Please discuss lesson 5 here...
Please discuss lesson 5 here...
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 ). 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?
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.
Rimsky's writing is a little obscure here: I myself find it a bit puzzling. I think what he is trying to say is:Originally Posted by JPGIII
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?
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.
Originally Posted by JPGIII
Alan Belkin, composer
Professor of Composition
University of Montreal
http://www.musique.umontreal.ca/pers...n/e.index.html (links to examples of my music, as well as my online textbooks)
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
"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.
I'm feeling incredibly dim right now.
Maybe what we need is a lexicon of Rimsky's terminology? LOL
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.Originally Posted by belkina
Right. In small intervals. Sixths are not small intervals in this case, I think.Brahms has plenty of low passages in small intervals, and, played carefully, they sound just fine.
Last edited by marnen; 06-07-2006 at 10:57 AM. Reason: Typo.
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.)Originally Posted by Poolman
Thanks for pointing this out qccowboy. I edited those examples in an attempt to make them clearer.Originally Posted by qccowboy
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
LOL, so is most of the trouble related to the translation from Russian into Human?Originally Posted by Garritan
(have you TRIED Russian? I'm tempted to say that Klingon is a breeze next to Russian!)