Dynamic markings and relative sound levels of instuments
In an orchestra, various instruments have different "perceived output volume" capabilities and these change across registers. For example, flutes get louder in their higher register, bassoons are louder in their lowest register, while french horns are softer somewhere in the middle of their sound range.
Of course, it is a good practice to write playable pieces :-)
However, assuming the piece is playable (together with an appropriate instrument doubling, tripling, etc. if more volume is needed), how should dynamics be marked and understood?
There are (at least) three people involved here:
- a musician, who is an expert in their instrument,
- a conductor, who hears the balance of this particular orchestra,
- a composer, who had an idea for what balance would sound good or achieve a particular effect.
In one extreme dynamic markings could be absolute, as in "how it should sound like from audience perspective". In another extreme I can imagine making the markings being very detailed including changes when the instrument enters its quiet register, as in "how it should be played".
How should dynamics be marked and understood?
composition dynamics
add a comment |
In an orchestra, various instruments have different "perceived output volume" capabilities and these change across registers. For example, flutes get louder in their higher register, bassoons are louder in their lowest register, while french horns are softer somewhere in the middle of their sound range.
Of course, it is a good practice to write playable pieces :-)
However, assuming the piece is playable (together with an appropriate instrument doubling, tripling, etc. if more volume is needed), how should dynamics be marked and understood?
There are (at least) three people involved here:
- a musician, who is an expert in their instrument,
- a conductor, who hears the balance of this particular orchestra,
- a composer, who had an idea for what balance would sound good or achieve a particular effect.
In one extreme dynamic markings could be absolute, as in "how it should sound like from audience perspective". In another extreme I can imagine making the markings being very detailed including changes when the instrument enters its quiet register, as in "how it should be played".
How should dynamics be marked and understood?
composition dynamics
Is this really anorchestration
question, rather than acomposition
question? Or may it’s both? Or even a bit ofinterpretation
thrown in as well?
– Dean Ransevycz
Dec 11 at 9:31
add a comment |
In an orchestra, various instruments have different "perceived output volume" capabilities and these change across registers. For example, flutes get louder in their higher register, bassoons are louder in their lowest register, while french horns are softer somewhere in the middle of their sound range.
Of course, it is a good practice to write playable pieces :-)
However, assuming the piece is playable (together with an appropriate instrument doubling, tripling, etc. if more volume is needed), how should dynamics be marked and understood?
There are (at least) three people involved here:
- a musician, who is an expert in their instrument,
- a conductor, who hears the balance of this particular orchestra,
- a composer, who had an idea for what balance would sound good or achieve a particular effect.
In one extreme dynamic markings could be absolute, as in "how it should sound like from audience perspective". In another extreme I can imagine making the markings being very detailed including changes when the instrument enters its quiet register, as in "how it should be played".
How should dynamics be marked and understood?
composition dynamics
In an orchestra, various instruments have different "perceived output volume" capabilities and these change across registers. For example, flutes get louder in their higher register, bassoons are louder in their lowest register, while french horns are softer somewhere in the middle of their sound range.
Of course, it is a good practice to write playable pieces :-)
However, assuming the piece is playable (together with an appropriate instrument doubling, tripling, etc. if more volume is needed), how should dynamics be marked and understood?
There are (at least) three people involved here:
- a musician, who is an expert in their instrument,
- a conductor, who hears the balance of this particular orchestra,
- a composer, who had an idea for what balance would sound good or achieve a particular effect.
In one extreme dynamic markings could be absolute, as in "how it should sound like from audience perspective". In another extreme I can imagine making the markings being very detailed including changes when the instrument enters its quiet register, as in "how it should be played".
How should dynamics be marked and understood?
composition dynamics
composition dynamics
asked Dec 9 at 10:03
dtldarek
50039
50039
Is this really anorchestration
question, rather than acomposition
question? Or may it’s both? Or even a bit ofinterpretation
thrown in as well?
– Dean Ransevycz
Dec 11 at 9:31
add a comment |
Is this really anorchestration
question, rather than acomposition
question? Or may it’s both? Or even a bit ofinterpretation
thrown in as well?
– Dean Ransevycz
Dec 11 at 9:31
Is this really an
orchestration
question, rather than a composition
question? Or may it’s both? Or even a bit of interpretation
thrown in as well?– Dean Ransevycz
Dec 11 at 9:31
Is this really an
orchestration
question, rather than a composition
question? Or may it’s both? Or even a bit of interpretation
thrown in as well?– Dean Ransevycz
Dec 11 at 9:31
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Since dynamic markings do not have an absolute meaning (historically) it's hard to give a simple answer to your question.
