Jump to content

General Harmony/Orchestration/Theory Questions


Dixon Hill

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Naamloos.jpg

 

Would this be an at least fairly accurate transcription of this TPM source cue? I'm primarily focused on the line the two guitar-esque instruments are performing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my mom's passions is bhangra music (a remnant of her marriage to my Pakistani father), so I've heard tons of it. :lol: It definitely sounds like an Indian percussion instrument to me. A dhol perhaps? We don't have the sketch for this cue, BTW. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the celesta in this recording of Holst's Planets/Neptune an octave too low?

 

That celesta at 0:55 is at written pitch but the instrument sounds an octave higher.  It should sound like this:

 

It makes me wonder if the Naxos recording used a keyboard playing a "celesta" patch played by a pianist so the notes were concert pitch rather than up an octave.  What's the real story?  Did they do this intentionally?  Was it a mistake? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought some of you might be interested in this little engraving of the first four measures of Korngold's "Duel" cue* in The Sea Hawk (the full score is really hard to read):

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxjtyHTsythbeXZMRU5GTEhWNVE/view?usp=sharing

 

It's enough to unravel the logic behind it - consequent use of both whole-tone scales with harmonic accompaniment in the form of major chords built on the scale degrees.

 

* This particular iteration of the theme/cue is the one heard during the first battle at sea.

 

@karelm What do you think about the PDF? Does it look professional? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jilal said:

I thought some of you might be interested in this little engraving of the first four measures of Korngold's "Duel" cue* in The Sea Hawk (the full score is really hard to read):

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxjtyHTsythbeXZMRU5GTEhWNVE/view?usp=sharing

 

It's enough to unravel the logic behind it - consequent use of both whole-tone scales with harmonic accompaniment in the form of major chords built on the scale degrees.

 

* This particular iteration of the theme/cue is the one heard during the first battle at sea.

 

@karelm What do you think about the PDF? Does it look professional? :P

 

That looks very professional, Jalil.  Clearly you put a lot of work into making it look pro.  There are a few nitpicks but are really just depending on the copyist standard.  If you want to send me the Sibelius file, I'll make a few minor cosmetic changes for you.  For example, some people are very picky about dynamics lining up.  So horns and trumpets at bar 1 have forte directly under the note (which is good) but winds it is before the note.  Yes, very very nitpicky but that is a quote that I was told by someone on a gig and it quite ticked them off.  Assuming this is page 1, don't forget tempo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is actually the last score I did in Finale. Switching to Sibelius from now on. :lol:

 

Seriously though, Sibelius is so much smoother and faster than Finale. I actually gave up on the dynamics just because Finale is such a hassle when it comes to that (thanks for the tip, though! I'd be very picky when it comes to alignment of stuff, too). As for the tempo marking: I forgot! Should it only appear on the top of the score, or also above the Violin I staff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jilal said:

Well, this is actually the last score I did in Finale. Switching to Sibelius from now on. :lol:

 

Seriously though, Sibelius is so much smoother and faster than Finale. I actually gave up on the dynamics just because Finale is such a hassle when it comes to that (thanks for the tip, though! I'd be very picky when it comes to alignment of stuff, too). As for the tempo marking: I forgot! Should it only appear on the top of the score, or also above the Violin I staff?

 

It's very, very good.  Generally, you would put the tempo at the section breaks (so top of the score, above horn 1, above timpani, and above violin 1.  Try to make it look balanced so top, middle, bottom sections works.  If it gets crowded, the top staff and violin 1 are generally the most important.  Notice bar 2, trumpet 3 and 4.  Is that trumpet 3, 4, or both 3 and 4 playing?  You'd want to indicate.  Some people (myself included) prefer unpitched percussion like the snare to be on a staff with 1 ledger line.  Bar 4, violin 1 and 2 is that divisi or non-div?  Though not that important, consider having the destination dynamics.  For example, bar 4, violins (oh especially violins) you will likely get one person asking how loud you want them to get.  The general nomenclature is if you don't indicate a dynamic it is one level above or below, but you as a composer/arranger/orchestrator will build a reputation as garnering zero questions from the expensive orchestra if you think this way. 

