Texture, Balance, Function: Advanced Analysis, Combining Thomas Goss’ and Henry Brant’s Styles of Orchestration and Thought For those who have never watched the Lili Boulanger videos Thomas has on the OO youtube, he delineates his method of Texture Balance Function in terms of score reading analysis. What follows is my take on this in conjunction with the method of orchestration and analysis that Henry Brant delineated in his book ‘Textures and Timbres.’ The work in question is the first movement of Brant’s orchestration of the Charles Ives Concord Piano Sonata. He dubbed it the Concord Symphony, and was his labor of love for 30 years. Here I analyze the first movement, section 45. Actually, I really only analyze a single solitary bar! Of course, a bar only makes sense in the context of whats before and after it, and I dont ignore this in my analysis and critique of the decisions Brant made in his orchestration. Ultimately what we have here are two textures, a horn principal line (function), and a strings backing line. The balance is nearly equal as we will see (9 vs 10, with that 10 later becoming 12). But volume wise we have a discrepancy, F vs P (respectively). Timbrel fullness ‘units’ and volume level ‘units’ are ALWAYS analyzed independently in Brant’s system. Why is the backing not equally as loud or almost as loud as the main line? It would most certainly work decently satisfactorily here to have the strings at F. But it’s the context; what purpose it serves to mark them down to P. Brant’s groups: WW1: flute prototype timbre WW2: oboe prototype WW3: open horn WW4: open trumpet/trombone Bowed (strings, bowed vibes, marimba etc) Plucked Strings (includes pizz strings, harp, guitar etc) Pitched Percussion (can include timpani if wooden mallets, muted, struck near rim) Unpitched percussion (yep, a grab bag. Just consider them all to have anywhere from 2-4 fullness units) The only groups really used in this 1 bar example are WW3 (with a bit of ww2 and ww1 coming into play because of the clarinets), and bowed strings. score in C The ww in bars prior were at F, they dovetail into the texture starting at section 45. Now at rehearsal 45 the horns are open, 2 fullness units each, at F. the strings are also 2 fullness units each (vi+vi2+va unis means 6fu on this line). cl, bl cl double horns (cl in R3r, b cl on root, cl 2 on 3rd, cl 1 on root 8va. hrn 1 on Root 8va, hrn 3 on 3rd, horn 2 on root bottom. amalgamation: Cl 1, 2 and 3, doubling Hrns 1, 2, 3 (open) open hrns = 2 fu each, cls = 1 fu each 9 fu total, at F Each line is 3 fu, there are 3 lines in this amalgamation/group. so 9 fu at F vi 1, 2, and va unis, 2 fu each so this amalgamation group is 6 fu at p Celli-Bassi, 2 fu per line so this amalgamation group is 4 fu at p strings belong to the proto group bowed strings, total amalgamation of 10 fu at p The bassoon’s later kick in to help out celli and bassi, adding 2 fu for a mixed unison of bowed+ww2. This brings the bowed strings amalgamate to 12 later on (you can see this at the last couple beats on this page). The open hrns are ww group III, the cl are not in this group. In this register at this dynamic they are WW2(oboe) and 1(flute) (the first 5th from sounding D-A is group 2 at mf and above, anything above this range is ww1 group 1, the flute prototype timbre). The low D-A pp-mp can be considered either WW1 or WW2 based on context. So what we have with the hrns/cls is a mixed unis. There are functional unisons of grayer quality, good for backing textures, and expressive unisons of highly soloistic quality, good for being the principal voice. These both are comprised of instruments that are individually equal. The more instruments you amalgamate, the more it shifts to a functional unison (think ‘grey). To get an expressive unison, you want to have the quality of a particular solo instrument brought out as much as possible short of having it literally just be that one instrument playing solo all by it’s lonesome. Want an expressive WW2 unis? How about trumpet with straight mute in solo with an oboe. Want a functional WW2 unis? Have 2 ob+ 1 tr muted in unis, that will start to get grayer. Straight muted trumpet is 1 FU, it belongs just fine in WW2 (open trumpet is WW4, 4fu). A mixed unis takes instruments of different groups and blends them in a decently satisfactory manner. This is usually done by not having equal fullness units between the various groups. Here, the horns are literally double the fullness of the clarinets. This tows the line between expressive (being predominantly horn quality) and functional (adding too much of the cl timbre). 1 open hrn + 2 cl is still a mixed unis even though 1 hrn = 2 fu and 2 cl = 1 fu. To make a functional unis (or expressive), it needs to be equal instrument for instrument, belonging to the same group. Cl do not belong in WW3. A WW3 functional unis could be 4 hrns in unis with 4 bucket mute trumpets and 4 bucket mute trombones all in unis with the horns (24 FU amalgamation as each group would be 8fu each). There are dynamic and registral restriction to this, read Brant’s book to see what ranges/dynamics of each instrument fall into what group. Our macro analysis is therefore principal voice: WW3 (open horn prototype timbre), mixed unis, total amalgamation of 9 fu, forte secondary voice: bowed string prototype timbre, functional unis, 10 fu, p later on: secondary voice: bowed prototype timbre + ww2 touchup, mixed unis, 12 fu, p The timbrel fullnesses are roughly the same, strings just a bit thicker in total. One of the individual lines is twice as thick and should be decently audible despite dynamic differences (vi 1, 2, and va unis). The dynamic difference between the horn group and string group means the horns will clearly be much louder (purposefully so, this is the lead line), but what is audible coming from the string backing won’t sound too thin or too thick in the context of the whole. This is because the total fullness amalgamates to nearly the same amount. Since the strings won’t stick out too much (in terms of thickness), they won’t distract from what the horns are doing, which is good since the strings are meant to be a backing. This is of course further aided by the dynamic markdown. If the strings were marked at F, perhaps even mf, the 1 FU discrepancy would be somewhat noticeable, but the fact that there is 3 string groups in unison (for a line of 6 FU, the vi 1, 2, and va unis line), means this line would be just as prominent as one of the hrn+cl lines (twice as much actually). This is completely fine, hrn+cl has almost as much overtone volume level as strings unis. However, to further isolate and bring out the expressive quality of the line that Brant decided on, the decisions outlined above were made. We then need context, and wonder why Brant made these orchestrational decisions. Ives’ piano original is much denser almost all the time, and more dissonant. This wouldn’t allow for lines to speak very well in an orchestral setting, so Brant made a conscious decision to purposefully leave out certain harmonic lines, thinning things out. This makes things easier to follow by coloring individual lines more expressively, without being an overly dissonant gray mess. The work is still very thick in parts, and very dissonant overall, but less so than the Ives original. It’s my humble opinion that this was the right modus operandi in orching the Concord Sonata. It serves the message of the original, while idiomatically editing for the orchestral setting. You could easily change things up and alter the message of the original, perhaps placing it in an ironic context, or giving it the opposite meaning of the original composer’s intent, etc. This is a broad attempt at a mathematical/scientific analysis of the ART of orchestration. Everything here is approximate. It always is, because the orchestra is comprised of humans, with human psychological tendencies, contextual approximations and adaptations, etc. And the fact that 2cl+1open horn in unis arent PERFECTLY equal in fullness. But if its good enough for Rimsky-Korsakov, Thomas Goss, Henry Brant, etc, its good enough for me.
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:00:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015