The Name Game Pro Tip:
  1. Didja accidentally blow through the whole, "We're using our real names" thing on registration? No problem, just send me (Mike) a Conversation message and I'll get you sorted, by which I mean hammered-into-obedient-line because I'm SO about having a lot of individuality-destroying, oppressive shit all over my forum.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. You're only as good as the harshest criticism you're willing to hear.
    Dismiss Notice

Developing a track through orchestration?

Discussion in 'Orchestration 3 - Presets' started by Gareth Thomas, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. #1 Gareth Thomas, Oct 5, 2017
    This may sound like a bit of a stupid question but can you develop the track/cue through added layers of orchestration?

    For instance in the first of example in the masterclass where the whole orchestra is used (I think Mike calls is the Raiders preset), would you just use the whole "preset" from the start or add the different elements through various passes of the melody?

    I.e start with the Brass orchestration on the first pass, then add the low strings on the second pass, then add the violin/flute accents on the third pass and then everything on the fourth...?
     
  2. #2 Mike Verta, Oct 5, 2017
    It's a dangerous way to think. Orchestration is the expression of the composition, not the other way around. Let the composition determine what and how instruments are used. The internal structure of Raiders works on piano all by itself.
     
  3. #3 Gareth Thomas, Oct 18, 2017
    Sure, but in your example of the "just keep adding more" orchestration you say that so many pieces start there and have no where to go. That they haven't earned it.

    Surely in order to build up to that big epic sound, you need to do a few passes of the melody whilst adding layers, no?
     
  4. #4 Mike Verta, Oct 18, 2017
    You have an approach problem. I think the statement, "..do a few passes of the melody while adding layers," almost perfectly sums up why 99% of music today is neither epic, nor memorable. It's not the what that matters, it's the why.

    Consider this: If you're a surgeon, you have to cut somebody open, ergo, if you want to be a surgeon, cut somebody open. See the flaw? It's the same one you're falling into. The cutting-a-person-open part is surely part of surgery - but only for very specific reasons, done in very specific ways at very specific times. There are times and ways, motivated musically and developmentally to "do passes and add layers," but simply doing it doesn't make for development, interest, musicality, and certainly not epic-ness. I understand why no shortage of young composers would love to believe it works that way so they don't have to do decades of tireless study, but it just doesn't work that way. There's no shortcut to controlled, intentional harmonic and thematic development. But the musical landscape is currently knee-deep in failed attempts.
     
    Runar Lundvall, Paul T McGraw and Alexander Schiborr like this.
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page