Chapter 3 INTO ARRANGING ... being stated by piano, guitar, synths etc, the strings and horns would rarely simply duplicate the chords.

How Pop Music Communicates – Vol.1 Text © Brian Morrell 2013

1

INTRODUCTION INTO ARRANGING Detailed arranging techniques and approaches will be a major feature of this book and will be dealt with mainly in the ‘Song Analysis’ section, as and when they becomes relevant. What follows is a rough introductory guide, focusing mainly on strings and horns.

What is arranging? One of an arranger’s tasks is to “enhance the emotive quality and bring out the intent of the lyric and the artist’s performance,” according to legendary arranger Paul Buckmaster. He goes on to say “adding orchestral passages and textures should give added depth and dimensionality, physically, psychologically and aurally.” This is an important point because it underscores the role in terms of why the arrangement is so important. Being able to arrange music is a great technical and creative skill but at the centre of all of it is not just ‘how’ we do it from a technical point of view, but also why we make the decisions. Many musicians could learn the technical skills required to be able to orchestrate music; they could learn the ranges of instruments, the stylistic make-up of instrumental groupings, the textures, the voicings and lots more, but still at the centre of it all is ‘why’; which factors inform your creative decisions regarding which sounds and textures and harmonies you think might work in a given situation. This is more about creative judgement than it is about technical ability. Function When listeners rationalise an arrangement, they listen to the sound the instruments make and the creativity and artistry they bring to the piece. But when an arranger designs the arrangement for a pop song, whether it’s an original or a new version of an existing song, they are concerned first and foremost with function. Some of the concerns might be:

What will be the function of the strings/horns?

Why are they even there?

What is their purpose?

What do they bring to the song that wasn’t there before? For example, Horn & String writing is rarely about needless harmonic duplication; if you have chords being stated by piano, guitar, synths etc, the strings and horns would rarely simply duplicate the chords. Traditionally they might add extensions and extra splashes of harmonic colour. This italicises them and makes a virtue out of the textures they employ. An arrangement highlights, emphasizes or italicises a moment or a phrase. In short, an arrangement is there to serve the song. A good arranger needs lots of skills, including an excellent understanding of harmony and counterpoint and the all-important ability to know what is right and proportional in the context of a song. An arranger also needs to develop an intimate knowledge and understanding of how, when, where and even if, specific textures might be used. An arranger needs to know the ranges of the instruments and in what context you would normally use them. An arranger needs to understand what emotional affect a certain texture or instrument will have on a song. An arranger also needs to compose music; the art of arranging is not divorced from composition and the art of composing should not be divorced from arranging. The ‘composer within’ will help the arranger develop lines, textures and colours for use in someone else’s song.

Chapter 3


2

Vertical space and horizontal space The biggest mistake an arranger can sometimes make is very similar to the kind of mistakes composers often make; sometimes they simply write too much music. Film score composer Thomas Newman said “sometimes there is simply too much music in music.” Obviously songs are not film scores but the same logic can be applied. This applies particularly to arranging and orchestration insofar as a song which is supposed to be conveying emotion to the listener can sometimes end up almost shouting rather than talking or whispering; this is sometimes the arrangement’s fault. If music ‘works’ it is because it is the replacement of silence with something more interesting and emotional. But that does not mean that it shouldn’t have space within it in order for it to breathe. By horizontal space I mean space going from left to right. This might be as simple as making sure that the lines and phrasing in an arrangement have the space to be heard and that they are not relentless to the point of being hard to decipher (unless that’s what the arranger particularly wants). Later in the book we will examine in detail numerous ‘Earth Wind & Fire’ tracks, whose horn parts are anything but quiet and contemplative; they are often frenetic and barely playable, which adds to their charm and effectiveness, but there is still horizontal space carved into the phrases to enable them to breathe and there is still vertical space in the voicings to allow the specific character to shine though. Musical Architecture Orchestrator Pete Anthony said “orchestration is like musical architecture.” This is a good way of looking at it because if you keep this phrase at the back of your mind you become more interested in what helps ‘build’ the song and develop its identity and less obsessed purely with ‘does this sound good or does that sound good’. ‘Great’ is not a word composers or arrangers would use to describe what they do; indeed they would rarely contextualise their work using emotive words or phrases. Arrangers think creatively but also practically. At the forefront is always ‘how do I serve the song’. There is no set template for how an arranger works. Paul Buckmaster said: “Sometimes I work with the artist, sometimes with the producer; sometimes both. Often, I'm sent the basic track or demo and am left alone in relative freedom to make my own choices. On the first three Elton John albums, Elton gave Gus Dudgeon and me total freedom; the only part which was never arranged was Elton’s piano. We effectively designed each song as an individual piece, giving it its own character.” A basic guide to arranging Arranging is an extension of music theory. If you understand harmony, theory and voicing then you are already a long way towards becoming an arranger and orchestrator. People often become intimidated by the sheer size of the orchestra. They are sometimes also affected negatively by the way the media and the music industry frames music. Such a big deal is made of music creation (for reasons I have explained elsewhere) that people are often put off even attempting to participate in the industry, for fear of failure. Nevertheless arranging and orchestrating is nowhere near as difficult as some people assume. As I have said earlier, gaining the skills and knowledge is relatively easy, but deciding what to do with the knowledge and skill (i.e. using your knowledge and utilising your emotional intelligent creatively) is often the harder area to address. String instruments and ranges

