[Darcy James Argue:]
>Hmm... the top line is already doubled in the flute. The violas double the
>top line 8vb, doubled with clarinet. Plus, I suspect (and it's infuriating
>to not know this for certain...) that those two winds will be amplified.[1]
Well, as the composer or arranger, can't you *specify* what is to be
amplified, and what is not? Or if that is highly dependent on the acoustic
conditions at particular venues, at least make the intended balance clear, so
that that can inform any decisions the conductor or players may make about
amplification.
If you are sure that the three-way division is what you want, that it gives
the best balance, etc., I would insist upon it. I would find it difficult to
believe that a clear way could not be found of communicating such a simple
intention. And if an even, three-way balance is the intended effect, I would
have thought having all the first violins on one part and the seconds divided
between the other two parts would not be very well balanced, and would make the
top part top-heavy, and overshadowing the other parts.
The way I would consider notating it would be just to notate the passage
exactly as if it were divided into three different parts - and you could then
just make two of the parts the same, possibly even sharing the same note-heads,
with stems going both up and down to indicate two different parts. For more
than a few notes, probably two staves would be better than one, although it
would depend on the complexity of the parts.
Another possible solution might work if the parts are the same in rhythm,
and can thus share the same note-stems - it's one I've seen in scores by Mahler,
although admittedly I think I've seen it mainly in wind parts, where 3 or 4
flutes (for example) might share a staff and sometimes two instruments might
play the same note. This method is simply to put duplicate noteheads on either
side of the stem to indicate the notes which two parts play. But I suppose this
would be awkward and clumsy for extended passages; however, if the passage is,
as you say, quite brief, it might be feasible.
Alternatively, you could just specify the exact number of players for each
part, and put the appropriate numbers against each part. Szymanowski's Violin
Concerto no. 1 uses so many fine divisions of the strings that it uses this
method exclusively (using separate staves where appropriate), rather than the
more usual "div.", "div. a 3", etc. I've just gone and looked at the score, and
you might have 2 or 3 or 4 staves bracketed together and labelled "Vni I", "Vni
II", etc.; then, in front of each staff, you have a number enclosed in
parentheses, such as "(4)", "(3)", or whatever, indicating the number of players
who play that staff. For the sake of consistency, Szymanowski continues this
method even when the division does just amount to a simple division in the
normal manner. So, at least for your three-way-divided passage, this is another
possible solution. (I seem to recall Don Banks' Violin Concerto goes so far as
to number every single string player, and labels staves with a range of numbers,
such as "5 - 8", and the like. That may be overkill, though, for most
situations, and Don Banks' concerto was in a serial style, and seems to be
obsessive about the tiniest, precise details.)
If you decide that none of these methods is appropriate, or sufficiently
clear, then write a footnote in to explain what you want. It may be less
orthodox than to notate your intentions in standard notation - but I feel it's
better to be clear than orthodox, if you have to choose between them.
>Will it really cause that much confusion to divide the violins three ways
>instead of two?
If the orchestra and conductor are reasonably skilled, I would have thought
the answer to this would depend on how clearly it was notated.
>Doesn't this happen often enough in the standard rep that
>everyone knows what to do?
It's not exactly common in the standard repertoire (at least as far as I've
seen in my own large collection of scores from over two centuries or so), but I
would certainly not shy away from it for that reason. I'm sure it must be
possible to make your intentions quite clear in some way, as I suggested above.
I did once see an unorthodox, but quite clear, solution to the problem, in
Symphony no. 1 by Australian composer George Dreyfus. The three-way division of
the violins lasts for the entire middle movement, so Dreyfus actually just wrote
three parts labelled "Violin I", "Violin II", and "Violin III". Perhaps a bit
unconventional, but perfectly clear: the only way you could read it was that the
entire group of violins (I and II combined) were, for that movement, to be
divided into three equal portions.
I do grant, though, that this would not be a good solution for anything
less than an entire movement.
Regards,
Michael Edwards.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
