Jessica's Tips for Writing for Youth Band

Guest blog by Jessica Blenis, who was one of the prize-winners in the Gower Community Band composer's competition last year:

Having had the experience of writing for the Gower Community Band last year I figured it'd be helpful for all those writing this year to give a bit of insight into techniques which might make it easier for the composer, conductor and the musicians.

1. EDIT EDIT EDIT. Then edit again. Sometimes you'll swear you've put an accidental in and when your program plays it back it sounds right but there's no accidental marked in. Mine did this oodles- there were wrong notes all over the place. Of course I'm working with Finale 2005. Even pro-Finale people, I imagine, would recoil at the mention of using a program which dates back five years.

2. Number and imbalance of instruments: I'm not exaggerating when I say that there was a really strange, out-of-balance, instrumentation found in the Gower band, which is not surprising or unusual for a community band.  For popular instruments, like flute and clarinet especially, there were 8-10 people where we'd usually expect 2-3. There was a fair number of trumpet players, I think 3 trombones maybe 4, Several sax players, but one bass clarinet (Katie Noseworthy played it), no bassoons, 1-2 oboes, a few horns, 1-2 tuba players, and I think 3-4 percussionists. Here are some tips for dealing with this imbalance:

• if you want a solo (as in, just one player) flute line, definitely indicate this in the score ("solo"). Otherwise you'll have 10 flautists playing it and making 10 people play the same thing at the same time isn't very wise when it's an exposed part (it can be a challenge to play a unison line in tune).
• exposed parts- definitely write 'solo.'
• Don't go crazy with percussion- I almost had to step in and play with the band but due to time constriction, I couldn't. So I'd say three to four percussion parts would be enough unless you've got one person playing two parts which needs to be indicated on the score in order for it to be seen easily.

3. Range:  Keep in mind that the age range goes from I think 11-70 and most of these people are not professional or able to play wide ranges. Here's a basic outline that I was told to stick to for instruments where range is often a problem:

• trumpet: Don't go too high above the clef, or stay there for prolonged periods of time.
• french horn: I wouldn't write anything above written G5 (sounds C5) and nothing too noodley.
• trombone/tuba: noodley writing is discouraged- these guys really like a simple but groovy bassline. Nothing too high above the bass clef, and tricky slurs were a bit of a no-no too.

4. Dynamics: Generally, the sound is loud- I was warned by Jill Abbot (School of Music graduate and horn player in the Gower band) about this, but didn't find it was a huge problem. However, with a big group like this, a limited range of dynamics can be expected, and some dynamics- aka pppp- are out of the question due to the sheer number of people playing. If you want something to be soft but with a full concert band range of sounds, try using 'solo,' where one person from that section plays by themself, though it's not necessarily a solo seeing as in each other section someone else is playing by themself. So cut back on numbers and indicate a dynamic, and when you want a big sound, have a tutti but definitely make sure that you write dynamics appropriate o balance out the sound- a trombone playing ff could quite possibly cover up (overpower) the sound of a clarinet playing ff unless you've taken register into consideration and put the trombone in a lower register and the clarinet in a higher one.

5. Rehearsal numbers or letters:  make sure they're very clear and put them in places which make sense- in other words, at the beginnings of phrases so if the conductor decides to start at H, the poor clarinetist isn't in the middle of a wicked run.

6. Idiomatic writing is best. Leave runs and whatnot to instruments where dexterity is more expected and long notes to insturments which would normally be given such things.

7. Level:  Grade 3-4.  Consider the level of your piece- high schoolish. In other words, certainly do not write stuff you'd be intimidated to play! Something that looks nice on the page can sound absolutely wonderful and intricate without being lip-busting. It looks great when you glance at a score which is black with notes but you have to be realistic and merciful! Some of the people in the band are very capable of playing tricky stuff while others are still on their way to getting there.

