Question about orchestrators

That really depends on the composer from what I've read. With computer technology, it is becoming easier and easier for a composer to make a demo of a song with virtual instruments that closely mimic the final orchestration. Some composers merely hum the tunes and have them transcribed so clearly any flourishes and what not would be done by the arrager/orchestrator (Mel Brooks does this) others I've heard (such as Stephen Schwartz) write out very detailed piano parts that are interpolated by the orchestrator thus they resemble the original closely.

For Wicked, Stephen Schwartz wrote out a 5 finger melody with no bass line. I think the orchestrator should get more credit for that score than Schwartz.

I agree Jackie. The inversions I'm talking about are exactly what makes up the bass line. Without it, there is no structure to the score as a whole and the songs sound "processed".

Melody dictates harmony; melody is dictated by rhythm which is dictated by lyric. Bernstein and Sondheim both worked this way.

Bernstein used to say: "You only need 9 notes to make a score"

Check out the bass line and other voices of West Side Story along with the melodies and you'll find those nine note patterns he was talking about. Less is More! Theme and Variation.

Wine and Cheese.

---

Absolutely right, allofmylife!

The old days of the "hand off". The intense timing of scoring a film (usually, the last element before it's in the can) can sometimes require a team of arrangers/orchestrators.

In modern times, producers tend to hire composers who do it all for themselves. That explains the few names (wonderful names) that are working today: John Williams, James Horner, Thomas Neuman, Danny Elfman and others, unfortunately, that I can't think of at this time. It's a limited pool.

A film score, many times, has to be written within 2 or 3 weeks of spotting (where it's decided music should be). Sometimes less. The recording session can be as short as a few hours.

It all has to be in place and ready to go by the time musicians are in the room to record the score. Just like any business, time is money.

As for Broadway. The many changes that occur with the score during previews will involve the orchestrator and the conductor on a daily basis. Very tough. Brutal. Brilliantly satisfying.

---

You're right, vmlinnie, in that 5 finger means a one handed melody. That would refer to a composer who can only play the melody on the piano and relies on an arranger to figure out the chord structure/harmonies.

You may think it's easy to do your "own orchestraitions" (your spelling is off--orchestrations), but you need to have an understanding of how the families within the orchestra operate. Will the reeds compete with the horns...how will the strings compete...the woodwinds...the percussion, including the piano and harp? The textures/colors, will they support the inherent drama and character of the action on stage? And never let it upstage the drama or moment in the show/film.

It's not easy.

There are people who can compose. There are people who can arrange. There are people who can orchestrate.

There are also people who can do it all. Very few people.

I hope you become one of them. Never stop trying. Decide which you like to do best, focus on it and then explore the other facets of it. It will take time.

I know that's probably the LAST thing you want to hear!

And remember, spelling also applies to orchestrations: how to SPELL out the parts for the various instruments. Same terminology in all of the arts: Color, balance, texture, light...

You have time. Can't wait to hear how you use it, color it, and balance it!

---

I've worked on several Broadway shows, and it's VERY rare for music to go straight from a composer to an orchestrator. The reason? The composer is not a part of the day to day rehearsal process, and often doesn't know exactly what's happening with his song. Here's the procedure as I know it:

The composer writes his song...

The arranger takes the song, and it goes through the rehearsal process, with music added by the arranger. Here are the some the things the arranger is likely to change:
The intro, depending on how the song fits in the show.
The key, so it fits the performer's range.
Vocal harmonies, if there is more than one person involved.
Dance music, if this is part of the number.
Music under dialogue, if there is dialogue during the number.
The finish, so that the number gets a big hand.

When the composer, director and choreographer decide a number is ready, the arranger will write a chart showing all of these changes, and the orchestrator will come in and watch the number. Then, everybody will go into a room and tell the orchestrator what they feel he needs to know to make the right choices. Then the orchestrator takes the arranger's chart home.

I'm sure there are exceptions, based on the composer, and the type of musical, but this is how it's always worked with me. Often the composer will step in and ask for changes during this time. But the composer's music is usually only a starting point.

---

I think because of the way I work I don't need someone else to adapt music to dialogue etc.

I come up with the concept/adaptation, and I lay out the scenes and where the musical numbers go. Then, I go to my friend/collaborator and we write the lyrics and music together. Then, I take that away and string it together with the book. So we don't really need to adapt the music to the dialogue etc, because it's written with that in mind.

---

And name names.






Countess Olenska
New York City

OK, sydney23: allofmylife has a great example. And to confuse things more : Rogers who had the skills to write out more than a lead sheet, did not find it necessary for the songs of a broadway score. The arrangers/orchestrators could do it for him. But he was always clear as to the colors and textures.

My experience is more based on the Sondheim factor. He is very clear how he wants the parts to sound out. He's writing a "score" in that every note relates to every other note. That is also my experience as a composer.

Rogers wrote great stuff but didn't write "scores" for his shows. He "scored" TV and movies. He also had input, not on paper always, but with Bennett and others as to what inversions, colors, textures, etc. would be needed.

