... > I'm convinced the whole idiotic notion of combining 1/3 v. 2/4 arose > from a generation of composition and theory teachers being guided by an > error in Walter Piston's orchestration book. Every time I've challenged > the practice, it seems that is the source that is thrown back at me. > Piston apparently advocated the practice based on a passage in Mahler > IV. What he utterly failed to mention is that Mahler scores routinely > move the parts around on the staves according to musical dictates, but > the "default" line-up was still 1/2 and 3/4, esp. in Mahler 4. > > In any case, Mahler's publisher along with just about every other > publisher of common practice music provided separate individual parts > for each player. This is by far preferable. If you must combine parts, > use the 1/2 v. 3/4 pairing and where the parts differ, place them on > separate staves even when rhythmically identical. (This approach is > common with French publishers.) Any other approach leads to > errors and frustration. > > -- > Robert Patterson
As a conductor, I find that wind players (not just horns) always hate multiple parts, even on separate staves (as Robert points out, common in French music). Maybe because there's twice as many page turns. If Piston advocates 1/3, 2/4 horns in his orchestration book, I can't find it. Several of his examples show this arrangement, mostly in Mahler scores, but other examples are the "normal" order (an example from Strauss' Elektra has horns 1/3, 2/4, 5/6, 7/8!). Mahler tends to use the 1/3, 2/4 method when that pair of horns is in unison. I imagine this was to save ink. -Lee _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