The figure below displays the ranges of the members of the string family regularly used in pop music. Violins are in red, violas in blue, cellos in green and basses in black.

Middle C


3

Fig.1

One of the most interesting factors to bear in mind with string writing, particularly sectional chord writing, is the amount of crossover within the instrument ranges. People often assume that the four main instruments occupy separate areas of the sonic spectrum; but the amount of crossover is relevant because it underscores the degree to which successful string chord voicing can involve the merging of subtly different string textures that technically occupy the same vertical space. Below we can see the various colour-coded ranges of all the stringed instruments. The space between the two vertical lines is where all the instruments play. This is right in the middle of the rich mid-range area where you might voice strings. Fig.2

If we take out the basses (in the majority of pop string arranging you wouldn’t probably need basses) and see how much of the ranges of the violins, violas and cellos overlap, we can see it is much bigger range.

You could take away the violas from the figure above and still have the same degree of common range between the violins and cellos.

Violin G (3) to A (7)

Viola G (3) to A (7)

Viola G (3) to A (7)

Bass E (1) to G (4)

Violins

Violas

Cellos

Basses

Violins

Violas

Cellos


4

Many small pop string sections only have violins and cellos, because from a range perspective at least we don’t necessarily need the violas. Texturally we might need the violas though; their sound is a little harsher and more nasal than the violins so it’s often good to break up the ‘sweetness’ of the violins and cellos a little. Violas have all the expression of the violins but with a lower range and ‘partials’, resulting in a darker and more mournful tone. Cellos have an extremely expressive, rich but versatile tone. Double Basses have a lush but grainy sound, which can easily muddy everything if not used right. The violins and cellos are by far the most used string instruments in pop music. In classical music there are many orchestral solo pieces for violin and cello but, because they’re not as versatile, fewer for viola and bass. The difference between classical music and pop music is that with classical string sections you would always have a Viola and Bass presence whereas in pop work you frequently have a mixture of violins and cellos. In order to understand why you might mix and match various instruments in the relatively limited area they all play in you need to listen to the subtle textural differences that exist between the different instruments. Violins I and II playing a middle C will sound slightly different to Violins I and Violas playing middle C. Violas will sound different to violas and cellos when playing unison. This means there is almost a limitless degree of textural flexibility in the section when you consider the possible permutations. But of course this logic only applies when you’re writing voicings which can accommodate the ranges of different instruments. Clearly a C two octaves above middle C can’t be shared by violins and cello because it is outside the range of a cello. And of course all of this is in ratio to how many of each instrument you have in your section in the first place, something we will come onto shortly. Take a look at the simple chord voicings below, which I have annotated with subtly different textural complexions. Fig.3

Below the same voicings are displayed, this time featuring unison between different members of the string section. Fig.4

As a general rule when writing several bars of chords try and make sure that each individual part can played as a smooth distinct line in its own right. So when writing ‘vertically’ in blocks of chords, also think ‘horizontally’ as each player would naturally play their individual line of music. This will make for more consistent sounding inner parts. Strings are usually recorded employing the use of a stereo pair of microphones and often also with close mics on each section, i.e. 1

st violin, 2

nd violin, violas and

cellos. Closer recording will allow you to alter the natural balance or even create a fake natural balance at the mixing stage.