 

One very important point, what I said mostly applies to film scores and new composers where you'll likely to only be sight read and/or very limited rehearsal time compared with Beethoven or Tchaikovsky.  So you have to make it fall into place very fast...learn to hate unnecessary questions because that info is already detailed in the score.  With concert music, it is unusual to have bar numbers every bar because they rehearse for performances rather than a single use recording and correctness will be more important that speedy readability.  For example, enharmonic spelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for the tips, @karelm. Indeed, I missed out on some a 2 markings here and there. Oh, by the way, should there be a space between the a and the number? I've seen it written both ways. Also, Finale doesn't offer a non divisi-bracket and I read that double/triple/quadruple stops are normally assumed when there's no divisi marking, so I should have not included the non divisi marking in the cello part by that logic.

 

As for the snare drum, would you use normal notation or x-shaped noteheads? As for the destination dynamics, they weren't on Friedhofer's score, so I didn't add any of my own.

 

I guess the general consensus is to be as precise as possible? I believe at least some orchestration manuals preach the contrary, especially when it comes to the string section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jilal said:

Thanks so much for the tips, @karelm. Indeed, I missed out on some a 2 markings here and there. Oh, by the way, should there be a space between the a and the number? I've seen it written both ways. Also, Finale doesn't offer a non divisi-bracket and I read that double/triple/quadruple stops are normally assumed when there's no divisi marking, so I should have not included the non divisi marking in the cello part by that logic.

 

As for the snare drum, would you use normal notation or x-shaped noteheads? As for the destination dynamics, they weren't on Friedhofer's score, so I didn't add any of my own.

 

I guess the general consensus is to be as precise as possible? I believe at least some orchestration manuals preach the contrary, especially when it comes to the string section.

 

My preference is a'2 but a2 works too.  I just think a'2 looks cleaner and technically those are two words combined as one (A du..."for two").  Regarding non-div, I would state it if you don't want to be asked by that one pesky violinist who will question everything.  You can very easily imagine the section discussing how to break it down and you should avoid that.  They should know without discussion how it will be divided.  Also, it needs to make musical sense.  Now getting in to orchestration but as violins rise, the sound gets thinner so you generally will want more strings on a higher line.  My point is the div and non-div needs to be deliberate and understood by you.  A poor example of div would be diving a very high violin line against fff brass.  That is a very weak balance.  If the music gets loud, think unison octaves and NOT div.  If it gets high, double the high notes if they are important (rather than it just being a color or effect).  Strings in fifths are easier to keep in tune than thirds.  So you can think of interlocking violin 1 and 2 in fifths to make a chord rather than thirds.  Again this is for quick reading rather than concert.  Normal notation for snare.  Destination dynamics, it might not have mattered if you have infinite time and budget but these days it will be one less question asked (your goal).   Your general approach is to not have ANY predictable questions asked.  Bad questions: Did you want me to play it this way...or that way?  Good questions: I get what you want but do you mind if I deviate from what you wrote this one take?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jilal said:

Thanks so much for the tips, @karelm. Indeed, I missed out on some a 2 markings here and there. Oh, by the way, should there be a space between the a and the number? I've seen it written both ways. Also, Finale doesn't offer a non divisi-bracket and I read that double/triple/quadruple stops are normally assumed when there's no divisi marking, so I should have not included the non divisi marking in the cello part by that logic.

 

As for the snare drum, would you use normal notation or x-shaped noteheads? As for the destination dynamics, they weren't on Friedhofer's score, so I didn't add any of my own.

 

I guess the general consensus is to be as precise as possible? I believe at least some orchestration manuals preach the contrary, especially when it comes to the string section.

