MOTUnation.com

How by-the-book are your orchestrations generally? Like, in a given project, do you tend to make a lot of choices that suit the circumstances, but might stray from strict counterpoint/voice-leading or do you try to keep things as, like, clinical as possible?

I'm self-taught but have studied a lot of scores by the great masters. I probably make a lot of 'mistakes' but when I hear them played by real orchestras they sound the way I intended them to and I don't get too many complaints.

So the answer for me is there is no book. If it sounds good, it is good. If it sounds right, it is right.

YMMV and I'm sure the more learned orchestrators will have something to say about it. But for my money, art has no rules, just 'good' and 'bad' practitioners. Of course there are mediocre practitioners as well, but they actually count for less than 'bad' ones IMO. A lot can be learned from 'bad' work. More can be learned from 'good' work. But mediocre work seems to do no more than to restate what the 'proper rules' are and in doing so, do nothing to really advance an art form.

What MLC said.

I can tell you that practically ANYTIME you need to make a choice between being "correct" and choosing a nice counterpoint line, for instance, the latter will be preferable.

There are certainly a few conventions that makes things sound as good as they can, but they are only that: conventions (for example, the way one scores an inverted triad or 7th chord). But if you have a great countermelody that happens to "violate" that convention, then the hell with the convention and highlight the line!

Unless your score is really a Period score, and you need to remain real to the style, just do what sounds best.

It sounds to me you have a particular case or scenario. Care to share to see exactly what worries you?

+1 on the above comments. Just remember...theory came after practice. I remember reading NEVER have minor 9ths between the outside voices, but I had a small woodwind passage where the counterpoint had a m9th at one stage. I was a little worried but thought I'd give it a go and if I had to change it on the spot I was ready to. Anyhow, worked out OK.

Some of the most memorableoments in music history were when composers broke the rules. Actually, they created new rules. There is no right or wrong in art. Just good and bad and no one - NO ONE - has a monopoly on which is which. Or as the song goes: We decide which is right; and which is an illusion.

All that said, I still like to have my scores proof read by one who knows and follows the rules. No one is perfect!

It's nice to know that you're breaking the rules, though - because you know the rules! Knowledge is a good thing...

John

I think I maybe didn't phrase this question as well as I could have.

I didn't mean to come off as inquiring about intuitive vs. theoretically-sound composition. I'm a music theory enthusiast and love to dig deep into the trenches of four part writing, treatment of non-harmonic tones, structured counterpoint, and voice-leading. Like y'all, I also try to walk the fine line of balancing what I "feel" with what, historically, has been proven to be "best practice" in a given situation.

That said, though I've composed a lot, I have not, professionally, arranged the music of other people; I started this thread because a possible opportunity has presented itself for me to do just that and I'm wondering, in general, what is expected, contractually, of an orchestrator/arranger.

From reading y'all's thoughts and experiences, it seems like the answer to my question might be, "People expect it to sound awesome." and that's that. I'm totally fine with that answer. I just wanted to be sure that when a project manager or producer asks an orchestrator why he or she made a certain choice, the answer "Because I thought it would be cool." is, for the most part, acceptable.

Not to stoke any sort of fire here, but I pretty strongly disagree with all three of these positions:

1. Art has no rules
2. There is no right or wrong in art.
3. If it sounds good, it is good.

Of course, I'm up for having my feelings on this changed!

Movies wrote:
1. Art has no rules
2. There is no right or wrong in art.
3. If it sounds good, it is good.

Of course, I'm up for having my feelings on this changed!

1.- Art came FIRST, done by artists. Then the theory guys wanted to structure stuff and studied what made things sound better than others... theory was born afterwards as a "guide".

2.- Right or wrong according to whom???

3.- Can you think of an instance where something that sounds good is bad?

These sorts of conversations get fairly complex fairly quickly. I'm not sure any of us have time to dive in and discuss them with the attention that they deserve.

Really, the only reason I even responded to those points was because I felt like I was getting a music lesson when I asked what I thought was a fairly straight-forward question; it was the equivalent of asking a group of people if they religiously change their oil every six months and receiving answers back about how they drive and their theories regarding how people should drive.

In as few words as possible:

1. The rules were codified due to the fact that certain decisions, historically, made more sense and worked better than other decisions. Restaurant employees might've been washing their hands well before the "All employees are required to wash their hands before returning to work" rule was put in place. That doesn't mean that the rule isn't correct, needed, or appropriate.

2. Right or wrong according to people who know what they're talking about and have spent a great deal of time puzzling over, succeeding and failing at, intently studying, and encountering music and art. Think of it like politics. Why isn't everyone's opinion about legislation regarding bio-ethics taken into account? It has to do with the fact that the people who really think about these things come out with better, more relevant, more helpful, and more succinctly articulated ideas than those who don't. I can't imagine that's a surprise to any of us.