Violins 1 Violins 2 Violas Cellos

Violins 1 Violins 2 (div)* Violas

*Div denotes where you want the 2nd violins to split into two parts

Violins 1 Violins 2 Violas Cellos

Violins 1 (div)* Violins 2 Viola

Violins 1 Violins 2 & Violas Cellos

Violins 1 Violins 2 (div)* Violas & Cellos

Violins 1 Violins 2 & Violas Cellos Basses

Violins 1 Violins 2 &Viola Cellos & Basses


5

Samples and double tracking People often use double tracking to make the section sound bigger but this is not always a great idea. Getting a violin player to play the same line four times to mock-up what four violins will actually sound like can often result in a ‘phasing’ sound. Four separate violin players would never play absolute true unison and nor would you want them to; it is the minute and almost indecipherable differences and tensions in intonation between players that actually gives the section its warmth and humanity. If you are double-tracking sometimes you can remedy the phasing problem by slightly altering the tunings on the different recordings to fake a real section. The cumulative power and collective colour of orchestration

Fig.5

To illustrate this, check out the transcription below, which come 48 seconds into the track below, from a film called ‘Jurassic Park’, by John Williams. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8zlUUrFK-M What you mostly think you hear are the strings (below). The piece below is an accurate rendition of what the strings play. Fig.6

Strings

Woodwind

Combination

Sometimes, especially when scoring chords, when you add an instrumental section or combine sections, you’re not always after the raw unilateral sound a particular section or instrument might bring; you’re after the cumulative effect it will have on other textures. There are subtle and barely audible changes in texture, timbre and dynamic when you add anything. When you combine yellow and blue you get green. Sometimes in chord writing when you combine strings and woodwind, you don’t hear every instrument or even every type of instrument, you hear the combined effect of everything.


6

However, what you really hear is this: Fig.7 We hardly hear the brass and definitely don’t hear the woodwind. So why bother writing them? We write them because they lend something to the sound of the strings and vice versa. The instruments are recorded together in an orchestra, so we cannot separate the sounds but more importantly, we wouldn’t want to; the composer and orchestrator wanted us to hear the lush orchestral string sound, but to achieve this they had to bolster the sound with the other instruments to make it bigger and grander. More about the strings The violin is the highest range of all the stringed instruments. The extreme high notes are rarely used in commercial arrangements and are usually best used for solo passages. The violin’s tone quality is even and clear throughout its range. Rapid changes from low notes to high usually need to be a factor of tempo. If you’re using samples rather than live musicians, always let the quality of samples dictate the usage. Music is never theoretically good. Students have a habit of coming to you with songs where they say ‘the strings aren’t very good. The sample is awful’. If it’s awful don’t use it. The viola has some of the versatility of the violin but has a slightly mellower and slightly nasal sound due to its larger size. It is not as intense and emotionally transportable as violin and is best used as an extra layer of texture behind violins or cellos. The cello cannot play as rapidly as the violin or viola. The high extremes present serious intonation problems for most players. The bow is shorter and thicker and has a slower action. It is best when used for thickening and warming the mid-low range and also when used in unison with other cellos playing slow expressive counterpoint lines to bring out the emotion of a song. Basses are not usually used in pop songs except when they double cello lines an octave lower in much larger ensembles. The entirety of the violin range can be accommodated on the treble clef and it is a concert pitch instrument, which means it is a non-transposing instrument. The viola spans bass and treble clef so it has its own clef when being played – the alto clef - which positions the middle C on the third line up on the stave. This means usually the parts the player sees can be accommodated in one clef, rather than having to fluctuate between two. The cello spans treble and bass clef too but in its case its ‘clef of choice’ is the tenor clef, which positions the middle C on the second line down from the top of the stave. However, many modern arrangers, myself included, prefer to write for cello in bass clef and ocassionally treble clef. The reason for this is that an arranger then writes the same notes on the same lines and spaces the player sees. The bass uses the bass clef.

