|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Sept 12, 2017 23:13:06 GMT
I agree with you Dave. As I used it here, the divisi occurs with just strings playing. When I reintroduce the ww's, I revert to a traditional scoring of the strings without divisi. I also learned that you should never divide to fewer than 3 on a line fwiw.
That being said, Stravinsky in "the Rite..." not only used divisi, but added anywhere from 1 to 4 soloists as well. Unreal!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 12, 2017 23:17:06 GMT
Yeah well, Rite defied conventions in more ways than one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 12, 2017 23:19:44 GMT
In my piece "Elaborate Revenge Strategies" I divided vc and va to fill out the harmony, leaving vn 1 and 2 to either unis melody or take the top harmonies. There's one moment of divisi on vn 2. It didn't sound weak to me overall, but those lower harmonies were bolstered by brass and woodwinds - dividing the vn might have fudged things. My "don't divide vn 1" is derived academically rather than from experience. Clearly, there are some situations where it'd work very well. Dave Dexter: Yeah, the same thought did cross my mind too. It would work well if only the strings are playing, or if the other instruments are thinly orchestrated. But if we're talking about a tutti at ff with blaring brass, I'd probably want to completely avoid dividing the 1sts (or whatever is carrying the main melody at the moment), and maybe even bolstering the 1sts with an octave doubling by the 2nds or the violas. I'm undecided about dividing the middle strings in this situation, though. Perhaps they could be useful to fill in any missing notes from the harmony in the middle register? Or would that be too "muddy"? Or useless if they'd be overpowered by the brass anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 12, 2017 23:21:52 GMT
Ah, the discussion moved on as I typed! That makes sense. Do you mean never divide to more than three on a line or am I misunderstanding you? I agree with you Dave. As I used it here, the divisi occurs with just strings playing. When I reintroduce the ww's, I revert to a traditional scoring of the strings without divisi. I also learned that you should never divide to fewer than 3 on a line fwiw. That being said, Stravinsky in "the Rite..." not only used divisi, but added anywhere from 1 to 4 soloists as well. Unreal!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Sept 12, 2017 23:22:42 GMT
Yeah well, Rite defied conventions in more ways than one. And then some!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Sept 12, 2017 23:27:14 GMT
Ah, the discussion moved on as I typed! That makes sense. Do you mean never divide to more than three on a line or am I misunderstanding you? Never divide to less than 3. A six player section could divide 3-3 but shouldn't divide 2-2-2. A 12 player section could divide 3-3-3-3 but I personally think that's pushing it, but 4-4-4, 6-6 would also work. Does that clear it up? I agree with you Dave. As I used it here, the divisi occurs with just strings playing. When I reintroduce the ww's, I revert to a traditional scoring of the strings without divisi. I also learned that you should never divide to fewer than 3 on a line fwiw. That being said, Stravinsky in "the Rite..." not only used divisi, but added anywhere from 1 to 4 soloists as well. Unreal!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 12, 2017 23:35:17 GMT
Got you. Less than three players, I'd thought you meant individual lines. Thanks. Never divide to less than 3. A six player section could divide 3-3 but shouldn't divide 2-2-2. A 12 player section could divide 3-3-3-3 but I personally think that's pushing it, but 4-4-4, 6-6 would also work. Does that clear it up? |
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Sept 27, 2017 18:23:45 GMT
Hi Tim, I really liked this piece. English horn solos always make me think of the famous one in Tristan. An oboist friend once referred to it as "our concerto". I think they would be similarly pleased with this one. I also really enjoyed the added 9th in measure 24.
Two niggling points. I was confused by the F-flat in measure 18. Even if it's how you are thinking harmonically, one of the string players is bound to mess that up on the first read. And I would recommend tweaking the orchestration just a tad in measure 35. It's a small thing, but the first note of the measure has 1st flute starting the return of the main melody in a not particularly strong range, competing against dissonant oboe harmony in its strong range (and clarinets similarly). Obviously there are lots of different options, but one that would not be much of a change would be to have both flutes play the first note (Eb) then divide, especially since the Bb (Flute 2) is already doubled by the oboe and clarinet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Sept 28, 2017 19:46:15 GMT
Thanks for listening and commenting, John. Glad you enjoyed it.
Great point regarding the F-flat. It was an enharmonic decision. My concern was that due to the key of the piece the E-natural would cause the players to push the pitch a bit sharp as is the natural tendency. I was concerned this would cause to much emphasis on the note whereas an F-flat would be pushed down a tad keeping the dark color I am looking for.
The flutes in 35 are doubling the violin I-II. While not being a strong range at the beginning of the phrase, they move into the upper register to a very strong area. I was hoping in real life, this would cause the sound to swell out of the thicker violin sounds.
Understand, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, just explaining the rational for my decisions. (Doesn't mean I'm right! lol)
Thanks again for taking time for this.
|
|
