Lesson 5 Discussion

[Garritan]

Please discuss lesson 5 here...

Gary Garritan

[JPGIII]

I have a question for any experienced composers. When discussing the Melody in Thirds and Sixes the text reads:

"The same arrangement [ , writing thirds doubled in octaves, the first and second violins should be used , ] may obtain in the viola and 'cello groups, but it is useless in the case of melody in sixths."

Could someone explain why it is considered usless to use viola/cello doubled in octaves for melodies in sixths "useless." Did I read something wrong? I would think if there was a melody line in sixths played by the Violas then cellos doubling an octave lower would only add to the fullness of the sound. Maybe I'm just not getting it (... ok well duh, I'm not getting it :D ). If there's anyone who could explain it (possibly with an example) I'd be very grateful.


Oh and Gary... THANKS for the great lessons. I'm having a lot of fun reading these. Any plans for lessons on harmony?

[Ron St. Germain]

Is there in error in score reference 27. In the book, it's Sadko, not Snegourotchka. The heading on the online score reference 27 reads "Violins 1 and 2 in unison, doubled an octave below, but the violins are actually in octaves. Example 27, Sadko, in the book has an example of violins in unison with violas doubling them an octave below. Maybe I'm just not reading this right. :confused:

[Poolman]

I have a question for any experienced composers. When discussing the Melody in Thirds and Sixes the text reads:

"The same arrangement [ , writing thirds doubled in octaves, the first and second violins should be used , ] may obtain in the viola and 'cello groups, but it is useless in the case of melody in sixths."

Could someone explain why it is considered usless to use viola/cello doubled in octaves for melodies in sixths "useless." Did I read something wrong? I would think if there was a melody line in sixths played by the Violas then cellos doubling an octave lower would only add to the fullness of the sound. Maybe I'm just not getting it (... ok well duh, I'm not getting it :D ). If there's anyone who could explain it (possibly with an example) I'd be very grateful.


Rimsky's writing is a little obscure here: I myself find it a bit puzzling. I think what he is trying to say is:

Melody in 3rds doubled in octaves is OK between 1st and 2nd violins, or between violas and cellos.

But melody in 6ths doubled in octaves doesn't work anywhere.

Anyone got a better translation?

Terry

[belkina]

This is indeed a puzzling remark. At first I thought it was simply because once you get low enough to require violas and cellos, doubling in 6ths tends to be rather heavy. But that also applies to doubling in thirds; in fact low thirds are even HEAVIER than low 6ths.

So I'd ignore this remark ... either he meant something which remains unclear, or else it just did not fit in with his own rather brilliant sound ideal. Brahms has plenty of low passages in small intervals, and, played carefully, they sound just fine.

I have a question for any experienced composers. When discussing the Melody in Thirds and Sixes the text reads:

"The same arrangement [ , writing thirds doubled in octaves, the first and second violins should be used , ] may obtain in the viola and 'cello groups, but it is useless in the case of melody in sixths."

Could someone explain why it is considered usless to use viola/cello doubled in octaves for melodies in sixths "useless." Did I read something wrong? I would think if there was a melody line in sixths played by the Violas then cellos doubling an octave lower would only add to the fullness of the sound. Maybe I'm just not getting it (... ok well duh, I'm not getting it :D ). If there's anyone who could explain it (possibly with an example) I'd be very grateful.


Oh and Gary... THANKS for the great lessons. I'm having a lot of fun reading these. Any plans for lessons on harmony?

[qccowboy]

I'm also a little confused by some of the references to "in octaves"... where I see none.
I would have taken "Melody by Violins I in octaves, with double octaves below by the Violin II in octaves with the Violas and Cellos" to mean that the 1st violin is divisi in octaves. I'm not sure what the double octaves refers to :confused:

as well:
"No. 33. Snegourotchka, Section 215, Tumblers' Dance -Violins and Violas in octaves doubled the octaves below with Cellos and Double basses."

this is a unison of 1st, 2nd violins and violas, while the celli are an octave down, and the basses yet another octave below.

:confused:

I'm feeling incredibly dim right now.
Maybe what we need is a lexicon of Rimsky's terminology? LOL

[marnen]

This is indeed a puzzling remark. At first I thought it was simply because once you get low enough to require violas and cellos, doubling in 6ths tends to be rather heavy. But that also applies to doubling in thirds; in fact low thirds are even HEAVIER than low 6ths.