The clarinets are a virtual replica of the strings

The horns are a virtual replica of the strings


7

Fig.8 Below are the stringed instrument ranges with some guidance about sound and texture. When voicing chords try to keep the vertical numbers small; in other words don’t over-fill the voicing. Even when writing for a large string section, most chord writing would usually have no more than 6-part voicing, even when voicing openly and expansively. That way the beauty of the chord voicing is more profound and the notes can speak. If you did 10-15 part voicing, the individual notes would dissipate and be absorbed and subsumed to a point where all you really hear would be a ‘sound’ rather than a string voicing. Music needs vertical space in order for the textural characters to resonate. This is particularly a problem when using samples, where individual notes in the chord will lack the benefit of being performed playing the chord you’ve written. When you play a D note (for example) in a sample library string sound, it doesn’t know whether it’s the fifth note in a phrase or the 5

th of a G chord or the major 7

th of an Eb chord or the minor 3

rd of a Bm chord so their tends to be

a sameness to the character of the note. When played live by the actual section, playing your chords or phrasing, there will be acoustic and harmonic reactions which conspire to make it more human and more realistic. Years ago writers used polyphonic synths to mock up sounds. At one point the maximum polyphony was 8, which means you couldn’t use more than eight notes at once. This presented problems when voicing large groups of instruments whilst working in Midi. Then it became 16, which was a revolution. Even with 16, if you were using strings, horns, woodwind and rhythm instruments you had to be careful not to over-voice chords. This turned out to be a godsend because it is great training for the world of real instruments, which also need to be voiced sympathetically and conservatively. The mind has its own polyphony; when it hears chords, anything over a certain amount of notes and the mind simply stops counting and stops listening. Overly large voicings tend to be heard solely in context of the combined totality of the sound rather than a combination of the whole sound and the individual sounds too, which tends to be the way people listen when the voicings are smaller.

Dark and deep Warm

Bright and intense

Dark and deep Intense and powerful

Warm

Dark and full Warm, full and rich Intense

Thick, heavy natural Warm

Violins Violas Cellos Basses


8

Personally in string writing I would rarely write over 6 or 7-part voicing, because you have to bear in mind other instruments playing at the same time. Approximate ratios of string groupings Individual requirements may vary so the following ratios are general/traditional guides only. Large symphonic orchestral ensemble consists of about 60 string players split over five instruments, sometimes called ‘voices’ or ‘desks’, real or sampled. Fig.9 16x 1

st Violins

14x 2nd

Violins 12s Viola 10x Cellos 08x Basses Fig.10 A 40-piece string section might typically feature: 12x 1

st Violins

10x 2nd

Violins 08s Viola 06x Cellos 04x Basses Fig.11 A 40-piece string STUDIO (i.e. pop) section might typically feature: 12x 1

st Violins

12x 2nd

Violins 08s Viola 08x Cellos Notice there is usually no bass in the studio string set-up; this is because usually the bass is stated elsewhere (rhythm section, synths, etc.)

16 14 12 10 8

12 12 8 8

12 10 8 6 4


9

Fig.12 A 30 piece studio section: 10x 1

st Violins

10x 2nd

Violins 6x Violas 4x Cellos Fig.13 A 20 piece studio section: 6x 1

st Violins

6x 2nd

Violins 4x Violas 4x Cellos Fig.14 A 14 piece studio section: 4x 1

st Violins

4x 2nd

Violins 4x Violas 2x Cellos Fig.15 An 8 piece studio section: the sound is now becoming less ‘lush’ and more of an intimate ‘chamber’ sound. 2x 1

st Violins

2x 2nd

Violins 2x Violas 2x Cellos As a general rule there are usually more violins than violas, more violas than cellos and more cellos than basses; there is usually a bias toward the top-end of the range. The use of sampled sounds For years prior to the development of sampled instrument technology the real battle was always whether you could make synths and sound modules sound ‘real’.