8. Appeal. I don't kno how many people in the Gower band came up to me and said that at first they really disliked the piece- which is my fault, seeing as I wrote something with a great amount of dissonance which isn't what they were used to playing. I'm not saying screw dissonance and atonality and write something tonal and predictable, but people will enjoy playing something they like much more than playing something which looks good on the page, and the audience will also like the piece more if it has appeal. The Gower people were very stuck on finding the melody- so make it findable. I didn't- my melodies were hidden and that was something I wish I'd changed before I submitted it. If you want your piece to stick with them, I'd say give them something that attracts people- but with your own personal seal on it. Not the animal, though. Seals bite. What I mean is make the work yours, but when you're writing for an ensemble it is wise to take into consideration what they habitually play, what they're capable of playing, and what they'd probably like to play/hear.

Hope this helps! If you're writing for the band and have any other questions please feel free to ask!

---

Clark here — I just wanted to thank Jess for taking the time to share these tips with others. They are very helpful! I also wanted to add a few comments of my own:

#1. "Edit edit edit..." Absolutely! In fact, I would suggest that when an ensemble plays music that has mistakes in it, it can be PAINFULLY embarrassing for the composer! I think any composer who has had this experience can attest to that. It also can make the ensemble and conductor lose faith in the composer and the composition; this is not only embarrassing, it's a lousy way to start a working relationship. Here are links to my "Musical Detail" blogs, in case you missed them:

On Musical Detail (1)
On Musical Detail (2)
On Musical Detail (3)
What is a "Fair Copy?"

#2. The number of players of the different instruments is definitely imbalanced, but that is pretty typical of community bands (and probably school bands as well), hence the need to double lines of hard-to-find instruments (e.g., oboes, bassoons) in other instruments.

#3. Range limitations — definitely bear this in mind; orchestration texts often have a list of instrument ranges for professional performers AND for amateurs; keep the latter close-at-hand when composing.

#4. Dynamics; good points all.

#5. A good idea for rehearsal letters is to place them at structural division points. As Jess says, never put them in the middle of a phrase.

#6. Idiomatic writing is obviously welcomed by performers (this is true for professionals as well, but especially true for amateurs), but since most students do not have a well-honed sense of what constitutes idiomatic writing for every instrument, go with your instincts on this and check periodically with performers of those instruments to see if your instincts are right.

#7. Again, unless you have a fair amount of experience, it is hard to know what exactly constitutes a "high-schoolish" level of writing for wind band, so go with your instincts and check with people who have more experience periodically (your teacher, the band director, other people with experience conducting bands, etc.).

#8. "Appeal." This is tricky... We all tend to want people to like our music, but I have been harping away at my students to venture beyond traditional tonality ever since I began teaching composition; how to reconcile the two?

I guess the most important thing to keep in mind is that it IS possible to have both; to write music that appeals AND doesn't resort to tired old clichés of tonal music. For the purposes of this course, you already know that you MUST venture beyond tonality, and I have explained my pedagogical rationale for this on numerous occasions, including several blogs (Why Atonal Music?, Atonal — Even the Word Sounds Unpleasant!, Atonality = Noise?).

If someone comes up to you and says, "at first, I didn't like your music!" this probably means they DO like it now, so that's a good thing! They don't have to love it at first sight/performance. In fact, new pieces often sound like crap the first few times they are rehearsed, especially if the performers aren't professionals, and if the composer isn't professional. It's a learning curve for everyone. The more experience the composer has, the more we know how to write idiomatically, to score effectively for large ensembles, to take the performance level of the ensemble into account, to include TONS of detail in the score so the the rehearsals don't have to stop every fifteen seconds to fix a problem or ask a question.

I am suggesting that a person saying "at first I didn't like the piece" may be an indicator of their response to a lot of things, including the chaotic way it sounded the first few times it was rehearsed. So, stick to your guns and write the best music you can, making sure your final score is as clear as it possibly can be, and don't feel pressured to write overly-simplistic music to make it appealing!

