Number of strings

How do composers determine the number of strings they want (which they don't necessarily get) in their works?

I.e. Lachenmann in Nun wants 16.8.8.8.8, Xenakis in ST/48-1,240162 wants 8.8.6.6.4, Boulez in Éclat/Multiples specifies 0.0.10.1.0, Livre pour cordes has the standard 16.14.12.10.8... String counts are all over the place – we could mention works with no violas or no second violins and so forth.

OK, they want a sonority. But what kind of sonority? And what if I added two more violas or subtracted 2 cellos from the specified number? Would it make an audible difference?

How do they get to these very specific numbers?

They meditate under a waterfall for many days and, suddenly, the numbers come to them.

They meditate under a waterfall for many days and, suddenly, the numbers come to them.

Yes. Probably. :)

Next one!

Because they want to seem different and cool. :cool: Most composers use standard string sections.

Yes, they are trying to do something specific. These composers aren't just "cool and different." They were/ are very smart. Listen to the piece, look at a score, and find out what they are doing.

First, I don't see why coming up with an exact number of string players is more "arbitrary" than coming up with a precise rhythm for bar 58 of a piano sonata. Whether it's audible depends on many factors: The larger the section the less audible it gets. Most people hardly will hear a difference between 16 and 18 first violins, but the difference between 6 and 8 is quite a lot bigger and is definitely audible. (But also never just assume your own hearing as the standard. Most people here have actually never sat down with a string section and tried out various size combinations and listened to them. Me included. But some of those people may have - especially Boulez and maybe Lachenmann. Boulez works a lot with orchestras and ensembles as a conductor and I would certainly think he has the ear to differentiate there.)

Furthermore, keep in mind that much orchestral music in the 20th section works with excessive divisi, sometimes one part per string player. I'm not too familiar with any of those pieces, but I wouldn't put it past any of those composers to have worked with strings that are separated like this there. (At the least, Xenakis very often did this.)

(When that's the case throughout a piece though, there usually isn't such a thing as "first violins" and "second violins" in the first place though. Just violins.)

And even in divisi passages where you don't have individual strings, the number differences come to play much stronger.

The effect of entirely leaving out violins or another instrument should be obvious to anyone really, as much as just having a single player. So I don't see how Boulez' piece is even a question here.

Also note that Lachenmann and Xenakis still have the typical "reduction by two" setup, just that they start with different maximal numbers and keep the number the same for some instruments, which is not uncommon at all.

16.14.12.10.8 is far from "the standard", when you look broadly at orchestral practice and don't just listen to the standard large romantic orchestra. There are tons of orchestra with smaller numbers, be that orchestra that focus on ancient music, more chamber-musical performances, contemporary music, or simply don't have the money for such large numbers. And very often composers write for a very specific orchestra, with a rather specific setup, which can be the whole reason why you write for a specific number of strings. Sure, those are big names that should be able to get "good, big orchestras" if they wanted, but even the most famous composers sometimes have to "work with what's available". So I'd highly question the sentence "most composers write use standard sting sections". Most composers use the string sections they get. Not saying that's the case here though. It may very well be a deliberate decision. It's really impossible to say without actually studying the pieces and maybe the commentary by the composers.

In Xenakis' case, the number of musicians is even in the title and has some meaning. One can't just ignore this meaning when judging the string setup here for example.

By the way: "It's the standard" is, IMO, a highly questionable justification of composing in a certain way. Unless you can say why 16.14.12.10.8 is inherently better than 16.8.8.8.8 how do you justify writing for the first number without considering the latter? (Keeping in mind that the latter will likely be easier to perform.)

You are totally ripping apart and dissecting my post without the need. :D You got lost in details.

First, I don't see why coming up with an exact number of string players is more "arbitrary" than coming up with a precise rhythm for bar 58 of a piano sonata.

That's exactly the question - this is not arbitrary. It is very precise. Nevermind that those numbers are rarely used in performances, but these people had specific ideas in mind. I asked why.

The effect of entirely leaving out violins or another instrument should be obvious to anyone really, as much as just having a single player. So I don't see how Boulez' piece is even a question here.

My mistake. :)

16.14.12.10.8 is far from "the standard", when you look broadly at orchestral practice and don't just listen to the standard large romantic orchestra.

Yes, I was unclear. But as I said, in an actual performance these numbers vary. A lot. 16.14.12.10.8 is a "typical" late Romantic orchestra, as you note correctly, if a "typical" setup can be made at all. :) No need to rip this statement apart. Baroque and classical, for example, have different numbers.

So I'd highly question the sentence "most composers write use standard sting sections".

Who said that? :blink:

It may very well be a deliberate decision. It's really impossible to say without actually studying the pieces and maybe the commentary by the composers.

Very true. But have in mind that this wasn't asked because there is only one right answer. I wanted to know some (diverse and diverging) thoughts.

By the way: "It's the standard" is, IMO, a highly questionable justification of composing in a certain way. Unless you can say why 16.14.12.10.8 is inherently better than 16.8.8.8.8 how do you justify writing for the first number without considering the latter? (Keeping in mind that the latter will likely be easier to perform.)

Who said that? I didn't. Is this a question for me?

There is a similar thread about "Number of Strings"

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/number-string-players-orchestra-18648.html

But I don't blame you... search funtion seems not to be working well enough,

You only have to thing in very specific number of players in you are going to divide the sections in several (more than 2) sub-sections.... like Zarathustra or something....That's what I guess...

Kubla Khan: I was in no way trying to "rip apart" your post. I actually find it a legitimate question. Many of my statements were much more directed at some of the other posters in this thread (Max Castillo and possibly Xeno, depending on how one interpretes the sarcasm), who seemed to insinuate that those composers didn't actually know what they were doing. "Most composers write use standard string sections" for instance, was something Max Castillo said.

Actually I said "most composers use standard string sections". By that I meant Vln I & II, Va, Vc, Cb. Very few concern themselves with the exact numbers of string players or with adding/subtracting them. When I said they do it to look cool I thought it was obvious that it was a joke.

Ah well :P But you'll have to admit that on this forum it sometimes can be hard to differentiate between jokes and derisive remarks. (Actually, not just on this forum. Make that "the internet".)

yes, that's why I began to using the faces :) :laugh: etc.... that helps no ?

I usually leave it up to the conductor. Once a piece is composed, there is only so much more a composer can do. Unless the conductor is completely inept, why not leave it to him to decide the balance? This is coming from a string player, who has played in different settings. Sometimes it depends on the actual individual players, some players are stronger, in the sense of the tone they produce. Strong players should be evenly placed if at all possible, this is usually only a problem in schools where they are still developing technique, in college it becomes less of a problem.