Foreseeing a Sound Texture

Marzapane wrote:

Aside from having a passage played by the 2 instrumentalists and memorizing its "color," at this point complicating matters, if I wanted to take less traveled paths, how could I arrive at having a clear idea in my ear of the result of that specific idea? How do you all do it?

Boulez (if I'm not mistaken) once said that it is not possible to imagine exactly how something "sounds" until one hears it; and we are talking about one of the finest ears among composers/conductors... If it is already difficult to know how a texture sounds when you have examples of it, imagine if there are none... The proof of this lies in the immediate revisions of orchestration following the first performance, which are extensively documented by chronicles. I believe that one cannot predict the result of a texture with exactness, especially if, as you ask, one seeks to follow an infrequently traveled path. One can imagine, presume, but in any case, one must then verify the effect by hearing it. This is said from my position as a conductor, obviously; but in this case, it changes nothing regarding your position as a composer, because it is a matter of translating a written sign into a mental sonic image, and this is done by both conductors and composers.

Not having experience and being more or less an amateur, I am taking the opportunity to ask a conductor if the ideas I have formed are well-founded.

Taking flute and violin as an example, even when having precise references of the effect produced from others' experiences, just slightly changing the pitch or the articulations necessary to perform it is enough to have something else: an excellent violinist made me realize this when, once, he dedicated some time to show me the practical implications of theory on the instrument (leaps, positions, bowing techniques, etc.): it immediately seemed incredible to me how many nuances are possible, or the sonority of one string compared to another, in comparison to the brevity of the notation...

Therefore, I imagine that what can be done is to deeply understand the techniques of individual instruments; I don't mean knowing how to play them, but trying to know well what they must do to perform a certain phrase. Not that this can prefigure the effect, but I imagine it can help a lot.

I remember having a discussion about this years ago, in another forum, and other composers were not very in agreement...

... just think about the various effects.

I believe it is impossible to truly foresee everything, perhaps in many cases one can get very close, especially if one has direct experience... but here we were talking about "experimentation" and unprecedented situations

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Taking the example of flute and violin, even having precise references to the effect produced from others' experiences, one only needs to slightly change the pitch or the articulations necessary to perform it to have something else: an excellent violinist made me realize this when, once, he dedicated some time to show me the practical implications of theory on the instrument (jumps, positions, bowing techniques, etc.): it immediately seemed incredible to me how many nuances are possible, or the sonority of one string compared to another, in comparison to the brevity of the notation...

Therefore, I imagine that what can be done is to deeply understand the techniques of individual instruments; I don't mean knowing how to play them, but trying to know well what they must do to perform a certain phrase. Not that this can prefigure the effect, but I imagine it can help a lot.

I agree. Both knowing the techniques and knowing "how instruments sound" in the various registers available to them, as you rightly noted, is very important. Instruments, like voices, can result in very different blends, even if they play the same note. An oboe playing a C above the staff will stand out much more than a flute playing the same C, because the flute is very comfortable in that region, while the oboe is already towards the high register and "pierces" the texture... And hundreds of examples could be made (in fact: it would be fun to make them); for example: remember the very famous beginning of Schubert's Unfinished Symphony? That theme played in unison by oboe and clarinet? We have always heard it as wonderful and sweet, but if the oboe, instead of playing pp, increases the volume by a "tiny bit," that melody will seem like something else. I will go further: if Schubert had written that beginning assigning it to oboe and flute, it would have been totally different, because the flute in that area is quite "muffled" and the oboe would have stood out decidedly more - unless the flute played loudly, nullifying the delicate character... In short, there is something for everyone and, come to think of it, a good way to imagine how a blend sounds and even think of it differently, perhaps with instruments that are better known, to arrive through a process of progressive exclusion at understanding what can be better, more, or simply different in one combination compared to another.

What you have evoked is a beautiful example by Schubert, which has always struck me deeply; it is one of those cases in which an instrument (the clarinet) is colored in the medium-high register to produce a timbre with a decidedly exotic color, also considering the melodic line. I have always thought that Schubert sought that effect and that, if entrusted to the clarinet alone, the result would have been much less suggestive (less archaic and arcane: or "African," I feel like saying); whereas, if entrusted to the oboe alone, it would have been too "thin" compared to the ostinato of the strings. But I had never noticed the fact that the oboe's emission would have to be very contained, in effect, given the already demanding register... Mercì!

