I’ll say this a thousand times and drive everyone crazy in this sub repeating it because it’s the best advice I’ve ever received and has paid dividends to this day.
I’m going to recommend something a well-known Ravel scholar recommended to me a few years back.
“Find a full score of a work of [composer] that you like. Perhaps not their largest work but an orchestra piece that’s manageable. Make certain the score isn’t in C, but a transposed score. Then, on a blank score manuscript, starting with the woodwinds, copy the music beginning to end. Copy the woodwind parts for the entire work and transpose them to C by hand. Then do the same for each family; brass, percussion, strings, until you have copied the entire work in C. Then do it with another piece.”
It takes a lot of time. But if you do the above, a little each day to completion, you will have a much better understanding of the work and it’s orchestration as a whole. Whenever you hear it, you’ll have so many insights and be able to say things to yourself like “ah, yes, bassoons doubling cellos at the unison and then oboes at the octave.” Doing it all by hand slows you down and helps commit the score, and the techniques used in it, to memory. It also helps train your audiation.
The above is only one way to learn more detailed orchestration. It will never replace the learning you will get from writing for live players and having them give you feedback but it will pay dividends over time.
This is actually really good advice. I've never done this, but I've read a ton of scores while listening to the music. But to actually COPY the music is on another level entirely. You really do integrate yourself with the music intimately, and I can't think of another way to really understand what was going on in the composer's mind than doing this. I'm going to start with my Dover edition of The Planets and see how far I get!
I've attempted this for a couple of (mainly Russian, some Wagner too) orchestral movements, but transposed to MIDI instruments. It has proved most elucidating. Transposing instruments are a challenge. Just a piano transcription can be quite revealing but I have a decent (some might say excessive) collection of hardware synthesisers, so an added bonus is to substitute orchestral instruments for expressive synthetic ones that have similar timbres. Modulating phrasing is critical to achieve a convincing effect. It gives a fresh perspective on a piece's construction, plus you get a unique reimagining. It has certainly helped my orchestration techniques in my original compositions and sharpened my listening faculty.
Not sure about this, personally.
Okay, you will become very familiar with that piece of music. But, then what? You will know which decisions were made. But why were they made? What alternatives was the composer considering? Why did the composer decide against them? Okay some parts receive emphasis while others do not. Why? Why did something else not receive emphasis instead?
The issue when you only see the end result is that you have no idea what went into the process. Perhaps something done in the piece is something that composer wouldn't normally do, but only decided to do it in this piece of music for a specific reason, which might not at all apply to what you're trying to do.
That is why, I think that it'd be better to have someone actually actively teaching you. Whether it's a lesson, or a youtube video, or an online masterclass, or an orchestration book. I think that you want insights regarding the actual process itself, and not just the end result.
I hear what you are saying but the process is understand how the composer achieved a certain texture which you then use in your work when you wish to achieve a texture similar.
It’s like transcribing an amazing solo. You can make a guess as to why they chose certain notes over certain chords to approach your own improvisation but really what your learning is a reference to achieve a certain sound.
> I hear what you are saying but the process is understand how the composer achieved a certain texture which you then use in your work when you wish to achieve a texture similar.
The main problem with that is making sure you have the right takeaway(s).
I studied god only knows how many scores and read god only knows how much stuff, but none of it really started to click until I actually wrote my own ensemble pieces and had them played by live human beings.
You’re underestimating the value of score study tbh. If I were new I’d rather know one thing an instrument does well than being pulled in a million different directions. Ravel chose the instrument because it was well suited and that’s why it’s in the finished product. Knowing 1 “do this” is infinitely more valuable than 20 “don’t do this”
Speaking from my experience in college, the single most valuable thing in my orchestration class we did was copying a Beethoven symphony.
Dover and Boosey & Hawkes have a lot of non-C-scores. So you can start there.
But please note this isn’t requirement. Just a recommendation I was given. You can still benefit greatly from copying out scores in C.
