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
On May 14, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Raymond Horton wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
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
At 11:32 AM -0400 5/14/06, Raymond Horton wrote:
Good thinking! But I'm wondering whether putting career second
violinists suddenly on first violin for such an exposed movement is
a good idea?
I don't know the piece, so can't comment specifically. Generally,
however, it would depend on
My daughter, the violinist, who is here right now using my real computer ,agrees with you. She says the only problem with the stereo setup for this three violin section would bethe extreme separation between 2nds and 3rds.
In my orchestra, other than this unusual situation we have been
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
On Apr 4, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Thanks to all who responded to this. The concensus seems to be that my
first idea was best, so that's how I'll go.
I would like to hear how the Shostakovich is set up though...
Whew!
Long time waiting for this answer. The original
Thanks to all who responded to this. The concensus seems to be that my
first idea was best, so that's how I'll go.
I would like to hear how the Shostakovich is set up though...
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
On Apr 4, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Thanks to all who responded to this. The concensus seems to be that my
first idea was best, so that's how I'll go.
I would like to hear how the Shostakovich is set up though...
I'm playing it in a couple of weeks, so I will look at the
Another example comes to mind: the beginning of the third act of
Britten's Midsummer Night's Dream. Here the three part divisi is
written in full in both the 1st and 2nd violin parts.
Michael
On 4 Apr 2006, at 19:25, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Thanks to all who responded to this. The concensus
I would probably do as you suggest. If you have no specific information
as to how the composer wanted this divisi to be distributed it's best
to have all three parts in every violin part and let the conductor
decide who plays what.
Michael
On 3 Apr 2006, at 22:21, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I'm
I would concur with Michael. Especially since it is only 56 measures.
There is no obvious 3-way split in the violins of a modern orchestra,
and giving it to everyone, as in your tentative solution, would be
the best solution, I think. The only drawback is the size of the parts,
and considering
Just as another alternative, you could put parts 1 and 2 in the first violin part and parts 2 and3 in the second part. This would be visually easier to read, make the parts shorter, and still allow the conductor to decide on exactly who should play what. Erica Buxbaum Encinitas, California
At 6:00 PM -0400 4/3/06, Christopher Smith wrote:
In shows (not the best model, I would agree) it is common to have
three equally-manned violin parts, and split the seconds when there
are just two parts to be equally divided. Since the 3-way is the
exception in your case, not the rule, this
I've always wondered how the 3rd mvt of the Shostakovitch 5th, which has
three vln parts, is printed, but I never think to run over and look at
the violin parts when I've been in an orchestra that has played it
(which has been about ten times!). I have observed that it is often
played with
14 matches
Mail list logo