P.S. I didn't write this before, but it seems risky to double a violin with a wind instrument, if not for truly uncertain and "particular" effects.

I wonder if, even with an English horn in the orchestration, Schubert would have opted for something different... It is not provided for in the score, I believe.

Sorry for the replies... From your example, it also occurs to me that Mozart often alternated pairs of flutes and oboes depending on the character of the movements, but very rarely used them together: for him, it almost seems as if one or the other were high registers of the horns (I am referring to the symphonies, above all). Clarinets, however, when present, seem to follow different usage criteria (with the exception of the last symphony in G minor I believe, where they were added later)... Who knows...? It will mean, precisely, that flutes and oboes do not actually create a good blend between them...? Perhaps for the very reasons you highlighted, Carlos, namely the difference in emission within the same register? Whereas, it seems to me, oboe and clarinet have a certain affinity of timbre in the medium-high registers (in the sense that the clarinet loses its "warmth" and seems to gradually approach the "hardness" of the oboe)...?

I was thinking instead of the voice and the infinite differences in color, orchestration is actually a very vast field and I think it's worth the experience... as always.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Sorry for the replies... From your example, it also occurs to me that Mozart often alternated, depending on the character of the movements, pairs of flutes and oboes, but very rarely used them together: for him, it almost seems as if one or the other were high registers of the horns (I am referring to the symphonies, above all). The clarinets, when present, seem to follow different usage criteria (with the exception of the last symphony in G minor I believe, where however they were added later)... Who knows...? It will mean, precisely, that flutes and oboes do not actually create a good blend between them...? Perhaps exactly for the reasons you highlighted, Carlos, namely the difference in emission within the same register? Whereas, it seems to me, oboe and clarinet have a certain affinity of timbre in the medium-high registers (in the sense that the clarinet loses its "warmth" and seems to gradually approach the "hardness" of the oboe)...?

But isn't the baroque oboe very close to the timbre of the flute? If that were the case, perhaps it influenced the choices of the era

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Sorry for the replies... From your example, it also occurs to me that Mozart often alternated, depending on the character of the movements, pairs of flutes and oboes, but very rarely used them together: for him, it almost seems as if one or the other were high registers of the horns (I am referring to the symphonies, above all). The clarinets, however, when present, seem to follow different usage criteria (with the exception of the last symphony in G minor I believe, where they were added later, though)... Who knows...? It will mean, precisely, that flutes and oboes do not indeed create a good blend between them...? Perhaps for the very reasons you highlighted, Carlos, namely the difference in emission within the same register?
When instead, it seems to me, oboe and clarinet have a certain affinity of timbre, in the medium-high registers (in the sense that the clarinet loses its "warmth" and seems to gradually approach the "hardness" of the oboe)...?

As for Mozart, I believe the reason lies more in practical aspects than in timbral ones; that is to say, Mozart probably wrote into the score the instruments he knew would be present in the orchestra that would perform the "premiere" of his symphony. The subsequent addition of clarinets to the Symphony in G minor, if I am not mistaken, was due precisely to that. As for the choice of one or another pair of woodwinds, as you recall, I believe this also concerns a type of writing still very closely tied to the string orchestra reinforced by winds on very specific occasions, especially in the early symphonies. Timbral pairings as we understand them were still very far from the mentality of Classical composers, and even Beethoven does not approach the refinement, for example, of Tchaikovsky in the use of particular timbral pairings (one need only think, as one example among many, of the Fifth Symphony and, in particular, the beginning of the slow movement). Brahms will use the orchestra somewhat like an organ, often privileging the alternating pairing of the two families (strings and winds), and we will have to wait for composers from the second half of the 19th century onwards to have examples of orchestration as we are accustomed to understanding it today. Regarding your last observation on the timbre of the clarinet and the oboe, indeed at the beginning of its history the clarinet had a less round and warm timbre compared to what we know today, which was achieved following some modifications up until the beginning of the 19th century. In the mid-18th century, the timbre of this instrument was decidedly more shrill, and this certainly explains why it was often used as an alternative to the oboe and vice versa. Among other things, the clarinet derives its name precisely from clarino, which is the name by which the trumpet was called in the 18th century.

I have meditated a lot on your words; aside from thanking you, I am realizing the complexity and vastness of the subject.

Forgive the somewhat naive question

Marzapane wrote:

Excuse the somewhat naive question

No question is naive in itself, if the answer helps you understand something you didn't know.