Divided fiddles

[mathias broucek]

I've been listening on the tube via earphones to Kubelik's BPO Dvorak.

It's sooooo wonderful hearing the first and second fiddle parts so clearly separated. (Kubelik's BPO and BRSO Beethoven 7ths are wonderful for the same reason.)

How do others feel about divided fiddles in 19th Century music? And who are/were your favourite advocates of this on record?

[heliocentric]

How do others feel about divided fiddles in 19th Century music?

It's much preferable, a principal reason being that this is the way it would have been heard at the time, so why change it? The composer in whose work it really makes a difference as far as I'm concerned is Mahler, who made subtly audible use of it in various places so that performing his symphonies with all the violins on the left is really a mistake.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I've no strong views either way. My only reservation is that with divided violins, the second violins (often fewer in number) have their f-holes facing away from the listeners.

PS - I wonder about the finale of Tchaik. 6 being played with divided violins, resulting in the melody leaping from one side of the concert hall to the other, every quaver (unless the conductor decides the violin parts should be adapted).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I wonder about the finale of Tchaik. 6 being played with divided violins, resulting in the melody leaping from one side of the concert hall to the other, every quaver (unless the conductor decides the violin parts should be adapted).

Live or on record, I've never heard this effect working: in the seats I can afford, the sound merges so that I just hear the resulatant single line - not the "ping-pong" I imagine when reading the score. (It's not just the Violins, either: the violas and 'celli double them an octave lower, which suggests that the effect is meant to be amplified: should the violas and 'celli also be "opposed! on the platform, I wonder?) A definite timbre is obviously intended, as at letter G the effect is removed and thereafter the line is given "straight" to the 1st violins (doubled an octave lower by the Violas).

[heliocentric]

I've no strong views either way. My only reservation is that with divided violins, the second violins (often fewer in number) have their f-holes facing away from the listeners.

... which produces exactly the very slightly veiled and spatially distinct effect Mahler uses, as when (I can't remember offhand exactly when this happens) he has the first violins tacet and the seconds divided.

Anyone who's dealt with electronic music will be aware that once a "ping-pong" panning effect between speakers gets fast enough it's no longer perceptible as such, and this would be even more the case with divided violins where the inside edges of the two sound-bodies are actually not very far away from one another. I think that in the Tchaikovsky example a timbral effect is intended rather than a spatial one.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

A definite timbre is obviously intended, as at letter G the effect is removed and thereafter the line is given "straight" to the 1st violins (doubled an octave lower by the Violas).

Yes, though I've often been puzzled by the change the second time round. (You can't really cll it a recapitulation, as there's no development section up to that point.)

[Pabmusic]

I've no strong views either way. My only reservation is that with divided violins, the second violins (often fewer in number) have their f-holes facing away from the listeners.

PS - I wonder about the finale of Tchaik. 6 being played with divided violins, resulting in the melody leaping from one side of the concert hall to the other, every quaver (unless the conductor decides the violin parts should be adapted).

You are consistent: http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...light=pabmusic

[Bryn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc5ZY3VcCvM&feature=bf_next&list=PLF670AF0856F6049D

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You are consistent: http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...light=pabmusic

You mean I'm boringly repetitive.

[Hornspieler]

I've no strong views either way. My only reservation is that with divided violins, the second violins (often fewer in number) have their f-holes facing away from the listeners.

PS - I wonder about the finale of Tchaik. 6 being played with divided violins, resulting in the melody leaping from one side of the concert hall to the other, every quaver (unless the conductor decides the violin parts should be adapted).

A very good point , EA and whilst myself preferring the violins side by side there are cases where division left and right is absolutely essential and example that I can give you is the Rossini String Sonatas, where each phrase by "Violins A" is repeated by "Violins B" It would be a pointless exercise if the two sections were both on the same side of the stage. (The same goes for the finale of Rimsky Korsakov's "Capriccio Espagnol")


Tchaikovsy's writing in his symphonies may be for that reason in the example which you quote, but it was quite common for him to write in the same way for his horn section on occasion. Difficult to explain but I will try:

Say that an upper note is "di" and the octave below is "dah".
If the 1st and 3rd horns play "di-dah dah-di" slurred and (at the same time) 2nd and 4th horns play "dah-di di-dah" slurred, the result sounds like four repeated notes played really legato ie: there is no transient at all on those notes; which gives the smoothest sound possible.

My own choice would be(' from left to right), 1st violins, 2nd violins, violas, cellos (probably the least affected by "facing the wrong way") with the double basses behind the cellos and not spread across the back of the stage, behind the wind players.

But Sir Adrian Boult, for one, would not have agreed with me.

HS

[Petrushka]

Sir Adrian Boult was a stickler for having divided violins even to the extent of writing letters to the Times on the subject. When he came to record the Elgar symphonies for Lyrita in 1968 the producer twisted Sir Adrian's arm into having all the fiddles on the left much to ACB's diemay. His anger gave us a couple of volatile performances anyway.

On the subject of Elgar, I remember reading somewhere that there are passages which take advantage of the antiphonal effect of divided fiddles by having the back desks of the 1st and 2nd violins playing on their own as the music dies away. Can someone (HS, Pabmusic, Roehre) confirm this?

