Orchestration: PART 1 (woodwinds) discussion

Originally Posted by Saiming

As I expected a total bummer

I have re-written it; changed the first few bars concerning the clarinet, changed the forte part and strengthened the mp-> pp part. I however don't want to throw away the last chord, it makes me feel so warm

Hope I didn't make it worse

a lot better, though I question the wisdom of measure 7... with just the oboe and clarinet? I'm afraid it will stick out like a sore thumb because it's a bit more "stark" as a timbre, also not as dense as what preceded and follows it.

Remember, in this course, we are not necessarily looking for the most "inventive" solutions to the problems, we're looking for efficiency and a good solid base on which to build and then branch out for further exploration.

So in measure 7 do you think that it would help if I put in another instrument such as the flute… or maybe the bassoon? Or is it generally because the oboe and clarinet are in unison?

Thanks a bunch!

Now, the next exercise

Originally Posted by Saiming

So in measure 7 do you think that it would help if I put in another instrument such as the flute… or maybe the bassoon? Or is it generally because the oboe and clarinet are in unison?

Thanks a bunch!

Now, the next exercise

just to do it "mathematically" look at the number of instruments playing in what is basically a softer measure just prior, then at what is going to be playing in the louder next measure... it just doesnt' seem logical that something in between the two should have so many less instruments.

don't confuse this with "loudness". I don't mean that more instruments equals loud. I mean that more instrumental density creates... well, instrumental density.

When you have a phrase with 6 instruments in unsion/octaves, then suddenly cut to a measure with only 2 instruments, the effect is quite stark and noticeable.

Ah yes I understand. So in this context it does not fit, but what if you wanted to make it 'jerk' just to catch the listeners interest by removing some instruments just before or a bit before the climax, could it bring positive effect?

it would have to be VERY carefully calculated. it's not the sort of effect that works readily. the musical phrase would need to be made for that purpose. preferably with a brief pause, and a repetition of a motif. it needs to have some sort of link that doesn't just make the phrase disjointed.

This is exactly an example of how orchestration/instrumentation has a very direct impact on the form of the music.

Oops. I almost didn't do Exercise 5. Sorry.

Originally Posted by djsell

Oops. I almost didn't do Exercise 5. Sorry.

hehehe, I think a LOT of people have forgotten the orchestration course!

ok, some comments on your example... it's a lovely start.

One thing I find is that your flute part is maybe a little too consistantly low. It's always borderline "weak register" throughout. even when all the rest of the isntruments come in. Since your flute seems to be carrying the main melodic material, it would either need to be in a stronger register, or at least be doubled by another instrument.

for example, the third measure the clarinet is above the flute, and the oboe is in its very strongest register... that flute is a bit lost in there.

another thing to watch out for is 2nds. when you have those 2nd frictions in the harmony (which are beautiful, by the way), you ahve to be very careful about where they resolve and what instruments are playing them.

In the 2nd measure it could work with the flute and oboe. the resolution opens to a 3rd, and the texture is very clear.

however, the 6th measure where the clarinet plays that 2nd above the flute then the 2nd BELOW as well!!! that might not work as well. it ends up sounding a bit muddy.

Since your phrase is very contrapuntal, you might consider changing flutes for oboes in the opening, then having the clarinets do the oboe part, and the flutes an octave up do the clarinet part.

try it that way to see how you like it. it will make the texture a bit more transparent as well.

Oh, I didn't notice the second 2nd (ha ha) in that measure. I was trying for a sus. 2 because I had never really used one before, but I fudged it. So I took it out; I like it without it better.

I like the switching of the parts much better. I've got the changed file attatched.

Originally Posted by djsell

Oh, I didn't notice the second 2nd (ha ha) in that measure. I was trying for a sus. 2 because I had never really used one before, but I fudged it. So I took it out; I like it without it better.

I like the switching of the parts much better. I've got the changed file attatched.

lovely!
that works a whole lot better.

care to take yet another jab at it? this time mixing and matching the timbres, as we've been learning through-out this course. by this I mean not trating 2 flutes together, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets... how about 1 flute and 1 oboe? or 2 clarinets and a flute? here and there, break up the symmetry of your orchestration.

The solo lines was a good start... but could have been a bit more colourful with a blended timbral colour - flute and clarinet solo unison?

I believe I followed the first bit of advice correctly and made other minor changes, but I'm not sure I understand what to do about the last bit. Are you saying to do something like change the oboe solo to a flute and clarinet soloist duet? Or should I put the flute an octave down?