Most people have noticed this and it is not really an issue, but it's a bit odd to me seeing the "Orchestral Track" listings on a lot of advertisement postings.

"Here is my example of an orchestral track" - a quick listen reveals that the only orchestral instruments that exist are some synth strings that might sound ok, but used entirely like a keyboard. The rest of the track? Maybe some percussion, which isn't orchestra unique, or a whole lot of other "stuff" that's never actually in an orchestra or written like it could be.



I'm sorry, it's a rant. I'm sure folks coming from actual orchestra experience, or woodwind experience, brass, real percussion with more than simple timpani and drums, find it sometimes annoying as well.

Argh. Meet my string sounds I use instead of a synth set, and call me an orchestral magician.

Hehe, I can understand you, even though I am not really a composer. Just fiddling around here and there.
What bugs me more though is that so many try to emulate those orchestral game soundtracks. I am getting a bit tired of hearing pompous, epic orchestral pieces in computer games. Time to try something different? Yes, please.

The problem is that there is an overwhelming amount of badly composed "orchestral" music. Personally I would never find Soule's music tiring, since it is always so balanced and evokes whatever the genre demands (particularly effective in Fantasy or Role playing games.) I would agree with the original poster: owning a Korg and flattening the keys with your fat chops hardly makes you Berlioz or Ravel. Creating music for large forces, and moreover employing your resources effectively, does not mean simply vomiting an extended chord and letting the strings "play the choon." First and foremost it requires one to think creatively, and if the technique is there it makes it all easier. Mussorgsky was an alcoholic, yet he imagined his canvas for "Pictures at an Exhibition" eventhough it was orchestrated by Ravel.

There is no doubt that synths are cost effective though, not everyone has that much money.

Everyone is going to have a different reaction to music. Some may really like the pseudo-orchestral treatments while others get tired of it. It is true there is a wide range of bad composers out there and unfortunately they're not just limited to the orchestral genre. I think it also stems from composers writing for ensembles (or genres) that they don't have much experience in or knowledge of. As far why games are using orchestral so much? Simple. The orchestral soundtrack used to imply a sense of epic scale and heavy production value. This was before virtual instruments became so prevalent and the only real solution for an organic orchestral sound was to actually record an orchestra. So back in the early 90's or so games that wanted to come off as top productions and compete with the Hollywood scale (which game studios still use as a reference many times) the orchestral genre was the way to go. Nowadays it is less critical as the orchestral sound is much more available to the average person.

Finally - remember it's not the sample packages or virtual instruments that make your music good. It's how you use them.

I think the prevalent style of music in games would be better described as "Pseudo-Orchestral". They are designed to fit a purpose, rather than simply being art for it's own sake. The kind of orchestral music present in games is generally simpler and is designed to evoke more basic emotions than a complex piece by one of the great composers. Would Beethoven fit in a Call of Duty game, for instance?

I don't come from a classical musical background (I am self-taught, and proud of it!) and thus have no knowledge of the historical structures of that genre of music. However, I have played a lot of games featuring modern "Pseudo-Orchestral" compositions, and paid attention to how the soundtrack complements the action. In my opinion, this kind of experience is as valuable to making your own pieces as classical training, if not more so.

To clarify my point, I'm not diminishing the value of having a grounding in and knowledge of how classical music is structured. I just think there is also value to approaching a composition unburdened by structure, and allowing your creativity to find its own way through.

Would Beethoven fit in a Call of Duty game, for instance?

No, but "Mars, the bringer of war", by Holst would sound pretty good.

To clarify my point, I'm not diminishing the value of having a grounding in and knowledge of how classical music is structured. I just think there is also value to approaching a composition unburdened by structure, and allowing your creativity to find its own way through.
[/quote]

Classical music (in the general sense of Western art music) doesn't impose all that much structure. If anything, it's easy to distinguish it from popular music because it does not conform to the much more rigid structures that different genres of popular music impose.

I don't come from a classical musical background (I am self-taught, and proud of it!) and thus have no knowledge of the historical structures of that genre of music. However, I have played a lot of games featuring modern "Pseudo-Orchestral" compositions, and paid attention to how the soundtrack complements the action. In my opinion, this kind of experience is as valuable to making your own pieces as classical training, if not more so.

To clarify my point, I'm not diminishing the value of having a grounding in and knowledge of how classical music is structured. I just think there is also value to approaching a composition unburdened by structure, and allowing your creativity to find its own way through.

