# Orchestrating 1st and 2nd Violins



## JonFairhurst (Apr 3, 2007)

I'm curious about how people approach the orchestration of first and second violin sections.

My intuition tells me that the 1st violin section will have the superior players (and maybe superior egos), and that playing at the highest register is harder than the same line an octave lower. 

So, let's say your piece includes a violin line that is played normally, and then it is repeated with the other section doubling the line an octave higher. Do you normally orchestrate the melody for the first violins and the octave doubling for the seconds, or vice versa?

I'm leaning toward the first violins playing the melody, and the seconds joining in for these reasons:

* When played live the audience sees the violins at the front of the stage playing the whole melody.
* The second violins are quieter, so the octave double is more subtle.
* The ego of the first section is stroked by not sitting around and playing the primary part, even if they don't play the more difficult fingering.

I guess one could have the first violins play the melody first and the octave double second while the second section joins with the melody, but this wouldn't be as smooth.

So, how do you (or the composers whom you have studied) normally approach this?


----------



## Mark Belbin (Apr 3, 2007)

Jon,
I was told that regardless, high lines in the violins should always be doubled an octave lower for tuning re-enforcement. I broke that rule, and consequently failed my orchestration assignment. This was not simply due to breach of protocol: There exists somewhere on a retired professor's shelf a tape to prove that this is an immesly important practice. . you're correct that the firsts are generally better players than the seconds, and for that reason, they should be given the more difficult part, which, when discussing octave-doubled melody, will almost always be the higher.

Also worth noting: (I think this was winds, but may apply to violins, or divison within any other string section). At one point in another performance, I had my 2nds enter prior to my firsts. In a youth ensemble or amateur situation, this can cause havoc, as inexperienced 2nds can come to rely on the safety blanket of the firsts. So the firsts, while they should play the higher of octave lines, should also enter first (if they have to enter seperately) where you're not dealing with a top-notch group. So ultimately, your decision is to be made based on entrances and register. They might go hand in hand and they might run contrary, which is when it gets tough.

edit: and don't even worry about egos or stage positioning. Being that the firsts are a larger group, you may divide them, or mark their parts with a lower dynamic, if you want the upper octave to be more subtle.


Hope that helps.

Belbin


----------



## Mark Belbin (Apr 3, 2007)

Oh, and in answer to your question:

Your first statement would be firsts, at the desired octave.

Your second statement would be firsts, 8va, with the seconds joining at the pitch at which the fists played the first statement.

That's how I'd do it, if some other element of the piece didn't prevent it.

-Belbin


----------



## synthetic (Apr 3, 2007)

Interesting point about entrances and tuning. Thanks for your insight.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 4, 2007)

Mark,

Thanks for your insights. The only downside would be that the transition wouldn't be quite as smooth as simply adding the 8va line with a new section, but then again, change is often a good thing. Rather than simply slapping another layer on the cake, your solution would be a true variation on the first statement.

Thanks!


----------



## Mark Belbin (Apr 4, 2007)

JonFairhurst @ Wed Apr 04 said:


> Mark,
> 
> Thanks for your insights. The only downside would be that the transition wouldn't be quite as smooth as simply adding the 8va line with a new section, but then again, change is often a good thing. Rather than simply slapping another layer on the cake, your solution would be a true variation on the first statement.
> 
> Thanks!



Glad to be of help. Don't forget that since the real world will frequently involve some sort of tradeoff, you may get away with your desired approach by using another section of the orchestra for that tuning re-enforcement I mentioned. As for the discontent of any players not being uses to your style of player prioritization, the real world often involves rehearsal (my orchestration projects did not), which can remedy a lot of that.

Belbin


----------



## John DeBorde (Apr 4, 2007)

just to throw a little food for thought out there:

I've seen in some of the Williams study scores where he has both the 1sts & 2nds doubling 8ves - ie playing the same part, rather than splitting it across the two sections.

I assume this gives a broader, fuller sound, but would anyone know the specifics of why this effect would be chosen?

TIA,

John


----------



## Mark Belbin (Apr 4, 2007)

synthetic @ Tue Apr 03 said:


> Interesting point about entrances and tuning. Thanks for your insight.



hehe. it didn't help my grade that I was transcribing a shostakovich piano piece in Db major for high strings.

BTW, sharp keys are good. Flat keys are bad. At least for readthroughs!