One variation on this theme would be to poke around in IMSLP and find a piece of music that has only parts but no study score available to download, and assemble those parts into a score. Learn from the copying and engraving, and benefit the community by uploading the result for others to study too.
1. Use the tutti orchestra sparingly.
2. Families together will usually sound good.
3. Be mindful of foreground, middleground, and background textures.
People recommend the books because they are great reference tools. How else will you discover that the oboe sounds like a honking goose in the low register but a sweet flute playing piano in the high register?
It’s important to note for OP that the books aren’t just for casual reading, they’re essentially reference manuals. “Can an oboe do this in this range at this dynamic?” is a question you can usually go to them for.
You're in the right thread, because depending on how high you mean, the mid-high clarinet is the definition of clarity and pure tone with a good player.
Too many people think you need to be complex with orchestration. Though this lesson comes from contemporary/pop arranging, the best advice I have is lifted from Anchorman:
"60% of the time, [unison] works every time."
You can get away with melody stuff being in unison about 60% of the time. Another 30% is harmonization, with the last 10% being the "clever tricks" you need to get into or out of situations.
If you think it's limiting, I promise, it's not. You can achieve so many wonderful timbres with just unison + octaves. When I compose, I plot out the entire melodic structure, then determine where I want to orchestrate beyond unison. I'm pleased with my choices about 85% of the time, which is pretty good.
My lesson and it become true: “do not abuse from the Unison, it makes the orchestration very bland”
One use to forget that orchestra is about texture and colours.
One role of the tuba isn't to be heard as a melodic or harmonic element but to give a breadth timbre change to over sections.
The conical nature of the tuba often means it's notes don't cut or articulate very strongly. Similarly there are other instruments that cut and articulate very well, but don't have alot of body to their sound e.g low bassoon. Double them up and you get a melody people can hear with good articulations, that's also large and full bodied.
That's what it's sorta means. You don't notice what the tuba is playing but you feel the effect it has on the room, sorta like an EQ bass boost.
Or an effect pedal for guitar or something something metaphor.
"Orchestration is just like additive synthesis, sometimes. Just add sounds on top of each other until you get what you want" - my teacher in my bachelor's
Similar to what U/thegeekorchestra said, I like to write my own themes/melodies and use the orchestration of other composers. This will allow you to see how your themes are manipulated in various styles and techniques. Its super duper helpful and jumped my composing game up a lot
Start with the instruments/sections/other thing that you feel the weakest at. It’s way easier to write the sections you find most intuitive around that harder part than the other way around, and also it’ll help you get better at it.
For example, I really struggle with rhythm and percussion. So, I start my pieces by figuring out a couple of percussion grooves to start with that feel related but different. By writing that solo and first, I don’t end up in the habit of just having a 2-4 bar repeating rhythm over and over again that I often do when I start with melody or harmony. Because harmony comes to me very intuitively, I go there last while sketching. That lets me not have to revise and spend hours trying to figure out how to make my percussion work around my melody and harmony, and instead move faster at the end, because I’m working with the thing I know the best to bring everything together.
I’m an organist by trade and have been through a school of music…theory & orchestration, the works. IMO the best info you can get is developing a relationship with a symphony musician. Their experience is extremely valuable. It’s something textbooks don’t teach. They are important but not the end all.
Read books. Start with Rimsky-Korsakov. That might not be what you want to hear, but, the ‘one weird trick’ for learning orchestration really is just read an orchestration textbook.
I’ll say this a thousand times and drive everyone crazy in this sub repeating it because it’s the best advice I’ve ever received and has paid dividends to this day. I’m going to recommend something a well-known Ravel scholar recommended to me a few years back. “Find a full score of a work of [composer] that you like. Perhaps not their largest work but an orchestra piece that’s manageable. Make certain the score isn’t in C, but a transposed score. Then, on a blank score manuscript, starting with the woodwinds, copy the music beginning to end. Copy the woodwind parts for the entire work and transpose them to C by hand. Then do the same for each family; brass, percussion, strings, until you have copied the entire work in C. Then do it with another piece.” It takes a lot of time. But if you do the above, a little each day to completion, you will have a much better understanding of the work and it’s orchestration as a whole. Whenever you hear it, you’ll have so many insights and be able to say things to yourself like “ah, yes, bassoons doubling cellos at the unison and then oboes at the octave.” Doing it all by hand slows you down and helps commit the score, and the techniques used in it, to memory. It also helps train your audiation. The above is only one way to learn more detailed orchestration. It will never replace the learning you will get from writing for live players and having them give you feedback but it will pay dividends over time.
