Adapting orchestration style to VI's

[Timeline]

Good Idea J.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Good Idea J.

I'm sorry I missed this one. I've done a lot of orchestration with both outboard and VI's combined and my clients have always been happy with the mock-ups. Usually I work in Finale and IAC over to DP running MachFive and GPO to compliment my outboard rig (WSSR, Proteus/2, PC2). No one sound module covers all the bases (or is that basses?) Horns in sections are the worst for me. Solos are usually OK, but as mentioned earlier, NOTHING beats a great horn section.

I had the great honor of writing 3 works for the Chicago Symphony recently, and their excellent brass section. Really went out of my way to try and do them justice. It was particularly fun to write an extended (dolce) tuba solo that went up to high C and not worry about it. Man, did they chew those scores up!

[mckelly]

Thanks to James for moving this to our shiny new section! Great thread, guys!!

Yeah, though it took me about five minutes before I realized there were sections other than DP!!

[nickysnd]

Although I have been writing orchestrations for many decades now--for live orchestras, real orchestra recordings, and MIDI sequences using hardware synths, I've just been using the Virtual Instruments for about 3 or 4 months. Already I've noticed there are some striking differences that require adapting my orchestration techniques in order to get the best results.

My genre is musical theatre, and so I write in the style of Robert Russell Bennett, Philip J. Lang, and Jonathan Tunick. I find that many of the traditional idioms don't come across as clear and transparent with the VI's. Some of the things I've noticed:

1. Although in the real world both strings and french horns make great rhythm instruments (using the 2nd violins and violas or perhaps a couple of horns to double what the guitar or piano is playing) this now comes across as muddy. Even using a sample with a good, crisp attack, the rhythm is not as pronounced. I'm finding that it's clearer to just keep the rhythm in the guitar, bass, and drums.

2. Big brass sections with full harmony can be incredibly dynamic when scoring for live orchestra. They seem kind of blah with the VI's. I humanize the onset times so it's not so mechanical, but still the effect is highly disappointing. (Ironically, the big brass sections are more typical of studio recordings than live pit orchestra. The pit may have 2 trumpets, 1 horn, and 2 trombones, whereas the studio version could have 3, 4, and 4 respectively, plus tuba. The smaller section sometimes sounds thin when recorded. However, the pit version seems to come out more convincing with the VI's.)

3. Complex textures that literally sparkle with a real orchestra seem to lose much of their clarity when played by VI's. I'm having to be much more sparse in what I write. I know that many people consider sparcity to be a virtue and that's a valid philosophy, but I say what's the point of having a big orchestra with lots of different tone colors available if you can't use them? People like Wagner and Respighi certainly did. And I did until I went virtual.

4. Doubling for power sometimes just muddies the water.

Some more differences between live orchestras (LOs) and virtual orchestras (VOs):

5. Most LOs are playing out of tune. Most VOs are well tuned/tunable.

6. Most LOs are playing loosely from metrical and rhythmical pov. All VOs are as good as that as the composer/MIDI arranger is.

7. Most LOs are using cheap instruments that sound even cheaper than they are. Most VOs are using good sounding instruments.

8. Besides being musical ignorants, most players, in most LOs, have various technical issues - they can't play this and that, they often object that the composer doesn't know their noble trombone, that he/she has written passages that are "impossible" to play, etc. They, most of them, tend to forget that the musician's job is to find the best ways to play the music as written, and not to invent technical reasons to cover their poor musicianship and self-sufficient laziness. VOs are playing most everything a composer can imagine, and they never complain.

9. Most LOs don't have enough time to rehearse (or the composer's budget is not big enough to pay them), so the performances are poor. With VOs, the composer has all the time he wants to tweak them. For free.

10. ...

... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

857. The only LOs that really do respect the written score, and don't have most the above problems, are all financially out of the reach of most of us.

