thinking as arranger

[wrench45us]

generally with the convenience of a DAW if I wanted a bed/chord in strings or brass I chose a suitable vsti and positioned a suitable chord

but over the weekend I met a wind player in various municpal bands in Luxembourg and he has done many of the arrangements for the bands he's been in. So in talking to him there's more to just spliting up a chord among 4 sax types or 3 trumpet sections, esp as regards keeping the players engaged and happy with 'good' parts.
It's a very different way of thinking from working with a wind, string or brass ensemble vsti.

I'm not sure I want to give up how easy it is to just throw a chord into a vsti, but I am interested in knowing more about the thinking that goes behind creating these parts.
How does one make that transition to thinking about a 1st 2nd and 3rd (etc) brass part?

[Ogg Vorbis]

How does one make that transition to thinking about a 1st 2nd and 3rd (etc) brass part?

I think there are bad arrangements and very good ones. The bad ones treat an ensemble like a big piano. You have harmonies being held, as you've said, in static positions like a transcribed "left hand" and some other instrument or instruments noodling around on an active line.

But I think good arrangements don't have this single-perspective or point-of-view approach. In a fine arrangement, the layers and dimensions of the ensemble are explored thoroughly. Groups or solo instruments will emerge out of the texture and come into a primary or prominent role and then duck out while another color emerges. So you have very dynamic and interesting changes of color and texture going on constantly.

Arrangers also explore thinning out the texture for certain passages and letting, say, the higher register instruments shimmer softly before there is a big contrasting tutti section. Dark changing to light changing to heavy to sparse and back again...

In ensembles I've played in, I could always guess if the orchestration or arrangement was going to be any good by just looking at my part. If it looks like the part has an integral role in the piece (not just tied goose eggs or a static eighth note "chunk chunk chunk chunk" figure throughout) then someone probably put some thought and expertise into the arrangement.

Here's the very coolest trick ever...the really good arrangers will take something and make it sound like it was originally conceived for the new group. Ravel's Pictures at an Exhibition no longer sounds like a piano piece. Stokowski's orchestration of Bach's D minor chacconne sounds like it was written for a modern orchestra, not a solo violin, Miles Davis' "Surrey with the Fringe on Top" sounds like it was a jazz tune written for a small combo, not a broadway number, etc.

Hope some of these ideas help. There are a ton of books out there on the topic. But I think the best way is to get your hands on some different scores and tear them apart, then try some on your own with each part on its own track in your DAW rather than a "brass" track, etc.

[wrench45us]

Here's the very coolest trick ever...the really good arrangers will take something and make it sound like it was originally conceived for the new group

This is something this fellow was forced to do
1) the arrangements he could buy were generally for 4 to (dixieland) 7 parts
2) the makeup of various municipal bands doesn't follow the standard breakdown of a school or military or big band. He had a full sax section and clarinets, but few trumpets and trombones, but some euphoniums and baritones. If he didn't adapt the parts to the instruments available in a 'natural' way, it sounded bad and the whole point of a municipal band is fun for players and audience.

Thanks for your response. It's given me a better frame to think about this.
It seesm that the most engaging electronic music also has this shifting, dynamic quality that comes with a good arrangement.

[jsaras]

When writing for instrumental ensembles I find it best to start by sketching the melody part (1st trumpet or violin 1) and the bass part. With that foundation in place, write three other parts underneath the melody, one line at a time.

So you have 4 parts plus the bass line. From there, you can use basic orchestration techniques to expand the sketch using devices like unison or octave doublings and interlocking instrumental combinations.

[wrench45us]

you know me, I like the books

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/Jaz ... ch/3811692

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/Arr ... ct_reviews

[kbaccki]

Don't forget to check out this fabulous freebie... Exploring Jazz Arranging by Chuck Israels, brought to you by the generosity of Garritan:

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/for ... .php?f=107

It's pretty in-depth and jazz-centric, but you should find some gems in there on arranging for multiple voices, etc.

[wrench45us]

that is an excellent reference

thanks

[sammy24]

In addition to focusing on each line in the music as its own melody (even when playing simple harmony parts), I think it's crucial that every part of the arrangement have a purpose-- Probably everyone has their own way of thinking about this. I feel it kind of makes sense to put every arranging element in one of 4 categories: Melody, Harmony, Countermelody , and Rhythm.

