Piston justified his 1/3, 2/4 recommendation based on a page of Mahler 4 while ignoring the fact that more than half the pages of Mahler 4 double 1/2 and 3/4.
For Mahler and for anyone else, the default was and should be 1/2 and 3/4. When a musical situation calls for a different arrangment, by all means use it. I've seen all kinds of doublings in scores. The penultimate page of Mahler 2 in my Dover score has horn 1/3/5/7/9/10 on the top staff and 2/4/6/8 on the bottom staff. The last page has 5 horn staves: 1/3, 5/7, 9/2, 4/6, and 10/8.
So, if it makes sense to double 1/3 and 2/4 in the score, by all means do so. The one thing you should never, ever do is provide a part to a horn player with doubled up parts in this way. You risk having the 2nd and 3rd players playing the wrong parts if you do. The safest way to double up a player's part is 1/2 and 3/4. Better yet, don't double them up at all.
Brad Beyenhof wrote:
Is the tradition on conductor scores to include horn parts 1&2 on one staff, and 3&4 on another staff (keeping the high specialists in the "upper" staff position), or to score it with 1&3/2&4 (keeping the high specialists together)? I personally think the former method is clearer, keeping more distance between the parts on each line and thus making it easier to read at a glance.
However, I have engraved it both ways, according to composer preference. Is there any historical evidence to point to one method or the other as being preferred?
-- Robert Patterson
http://RobertGPatterson.com
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