Comparing with the problems of most LOs, the complaints about VOs seem to me negligible. And those problems are not the libraries', but ours, IMO. It is us who are not good enough to make them sound good. It is us who don't explore enough to find what sounds best with those samples, and to exploit them at their true possibilities.

I see the arrival of sample libraries/virtual instruments, few years ago, as the most important advancement in the history of music in three hundred years, since the invention of the symphonic orchestra. There is a revolution taking place under our nose, a revolution that we fail to appreciate at its full extent. The advent of sample libraries opens up wide horizons in the production of music, which are already felt in some film scores. And it is only in its infancy, and it is growing up fast. I consider myself lucky to live in these times. As someone said (I think it was Doug Rogers) - there have never been better times to be a composer.

That is part of the reason I have no complaint whatsoever about any sample orchestra. I have a bunch of complaints about myself instead, about my limits, my bad time management, my poor effectiveness and MIDI proficiency, my lack of patience - but I'd rather keep those complaints for myself.

[Rick Averill]

Nickysnd, you are certainly down on live orchestras! When I hire professional players, I normally find the level of musicianship to be excellent. They play good quality instruments and they play them well. If there were no good live players, who in the world are they sampling?

You must be referring to amatuer live orchestras. Your post does an injustice to professional musicians the world over. No matter how good the samples, I'd rather work with a live group any day.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Nickysnd, you are certainly down on live orchestras! ...
You must be referring to amatuer live orchestras. Your post does an injustice to professional musicians the world over. No matter how good the samples, I'd rather work with a live group any day.

Well, his ax certainly is sharp - ground to a nub! And full of generalizations. Really an unfair assessment of what it means to work with a live orchestra.

Surely, some high school, college and community orchestras can suffer from some of the symptoms he describes. But rarely do they have them ALL. You also need to be specific about the problems. If they are out of tune, blame the concert master or conductor. That should be corrected in rehearsals in an amateur group. It just doesn't happen in a pro group or the offending player looses his job!

I would suggest that if someone's experience is so consistently bad in any area, they consider avoiding that activity. Certainly, you are starting the process from a very bad place if you feel that (quoting here): "being musical ignorants, [sic] most players, in most LOs, have various technical issues".

I might rephrase that quote: people who are not treated with respect and an assumption that they are there because they ARE competent will tend to play a bit sloppier than they might otherwise. Some players will challenge a new or inexperienced conductor or simply not be able to follow him/her. That is the conductor's problem, not the "orchestra's."

So if you think you can get an improved sound from a virtual orchestra, then by all means, play those flat sounding modules that add no expression or life to your music. But not many people are interested in hearing machine made music. Sure, you can make it as 'perfect' as your ears determine perfect is. For me, music is not about perfection. It is about expression. Human expression - and that changes from moment to moment. It is part and parcel of what makes live music great and lasting. Only the printed page should be perfect every time.

Finally, making music is a SOCIAL activity. You HAVE TO be good with people to bring 106 individuals together and make them work as a single, unified instrument. That takes really good social skills. It is a tough beast to tame, and it is possible, but it is not for everyone.

[Rick Averill]

You have spoken wisely, MIDI Life. Thanks you for your comments.

[mckelly]

Yes good points, however, I believe Nicksynd's rant has detracted from his other valid points, namely the one made in the second to last paragraph.

Most of us (myself included among them) probably will never have the luxury of writing for a real orchestra. The ability to compose wonderfully intricate and complex pieces that are limited only by one's imagination is nothing short of miraculous.

-Matt

[nickysnd]

MLC, you missed my point #857: The only LOs that really do respect the written score, and don't have most the above problems, are all financially out of the reach of most of us.

Yes indeed, my experiences with live orchestras are consistently disappointing, and that includes my own pieces and my favorite pieces of other composers. I think that is mainly because the players ignore the score indications. Very few orchestras play what is written. Expression? What expression to expect from instrumentalists who are musically ignorants, from people who show little respect for the composer's indications? And here I include most conductors as well. Of course, the exception #857 applies.