I mean, this is an over-simplification since many elements overlap into more than one category, but it is a start. Now, you have to think about all the different types of elements you hear, and decide what category it falls into. For example, take an arpeggio-- if it is a simple, kinda boring arpeggio (I don't mean boring, but not interesting enough to really capture the listener's attention) than it would seem to be a mostly harmonic element. It also has aspects of countermelody, though, since it is indeed a separate melody going on at same time as the main melody.

Another example would be a sustained pad. Technically, every voice in such a pad is a melody, and especially the top voice will stand out. But mostly it serves a harmonic purpose. Unless of course there is no melody going on besides the pad, so the ear will naturally focus on the pad and its top note as the main melody.

Anyway, it is an area that requires thought. It wouldn't be a bad idea to make a list of different elements. Then, as one develops their listening skills, they can start to get much quicker at it-- oh, the horns are playing a rhythmic pad, the timpani are adding to the rhythmic aspect, etc. Thinking this way will help one understand much more when they study scores and listen to music, especially in trying to understand how the composer "thinks". And this focus applies to arrangements in all styles, techno, pop, you name it.

[psenior]

When I grow up, I hope to understand this topic better. I have had a similar problem as wrench where I harmonized a choir part on the piano but the individual melody lines were whack.
It's tough for me to have to think about concert pitch and the limited ranges of instruments and voices. I have read all the above mentioned books but I really feel like I'd have to go college to get good at arranging for large groups.

[gambaytheunspoken]

Go to your local library and try and lay your hands on Gil Evans' charts, especially the ones he did with Miles Davis.
You can listen here:

Ciao!

[wrench45us]

I always started with a chord progression, now I may start with a chord progrssion, but trim back to figuring out a decent walking bass line and then begin to work up comping style piano chords to set a rhythm and go from there. I always played a rather weak and repetitious 'New Age' arp style piano on the chords before -- it didn't leave much space for anything else

At least this has me thinking.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Go to your local library and try and lay your hands on Gil Evans' charts, especially the ones he did with Miles Davis.
You can listen here:

Ciao!

I agree with that. In my experience with doing arrangements, books are essential but I think arranging starts with developing an internalized concept (hearing and imagining) for the ensemble that you're working with.

What's awesome about Gil Evans is that he put instruments together that didn't have much precedent, so he was really able to use vivid imagination of what those combinations might be like.

Right now if I closed my eyes and imagined a brass quintet's sound, I can hear something... but there's not enough detail to start an interesting arrangement. So if faced with a project for this kind of group, I'd want to listen and follow along with the score to everything I can find for that group to get a mental concept for it. If possible, I'd want to talk with some players and have them go through some of their parts a little bit.

What kinds of things are typical of this grouping? What ways do the trumpets work together and separately? Do they do a lot of parallel 3rds or 6ths? How do arrangements exploit the blending characteristics of the horns and what are the issues with blending with trombone? How do they exploit the range of the horn? What do the other instruments do when the horn takes the melody? What kinds of doubling are used in harmonies? Does it work to use octaves between the trumpets and horn for reinforcing countermelodies or is that a guaranteed balance issue? What is the role of the tuba in terms of keeping the rhythmic energy going in addition to anchoring the harmony? How easy is it to write a line for the tuba that gets lost in the texture? When the low brass take the lead, what are some ways the upper brass fulfill their role? What are the blending challenges when there is a chorale section? What voicing tactics helps mitigate these challenges? etc...

After doing some study, if I closed my eyes and imagined a brass quintet, I'd expect to have a LOT more details floating around. Someone might criticize that and say, "but I don't want to write a typical arrangement, I want to do some really original and out-there stuff." I still think that you can't really get to a level of richness and color and creativity without getting a conceptual foundation of the instruments and the ensembles.

I remember learning that Gil Evans did a ton of transcriptions of arrangements by Ellington and other band leaders by lifting them from records, etc. That will give you a pretty solid foundation to springboard off of.

[Km7]

Books are important, but they are the basic framework. The most important thing is to have sense for tone color and perhaps also analytical thinking on how to achieve something that you want. Having said that, it isn't mandatory to be able to hear every detail, you can also work this out by 'layering', so to speak, provided you have a good idea of what you want.

[jancivil]

Gil Evans did a ton of transcriptions of arrangements by Ellington and other band leaders by lifting them from records, etc. That will give you a pretty solid foundation to springboard off of.