Final Project

Hard to believe, but there are only 5 weeks and 3 days of classes left in the semester (starting Monday). Our plan had been to spend about 5 weeks on the first project and 7 weeks on the second, but we must now adjust that plan somewhat to factor in the extra time we spent on the first project, the time it has taken to prepare for performances of this project, and the delays we experienced due to weather-related cancellations.

Here is the situation: I had originally proposed writing a piece for wind band as the second project, about 5 minutes in length, but last week I said you could write for a chamber ensemble of your choice (but run the idea by me first, please) instead, or write for string orchestra, or even a small symphony orchestra. While writing for concert band is still a great idea, it is a very ambitious undertaking, and you need to be practical and ask yourself what the likelihood of completing it will be, considering that we are approaching student recital and jury season, end of term projects, exams, etc.

If you still want to compose for band, however, I will support your decision and help you in whatever way I can. Here are some suggestions for how to approach writing a band piece, but they can also be used if composing for any other type of ensemble:

1. Compose using "short score" format. Essentially, this means writing something that looks like it could be piano music (i.e., written on treble and bass clefs), or possibly 3-5 staves per system, possibly assigning different staves to different groups within the band. This gives you better control of the composing process. It's much easier to get a sense of the form and create longer lines when you can see more of your music on a single page (such as 4-5 systems of music on one page), as opposed to one humungous system per page.


2. Write annotations on on your short score that indicate the instruments you think should play particular sections or lines of music. For example, you could write "clarinets and flutes in octaves" over a line, or "brass" over a chorale-like chord progression.


3. I've had teachers insist that it is best to begin 'orchestrating' ('bandating?'  'banding?' 'bandifying?') your score after you have completed the previous two steps, but there is no rule about this; there are advantages to orchestrating as you go as well (i.e., composing a few pages in short score, then arranging them for band, then continuing the short score version for a few more pages, then orchestrating, etc.).


4. Don't overscore. There is nothing wrong with having sections of your band piece with rests in the majority of the instruments.  Overscoring — writing a dense and confused score — is a mark of an inexperienced/insecure orchestrator, so try to be bold and consider including at least some thinly-scored sections, so that tutti textures will have greater impact when they occur.  On the other hand, thinly scored band music can sound less effective than we had imagined because it is more challenging to play; weaknesses within sections are more exposed, something that is a consideration when the performers are at an intermediate, amateur level. 


5. Since you have a fairly wide variety of instruments at your disposal, consider using colour, texture, or density as organizing principles.


6. Remember that most music fits into foreground-background roles (prominent-supportive), or foreground-middleground-background roles. Work hard at not confusing the listener as to what they are meant to be hearing most prominently.


7. Are there some techniques or styles you've heard (or heard of) that you'd like to try? Minimalism, world music, fusion, klangfarbenmelodie, etc.? Sometimes a good way to begin is just to pick something you're excited by and then try writing a composition that uses some elements of that style or technique.

On Musical Detail (3)

I just finished going through a submitted score for this second project, and, in the interest of saving you all some time and potential grief, I'll share with you some of the detail issues that came up. You may be feeling as though you understand all that needs to be understood about musical detail ("I get it! My score must be really detailed!"), but your score may be suggesting otherwise. In no particular order, here are some of the issues that came up in the score I just saw:

• Tempo indication (i.e., metronome marking, and/or tempo adjective like Moderato) and starting mood descriptor (e.g., "intense") should only be at the top of the first system (i.e., violin) in the score, and sometimes above the piano as well since piano usually reads from the score.


• This applies to the score, but when generating parts each part gets its own tempo indication.


• In orchestra scores, each instrument family gets its own tempo marking; the top woodwind instrument, top brass instrument, top percussion staff, and violin I all have tempo indications.


• Tempo indications should be left-aligned with the metre indication; the start of the tempo indication should align with the metre.


• It is good practice to indicate how much or an accell. or rit. you want by writing a target tempo.


