Orchestrating Chords for Strings - Please Help! [Archive]

Dark Realms

04-27-2005, 02:12 PM

Hi everyone - you're all more knowledgeable than myself so what I'm about to say is probably obvious so please forgive me as I'm only an amateur hobbiest orchestral composer using the great Gold Orchestra. This is also driving me mad so if you could possibly enlighten me with your experience I'd be grateful! These questions refer only to the string section.

Say you have the following simple situation: you have a melody and you have the chords (triad, 3 notes) to go with that melody.

I've heard that in orchestrating in real life that the 1st Violin section never plays 3 notes at once - but is this true? Is it possible for them to do this? (In synth terms - sorry about this - are they 3 note polyphonic?). I think you're supposed to split those triad chords BETWEEN the 1st & 2nd Violins and the Violas so they play one note apiece making those lovely triad chords. I'm asking because if you play 3 notes together using say a lyr articulation from the 1st Violin section it sounds much better than splitting the chords between the 3 separate groups already mentioned - it has more oomph! Using the latter method results in a much weaker sound - I was told by a very nice guy to trust my ears but my ears are telling me to play 3 notes at once because I don't want to lose that "oomph!" If you do have to split the 3
chord notes between the 3 sections, does anyone know how to keep the oomph up? (By oomph, I mean power I suppose).

Taking that technique then, it leads me to the next situation: Say the MELODY is played by the 1st & 2nd Violins and Violas in unison (this is a big climax say), this leaves the Celli and Basses to play the chords - but hold on a second - that's only 2 sections, so who's going to play the 3rd note of your chords?! Agh! See what I mean? Can the Celli then play 2 notes at once and the Basses the other note making the magic 3 triad chord?

Am I missing something? I'm totally confused! I know the Trombones, Trumpets and Tuba could play a chord between them as the brass instruments are each monophonic (I think and the Horns 2 note?) but I'd only like to discuss the string section only please.

Thank you all in advance.

Mazhar.

James W.G. Smith

04-27-2005, 02:51 PM

You can divide the section as much as you want to, but keep in mind that it will sound weaker with live players because you are cutting the section size. For example, if you have 18 1st violins and you divide them into three parts it's only 6 violins each, but if you are playing 3 notes on a 18Vlns patch in EWQLSO then you are getting back 54 violins (in theory, but I think it sounds like less). But you can pretty much do whatever you want, and if this is NOT going to be played live, I wouldn't worry about anything. Also keep in mind that adding other instruments can really bring in a bigger sound, like French Horns or whatnot. I usually keep myself to dividing any given section into 2 parts to stay in the clear (I figure with some clever orchestration I can pull myself out of a hole in that situation) and if I want a bigger sound then I will add some brass, winds or whatever.

A good thing to do is to LISTEN to as much music as possible, and try to work out how a composer did it (unless you are more classically oriented in which case you can actually find sheet music). Also, grab a couple of orchestration books, I recommend Adler's The Study of Orchestration, 3rd edition and Berlioz/Strauss Treatise on Intrumentation. Good luck and feel free to post any other questions,

James W.G. Smith

rJames

04-27-2005, 08:34 PM

Mazhar. Don't think of "chords" when you're orchestrating. Nobody should be playing a chord.

Lets say you have a triad and a melody. You really have a 4 note chord (or vertical structure). Unless the melody is doubling one of the notes in the triad.

If you use the 1st violins on the melody. Then create a melody for the second violins that uses only the notes in the "chord." Play the tonic with the Bass, the fifth with the cellos and the third with the violas.

But you should have a melody in each of the instruments that plays through the notes of the chord. If you write good lines for each of the other instruments (and a rhythm for the bass) then you'll have a beautiful harmony for your melody.

You can have the cello's melody basically just sit on the 5. The point is to get all of the sections playing their own melodies that join together to create rich symphonic music.

You could be playing a counter line with the violas and harmonizing that with the cellos. Just make sure that you are covering the notes of the triad that are missing from the root (the bass) and the melody (the 1st violins).

neoTypic

04-27-2005, 11:14 PM

All good advice. Here's some technical stuff:

What you're referring to is called a "stop". You can have double (two notes on two different strings), triple (3), and even quadruple (4) stops have been written. They can be very difficult to play. I would NEVER recommend writing a quadruple stop. Ever. Your violinist will have your head if you try. :p

Anyhow. Depending on the tempo of the passage and how often the notes change will depend on whether your triple stops are playable. Obviously faster passages makes it more difficult. I would suggest giving one note to your 1rst violins, one to your 2nd violins, and the bottom to your violas if you must write in block chords.

Some stops are just not techinically possible to play. Think about a guitar fretboard and trying to splay three fingers at 6ths apart.

It's not very common for an entire section to be playing triple stops or even double stops.

I'm not saying don't ever write a stop, but you're safer divying up the notes so to speak. ;)

deathadder79

04-28-2005, 05:51 PM

Pretty much what everyone has said is correct, at least to a certain degree... I would agree with the person that told you to "trust your ears" though... if the purpose of this piece is for others to play it, that's one thing... but don't be scared to do something "wrong" if you're working with a computer library... traditionalist won't agree with that statement, but oh well... :)

That being said, James gave some great advice if you're really interested... get an orchestration book... someone can tell you "double stops are no problem," but it is impossible to play a low G and low C# together on a single violin with standard tuning... while a low G and low D are two open strings, so it's quite possible... plus it's fun to learn about all those articulations, so when you have a sound in your head you'll know which patch to look for...

neoTypic

04-28-2005, 07:18 PM

Neo, who have you been hiring for your strings? Quad-stops are a standard technique required of professionals (except double basses) and if you construct them correctly and employ them in the appropriate context they're not a problem at all.

Seriously? Yeesh! *laughs*

I was taught wrong then. Thanks for clearing that up for me bud. Time to do some research before I stick my foot in my mouth again. ;)

dcoscina

04-28-2005, 10:22 PM

Hi Mahzar! I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this (I skimmed the other posts) but there are occasions where the composer will sub-divide the 1st and 2nd violin sections to get those bigger chords. Yes, this reduces the overall thickness of the string section when you divide them but I know a few classical compositions (to say the least) where composers did this. I often do it because I want a specific sound and don't want to spread the harmony throughout the string section to achieve it. But it really depends on the size of your string section. Obviously I wouldn't do it if I was using a chamber group.....

Perhaps Scott can embellish upon this idea.....

neoTypic

04-28-2005, 11:30 PM

Neo, I don't think you stuck your foot in your mouth at all. I'm just trying to convey a bit of information that may be of some help. But I am somewhat curious as to what you may have been told by someone about this multi-stop issue. If a violinist at any scoring session around here had a problem with a properly contructed quad-stop, they'd be taken off the call list by the contractor.

That said, multi-stops are certainly not the answer for the original issue that began this thread.

I just don't like giving wrong information is all bud! I'm actually glad you corrected me.