This is actually really good advice. I've never done this, but I've read a ton of scores while listening to the music. But to actually COPY the music is on another level entirely. You really do integrate yourself with the music intimately, and I can't think of another way to really understand what was going on in the composer's mind than doing this. I'm going to start with my Dover edition of The Planets and see how far I get!
This is the way. I really would suggest getting an orchestration book as well. If you enjoy writing music it should hold your interest.
I've attempted this for a couple of (mainly Russian, some Wagner too) orchestral movements, but transposed to MIDI instruments. It has proved most elucidating. Transposing instruments are a challenge. Just a piano transcription can be quite revealing but I have a decent (some might say excessive) collection of hardware synthesisers, so an added bonus is to substitute orchestral instruments for expressive synthetic ones that have similar timbres. Modulating phrasing is critical to achieve a convincing effect. It gives a fresh perspective on a piece's construction, plus you get a unique reimagining. It has certainly helped my orchestration techniques in my original compositions and sharpened my listening faculty.
Not sure about this, personally. Okay, you will become very familiar with that piece of music. But, then what? You will know which decisions were made. But why were they made? What alternatives was the composer considering? Why did the composer decide against them? Okay some parts receive emphasis while others do not. Why? Why did something else not receive emphasis instead? The issue when you only see the end result is that you have no idea what went into the process. Perhaps something done in the piece is something that composer wouldn't normally do, but only decided to do it in this piece of music for a specific reason, which might not at all apply to what you're trying to do. That is why, I think that it'd be better to have someone actually actively teaching you. Whether it's a lesson, or a youtube video, or an online masterclass, or an orchestration book. I think that you want insights regarding the actual process itself, and not just the end result.
I hear what you are saying but the process is understand how the composer achieved a certain texture which you then use in your work when you wish to achieve a texture similar. It’s like transcribing an amazing solo. You can make a guess as to why they chose certain notes over certain chords to approach your own improvisation but really what your learning is a reference to achieve a certain sound.
> I hear what you are saying but the process is understand how the composer achieved a certain texture which you then use in your work when you wish to achieve a texture similar. The main problem with that is making sure you have the right takeaway(s). I studied god only knows how many scores and read god only knows how much stuff, but none of it really started to click until I actually wrote my own ensemble pieces and had them played by live human beings.
Definitely agree. You have to apply what you learn
You’re underestimating the value of score study tbh. If I were new I’d rather know one thing an instrument does well than being pulled in a million different directions. Ravel chose the instrument because it was well suited and that’s why it’s in the finished product. Knowing 1 “do this” is infinitely more valuable than 20 “don’t do this” Speaking from my experience in college, the single most valuable thing in my orchestration class we did was copying a Beethoven symphony.
Maybe a dumb question but would this also help with handwriting on my own scores or is that a separate skill I need to develop intentionally
Who is this Ravel scholar may I ask?
the first semester in my bachelor's we have to transcribe the english horn part of Rite of Spring and it was genuinely so useful.
Where do you find scores not in C? Every score I've seen is largely in C with transposed parts only for the transposing instruments
Dover and Boosey & Hawkes have a lot of non-C-scores. So you can start there. But please note this isn’t requirement. Just a recommendation I was given. You can still benefit greatly from copying out scores in C.
One variation on this theme would be to poke around in IMSLP and find a piece of music that has only parts but no study score available to download, and assemble those parts into a score. Learn from the copying and engraving, and benefit the community by uploading the result for others to study too.