Your use of the term absolute is "relative"! Relative to the audience which is not an absolute measure but an opinion (group consensus?). Different people in the audience may perceive the music too loud while other too soft.
Having worked in orchestras I can say that the conductor would often go into the audience seats and come back to adjust our volumes. When an entire section of horns would all play mezzo-piano (in their own mind) the sum of the sound would produce a mezzo-forte or mezzo at the conductor's seat and we would be instructed to play piano or softer to create mp. So, clearly the intent is to produce the effect for an audience. In that type of setting the audience is the most important participant. I would guess that composers are creating form a listener's perspective (i.e. "I want the audience to hear it like this..."). When playing solo the situation is different from a personal physical perspective but the intent is likely the same (to produce a certain sound for the listener).
When I say that dynamics are not absolute what I mean is that piano is simply softer than mezzo and forte, but that does not translate to a fixed decibel level from the point of view of scientific measurement. So if the loudest section of a piece is forte a player may play as loud as possible, but if the loudest section is ff they would need to play the f sections softer than their personal max volume. It is all relative which gives the performer some leeway in interpretation. Again, in an orchestra setting you might hear the conductor say "don't push too hard on the forte section, we have fff forzando at the end".
I think the intent is to produce a sound that is interpreted by the audience. To this end we are trained to try our best to control the instruments so that we can create a constant volume across frequency ranges. So if volume increases with frequency one might be instructed to soften up in the upper register of the instrument and not "overdrive" it. The contra bass is a particular issue as in the lowest register of the instrument it gets quite quiet.
So, your two examples actually feed the same goal, i.e. to produce a consistent volume at the listener's ear.
'Piano is softer than mezzo and forte' is a little confusing!
– Tim
Dec 9 at 16:47
I'm using softer as a synonym for quieter. piano is quieter than mezzo, and quieter than forte, louder than pp, and ppp.
– ggcg
Dec 9 at 17:39
You are spot-on : it doesn't matter how loud you think you are or are supposed to be, the conductor will tell you to adjust until he is happy with the ensemble sound.
– Carl Witthoft
Dec 10 at 13:42
add a comment |
Of course it's about what the audience hears. But the composer doesn't have to micro-manage. Tell the player what result you want, leave it to him to work out how to deliver it. (And make sure you've written something he CAN deliver.)
Some say that 'ff' in the strings should be matched with 'f' in the brass. I disagree. To me, 'f' means 'solid', 'ff' means 'exciting'. They aren't decibel levels. The players have ears, and there's a conductor.
For the 95% of 'orchestral' music written today that will never be performed by anything but a computer different rules apply. You may NEED to micro-manage - hairpins every time a phrase rises, carefully graded dynamics between sections etc. Or your software may attempt to do this for you (e.g. the 'expressive' features of NotePerformer). The only rule is to know your tools and use your ears.
Then there's the situation where live performers combine with technology. Henry Mancini would match a group of bass flutes with a 'big band' rhythm section. Impossible without amplification, but perfectly valid with it. And it isn't 'wrong' to score a song with the assumption that the vocalist will have a mic and 'right' to score like an opera.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "240"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f77300%2fdynamic-markings-and-relative-sound-levels-of-instuments%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Since dynamic markings do not have an absolute meaning (historically) it's hard to give a simple answer to your question.
Your use of the term absolute is "relative"! Relative to the audience which is not an absolute measure but an opinion (group consensus?). Different people in the audience may perceive the music too loud while other too soft.
Having worked in orchestras I can say that the conductor would often go into the audience seats and come back to adjust our volumes. When an entire section of horns would all play mezzo-piano (in their own mind) the sum of the sound would produce a mezzo-forte or mezzo at the conductor's seat and we would be instructed to play piano or softer to create mp. So, clearly the intent is to produce the effect for an audience. In that type of setting the audience is the most important participant. I would guess that composers are creating form a listener's perspective (i.e. "I want the audience to hear it like this..."). When playing solo the situation is different from a personal physical perspective but the intent is likely the same (to produce a certain sound for the listener).