Belbin


----------



## Mark Belbin (Apr 4, 2007)

John DeBorde @ Wed Apr 04 said:


> I assume this gives a broader, fuller sound, but would anyone know the specifics of why this effect would be chosen?



Never thought of that. If it is possible to play the line like that (not too fast, etc) then it may be needed for balance, say if the brass is wailing away full stop on the same melody. In a full throttle octave/unison tutti this would almost always be desirable. I would think william's justification here would be balance, though. Depends on the context.

Belbin


----------



## John DeBorde (Apr 4, 2007)

Mark Belbin @ Wed Apr 04 said:


> John DeBorde @ Wed Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> > I assume this gives a broader, fuller sound, but would anyone know the specifics of why this effect would be chosen?
> ...



to clarify - the sections are not playing 8ves, but are rather divisi with each stand doubling at the 8ve, in both the 1st & 2nds.

in regards to balance, did you mean that there would be an equal number of players on each note, as opposed to if it was split across the sections, there would be say 16 1sts on the high melody and 14 2nds on the 8ve below, or were you thinking of something else?

just want to make sure we're on the same page here...

-john


----------



## Mark Belbin (Apr 4, 2007)

John DeBorde @ Wed Apr 04 said:


> to clarify - the sections are not playing 8ves, but are rather divisi with each stand doubling at the 8ve, in both the 1st & 2nds.
> 
> in regards to balance, did you mean that there would be an equal number of players on each note, as opposed to if it was split across the sections, there would be say 16 1sts on the high melody and 14 2nds on the 8ve below, or were you thinking of something else?
> 
> ...



I see what you mean now. I thought you meant octave double-stops, and my reference to balance meant competing with louder section such as brass by sheer virtue of more notes in total being played by the violins. Now that I understand, I can only think of three reasons for this approch:

1) As you said, and equal number of players on each note, for an even balance between octaves.
2) Space. The octaves will come from everywhere within the two violin sections, giving the impression of doublestops (without the extra volume), where there is no discernable difference between the firsts and seconds in terms of stereo placement.
3) Stronger reference pitch. The 1st violin section player on the left of the stand (from the audience perspective) is not forced to listen "over his shoulder" to the second violin section, past a stand-mate who is also playing the high octave, but out of tune. In your scenario every high-octave player in each of the two violin sections has a stand-mate next to him on the low octave that he/she can hear clearly for pitch reference. This may well be a time consideration in expensive recording circumstances. Probably helps to get it right the first time.

Thanks for clarifying.

Belbin


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 4, 2007)

If I ever get AI (yeah, right), I'll take the divisi approach. But for now, with samples, I like the plan of 1sts, then 2nds playing the lower part.


----------



## atmajian (Apr 5, 2007)

When I orchestrate the string section, the only rule that I personally apply to my work is that there are no rules. Divisis depend not only on the string texture needed for the cue, but on the size of the orchestra, the size of the string section, and resonance you want to create as well. When needing the "condensed" violins sound, I use the 8va doubling for each stand, while for the "separated" octaves, I use the section divisi. The difference is especially noticeable in Decca recordings of the orchestra and I always inform my recording engineer of the types of divisis that will be used in the track that is to be recorded. 

Also, what I often do is the splitting of the 1sts and 2nds by stands. This creates kind of a "chaotic" resonance and is very useful for hard disonance.

Another thing is the doubling between the violas and 2nds, whether 8va 2nds over violas, or unison.

It all really depends on the type of string texture you need at a ceratin point. There are countless combinations and they all create subtle nuances which can play out beautifully when interchanged within the same piece. Also, don't forget the configurable sizes of the string sections with the appropriate financial resources. I once assembled a 28-player violin section resulting in countless orchestrating possibilities, and the amount of sweep at leading lines was needless to say overpowering.

What Mark Belbin said about the stand 8va doubling is true - another reason why I do it is the possibility of mid-cue divisi switches, in terms of split-types.

Regarding egos - the conductor was the boss the last time I checked.


----------



## James Turner (Apr 8, 2007)

our rule:

If 2nd violins doubles the 1st, 
the 1st violons must be always 1 oct. higher (or the 2nd 1 oct. lower) - not vice versa.

This applies only, if a wider sound is wished, else 1st and 2nd are playing the same line and few colorizing is done with woodwinds.


