Orchestration: PART 1 (woodwinds) discussion

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.

Originally Posted by MusicManJ4

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".

Originally Posted by MusicManJ4

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.

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 à due. To have another bassoon in octaves wouldn't sound right, it would either be rather high in range and unbalance with the rest of the winds, or is below it would just not sound right, being too low relative to the original octave the melody is in. I know what you're saying about how it isn't flowing well. I was trying to have the melody tossed between the instruments, like a conversation. I'm still trying to preserve that idea, but I worked on making it a little more fluid, or continuous, as you put it. Does this work now?

Exercise 6a - Okay, this is going to need a lot of work. I did exercise 5 and went right on to adding the horns. Go ahead and listen with the horns muted first, I know there are plenty of things wrong floating around with the woodwinds alone. I'm concerned that this wasn't a good choice for the exercise, what do you think? I also added horns 3 and 4, but I wasn't sure what you meant by sharing between the horns and woodwinds. Should I now give the horns a melodic part somewhere in exchange that a woodwind must fulfill the resonance rule, or?
And yeah, I know I need to work out how to use less instruments, I'm using too many of them the whole time.

Oh, by the way, if you could recognize the tune I used (I changed it to minor), I would appreciate if you could tell me the name of it, because I don't. I know I've heard it before, though.

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

Originally Posted by MusicManJ4

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 à due. To have another bassoon in octaves wouldn't sound right, it would either be rather high in range and unbalance with the rest of the winds, or is below it would just not sound right, being too low relative to the original octave the melody is in. I know what you're saying about how it isn't flowing well. I was trying to have the melody tossed between the instruments, like a conversation. I'm still trying to preserve that idea, but I worked on making it a little more fluid, or continuous, as you put it. Does this work now?

Exercise 6a - Okay, this is going to need a lot of work. I did exercise 5 and went right on to adding the horns. Go ahead and listen with the horns muted first, I know there are plenty of things wrong floating around with the woodwinds alone. I'm concerned that this wasn't a good choice for the exercise, what do you think? I also added horns 3 and 4, but I wasn't sure what you meant by sharing between the horns and woodwinds. Should I now give the horns a melodic part somewhere in exchange that a woodwind must fulfill the resonance rule, or?
And yeah, I know I need to work out how to use less instruments, I'm using too many of them the whole time.

Oh, by the way, if you could recognize the tune I used (I changed it to minor), I would appreciate if you could tell me the name of it, because I don't. I know I've heard it before, though.

O Tannenbaum? ("O Christmas Tree")

OK, I see no reason to be so hard on yourself. I think the use of the horns was pretty good for a "first try".

one thing I WOULD be careful about, and it's not an "error", it just could create boring orchestration in the long run, is the use of too many octaves.

Don't be afraid to have 1st flute and 1st oboe or clarinet play in unison.
Don't be afraid to have the 2nd flute play a 4th down, and the 2nd oboe to cover the 3rd of the chord.

If you carefully "weight" the melody (ie: have enough instruments playing the melody) you can even have one instrument play harmony notes ABOVE the melody without disguising it too much.

Orchestration is a game of balancing acts... balancing relative weight and density of sound... balancing the "thickness" of the sound... the volume.

• A simple melody can be played all in unison and octave doublings
• The same melody can, in another context be played with unison, octaves AND 3rds and 5ths doubling (thickened melody)
• That same melody can be accompanied by a simple counterpoint that goes in opposite direction from the melody itself
• That counterpoint can take on an entire life of its own