I had a rather poor theory instructor who was about as German as one could get who happened to be a violin player. *cough* Needless to say dividing fact from highly egocentric opinion could be a challenge at times. ;)

So in all honesty I really need to pick up an instrumentation and orchestration book and read up on some things - especially technique with instruments I'm not readily familiar with. I've had VERY little formal training. Two years of what amounts to remedial theory and ear training and never a composition course in my life.

nexus

04-29-2005, 04:38 AM

One other important thing to remember when writing for double, triple or especially quad stops:

D y n a m i c s.

Try asking your strings section to execute that triple-stop at ppp!! :eek:

Really it only is practical for loud playing, even with mutes.

I believe that maybe now might be a good time to throw away the rule book and bend the conventions of orchestration. Afterall, midi isn't real. :)

ChrisE

04-29-2005, 01:29 PM

If you use the 1st violins on the melody. Then create a melody for the second violins that uses only the notes in the "chord." Play the tonic with the Bass, the fifth with the cellos and the third with the violas.

I was taught to keep the Double Bass and Cello in octaves as the Double Bass is too low to hold the bass. My lecturer likened it to an organ pedal with the Double Bass being the lowest pipe for extra oomph.

As James W. J. Smith has already said, Adler's 'The Study of Orchestration' is an excellent book and one that I rely on all the time.

Dr.Grace

04-29-2005, 01:50 PM

I'm a cellist and can speak about this. There are some mechanical restrictions that affect the playing of triple and quadruple stops, because of the curvature of the bridge. You either have to roll them, so that the lower two strings sound first, then the upper two, or you have to play with such pressure that the bow hairs deform and contact three or four strings at once. An example of the latter is the opening of the Dvorak cello concerto.

As you can imagine, these are difficult to play in tune. Even double stops are hard, especially in an orchestra, when you can't always hear yourself very well. In my experience, conductors often have sections play divisi instead of double stops. Divisi sounds so much better.

Don

ChrisE

04-29-2005, 05:29 PM

This is only partially true, but the cellos and basses needn't be slaved together as a mandatory routine. It really depends on the setting, and on what kind of bass you actually want in a given context. If, for example, you have a string tutti in a five-part polyphonic or polythematic texture, you're going to need to untie the cellos from the basses - probably centering the cellos on their D and A strings while the basses take up the bass. In this situation you would want to keep the basses from going to low, but other than that they can handle the foundation just fine on their own in such a context, especially since they have such strong upper harmonics. But once you have an octave doubling between any of the upper strings, that's when you're going to probably need to couple the cellos and basses toghether, but of course that wouldn't happen in a five-part texture like this one.

Thanks for correcting me :) Writing for strings can be difficult to compose for especially if you dont play a stringed instrument. How low would you take the Double Bass if its holding the bass by itself?

bluedog

04-29-2005, 07:12 PM

Mmh...a little story as a general reply on the subjective matter of do's and dont's with regards to arranging/orchestration "rules".

When I was attending Berklee College, while I was amassing a real wealth of knowledge - process to which I clearly completely willingly and gladly surrendered to - it occured to me that by accepting rules without assessing of the way things really sounded in practice I was perhaps limiting my options unwittingly.

THerefore, in the course of a conversation with my 'listening/Analysis teacher of that semester, we decided I should take private tutoring once a week from him to teacch how to apply all the things considered forbidden rules and turn them into assets. Partly for the hell of it, and partly because whatever was not to be anything I could actually use, would be something I'd justified the fobidden status of...(I've no time to make this more concise)

Sure enough, it has been great. We'd meet at the coffee shop once a week and I was putting together scores full of prime dissonances and other forbidden voicings...some of which was fantastic and some of which was awful. My ears got a good education through that process as well.

..and the theacher who so much enjoyed wplaying outside the rules...well, he won the highest American Contemporary Music award of that year (name of which escapes me) and had it performed by the Boston Pops.

As some have suggested here, never be afraid to try.

B

Dr.Grace

04-29-2005, 08:33 PM

Daryl

04-30-2005, 02:02 PM

If a conductor changes a context-appropriate properly constructed multi-stop into a divisi routine, he's demonstrating incompetence. Multi-stops have a very specific sound and a very specific purpose in the music. They are their own thing and divisi is not really a substitute (unless the multi-stops were ill-conceived and/or poorly constructed in the first place that is).

In theory you are correct, but the practice can be far different. When a double stop is to be spread there is no question that the section shouldn't divide. However you must remember that strings are not made of the same materials as in earlier historical periods, therefore sometinmes a doublestop is just inappropriate in context. An example of this can be found in Mendessohn's "Fingal's Cave", where if the 1st violins play D (on the A string) together with an open E. The result is nearly always an unholy racket....! When this piece was written they used gut E strings which were softer and less strident.

Daryl

Ruchir

05-01-2005, 03:44 AM

I've been grappling with this as well. I know where you are coming from and there is a simple solution that made the difference for me. Layer your string sections at the octave. So have your 1st violins playing the same note one octave below or above the 2nd violins. Have your Cellos playing an octave below this and at the same time as the Double Basses play two octaves below this. This will give you the Oomph you are looking for. You can then vary the notes played by one or more sections from your melodyo to make your harmony/chords.

Experts, please let me know if I've got this right.

Peter269

05-01-2005, 10:58 PM

I've heard that in orchestrating in real life that the 1st Violin section never plays 3 notes at once - but is this true?

This is called divisi writing. 1st and 2nd violins can vary from 3 instruments per section (small TV orchestra or record date) up to 14 violins per section (the number used by Jerry Goldsmith). You can divide the V1s into 2 -4 parts. This would mean that 7 players are dividing 2 parts, 554 divide three parts, and 4433 for 4 part harmony in the divided 1st violins. This isn't done very often, but you can see some examples of it by Debussy in La Mer.

I strongly recommend you read Anatomy of the Orchestra by Norman Del Mar which covers these issues. If you read French, you should get Koechlin's Triaite de Orchestration from Eschig in Paris, Volume 1, and study the section labeled, "The Balance of the Sonorities."

It is one thing to divide parts on a sampler, another when doing it live. When doing it with live players, beyond two parts in each violin section, you get a complicated arrangement of determining by music stand who gets what part since usually two players per stand are reading the parts.

Div a 4 is quite advanced writing and I feel you be would be much better off studying a more accessible score like Pavanne by Faure.

bmiranda

05-02-2005, 05:26 AM

Very often they are ill-conceived. I do not believe there are many instances where a double stop actually adds more to the sound of the work than the notes played divisi.

Don

Let's keep in mind that double/triple/quadruple stops are only possible on different strings, a mistake often done by unexperienced composers/orchestratrs. The most successful triple/quadruple stops have one or two open notes (payed on open strings) since these have a greater sustaining power.

To avoid certain misunderstandings by the conductor, is advisable that the composer writes on the score "non divisi" if he wants a certain passage to ble payed with double, triple or quadruple stops.