A possibility: by virtue of being larger intervals, parallel 6ths are more likely to require lower notes than parallel 3rds, all other things being equal. Maybe what R-K is trying to say is that when doubled in octaves with violas and cellos, 6ths are more likely to go too low and sound too heavy than are 3rds.

...
Brahms has plenty of low passages in small intervals, and, played carefully, they sound just fine.

Right. In small intervals. Sixths are not small intervals in this case, I think.

[marnen]

Anyone got a better translation?

Terry

Better yet, anyone got the original Russian? I'm willing to try my hand at clarifying dubious passages in the translation if a copy of the original can be found. (My Russian's not great, but I seem to be able to make sense of most writing given time and a dictionary.)

[Garritan]

I'm also a little confused by some of the references to "in octaves"... where I see none.
I would have taken "Melody by Violins I in octaves, with double octaves below by the Violin II in octaves with the Violas and Cellos" to mean that the 1st violin is divisi in octaves. I'm not sure what the double octaves refers to :confused:

as well:
"No. 33. Snegourotchka, Section 215, Tumblers' Dance -Violins and Violas in octaves doubled the octaves below with Cellos and Double basses."

this is a unison of 1st, 2nd violins and violas, while the celli are an octave down, and the basses yet another octave below.

:confused:

I'm feeling incredibly dim right now.
Maybe what we need is a lexicon of Rimsky's terminology? LOL
Thanks for pointing this out qccowboy. I edited those examples in an attempt to make them clearer.

Throughout the text I have tried to simplify the Rimsky terminology and equtions, which some call RK_algebra or Rimsky calculus. It was cryptic at times an sometimes difficult to decifer. That is why we translated some of the calculus in the original text into pictures and simplified language.

I appreciate the clarification and you can be our living lexicon if you so choose :D

Gary Garritan

[qccowboy]

Thanks for pointing this out qccowboy. I edited those examples in an attempt to make them clearer.

Throughout the text I have tried to simplify the Rimsky terminology and equtions, which some call RK_algebra or Rimsky calculus. It was cryptic at times an sometimes difficult to decifer. That is why we translated some of the calculus in the original text into pictures and simplified language.

I appreciate the clarification and you can be our living lexicon if you so choose :D

Gary Garritan
LOL, so is most of the trouble related to the translation from Russian into Human?
(have you TRIED Russian? I'm tempted to say that Klingon is a breeze next to Russian!)

[belkina]

A possibility: by virtue of being larger intervals, parallel 6ths are more likely to require lower notes than parallel 3rds, all other things being equal. Maybe what R-K is trying to say is that when doubled in octaves with violas and cellos, 6ths are more likely to go too low and sound too heavy than are 3rds.

No, this is wrong. Thirds go LOWER, (think C-E, starting from the bottom notes of cello and viola), and are in fact heavier.



>>Brahms has plenty of low passages in small intervals, and, played carefully, they sound just fine.

>Right. In small intervals. Sixths are not small intervals in this case, I think.

Brahms uses plenty of sixths, as well as other intervals.

[marnen]

Well...tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbej je [I speak Klingon also], and I'd have to say Russian is easier to translate from, at least in some respects. :)

[Frodo]

I have a question for any experienced composers. When discussing the Melody in Thirds and Sixes the text reads:

"The same arrangement [ , writing thirds doubled in octaves, the first and second violins should be used , ] may obtain in the viola and 'cello groups, but it is useless in the case of melody in sixths."

Could someone explain why it is considered usless to use viola/cello doubled in octaves for melodies in sixths "useless." Did I read something wrong? I would think if there was a melody line in sixths played by the Violas then cellos doubling an octave lower would only add to the fullness of the sound. Maybe I'm just not getting it (... ok well duh, I'm not getting it :D ). If there's anyone who could explain it (possibly with an example) I'd be very grateful.