 

I prefer a2, but it's also correct as a 2.

 

For the snare drum, you would only use x-shaped noteheads to indicate rimshots or stick clicks, things like that. Otherwise it's normal noteheads. Personally, I prefer them to be on a normal staff with the two-lined percussion clef, but sometimes you'll see it with a single-line staff too. Technically correct as well, but IMO it's somehow tougher to read.

 

For that TPM source cue, if it helps, keep in mind that it's identical to another of the source tracks. It just has the recorders taken out. You can line up the audio and it matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sharkus Malarkus

 

Asshole of the year Ray Riley generously posted a sample image of his complete War of the Worlds score.

 

Note the unusual orchestration:

 

  • English horn, 3 B bass clarinets, 1 EE♭ contra-alto clarinet, 3 bassoons, contrabassoon 
  • 12 horns (!!)
  • 2 trumpets
  • 4 tenor trombones, 2 bass trombones, 2 tubas
  • 2 sets of timpani
  • 2 synths, 2 pianos
  • 24 violas, 12 cellos, presumably 10 basses

 

As for the cue itself, it seems to begin with pitch class content drawn from octatonic collection ii in the form of a cluster compromising the scale's second tetrachord (G#-A-B-C) for the horns (dovetailed, with wooden mutes) and violas and a very rhythmic melodic line for the trombones (con sordini) selectively doubled by the cellos, basses and timpani.

 

RIoUwWj.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2016 at 6:36 PM, karelm said:

Why is the celesta in this recording of Holst's Planets/Neptune an octave too low?

 

That celesta at 0:55 is at written pitch but the instrument sounds an octave higher.  It should sound like this:

 

It makes me wonder if the Naxos recording used a keyboard playing a "celesta" patch played by a pianist so the notes were concert pitch rather than up an octave.  What's the real story?  Did they do this intentionally?  Was it a mistake? 

I don't know if it's intentional or an accident, but I think I prefer the recording with the lower celesta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I remember once coming across a dynamic marking I had to look up, and it essentially meant "as contradictory as possible to the dynamic of an extreme register," i.e. as soft as possible within a trumpet's highest notes or bottom of the oboe range or as loud as possible in a clarinet's clarion register.  For the life of me, I can't remember what that dynamic marking was, and Google isn't being helpful.  Is this a term other people are familiar with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Can someone explain to me why the wonderfully Christmasy middle section of Harry's Wondrous World is written in 2/4? Am I missing something obvious as to why the heck he would have notated it that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Prerecorded Briefing said:

Can someone explain to me why the wonderfully Christmasy middle section of Harry's Wondrous World is written in 2/4? Am I missing something obvious as to why the heck he would have notated it that way?

 

I'm fairly certain it has to do with the rhythmic relationship between the 3/4 and 2/4. That is, at the 2/4, half notes are now divided into three beats rather than two, giving the feeling of shifting to triplets as notated. Yes, he could have kept the 3/4 and simply written a relationship of the half note in the old 3/4 equaling the dotted half note in a new 3/4, but that's something you'd have to think about for a few seconds to comprehend the change. The way it is, it's perhaps not the most elegant solution with all the triplet brackets everywhere, but it is grasped immediately as a motion into triplets on the same half note lengths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hawmy said:

If he was trying to shift to a subdivided three feel wouldn't he use 6/8?

 

The problem there is that 6/8 has only two beats per bar whereas Williams' notated 2/4 bars actually have three because the music is never allowed to settle into a pattern of two beats per bar. I believe the 2/4 is only there to make its relationship to the preceding 3/4 as simple as possible. In other words, leave the notated quarter at roughly the same speed (it's only a hair slower with the new metronome marking of 108 to the quarter rather than 100 of the preceding section), and subdivide two quarter beats into three, hence the triplet brackets. As I say, it looks inelegant but I think it's actually a good way to communicate the relationship clearly and quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, karelm said:

Ludwig, how the hell are you?  Good to see you around here.