10 10 6 4

6 6 4 4

4 4 4 2

2 2 2 2


10

For years I, as an arranger, grappled with often quite poor sounds in a bid to make the sounds sound real. In many ways this was easier if you were an arranger to start with because you had a proper grasp of what sounded right, as opposed to someone who didn’t have the knowledge or expertise and simply took the sounds on face value. The battle for sound realism is over The battle for sound realism is now largely over. The quality of sample libraries nowadays is outstanding. The sampled sound is already ‘real’ and in some ways and some circumstances better than the ‘real thing’. Sampled strings are designed to sound perfect. The issue, ironically, now is that people have realised that perfection was never what it was about in the first place. A real instrument is not perfect so having renditions of sampled sound which are sonically and texturally perfect has left some music sounding a bit square, sterile and lacking the kinds of tiny subtle variations in performance that so typify the use of real instruments. When we play a keyboard and trigger a sampled string sound (say the note of F using 12 violins) we are listening to 12 violins playing an F. When we then trigger, say the second note of our phrase (say a G) with the same sound, we’re triggering 12 violins playing a G. The trouble is, as far as the sample is concerned that second note is a completely fresh note, played as if it is the first note. Therefore we sometimes lack the intuitive performance technique that would come from a bunch of musicians actually playing your music, i.e. playing the notes you’ve written in the exact same sequence you wrote them. When people talk of a real string section having ‘warmth’, this is not something that can always be replicated with sampled strings. Much of the sound of a real section comes from ambient reverb created in the hall / studio when a section plays the notes you’ve written. When you’re layering different sampled notes, you are layering different and separate levels of reverb which don’t neccasarily mimic reality. Also sometimes the ‘warmth’ that people talk about in the ‘real’ sound is the sound of several people, each playing their rendition of the same note. Minute differences in articulation, note length and other factors, conspire to create the ‘warmth’. On the other side of the argument, people sometimes tend to romanticise real instruments, almost as if the sound will be fantastic simply because it’s real. I sometimes see students using a string quartet, for example, when in fact what they probably wanted and thought they were going to hear was a much bigger section. Four string players can sound very exposed and in this environment players need to have excellent intonation. Even a professional string section can sometimes sound a bit squeaky and scratchy, especially if the arranger has written something which truly belonged to a bigger section. Despite all these small consideration, sound realism has, to an extent, been achieved by the good sample libraries. This is an important milestone, and now it has been achieved, it leaves us free to concentrate on the more important issues which have been present for hundreds of years, namely how do we use the sound, why do we use the sound and when do we use the sound? For years we’ve fretted over what were essentially technical issues, whereas now in many respects we are back to square one; now it’s not so much if we can use the instruments we choose, but why do we use the instruments. The big problem is that many new Midi arrangers are sometimes like kids in a toy shop when choosing and layering sounds. But just because you can do something doesn’t mean you always should. Arrangers and orchestrators tend to have restraint built into their DNA largely because of the limitations they have experienced over the years, whether using painfully small sections (due to budget restraints) or equally because they had to make do with limited polyphony when using Midi. Articulating the sound As obvious as it sounds, it’s important to try to emulate the real sound as much as you can when using samples. An example is when we play (or as some do, click-in) string lines: when you sit at a keyboard and ‘play in’ a legato string line you will sometimes play the next note a fraction of a second before the last note has finished. This is an automatic by-product of playing and to a degree this mimics real strings; for example 12 string players who move from G to A will rarely move at exactly the same time. Part of what makes the sounds sound good are these tiny variables in performance techniques.


11

This is why it’s important to try and play in string chords and lines where possible. If you do have to go into the sequencer to repair poor performance technique, beware of making everything stack-up vertically, because this will sometimes make the performance sound robotic. Once again, it’s not perfection you’re after. When we trigger or play in a trumpet line, as far as the sample is concerned, every note is the first note it plays. A real trumpet or trombone player (for example) playing a phrase will sometimes articulate the second note in the line differently to the initial note. The first note will sometimes naturally have more ‘bite’ whereas the subsequent notes will frequently have less attack because they are part of a phrase, not just individual notes joined together. A player knows this but a sample plays every note as if it was the first; therefore we sometimes have to alter the subsequent notes in terms of velocity, attack, etc to ensure it sounds real. Play or click? When entering strings, horns and woodwinds, mouse clicks will take time and may lack the intuitiveness of performance. If you’re a keyboard player, try and play-in the parts. If not, one way round it is to play the rhythm of the phrase in to the keyboard (which most non keyboard playing musicians can do) and then alter the notes from harmonic gobbledygook to the right notes in Midi. Being computer literate, being a wiz with technology and having access to untold sampled sounds will never replace actual musicality – the ability to ‘perform’ rather than merely envisage, the ability to do, not just to imagine Sectional grouping A common ‘big’ violin ‘string sample’ is anything up to 20 players. The problem therefore is: play three notes with your right hand; get sixty violinists. You would very rarely ever get sixty violinists in one orchestra. A common cello sample is anything up to 10 players. Again, the problem is: play two notes, get twenty players. These kinds of ratios have little bearing on a proper orchestral set-up, especially in a pop environment. For the correct ratios you want you need to listen to orchestral recordings and then research the recording to find out what was used. The only way to properly learn how to orchestrate, over and above tuition, is to listen endlessly to instruments being played. Then you will develop almost a second-nature awareness of instruments and textures. Types of voicings and ranges of some instruments The voicings below range from closed-part voicing right through to open voicing. Also featured are sparse voicings (bar four) and cluster voicings (bars nine-eleven). Fig.16

