Orchestration: PART 1 (woodwinds) discussion

Is it out of the Oboe's range?

Was just about to say that as well.

Yeah, Chris, you keep the oboe in the squaking range for a good bit of that, if not too low. Would work if it were an English horn/cor anglais. Also, aren't the parts usually written on one stave? Flute I and Flute II together, Oboe I and Oboe II together, ect. Is it ever acceptable to divide the parts into separate staves?

Hey, about my chord and what you said... that makes a lot of sense, thank you, QC. :)

Alrighty... I'm doing Exercise 6 over again, this time with my own and original melody and not some one that I had stuck in my head that turned out to be O Tannenbaum. :w00t: This new one is in two separate phrases, melody emphasized in the bass clarinet and bassoons, the rest is support.

I took two tries at it.... my old and weaker attempt is after the first and more successful one, which is my newer attempt with the horns added for resonance. Is there too much movement in the horns? Anything else stick out to you? Comments from anybody are welcome.

Exercise 6b - J4.MUS

Yeah, Chris, you keep the oboe in the squaking range for a good bit of that, if not too low. Would work if it were an English horn/cor anglais.

Thanks for that!

Also, aren't the parts usually written on one stave? Flute I and Flute II together, Oboe I and Oboe II together, ect. Is it ever acceptable to divide the parts into separate staves?

I have no idea mate! :P

I'll take your word for it though.

Thanks.

Notation-wise, you can write double parts per staff (ie: flutes 1&2 on the same staff, etc..) if the score won't be too messy.

Otherwise, there is nothing saying you can't place one instrument per staff.

Obviously, if your score is absolutely massive, with woodwinds by 3's and huge brass section and multople percussion parts and harps and all, then it's probably best to condense a bit.

With chamber music, however, it's fine to place individual instruments on individual staves.

For these exercises, I think it's good that you do them each instrument to a staff. That way, you start to consider them ALL as individual instruments.

One of the biggest problems young orchestrators have is that they tend to treat each staff as a single line, regardless of whether there are two instruments or only one per staff. Which means I've come across scores with 2 flutes on a staff, but only a single line written for 90% of the score, and the occassional divisi.

This does NOT make for good orchestration.

Remember that an instrument in its high register can be treated like a DIFFERENT instrument from the SAME instrument in its low register.

This is a large part of what I'm getting at with understanding the weak/strong range relationships of the instruments.

Ok, I've made my corrections and added a few parts.

[ATTACH]9476[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]9477[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]9478[/ATTACH]

:cool:

OK, I'm just wondering what those few piccolo notes are doing there in the first page?

Not to be too strict, but the exercise is one of unison, octave and multiple octave doublings. No harmony permitted :O

Other than that, the piccolo part would stick out like a sore thumb, it's a little too disjointed from the rest of what's going on.

Other than that, the piccolo part would stick out like a sore thumb, it's a little too disjointed from the rest of what's going on.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I originally had this part an octave lower on another flute I think but I couldn't hear it for everything else.

Not to be too strict, but the exercise is one of unison, octave and multiple octave doublings. No harmony permitted

Oh, I totally got the wrong idea, lol :laugh: :rolleyes:

I'll do this again tomorrow.

Cheers.

Hi, I had a go at the exercise again and here is what I came up with:

[ATTACH]9509[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]9510[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]9511[/ATTACH]

I'd really appreciate people's feedback on what would sound good/bad and where improvements could be made.

I'm not at all confident with this, arranging a melody for woodwinds is hard! Especially seen as I have no idea of knowing what it will sound like. I'm in the process of getting some scores and following along listening for the way things sound in reality.

I only ended up using 1 of each woodwind because... well, having that many instruments is confusing. And I didn't know how many instruments to put in or where to double up or anything, so I just kept it simple.

Cheers.

One thing to look at when orchestrating a phrase is the ebb and flow of the phrase itself.

At first, forget about analyzing the music.

Look at it graphically.

Where does it rise/fall.

Where are there obvious phrases that fit together, or patterns that repeat.

Look at dynamics and where they are.

