has anyone ever heard of "Daniels Instrumentation Standard"?

For those who need help with notation issues. (Please use the other available forums for help with software issues.)
Post Reply
MichelRE
Posts: 245
Joined: 07 Aug 2021, 17:11

has anyone ever heard of "Daniels Instrumentation Standard"?

Post by MichelRE »

I'm submitting a work to an orchestra, and this is the first time I get such a nit-picky answer... the instrumentation MUST be written in the "Daniels Instrumentation Standard". I'd never heard of it before, and could find only VERY minimal information on how to write it out.

On the Daniels Orchestration website, they give as an example how to notate woodwinds parts, but then don't bother with what symbol separates the ww from the brass.
RMK
Posts: 123
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 12:12

Re: has anyone ever heard of "Daniels Instrumentation Standard"?

Post by RMK »

Yes, I (and most librarians in the US) am familiar with this.

No symbol separates the ww from the brass - only a space.

So, *3*3=32 4331 means:

3 Flutes (one doubling Piccolo)
3 Oboes (one doubling EH)
3 Clarinets (one doubling E-flat Cl)
2 Bassoons

4 Horns
3 Trumpets
3 Trombones
1 Tuba

The major shortcoming with this method is that there is no way to denote *which* player doubles. For example, in the Clarinets in my example, it is unclear whether the 2nd or 3rd (or indeed the 1st!) player plays the E-flat Clarinet.

At any rate, this should not affect your score at all. This is only a method for librarians to efficiently keep track of the instrumentation. I don't understand why they are mentioning this to you at all.
MichelRE
Posts: 245
Joined: 07 Aug 2021, 17:11

Re: has anyone ever heard of "Daniels Instrumentation Standard"?

Post by MichelRE »

ok, well, there have been changes I think, because that is no longer considered the "Daniels Instrumentation Standard".

It has gotten rather convoluted and overly complicated.

your example (assuming "doubling" means playing both main instrument and auxiliary) would come out something like this:

3[1.2.3/pic] 3[1.2.3/Eh] 3[1.2.3/bcl] 3[1.2.3/cbn]

and I was told a few hours ago that the symbol used between sections (ie: between ww and brass, brass and perc, perc and harp, etc...) is a long dash.


EDIT:

ah, why they mention it is that they demand that all work submissions include complete orchestration in that format. (there's an e-form for work submissions, meaning someone gets to see the electronic submission form before anyone actually sees the score)
Last edited by MichelRE on 10 Jan 2024, 18:23, edited 2 times in total.
MichelRE
Posts: 245
Joined: 07 Aug 2021, 17:11

Re: has anyone ever heard of "Daniels Instrumentation Standard"?

Post by MichelRE »

personally, I find it stupidly fussy to include a number for every woodwind within the square brackets.
it seems ONLY the instruments involved in any sort of doubling really need to be mentioned.

and according to their guidelines, if an instrument is playing the doubling instrument throughout, then no number is included...

so 3[1.2/picc.3] would mean 2nd flute switches back and forth, and 3rd flute ONLY plays piccolo.
RMK
Posts: 123
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 12:12

Re: has anyone ever heard of "Daniels Instrumentation Standard"?

Post by RMK »

Actually, my example would indicate E-flat Clarinet, not Bass (= means [meant?] tertiary instrument) and no doubling for the 2 Bassoons at all.

It seems that Daniels has changed the format (Daniels himself passed away a few years ago) since I retired in 2018. Perhaps the librarian could get you access to the online version which may clear things up.

The new format seems to be based on the OPAS orchestra management software, which I always preferred, anyway. I remember David (Daniels) and I had a long discussion regarding the format at a MOLA conference many years ago.

I still can't understand why they are bothering you with this, though.
MichelRE
Posts: 245
Joined: 07 Aug 2021, 17:11

Re: has anyone ever heard of "Daniels Instrumentation Standard"?

Post by MichelRE »

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have NO idea and think it's stupid that they don't even give a resource on where to learn how to write using this "standard".
Like I said, the only example I could find online (that did not involve paying a monthly fee to access scores) included ONLY the woodwinds, with no indication how to notate the rest of the orchestra.
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: has anyone ever heard of "Daniels Instrumentation Standard"?

Post by OCTO »

MichelRE wrote: 10 Jan 2024, 05:14 the instrumentation MUST be written in the "Daniels Instrumentation Standard". I'd never heard of it before,
Is he a forum member?
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 27.3 • Sibelius 2023.5• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 10+ /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
MichelRE
Posts: 245
Joined: 07 Aug 2021, 17:11

Re: has anyone ever heard of "Daniels Instrumentation Standard"?

Post by MichelRE »

OCTO wrote: 15 Jan 2024, 20:11 Is he a forum member?
is who a forum member? "Daniels"?

no, it's the name of a standard for writing out a form of shorthand of the instrumentation of a piece of music.
RMK
Posts: 123
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 12:12

Re: has anyone ever heard of "Daniels Instrumentation Standard"?

Post by RMK »

David Daniels was an author of a well-known resource for orchestra librarians titled Orchestra Music. It has gone through many editions over the years and now has an online companion. It lists not only instrumentation, but publisher information and timings, among other things.

There is also a helpful index that lists works by instrumentation so, for instance, if you need a piece with flute, 2 clarinets, bassoon, horn, harp and strings, it shows you what is available.

I know David was working on a companion volume dealing with operatic music (including instrumentation for individual arias), but I don't know if that ever got completed.

Although he died several years ago, others have taken on the enormous task of keeping the database up to date.
Post Reply