Why the 1sts?

Hi YC

I'm just wondering- with the exception of some composers, there are also composers that just don't give melody to anyone but the 1st violins in a string piece. Then 2nds and Violas are playing drones or plunk plunk plunk, whilst the cellos are getting a thing here, a thing there, with the basses resting until a pizz is needed. I just don't get it!

It seems as if some people think that the best players in the orchestra have to get all the melodies. I beg to differ, but I think that's all not true.

Tell me what you think- should the 1sts get the melody all the time, most of the time, a little bit more than the others, or equal to everyone else?

Heklaphone

Nobody "should" get any melody by default. Orchestrate however you see fit for your musical idea. If that means always giving the first violins the "main melody", fine. If not, fine too. (Which is why none of the answers in your poll make sense to me.)

If however you simply give the first violins always the main parts simply because it's common, or simply because you're too lazy to think deeper into orchestration and this is the easiest solution, then it might be a good idea to consider how some other options might benefit your concept a bit more.

Most orchestras I have been a put of use an audition process that mean the best Violinists are the 1st and the rest the 2nds.

There is nothing wrong with giving 2nds melodies. However, when I did all my tonal studies exercises on how to write in Baroque/Classical styles, the rules was the crossing of parts does not happen. So if you think of the String family as SATB then the 2nd violins would be the Altos and would not go above the 1sts - makes it harder to give them the melody. So, for me, when I approach my String writing, I tend to follow the same ideas and guidelines so my 2nd violins rarely go above my 1st.

By "above" do you mean higher pitch?

Ok here's my 2 cents....

Never assume the 2nd's are any lesser violinists than the 1st's. What often happens is the 1st's get the pretty parts, the parts that look and sound hard but really are all for show. The 2nd violins, on the other hand, get the stuff that sounds easy but in reality is very difficult. I feel that the 2nd violins are a lot like basses....a lot of people take them for granted and don't realize how much they do and don't realize that if they weren't there the music wouldn't be half as beautiful.

By "above" do you mean higher pitch?

Yeah, I don't cross my parts - or if I do, its for one note or two notes. For example, my 1sts have an G above the staff, my 2nds will be below it.

As its been said above though, don't underestimate 2nds. I use to be a 2nd myself and the time we played a medley from The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - we had the best bits :lol:

In compositional practice (as opposed to exercises) parts can and do cross (more often). But the rule makes you aware of this, so you don't (over-)use it arbitrarily / by accident, since it could obscure the parts and lead to confusion and imbalance. The rule makes you look for other possible solutions. Every rule, be it CPP or not, can be broken when there is a reason/justification for doing that.

I'd like to know where Heckel got his info... often the 2nds get the melody, but in octaves, and parts do cross and melodies intertwine often...

Mahler uses the two sections antiphonally a lot and thus intertwine a whole lot.

I don't think that one is lesser than another musically, however, because of the setup on the stage, the 2nds will always be slightly inferior to the 1sts because their either farther back or turned the wrong way (if set up traditionally or antiphonally respectively). One useful rule my orchestration teacher had was whenever there's a three-part divisi for all the violins, give the middle part to the 2nds and two outer parts to the 1sts. That way, all three parts would balance each other.

My rule: if there's no other compelling reason to do so, the 1st should get the melody if they are the top voice. Otherwise, give it to the 2nds.

I don't think that one is lesser than another musically, however, because of the setup on the stage, the 2nds will always be slightly inferior to the 1sts because their either farther back or turned the wrong way (if set up traditionally or antiphonally respectively).

It should be noted however that in the traditional antiphonal seating, the loudness difference between first and second violins is very small (at least below 1000 Hz where the violin sound propagates more or less in all directions equally), whereas the dampening produced by sitting behind the first violins in the modern seating is about 5dB! The main difference between first and second violins in the antiphonal seating is not loudness, but colour:

As mentioned, below 1000 Hz violins don't have a very directed sound. This changes however quite a lot in the higher frequencies, i.e. especially for the overtones. The higher the frequency, the more narrow and directed is the propagation. This means that when the violins are "turned the wrong way", their lower frequencies (i.e. generally the fundamentals of the notes they play) will be more or less as loud as the first violins, but their higher overtones will be dampened somewhat, giving them a slightly darker sound.

In effect, this means that the second violins will get a timbre that gets a bit closer to the violas like this, creating a much better continuum between violins and violas than with the "modern" seating. This gives you a general string sound that is more tied together, but at the same time more differentiated - and at the same time it gives you more options for choosing between different string colours.

This is why in such a seating, using second violins instead of the first may have similar reasons as choosing violas instead of violins: Simply to get a different colour. (Next to the obvious reason of the composer wanting certain spatial effects.)

This is one of the reasons why in most cases I prefer the antiphonal seating to the Stokowski variant.

Of course, it should also be noted that "the melody" doesn't have to be the top voice. If you have some other stuff on top of the main melody which you want in the violins, and still want a "violin melody", giving said melody to the seconds would be the obvious choice.

I personally believe all instruments have right to melody and this is pretty easy to see - I play bassoon and write solos for basses and tuba's in my orchestral music. In regards to the idea that the seconds are not as good as the firsts, I always thought that was how it works in high school and college level orchestras. I would assume that the first and second violinists in the professional world are equally competent in technique. But that is besides the point.

It really depends on the music when it comes to how often the violins get the melody. I often find it more effective to give the firsts filigree and the second violins the melody, or better yet, the Violas the melody because they can produce a richer sound, but that's just opinion.