At 8:32 PM +1000 10/01/02, Michael Edwards wrote: > 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.
Not really. Doubling the number of instruments on a line raises the volume by about 12-15% (I'm not sure of the exact figure) and it takes about 10 times the number of players playing the same dynamic as each other to double the volume. Heaviness will not be a problem. Too few players on a high line WILL be a problem, but it will be more a problem of grainy texture than balance. Of a larger concern is the doubling of the top violin line by OTHER instruments, particularly those in front. As I mentioned in another post, the best one can do is to make sure that individual sections are more or less balanced, and I am not convinced that simply splitting the seconds (or firsts, for that matter) will disturb the balance perceptibly. I once wrote for a small string section (6 firsts, 5 seconds) and I tried Darcy's idea of marking a split: 4 2 on the firsts and 2 3 on the seconds, so as to never have less than three players on a part, but the concert master told me afterward that they had ignored the numbers and simply split 3/3 in the firsts and 3/2 in the seconds, the usual way they interpret a split, based on the assumption that there were 4 different voices instead of three. Even though there six players on the middle voice, it sounded fine out front. I never did it again. If I absolutely had to, I would go a3 in the firsts and the exact same thing in the seconds, just to be sure that all parts were covered evenly, but I have never had to be so fussy with the balance and texture. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