Another great example is Gershwin and his Rhapsody in Blue. He did not orchestrate it. I'm not even sure if he suggested that he wanted a clarinet to play the opening phrase, but it was the orchestrator that finally put the piece together (in fact, I think the orchestrator came up with the brilliant idea of using the clarinet for those first notes). Quite frankly, Gerswhin improvised the piano part during the first concert, because he had little time to write the piece (he had forgotten his committment to the concert, until he read the ad in the papers at the time!)

As confusing as it all sounds, that is the answer: It always depends on the composer and their working relationship with their arrangers/orchestrators and the time they have available to work on the project at hand.

Long story—and many facts on my part short—it's different for everyone!

My comment earlier regarding the "or worse" simply means that with current computer technology many young composers are not really writing, but are creating sound scapes and not real songs.

Hey, I can make it sound good!! (No character driven motifs)

Thats my 10 cents. (inflation)

---

There is some wrong information on this thread about Richard Rodgers' songs; he did not write lead sheets, but full piano accompaniments, as his manuscripts in the Library of Congress will testify. One orchestrator, David Raksin who later wrote film scores, was sacked by Rodgers for rewriting his harmony. In fact, the ballets for "Slaughter on Tenth Avenue" and "Big Brother" exist in full piano accompaniment.

Thanks Elmore. i figured if i just hung back long enough someone would leap to richard rodgers' defense

And now i'm waiting for someone to explain how they know that stephen schwartz, a guy who studied at juilliard and can certainly play with both hands, wrote only five fingered melodies for Wicked! I mean, I'll believe it if somebody knows Stephen Oremus or William Brohn and they told them that - but it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Composers tend to be be people with decent sized egos - and a proprietary interest in what they create and maybe even (dare i say it) a little artistic integrity and pride as well. it's just hard to believe that any of the people mentioned in this thread would only write "half a song" (as a tune without chords or harmonies most certainly is) and leave the other half up to someone else.

TomMonster, when you say Rodgers didn't think it was necessary to write it all out but was always clear about the colors and textures - what exactly are you referring to as the colors and textures? would those be the chords/harmonies? If so - then he's not writing just a tune or a five fingered melody - he's written the song - right? Beyond that any arrangement or orchestration is an interpretation of that work. There have been repeated references here to lead sheets (implying that they are pale excuses for real composition - "five fingered melodies" and the like.) tho there are many kinds of lead sheets - most of them always include the melody plus chords or chord symbols - hence a song - not a tune. This is the assertion made by some people on this thread that i've been questioning all along. several people have implied that these folk were just writing tunes sans harmonies. additionally they've implied that composers who don't dot every i and cross every t on a score have somehow not written anything as nearly as important as the "score". well they may not have written the full score but they've certainly written the songs.

The reason I think it's important to get this clear is that i've previously seen (on this board and others) a condescending attitude to the work of theater composers paired with some sort of implication that the composers are phonies, hacks and even thieves and that their arrangers/orchestrators are the real creators. And it seems to me that these assertions are invariably made by people on assumptions or very little actual information - so i just don't get it. That's why I'm asking for examples and validation - and sure enough - as in the case of Rodgers - there does seem to be a lot of contradictory information out there.

All I'm trying to say is that - while arrangers and orchestrators are invaluable to the creation a musical theatre score - and historically many of them have been geniuses in their own right - in the end - the song's the thing. without the song - i.e. the melody and harmonies created by the composer - you have nothing. take all the standards written by gershwin or porter - songs for which dozens to hundreds of arrangements and orchestrations have been created over the years - are gershwin or porter any less the composers of these songs because their work has been interpreted and re-interpreted by nelson riddle and countless others? perhaps contemporary composers would rate more respect if their work was set in stone like most works in the classical repertoire - but gee the world would have been deprived of so many great performances if that were the case. So by all means let's applaud and celebrate the work of the great arrangers and orchestrators - but not at the expense of the real inspiration and virtual meat and potatoes of the musical art - the SONG!

And that's my five cents.

The Gershwin smear (which, by the way, I hate. I have a clip of me playing this solo on my MySpace, and I make a note on the link about the smear) is not a mystery at all to we clarinetists.

Ross Gorman, the clarinetist of Paul Whiteman's jazz orchestra, who first performed Rhapsody in Blue (all the above, btw, about him not even having it finished at the first performance is correct...Grofé orchestrated what he had, and GG said that he would play his nuts off and then nod to Whiteman when it was time for the orchestra to come back in), was known for that particular technique and employed it during a particularly intense and grueling rehearsal to lighten the mood. Gershwin liked the sound so much that he told him to perform it that way, and in grand time-honored classical music tradition, clarinetists ever since have done it.

You will not find it printed in any published 1st clarinet part, however. What you will see is simply a scale starting on a trilled concert F (written G in the clarinet part) below middle C ascending diatonically (not chromatically) upward seventeen notes to the Bb (written high C in the clarinet part) above the staff. The execution of the smear is unique to every clarinetist, and everyone starts it at a different place in the run. (Occasionally, if I'm performing it with a conductor who INSISTS on the smear, I'll bend the concert A up into the Bb, but I think it sounds horrible to start it halfway up the scale).

---

Updated On: 8/31/06 at 02:41 PM