Remember to orchestrate the dynamics (see the lesson threads).

You can even simply make big brackets that cover sections of the music to divide it up into its componant phrases. This will help you in assigning instruments and help you to avoid instruments popping in for only a few notes and just not "fitting in" to the over-all structure.

Remember that each set of instruments (each family in the woodwinds) has a characteristic tonal quality.

Remember that some instruments have their strength in the lower register, while others are more at ease in the upper register.

Remember to consider how some timbres can be layered with others to create new timbres (again, see the lesson thread).

If you examine my realization of the melody and its orchestration, you may get some idea of how I went about it.

My realization of the melody, along with a recording

I started with bassoons in octaves, with a single clarinet (to smooth out the timbre) doubling the upper bassoon.

The second clarinet comes in at the unison for a few notes, at a discreet moment in the line, a few notes before the clarinets divide into octaves.

Notice that single flute coming in a note later? It's in a weak register, and will not sound out loud and clear as a new entry.

The second flute comes in ON the phrase, after a rest. However, this is also the spot I've chosen to begin my crescendo.

Notice the oboe entrance on the highpoint? Everyone is playing loudly, so their entrance will bring density more than a new timbre to the mix.

The sudden dynamic change in the last five measures required a drastic cut in orchestral density. However, I avoided cutting to a single timbre, prefering to keep one of each type of sound and blend them.

The very last notes are from two of the softest of the woodwinds. A very smooth timbral blend of clarinet and flute, both in registers where they can easily control the dynamic.

Wow, thanks for that. It's very interesting how you perceive the music so different from me. I'm working on it some more now, it's just this god damn Sibelius playback that's loving with my head. I think I have this Kontakt player thing, it's better than MIDI, but it's still awful.

What sounds/programs are you using?

Cheers.

Wow, thanks for that. It's very interesting how you perceive the music so different from me. I'm working on it some more now, it's just this god damn Sibelius playback that's loving with my head. I think I have this Kontakt player thing, it's better than MIDI, but it's still awful.

What sounds/programs are you using?

Cheers.

Sound Libraries are not everything. The most important thing that Michel has and you do not have is experience in orchestration; he places the notes 'better' than you, with that it gives a more balanced sound.

Wow, thanks for that. It's very interesting how you perceive the music so different from me. I'm working on it some more now, it's just this god damn Sibelius playback that's loving with my head. I think I have this Kontakt player thing, it's better than MIDI, but it's still awful.

What sounds/programs are you using?

Cheers.

A tip - ignore sibelius. Print out some blank manuscript paper, and all of the theory thrtead, read over all of the stuff about strong and weak ranges, and then write on a blank bit of paper when you want instruments to come in on the melody, thinking of instrument density, strong and weak ranges of the instruments, and the tonal qualities of each instrument.

Sibelius/finale sounds will just screw with you, as they don't sound much like real instruments at all, and you can easily get hung up on one part listening to it over and over, try getting it all done on paper first, then notating it ;)

This reminds me, I now have a spare day to have a good go at an exercise for you Michel, shall try and get something done :)

Thank-you Matt and Mark.

Actually, Chris, why don't you try setting my example in Sibelius?

There's no reason for it not to sound OK.

I'm using a sample library called GPO, but I'm working in Finale with no sequencer tweaking. There's no reason for Sibelius to sound any worse.

What Matt is trying to tell you is that no matter the tool you use, if teh foundation is good, the end result will work better.

I've listened to examples done (on another website) using very expensive sample libraries and sequencers that were tweaked to high heaven... and they STILL sounded like crap... because the person didn't ORCHESTRATE the passage. The just "filled in the blanks". Which is really the worst way to proceed with orchestral music.

It's a slow process. Doing these exercises once won't do it. The best thing is to try MANY realizations of the same passages over and over.

Listening to the same thing over and over, trying to decide if I can do it any better is something I happen to do very often. The idea of listening to a passage in many different realizations is something I haven't really thought much of, and I certainly will from now on. Thank you, Michel.

I hope you didn't miss my new Exercise 6 back there, post #155 . I would like to know of anything I did poorly in it.