• If accell. and rit. move to a new tempo that is only slightly different from the previous tempo, use the "poco" modifier, eg, poco accell. or poco rit.


• When the rit. or accell. is over, write "a tempo" to continue at the new tempo indicated by the target tempo referenced above.


• If you want to return to the starting tempo, write tempo 1° (tempo primo).


• If you change tempo, indicate the change using the same format used at the beginning of your score. In most cases, that will mean having a metronome marking ("quarter = 92") as well as a mood descriptor (e.g., "playful"). If the new tempo does not coincide with a metre indication, left-align the tempo indication with the start of the bar (as opposed to left-aligning it with the metre, which you do at the start of the composition).


• A new tempo should not start in the middle of a bar; it must be at the start of a bar. If, for example, you want a tempo change to occur on beat 3 of a 4/4 bar, make it into a 2/4 bar so that the tempo change can occur on the downbeat of the next bar.


• As mentioned above, the pianist typically reads from the score, presumably because someone in the ensemble needs to know how it all is supposed to fit together. Sometimes the instruments above the piano use slightly smaller staff sizes, in part to make it easier for the pianist to easily distinguish their part from the others, and in part to allow more systems per page. But don't try for, say, 3 systems on a page if doing so results in a cramped appearance.


• EVERY entry following more than a bar of rest should get its own dynamic.


• Hairpins should have a destination dynamic, like "f" if crescendo, or "pp" if diminuendo; don't write a hairpin with no indication as to how loud or soft you want to be at the end of the hairpin. They also need a starting dynamic, but it isn't necessary to write a starting dynamic if it is clear from the previous measures what the dynamic should be.


• Hairpin lengths should be reasonable, taking into account the amount of dynamic change over the span of the hairpin. For example, an increase of one dynamic level, such as p to mp, is very small, so the corresponding hairpin should be very short. If the dynamic change is larger, such as p to f, the corresponding hairpin can be longer. But even with a p to f hairpin, the length should be reasonable. It is obviously difficult to exactly how long a hairpin can reasonably be, but I have seen hairpins spanning 8 or more bars with very little dynamic change, and this is definitely unreasonable!


• If you want to write longer, more gradual crescendi and diminuendi, I recommend orchestrating the dynamic change. For example, if you want a long cresc. start with a very thin texture and a pp dynamic, then gradually add instruments and expand the register to include increasingly higher and lower notes, and this by itself will create an effective cresc. even if the dynamic remains at pp for the added instruments. Increasing the dynamic beyond pp in this fuller texture will result in a more dynamic crescendo. 


• Don't attach dynamics to rests (!).


• Make sure there are no improperly-grouped rests or beams. Groupings usually follow the basic beat structure of the metre and its subdivisions,


• If writing for wind instruments, where do they breathe? If you whistle through the part at tempo (don't worry if you don't get all the pitches right!), it will make it easier to determine where the best places to breathe would be.


• String bowings MUST be in the score. This doesn't mean the 'up' and 'down' direction indicators, necessarily (although you can put them in when there is some specific direction that you want, like a series of downbows, for example), but it does mean putting slurs over groups of notes that are to be played with one bow. How to do this if you're not a violinist? Go through your string part playing 'air violin' or 'air cello' (in other words, bowing through the music on an invisible instrument; probably best attempted in private!), and feel what the best way to group notes would be. Then, once you have marked in your bowings, take it to a string player and ask them to play through it with a real instrument, and figure out how close you came to achieving what you actually want. If you do this a lot, you eventually develop a natural feel for how best to bow your own music.


• Don't create big, loopy slurs; they tend to collide with other score elements, like other slurs, dynamics, notes, accents, etc.


• Speaking of collisions, AVOID THEM! Notation software sometimes creates (or at least allows) collisions between dynamics and articulations, or slurs and notes, or written instructions and slurs, etc. These must be fixed.