When I say that dynamics are not absolute what I mean is that piano is simply softer than mezzo and forte, but that does not translate to a fixed decibel level from the point of view of scientific measurement. So if the loudest section of a piece is forte a player may play as loud as possible, but if the loudest section is ff they would need to play the f sections softer than their personal max volume. It is all relative which gives the performer some leeway in interpretation. Again, in an orchestra setting you might hear the conductor say "don't push too hard on the forte section, we have fff forzando at the end".
I think the intent is to produce a sound that is interpreted by the audience. To this end we are trained to try our best to control the instruments so that we can create a constant volume across frequency ranges. So if volume increases with frequency one might be instructed to soften up in the upper register of the instrument and not "overdrive" it. The contra bass is a particular issue as in the lowest register of the instrument it gets quite quiet.
So, your two examples actually feed the same goal, i.e. to produce a consistent volume at the listener's ear.
'Piano is softer than mezzo and forte' is a little confusing!
– Tim
Dec 9 at 16:47
I'm using softer as a synonym for quieter. piano is quieter than mezzo, and quieter than forte, louder than pp, and ppp.
– ggcg
Dec 9 at 17:39
You are spot-on : it doesn't matter how loud you think you are or are supposed to be, the conductor will tell you to adjust until he is happy with the ensemble sound.
– Carl Witthoft
Dec 10 at 13:42
add a comment |
Since dynamic markings do not have an absolute meaning (historically) it's hard to give a simple answer to your question.
Your use of the term absolute is "relative"! Relative to the audience which is not an absolute measure but an opinion (group consensus?). Different people in the audience may perceive the music too loud while other too soft.
Having worked in orchestras I can say that the conductor would often go into the audience seats and come back to adjust our volumes. When an entire section of horns would all play mezzo-piano (in their own mind) the sum of the sound would produce a mezzo-forte or mezzo at the conductor's seat and we would be instructed to play piano or softer to create mp. So, clearly the intent is to produce the effect for an audience. In that type of setting the audience is the most important participant. I would guess that composers are creating form a listener's perspective (i.e. "I want the audience to hear it like this..."). When playing solo the situation is different from a personal physical perspective but the intent is likely the same (to produce a certain sound for the listener).
When I say that dynamics are not absolute what I mean is that piano is simply softer than mezzo and forte, but that does not translate to a fixed decibel level from the point of view of scientific measurement. So if the loudest section of a piece is forte a player may play as loud as possible, but if the loudest section is ff they would need to play the f sections softer than their personal max volume. It is all relative which gives the performer some leeway in interpretation. Again, in an orchestra setting you might hear the conductor say "don't push too hard on the forte section, we have fff forzando at the end".
I think the intent is to produce a sound that is interpreted by the audience. To this end we are trained to try our best to control the instruments so that we can create a constant volume across frequency ranges. So if volume increases with frequency one might be instructed to soften up in the upper register of the instrument and not "overdrive" it. The contra bass is a particular issue as in the lowest register of the instrument it gets quite quiet.
So, your two examples actually feed the same goal, i.e. to produce a consistent volume at the listener's ear.
'Piano is softer than mezzo and forte' is a little confusing!
– Tim
Dec 9 at 16:47
I'm using softer as a synonym for quieter. piano is quieter than mezzo, and quieter than forte, louder than pp, and ppp.
– ggcg
Dec 9 at 17:39
You are spot-on : it doesn't matter how loud you think you are or are supposed to be, the conductor will tell you to adjust until he is happy with the ensemble sound.
– Carl Witthoft
Dec 10 at 13:42
add a comment |
Since dynamic markings do not have an absolute meaning (historically) it's hard to give a simple answer to your question.
Your use of the term absolute is "relative"! Relative to the audience which is not an absolute measure but an opinion (group consensus?). Different people in the audience may perceive the music too loud while other too soft.
Having worked in orchestras I can say that the conductor would often go into the audience seats and come back to adjust our volumes. When an entire section of horns would all play mezzo-piano (in their own mind) the sum of the sound would produce a mezzo-forte or mezzo at the conductor's seat and we would be instructed to play piano or softer to create mp. So, clearly the intent is to produce the effect for an audience. In that type of setting the audience is the most important participant. I would guess that composers are creating form a listener's perspective (i.e. "I want the audience to hear it like this..."). When playing solo the situation is different from a personal physical perspective but the intent is likely the same (to produce a certain sound for the listener).