Frederick

05-02-2005, 08:58 AM

Don't think of "chords" when you're orchestrating. Nobody should be playing a chord.

Yes - to rJames you listen. The notes in a basic triad w/root tone can be separated and written as separate lines horizontally - the vertical structures (chords) are created in the process yet with this method voice leading can add more cohesion and smoothness in the transitions.

Journeyman

05-02-2005, 09:40 AM

Let's get deeper into this, if you don't mind. Allow me to "think out loud" for a second:

These are going to sound like very naive questions to many of you. Understand that I've no orchestral writing background whatsoever; only jazz horn writing which is very much vertically conceived. At least, that's how Berklee taught it.

I fully understand the simple concept of horizontal single lines in various sections being used to create chords in the overall orchestra. But how much of the resulting chordal harmony is intentional, and how much of it is just the "coincidental" end result of these stacked single lines? I guess that I'm asking a "chicken or the egg" type of question. In traditional composition, how much of the harmonic content is thought out before the single note vertical lines are written? Does the traditional composer say to himself, "Ok, I know that I want to hit a BbSus here at bar 50, so I've got to make sure that the voice leading of the individual lines gets me there....."

So what comes first, "harmonic pre-planning", or "horizontal line writing that evolves on the fly"? A little bit of both, perhaps?

In a process like EIS, it seems like it's all horizontal thinking that somehow results in exploring deeper harmonic territory as a byproduct of it's concepts.

I love these types of discussions. Any takers?

AndyFinkenstadt

05-02-2005, 10:25 AM

A couple weeks ago I was talking with a friend from church online, and he was unsure how a specific song went that he was going to have to cantor the following sunday. I sketched out the melody on the first violins, added the root of the chords on the bass fiddle, put the men's counterpart on the cello, and then drew in two violin & viola parts using Fux's counterpoint techniques as an inspirational guide: ligatures & movement.

15 minutes effort, tops. (Sibelius 3.1 was used, no electrons were harmed in this process.)

There's way too much reverb from the cathedral reverb sibelius was using, but the end result for the refrain & leading part into the verse [where it cuts off for the purposes of teaching him the song] is at http://andy.mooville.net/songs/SMOG.mp3 .

scarr

05-03-2005, 12:50 PM

I have a question about the "bass and cello in octaves" approach. My AP Music Theory class in high school (my only "formal" theory training outside of guitar lessons) taught me that you're "supposed to" avoid parallel 5ths and 8ths. Is that just supposed to be in 4-part (SATB) choral writing? (Since this was the choir teacher's class, that's where the examples came from.) I know you can do whatever you want, but I'm curious what traditional theory's bounds on that rule are.

amo

05-03-2005, 01:39 PM

bmiranda

05-04-2005, 06:04 AM

I think (but I have no serious "formal" trainig), that there is a difference between doubling a melody at the octave, and the so-called parrallel octaves, which happen in a piece where the 4 lines play different lines, and all of a sudden you have a parrallel octave....
And meditate on that: rules are there, but for exemple J.S. Bach breaks one of them at the end of a lot of his chorals....

That's right. In this specific case (Celli & Bassi) you're doubling a melodic line ro reinforce it. This is a common practice in orchestral music.

Well, Mozart also broke some of the "classical" rules, you can find a few parallel 5ths on his Sonatas :)
In another time, Mahler, Bruckner, Mussorgski... also wrote melodic lines that are not in accordance with the composition rules. In the orchestral literature there's tons of examples.
It all depends on the effect you want to obtain.
Like my composition teacher said once, if you know that you are breaking the rules there's no problem at all, the problem is when you break them without knowing it :)

Regards,
Bruno

neoTypic

05-04-2005, 07:16 AM

Well the problem is that it wasn't like Mozart was following a set of rules when he wrote. The "rules" we have are based on the sound of that time - if you write following this set of rules you'll get something that sounds like it was written during the common practice period. Once you start bending/breaking these rules on purpose you start getting into jazz theory and other modern ideas (atonality etc).

scarr

05-04-2005, 12:37 PM

That's right. In this specific case (Celli & Bassi) you're doubling a melodic line ro reinforce it. This is a common practice in orchestral music.

Well, Mozart also broke some of the "classical" rules, you can find a few parallel 5ths on his Sonatas :)
In another time, Mahler, Bruckner, Mussorgski... also wrote melodic lines that are not in accordance with the composition rules. In the orchestral literature there's tons of examples.
It all depends on the effect you want to obtain.
Like my composition teacher said once, if you know that you are breaking the rules there's no problem at all, the problem is when you break them without knowing it :)

Regards,
Bruno
Doubling for reinforcement makes sense. If I understand correctly though, parallel perfect intervals are otherwise "classically" avoided when composing by the rules.

Tied to this, does rock music (from a composition standpoint) just drive classically-minded people insane? Many guitar parts have constant parallel 5ths, and "power chord" based stuff is nothing but them. This actually ties back closely to what I assume was the genesis of this thread. (It's modern guitar/piano players who talk about "melody and chords.")

amo

05-04-2005, 01:32 PM

Those parallel fifth you are talking about in rock and so are nothing but a "doubling for reinforcement" ;)

dory

05-04-2005, 02:33 PM

Um... quad stops on a stringed instrument are a tricky issue. A string player cannot bow more than two strings at once. At best, he can glide the bow across the four strings, leaving two of them to slightly resonate while actually bowing one or two. So, the four notes of a quad stop will not be evenly heard. A double stop can be played in a stable fashion, where both notes are heard evenly. But that is just not possible for triple or quad stops. Still, when you're dealing with sampled string sounds, the issue of the physical limitations of a violin become somewhat irrelevant.

matthew82475

05-04-2005, 08:17 PM

I'm not sure if the person who started this thread is still reading, but it looks like much of the discussion regarding chords and stops revolves around the difference between what is possible and what is typical.

In regard to stops, what is possible is limited only by the mechanics of the instrument. In other words, as long as you write a double, triple, or quadruple stop that is playable, it would fall under the category of possible. As far as what is typical, that depends on the context of the performance. In a professional concert or recording session, what is typical is whatever is possible. As you work down the levels of skill (Community Orchestra -> College Orchestra -> High School Orchestra -> Church Orchestra -> etc.) what is typical tends to get closer and closer to what is simply easier.

In regard to writing "chords" for a string ensemble or string orchestra (and you would want to approach each group differently), what is typical will depend on skill (as above) but also, style, esthetic, and effect. Awhile back someone commented on "the rules" for writing chords. That is basically a misnomer because those "rules" aren't so much about writing chords as they are about writing effective polyphonic lines. Whenever more than one instrument is playing, polyphony is occuring. The "rules" (which are rather more like guidelines), give a basic approach to maximizing the polyphic effect. In other words, parallel fifths and eigths are to be avoided because they tend to make the two instruments sound as one (which is the opposite intent of polyphonic writing). However, having two instrument go into and out of a polyphic sound can also be esthetically interesting as well as create interesting effects.