• Be picky in your page layout. If using multiple systems per page (which applies to everybody), make sure the systems are far enough apart so that dynamics, articulations, slurs, etc. in the bottom line of one system do not collide with anything in the top line of the next system. There is sometimes slightly more space between the piano part and the instruments above it, again to facilitate reading from the score for the pianist.


• Also, keyboard instruments only need one dynamic, in the space between the LH and RH, unless the LH and RH are playing different dynamics.


• And don't forget to find the clearest enharmonic note spellings possible; notation software is notorious for occasionally making poor choices for you in this regard.


• Proof-read everything, especially parts. It's amazing what you can miss if you don't go through every part, bar by bar, checking to make sure all dynamics and other score information are there.

On Musical Detail (2)

Someone asked what I thought was a very fair question following my "On Musical Detail (1)" blog, and, rather than edit the original blog to clarify this point (it may already be the longest of all my blogs thus far!), I thought I'd answer it here.

The question:

What's wrong with using English terminology? Lots of composers used their native tongue; Debussy in French, Bach in German, Ives in English... I'm just curious as to why it's such a big deal to write in Italian or German when our primary language is English.

Here is my response:

Let's start with the following assumptions:

(1) A musical score is written in code. It is a code that not everyone can understand, even excellent musicians sometimes (we frequently hear that the Beatles couldn't read music, for example).

(2) What we as composers are trying to do is to use this code to communicate our intentions as clearly as possible, so that performers trained in the interpretation of the code can translate it into music that sounds as good (or even better) than we imagined it.

Everything I wrote about in my previous blog stems from these assumptions, especially #2.

With regard to language, it is true that composers write instructions in dozens of different languages in musical scores, like English, Spanish, German, French, Russian, Italian, etc.

But of all these, the one language that is most widely understood by classical musicians, at least when it comes to performance instructions (tempo, dynamics, and expressive markings), is Italian, so, from a purely practical point of view, it works best to give these kinds of instructions in Italian.

I would guess that most classical music students in North America are not well-enough versed in German to understand many German terms found in scores, and French instructions may not be widely understood outside of Canada and other French-speaking countries either.

English instructions are readily understood throughout most of North America, as well as in and many other places in the world, but, as I pointed out in my last blog, they resulted in some confusion during the ECM workshop last week since it is a predominantly French-speaking ensemble.

Therefore, from a purely pragmatic point of view it makes sense to use Italian terms for most of the common text information needed in a score, because that is what classical musicians are used to seeing.

That said, if there are times when the instruction you want is not a commonly-used Italian term, then by all means, write it in English! (But just be sure that there isn't a widely-understood Italian term that conveys the gist of your meaning before reverting to English.)

On Musical Detail (1)

This past Thursday (November 13, 2008), four of our students had a wonderful opportunity to have their compositions read by the Ensemble Contemporain de Montréal (ECM) under the direction of Véronique Lacroix, artistic director and conductor of the ensemble.

All composition/theory majors had been invited in early September to apply for this opportunity with the understanding that only four could be selected. A special composition course was set up for the four students, which consisted of a weekly two-hour meeting with Dr. Godin and myself, with the aim of composing a chamber music work (flute, bass clarinet, trombone, violin, and percussion) that the ECM would read.

One of the things that Dr. Godin and I stressed frequently (to the point of nagging, probably!) was the importance of musical detail in preparing a score and parts — It is an essential ingredient in conveying a sense of professionalism and compositional competence to the musicians performing your music.

Most of us have our music performed by friends when we start out as composers, and friends tend not to nit-pick too much when it comes to missing details. However, if your goal is to have your music performed by professionals, a thoroughly detailed-score is essential. Plus, even friends would appreciate a clear, well-presented score.

You've probably heard the saying that you don't get a second chance to make a first impression? Well, this truism applies to the scores you prepare as well, and the element that probably influences performers/conductors the most when making an initial evaluation of a score by an unknown composer is the professionalism in the appearance of the score, AKA musical detail. And, no matter how wonderful your music may be, if it doesn't make it past a conductor's initial evaluation stage, it isn't going to be performed.

