At 11:46 PM -0500 2/25/04, Raymond Horton wrote:
Are you sure about that Berlioz statement? Or was that just the infamous
two-horns-blown-with-bells-held-tightly-together-to-produce-a-note-not-possi
ble-any-other-way effect that Berlioz wrote about (and I've never yet seen
two players brave enough
> >Tim Cates:
> >> what I was taught in an orchestration class was that the interlocked
> >> parts had more to do with the physics of having the close harmony in
> >> the player sitting next to you
>
> There's something to that. In fact, Berlioz recommended (speaking of
> valveless horns, of co
Tim Cates:
what I was taught in an orchestration class was that the interlocked
parts had more to do with the physics of having the close harmony in
the player sitting next to you
There's something to that. In fact, Berlioz recommended (speaking of
valveless horns, of course) that the players
At 3:48 PM + 2/25/04, Robert Patterson wrote:
The second is, under no circumstances supply parts that double up
with 1/3 on a part and 2/4 on a part. Doing so gains you instant
disrespect from the horn section. And you risk losing your 2nd and
3rd parts entirely, depending on the amount of r
Mea culpa! I agree. I think I was looking through the wrong end of
the telescope! I meant to say what you said. And yes, I've looked
at--and played from--lots of 19th century horn scores, especially in
the Farkas orchestral excerpts book.
John
At 3:31 PM + 2/25/04, Robert Patterson wro
First of all, in this discussion I'm speaking only of how the parts are presented on
the page. The topic of who plays higher than whom is huge and complicated and an
entirely separate issue. The short of it is, no rigid standard should be applied to
the horns or any other section of the orchestr
John Bell:
> I do the 1/3, 2/4 thing because...
I hope I made it clear that I agree there are many contexts where this makes sense.
Personally I happen to think for homophonic chordal passages, it makes more sense to
interlock the parts (i.e. 1/2, 3/4 staves), if for no other reason than to avoi
Erm. I don't mean to be insulting or facetious, but have you actually *looked* at the
horn staves of any 19th century scores? Everything I've stated on this subject is
based neither on books nor assumptions. It is based on studying (esp.) 19th cent.
scores.
If you go back to when natural horns
At 12:19 PM -0600 2/23/04, Robert Patterson wrote:
The best I can tell, the *only* reason the horn parts are ever
routinely scored 1/3, 2/4 is due to misinformation in the Walter
Piston orchestration book that was followed as gospel by a generation
of composers and their students.
Not me. Cecil
At 12:19 PM -0600 2/23/04, Robert Patterson wrote:
The best I can tell, the *only* reason the horn parts are ever
routinely scored 1/3, 2/4 is due to misinformation in the Walter
Piston orchestration book that was followed as gospel by a
generation of composers and their students.
I doubt that,
In a message dated 23/02/2004 18:20:26 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 u
The best I can tell, the *only* reason the horn parts are ever routinely
scored 1/3, 2/4 is due to misinformation in the Walter Piston
orchestration book that was followed as gospel by a generation of
composers and their students.
Piston justified his 1/3, 2/4 recommendation based on a page of
12 matches
Mail list logo
