you an example:

if you have the phrase: C - D - E - F - G, and there is no slur/phrase marking, each note as played by a woodwind player would be tongued, meaning a little "tuh" sound at the beginning of each note. If you place a slur/phrase marking over the phrase, then only the first note will have an "attack" and the subsequant notes will go smoothly one into the other.

Imagine singing a major scale.

Say "dah" on the first note, but continue the same sound (...ahhhh) all the way up that scale. THAT is the effect of a slurred phrase.

If you have no slur, then it is as if you are singing "dah, dah, dah, dah, dah... etc..." on each note. You are articulating each note and basically briefly cutting the sound off at each note.

With string instruments, when we get to them, the slur is called a bow marking, and indicates that the notes covered by the slur are to be played in one movement of the bow. Obviously, you cannot play indefinately all notes under the same bow, you have to change directions at SOME point. Writing bow markings is an art in itself. And rest assured that no matter how much work you put into writing those bow markings, the string players will screw around with them to suit their particular playing style ANYways!!! :happy:

Here's a quick idea of what string bowing would look like.

If you have Finale, I suggest you try notating thi example and listening to what it sounds like with and without the bowing indications.

it's not perfect, but it WILL give you an idea.

Oh, I understand :)

Ha, that I didn't notice that it was a tie, rather annoying :happy:

Thank you for explaining :)

I was studying the modifications and I noticed something I didn't really understand. After the climax when all instruments are to play diminuendo, that is what I thought, but when I looked at it again I noticed that the Oboe I had no such decrease, did you leave it out so that it would still carry the melody?

no, that might have been an oversight on my part.

no, that might have been an oversight on my part.

Oh, I see.

But can you achieve such an effect that you regulate the melody by having dim and cres. as I hypothesized in the previous post?

Oh, I see.

But can you achieve such an effect that you regulate the melody by having dim and cres. as I hypothesized in the previous post?

it can be done, it's not recommended. to really achieve the effect it is best to guage the entrances and exits of the instruments.

I have pondered a bit over the unofficial exercise, adding the horns.

So I made two alternatives, not very different frome ach other, it just that the 'II' has a bit more movement, just wanted to know if it was acceptable.

Exercise N

Exercise N

Exercise N

Exercise N

not too bad Matt.

my only concern is that the opening is very high (well, it's all high woodwinds) and that the horn entrance sounds a bit heavy at that point.

I don't think there's any way around the issue, however. The only other thing to do might be to add a few lower woodwinds to the opening phrase, but this would of course alter the "high woodwinds" feel of what you've written. So I think we can let it go at that.

I might have let the horn continue a bit longer... more into the part with the bassoons and clarinets.

the only other thing is that you've reversed the 1st/2nd horn order by placing the second horn higher than the 1st. with other instruments this isn't quite as important, but with horns, it's a bit more so. remember: horn 1 and 3 = high horn, horn 2 and 4 = low horn.

Okay, as I said, I might randomly decide to join so.... *joins in on the fun* :huh:

We've already discussed this, so in the attachment is exercise 4. The first time is done the way it should be, the second time is the harmonization I did before you told me, "Hey, no harmonization, bud. Just octaves and unisons."

Going to work on exercise 5 now. Should I do it with or without the horns first? *assumes without for now*

Question:

remember: horn 1 and 3 = high horn, horn 2 and 4 = low horn.

You were talking about Saiming's having reversed 1st and 2nd horn. What if there are only two horns? I only have experience with four. So if there are two, will it be more likely both will be high players, IE. is it safe to write two high parts, or will it usually be one high and one low? ( P.S. I think I would loosely consider written G4 to be the general dividing point between considering low and high horn parts. Would you agree or differ? )

.

Exercise 4 - MusicManJ4 - 1.MUS

Technically, there is no "real" difference between a "high" and "low" horn player. They should BOTH be fully capable of playing the entire range of the instrument. However, the "high" players tend to favour that part of their range and are usually considerably more comfortable with the more difficult high notes when in an exposed passage, while the "low" players are likewise, more comfortable in the low end of the range.

Anything that is in the "extreme" high register should be doubled in most cases - either having the horns themselves two to a part, or even four to a part, when it is not already being doubled by other members of the orchestra.

There is no real reason for a 2nd horn part not to cross above the 1st horn part, but it should be motivated by contrapuntal concerns, and not simply arbitrarily "well, why don't I place the 2nd horn above the 1st".

I wouldn't set any "guideline" about what point to split high and low horns.

Simply think of it as follows:

Harmony notes are divided from top to bottom, in order, as horn 1, 3, 2 then 4.

Often times, in 3-part harmony, the 1st horn might not participate so as to give his lips a break for any forthcoming exposed solos.

Otherwise, horn parts in 3-part harmony tend to have 1st and 3rd horns on the uppermost part, then the 2nd and 4th on the next lower notes.

Let me see if I can't put together a few samples of horn parts for you all.

Question:

You were talking about Saiming's having reversed 1st and 2nd horn. What if there are only two horns? I only have experience with four. So if there are two, will it be more likely both will be high players, IE. is it safe to write two high parts, or will it usually be one high and one low? ( P.S. I think I would loosely consider written G4 to be the general dividing point between considering low and high horn parts. Would you agree or differ? )

ok, the first one is a bit fragmentary... by this I mean that there is not as much of a sense of continuity of the meodic line.

When orchestrating a melody, no matter what harmonic language it uses, one should take care to avoid breaking it into little bits, particularly if it really is one long continuous melody.

Your "harmonized" version actually has a little bit more continuity.

For the non-harmonized version, I would have liked to have seen less "a due" writing for the woodwinds. In this course we should be learning to do things OTHER than "a due".