This open voicing leads to the next chord which is equally open but omits the 5th

This Bm7 voicing leads to the next chord which is equally open but omits the 3

rd replacing it with

the 2nd

This cluster voicing is either a Bb6/D or a Gm7/D

This cluster voicing is a Bbmaj7. The tension is hidden slightly in the middle of the voicing, which makes it less exposed and more subtle

Bb6

This open but warm voicing is also sparse in that there is no 5

th. The

warmth is created by 10th gap between root and 10

th and

the richness is provided by the 9th


12

Some practical instrument ranges and transpositions


13

Arranging and Production “People talk about production like it’s some great new experience just because it has a name. Producers in the 19th century were the composer and orchestrators and producers of the 1940s were the big band arrangers and the sound engineers. Producers and Arrangers have always been subtly different versions of the same thing.” So said Quincy Jones when discussing the similarities between arrangers and producers. We tend to frame arrangers as people who sit pouring over scores, pencil in hand and we tend to portray producers who spend their entire life staring down at a mixing desk. But in reality producing has always been more than the sum of its parts and so has arranging, because both are immersed in the world of managing and organising the sound of music. Just as producing was always more about the music than the technology, arranging is more about the music than the means by which you achieve it. Devolution of the art of music and gradual separation of the roles Most, if not all, classical composers orchestrated their own music. In those days composition was much more of an immersive ‘art’ and inclusive of many of the crafts which today are separated. With a few notable exceptions, most film score composers do not orchestrate, but this is mainly a legacy of the early Hollywood ‘studio system’ which ran at such a pace that it needed to divide film music into specific roles; composer, orchestrator, copyist, etc. Even within the composition role there tended sometimes to be specialists in specific areas, such as ‘main title’ and ‘chase music’ specialists, for example. Within pop music the separation came in two ways; firstly when composers increasingly came from non-traditional musical backgrounds and therefore relied on musically literate practitioners to arrange music for musicians. Secondly the advent of technology, and with it recording, necessitated the inclusion of sound engineers and eventually producers. The advent of the producer as a role was an acknowledgement that the music industry needed people who had technological and creative skills to organise, coordinate and shape the recording process and take a creative lead in the studio. So, just as arrangers had to straddle creativity and technology, so do producers. Now the arrangement, sonic management and the mix is immersed in the production. Arrangers were always at the forefront of technology, just as producers are today. In fact if we see music technology in its wider context, we can perhaps observe its progression in a more enlightened way. The evolution of music technology From 1600 to 1750 music technology equated to basic musical instrument design and the relatively small advances that took place. Between 1750 and 1900 we saw the first wave of what we might call progressive music technology and advanced instrument design. From 1900 to 1960s a second wave of technology came about as a result of the advent of recorded sound. Bizarre though it is to imagine, when the first gramophones were invented, no one saw the potential of music being recorded. The first machines were designed ‘to capture the words of great men’. It had never dawned on the inventors that music might be the machine’s destiny. From the 1960s onwards production was recognised as a separate and identifiable creative discipline. In this respect it is best to see production not as ‘something which happens to music’ but in the same way we look at all musical developments: as an evolution of what music is. Production is a continuation of music. Composers and arrangers have always embraced technology, forcing important stylistic changes in instrument design. They see the orchestra as four separate sections of evolving technology. The latest incarnation of the gradual immersion of music and production can perhaps be found in film composer Jerry Goldsmith, who famously said that one day “the orchestra will have five sections, not four.” He saw the fifth section being full of keyboards, guitars, samplers and other examples of modern music technology. This has been, and will continue to be fought tooth and nail by most traditional orchestral musicians but reticence will not stop it happening. The future doesn’t need people’s permission.