I think this is very valid. I do have a classical background but the same situation applies to me when I dive into some realms of world music or even rock genres, especially because I'm not a guitarist. Listening, analyzing and thinking about other music (be it soundtracks or albums or whatever) is always a very good and often times inspirational task.

I don't come from a classical musical background (I am self-taught, and proud of it!) and thus have no knowledge of the historical structures of that genre of music. However, I have played a lot of games featuring modern "Pseudo-Orchestral" compositions, and paid attention to how the soundtrack complements the action. In my opinion, this kind of experience is as valuable to making your own pieces as classical training, if not more so.
http://
To clarify my point, I'm not diminishing the value of having a grounding in and knowledge of how classical music is structured. I just think there is also value to approaching a composition unburdened by structure, and allowing your creativity to find its own way through.

I wouldn't say "classical" has any specific structure other than chordal, resolution and counterpoint.

Of course, if any of these topics sound foreign, than the idea of "classical" is definitely up to debate.Is "classical" like greece, or classical like mozart, or classical like John Williams?

Structure, in a theoretical world, implies "making sense". No "structure" tends to make no sense. Like abstract art - to 90% of the world, there is no sense in "abstract art".

How well does Structure work?:

Please enjoy.

Dimitri Shostakovich:

1954. Classical? Uses "structural" resolutions, orchestration techniques from the late nineteenth century - of course this would be deemed as "classical" by 95% of the populace in Western Worlds, but would have no idea when it's actually written.

Borodin: [url="

]

[/url]
1890. Classical? I suppose, in the sense... but what is "classical" as a term? Take note around the 2 minute mark.

Wagner:

1851. Classical? Sure. Anything that's on the local classical station, right?

Holst: [url="

]

[/url]
1916: Classical? I guess if you mean classics for every film score since.

Holst: [url="

]

[/url]
1916: Granted, these songs were often written with pure inspiration instead of being written "for" something. If that's not "art", I don't know what is...

Tchaikovsky:

1880: Don't know what to say..

Copland: [url="

]

[/url]
1944: American to boot.

Copland:

Beef!!


I can go on and on...


And as a side note, I would be bold to say that anyone who checks the songs out and says "boring" would be close enough to insane. But that's just me.


My paraphrase is:

Structure?

Or is it "sense"?




Rebellion is different than art which is different than plain crud.

Chances are composers started using "Orchestral music" as a description for any type of common classical ensemble for one reason only: Film makers, video game designers, Directors of all sorts, and programmers often don't know much of anything about music other than "what they like."

For this reason, it can be hard to discuss musical scoring (for film, games, tv shows, or even theater) with the director or other people who you are working with to create the music. We, as musicians and composers who live within music for extended periods of our lives, are so used to describing music with "musical terms" that we have learned (either from school or self-taught/talking to other musicians) that its often hard for us to "translate" this music speak for others. One of the unfortunate side-effects that this has caused is that the translated version (or "dumbed down" version if you choose to see it that way) has become the normal way to represent your work. It is sad, but this has spilled over from the working world into the world of the amateur composer who does not know any better, and they assume that anything within a classical genre or written for an ensemble common in classical should be called "Orchestral."

I've had the good fortune to play in Wind Ensembles, Rock Bands, Orchestras, and Jazz combos...so I've gotten to know the lingo pretty well...and its certainly hard to remember sometimes that not everyone knows what you are talking about when you bring up "the changes" or "the score." Many amateur composers don't know what counterpoint is or how to jazz is often interpreted. This is not necessarily a bad thing...I am NOT against being self-taught or working without classical training, and I don't expect every composer to be able to get up and blow a solo over a Charlie Parker tune...but its a strange thing when you realize some COMPOSERS don't know common things about music, and somehow your job is to get a Programmer, or a Director to understand.

And thus "orchestral music" has become a shorthand.

Now, this can be fixed in a simple way: stop using "orchestral music" when you are describing anything that isn't orchestral music. Hopefully you can inspire others and educate on proper labeling of ensembles and genres.

Just realize when a person who is running a project ASKS for "orchestral music," don't just assume they want an orchestra...often it could mean anything from a string quartet + piano, to a wind ensemble. Poke around a little more and figure out exactly what they want

From the sounds of it the argument has come full circle - it now seems that "Orchestral Music" is a far better and less loaded descriptor than "Classical Music", which is the term I think most people have umbrage with people over-using.