This *might* take you straight to it. http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/orchestration-part-1-woodwinds-discussion-10363-8.html#post197928

Hey guys, thanks for all the advice. I read over the lessons again and started orchestrating on paper today. I'd appreciate some feedback on what I came up with:

[ATTACH]9557[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]9558[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]9559[/ATTACH]

I'll explain why I did what I did and what effect I was trying to achieve:

Measure 1: I aimed to started with a deep, eerie kind of sound.

Measures 2-3: I brought the oboe and clarinet in to emphasize particular notes. Then left the clarinet going and later brought in flute and oboe to emphasis the next notes. I transposed the score up so that I could keep the low clarinet moving during measure 3.

Measure 4: I saw this as the intro the main piece (with the first three measures as a kind of prelude), and kept it low again with clarinet, but left the bassoon out and brought in a flute to give it a more light, relaxed, floaty kind of feel.

Measure 5: I thought this followed on from the last bar, but brought in extra instruments to emphasize that it was the beginning, the "dawn" of the piece.

Measure 6: I felt that this measure gave birth to a more "twisted" feel, a change in the tension (when I first heard this part of the melody it came very unexpectedly), so I brought an oboe in to emphasize that. I also doubled the bassoon, to bring more depth in.

Measure 7: I cut all the instruments out except a unison doubling of the low flute and high clarinet. I wanted this part of the melody to seem weak and vulnerable, and also like it had "ran away" from the rest. I also kept all the instruments in for the first note, this was very important to give kind of a "push" to the clarinet and flute.

Measure 8: This was where the rest of the instruments "catch up" with the other two. This was the reason I brought the bassoon in for the last note of the previous bar, to appear that they had just caught it - the bassoon is like a grasping hand of an out-stretched arm that then pulls the rest of the instruments back in. I was going for the "one-note-crescendo" :laugh:

I also feel that this would be a good place to bings some horns in - one with the initial bassoon and another following with the rest of the instruments.

I used the extreme high register of the flute in octave doubling with the other flute. I used octave doubling of the bassoons but kept them high for a tense, desperate feel. The clarinets are in doubled in unison, I contemplated having one an octave higher but decided to leave it.

Measure 9: This was the come-down part, I cut half the instruments out half way through for kind of like a call and response effect (not call and response but I can't think what to call it). I left the clarinet and flutes in for the soft, gentle feel.

Something interesting I just noticed is that the first bassoon keeps descending through both measures 8 and 9. This was an accident, the music was meant to be in bassoon 2 not 1 and the high one would cut out before the rest of the instruments. But now I'm wondering if I should have both bassoons descending like that until cutting out half way through measure 9.

Measure 10: Simple soft melody of flutes and clarinet, all on separate octaves.

Measure 11: I doubled an oboe in unison with the lower flute as I thought the second of these two phrases deserved a little more emphasis, and that kind of "twisted" oboe feel.

Measures 12-13: Back to the soft clarinet + flute feel, only without the higher flute part, and with the clarinet in unison with the flute to create a single voice for a gentle ending.

All feedback is appreciated,

Cheers.

Listening to the same thing over and over, trying to decide if I can do it any better is something I happen to do very often. The idea of listening to a passage in many different realizations is something I haven't really thought much of, and I certainly will from now on. Thank you, Michel.

I hope you didn't miss my new Exercise 6 back there, post #155 . I would like to know of anything I did poorly in it.

This *might* take you straight to it. http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/orchestration-part-1-woodwinds-discussion-10363-8.html#post197928

Hiyas!

sorry I mised that.. I saw your comments on the preceding post, but missed that you had attached a new exercise!

Velly Solly. /bow

Ok, it's pretty good!

Only thing I'm a tiny bit queezy about is the extremely agitated piccolo part. Remember that lots of movement attracts the ear.

The horns don't seem overly agitated.

Hey guys, thanks for all the advice. I read over the lessons again and started orchestrating on paper today. I'd appreciate some feedback on what I came up with:

Chris, please give me a few days to re-examine you exercise.