[jayne lee wilson]

It's essential in Beethoven 7 finale, as the fiddles toss the rhythm back and forth as momentum grows... other LvB examples too. But with say, Brahms D minor Piano Concerto, it's important to have all the violins together as they carry the weight of the first main theme's entry in an orchestra with few brass.

But of course the placing of cellos and basses becomes critical too - Russian orchestras often do it with cellos centre-left, and doublebasses further left and deeper-set. I do enjoy the effect, especially given a good string section; it's become almost a given with HIPS-bands like OAE, O18C etc.
With the RLPO Petrenko changes the layout according to what he wants, he's not doctrinaire.

[Pabmusic]

...On the subject of Elgar, I remember reading somewhere that there are passages which take advantage of the antiphonal effect of divided fiddles by having the back desks of the 1st and 2nd violins playing on their own as the music dies away. Can someone (HS, Pabmusic, Roehre) confirm this?

Happy to oblige. The 'back desk' thing comes in the First Symphony, the first time being at figure 48 - the final return of the motto theme in the first movement. Firsts, seconds and violas (last desks only) creep in in unison as the theme builds up. They join the rest of the strings at 50. In the fourth movement, the very first thing you hear is the back desks playing tremolos, the angular theme and bits of the motto theme; that continues until the Allegro begins. The last desks of firsts, seconds and violas steal in again at 129, just before the broad, very beautiful version of the staccato theme. But the surprise is at 146, the final return of the motto. Almost the whole orchestra is pounding out syncopated thumps, fortissimo, as the theme emerges again of back desks of violins, violas and cellos. They are marked ff this time and are supported by oboes, cor anglais, horns and 3rd trumpet (the latter marked mf - please feel free to throw things at any conductor who lets the 3rd trumpet blast this out). This continues until 147, when the tune has been taken over by the whole orchestra.

Here it is [FF, this is the 1908 Novello score, long out of copyright]:



This is only partly a spatial effect, as the main thing is to have the theme steal in almost unnoticed, but the platform layout does play its part, especially when the motto theme begins to make itself known from all corners simultaneously. Shortly before 146 there is several bars of 'question-and-answer' between firsts and seconds that cries out for thew whole width of the platform.

[Pabmusic]

Here's my understanding of the 'divided fiddles' thing.

The usual layout was (seen from the front) First Violins, Cellos, Violas, Second Violins, and this was more or less unquestioned until about WW2. There were exceptions. Henry Wood liked the 'modern' setup, with all violins on the left, and employed it since before WW1; no doubt following Wood's example, Beecham started to use the layout, and after WW2 used it exclusively.

Stokowski started to experiment at Philadelphia. In his case the driver was the gramophone, and he tried many layouts, all with the idea of finding a setup that allowed the best balance for clear mono recording. The Philadelphians appeared in many unusual layouts, the one I can recall is all strings on the left, in rows facing the audience, with firsts at the front, seconds behind them, then violas, cellos and basses. All wind was on the right, again in rows and facing the audience, with flutes and oboes at the front,and all brass behind the woodwind. I suppose percussion was at the back (where else?). Gradually conductors of American orchestras adopted the modern system. This was age of martinets, and people like Fritz Reiner and George Szell could achieve greater precision if all violins were on one side. (It is certainly true that it's more difficult to get good ensemble if the back desks of violins are 80' apart. Of course, the same applies to ensemble between violins and cellos, but no one seems to mind so much - perhaps we expect the cellos to be late.) In any case, the modern setup was used almost exclusively by American orchestras after Toscanini's retirement. It took a little longer in Britain, though by 1965 the modern layout was the standard one.

I haven't mentioned the rest of Europe, but in general, other countries were slower that the USA and Britain to change over, being guided by whether their figurehead conductors were of the older generation or school (Monteux, Mravinsky, Klemperer, Walter) or the newer (Karajan, Haitink, Solti). Nevertheless, it transpired that, by the 1970s, almost all the most familiar conductors were using the new layout.

And there it might have stayed if it hadn't been for the HIPP movement (which reminded people that there were proper considerations behind orchestral layout) and for a new generation of recording-savvy conductors and better editing techniques that allowed for minor blemishes to be more easily corrected. Now it's not unusual to find a conductor who will choose a layout to suit the music. That's the best of both worlds and should be applauded. As a rule of thumb, you can assume that any music written before 1940 - particularly if it's of the 'mainstream' - should have the violins split, because the composer's probably written the music with that in mind.

[salymap]

Thanks for some interesting posts explaining the history of the violin positions. I do remember a rehearsal at Maida Vale Studio where Sir Adrian became very cross because for some reason the violins were all on the left and everything had to be rearranged quickly.

Slightly off topic, I also have a vague memory of the beginning of the Sargent years where the violins of the BBCSO had to rotate seating positions at each 'prelim' rehearsal for the proms that year. I think it was for audition purposes but it wasn't popular with the musicians, naturally, in my view. The first and second violins were all on the left by then as that was what Sargent favoured.