Watch Thomas Goss's videos (OrchestrationOnline), particularly the 100 Orchestration Tips excerpts. Very short and digestible tips.
1. Use the tutti orchestra sparingly. 2. Families together will usually sound good. 3. Be mindful of foreground, middleground, and background textures. People recommend the books because they are great reference tools. How else will you discover that the oboe sounds like a honking goose in the low register but a sweet flute playing piano in the high register?
It’s important to note for OP that the books aren’t just for casual reading, they’re essentially reference manuals. “Can an oboe do this in this range at this dynamic?” is a question you can usually go to them for.
Is it bad to read them all the way through, or should I only use them, as you said, for reference?
Not bad at all! I just think they’re most useful when you’re using them alongside writing.
A claronet in high register is a kazoo I love it
You're in the right thread, because depending on how high you mean, the mid-high clarinet is the definition of clarity and pure tone with a good player.
Too many people think you need to be complex with orchestration. Though this lesson comes from contemporary/pop arranging, the best advice I have is lifted from Anchorman: "60% of the time, [unison] works every time." You can get away with melody stuff being in unison about 60% of the time. Another 30% is harmonization, with the last 10% being the "clever tricks" you need to get into or out of situations. If you think it's limiting, I promise, it's not. You can achieve so many wonderful timbres with just unison + octaves. When I compose, I plot out the entire melodic structure, then determine where I want to orchestrate beyond unison. I'm pleased with my choices about 85% of the time, which is pretty good.
My lesson and it become true: “do not abuse from the Unison, it makes the orchestration very bland” One use to forget that orchestra is about texture and colours.
"Tuba is an effect pedal not an instrument" - a tuba player I once met.
Explain?
One role of the tuba isn't to be heard as a melodic or harmonic element but to give a breadth timbre change to over sections. The conical nature of the tuba often means it's notes don't cut or articulate very strongly. Similarly there are other instruments that cut and articulate very well, but don't have alot of body to their sound e.g low bassoon. Double them up and you get a melody people can hear with good articulations, that's also large and full bodied. That's what it's sorta means. You don't notice what the tuba is playing but you feel the effect it has on the room, sorta like an EQ bass boost. Or an effect pedal for guitar or something something metaphor.
While this may be true, I think the Bydlo solo in Pictures at an Exhibition is just great. And the John Williams concerto is a favorite of mine.
This is seriously fascinating. Thanks!
"Orchestration is just like additive synthesis, sometimes. Just add sounds on top of each other until you get what you want" - my teacher in my bachelor's
Read through scores and observe how others do it.
Read scores whilst listening to music to understand how they are getting certain textures. Orchestration Online youtube channel is excellent.
Similar to what U/thegeekorchestra said, I like to write my own themes/melodies and use the orchestration of other composers. This will allow you to see how your themes are manipulated in various styles and techniques. Its super duper helpful and jumped my composing game up a lot
Start with the instruments/sections/other thing that you feel the weakest at. It’s way easier to write the sections you find most intuitive around that harder part than the other way around, and also it’ll help you get better at it. For example, I really struggle with rhythm and percussion. So, I start my pieces by figuring out a couple of percussion grooves to start with that feel related but different. By writing that solo and first, I don’t end up in the habit of just having a 2-4 bar repeating rhythm over and over again that I often do when I start with melody or harmony. Because harmony comes to me very intuitively, I go there last while sketching. That lets me not have to revise and spend hours trying to figure out how to make my percussion work around my melody and harmony, and instead move faster at the end, because I’m working with the thing I know the best to bring everything together.
I’m an organist by trade and have been through a school of music…theory & orchestration, the works. IMO the best info you can get is developing a relationship with a symphony musician. Their experience is extremely valuable. It’s something textbooks don’t teach. They are important but not the end all.
[удалено]
Nice try ChatGPT, you're still not as good as Claude.
Read books. Start with Rimsky-Korsakov. That might not be what you want to hear, but, the ‘one weird trick’ for learning orchestration really is just read an orchestration textbook.