I know this post is way too long, but the thread has brought up several long and involved questions. I'm not sure if anyone wants a thorough discussion of techniques for writing chordal structures, but I'll help if you'd like.

Matt

Journeyman

05-05-2005, 05:12 AM

I'm not sure if anyone wants a thorough discussion of techniques for writing chordal structures, but I'll help if you'd like.
Matt,

I have no interest in the "multiple stops" aspect of this conversation whatsoever, but would otherwise enthusiastically welcome anything you'd be willing to share on the subjct of how to properly orchestrate chordal structures for strings and/or woodwinds.

IMHO, I find that forums like these focus way too much on gear, and not enough on actual music making; so assistance with practical orchestrational techniques would we wonderful.

Regards,
-Mark

matthew82475

05-05-2005, 08:37 AM

Sure Mark, here we go...

The first point that needs to be considered before we begin is whether the music is intended to be performed by live musicians. Since this thread is in a forum hosted by a company that specializes in synthetic instruments, this point can't be understated. In a synthetic world, just about anything is possible and you don't need to be too concerned about issues of dynamics, balance, etc. because all of these considerations can be adjusted without considering the actual notation decisions.

On the other hand, in the "real world", which notes are given to which instruments will have dramatic effects on dynamics, balance, etc. and they often can not be adjusted by simply moving a fader. So a good orchestration needs to consider all aspects of sound simultaneously because they are all interconnected.

The second point that needs to considered before we begin is the actual make up of the ensemble. For example, a chord distributed among a string orchestra will sound quite different from the same chord distributed the same way among a string quartet. To get a sense of this, load up one of the solo string patches and play some chords on your keyboard, then load up the equivalent string section patch and play the same chords. They sound quite different. For live instruments, this effect between ensemble and solo instruments is most pronounced among the strings since there is, generally speaking, the biggest difference in numbers between the two groups. However, the effect can still be heard among the other instrument families.

So let us start, now, with some basic principles. There are basically two ways to score a chord: closed and open. A closed chord means that there are no duplications of notes between the outer most voices. For example, if you were scoring a C Maj chord, you have three possiblities (starting from the bottom), C - E - G, E - G - C, G - C - E. As long as there are no duplications of the notes between the outer notes, the chord is considered closed. An open chord has the same three different note combinations except that there will be other C Maj notes between the voices. For exmple, C (below middle-C) - E (above middle-C) - G (2 above middle-C). With this configuration you will find the E below middle middle-C, the G below middle-C and middle-C itself between the bottom two notes. I know this is hard to describe in words, so if it would for me to attach a picture or something let me know.

So how do you decide whether you to use open or closed structure? That depends on how you want the chord to sound (as well as potential limitations of the instrumentation). For example, if you ensemble consisted of a tuba, a violin, and a piccolo flute, writing a closed chord would be extremely difficult if not completely impossible due to physical limitations of the instruments. As far as a string section in concerned, writing closed chords is possible, but it often means leaving the Double Bass out because of range issues. If you want the DB to play you'll probably need to duplicate the cello note an octave lower. This doesn't necesarily mean that the chord is no longer in closed position because, acoustically speaking, you're ear will probably not "hear" the DB as playing an octave lower.

All thing being equal though, strings generally sound best when scored in open structure. Not only does that better suit the general ranges of the instruments, it also limits the variance of tone and dyanics from instrument to instrument. For example, a violin section playing on the low G-string will sound noticeably different than when they play on the high E-string. I'm sure some string players out there will argue that a good player can make the entire range of the instrument sound the same, but even they will have to admit that they need to make compensations in order to do so because the mecahnics of the instrument itself tend to cause the tone to change. Also, the farther up the fingerboard a string player plays will also effect the tone. Going back to our example of a closed chord structure for stings, the cellos will necessarily have to play high on the A-string to get within range of the violins. The differene in tone between a violin playing low and the cello playing high will be difficult to match, even for advanced orchestras.

So, to recap: Before you begin considering which notest to give to which instruments you need to consider live vs. synthetic and the make up of the ensemble. Assuming you intend to write for live instruments, you then need to consider open vs closed structure. From here you'll need to consider, doubling, dynamics, tone, and aesthetic. If this is the kind of info you're looking for, let me know and I'll continue with this study.

Matt

P.S. If you couldn't tell, I used to be a music teacher. :D

neoTypic

05-05-2005, 09:09 AM

Thanks Matt. I would love to hear more whenever you feel like giving a free class. ;)

Like Matt said the tonal qualities of an instrument are very important to consider when writing for them. The samples in EWQLSO are quite musical and a good representative of common intonations.

Just load up the staccato clarinet patch and compare it to the legato patch. Even within one instrument is a wealth of tonal colours to paint with.

Journeyman

05-05-2005, 09:49 AM

Matt,

So far so good; a lot of the rules are similar to the jazz horn writing that I do. It sounds like you're leading up to what I really want to know. Assume that I know the difference in sound quality between open and closed voicings, as well as the other scale tones that are available to me besides the obvious chord tones. How do I go about deciding which sections get which notes; as well as the best ways to voice dissonant intervals, such as major and minor seconds within chords? When do you give a line to an entire section, as opposed to dividing up a section ("divisi"?)? And if dividing up a section, how many ways can you divide it up; only two? Three? I realize that a lot of this is subjective and subject to taste, but at least if you can give me a basic starting point, I can take it from there.

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this.

Regards,
-Mark

Journeyman

05-05-2005, 01:02 PM

Scott,

I've got lots of long winded responses for you, but no time right now. For now just accept my thanks.

-Mark

scarr

05-05-2005, 02:56 PM

Awhile back someone commented on "the rules" for writing chords. That is basically a misnomer because those "rules" aren't so much about writing chords as they are about writing effective polyphonic lines. Whenever more than one instrument is playing, polyphony is occuring. The "rules" (which are rather more like guidelines), give a basic approach to maximizing the polyphic effect. In other words, parallel fifths and eigths are to be avoided because they tend to make the two instruments sound as one (which is the opposite intent of polyphonic writing). However, having two instrument go into and out of a polyphic sound can also be esthetically interesting as well as create interesting effects.

That never occurred to me (and I don't remember being taught it), but it makes perfect sense. You have a lot more harmonic overlap with perfect intervals, so you don't get as much texture if they're around all the time. (When playing guitar with lots of distortion, that's actually a plus. Distortion will often muddy complex chords/intervals.)