JPGIII, this was somewhat puzzling to me as well. I understand that as a rule while it is quite common and effective (depending, of course, on the effect you are after) to double a melody line in octaves in the upper strings (e.g. Vns I and Vns II in octaves) or lower strings (e.g. Cellos and Double Basses in octaves), it is generally a good idea not to double a melody in octaves in the middle strings of the orchestra (e.g. Violas and Cellos in octaves)...unless, say, the entire string section is playing tutti in octaves (usually forte) or you are wanting to create a particular effect. The reason for this is while a melody played in octaves in either the upper or lower registers of the orchestra tends to strengthen and produce a "full" type sound, melodies played in octaves in the violas and cellos have a tendency to do just the opposite, and can often create an empty or dark feeling rather than one of fullness. If a composer wanted to strengthen a melody line in, say, the Cello's tenor register by utilizing the Violas, it is generally best to either lower the Violas so that they are in unison with the Cellos or consider transposing the Cellos up an octave to the alto register so that the Cellos and Violas are playing the melody in unison in the higher octave. If this is not possible due to the nature of the melody or the nature of the piece itself, it would probably be better to give the Violas something else to do or either simply give them rests.

I wonder if this is perhaps why RK considers it "useless" to double a melody line in octaves in the Violas and Cellos--even if the melody is in 6th's in both octaves. Although there would be harmony in the melody in each octave (in 6th's), it is possible that the harmony would be too "open" (or have too many "spaces" between the notes) to create a nice full sound in this mid-register...or it could be that even though some harmony is present, the ear would still detect "perfect octaves" in the violas and cellos and the sound would be interpreted as "hollow" or "dark" rather than "full." The only other thing I can think of that RK may be referring to here perhaps has something to do with the difffering timbres of the Viola and Cello instruments themselves and how this difference in timbre might possibly somehow have an adverse effect on the orchestration scenario he is citing--?? I have not yet had the chance to experiment with this particular scenario of orchestrating a melody in 6th's and then placing it in octaves in the Violas and Cellos and so I cannot personally say at this point what psychological/emotional effects (if any) such an arrangement has on the listener. However, I intend to play around with it to find out for myself as now my curiosity has been peaked! In any event, I hope some of this helps.

P.S. I just went back over RK's comments on octaves in the Violas and Cellos and he apparently does not share the same views as Forsyth (whose remarks I was undoubtedly recalling from my younger days)...so now I am at a complete loss as to what he is referring to!

[marnen]

No, this is wrong. Thirds go LOWER, (think C-E, starting from the bottom notes of cello and viola), and are in fact heavier.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. When I said "all other things being equal", I was referring to the upper voice of the parallels being in roughly the same register. In that case, obviously, doubling at the lower 6th will go lower than doubling at the lower 3rd, and will thus create a heavier sound in some cases, particularly when further doubled at the octave.

Yes, it's possible to take 3rds down to a lower range than 6ths, but it's not likely to happen in most orchestration (unless a special effect is desired).

Brahms uses plenty of sixths, as well as other intervals.

Doubled in octaves between viola and cello? Interesting. Where?

[belkina]

I agree that in most of the standard repertoire, consistent parallels in ANY interval other than the octave (and in some styles the fifth) are quite rare in the lowest octave of the cello. I doubt there is much difference in frequency between 6ths and thirds.

As to Brahms, he has a habit of filling up his low register quite thickly, not always with exact parallels, but often with various small intervalls in somewhat contrapuntal textures. That is one of the things which gives his orchestration its characteristic sound. Examples are all over the place; have a look at (just a quick sampling, as I open the scores):

Sym. #2, first mvt., m. 44 etc. (violas and celli in close arpeggios)
Sym. #2, last mvt., m. 66 etc. (here it's bns over celli)
Sym. #3, first mvt., m. 124 etc, (celli and violas again, with basses ARCO underneath!)

I realise that these are not melodic examples of thirds or sixths consistently DOUBLED at the octave between viola and cello - that is rarer - but the SOUND involved is exactly the one we are talking about: close intervals in the low register. It's hard to imagine RK doing this, however, given his own preference for more brilliant sound, unless he wanted to portray an elephant! With Brahms it is NORMAL. Also in his piano writing, by the way.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. When I said "all other things being equal", I was referring to the upper voice of the parallels being in roughly the same register. In that case, obviously, doubling at the lower 6th will go lower than doubling at the lower 3rd, and will thus create a heavier sound in some cases, particularly when further doubled at the octave.

Yes, it's possible to take 3rds down to a lower range than 6ths, but it's not likely to happen in most orchestration (unless a special effect is desired).



Doubled in octaves between viola and cello? Interesting. Where?