Being Christmas and all I have a whole lot of cooking to do for Monday night (traditionally for French Canadians, Christmas is usually celebrated on the eve).

I can tell you right away that I understand where you were going with this. I'm not entirely convinced it works on such a small scale. Meaning that with a brief exercise like this you will have more look looking for homogeneity and smooth transition from material to material.

:)

Take all the time you need.

I'm not entirely convinced it works on such a small scale. Meaning that with a brief exercise like this you will have more look looking for homogeneity and smooth transition from material to material.

I know what you mean, my original piece (before I looked at your orchestration and also from comments earlier in the thread) was actually much more erratic, there were oboes and clarinets jumping in and out all over the place :laugh:

Michel, I know I haven't posted any complete exercise today, but I have got almost a complete melody to work with - I'm sticking to a two part texture for this one, as I got a little lost when I tried 4 or 5 part in my last exercise :) I'll be away from tomorrow for a week, but will be taking lots of manuscript paper with me, so I should be able to get quite a bit of work done :happy:

Thanks again for all the work you've put into these masterclasses :)

Chris, please give me a few days to re-examine you exercise.

Being Christmas and all I have a whole lot of cooking to do for Monday night (traditionally for French Canadians, Christmas is usually celebrated on the eve).

I can tell you right away that I understand where you were going with this. I'm not entirely convinced it works on such a small scale. Meaning that with a brief exercise like this you will have more look looking for homogeneity and smooth transition from material to material.

Mamma Mia, you will be celebrating Christmas as the Swede's ^^

whoops... off topic :blush:

Hi again, I had a go at exercise 5 over Christmas:

[ATTACH]9621[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]9622[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]9623[/ATTACH]

Measures 1-4: I wanted to give the staccato bass notes on the bassoon a go, so I started out like that. I brought an oboe in to emphasize the first lengthy melodic note, and to build tension for the abrupt stop in the next bar where the flute and oboe jump to the A.

I doubled the flutes in octaves for the next part; I felt it needed more than in the first two bars seen as I'd brought the oboe in. Then there's a moment of tension where the staccato bass notes stop during measure 4, then for the next prolonged melody note most of the instruments come in to lead into main body of the piece.

Measures 5-8: I kept the flute and oboe in unison as one voice for the main melody, as was at the start of measure 3. For another voice, doubling an octave higher, I brought a clarinet in to play in unison with the higher flute.

There's also another voice that plays in measures 6 and 8, this is played by an oboe and bassoon in unison. In measure 8 this is what leads into the ending.

The other remaining instruments (clarinet and bassoon) are playing a low resonace part. It is likely they will be replaced by horns in the next exercise.

Measures 9-12: The oboe and bassoon voice leads into the ending and continues to play the melody, (hopefully) giving the effect that one melody was replaced by another which rose up and overpowered it. The only original "melody instrument" which remains is the flute, just to keep it sounding sweet and soft. The flute will probably get pretty much drowned out anyway, right?

The lower clarinet and bassoon continue with the resonance part and right at the end the other bassoon plays some descending notes just to release the energy and finish it off.

Thanks for taking the time to help me out with this.

Finally I have gotten my proverbial arse in gear and finished Exercise 5!

All of the woodwind parts are purely unison and octave doublings of my original 2 part counterpoint, with an extremely simple string pizzicato accompaniment just to state the harmony clearly more than anything else.

On a few occasions I made more 'lines' by doubling a few parts of one melody and a few of the other and combining them in one part. Is this a good idea?

One final note - I wrote this away from a computer or any instruments, and still haven't heard it due to my computer being unco-operative concerning midi playback, so I apologise if I've accidently done something grossy untasteful which I would've noticed on hearing it ;)

Again, thanks so much for running these masterclasses, I'm learning loads :D

Ex5.MUS

Mark, just looking at the outlines and ignoring anything "musical", very good.

My only concern MIGHT be the sudden shift in density when the clarinet stops playing. but it's a VERY minor concern.

I might have suggested giving the 1st flute a rising line, parallel to the clarinet, just before its entrance... maybe something in 6ths? just to reach that high note instead of it being a sudden entrance ON the beat.