Thank you (and everyone else) for the writing tips. There isn't a lot of discussion here about writing technique. While telling people to read various books is good for gaining a deep understanding of composition, it can also be overwhelming for people starting/learning on their own. On the other hand, basic guidelines like these really help give a quick foundation that helps keep other lessons in perspective. :)

Journeyman

05-05-2005, 03:44 PM

Scott,

The chordal texture, very common in jazz, pop, piano, et cetera, is much less common in string writing.
How so? I mean, if I understand correctly, in traditional composition techniques one is thinking more horizontally, using lines that are voice led, played by various sections of the orchestra. But listening to the orchestra as a whole, stacked horizontal lines result in chordal harmony anyway, don't they? I understand that the derivation of these lines is more thematic in nature, and more horizontalally and melodically conceived, but isn't the sum orchestral result still stacked chords (with the exception of when there are less than three simultaneous lines)?

Whenever you write for strings or for orchestra, you always need to make a conscious decision as to what texture (or, organizing structure) you're going to be composing for
How is that different from choosing to write for Big Band, quintet or full jazz orchestra?

That said, when you do write in a chordal structure, you really need to need to mix root position chords with inversions, whatever makes a good bass melody being the determining factor.
Hmmm...Even the bass has to be voice led? It can't "leap about" if the chord root calls for it? So if I'm going from a C chord to an F chord, I MUST retain the C bass (or melodically move down to an A in the bass), or I'll be breaking a rule that suggests that every line must have smooth voice leading? I can't just go from C to an F without "commiting a violation" of the rules of traditional composition?

Scott, understand that I'm not challenging you here. I'm just attempting to understand the environment that the traditional composer has chosen to function within. I can only imagine that when you and I listen to orchestras, we're listening in two very different ways. I guess the contemporary jazz world that I live in has me listening in a very vertical way, even if I'm hearing music that was conceived horizontally. When I listen to Claus Ogerman, Vince Mendoza or Don Sebesky I'm hearing lush, gorgeous harmonies that I don't hear from other composers that I'm aware of. Is it because of their "jazz bent" that I'm attracted to them? Are they thinking "more vertically" than a composer that is less "jazz inclined"?

Thanks for a great thread!

-Mark

Journeyman

05-05-2005, 06:17 PM

Scott,
in a chordal texture, you have more a situation where each successive chord can be considered an entity in and of itself, capable of being analyzed with chord grammar (IImi7, Dmi7, etc.), whereas if you take random vertical slices from a polyphonic texture, or any other texture for that matter, you may or may not get what could be described as a chord, but rather some form of contrapuntally derived instance. When a polyphonic or polythematic texture is done right, whatever harmony does exist (harmony in it's various manifestations, not just the kind you can analyze with chord grammar), it should seem more a fortunate coincidence than an outright planned condition.Hmmm....Here I understand your point, but I can't wholly agree with it:

Are you telling me that when using traditional composition techniques, harmonic content derived from "some form of contrapuntally derived instance", is strictly coincidental and rarely the actual intent of the composer? There is no "harmonic forethought" or other intentionality involved? You're saying that the harmonic results of horizontal, contrapuntal writing come only as a "fortuitous consequence" of multiple contrapuntal lines? Sheer luck of the draw, so long as you play by the rules of proper counterpoint?
an essential ingredient is the "weaving" - the overlapped entry and exit of the separate voices, as well as the non-synchronous and independent nature of those voices. Ok; rhythmically speaking I can understand that perhaps you might take issue with calling notes that don't attack simultaneously as [a chord]; fair enough. But simultaneous attacks aside; I can take successive "random vertical slices from a polyphonic texture", (regardless of it's horizontal or vertical conception), and derive harmonic function from it. Perhaps you disagree with this type of analysis, but to my ears, I can hear most harmonic function within a traditional piece of music at any given time. If I hear superimposed notes (regardless of their attack times), then I hear implied chords. If I look at the harmonic function that preceded that moment in time, I can then derive further harmonic function. I'm not sure why you think this analysis is unlikely, or somehow "incidental" to gaining insight into the composer's intentions. Again, it seems to come back to my first questions in this post....
The jazz approach to harmony places a premium on chords with the various forms of 9ths, 11ths, and 13ths being more or less axiomatic, and yes the way they are handled is more with an emphasis on unfolding this harmony in a vertical rather than horizontal way. In the orchestral idiom, 9ths, 11ths, and 13ths, occur quite often as well, but they are not considered so obligatory with nearly every chord, and they are handled a bit differently depending on epoch and texture. Then, with the Impressionists and especially with Stravinsky, you have entirely new ways of expressing harmonic content, and it makes for a long list of harmonic approaches. So, the orchestral composer will think vertically when that fits his current approach to a given section, and then think along different lines when that is needed. Hmmm...I'm not really sure where that leaves me. Being a lover of Ogerman, Mendoza and Sebesky, I guess I don't hear orchestral music the way others do. (Are these composers not acknowledged as "legitimate" in your view of the world, due to their emphasis on vertical harmony?) As someone who's just preparing to dip my pinky toe into orchestral writing with only jazz training (and now EIS) to speak of, I'm not quite sure how this is going to pan out. All I know is that "the force is strong in this one" :D, and I definitely feel the desire to experiment with writing for orchestra; however off the beaten path it may be.

Regards,
-Mark

Journeyman

05-05-2005, 07:06 PM

I think you may be misinterpreting some of what I'm saying and complicating things a bit. You're talking about harmonic function and I'm talking about texture. You have chordal textures, and you have the other texture types commonly utilized for the orchestra. Each type has its function and place within the larger framework of a given piece, and chordal texture is usually the least utilized texture for strings. Harmonic content has nothing to do with whether or not you're in a chordal texture. If you're going to write successfully for orchestra, you have to understand the various textures, and you have to balance those same textures, both within themselves, and within the overall macro form. Fair enough. I guess that I don't have the necessary knowledge to continue this conversation, due to the nomenclature involved, regarding the prototypical textures to which you refer. Can you point me to a book on the subject? I've just taken delivery of the Sebesky book, and am awaiting delivery of the Adler book as well. Will either of these explain what you're referring to?

Thanks,
-Mark

matthew82475

05-05-2005, 08:32 PM

For Mark,

This thread has kind of closed in on itself. I think I understand what you are attempting to do and would be willing to help, but this thread might have out lived its usefulness for you. Feel free to send me a message or e-mail and I'd be happy to offer whatever help I can.

Best Wishes,
Matt (music@matthewarmstrong.com)

Journeyman

05-06-2005, 12:25 PM

Scott,

It has been suggested to me that our above conversation could be interpreted as "heated", and wanted to assure that it was never my intent. While I was certainly pushing for clarification on some subjects, I never thought that we had crossed the line into "an argument". If my zeal for answers frustrated you and led you to believe that we were bumping heads, then I apologize. This is one of those enthusiastic internet exchanges that could be easily misinterpreted when tone of voice is not easily communicated. I hope that we're cool...

-Mark

Dark Realms

05-07-2005, 09:50 AM

From myself who originally asked the question to everyone who has taken the time to pass their wisdom into this thread - A BIG THANK YOU! Looking at how many people have looked at this thread, it seems that it has struck a chord - sorry, I couldn't resist that...

