What NOT To Do?

[MIDI Life Crisis]

...The humor comes from such a gross oversiplification of what's involved

Truly, that is what is funny. Experimentation is always something composers are doing. How else would we get that wonderful opening bassoon solo to the Rite of Spring?

[Frodo]

He's actually farther than I ever got in some respects because he doesn't know he can't do anything, so he's ready to try anything. I get paralized by not knowing the rules, while he doesn't let himself get hamstrung by them. After the initial creativity happens, then we can go back and make things playable by humans. My responsibility is to guide him into acceptible practice without killing his creativity in the process. Interesting balance...

There's a genuine untainted beauty in that-- (incidentally, I've been listening to a song today called "Through The Eyes Of A Child"-- seemed timely).

Often, it's through the unbridled, uninhibited approach of our students we learn something new that may break the rules in a wonderful way-- of course, once you sift through any obvious impossibilities.

...And to see the growth in skill and what eventually emerges in the way of expression is itself a miracle of creation.

[blue]

And this person is a serious orchestrator-- I mean SERIOUS!

Really? Oh, do tell. Please? Pretty please?

Blue, this time I really can't.... at least not in advance of a better understanding.

Of course, I didn't think you were gonna tell. Thought I'd try anyway.

[Frodo]

No, I'm not into defamation, but I do have an even stronger appreciation for the thought that goes into people's posts on U-nation.

[vier-personen]

well.. I read it like this: a person that perhaps is no english native-speaker and was quoted while chatting colloquial tries to tell that analyzing a part of an orchestral score in a way that reduces all voices to the essence of the piece and then to make an own arrangement from this material is a good way to STUDY and understand orchestration.
this actually does make sense for me...

As a non-native English speaker (or maybe a non-English native-speaker... or is it a native non-English speaker?...)

thanks a lot for showing me how bad I am in writing english in such a nice way!
(and btw, "native-speaker": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_language)

let me understand that correctly:

I want to learn how to orchestrate better. So that's what I do -
I listen to a first part of symphony many many times, until I memorize it.
I take it down on paper, under the quintessential form of a melody.
I orchestrate my melody.
When I'm done, I study my score to in order to learn how to orchestrate better.
I'm getting better and better at it. No need to see any scores other than mine. I'm becoming a self-taught orchestrator.

This actually doesn't make a lot of sense for me, but then again,

I never said that. I was talking about analyzing a score and look for other ways to transport the musical idea. if that doesn‘t make sense for you, I‘m sorry. but for me it does.

but I do know now that I can‘t be understood (see above and below) so I will now retire from this discussion.

I am just a non-English speaking native, or a speaking English non-native, or whatever...

thanks again!

I'd say - the success depends on who, and on how many people, will like the sound of that.

commercial succes? yes. artistic success? not necessarily.

[Phil O]

I guess I expected a little more from a professional, is all. Hmm.

Hmm indeed. I guess part of it depends on the author's intent. Was this meant as advice to orchestration students or was he just babbling (as I'm doing now) in some forum? Yes, I think we should expect more from professionals, and I think we are seeing less and less lately.

In answer to your original question though, I couldn't make much sense of it.

Phil

[nickysnd]

thanks a lot for showing me how bad I am in writing english in such a nice way!

No, that is as far from my intentions as it gets! I was mocking myself, and only myself. It was the LOGIC of the original quote, and not your English that didn't make sense to me. Your message was pretty clear to me, and I had/have no objections to it.

I'd say - the success depends on who, and on how many people, will like the sound of that.

commercial succes? yes. artistic success? not necessarily.

Now, with this one, you really got me. How would you define and quantify artistic success? Commercial success is pretty easy, but artistic success?? I really have troubles trying to isolate something artistically successful from something artistically unsuccessful. Care to share your take on it? This one sounds like a good topic for a new thread...

[blue]

No, I'm not into defamation, but I do have an even stronger appreciation for the thought that goes into people's posts on U-nation.

I don't know. Is it defamation if you're merely quoting someone? At least tell me this: was this little nugget posted on the net somewhere, or was it part of some private correspondence?

[Frodo]

No, I'm not into defamation, but I do have an even stronger appreciation for the thought that goes into people's posts on U-nation.

I don't know. Is it defamation if you're merely quoting someone? At least tell me this: was this little nugget posted on the net somewhere, or was it part of some private correspondence?

Names withheld to protect the guilty!

Ah, my friend-- you're busting me-apricots with this one, but....

Hmm indeed. I guess part of it depends on the author's intent. Was this meant as advice to orchestration students or was he just babbling (as I'm doing now) in some forum? Yes, I think we should expect more from professionals, and I think we are seeing less and less lately.

It was not a private discussion, but a response on a public forum to answer a noob's question regarding how to begin the process of orchestrating.

For those of us here who've been at it a while, it may be easier to tweeze out a meaning-- and I really didn't find the language to be a barrier at all. In fact, I didn't even consider it as a possible element that may have rendered the esssence of the response lost in translation.

More, it just seemed "oversimplified" as described earlier-- and took a certain understanding for granted where a beginner would perhaps have been more confused than edified by the advice.

It made me take new inventory of how I communicate with people so that my intent is not lost where I'd otherwise endeavor to help. So at least let me assert this as an indictment of my own methodologies than anyone else's.

[HCMarkus]

So at least let me assert this as an indictment of my own methodologies than anyone else's.

Ah, the humble hobbit! Such a refreshing approach in this self-righteous world.

[twistedtom]

I like the fact that the Hobbit is not flaming some one it show maturity and a higher consciousness. Most people at the Nation are very respectful of others; I have been to some forums where it is almost war.

I kind of see what the first statement was trying to say. I think he is saying play some thing and add to it and listen.
It kind of reminds me of when I was new to multitracking I would play 5 solos on top of each other, what a mess they turned out to be. Obviously the point to orchestration is to blend all the instruments into something musical where each part has its place. The music should flow and say some thing.

[mckelly]

No, I'm not into defamation, but I do have an even stronger appreciation for the thought that goes into people's posts on U-nation.

I don't know. Is it defamation if you're merely quoting someone? At least tell me this: was this little nugget posted on the net somewhere, or was it part of some private correspondence?

Legally speaking, no. Truth is always a defense to libel and slander.

Frodo should be commended for keeping this discussion above board. To be sure, it's not who said it, but what was said that has generated this discussion.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Legally speaking, no. Truth is always a defense to libel and slander.

Cool! Let's talk legal! My third favorite topic after women and music (in that order.)

Truth IS always a defense against libel and slander. Fact is, most cases settle before trial in the US legal system. The purpose of suing is NOT always to get a trial but to get the other side to settle. Usually a good thing when someone has been wronged. Unfortunately, that strategy is often used to bring a defendant (usually a company or a rich guy) to their knees in a settlement even if they have done nothing wrong. This has wrecked our legal system.

The US Supreme court (yesterday) re-established in a case that if there are no real "triable" issues there is no standing to file a case. This involved a group of "atheists" who questioned the validity of the faith based initiative (n that they were being discriminated against).

Bottom line: ALL lawsuits are essentially about money.

[twistedtom]

MIDI the whole world is about money.
There are cases that are real and being able to bring some one to trial is a way of addressing wrongs and sometimes the threat of law suits keep people or companies from abusing others and acts as a balance system. The problem arises when the legal system is abused and we all know any thing people can abuse for their own ends they will.

I think the Beatles stole some of my music.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I think the Beatles stole some of my music.

Wow! Maybe we have a class action suit here?!

MM