# Recordings with split violin sections



## ENDeavor

Hi,
I am a new forum reader, and this is my first post.
As a BSO subscriber, through James Levine's conducting (alas, no more) I have come to greatly prefer orchestral music with split violin sections. It makes a wonderful difference in my understanding of a work's orchestration, and it is fun to really hear the antiphonal sound world that composers (mostly in the Classical and Romantic eras) built into their works. That antiphony is totlly lost when the violins are all bunched together. There are a few other conductors who split the violins, but the single section of violins still is the norm.
Today a friend and I were lamenting the fact that there's really no way of knowing which orchestral recordings have split violins. I wish there was some kind of guide to recordings to allow me to know one way or the other. (I listen a lot with good headphones, so the split sections would be more readily discernable than with speakers.)
Does anyone know of notable recordings using this kind of orchestra seating?
Thanks!


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Like you, I lament the wilful refusal of conductors often to follow the composer's (implied) intention in this regard.
There are very few conductors who do it properly, unfortunately.

And I guess much 20/21 century orchestral music is written wth the expectation that all the violins will be together.
One C20 work that demands violins left and right is Mahler 9, particularly in the first movement, where there is all that call and response material in the violins. One recording of this which does place the violins correctly is Klemperer's 1967 recording on EMI with the Philharmonia.


----------



## GraemeG

I'd have thought that much recorded by the Vienna Phil is played this way, simply because it's what they do.
They played Bruckner 4 here in Sydney two months ago with antiphonal violins, and pretty well all the 19th century Viennese-centred music demands it.
And yes, I think it's a pity so many conductors 'do it wrong'.
GG


----------



## ENDeavor

Thanks for the suggestions.

Coincidentally, just back from a performance by the New England Conservatory Symphony of the Beethoven 5th Symphony as orchestrated by Mahler. (Basically, he strengthened the winds and brass. The conductor split the violins. We sat in the 4th row, and marveled at the subtle differences the split violins made, especially in movemts 1 and 4.


----------



## Sid James

A related side issue is that you might like recordings of works featuring double string orchestra. Or split string & other orchestras. Some works I can think of in this regard are -

Mozart - Serenata Notturna (he splits the orch. into 4 parts)
Tippett - Concerto for Double String Orch.
Vaughan Williams - Partita for Double String Orch.
Frank Martin - Polyptyque for violin & two small string orchs.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Jeremy Marchant said:


> One recording of [Mahler 9] which does place the violins correctly is Klemperer's 1967 recording on EMI with the Philharmonia.


I should have clarified that this arrangement of violins was often deployed by Klemperer, as far as I know.


----------



## Scarpia

If memory serves, the Mackerras recordings of the Brahms symphonies on Telarc have first and second violins split.


----------



## mleghorn

The Mackerras Mozart Symphonies on Telarc have 1st violins on the left and 2nd violins on the right. I think split violin sections is in vogue these days. The Haitink / LSO Live Beethoven symphonies have split violin sections. I think Vanska Beethoven cycle does as well.


----------



## GraemeG

I'm amazed that it's not done more often. You only got to look at the scores of Brahms or Bruckner to see that the music demands it simply from the way it is written.
cheers,
GG


----------



## GoneBaroque

Conductors following the composers wishes; what a revolutionary idea!


----------



## Guest

I have been following this thread but have hesitated to contribute as I never played in a full Symphony Orchestra but there must be a reason why this practice was abandoned could it be that with a larger orchestra say 120-130 it would be hard for the players to hear the other section if they were separated on stage say 1st on the left and 2nd way over on the right ? When heard on a recording it is totally unlike that which the musicians experience. Just my rambling thoughts. :tiphat:


----------



## GraemeG

Andante said:


> I have been following this thread but have hesitated to contribute as I never played in a full Symphony Orchestra but there must be a reason why this practice was abandoned could it be that with a larger orchestra say 120-130 it would be hard for the players to hear the other section if they were separated on stage say 1st on the left and 2nd way over on the right ? When heard on a recording it is totally unlike that which the musicians experience. Just my rambling thoughts. :tiphat:


Was probably Stokowski's fault. He was responsible for most of the cheap showmanship that invaded the orchestra, wasn't he?
GG