[marnen]

As to Brahms, he has a habit of filling up his low register quite thickly, not always with exact parallels, but often with various small intervalls in somewhat contrapuntal textures. That is one of the things which gives his orchestration its characteristic sound.

I'm actually not completely surprised. Brahms certainly liked dark, complex textures.

Examples are all over the place

I'll check those spots out. Brahms clearly thought about the orchestra in a very different way than I do (Mozart has been a bigger influence on my orchestration), so I suspect I'll learn some interesting things from those examples.

It's hard to imagine RK doing this, however, given his own preference for more brilliant sound, unless he wanted to portray an elephant! With Brahms it is NORMAL.

Interesting, and it certainly makes sense. And come to think of it, aren't there a few Brahms orchestral pieces where the writing is so bass-heavy it either has to be handled with kid gloves or carefully thinned? I'm recalling this very dimly, and could be way off base.

Also in his piano writing, by the way.

Hmmm. The same texture often sounds less heavy on piano than in the orchestra. Perhaps this is an example of Brahms trying to write pianistically for the orchestra...

[Porgery]

Rimsky's writing is a little obscure here: I myself find it a bit puzzling. I think what he is trying to say is:

Melody in 3rds doubled in octaves is OK between 1st and 2nd violins, or between violas and cellos.

But melody in 6ths doubled in octaves doesn't work anywhere.

I agree, this is probably what he meant. And as for why a melody in 6ths can't be doubled in octaves, remember that he's talking about doubling *both halves* of a split melody. Let's call the top I, and the bottom II. When the 6th interval is doubled an octave below, the I from the lower octave and the II from the upper octave will form a 3rd -- a much closer interval, which would probably nullify the effect of the 6ths and make it sound like a melody in 3rds, inverted. Like so:

A
C
A - too close to the note above it
C

It might work if the doubling came from instruments from a different texture, but not with all strings.

- George

[belkina]

Don't you mean Koechlin's own Traite de l'Orchestration here? Which is NOT a revision of RK, but an independant and very exhaustive treatise.

.

Charles Koechlin, in his 1927 4-volume 1200 page 9 pt. type on a 9x12 page all in classical French revision of the Rimsky book as published by Max Eschig in Paris, called this, "the balance of the sonorities."

[peter269]

Don't you mean Koechlin's own Traite de l'Orchestration here? Which is NOT a revision of RK, but an independant and very exhaustive treatise.

I have all four volumes. It IS a massive revision and masterful expansion of the Rimsky book. It uses Rimksy's outline and you can see that by comparing the subheads. Prior to the work going into the Public Domain in the US, Eschig copyrighted the book in the US around 1957. It goes into the Public Domain here in roughly 2032.

[belkina]

I beg to disagree. I also have all four volumes of the Koechlin, have taught from it, and used it for more than 25 years, and it is only related to Rimsky in that it (inevitably) covers many of the same subjects. Koechlin's volume 2, for example is an exhaustive discussion of all kinds of orchestral combinations, in a style which has nothing to do with Rimsky. Volume 3 discusses orchestral textures and issues like part-writing in orchestration in unbelievably more detail than RK.

There *are* of course historical precedents for Koechlin's work: not just RK, but also, and very importantly, Gevaert, whose first book on orchestration was published (in French) in 1863. These works *all* have in common that they don't just deal with orchestration as the study of instruments, but also as the study of sound combinations.

None of this is to take away from RK's importance; it's just that calling Koechlin's gigantic and generous work a "revision" of RK is misleading. A revision implies starting from another person's work, maintaining some of it as is, adding comments, etc. - rather like what is happenng HERE. Richard Strauss' revision of the Berlioz treatise, for example, IS a revision and is named as such. Koechlin also wrote huge works on harmony, counterpoint, and various other musical subjects. While they also treat some of the same subjects as other books, they are clearly Koechlin's own work, not "revisions" of someone else's.


I have all four volumes. It IS a massive revision and masterful expansion of the Rimsky book. It uses Rimksy's outline and you can see that by comparing the subheads. Prior to the work going into the Public Domain in the US, Eschig copyrighted the book in the US around 1957. It goes into the Public Domain here in roughly 2032.

[belkina]

I'm actually not completely surprised. Brahms certainly liked dark, complex textures.

I'll check those spots out. Brahms clearly thought about the orchestra in a very different way than I do (Mozart has been a bigger influence on my orchestration), so I suspect I'll learn some interesting things from those examples. ...