We've already discussed this, so in the attachment is exercise 4. The first time is done the way it should be, the second time is the harmonization I did before you told me, "Hey, no harmonization, bud. Just octaves and unisons."

Going to work on exercise 5 now. Should I do it with or without the horns first? *assumes without for now*

excellent class. brilliant, really. I am an experienced clarinetist, and you did a great job of explaining it in all of it's forms. I've seen other classes where they don't talk about the break. one thing you could have mentioned, though, is that unlike the sax, when you hit the octave key, it goes up a 12th, not an octave, which might be useful for some arrangers. it might be good to know that doing octaves isn't always as easy, you know? also, it might have been good to point out that Bb and G in the middle register sound a bit windy, Bb mainly, and even with the venting fingers aren't good notes to center on.

as I said in the preamble to this course, this is not a detailed instrumentation course. for the fine workings of instrumentation I have always encouraged students to get a good book on instrumentation.

The goal of this course is to gain experience in organizing material around a larger ensemble. Detailed consideration of each instrument's particular technique or fingerings falls outside the scope of this course.

Thank-you for your compliments and your interest, however.

:thumbsup:

Okay, two things: my rework of exercise 4, and my first shot at exercise 5 and/or 6.

Exercise 4 (slightly reworked) - I could only use one of the bassoons. To use the second bassoon, I would have to put it in octaves, since you asked for little or preferably no

Exercise 4 - MusicManJ4 - 2.MUS

Exercise 6a - MusicManJ4 - 1.MUS

no, you misunderstood me... when I say "no 'a due' writing" I mean no unisons of the same instrument for prolonged periods of time. ie: no whole phrases played in unison by two flutes.

having your bassoons in octaves would be a perfectly normal way of going about it. the octaves would reinforce upper partials. and I'm sure that there are moments in there where the bassoons migth have played 5ths or other intervals as well... or the first bassoon might have gone up into "melodic territory" while the 2nd bassoon did the bass with, for example, the 2nd clarinet.

I have read the theory and what the next exercises are.

You told me that I should, if I decide to redo exercise 5 again, that I should keep it simple. "if you want to consider redoing it, then reduce it to its componant elements - in other words write it on two staves, like a piano part.

then really "orchestrate" it. think of each line, melodically."

Does that mean I should have a core and from that core enhance it by orchestrating it?

it means reduce the harmony (ie: remove any doublings) and counterpoint to the strict minimum that IS your piece. If it's 3-part counterpoint, then it should have 3 notes. if it's 5 part harmony then it should have 5 notes...

Imagine that you are doing the opposite of what it is we do when we set a Bach Chorale... instead of taking the original 4 voices of the Bach and enlarging them to a full symphony, take your music for 8-12 instruments and reduce it to its componant parts.

Obviously if the texture shifts from 3 to 5 parts over a few measures, then your "reduction" will also shift from 3 to 5 parts. But it won't include any octave doublings.

That way, you will be actually orchestrating from "scratch"... setting lines and harmony as though it were a new piece.

Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining :mellow:

Okay, two things: my rework of exercise 4, and my first shot at exercise 5 and/or 6.

Exercise 4 (slightly reworked) - I could only use one of the bassoons. To use the second bassoon, I would have to put it in octaves, since you asked for little or preferably no

Ok, here it goes.

I have re-written exercise 5 and I directly went to 6b, don't know why - guess I was eager to test 4 horns. I think I have failed with the resonance completely. I guess I got a bit carried away :)

I will redo it again. I don't really know how this turned out since I spent too many hours on my first attempt, and I just recently deleted the entire thing and re-did it.

Enough of crap talk, here it is.

ok, a quick "correction"... horns 1 and 2 go on one staff, and 3 and 4 on the other.

don't divide them "high horns on one staff" and "low horns on the other".

the exercise seemed a bit "square" to me... with the instruments coming in in pairs the way they did, and on sort of breaks in the phrase. I think your other exercise was more of a success than this one.

You won't get an effect of "resonance" if the resonant instrument is playing the same note values as the rest of the ensemble.

There needs to be some sort of rhythmic difference between planes of sound - Melody, Accompaniment, Resonance...

I will redo it :P

I was frankly just curious to hear and get some critique, since I had spent too much time at one go, giving me no perspective to it in the end.

Thank you ;)

If this can help in any way: when composing something with the intention of creating different planes of sound (ie: melody, accompaniment, resonance) it is improtant that you consider this from a compositional point of view.

If your melody is all in quarter notes, then making the accompaniment in quarters and the resonance in quarters will just create this big bland mass of sound - very homophonic (and no gay jokes!).

On the other hand, if your melody has characteristic rhythms, and uses values that are substantially different from the accompaniment, and your resonance is allowed to "carry-through" long held notes (they just have to FEEL longer than what's around, they don't have to last measures on end), then you truly create planes of sound that will be subtle but distinguished by the mind's ear.

So basically if my melody is not too rhythmical I should vary the accompaniment, and if my melody is more rhythmical I should consider longer accompaniment. ;)?

I guess that solves my awful attempt :P

yes, in a simple way of putting it, that IS basically what it is.

Contrast is the important issue - there should be some sort of rhythmic contrast between foreground planes and background planes.

Remember that more movement generally equates to more attention.

If you accompaniment is extremely active, it should at least not be too harmonically active. If it is very active then make sure that your foreground plane is at least orchestrated so as to bring it out over the accompaniment - in other words it should have more "mass", be in a prominant register, have more characteristic timbres...

For example:

a solo flute in whole notes in its lower range against a full string section in 16th notes covering a wide range...

which one do you think will "SOUND" like the foreground and which one like background?