Perfection? - No, everyone knows that there can be no perfection, what I stand for is respect for the score, that is all. And that is what I very rarely see. An analog example: if I find a wrong pitch in a published score, then that score is just recyclable paper to me. Same goes with performances - a rendering that is not completely faithful to the written music, that is just garbage to me. Music - a social thing? Yes, provided that it is played as written. When they mess with a written score, what they play is less social than a Polynesian tribe's death ritual. When scores are not respected, there can be no music, only mockery. And that is exactly what happens most of the time: scores are not played, they are only mocked-up. When an orchestra mocks-up my piece instead of playing what I have written, then no thanks - my own sample mock-ups will sound far better than the "expression" of their incapacity to play what is written. Adding "life" to my music? Ha! What kind of life, their flat mockery? Well, thanks a lot! When I hire a circus dog only to see that it can't jump, then I'll prefer to hire a 3D artist to make me an animated circus dog that jumps as I want. BTW, the jumping pig in Charlotte's Web movie looks alive enough for me, and also funny. I'm not much into real pigs, mind you.

The musicians who can't play the scores as written, they can play jazz instead - a domain that does not rely on the respect for the written score, but on exhibitionism. I'm OK with jazz exhibitionism, but please don't do that with Bartok and other composers who take the pain to write down their intentions, very explicitly, only to be subject of mockery. Excuse me for hating to see that happening so often.

MLC, here is a friendly challenge: post a performance of a modern piece (say starting w/ Debussy), along with the score, and we will see to which extent they have respected the score. Because here lies the main problem: when orchestras, conductors included, don't play what is written, then they don't play the composer's music. They play something else. When not respecting the score, they can express nothing but their own incapacity of understanding that score. I'm not that excited about that type of expressions. Now, unless it is played by one of the top 20 orchestras in the world, my bet is that your recording will display most of the issues I have described in my previous post. I would be happy if you'll prove me wrong, believe me I don't enjoy to hear so many awful orchestras. Please surprise me!

Will you go for that challenge? Again, please avoid Philadelphia Orchestra, Los Angeles Philharmonic, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, and the like... (which are part of my #857)

[MIDI Life Crisis]

OK, I think I see your point - at least I am convinced that I at least understand your position.

You are viewing "The Score" as sacrosanct, the word of "God" and with a single, immutable interpretation. Every tempo mark down to the metronome setting must be exactly represented by the musicians. Every dynamic and phrasing must be precise. Every bowing, up and down, as indicated BY THE COMPOSER. Well, then, you are correct. A virtual orchestra will give you that every time. A Live orchestra will not.

For me, my music is not so ego driven. I am a more practical man and realize that it is the tree that bends that remains standing in a storm. Music in my world has always been and always will be a COLLABORATIVE process. I welcome and encourage interpretation from performers.

As far as your "challenge" it is not possible for me. Why? Because from my perspective, there is never a definitive reading of a work. As I said earlier, the only perfection is on paper. But face the facts, man. Music is played by people, and people change, have imperfections, fart, belch, crap, get tummy aches, worry about stuff, and so on. Virtual instruments do none of that, so you always get the same thing from them.

I can listen to 10 recording of "accurate" readings to a Bax work and find something completely different, equally as valid, equally as exciting, and equally as informative in each. It is only in our modern era that some have expected "exact duplication of the composer's instructions" in performance. A Baroque era composer would be rolling in his grave (or laughing his ass off) to find that his works were being played exactly as written each and every time it was performed.

You apparently do not want the players or the conductor to insert or remove ANYTHING from your scores, and that explains your earlier comments. It does not make someone "musically ignorant" if they interpret a work, it makes them a performer. Make that a Performer, with a capital P. And performers aren't machines to regurgitate your, or my, or anyone else's music. Performers INTERPRET music, just as they interpret plays, poetry and dances. If you cannot get past that simple fact and release a bit of your precious control, or if you cannot get past the fact that performers are, in fact, fallible human beings and that people are more important than ANYBODY'S music, then you will never be happy with any live performance of your (or any one else's) scores.