When I say that dynamics are not absolute what I mean is that piano is simply softer than mezzo and forte, but that does not translate to a fixed decibel level from the point of view of scientific measurement. So if the loudest section of a piece is forte a player may play as loud as possible, but if the loudest section is ff they would need to play the f sections softer than their personal max volume. It is all relative which gives the performer some leeway in interpretation. Again, in an orchestra setting you might hear the conductor say "don't push too hard on the forte section, we have fff forzando at the end".
I think the intent is to produce a sound that is interpreted by the audience. To this end we are trained to try our best to control the instruments so that we can create a constant volume across frequency ranges. So if volume increases with frequency one might be instructed to soften up in the upper register of the instrument and not "overdrive" it. The contra bass is a particular issue as in the lowest register of the instrument it gets quite quiet.
So, your two examples actually feed the same goal, i.e. to produce a consistent volume at the listener's ear.
Since dynamic markings do not have an absolute meaning (historically) it's hard to give a simple answer to your question.
Your use of the term absolute is "relative"! Relative to the audience which is not an absolute measure but an opinion (group consensus?). Different people in the audience may perceive the music too loud while other too soft.
Having worked in orchestras I can say that the conductor would often go into the audience seats and come back to adjust our volumes. When an entire section of horns would all play mezzo-piano (in their own mind) the sum of the sound would produce a mezzo-forte or mezzo at the conductor's seat and we would be instructed to play piano or softer to create mp. So, clearly the intent is to produce the effect for an audience. In that type of setting the audience is the most important participant. I would guess that composers are creating form a listener's perspective (i.e. "I want the audience to hear it like this..."). When playing solo the situation is different from a personal physical perspective but the intent is likely the same (to produce a certain sound for the listener).
When I say that dynamics are not absolute what I mean is that piano is simply softer than mezzo and forte, but that does not translate to a fixed decibel level from the point of view of scientific measurement. So if the loudest section of a piece is forte a player may play as loud as possible, but if the loudest section is ff they would need to play the f sections softer than their personal max volume. It is all relative which gives the performer some leeway in interpretation. Again, in an orchestra setting you might hear the conductor say "don't push too hard on the forte section, we have fff forzando at the end".
I think the intent is to produce a sound that is interpreted by the audience. To this end we are trained to try our best to control the instruments so that we can create a constant volume across frequency ranges. So if volume increases with frequency one might be instructed to soften up in the upper register of the instrument and not "overdrive" it. The contra bass is a particular issue as in the lowest register of the instrument it gets quite quiet.
So, your two examples actually feed the same goal, i.e. to produce a consistent volume at the listener's ear.
answered Dec 9 at 14:07
ggcg
4,280222
4,280222
'Piano is softer than mezzo and forte' is a little confusing!
– Tim
Dec 9 at 16:47
I'm using softer as a synonym for quieter. piano is quieter than mezzo, and quieter than forte, louder than pp, and ppp.
– ggcg
Dec 9 at 17:39
You are spot-on : it doesn't matter how loud you think you are or are supposed to be, the conductor will tell you to adjust until he is happy with the ensemble sound.
– Carl Witthoft
Dec 10 at 13:42
add a comment |
'Piano is softer than mezzo and forte' is a little confusing!
– Tim
Dec 9 at 16:47
I'm using softer as a synonym for quieter. piano is quieter than mezzo, and quieter than forte, louder than pp, and ppp.
– ggcg
Dec 9 at 17:39
You are spot-on : it doesn't matter how loud you think you are or are supposed to be, the conductor will tell you to adjust until he is happy with the ensemble sound.
– Carl Witthoft
Dec 10 at 13:42
'Piano is softer than mezzo and forte' is a little confusing!
– Tim
Dec 9 at 16:47
'Piano is softer than mezzo and forte' is a little confusing!
– Tim
Dec 9 at 16:47
I'm using softer as a synonym for quieter. piano is quieter than mezzo, and quieter than forte, louder than pp, and ppp.
– ggcg
Dec 9 at 17:39
I'm using softer as a synonym for quieter. piano is quieter than mezzo, and quieter than forte, louder than pp, and ppp.
– ggcg
Dec 9 at 17:39
You are spot-on : it doesn't matter how loud you think you are or are supposed to be, the conductor will tell you to adjust until he is happy with the ensemble sound.
– Carl Witthoft
Dec 10 at 13:42
You are spot-on : it doesn't matter how loud you think you are or are supposed to be, the conductor will tell you to adjust until he is happy with the ensemble sound.