Although this has little to do with Rimsky, one of the main things Brahms brings to orchestration is the general idea of making secondary, inner parts, more motivically significant. This often has the effect of saturating the texture in a somewhat contrapuntal way. (Schoenberg's ideas about total thematic integration are derived from from this tendancy, btw.)

Interesting, and it certainly makes sense. And come to think of it, aren't there a few Brahms orchestral pieces where the writing is so bass-heavy it either has to be handled with kid gloves or carefully thinned? I'm recalling this very dimly, and could be way off base. ...

As I said somewhere in an earlier post, Brahms' orchestration does require some discreet handling, but it always "works", in the sense that he gets the sound he wanted. There are also some experts in performance practice (e.g. Roger Norrington) who maintain that the string instruments in Brahms' time used gut strings, and that this had the effect of lightening the sonority.

Hmmm. The same texture often sounds less heavy on piano than in the orchestra. Perhaps this is an example of Brahms trying to write pianistically for the orchestra...

This is not likely with a composer as fastidious as Brahms. I think it is more likely the result of his preference for darker colors and for contrapuntal filling in of middle parts.

[peter269]

I beg to disagree.

Alan. We disagree.

[belkina]

Alan. We disagree.

Disagreement is for matters of taste, not for facts. I suggest you (re)read the preface to Koechlin, He mentions Gevaert in the first paragraph and Rimsky NOWHERE. He mentions some other primary sources at the end of the preface. (RK is not among them.)

Are you suggesting he "revised" RK without saying so, unconsciously, or, worse, dishonestly? That is a pretty serious charge to make, which you should be ready to back up much more solidly than you have. You also might have a look at the 2 treatises by Gevaert; their outline also is not so far from RK, and from Koechlin as well. Were they also "revising" RK? In 1863?

[marnen]

This often has the effect of saturating the texture in a somewhat contrapuntal way.

Yup. And that <em>is</em> something I try to do, despite my earlier comments about thinking of the orchestra differently from Brahms.

but it always "works", in the sense that he gets the sound he wanted.

The devil's advocate in me has to ask: How do we <em>know</em> what sound Brahms wanted? Only by what he put down on the page, in most cases. If he put down something on the page antithetical to the sound he wanted, we'd have no way of knowing unless he wrote about it (or later revised it, in which case the same questions would apply regarding the revision).

There are also some experts in performance practice (e.g. Roger Norrington) who maintain that the string instruments in Brahms' time used gut strings, and that this had the effect of lightening the sonority.

Ah, yes, hadn't thought about that. Rather like Beethoven's piano writing occasionally sounding too heavy on a modern piano because pianos in his day had a lighter sound.

This is not likely with a composer as fastidious as Brahms.

I wasn't suggesting that Brahms wasn't fastidious. I was suggesting more that he was thinking of the orchestra in slightly more pianistic terms than was warranted -- in fact, he sketched out several pieces for two pianos before orchestrating them, so we know that at least at times, his compositional process was somewhat pianistic. Perhaps it wasn't always so. I'm really not enough of a Brahms expert to be sure, as much as I love his work.

Besides, every composer makes errors of orchestration at times. Even Mozart made a few, and he wasn't pushing the orchestral envelope the way Brahms or even Beethoven did.

[belkina]

The devil's advocate in me has to ask: How do we <em>know</em> what sound Brahms wanted? Only by what he put down on the page, in most cases. If he put down something on the page antithetical to the sound he wanted, we'd have no way of knowing unless he wrote about it (or later revised it, in which case the same questions would apply regarding the revision).

We know because Brahms was an inveterate reviser, and he *was* frequently played in his own lifetime. IOW, if he did not want that sound, he had plenty of occasions to change it. He also consulted frequently with his friend Joachim on instrumental questions, and was always very concerned with getting things "just right".

I wasn't suggesting that Brahms wasn't fastidious. I was suggesting more that he was thinking of the orchestra in slightly more pianistic terms than was warranted -- in fact, he sketched out several pieces for two pianos before orchestrating them, so we know that at least at times, his compositional process was somewhat pianistic. Perhaps it wasn't always so. I'm really not enough of a Brahms expert to be sure, as much as I love his work.

Besides, every composer makes errors of orchestration at times. Even Mozart made a few, and he wasn't pushing the orchestral envelope the way Brahms or even Beethoven did.