I should explain where I'm coming from: The way I've learned to compose music is to find a melody, find chords to go with that melody (also noting that changing the chords will change the tone/emotional thrust of that melody: in other words, the chords give a CONTEXT for the melody to play within, its character) and finally, last but not least, what I learned from Jerry Goldsmith (hope people haven't forgot about him!): have a counter melody to emphasise the main melody when you play the melody a second time. I know this sounds SO basic and might be wrong too - but this is what I worked out for myself just playing around on a keyboard and from listening to Film music! Not bad for someone on their own but not good enough others may say... Any other ideas on composing melodies?

Also, because I'm using a laptop of limited power (Pentium 3, 1Gb RAM) I want to use the Gold Orchestra in a way that conserves resources, thus "playing a chord with the strings" would come from say playing all 3 notes on one particular patch/sample like 18 V Lyr, LEAVING the Second Violins, Violas to do something else (or not even use them at all - shock!) rather than play the other 2 notes of the chord. I was aware that the "proper" way to do it was to split the chord up between these three sections and based on your answers it seems that is the way (though not the only way) to go. If I were doing this for real players...
(Though I'm doing it for computer music but want to learn how to do it proper - better to learn now rather than later...).

So I guess what I was also asking was is it ok to play the chord with one patch - and the answer seems to be yes, as long as it sounds good and is not for real players. I would say I was getting confused about making something sound fantastic and making the music sound REAL - surely the music wouldn't sound real anymore if you didn't follow the basic guidelines of splitting the chords between the sections?

Anyway, please compare one of my compositions (Desert Treasure Quest) which is relevant to this discussion: the original was orchestrated using the playing with one patch technique and the second is the more proper way of doing it - splitting the chords up between the string sections and when the 1stV, 2ndV and Violas take over the theme, the Celli do another countermelody (does countermelody = counterpoint?) on top of the main counter melody played by the French Horns, with the chord notes split between the Tuba, Bones and Trumpets. I can also add that when the 1stV, 2ndV and Violas take over the theme, I staggered the notes in the sequencer so that no section is playing exactly at the same time - just like in real life - see, I'm getting there, I hope! PLEASE do offer some feedback - which is better? Is the new Celli counter melody too much and distracting?

To download the original (Desert Treasure Quest Original) and new (Desert Treasure Quest) versions, please go to my mini site and download or stream them from there:

http://www.funender.com/music/bands/5084/music.php

The original version has a lower quality as you get the basic idea of what I'm saying - I hope!

I was working on the new version when I asked the question, so I thought you'd be interested in the resulting piece...

Thank you all again.

Mazhar.

matthew82475

05-07-2005, 12:00 PM

Mazhar,

In regard to your question about composing melodies, you might consider starting a new thread with that same question. I'm sure you'll get a lot of responses. For what it's worth, here's mine...

There is nothing wrong or incomplete with your approach to writing music. In the strictest sense of composition, no approach is wrong, it's merely a choice. And if it works for you, then GREAT! Having said that, though, your approach will limit the sophistication of your works. All melodies, whether immediately apparent to the writer or not, imply a chord progression. I have yet to meet a composer working in the tonal realm who is capable of conceiving a melody without already having some sense of harmonic direction. This is part of what was causing confusion about Baroque Counterpoint earlier in this thread.

A good melody, which is somewhat subjective, will be able to stand on its own and carry the entire context of its musical idea. That means, it will provide mood, rythmic interest, harmonic direction, and probably most importantely a beginning, middle, and end. This is why so many composers spend weeks and months devloping their melodies. They try and capture everything in a single line (John Williams is a film composer who is exceptionally gifted at that). Why go through all this effort? Because it gives you everything you could need to begin composing. Remember tune-smithing is not the same as composing. Tune-smithing is coming up with a melody, composing is what you do with that melody. Which is not to say that tune-smithing is any less important than composing, because without a tune you'll have nothing to composer. However, if all you ever do is come up with tunes you're likely to end up like most of the long forgotten writiers of music through the ages. The great composers were both great tune-smiths and great composers (Beethoven excluded - he couldn't write a meldoy if his life depended on it).

In regard to your question about the difference between a counter-melody and counterpoint, I think you have a pretty good grasp of what a counter-melody is. Basically it's just a melody that complements a main melody. It's not necessary to always have a counter-melody, but it will give you, the composer, more materials to work with. Counterpoint, however, is a procedure. It is a way of treating your musical materials. This is such a long topic that, again, you probably ought to start another new thread to deal with this topic alone. For some of the best examples ever written of counterpoint, you'd be well advised to get a copy of Bach's the Art of The Fugue. Specialists in this field of study can spend their entire lives going through this material and still not find everything there is to find.

I hope this helps,

Matt

Dark Realms

05-08-2005, 03:28 AM

Dear Matt and Scott,

Thanks so much for your comments.

I apologise for the following: not mentioning that the original version had an over the top reverb which Scott mentioned. To make a fairer comparison, I've redone the Original version to the same standard as the New one and have reposted it at:

http://www.funender.com/music/bands/5084/music.php

Only the Desert Treasure Quest Original has been updated for a better comparison.

I actually only meant the original to demonstrate the Celli playing the triad chords all the way through, however.

I include the following for completeness and for those interested:

Original Version of Desert Treasure Quest:

10 CELLOS: F VCS SUS VIB SOFT (Plays the chords).

11 VIOLINS: F 11V LYR A (Plays the opening and in unison with the 18 V at an octave below).

18 VIOLINS: F 18V EXP FAST (Plays main theme an octave higher than 11V).

OBOE: F SOB SUS VIB (First to play main melody).

6FH: F 6FH SUS 4 LAY SMOOTH (Plays counter melody).

New Version: (Used in Kontakt as I can get more sounds for less RAM - why I don't know, but God bless Kontakt anyway! Does anyone know why this is? Is it more efficient?):

18 VIOLINS: F 18V EXP FAST (Plays one note of the triad chord and then the main theme at the starting octave).

11 VIOLINS: F11 LYR A (Plays the opening line, then another note of the triad chord and finally the main theme an octave higher than the 18V).

VIOLAS: F VAS EXP FST (Plays the opening line in unison with the 11V, the other note of the triad chord and finally the main theme at the same octave position as the 18V).

6FH: F 6FH SUS 4 LAY SMOOTH (Counter melody).

10 CELLOS: VCS LYR (Plays one note of a triad chord, then plays an extra counter melody).

BASSES: F CBS TREM LEG (Plays a note of a triad chord as a tremelo to add atmospheric tension to the melody at the opening).

OBOE: F SOB SUS VIB (Plays the main theme first).

BONES: F4TB SUS (Plays the note of a chord with the Celli and Basses and then with the Trump & Tuba).

TRUMPETS: F 4TP SUS (Plays a note of the triad chord with the Bones).