----------



## Scarpia

Andante said:


> I have been following this thread but have hesitated to contribute as I never played in a full Symphony Orchestra but there must be a reason why this practice was abandoned could it be that with a larger orchestra say 120-130 it would be hard for the players to hear the other section if they were separated on stage say 1st on the left and 2nd way over on the right ? When heard on a recording it is totally unlike that which the musicians experience. Just my rambling thoughts. :tiphat:


Putting the violins together sacrifices antiphonal effects but results in a more forceful violin sound. If the second violins are on the opposite side of the conductor they will find themselves holding their instruments facing away from the audience. The direct sound that comes out of the f-holes is directed towards the back of the stage, muting their effect, somewhat. So in music where the first and second violins are playing together most of the time (either in unison, in parallel thirds, etc) the most brilliant effect is achieved by having them all massed together, to the conductor's left, firing forward, so to speak.


----------



## GraemeG

Scarpia said:


> Putting the violins together sacrifices antiphonal effects but results in a more forceful violin sound. If the second violins are on the opposite side of the conductor they will find themselves holding their instruments facing away from the audience. The direct sound that comes out of the f-holes is directed towards the back of the stage, muting their effect, somewhat. So in music where the first and second violins are playing together most of the time (either in unison, in parallel thirds, etc) the most brilliant effect is achieved by having them all massed together, to the conductor's left, firing forward, so to speak.


Well, the 2nd violins' loss is the cellos gain (assuming the semi-circle around the conductor changes from V1-V2-Vla-C+B to V1-C+B-Vla-V2. In my experience, 2nd violins play more often with violas than the 1sts, and having Vla & 2nds all blocked together onm the conductors right improves cohesion considerably (at least in Germanic repertoire from Beethoven to Mahler). And when the composer specifically intends for the violins to be separate, like this passage from IV of Brahms 1st:

http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bhr2575/index.html
(Go to 4th movt, select "Adagio" then find page 99)
then why would you do otherwise? He clearly expects them to be apart, and has written the music accordingly.

Surely the whole point of 1st and 2nd violins is to have contrast between them? The rest of the strings are 'monolith' blocks; there are no 1st & 2nd Violas, or 1st/2nd Cellos. Why split the violins and then have them sit all together?
Often it's the 2nds and Violas who are playing the same line an octave apart, while the 1sts go off doing their own thing. In these cases the massed voices of the 2nds and violas playing "together" emphasises the middle voices, their combined weight of numbers counterbalancing the back-facing f-holes and the higher voice of the firsts.

I think the conductor should look at the piece in question and plan the orchestra seating accordingly. And if that means the arrangement changes before and after an interval, so be it.
cheers,
GG


----------



## Scarpia

I generally like the violins split. But as GG mentioned, it depends on the piece and the manner in which the composer uses the string sections. 

Another issue is that considerations may be different in recordings, which have their own limitations. The custom seems to be violins left, violas and cellos right, trumpets/trombones right, french horns left, woodwinds towards the middle. That seems to keep the high frequency sources balanced left-vs-right, making it easier on the listener and the equipment.


----------



## superhorn

Some music critics are very picky about performances and recordings which do not use antiphonal violins, especially Andrew Porter , who was always complaining about conductors
who did not use this seating plan at concerts when he was music critic of the New Yorker
back in the 70s and 80s , when this was far less common than today .
I must say his nit picking ,not only over this matter , was very irritating . Porter could often be insufferably pedantic in his reviews .
It's never mattered much to me, and I've never found it bothersome on recordings, because it's not readily apparent unless you pay exaggeratedly close attention to it .
Not all works have prominent antiphonal parts for first and second violins , and there are many works which have antiphonal writing between the other string sections, too .
But the claim that you can't have correct dynamic balance without divided violins is ridiculous , and some critics have actually made this claim . 
As far as I am concerned , it's basically much ado about nothing . 
I would prefer a really exciting and vivid performance without divided violins to 
a dull one with them .


----------



## Guest

I think you have made good points superhorn and I agree, perhaps the most criticism comes from those that have not played in orchestras.


