Arranging/Orchestrating Workflow

[dcoscina]

I recently composed a cue doing a piano track first and orchestrated from that. Golly did it take a long time and most of you wouldn't probably know it from hearing it as it's not that complex. but the danger in orchestrating off of a piano reduction is that you have limitless possiblities. I recall that Bernard Herrmann orchestrated as he composed and always looked down on composers who had orchestrators as he felt the two were inextricably linked.

Then again, Prokofiev composed almost everything at the piano first and then developed that for orchestra (except his famous Classical Symphony)

I actually found orchestrating from a piano track a little more liberating compositionally because when I needed to change a rhythm or notes in a chord, I didn't need to change 12 tracks but rather one. I find doing it this way allows for greater focus on structure- melody, harmony, rhythm, too

[joelfriedman]

Hi,

Just ran into this thread, rather late. Boy, a lot of topics touched on!

It's certainly possible to imagine Adagio For Strings composed in DP, but I wonder about that. The structure and level of detail (counterpoint, imitation) make me think not, but I guess with enough revision and QS why not? When texture, rhythm, form and length etc. start to get too involved and long I think paper IS better as it allows you to see and organize works. Extend that a bit and imagine writing Eroica or Rite of Spring in DP. Not so sure.

Part of it is even in Sibelius I personally get "claustrophobic" working on even 2 monitors for certain kinds of music versus paper. There is something so elegant, intuitive, and fast about laying out and shuffling multiple pages, skipping, adding, re-ording, and so on. I find I can't do that on computer. Maybe I'm just too hardwired for paper and pencil at this point, but I just don't "see" enough when it's on a computer. Of course I often hate the plodding act of hand notation, but it does allow me to see and hear all sorts of details I might otherwise miss because everything can be slowed down and examined.

I also find that as great as the VI sounds are - they often really make me think of new ideas and can be so rich and complex - I have trouble with them while composing more traditional music (for me, read: contemporary classical, not very "traditional," but not rock/pop). Anything from expressive intensity of string timbre (think of all the subtle shadings of tone in Adagio) to the more interesting and usual timbral extensions like sul ponticello it's really hard to hear concrete sounds that aren't correct (same in Sibelius), It's really hard to do convincing mockups or the real thing for slow, subtle music - at least I find it that way. I suppose if I had multiple really expensive VI libraries this would be less of a problem, but it's so easy to notate this stuff and and wait and expect the players to just do it. Even SIbelius sometimes subtly feels like it limits compositional possibilities because it can be so difficult or time-consuming to notate certain ideas (e.g. proportional notation). I hear stuff and know from experience what it will sound like and if it will work and yet I can't get close to some of it either via Sibelius or DP. And yet I don't have the players sitting around to play it!

I also find myself stuck in the canyon between the 2 worlds- notation versus performance. It's take a bit for me to start to get more comfortable working in DP versus Sibelius or on paper. Im wondering what lies down the road for Sibelius and PT, whether it will be better integrated as far as workflow is concerned.

Well, any way you look at it composing is just really hard and really, really time consuming.

Best,

Joel

[Frodo]

For as quiet as it's kept, pencil and paper can serve to be the same source of freedom or confinement as any computer software.

To that extent, I'm amused by the history of Bach and his offspring where the organ/harpsichord era gradually gave way to to the fortepiano. It was a generational divide as much as it was an artistic and cultural one. Further amusement comes from all the impetus that led to the fortepiano to develop into the pianoforte, pretty much as we know it today. Franz Liszt is largely responsible for this necessity.

I don't see the changes of musical instrumental development as being so different from technological development where quill turned to binary code, so to speak. It will forever remain a matter of the creator's mind first and foremost. What tools will enable that creator from reaching his/her goal is matter apart. What tools will *prevent* that creator from reaching his/hear goal will most likely lead to either the creation of a different tool that will get the job done -- or --- will confirm an older method remains the best method until a better method is created.