The point of today's post is simple: If the score is impeccably prepared, it creates a good first impression; if it isn't, it the composer faces an uphill battle to gain the confidence of the conductor and performers.

Two more analogies, just because I am fond of analogies!

If you "finish" your composition without spending sufficient time to fix score detail issues, such as missing or inconsistent dynamics, articulations, bowing and breath slurs, etc., sub-optimal or inconsistent enharmonic spellings, ideas notated in an overly-complex way (see the end of today's post for an example), or other problems such as out-of-range notes, long runs of notes for a wind instrument that leave no room for the performer to breathe, string double stops that are unplayable, trombone glissandi that are impossible, etc., then…

1. It's like having two strikes against you before you even step into the batter's box.
2. It's like showing up for a job interview with the remnants of your breakfast distributed generously and equitably over your face and clothes. :p

Of course, even an impeccably-prepared score needs to have something else going for it if a professional ensemble to commit to actually programming it on a concert, but the point is that an absolutely brilliant composition is unlikely to draw much interest or support if the score is poorly prepared.

Unless you're famous, in which case none of this applies... :)

In the workshop, issues that kept coming up and slowing down the rehearsal, which was painfully embarrassing at times for the student composers, included:

• Missing, unclear, or inconsistent dynamics;


• Missing, unclear, or inconsistent articulations;


• Missing rehearsal letters in some parts;


• Use of English words (i.e., smoothly) as opposed to more standard, Italian terms (legato), which was an issue because the ensemble is predominantly francophone;


• The impracticality of including a page full of performance notes at the start of the score, partly because not all musicians read English, but mostly because we were told that the conductor and musicians are unlikely to actually read these instructions! "If it relates to the music," we were told, "then put it in the music!"


• The use of a key signature in a transposed part of atonal music. Notation programmes sometimes insert a key signature into transposed parts, even if you don't want key signatures in parts! If the music is atonal and there is no key signature in the score, there should be none in the parts; if your notation programme has inserted one you need to remove it. Also, a key signature is relatively rare in contemporary music, and, because of that, it was completely overlooked by one of the performers).


• Questions on breathing, bowing, phrasing, and pedalling (although there was no piano in the ensemble, there were nevertheless pedalling issues; percussion instruments included a high-hat, vibraphone, and timpani, and there was a question as to how to pedal all three when this particular percussionist had only two feet, and elected to use one on which to stand!).

All of these missing or unclear musical details resulted in valuable (and expensive! This was a professional ensemble whose time we were paying for) rehearsal time lost, a significant concern when each composer had only a half hour of rehearsal time available. For that reason alone, it is important to produce more detailed scores.

But they also resulted in some profoundly uncomfortable moments for the student composers; having a conductor point out flaws in your score in front of the ensemble and all other workshop attendees is not a very pleasant experience, even if the conductor does so graciously, which she did.

Unfortunately, many conductors and performers are not nearly as polite, in which case the situation can become downright mortifying. Yes, I am speaking from personal experience!

Two more issues that I don't believe came up during the workshop readings, but which come up all the time in our class, are

1. Strange enharmonic spellings, and
2. Unmusical rhythm notation,

The blame for these is often placed on whatever computer notation software that a student happens to be using, but IMO, it often comes down to a combination of carelessness and disregard for basic conventions learned in music rudiments courses (like notating rhythms to reflect the main beat and its subdivisions).

A good rule of thumb: Avoid information overload. Find the simplest way to notate your ideas. Consider the following two examples; they sound the same, but one is a lot easier to read than the other because it has less information:













So, as we reach the home-stretch of the final project for this course, I encourage you all to learn vicariously from the workshop experience of your fellow students and aim to produce professional-quality, musically detailed and easily-understood scores! And, if that is not incentive enough, remember that your mark will be better if you manage to do this, as indicated in the course outline.