TUBA: F STU SUS (Plays a note of the triad chord with the Bones & Trump).

TIMPANI: F TIMP ROLL (Self explanatory).

CYMBALS: G 12 CYMBAL (Self explanatory).

FLUTE: G SFL SUS VIB (Joins the Celli in it's counter melody near the end).

I know this is pretty exhaustive but there you go!

Both now use Cubase's Reverb Rev 32 at about 50% wetness and were normalised (Creative Wavestudio - cause it came free with my soundcard!)

Hope this makes for a better comparison,

Mazhar.

rJames

05-18-2005, 12:09 AM

I have totally missed out on the most gorgeous thread of all time. I am sitting here in my office waiting for my computer to render something so I can go back to work. So, I have free time. And this is a great thread. I'm so bummed that I missed it. Journeyman and Scott, can we go sit and have a beer together? You guys don't live in Southern CA do you?

I have to admit, I've glossed through this entire thread tonight.

And my second admission is that I'm quite new to orchestral music. So, you must take my thoughts with a large grain of salt.

From most recent backwards...Mazhar, you said in a recent post that you might just use a chord on violins to reserve laptop resources. And certainly you can do that for those reasons. But think about the sonic value.

The violins are over here in the orchestra, the violas here, the cellos here, the basses here. Play a "chord" between them and you have a chord spread across the room. play a chord in the violins and it is over there. Use that. If you want a chord over there (and no notes lower than a violin can play then do that. But when you want to fill the room...

I think doubling bass and cello has been covered. I can only talk about orchestration in terms of EWQL GOld. That's my definition for now. I find the bass can carry its own. I like to double with the cellos when I need power especially when using the marcato or any short bow. The basses just don't have the power (in EWQL) to hit a rhythm. Add the cellos and you have a bit more power. Heck, I've added the violas in unison just to add bite.

On voice leading the bass. I'm studying EIS. So, by definition any chord has as its name the bass note. (OK I'm exaggerating a bit) But whan you get right down to it; the lowest note defines the chord. So if you're playing G in the bass and then skip an octave then C and E above, its a G with a couple of substitute notes. If you think about it like that then you can expand the treble to include all sorts of stuff that might not be good in a C triad. Pop a stacatto F and A and its clearly a G13. The low G has put a sonic footprint on the sound that reaches our ears at that moment in time. At a point its just naming conventions. (And that can be important for communication-I'll admit that)

It doesn't really matter what its called anyway! The fact is what sound is it making. What impact on the human perception is it having.

So, its useless talking about voice-leading in the bass. The bass has big jumps because it is defining things above. Our brain isn't really hearing the bass leaps as much as the bad voicing above. Is it more of a jump (musically speaking) for the bass to move a fifth than to move chromatically? it depends entirely on what is above it.

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? The horizontal movement or the chords? Yes it is through planning that you get the best of both. My original point to Mazhar was just to think in terms of spreading the sound across the stage. If you want on a side...by all means.

If you're keeping track of where your root is going, and what overtones you want to hear at any particular time, then you can make sure that each line has a good melody and takes notes that stay away from doubling. And when you get the basics down you can make changes that bring about new melodies.

CeXzer

06-12-2005, 06:15 AM

There are books with hundreds of pages on voice leading alone. One thing I've learnt is that you are much better of with one book in the library, than with the whole internet at your disposal.
Anyways, yes, there is harmonic foretought, and voices are built on them. There are lots and lots of "rules" to consider while composing voices from harmonies, especially when writing for strings. I don't really think it is possible to go into detail here, since every composition calls for different rules, sometimes it is better if celli play above violas, or even violins, sometimes it is not. Sometimes violas should take the lead, sometimes they should not. Sometimes basses should be completely missed out, sometimes they are important in stating the bass line, etc.
As for the bass, it is often called in classical music the second melody, so I think it should be voice lead.

Here is an example (Only a chord progression, no melody):
Not voice lead (http://web.axelero.hu/ceze/notlead.mp3)

The same chord progression voice lead. (http://web.axelero.hu/ceze/lead.mp3)

Since I divided some instruments in the last one, to get the same number here is a divisi one not voice lead for comparison (http://web.axelero.hu/ceze/notlead2)

Please do note that I'm also just a beginner, but I think voice led bass does sound better even in my feeble attempt, full of mistakes I'm sure, then the non-lead one. And even tho the bass line is not the same as the root, you can still make them out. Of course I think what matters is if you like it.

So, my advice is, go out and get a book on voice leading and orchestration and harmonies. I've found some really good ones in the local library. And for classical, I think those written almost a hundred years ago are better then the more recent ones, at least around here.

CeXzer

06-12-2005, 06:32 AM

On voice leading the bass. I'm studying EIS. So, by definition any chord has as its name the bass note. (OK I'm exaggerating a bit) But whan you get right down to it; the lowest note defines the chord. So if you're playing G in the bass and then skip an octave then C and E above, its a G with a couple of substitute notes. If you think about it like that then you can expand the treble to include all sorts of stuff that might not be good in a C triad. Pop a stacatto F and A and its clearly a G13. The low G has put a sonic footprint on the sound that reaches our ears at that moment in time. At a point its just naming conventions. (And that can be important for communication-I'll admit that)

While this is true, it's still not perfectly true. If you define the chord with G-E-C-F-A, because of that A it takes a different life than if you define it as G-E-C. As G-E-C it retains it's original role as the tonic (in C major), while in the other case it looses it, and get's a different role, which clearly has a huge effect on the percieved chord progression and wether it sounds good or bad. The reason is not in naming conventions, but physics, since the C note holds in itself G and E, but not A, thus when you hear them together, in a chord progresion you know that you have arrived at the tonic, but when you hear A as well, you know that something is not right, you are not at "home". So yes, you can define on that G different chords, but they will be very very different and can't be subtituted with one another. I don't know if you understand what I mean. The point is that you will hear E and G as C's overtones no matter how they are reversed, it's not just G with overtones, but it's C with overtones. G's overtones are B, D, F.
It can be simulated on a piano, if you hit G and E and mute them but let C's string resonate, C will play E and G on, but if you hit A, C won't resonate with that.

rJames

06-13-2005, 06:43 AM

While this is true, it's still not perfectly true. If you define the chord with G-E-C-F-A, because of that A it takes a different life than if you define it as G-E-C. As G-E-C it retains it's original role as the tonic (in C major), while in the other case it looses it, and get's a different role, which clearly has a huge effect on the percieved chord progression and wether it sounds good or bad. The reason is not in naming conventions, but physics, since the C note holds in itself G and E, but not A, thus when you hear them together, in a chord progresion you know that you have arrived at the tonic, but when you hear A as well, you know that something is not right, you are not at "home". So yes, you can define on that G different chords, but they will be very very different and can't be subtituted with one another. I don't know if you understand what I mean. The point is that you will hear E and G as C's overtones no matter how they are reversed, it's not just G with overtones, but it's C with overtones. G's overtones are B, D, F.
It can be simulated on a piano, if you hit G and E and mute them but let C's string resonate, C will play E and G on, but if you hit A, C won't resonate with that.
Yes, you are right. I hope that I said in my original post that I am a student of EIS and not a master. :) I have come to the chapter where Spud Murphy has decided that its time to integrate modern diatonic method. And now I'm getting into inversions.
So, while in EIS it is still true that the root defines the chord, he states that since someone has decided to arbitrarily name chords incorrectly (by using inversions instead of naming them from their origin (with all of the natural overtones that come with that root and structure) it can be useful in leading the bass. So, now I'm back on track with you.