14

Regarding the link between producers and arrangers, the following creative thinkers –purely as examples - were all essentially doing the same thing and were separated simply by time, tradition and a human desire to label: Mutt Lange, Quincy Jones, Chris Thomas, Mozart, Beethoven, Tony Visconti, Wagner, Bob Rocks, Rick Rubin and Bach. These kinds of comparisons tend to offend some but it is important that we see music for what it is, was and can be, and not be unduly led by the context which history and interpretation sometimes delivers. We are all becoming producers Production has in some ways become the centre of gravity of music. Although sadly not enough creative composers and artists learn how to become arrangers, by contrast, production is something creative artists have embraced and eventually dominated. Production is the prism through which most music is listened to, enjoyed and judged, so it is understandable why more artists than ever before want to become their own producers. Will Hicks, producer with Elton John’s Rocket Records in London and New York, said, “Engineering is becoming a dying vocation as recording music is put into the hands of the people who make it.” If you’re an arranger and/or orchestrator nowadays it’s highly likely you’ll be from a pop/production background and it’s absolutely necessary that you have a working knowledge of production because production is the prism through which your arrangement is rationalised and enjoyed. Similarly if you’re a studio engineer at one of the big studio, it’s likely that you will have a good understanding of arranging and more and more likely that you’ll read music. The immersive roles of composition, arranging and production Arranging has always been a massive part of writing music; music lives or dies according to how it is perceived and how it is perceived is often down to placement, architecture and the geography of the piece; this is what we can call ‘structural arranging’. Then we have ‘stylistic arranging’ which is more to do with choices of instrumentation, texture and colour. These sub-disciplines of arranging play just as much of a role in determining the success of your music as do the concepts that form the basis of the song. Also, if you are a composer in today’s pop industry, it is essential you have a working knowledge of production. As I said earlier ultimately production forms the prism through which your music will be heard and evaluated. Similarly if you’re an arranger, composing has always played a part in your role, for what is arranging if it is not the creative management of different musical ideas and concepts. If you’re a producer, such is the expansive and immersive nature of the craft that it is nonsense to think you wouldn’t also be a writer/creator. Some of the most important and pivotal decisions made on tracks over the years which people often assume are the composer’s individual and unique voice turn out to be the producer’s and/or the arranger’s. The figure below might help in understanding what skills and knowledge should form part of your role as a composer, arranger or producer. Fig.17 If you’re a composer If you’re an arranger If you’re a producer

Composing 50%

Arranging 25%

Production 25%

Arranging 50%

Producing 25%

Composing 25%

Producing 50%

Arranging 25%

Composing 25%


15

Obviously there are elements of specific skills which separate these three areas but in fact they are much more combined, mutual and collective than many people believe.

Below is a list of just some of the great arrangers of the 20th

Century.

Fig.18

And below is a list of just a fraction of the world’s best producers.

The arrows link people who have functioned at the highest levels as both arrangers and producers. Quincy Jones ‘the big band arranger’ is the same Quincy Jones that produced the seminal Michael Jackson albums of the 1980s and 90s. It is important that we see all the people above, who are emblematic of the skills and crafts in which they excel, as essentially pursuing the same goals via subtly different routes. In conclusion, the immersive nature of arranging and production conveniently underscores the fact that the writing music in general is much more of an intellectually collective craft than most people acknowledge; the notion that writing music can be a solitary event simply because ‘you did it on your own’ is ludicrous. We all borrow. Every piece of music ever written owes its structural integrity to the thousands of pieces which came before. Indeed most songs owe the basis of their stylistic and harmonic integrity to the rich tapestry of music which has evolved over the years. If you were to draw lines of comparison and affinity between elements of the vast majority of pop songs, you would be looking at the greatest creative living tapestry that has ever existed. There is a little bit of everyone else in all of us, and nowhere is this more evident than in music.

Nelson Riddle Burt Bacharach Quincy Jones Paul Buckmaster Jerry Hey Glenn Miller Vincent Mendosa George Martin

Steve Albini Phil Spector Quincy Jones Rick Rubin Bob Rocks Trevor Horn Tony Visconti George Martin

Chapter 3 INTO ARRANGING ... being stated by piano, guitar, synths etc, the strings and horns would rarely simply duplicate the chords.

Documents