 

Thanks, karelm. Just been really, really busy, but good. I hope I might have more time to contribute here in the future!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

What is the spelling and voicing of this (I'm assuming) polychord from Barry's Kong?  To me it roughly sounds like Dbm over Cm.  

 

@ 1m07s

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MikeH said:

What is the spelling and voicing of this (I'm assuming) polychord from Barry's Kong?  To me it roughly sounds like Dbm over Cm.  

 

@ 1m07s

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's actually a diatonic cluster in C minor from Eb up to Ab with a low C as the bass. In other words, (if C4 is middle C), C2-Eb3-F3-G3-Ab3. The F is hard to hear but is most audible when the chord stops playing and the sound is still reverberating at 1:26.

 

So the chord would have the same sound as an F minor triad combined with a C minor triad, but because those chords aren't separated by register, it would be more of a cluster than a polychord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2016 at 8:36 AM, karelm said:

Why is the celesta in this recording of Holst's Planets/Neptune an octave too low?

 

That celesta at 0:55 is at written pitch but the instrument sounds an octave higher.  It should sound like this:

 

It makes me wonder if the Naxos recording used a keyboard playing a "celesta" patch played by a pianist so the notes were concert pitch rather than up an octave.  What's the real story?  Did they do this intentionally?  Was it a mistake? 

 

 

I feel like this happens a lot. For some reason some celesta players don't transpose their parts up an octave like they're supposed to. I've noticed it on a few live recordings of JW pieces, can't remember which recordings but I remember it sticking out in "Adventures on Earth" and "Bridge to the Past" (PoA). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question that is a bit urgent.

I'm proofreading the JW chapter I wrote and wanted to ask this:

 

I have a theme (presumed innocent theme) and it's in F minor.

How do we call an A minor chord in F minor?

A sharpened mediant minor chord? (the normal mediant chord in F minor as you know would be Ab-C-Eb  which is a major chord)

(the adjectives in this order?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

I have a question that is a bit urgent.

I'm proofreading the JW chapter I wrote and wanted to ask this:

 

I have a theme (presumed innocent theme) and it's in F minor.

How do we call an A minor chord in F minor?

A sharpened mediant minor chord? (the normal mediant chord in F minor as you know would be Ab-C-Eb  which is a major chord)

(the adjectives in this order?)

 

Most analysts would probably call this the sharp mediant, in contrast to chords like the flat mediant. The "minor" adjective would be understood. And most write the Roman numerals as being diatonic in key of the passage, so the sharp mediant would be notated as #iii. If it was the sharp mediant major, for example, it would be written as #III and you'd specify the "major" when referring to it in the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much Ludwig! :-)

 

So i'll write this?

"leads to the final cadence (to an unexpected sharp mediant chord)"  omitting the "minor"?

(i'm not using any numerals in the actual example)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, or you could go with raised mediant chord since it might be a bit funny to refer to a sharp when the note is actually a natural. Either way, despite the fact that you don't need to say "minor", I'd probably clarify with a little parenthesis, like: "the raised mediant chord (A minor)", or something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2016 at 10:24 PM, Fennel Ka said:

How would the shrieking strings at 0:52 be notated?

 

 

 

Probably something very similar to the opening of Penderecki's Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima, which I would guess was the model Shore had in mind. See the notation (animated!) below:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Fennel Ka said:

 

 

As Ludwig wrote, probably a upwards pointing arrowhead signifying the highest playable notes on various strings of the violins and violas, creating a sense microtonal cluster, plus a few stands glissandoing around a designated range (regular noteheads joined by lines). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very basic question, and perhaps I'm missing a very obvious answer.

 

But I read this PDF ("Imperfect Intervals" here -  http://tobyrush.com/theorypages/index.html) and I'm still confused on how to tell if an imperfect interval is major or minor.