[nickysnd]

Edit -
WARNING! This is going to be waaaaay too long.

MTL, I see what you mean and I respect your attitude as a collaborative composer. If you allow musicians to change what you have written down on paper, and you are happy with what you get, then you are lucky and blessed. I have played as a violinist in an orchestra and I have never missed one sign in my parts. Not having the slightest idea of the overall purpose of those orchestral works as intended by the composers, I took for granted that the best way to contribute to it is to faithfully play exactly what was written in my part. I consider that as a basic requirement for any player. Sort of basic decency towards the composer. IMO, any interpretation that is not faithful to the source is worthless. I will give three examples:

1. If I want to understand as much as possible from Lao Tzu texts, then I will need a translator who I know that will try to be completely faithful to those texts. That translator will give me, of course, her personal interpretation of those texts. But I must totally trust her that she is completely dedicated and faithful to that text, that she will not drop out anything, would not add/change anything, and will not try to "collaborate" with Lao Tzu. I will not ask my Chinese neighbor to translate Lao Tzu to me, for she might know the language, but she is an ignorant in philosophy. I will ask a professional with great references.

2. If I love Shakespeare sonnets and I want to hear that poetry spoken out, then I will not ask my English neighbor to do that, and I will not ask Adam Sandler to read it to me. I will probably ask Sir Anthony Hopkins, for I know that he will give me a faithful/accurate interpretation of Shakespeare's text. I know he will not drop out commas, and will not add semicolons.

3. If want to hear Ravel's "Pavane pour une infante défunte", I will not attend a community orchestra concert, but I will listen to that piece preformed by New York Philharmonic conducted by Leonard Bernstein. I have listened to that performance while reading the score and I can swear that it is as faithful to the score as can be. With all his knowledge and talent as a composer, Bernstein could easily "collaborate" with Ravel, yet he didn't do that. Why? - I think the answer might be: his respect for the score. Bernstein knew very well that, when a composer takes the pain to mark down the ineffable of music into musical notation, each of those signs are to be respected ad literam.

Yes, the composer is the "god" of his music, so his marks are not to be changed. Period. Change those marks, and suddenly you are not playing his music, but yours. Jazz musicians do that all the time. Within the traditional classical music, that is to be respected strictly, or else a huge can of worms will be unleashed. (which is already unleashed, and it bothers me a lot) So is that too much what I am asking for? I have seen, from my own experience as an orchestra player, that it is very easy to respect the instrumental parts - it just requires a little bit of practice. Then why do I see that basic respect so rarely?

Now, the pure fact of "collaborating" with Stravinsky because some passages are extremely difficult and one doesn't have the skills or the interest to practice a bit - what does that say about those who do that? To me, it says that music is not for them and they should embrace a different profession. Interpreting music is to be done from within the score, without changing anything, but carefully playing with subtle nuances. I am sure that Bernstein and New York Philharmonic have gavin dozens of different live interpretations of Ravels's Pavane, all of them being faithful to the score.

I am not "ego driven," I am score driven. If the score is not respected, then we have mockery, or jazz, but not classical music.

You said that from virtual instruments you always get the same thing. I would say that you get from them precisely what you put in there, and you are totally in control, you can always change one thing or another, exactly as you want. The limits are only your imagination and your skills. That's why I love sample libraries, and that is why I hate myself for being so slow in learning to manipulate them.

You apparently do not want the players or the conductor to insert or remove ANYTHING from your scores, and that explains your earlier comments. It does not make someone "musically ignorant" if they interpret a work, it makes them a performer. Make that a Performer, with a capital P. And performers aren't machines to regurgitate your, or my, or anyone else's music. Performers INTERPRET music, just as they interpret plays, poetry and dances. If you cannot get past that simple fact and release a bit of your precious control, or if you cannot get past the fact that performers are, in fact, fallible human beings and that people are more important than ANYBODY'S music, then you will never be happy with any live performance of your (or any one else's) scores.