You have described the overtones that are generated from particular structures. And this just goes to Spuds idea that the chords are really generated from the root. Because the overtone structure emanates (strength-wise) from the bass up. So if you write an inversion of a C chord so that you can have an E in the bass, it is better described from a "physics" standpoint as an E chord because of the strong E overtones. That was my original point. I think he would even describe it as an E chord with missing notes or substitutions if it were a C I6 triad. But it is easier, when analysing other composers music, to understand his meaning through study of diatonic modalities.

But I love the sound of the musical method that has evolved over the past centuries because it has that sound that we know as classic. So, expect to hear something very modal from me after I get home from vacation and I get my copy of Choirs. (I bought Choirs at NAMM but had to tell them to hold delivery until I get back.)

rJames

06-13-2005, 06:56 AM

While this is true, it's still not perfectly true. If you define the chord with G-E-C-F-A, because of that A it takes a different life than if you define it as G-E-C. As G-E-C it retains it's original role as the tonic (in C major), while in the other case it looses it, and get's a different role, which clearly has a huge effect on the percieved chord progression and wether it sounds good or bad. The reason is not in naming conventions, but physics, since the C note holds in itself G and E, but not A, thus when you hear them together, in a chord progresion you know that you have arrived at the tonic, but when you hear A as well, you know that something is not right, you are not at "home". So yes, you can define on that G different chords, but they will be very very different and can't be subtituted with one another. I don't know if you understand what I mean. The point is that you will hear E and G as C's overtones no matter how they are reversed, it's not just G with overtones, but it's C with overtones. G's overtones are B, D, F.
It can be simulated on a piano, if you hit G and E and mute them but let C's string resonate, C will play E and G on, but if you hit A, C won't resonate with that.

I'm reading this closer now and want to add...
This chord will never have the overtones of a C root because the bass note has the dominant overtones. So, even though a C holds in itself the overtones of G and E, they are not involved in this equation. The overtones that will be "felt" are, as you mentioned, B,D,F. This is the very reason for Spud Murphy's system for defining music. He felt that the old methods had grown a bit long in the tooth (I always use these sayings incorrectly).

This, for me, is the reason to keep exploring music. Every little nuance makes a difference--and we get to use them within rhythm and over time to create an audio experience that touches another's brain and causes an autonomic reaction. Music is very cool.

Check this out. If you stack fifths, C,G,D,A,E,B,F# you've just played every note in a scale. You can call it a 13th chord (with a 4+) But it is different as CeXer points out than a closely voiced 13 chord of the same spelling. Because you can hear all of the tonal centers of the fifths.

tchoyy

06-13-2005, 08:35 AM

Just wanna say thank you !
I had the same question than Dark Realms and now I understand a bit more since I'm totally an autodidact

Trumpet Poppleton

06-27-2005, 01:33 PM

One or two points:

- Adler's book is quite the most carelessly written work I've ever read. It's full of mistakes that I would love to send to the publisher… but life's too short. Get Walter Piston's "Orchestration" - a masterpiece.

- Double/triple/ quadruple stops: while soloists have no qualms about playing these, orchestral sections will instinctively divide such passages: the outside player takes the top note and the inside player the bottom, unless the composer marks "non divisi". Because of the rounded bridge of orchestral string instruments, it's not possible to play more than two notes at once: the effect is always of one (or two) notes "sprawling" out before the others. If you want that effect, then there's no problem writing for it, but if you're working on a computer, you must remember to arpeggiate, or have the bottom notes play very slightly in front of the others if you want it to sound authentic.

- It's safest to have the double basses double the cellos an octave below: the bases have little carrying power on their own, but when doubled by the cellos an octave above they really kick ass!

- Try to avoid having more than an octave gap between any parts except tenor and bass if you're looking for a rich sound.

- I could go on about avoiding consecutive octaves and fifths, but that'd get a bit boring!

kstevege

01-27-2006, 02:07 PM

Piano players and rythym guitarists naturally think in terms of chords versus horizontal melodys. Piano is my main instrument and I taught myself guitar but now I'm into orchestral arranging which comes quite natural to me. However, being a pianist, the first issue I was confronted with when desigining my orchestral pieces was whether I should be writing melodies for each orchestral section versus having some sections playing chords. Then it occurred to me, maybe as a piano player, my performances may have sounded better had I been playing multiple "melodies" versus playing just chords - playing with ten fingers instead of just two hands!

A classical piano player is essentially trying to play the parts of all orcestra sections using 2 hands! The left hand is playing the bass and cellos, while the right hand is simultaneously playing the parts of violins, trumpets, horns, flutes, etc. Not saying it is easier to play one instrument over another, but I always thought of how easy it would be for me if I only had to worry about playing one note at a time instead of three to ten!!

BUT it is not really my two hands playing... it is my ten fingers playing - each finger representing a differenct section of the orchestra!!

So naturally, just like this topic starter and may others in this thread, when first approaching orchestral arranging, I was VERY TORN about whether I should be recording only one melody at a time or whether it was proper to get away with sneaking in an extra overlapping note or two when recording each section. Then the other questions follow, like, if I play 2 notes using my 18 player Violins section, will it sound like a 36 player section? I don't want that! I'm trying to emulate a real orchestra! I want to pretend I am inside the first violins section when recording!

I looked at as many full orchestral scores I could get my eyes on and noticed most sections sections were written with having each section playing only one note at a time. Each section was pretty much doing monophonic phrasing!

As tempting as it first was to play chords when recording, and all of us gitar and piano players will go through this, I now discipline myself to think and write in melodies, counterpoint, etc. I try and do my main theme first then bring in each additional section playing counterpoint, etc, and let me tell you, it has expanded my creativity and understanding of musical "harmony". It is actually easier for me now because I only need to worry about playing one note at time instead of trying to figure out where all 10 of my fingers need to go! I don't see chords anymore. I see melodic phrases sitting next to each other. More energy is available for colorful phrasing dedicated to each harmonic line making each instrument section unique to itself yet fully complimenting the entire score.

Thinking in chords was like being stuck inside a box. Now unchained from the chords, I have the freedom to allow each melodic phrase go where it wants to, section by orchestral section!!! I love thinking horizontally!

- Steve