 

Specifically, the bit about "if the top note is in the key of the bottom note or vice versa" has vexed me. How do you even figure out what key a single note is in, as shown near the bottom of the PDF? 

 

And what's the connection, if any, between major scales and major intervals, and minor scales and minor intervals? 

 

I'm sure I'm missing some obvious things but I just can't connect the dots. @loert? (or anyone else, of course!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@WillMajor intervals are bigger than minor intervals. A minor second is a half-step, while a major second is a whole step. A minor third is 3 half-steps while a major is 4. A minor sixth is 8 half-steps and a major sixth is 9. A minor seventh is 10 half-steps and a major seventh is 11. I hope that helps. Don't worry about the keys. In my personal opinion that's not a very good way of teaching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hawmy said:

@WillMajor intervals are bigger than minor intervals. A minor second is a half-step, while a major second is a whole step. A minor third is 3 half-steps while a major is 4. A minor sixth is 8 half-steps and a major sixth is 9. A minor seventh is 10 half-steps and a major seventh is 11. I hope that helps. Don't worry about the keys. In my personal opinion that's not a very good way of teaching it.

 

Well I guess that's one way to do it. In that case I guess you just memorize the number of half steps in every major interval and just always subtract one to find the minor (or vice versa). That shouldn't be too hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Will There is no need in finding the key of a single note (that is impossible), the point is that you look at one note in the interval and derive the major scale from it. E.g. if you see a G then you have G major. Or B = B major. Then you look at the other note and decide whether or not it is part of that scale, if not then you try upside down...:blink: I agree with Hawmy that this is not a very good way of teaching it as it's using a "trick" which makes it more confusing than it should be!

 

So let me try to explain intervals as rigorously as possible:

 

Firstly, it's very important to remember that interval sizes (second, third, fourth....) are determined solely by the note names. For example, B-C is a second, D-F is a third, G-B is also a third, and so on. This is true irrespective of the accidentals.

 

So now, say you have a third (e.g. D-F). How do you know whether it's major or minor? What you can do is look at the half-step distance between the two pitches. D-F has a half step distance of three, which makes it a minor third. If the interval were D-F#, it would be four half-steps, making it a major third.

 

From the above post you appear to understand this, but the question we have now is this: Why is a major third four half-steps, and a minor third three half-steps? And what about sixths, where a minor sixth is eight half-steps and a major sixth is nine? Where do these half-step distance "definitions" come from?

 

In the very top diagram in the "Imperfect intervals" theory sheet, there is a series of intervals based on C. The bottom note is always C, and the top notes make up the C major scale. All imperfect intervals in this series are major. Hence, C-E is a major third because E is part of the C major scale, C-A is a major sixth because A is part of the C major scale. In the same way, D-E is a major second since E is part of the D major scale. D-B is a major sixth, for the same reasons, etc. etc. So you don't have to memorize the number of half-steps for each interval, because the major scale of the bottom note automatically gives you all of the major intervals. 

 

What about minor intervals? There are two ways of deducing them:

  • THE EASY WAY - Minor intervals are a half-step lower than major intervals. 
  • THE COMPLETIONIST'S WAY - Minor intervals arise from the natural minor scale, which is explained a few pages along on that site but is simple enough to outline here. Basically, the natural minor scale is the same as the major scale but the 3rd, 6th and 7th degrees are flattened. E.g. C D E F G A B C becomes C D Eb F G Ab Bb C. This is where the minor third (C-Eb), minor sixth (C-Ab) and minor seventh (C-Bb) originate. However, the second interval remains unchanged (C-D), but we still call it major (C-D) and minor (C-Db). This arises because each interval can be inverted to form another, unique interval. To invert an interval, you take the low note and place it an octave higher. So, inverting a perfect fifth (e.g. F-C) you get a perfect fourth (C-F). Inverting a major sixth (e.g. B-G#) you get a minor third (G#-B). Inverting a major seventh (e.g. C-B) you get a minor second (B-C). And a minor seventh becomes a major second. So, you see, following the pattern of third <-> sixth, where major <-> minor, it makes sense to do the same with second <-> seventh, because a seventh interval can definitely be major/minor, so a second interval can be minor/major too.