As an orchestra player, I am (and I am supposed to be) musically ignorant. I ignore completely the composer's vision, and I have no idea of what the function of those marks in my part is. My ignorance is precisely the thing that enables me to play those marks as accurately as I am able to. I am not in the position to "collaborate" with Beethoven, I am just an ignorant whose job is to play his part exactly as written. Who am I to "correct" Beethoven? Now, the conductor may come and say: "Screw Beethoven, those sffz are too brutal, disregard them", then I'll do as the conductor says. The difference between my ignorance and the conductor's ignorance is that he thinks to know better, when in fact he is not aware how ignorant he is. He is so ignorant, that he ignores even his own ignorance. And here I think lies the key of all this issue - in admitting that we are too ignorant to collaborate with Beethoven, Steve Reich, or John Doe. The highest achievement for a player/conductor would be to perform their pieces as faithfully to the score as possible. Just like Bernstein did with Ravel's piece.

People are more important than ANYBODY'S music

Hmmm, peopole - kinda big word... I'd say that each player is as important as their ability to faithfully play their parts. And yes, I am very happy with many excellent performances. I am just pissed that not everybody aims for excellence. At least in classical music, the excellence is given by the accuracy one is able to faithfully interpret a score. Removing and inserting elements into a score, that is not part of interpretation, that is not interpretation but destruction. Yes, I do believe that music is more important than people's imperfections. I also believe that it is the people who should adapt to the written music, to reach its heights, and by no means should the written music be "adapted" to people's imperfections. Moreover, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is by far more important than the violin player I happen to be, and infinitely more important than any smart-ass director who thinks those sffz are brutal, and that he has the right to remove them.

As for "Performers, with capital P," I know one Performer that definitely deserves that capital letter - it is the Digital Performer.

[zaster]

nicky's pov that the score should be played with the main, if not only, consideration being the composer's intention would put Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations into the trash can. As well as, arguably any Bach played on a piano since Bach had seen a piano once or twice during his lifetime, but he thought it seemed like a toy and not a serious instrument.

[nickysnd]

nicky's pov that the score should be played with the main, if not only, consideration being the composer's intention would put Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations into the trash can. As well as, arguably any Bach played on a piano since Bach had seen a piano once or twice during his lifetime, but he thought it seemed like a toy and not a serious instrument.

IMHO, Glenn Gould just couldn't help it, he was such a hopeless grandomaniac that he thought he can collaborate with Bach. However, his rendering can hardly be called Bach's music, it is more Glenn Gould's music. Some people like it. I don't. Yet I won't put "into the trash can" anything that people happen to like. I just won't buy it or listen to it again. I own Daniel Barenboim's interpretation, it sounds to me more like Bach's music.

As for Bach considering the piano "like a toy," I don't know who backs this info. Maybe he was referring to a particular piano that was perhaps badly made. From what I learned, Bach has composed his WTK specifically to take advantage of the features of that newly invented instrument so aptly called pianoforte. I can hardly imagine Bach composing those mind-blowing 48 Preludes and Fugues, which are a landmark in musical composition, while thinking something like "what a stupid toy, this new instrument!"

Edit -
BTW, am I to believe that Bach has composed those 48 Preludes and Fugues for an instrument that he saw only "once or twice" in his life, and also scorned it as a "toy"?? zaster, where are you taking all this info from, wikipedia?

[MIDI Life Crisis]

BTW, am I to believe that Bach has composed those 48 Preludes and Fugues for an instrument that he saw only "once or twice" in his life, and also scorned it as a "toy"?? zaster, where are you taking all this info from, wikipedia?

If you read the urtext title of the score in question, the work is for clavichord. NOT piano. Changing instrumentation would be a sin against the composer, no?

Clearly, we are from different planets. Good luck in getting your music played.

