Orchestration: PART 1 (woodwinds) discussion

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







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 fucking 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.

Originally Posted by Chris

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 fucking 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.

Originally Posted by Chris

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 fucking 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. Orchestration: PART 1 (woodwinds) discussion

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:







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"

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.

Originally Posted by EnigmusJ4

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. Orchestration: PART 1 (woodwinds) discussion

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.