I didn't think you were being disprespectful to Brahms. ;-) The main Brahms piece that went through the 2 piano version was the first piano concerto, a very unusual case.

Btw, Mozart DOES often "push the envelope", although admittedly in fairly subtle ways. A few of examples: the use of trombones in Don Giovanni, his very characteristic doublings (e.g. fl/bn at 2 octaves), and his very indiividual part-writing ...

[peter269]

Disagreement is for matters of taste, not for facts. Alan, I respect what you wrote, but I have a different view. We'll just have to, "agree to disagree." The subject of the lesson/thread is strings, doubling thirds and sixths, and as someone who derives his income as a writer (and a publisher - for total disclosure!), I took my time, on invitation from a press release sent to me, to add what I hope was positive useful pracitical executable input with no self-promotion on my end. And that's where I'm leaving it.

[Jeannot Welter]

Koechlin's traite is his own independant work, not a revision of Rimsky.

Jeannot Welter.

[marnen]

We know because Brahms was an inveterate reviser, and he *was* frequently played in his own lifetime.

Excellent answer.

The main Brahms piece that went through the 2 piano version was the first piano concerto, a very unusual case.

Wow, I had forgotten about the first piano concerto -- and I can think of two other cases off the top of my head: the Haydn variations and the F minor piano quintet (admittedly not exactly orchestral). So I'm not sure that the concerto is such an unusual case.

Btw, Mozart DOES often "push the envelope", although admittedly in fairly subtle ways.

I didn't say Mozart didn't push the envelope, just that he wasn't as much of a radical innovator as Brahms, Beethoven, or Haydn. That's not to say that he wasn't a brilliant orchestrator, or that he didn't achieve strikingly original effects when he wanted to ("O Isis und Osiris, schenket").

A few of examples: the use of trombones in Don Giovanni,

I'm not sure that this was pushing the envelope in quite the way I meant. Trombones were commonly used in sacred music at the time (and Mozart certainly used them with this in mind in Don G), and IIRC had already been used in other operas to similar effect. I'd have to say that their use in Beethoven's fifth symphony, though arguably less aurally arresting, was a bigger innovation, in that this was the first piece that brought the instrument out of the theater and church and into the concert orchestra (although there had certainly been solo concert pieces for trombone before this).

his very characteristic doublings (e.g. fl/bn at 2 octaves),

Is this particularly Mozartean, or simply a characteristic of a period style?

Of course, there <em>is</em> the divided-viola trick as something of a Mozart trademark.

and his very indiividual part-writing ...

Well, he certainly was firmly grounded in a good contrapuntal education. I'm not sure I follow what was so individual about his part-writing, though.

[belkina]

(re fl/bn doubling at 2 octaves)

Is this particularly Mozartean, or simply a characteristic of a period style?

Offhand I can't recall any examples at all of this in Haydn. I won't say they don't exist, but it's not part of his personal "sound".



Well, he certainly was firmly grounded in a good contrapuntal education. I'm not sure I follow what was so individual about his part-writing, though.

I have already explained this in one of my commentaries in the online RK here, but basically, to sum it up here: If you look at RK, his partwriting is straight out of a harmony textbook. Mozart's is MUCH more subtle. For example Mozart abounds in examples where an instrument starts off as a doubling, and then goes its own way at some point in the same phrase. Or starts as a pedal point and then becomes a doubling. This gives Mozart's sound what you might call a kind of "chiaroscuro", the light is always changing in subtle and fascinating ways. The key to doing this is to do it only at SIGNIFICANT places in the phrase, like a climax, a change of motive, a cadence, etc ...

Oddly enough, the classical composer whose part-writing most closely corresponds to Rimsky's principles is: Mendelssohn!

I hope this is clear ... :-)

[marnen]

I have already explained this in one of my commentaries in the online RK here, but basically, to sum it up here: If you look at RK, his partwriting is straight out of a harmony textbook. Mozart's is MUCH more subtle.

Yes, I remember reading that.

For example Mozart abounds in examples where an instrument starts off as a doubling, and then goes its own way at some point in the same phrase.

That's a technique I associate with many other composers, but not Mozart. I'll be getting out my Mozart scores now... :) Mozart is good at selectively doubling only part of a phrase, though. It's something I'm trying to learn to do in my own orchestration.