----------



## Necromancer (Apr 12, 2007)

I usually make them equally important. For example, in Allegro tempo sometimes I'll want to make a 16th-note run. Usually I'll make the 1st violin play the melody and make the 2nd violins play the lower 3rd/5th harmony. Or possibly make a 2-part fugue in the violins.


----------



## Mark Belbin (Apr 13, 2007)

Necromancer @ Thu Apr 12 said:


> I usually make them equally important. For example, in Allegro tempo sometimes I'll want to make a 16th-note run. Usually I'll make the 1st violin play the melody and make the 2nd violins play the lower 3rd/5th harmony. Or possibly make a 2-part fugue in the violins.



OhNo!! While we were discussing octaves I was secretly hoping no one would open a can of other intervals! We've seen how tough the choices can be for octaves alone. Now I fear the worst!

Necro: You mean you put the seconds below, right? That's what I thought. :D 

Belbin


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 13, 2007)

1st violins would play the melody first down, then up.

Side thought: Second violins in real orchestras or string quartets are played with a different sound quality than 1st violins, and this can be emulated quite well by EQing. Their sound is less fat than the 1st violins but needs to be more clear since they have the lower notes most of the times. Both together mixes very well then.

Also they are often louder than one would think and on other passages softer than one would think.

Seating: The traditional seating with the 2nd violins behind the 1st violins has its advantages if they have to play very tightly, runs in intervals like thirds etc. like in many classical pieces. The communication is simply better than across the stage.

Second violins at the right half of the stage has its merits for opera, romantic and epic music (octaves). The stòÆ   V¶”Æ   V¶•Æ   V¶–Æ   V¶—Æ   V¶˜Æ   V¶™Æ   V¶šÆ   V¶›Æ   V¶œÆ   V¶Æ   V¶žÆ   V¶ŸÆ   V¶ Æ   V¶¡Æ   V¶¢Æ   V¶£Æ   V¶¤Æ   V¶¥Æ   V¶¦Æ   V¶§Æ   V¶¨Æ   V¶©Æ   V¶ªÆ


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 14, 2007)

Jon,

I think in terms of the sound since single vrs 8va doublings are so distinctive as in:

single violins or

doubled at the octave below in 2nd violins or

tripled downward by adding violas (or violas and cellos in unison) or

(The John Williams favorite): a 4 octave spread with cellos on the lowest part (Star Wars.)

I didn't think you were looking for a carved in stone rule but it seemed some professor suggested it or something of the like.


----------



## jorgen (Apr 14, 2007)

About "why would Williams write both 1st and 2nd vl groups in octaves";

Could have to do with the placement of the string sound in the stereo perspective. Yes a broader sound as you suggest.

All players in those sessions are excellent; or they wouldn't get the gig (more than once)...

When writing divisi, don't subdivide groups to less than 5 players per part or it'll get too thin/chamberish.


----------



## Necromancer (May 1, 2007)

Mark Belbin @ Fri Apr 13 said:


> Necromancer @ Thu Apr 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I usually make them equally important. For example, in Allegro tempo sometimes I'll want to make a 16th-note run. Usually I'll make the 1st violin play the melody and make the 2nd violins play the lower 3rd/5th harmony. Or possibly make a 2-part fugue in the violins.
> ...


Well keeping them an octave apart seems a little boring, for the audience and the string player. This is just my opinion, I guess 3rd/5th below is pretty boring too. I was going for more of a shredding metal solo feel, just with a violin. I think that would be rather interesting to hear, if you can find a violinist that can pull it off.


----------



## mducharme (Jul 3, 2007)

John DeBorde @ Wed Apr 04 said:


> I've seen in some of the Williams study scores where he has both the 1sts & 2nds doubling 8ves - ie playing the same part, rather than splitting it across the two sections.
> 
> I assume this gives a broader, fuller sound, but would anyone know the specifics of why this effect would be chosen?



My orchestration teacher taught me that it's almost always better to do that than to split the octave across the two sections as a better blend results.. as typically the reason for the octave doubling is to sound like reinforcement for that tone, and having them played by separate sections seated a bit apart could result in the tone and its doubling an octave apart being separated slightly. Having them played divisi causes both notes to come from both orchestral sections, so even if the 1st violins and 2nd violins are not on top of each other in the stereo field, you have a good blend. At least that's how I interpreted what he said... I'm still learning!


----------