----------



## superhorn

I have many years experience playing in orchestras , though not the major ones,
but as a horn player , I was in a position to observe the strings ,not be there among them.
When Christoph von Dohnanyi was music director in Cleveland, he decided to switch to antiphonal violins, but reportedly, the players hated this . Possibly they became accustomed later.


----------



## Guest

It is important that musicians can hear each other or I should say in this case sections and one of the objections that I have heard is that with 'split violins' this is very difficult.


----------



## moody

GraemeG said:


> Was probably Stokowski's fault. He was responsible for most of the cheap showmanship that invaded the orchestra, wasn't he?
> GG


No he certainly was not and that, if I may say so, is a pretty cheap shot from you against one of the greatest musicians of all time.


----------



## bigshot

I wish we had conductors like Stokowski today. The push towards "appropriate" interpretation has led to a homogenity of sound that is completely unnecessary, especially in the age of recorded sound where a listener can easily pick the performance that suits his tastes.


----------



## moody

superhorn said:


> Some music critics are very picky about performances and recordings which do not use antiphonal violins, especially Andrew Porter , who was always complaining about conductors
> who did not use this seating plan at concerts when he was music critic of the New Yorker
> back in the 70s and 80s , when this was far less common than today .
> I must say his nit picking ,not only over this matter , was very irritating . Porter could often be insufferably pedantic in his reviews .
> It's never mattered much to me, and I've never found it bothersome on recordings, because it's not readily apparent unless you pay exaggeratedly close attention to it .
> Not all works have prominent antiphonal parts for first and second violins , and there are many works which have antiphonal writing between the other string sections, too .
> But the claim that you can't have correct dynamic balance without divided violins is ridiculous , and some critics have actually made this claim .
> As far as I am concerned , it's basically much ado about nothing .
> I would prefer a really exciting and vivid performance without divided violins to
> a dull one with them .


Is that the Andrew Porter of whom Virgil Thomson said: " Nobody reviewing in America has anything like Porter's command of opera. Nor has the New Yorker ever before had access through music to so distinguished a mind". Also of whom Groves commented: "---is always informed by a knowledge of music history and the findings of textual scholarship and as well as an exceptionally wide range of sympathies." Is that the guy ?
Any body who possibly can should get hold of a copy of his book covering this period, Music of Three Seasons,1974-1977 ,it is absolutely marvellous. 
Sir Adrian Boult was among conductors who supported divided strings but I suppose he was a famous nit-picker. I'll tell you who are infamous for being so and they are orchestral players.


----------



## moody

Andante said:


> It is important that musicians can hear each other or I should say in this case sections and one of the objections that I have heard is that with 'split violins' this is very difficult.


I think that before pontificating on a subject one should, as Poirot would say, gather some evidence. What Andante says about people who have not played in an orchestra sounds right but I question his whole premise. In any case here are some words from a man who certainly has. Bernard Shore was principal viola for the BBC Symphony Orchestra and wrote the book "the Orchestra Speaks" ' ---though the composition may be beautiful as can be , it does not follow that they can hear it at all. What a player hears of a score as a whole depends entirely upon his position , if the orchestra is on a level floor even those immediately below the conductor will hear only three quarters of the sound properly.The players on the fringe of the orchestra, especially those behind the first violins , and on the other side are worst off. They are cut off from the from the rest of the orchestra , they can hear their colleagues' slightest discrepencies , but everything else is indistinct.'
If we look at a letter from Sir Adrian Boult to the Gramophone magazine we read the following. " In my young days every orchestra placed the strings with the second violins on the conductor's right opposite the firsts and balancing them . The basses were were as near the centre as was convenient , but Hans Richter always made certain of their balance by splitting them four players in each corner at the back. Toscanini, Bruno Walter and Weingartner maintained this violin balance all their lives.Now with he seconds behind the firsts and the basses away to the right a lop sided effect is caused in buildings with little resonence. In recording in stereo there will be a sharp difference in direction and I want to know whether your readers would like to hear most of the treble coming from the left speaker and the bass from the right, or whether they want a balanced whole ?"
I think this answers the question and is certainly not nit-picking but common sense. So Superhorn's remark about the claims that you can't have balance without divided violins being ridiculous looks a bit shaky.But in any case I have been to hundreds of concert all over the world since 1948 and so could hear for myself---after all you only need a pair of ears !


----------