Oddly enough, the classical composer whose part-writing most closely corresponds to Rimsky's principles is: Mendelssohn!

That makes some sense. They were both a little bookish in their approach (which is certainly an odd thing to say for Rimsky).

[JPGIII]

Wow, that's a lot of replies. Gald I'm not the only person who didn't quite understand. I'll look at some of the reference material mentioned in this thread.

[jazzobizz]

I beg to disagree. I also have all four volumes of the Koechlin, have taught from it, and used it for more than 25 years, and it is only related to Rimsky in that it (inevitably) covers many of the same subjects. Koechlin's volume 2, for example is an exhaustive discussion of all kinds of orchestral combinations, in a style which has nothing to do with Rimsky. Volume 3 discusses orchestral textures and issues like part-writing in orchestration in unbelievably more detail than RK.

There *are* of course historical precedents for Koechlin's work: not just RK, but also, and very importantly, Gevaert, whose first book on orchestration was published (in French) in 1863. These works *all* have in common that they don't just deal with orchestration as the study of instruments, but also as the study of sound combinations.

None of this is to take away from RK's importance; it's just that calling Koechlin's gigantic and generous work a "revision" of RK is misleading. A revision implies starting from another person's work, maintaining some of it as is, adding comments, etc. - rather like what is happenng HERE. Richard Strauss' revision of the Berlioz treatise, for example, IS a revision and is named as such. Koechlin also wrote huge works on harmony, counterpoint, and various other musical subjects. While they also treat some of the same subjects as other books, they are clearly Koechlin's own work, not "revisions" of someone else's.
That's damn right.

[Crazykeys]

Hi Gary

Thank You for the GPO EXERCISES :)

[stevebryson]

Hi everyone - I'm having a little trouble with exercise 3 of lesson 3 (the cellos above violins exercise). If I do the simple thing and put the violins at a lower 6th they go below the range of the instrument. I tried lower 3rds in the problem area at the end but couldn't find anything that sounded good. The example solution is inspiring, but I couldn't
find a similarly nice approach without simply copying it. I'm rather dissatisfied with my end result, where I just punted in the last measure. Score:

http://homepage.mac.com/stevepur/GPO/melody-str-cellos-above-steve-score.pdf

and mp3 file:

http://homepage.mac.com/stevepur/GPO/melody-str-cellos-above-steve.mp3

I think i'm running into my very poor understanding of theory, and don't really know what "lower 3rds" means. Can anyone give me any pointers?

BTW this is still in the sketch phase, so I haven't refined mix, articulation, etc.

Thanks
Steve

[stevebryson]

Hi again - Here's my improved solution to exercise 3 lesson 5 (not 3!). It's not as beautiful as I'd like and I welcome comments and suggestions for improvements.

score: http://homepage.mac.com/stevepur/GPO/melody-str-cellos-above-steve-v2-score.pdf
.mp3: http://homepage.mac.com/stevepur/GPO/melody-str-cellos-above-steve-v2.mp3

This was greatly helped by some off-line discussion with Robert Davis. He initially suggested transposing the whole thing up and staying in low 6ths, but I already know how to do that so I tried to find a more interesting solution.

Enjoy
Steve

[belkina]

This kind of "varying" doubling - sometimes 3rds, sometimes 6ths - is good, particularly if it happens when the motive changes.

Hi again - Here's my improved solution to exercise 3 lesson 5 (not 3!). It's not as beautiful as I'd like and I welcome comments and suggestions for improvements.

score: http://homepage.mac.com/stevepur/GPO/melody-str-cellos-above-steve-v2-score.pdf
.mp3: http://homepage.mac.com/stevepur/GPO/melody-str-cellos-above-steve-v2.mp3

This was greatly helped by some off-line discussion with Robert Davis. He initially suggested transposing the whole thing up and staying in low 6ths, but I already know how to do that so I tried to find a more interesting solution.

Enjoy
Steve

[greatgreybeast]

Apart from the different background, I'm not sure I get the difference between summary exercises 1 and 2.

I do get that the idea is to experiment with a couple different approaches for each one, which I appreciate - but I'm not sure which direction to experiment in each case. There seems to be considerable, if not complete overlap in what I can do in each exercise, so why are there two of them? Is the first intended for single sections or unisons only? Something else?

-Robin