Christopher Smith wrote:
On May 12, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On May 12, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
In the rare instances where there actually are three distinct parts
for the violins (not octave-doublings of other voices) the conductor
split the firsts and seconds in this way:
The front 2/3 desks of firsts played violin 1.
The front 2/3 desks of seconds played violin 2.
The back 1/3 desks of firsts and seconds played violin 3.
This way the players playing the same parts sit together, and are
more or less evenly weighted. The concert master tells me that this
last method is overwhelmingly the most usual way of dividing three
ways....
Thanks very much for remembering the question, and for this
illuminating reply. I note, though, that the method of division
suggested only works if all the violins are seated together (the
20th-c. model). If the 1sts and 2nds are on opposite sides of the
stage (as anticipated by all composers pre-Mahler), then the "violin
3" grouping would end up being played by two widely separated bodies
of players, creating precisely the kind of ensemble-coordination
issues that Mahler hoped to avoid when he reorganized the orchl. layout.
Yes I can see that, but this was 1937, and S. certainly knew all about
Mahler (his 4th had an obvious debt to Mahler) so I think we can
reasonably assume S. was envisioning 1sts and 2nds seated together.
Although, opposite seating wouldn't kill the effect with different
planning. Firsts could be front stands on both sides, seconds back
stands to the conductor's left, thirds back stands to his right.
Christopher
Good thinking! But I'm wondering whether putting career second
violinists suddenly on first violin for such an exposed movement is a
good idea?
RBH
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