– Carl Witthoft
Dec 10 at 13:42
add a comment |
Of course it's about what the audience hears. But the composer doesn't have to micro-manage. Tell the player what result you want, leave it to him to work out how to deliver it. (And make sure you've written something he CAN deliver.)
Some say that 'ff' in the strings should be matched with 'f' in the brass. I disagree. To me, 'f' means 'solid', 'ff' means 'exciting'. They aren't decibel levels. The players have ears, and there's a conductor.
For the 95% of 'orchestral' music written today that will never be performed by anything but a computer different rules apply. You may NEED to micro-manage - hairpins every time a phrase rises, carefully graded dynamics between sections etc. Or your software may attempt to do this for you (e.g. the 'expressive' features of NotePerformer). The only rule is to know your tools and use your ears.
Then there's the situation where live performers combine with technology. Henry Mancini would match a group of bass flutes with a 'big band' rhythm section. Impossible without amplification, but perfectly valid with it. And it isn't 'wrong' to score a song with the assumption that the vocalist will have a mic and 'right' to score like an opera.
add a comment |
Of course it's about what the audience hears. But the composer doesn't have to micro-manage. Tell the player what result you want, leave it to him to work out how to deliver it. (And make sure you've written something he CAN deliver.)
Some say that 'ff' in the strings should be matched with 'f' in the brass. I disagree. To me, 'f' means 'solid', 'ff' means 'exciting'. They aren't decibel levels. The players have ears, and there's a conductor.
For the 95% of 'orchestral' music written today that will never be performed by anything but a computer different rules apply. You may NEED to micro-manage - hairpins every time a phrase rises, carefully graded dynamics between sections etc. Or your software may attempt to do this for you (e.g. the 'expressive' features of NotePerformer). The only rule is to know your tools and use your ears.
Then there's the situation where live performers combine with technology. Henry Mancini would match a group of bass flutes with a 'big band' rhythm section. Impossible without amplification, but perfectly valid with it. And it isn't 'wrong' to score a song with the assumption that the vocalist will have a mic and 'right' to score like an opera.
add a comment |
Of course it's about what the audience hears. But the composer doesn't have to micro-manage. Tell the player what result you want, leave it to him to work out how to deliver it. (And make sure you've written something he CAN deliver.)
Some say that 'ff' in the strings should be matched with 'f' in the brass. I disagree. To me, 'f' means 'solid', 'ff' means 'exciting'. They aren't decibel levels. The players have ears, and there's a conductor.
For the 95% of 'orchestral' music written today that will never be performed by anything but a computer different rules apply. You may NEED to micro-manage - hairpins every time a phrase rises, carefully graded dynamics between sections etc. Or your software may attempt to do this for you (e.g. the 'expressive' features of NotePerformer). The only rule is to know your tools and use your ears.
Then there's the situation where live performers combine with technology. Henry Mancini would match a group of bass flutes with a 'big band' rhythm section. Impossible without amplification, but perfectly valid with it. And it isn't 'wrong' to score a song with the assumption that the vocalist will have a mic and 'right' to score like an opera.
Of course it's about what the audience hears. But the composer doesn't have to micro-manage. Tell the player what result you want, leave it to him to work out how to deliver it. (And make sure you've written something he CAN deliver.)
Some say that 'ff' in the strings should be matched with 'f' in the brass. I disagree. To me, 'f' means 'solid', 'ff' means 'exciting'. They aren't decibel levels. The players have ears, and there's a conductor.
For the 95% of 'orchestral' music written today that will never be performed by anything but a computer different rules apply. You may NEED to micro-manage - hairpins every time a phrase rises, carefully graded dynamics between sections etc. Or your software may attempt to do this for you (e.g. the 'expressive' features of NotePerformer). The only rule is to know your tools and use your ears.
Then there's the situation where live performers combine with technology. Henry Mancini would match a group of bass flutes with a 'big band' rhythm section. Impossible without amplification, but perfectly valid with it. And it isn't 'wrong' to score a song with the assumption that the vocalist will have a mic and 'right' to score like an opera.
edited Dec 10 at 2:37
answered Dec 9 at 14:35
Laurence Payne
31.6k1558
31.6k1558
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f77300%2fdynamic-markings-and-relative-sound-levels-of-instuments%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Is this really an
orchestration
question, rather than acomposition
question? Or may it’s both? Or even a bit ofinterpretation
thrown in as well?– Dean Ransevycz
Dec 11 at 9:31