[zaster]

As for Bach considering the piano "like a toy," I don't know who backs this info. Maybe he was referring to a particular piano that was perhaps badly made. From what I learned, Bach has composed his WTK specifically to take advantage of the features of that newly invented instrument so aptly called pianoforte. I can hardly imagine Bach composing those mind-blowing 48 Preludes and Fugues, which are a landmark in musical composition, while thinking something like "what a stupid toy, this new instrument!"

Edit -
BTW, am I to believe that Bach has composed those 48 Preludes and Fugues for an instrument that he saw only "once or twice" in his life, and also scorned it as a "toy"?? zaster, where are you taking all this info from, wikipedia?

Bach would have played these on clavichord, maybe harpsichord or organ.
The preludes and fugues get their title from the Equal-Temperament tuning system Bach used, not from the piano-forte. Here's a rundown of some various performance POVs from J.S. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier In-depth Analysis and Interpretation by Siglind Bruhn. Full text available online at:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~siglind/ ... -intro.htm

1.
A first group of artists, often referred to as "purists", will interpret music only on the instrument for which it has originally been composed ••“ regardless of the distinction between instrument-specific and absolute music. This is an attitude to respect so long as it does not neglect two considerations:

* One is that Baroque keyboard instruments, such as the harpsichord or the clavichord, need as much special training as the piano and can therefore not simply be chosen for certain pieces by performers who have acquired their skills on the modern piano only.

* The other is that Bach, given the choices available in his time, preferred many of his pieces to be played on the clavichord with its wider possibilities of subtle shading. Forkel, one of Bach's earliest biographers, tells us that Bach himself was not too happy whenever he had to perform particularly his polyphonic pieces on the harpsichord. Therefore, even additional training on the harpsichord is frequently insufficient.

Thus, choosing to play on the "original" instrument means, in the case of almost all pieces from the Well-Tempered Clavier, that a performer has to have undergone considerable extra clavichord training. It also necessitates the acceptance of playing only in chamber music halls of the smallest size, to ensure that the playing can be heard beyond the first ten rows. If a performer agrees to submit to all these requirements, then the performance has a good chance of becoming an unforgettable experience for the audience.

2.
A second group of performers seems to prefer a compromise: they will play on a modern grand piano, but touch their instrument only in such a way that its sound may resemble that of a harpsichord as closely as possible. Apart from the above mentioned fact that for most of the pieces in question the harpsichord was not even the "originally" intended instrument, such compromise is likely to deprive the listener both of enjoying the sound of the music and of understanding the structure. All his attention will probably be captured by the unusual way in which the performer is treating his piano. Such is certainly not the idea of music making.

For a performer who feels that the sound of a modern piano fails to do justice to the composer's intention, it would be preferable to adhere to the principles of the first group.

3.
A third group of musicians distinguishes between instrument-specific and absolute music. They believe (as did Mozart when he wrote his transcriptions) that much of Bach's musical language is not confined to a very special type of instrument.

This view is based on the fact that many a piece in the Baroque epoch bears a title which destines it for various instruments of equal tonal range e.g. "for violin or flute or oboe"; "for violoncello or bassoon"). One can conclude from these titles that such music is in reality "absolute music", not dependent on the specific tone color and technique of an instrument but deriving its significance from within the musical structure alone.

The keyboard performers of this group will therefore shape their keyboard technique according to the musical ideas they perceive in a piece, concentrating their studies on how other instruments of the era would have articulated a line or proportioned a dynamic development, and transfer this style to their instrument with as much nuance as possible.

4.
Finally, a fourth group of performers appear to focus mainly on the manifold possibilities of the modern piano, particularly those added to its range of expression in the late 19th century. They will freely use dynamic and agogic means engendered by the Romantic period because they feel the necessity to meet the emotional needs of today's public -- needs which, without doubt, were developed primarily through music of the Romantic style.

However, one should be permitted to ask: if it is true that today's audience cannot appreciate music which lacks Romantic attributes, would it not be easier (and better for both the audience and the music) to give them the "real thing", i.e. original Romantic compositions?