Principles of Orchestration Q&A

Q: Do you have to use all four components when orchestrating? (Core, Melody, Counterpart, Fills)
A: Definitely not. Use what works. However, when I orchestrate, I will usually use all four.

Q: Doesn't it make it a bit 'busy' to use all four components?
A: Not at all. It can. But it doesn't have to. You don't have to have complicated parts. A core can be a simple bass line. A counterpoint can be nothing more than a pad (a long drawn out note over the top of everything) and a fill nothing more than a soft cymbal roll. It can be very simple or very elaborate.

Q: Can this technique be applied to other musical styles?
A: Yes. Very well. Take a rock song. The drums would be the core. The vocal part the melody (or the guitar solo). The guitar would be the counterpoint...or a counter point to the core...or maybe the core. The keyboards might be a counterpoint to the counterpoint. Fills would happen with drum fills, guitar licks, bass runs, etc., etc... Different parts of the song would work differently, of course. The guitar might be the melody for the intro, or even the core. The drums might be thought of as a counterpoint instead of as the core. It depends on the intent.

Q: So can I take any song and analyse it with these building blocks.
A: If you really would like to, it should work. But you'd be guessing because you don't always know the intent. Is that bass line the core or a counterpoint? Who knows. These are BUILDING blocks for orchestration, not analytical tools. But I must admit that I've taken Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and even John Williams and analysed them in this way. It was a fun and challenging listening experience...but ultimately just a game.

Q: Won't the song get old if you do the same thing throughout?
A: Yes. Don't do the same thing throughout.

Q: But don't these building blocks make is so you're doing the same thing throughout?
A: Each Moment in the song can be treated as a separate entity to apply the building blocks too. A measure, a phrase, a verse. However much feels right. The first measure can use one counterpoint, the second another. You can also reuse and reemphasise parts as different building blocks. What was once the core can now be a counterpoint. What was only a fill can be repeated as an ostinato to become a core. A melody can become a core and a counterpoint can become the melody. Plus, naturally, throughout a well written song the melody will change from verse to chorus, part A to part B, bridge to refrain, etc... Each of these would probably call for new cores, new counterparts and new fills.

Q: What about timbre. You haven't discussed timbre.
A: Timbre is beyond the scope of what I'm explaining here. To learn timbre, I recommend you get into samples and sequencing. Even better, join an orchestra. Take classes. Mess around with different instruments. And, if you have to, read about timbre...though that would be like trying to learn what salt tasted like from a book. I LOVE samples for orchestrating. We are not living in the days of Mozart. There's no reason on earth to not be able to hear what you compose as you go. The technology supports it. Embrace the advantage! If you utilize samples (hopefully quality ones) to learn, you will come to a natural understanding of timbre and what instruments work for what parts, etc... There's still study to be done (learning ranges, learning about tesatura, learning what can and can't be played easily or at all, etc...) but to get an understanding of the emotion and flavor behind an instruments tone, I highly recommend utilizing samples.

Q: What about the orchestration techniques you learn in college or in books? Shouldn't I learn them first.
A: First? Maybe. Learn them at all? Of course. All knowledge can benefit you. Treat them as doctrine? Please don't. I really dislike how music theory is treated like some sort of dogma. It's an art and rules don't apply. Art is art!!! Not science.

Q: So what about Rimsky-Korsakov's Principles of Orchestration? Doesn't that already tell me what I would need?
A: It has some very good information, though somewhat hard to understand if just reading as an inexperienced composer. However, there is an excellent online version of it that would be very useful to anyone learning orchestration and has notes by other professors and experts:

http://www.garritan.com/Rimsky-Korsakov.html

It would be useful. I just recommend that you don't take it all as doctrine. Personally, when I read it, I disagreed with a lot of the ideas. I found some of them to be outdated and pretentious. But that's only my opinion. My opinion shouldn't be taken as dogma either.

Q: So why have a different approach if there's already solid information out there?
A: My approach is meant to be understood from a lay person's perspective. But, moreover, my approach is...well, mine. It's how I think when I orchestrate. My hope is that when others read my information that it will help them develop a solid approach quicker. It took me many years of study and practice to develop a solid understanding of what I was actually doing with it. I hope by sharing, others might come to that understanding quicker.