View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Aug 30 2007, 1:25 PM
QcCowboy QcCowboy is offline

QcCowboy's Avatar

Moderator
Group: Moderators
Joined: 27-April 06
Posts: 3,329
Member Number: 776
LESSON ONE (continued):

SCORING FOR HORNS

When dealing with a larger ensemble, the orchestrator will more often than not have access to four horns. It would be important to point out that, despite HAVING four horns, it is not always suggested that you orchestrate with four continuous individual lines for the four instrumental parts.

In the following example, we have a brief phrase, in both 3-part and 4-part harmony. This particular example is written as a sectional solo (ie: it does not rely on other instruments to complete the harmony).

Four Horns



The first thing to notice is the disposition of the four instruments: 1st and 3rd horns are considered the “high” horns, while 2nd and 4th are the “low” horns. This disposition, while not compulsory, is traditional. It has, also, the added advantage of creating a certain stereophonic effect within the grouping of horns since the two higher instruments are not seated together, nor the two instruments designated as “low” horns. This separation is evident in the score a well.

If we examine the example in more detail, we notice that the high horns start in unison on the first chord. The music immediately divides into four parts for the next measure. When the music returns to 3-part harmony, notice that the “low” horns are instead given the unison. The “high” horns could just as easily have been assigned the unison B, however, this also gave the orchestrator the chance to create some melodic movement in the 3rd horn part (the descending figure: B – A – A – G). Had the unison been between 1st and 3rd horns instead,that would have given the rather banal neighbor-tone relationship of simply B – A – A – B.

Notice the 3rd beat of measure 3. Again, the 2nd and 4th horns are in unison. here, the simple leap up a 5th by both is reinforced by the unison. While this particular leap is not particularly difficult to perform, it is an important consideration when writing for horn that leaps be preferably doubled in some way. This reduces the risk of “horn-honk”.

Measure 4 finds the 2nd and 3rd horns in unison. There is no reason here other than to avoid giving the same two instruments constant unisons. Here the orchestrator could have continued the 2nd and 4th horn unison, but then the chance would have been lost for a brief “melodic” moment in the 2nd horn.

In the final measure you may notice that an apparent rule of harmonic voice-leading is broken in the 2nd horn: the F# should normally have resolved up to the G natural. Here licence was taken to allow for a more complete final chord, and it is made to move down to the D. Since the leading tone (F#) is in an inner voice, the lapse in voice-leading is not as noticeable, and the fullness of the final chord is considerably more satisfying. The 3rd horn might have been considered to play that final D, but the parallel 5ths thus created (between 3rd and 4th horns) would have been considerably more noticeable than the “faulty” voice-leading which was our final choice.

Writing for four horns requires a carefully controlled conception of the harmony we are using. The horns cannot be used as “filler” in a woodwind choir, nor in a brass choir. Ideally, their material should come as closely as possible to “harmonic completeness”.

Bring the horns in at an important moment in the music. They will not sound “loud” and “brassy”, but will give a fullness to the orchestral sound. If you toss them into the mix haphazardly, the appearance and disappearance of the horn parts will be glaring. Whether you conceive of the horn part as a resonant part or as a melodic part, you must be sure that it has linear consistancy.
__________________
"Those that know, do;
Those that understand, teach
."
-Aristotle-

"toute audace engendrée par l'ignorance cesse d'être une audace et devient une maladresse"
-Debussy-

In musical criticism, when issues of craft and technical consideration are set aside, what remains is more subjective. However, until technical issues are dealt with, the subjective portion bears considerably less weight.