3. Totally. Just because something piques our interest or pleases us doesn't automatically imbue it with impunity from critique. I'm sure you have [what I would call] "guilty-pleasure" music, by which I DON'T mean "music that you don't want people to know that you listen to;" I mean music that you wouldn't argue to someone is awesome, even though you enjoy it. Perhaps it came to you at a certain point in your life and reminds you of that time. There are a jillion reasons.

3a. Just because something might be bad art doesn't mean that it isn't enjoyable.

3b. Just because something is enjoyable doesn't make it good art.

Addendum: Why would any of us study anything if what we enjoy is completely valid and fine? Why do people even hire composers -- why not just hire anyone if there's no such thing as bad music or art? To hold your view, one would have to think that it's EXTRAORDINARILY COINCIDENTAL that MOST of the people working in the fine arts are exceptionally educated in their field.

As Aaron Copeland said: Any time a learned man puts two or more words together about music, one of them is bound to be wrong.

Case closed.

There is academic art and there is functional art. They can coexist but are not mutually dependent.

I am a functional artist and do not need academic approval on whether what I do is correct or not. I only need an audience. Period.

That I have patrons willing to pay me to "think art" makes me very lucky, but just as I don't need academic approval, similarly I don't need to be paid either. I will create art regardless. If just one person agrees with me that what I have done is art, then it is art - and it is neither right nor wrong, correct nor in error, good nor bad.

If that doesn't fit your notion of what art is or should be, then I contend that it is your notion regarding the true nature of art that is in error.

Art is not the words describing what it might be; it is what it is. All descriptions beyond that are academic excrement. It either works or it does not and for me, it only need "work" (read: communicate) to one person besides the creator of the work to be art.

© 2011 Mortilla

HEY!

I was going to say that...

FMiguelez wrote:HEY!

I was going to say that...

I'll cut you in on the royalties...

I'm a little bummed that you only vaguely replied to half of one of my points. If you have any thoughtful objections to any of the specific arguments I made, I'd love to hear them. Granted, I feel like the subject is infinitely more complicated than my last, bulleted post expressed, but I think I managed to sum up, in very broad terms, my general feelings.

Your last post, to my eyes, is proving what I'm saying. You think that there are right answers to what art is or isn't. You've apparently surveyed the lay of the musical land through what I imagine was a cautious analysis and wound up believing claims that you think are true.

Claims like this:

1. "There is academic art and there is functional art. They can coexist but are not mutually dependent."

2. "If just one person agrees with me that what I have done is art, then it is art - and it is neither right nor wrong, correct nor in error, good nor bad."

3. "Art is not the words describing what it might be; it is what it is."

4. "All descriptions beyond that are academic excrement."

5. "...it only need "work" (read: communicate) to one person besides the creator of the work to be art."

If you presented these things as hopes or fears or suspicions, we'd be having a different conversation, but you're presenting them as truth claims. If that's the case, how do you know that they're true? If what you said earlier can be believed, it has to do solely with you and what you believe. If that's the case, how then can anything that I claim to be true about art be "in error?" Aren't I just believing my separate, but equal truth about art?

In essence, you're making claims that you're presenting as if they're facts or derived from facts, while at the same time denying that there are any facts to be known.

Each off us bring to the table what we wish. You offered your perspective. I offered mine.

I'm not here to 'address each of your points' per se, nor do I feel any inclination to do so.

If you already knew what answers you wanted, why ask the questions? That is either an exercise in ego or academics. I have no interest in the former and left latter behind ages ago.

Understood.

The only question I asked was "How by-the-book are your orchestrations generally?" which, though it wasn't answered in any sort of direct way, I think I've managed to piece together an answer. I was responding to y'all's points with regard to the "What is art?" conversation -- I didn't start that one.

On that score, I didn't know what answers I wanted. I know what my thoughts are on the subject and I'm entirely open to having them changed. I started this topic due to the fact that I'm mostly at sea with regard to how certain situations are handled in the professional world. I know that you, MIDI, and a ton of other people here have years of experience that I don't. Your posts, in particular, along with a few others on this board, are ones that I take extra care to go over for just that reason. A significant percentage of things I've learned here, as a matter of fact, can probably be attributed to your posts, threads, and/or insights specifically.

I'd also like to add that I'd guess we line up with our views a lot more than this specific interaction would indicate. We're all trying to communicate something with music, we're all trying to get whatever that something is across in the best possible way (to us). One of the reasons these conversations are sort of sticky to get into is precisely because there are so many grey areas -- to make a decisive statement about one aspect of a process, I think, sometimes makes it seem like one isn't taking into account all of the nuanced baggage that goes along with that statement.

Just to be clear: I have respect for almost anyone who takes the time to make music or tries to communicate something with music. I think there are [functionally] an infinite number of valid ways to make music and to look at music (many of which I think we all share).