The string section and top-down importance

It's very common for modern composers (especially younger composers, such as those who frequent this forum) to write for their strings in a top-down fashion, with the first violin always receiving a primary melodic interest and the importance of each part trickling down. When confronted about this sort of writing, many composers will argue that "it's been done this way in the past so it must be okay to do". I just wanted to point out a few reasons on why this USED to be done, along with why it is unwise and, frankly, insulting to continue the practice.

Sorry that I'm not referencing things as as I say them. I may not be an authority on the subject, but I'm going to point out many, many different things I have learned from a half-decade of scholarly research. I am making an effort to not draw unfounded conclusions, but I will make observations.

1. The pre-Beethoven orchestra seldom had a director. In Baroque orchestras, the continuo player or the soloist "directed" the orchestra. Even in a classical orchestra, Hyden and Mozart directed their orchestras from either the keyboard or the concertmaster position. The concertmaster is, essentially, the single point of focus for the entire orchestra. Thus, without a director, it makes sense that the concertmaster's (ie; the first violin's) part receive preferential treatment; everyone in the orchestra is already basing what they play upon that part.

2. Before the advent of the modern piano, the harpsichord, clavichord, and pianoforte were used within the orchestra and chamber group. These instruments had smaller playing ranges and extremely limited dynamic ranges. In a string and continuo setting, the cello generally doubles (or is closely based upon) the bassline of the continuo and the inner strings (violin 2 + viola/violin 3 [more on that below]) mimic the realisation (or a possible realisation) of the chord progression. That is, the inner voices were written more simply to not interfere with a member of the orchestra no longer present. Since even early classical orchestras employed a continuo player/section, this argument extends past the Baroque orchestra. Even Beethoven directed some of his early pieces from the keyboard.

3. The viola, pre-18th/19th C was a very inferior instrument. Anyone who studies the history of instrument advancement will see that the violin and the bow underwent radical transformations mid 18th century to accommodate more technical and expressive performances. The body of the instrument remained the same while the neck of the instrument was lengthened. The viola, however, underwent greater transformations. The Baroque viola was not well-designed for its deeper, richer tone, which generally resulted in poor projection, flat color, and a poorer choice for writing. Many composers, such as Vivaldi, replaced viola with another violin, as this instrument could be played with more accuracy and better sound. When the viola became a more viable instrument, composers spent more time writing for this rich and expressive instrument.

4. Even composers that employed the "trickle-down" technique for balancing strings also used division of work with technical viola and cello parts. There are VERY VERY VERY FEW respectable pieces that use the violin I as the only melodic string instrument.

I'll just add:

The orchestral strings should be treated as 5 separate, independent sections. The basses and cellos should never be given the same sheet of music by a modern composer. Doubling the parts is fine (there is a long tradition of this) to a point, but if all your bass parts and cello parts are the same, you really need to re-think the way you write for strings.

As a violist, I always found Vivaldis parts to be rather... bleh.

Interesting read Matt. Well said! :thumbsup:

Well, I was considering musicology as a field until Michel pointed out that my music wasn't the utter drivel my classmates constantly complained that it was.

I'll just add:

The orchestral strings should be treated as 5 separate, independent sections. The basses and cellos should never be given the same sheet of music by a modern composer. Doubling the parts is fine (there is a long tradition of this) to a point, but if all your bass parts and cello parts are the same, you really need to re-think the way you write for strings.

I'd just like to second that. Excellent point.

You make some great points too, Matt. No one should be 'restricted' in any way when they write.

Edd

The strings are the most homogenous of all the instruments, melodies can be passed back and forth without audiences being the wiser. There are, however, quirks that each instrument has, for instance the violas have a mellower tone, and the violins bright, the cello can have both depending on where you place the notes on the instrument. Octave doubling in cellos and basses has been happening for centuries, only now are we finally separating the two. Basses essentially exist to strengthen the bass line and keep the balance from going top heavy. Still, basses get alot of empty measures, maybe that's because composers don't really know what else to do with it.

There are, however, quirks that each instrument has, for instance the violas have a mellower tone, and the violins bright, the cello can have both depending on where you place the notes on the instrument.

You know, it's ideas like these that cause half the viola repertoire to consist of pieces called "Elegy". You can make any of them sound bright or mellow if you use them well. Yes, violins do tend to be a little brighter, violas a little mellower (and I think cellos are usually mellower than violas), but please do not write thinking, "Oh, this is for viola, so it'll sound mellow!"

I meant to say slower to respond, does that make sense? Think of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony, the first movement when the violas enter with the melody, he could have just as well put it in the cellos, but the violas lend this melancholy character that the cellos can't touch! There are so many places in that symphony where the violas make the piece, because of their nasal-biting quality. Sorry to offend.

The strings are the most homogenous of all the instruments,

I can hear that, but it's so rare for a saxaphone in the contemporary orchestra. It would work for Wind ensembles that include sax, mostly symphonic bands.

Flint, I tend to disagree. I think it's a subjective thing. You can't objectively say the sax or clarinet family is more homogeneous than the strings. I personally feel the clarinets are the most close sounding, than the strings, and finally the saxes... well... I think they all sound completely different. Soprano is my favourite since it has a very unique sound, alto just sounds like alto sax, not just saxophone, tenor a is bigger more robust sound, bari is just like a farting chain saw (yes, I've heard really good players, I feel rather strong about this). With the clarinets, a high bass clarinet actually DOES sound mistakably like a Bb clarinet in the chalameau if it catches you off guard, and a contrabass in its high register sounds almost exactly like a bass clarinet (to me). This things aren't objective.

I think a further point to be made on this subject is in regards to the orchestra as a whole.

Write for every instrument that you are using! Do not double things just to double them. Do not copy and paste parts, in lazy orchestration. There will be times that things will be doubled, and that's perfectly acceptable. There will be times when the entire orchestra will be playing the same pitch (maybe....) But these things should happen for a reason, and you should be aware of what you're writing when you're writing it.

I haven't written a full orchestra piece, but this seems like common sense, that's only common because I've written for smaller ensembles.

Still, basses get alot of empty measures, maybe that's because composers don't really know what else to do with it.

Well, empty measures can sometimes be as important as full ones. When you have a long passage without any low bass and then let the contrabasses set in, it's like suddenly opening the room more widely, which has a much more striking effect than if they were playing all the time. (The same goes for other low-bass instruments, as well as horns, who have a similar effect of "creating room" when they set in, because of their backwards orientation which means their sound is received primarily via room reflections and not directly from the instrument.)

But even aside from these room considerations, register spread (along with dynamics) is one of the most elementally perceived aspects of music, and has a very fundamental influence on how a musical form is perceived, so it's often worthwhile not to use the full available range all the time, if you want some clearly perceived variety. So I think leaving away stuff can often be at least as important as filling everything up with great ideas.