After all of this, it's necessary to stress that the bottom note of an interval actually has nothing to do with the key of the entire piece. It's only the scale of the bottom note in the interval that can be used to work out the name of the interval. 

 

Anyway, don't let all the "why-s" faze you; in practice, the most important thing to remember is that the major intervals can be deduced from the major scale of the bottom note, and the minor intervals are one lower than the major intervals. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The flute(s) technique from 0:11-0:25?

I know this has been discussed elsewhere here, but I can't seem to find the thread, so... might this be an accurate transcription?

4 Flutes (1 C, 2 Alto, 1 Bass) with the 2 higher flutes maintaining vocal drones on C and the 2 lower flutes flutter-tonguing?

6H4R3rm.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed in both The Deep and King Kong that Barry had no violas in the string lineup. Jokes aside, any ideas on why one might make that choice?  The timbre of all the strings blend together the most seamlessly of any other instrument choir, so it's interesting to me that in these fairly traditional symphonic scores he'd leave them out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MikeH said:

I noticed in both The Deep and King Kong that Barry had no violas in the string lineup. Jokes aside, any ideas on why one might make that choice?  The timbre of all the strings blend together the most seamlessly of any other instrument choir, so it's interesting to me that in these fairly traditional symphonic scores he'd leave them out. 

 

Many composers choose to lose the violas (jokes aside) if the budget is limited.  Jeff Rona and Garry Schyman for example have stated that if they are in a limited budget, since cello and violin overlap, they would opt for more violins or cello to create a bigger sound and eliminate the viola.  If budget is extremely limited, some composers might lose violins and go with violas and celli only utilizing the upper register of the violas to cover the violin range.  This is risky as the low register of the viola is rich but it gets pinched as it ascends.  One other major consideration is John Barry comes from a pop/jazz background and many of the bond scores do not feature violas.  For example in this picture from the "You Only Live Twice" scoring session, there are no violas while they had extra instruments in other sections.  I don't think these were shoestring budget scores but they never had enough money for what they wanted and might have deemed violas superfluousness especially considering the odd arrangement of the instrumentation.  They felt the cost of that player would be better served in a different instrument rather than having a blended classical sound.  Note the electric guitars above the tuba. 

YOLT_barry.jpg

Some composers would prefer 8 first violins, 8 second violins, 4 celli, and 2 bass rather than 8.6.4.3.1 if that makes sense.  It would cost the same and cover the same register. 

 

Barry's musical start (he's the trumpet in the center):

Mike+Peters+bass.+3rd+from+left.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/01/2017 at 6:15 AM, Gnome in Plaid said:

The flute(s) technique from 0:11-0:25?

I know this has been discussed elsewhere here, but I can't seem to find the thread, so... might this be an accurate transcription?

4 Flutes (1 C, 2 Alto, 1 Bass) with the 2 higher flutes maintaining vocal drones on C and the 2 lower flutes flutter-tonguing?

6H4R3rm.png

 

Great job! That's looks pretty accurate, although I'm not sure about the exact number of players. About the extended technique, this is what I found after scouring the web.

 

Quote

 

“When I score a movie, I try to find a concept. This one was about ghosts,” shares Desplat. “I thought, what kind of sound would that make? I knew that films in the ’40s and ’50s used a kind of moaning for the ghosts. What instrument could make that sound? The only one I could think of was the flute, with singing at the same time, like Jethro Tull did. I realized that I couldn’t use a jazz -type of sound, but what if I used several players at the same time? So I wrote four flute parts with the four flute players singing at the same time. That became the sound of the ghost writer.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.