Quill gave way to the fountain pen which eventually gave way to the graphite pencil and the rubber eraser. It's low-tech, but there is a progression to be recognized. The rubber eraser gave way to the plastic eraser, but it should be noted that this development also came from composes (and copyists) who were put off the messy scraps rubber erasers left behind. What does that mean in the context of the bigger picture of artistic creativity except that the users of said tools desired improvement?

The necessity for that "better method" hinges almost entirely, imho, on the needs of the composer.

Here's a sketch of Beethoven's famous Für Elise which, I think, speaks to much of the above:



Huh????!!!???

If there is a question as to whether composers ought to conceive of complete masterful compositions in their heads with ink and paper as an afterthought as opposed to composers using anything involving binary code to achieve the same result, then I still assert that the substance and essence of what's created emanates FROM or even THROUGH the composer and not by way of the tools he/she uses.

So, Beethoven's manuscripts are a confirmed mess-- but what's contained within that visual mess is pure genius. Was Barber better at creating more legible manuscripts? By most accounts, he was.

But--- does it matter more how neat the score is or does it matter more what's contained within that score regardless of neatness? Here we are at Finale/Sibelius. Beautiful looking scores have been created in these and countless other apps. Such apps were meant to level the playing field (literally) between the manuscripts of one composer or copyist and that of another.

Maybe it boils down to the old adage: "crap in, crap out".

That said, there are many of us who start with pencil and paper before dabbling anything coded in binary. Why? It's just plain easier and faster if one is already fluent with all things related to score writing.

What notation apps have also done was to level the playing field for those who are not as fluent with score reading or writing. For the price of the app, said composers spare hundreds or thousands of dollars from having their every scribble transcribe legibly by a proper engraver.... with the added plus of equivalent accuracy or better.

Dunno folks. I think the creative spirit and the human spirit demand much more than we might appreciate on the surface. True inspiration is so powerful that it can dictate its own tools for the sake of its own survival.

Why did the pen lead to the pencil? Why did the doc format lead to PDF? Necessity.

That is the microcosm which stems from the same necessity which composers have been dealing with for centuries--- accuracy and expedience.

Were the tools at hand for Barber really all that different from those of Strauss, Debussy, Prokofiev, Schubert, Haydn, Beethoven, Bach, and others? Not really-- were they?

That didn't stop any of them from writing their masterpieces?

The thing is this, though: composition is NOT notation. Finale and Sibelius and the like are not compositional tools. They are notational tools, even if used for the purpose of composition. I think in today's context it's easy to confuse the two even as notation apps and DAWs endeavor to consolidate tasks to the same extent.

It's so easy to look back on decades or centuries of musical history and say "aha!!" It's quite another thing to claw one's way through the mire and noise of what's going on today to find the real living geniuses which the media ignores or chooses to be unaware of.

It's not the app. It's not the pen. It's not the pencil. It's not the paper. It's not the binary code.

It's who uses it.

[mjmoody]

Well said Frodo!

I've been using mainly the computer since the 90s. What I like is how EASY it is to edit, insert a new idea, modulate, etc.

I can't hear any difference between my older scores composed with pen, or pencil and paper and my newer ones composed with Finale. My pieces sound like "me" regardless of how I ultimately came up with the music

John

[bdr]

I reread this thread and thanks to everyone for chiming in. Definitely went a little further afield than my original question, but all good and fascinating none the less.

It's great to hear the varying experiences in regards to composing and arranging in the digital age, and on an overall level I agree with most that the tools are no more than that, especially where composing is concerned. My original question was posed because I'm trying to take myself past the 'keyboard player' sequencing/orchestrating to a better level of voice leading (linearly), as well as horizontally, and I'm finding moderate success now using quickscribe a lot more than I used to. Main problem with that is I like separate tracks for each articulation rather than key switches so the QS page can get filled up pretty quickly.