# Scores for orchestra



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Hello everybody!

I propose to discuss here the scores for an orchestra. Not only for the conductor: also individual scores, how they're grouped, and so on.

==========

And a first interrogation: as (I believe) instrument groups use to rehearse among themselves, and not just in the complete orchestra, and the groups don't always fit on one score (4 to 8 horns!), do they expect the editor to provide a *special score for the group*?

Thanks!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Enthalpy said:


> Hello everybody!
> 
> I propose to discuss here the scores for an orchestra. Not only for the conductor: also individual scores, how they're grouped, and so on.
> 
> ...


Not sure what you are asking - the full score will have each part indicated separately....yes, the scores can be very large and detailed - Strauss, Berg, Varese etc,etc...


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

From what I hear you asking, the answer is no. 

First, I'm not sure that sections/sub-sections of an orchestra get together to practice as a unit. It's possible but not usual. The only time I've seen it (it = sectionals) was with high school bands here in the USA. 

And no there is no extra score publishers provide that only show a section of the orchestra. That would be cost prohibitive as it rarely would be used/needed.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Thank you both!

========== Next question

An instrument score can show *cue notes* from an other instrument (often to help them synchronize).

But the instruments can use different keys and transpositions. Say, a Bb clarinet and a bassoon.

What is *the common use* then? Display the cue notes in the original instrument's notation?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Enthalpy said:


> Thank you both!
> 
> ========== Next question
> 
> ...


Cues in orchestra parts are generally written in concert pitch....tho there may be exceptions.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> Cues in orchestra parts are generally written in concert pitch....tho there may be exceptions.


This is incorrect. Although there are weirdnesses and exceptions, the mainstream practice is that cues are always written as transposed in accordance with the part that they are written in.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Knorf said:


> This is incorrect. Although there are weirdnesses and exceptions, the mainstream practice is that cues are always written as transposed in accordance with the part that they are written in.


While there has been some controversy about this in the past, you are correct as it is now common practice to have it transposed. The thought behind it is two-fold. First the player can hear that part easier and if the cued notes needed to be covered by the player, there's no need for the player to do the transposition mentally. Yes, I know in a professional orchestra covering the missing part with cues never needs to happen, but in smaller orchestras (and bands especially) this may occur.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There are two types of cues in orchestral parts: some are there to let the player with a lot of time not playing keep track of what's happening and not get lost. These cues are not usually in the score. Those are generally in the same clef and key as the original part they came from like this one from the 3rd bassoon part in The Planets.








But sometimes the cue is in concert pitch (or the pitch of the target instrument) as in this from the 3rd bassoon part from Mahler's First:








The other type is a cue to be played in the absence of another instrument. They are always in the clef and key for the part they are copied into. This is from the double bass from in the Enigma Variations. This cue is necessary in the score and part since many orchestras have to access to the Double Bassoon.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Thank you all!

In fact, an equally useful question would have been like: "What would you recommend?"

And indeed, it seems helpful that cue notes transpose like the part they are inserted in. Ottaviated clefs would also help reading, sparing the flautist to read the alto and tenor clefs.

And an explanatory footnote wouldn't hurt.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Cues are very helpful for a part that has a long amount of rests. The cues normally are close to the time the part plays. But most importantly the cued notes must be an entrance of the cued instrument. Never cue the middle/end of a phrase. Also make sure the cued part can be heard easily (for example a soft triangle note may not be heard or even missed or substituted with a different instrument by the percussionist)


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Knorf said:


> This is incorrect. Although there are weirdnesses and exceptions, the mainstream practice is that cues are always written as transposed in accordance with the part that they are written in.


I've seen it both ways, I've seen transposed ones,and concert pitches ones for transposing instruments


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> The other type is a cue to be played in the absence of another instrument. They are always in the clef and key for the part they are copied into. This is from the double bass from in the Enigma Variations. This cue is necessary in the score and part since many orchestras have to access to the Double Bassoon.
> View attachment 152476


The "Planets" is filled with these "add-on" cues...the bassoon part has lots of alto or bass flute cues, that are to be played in the absence of those instruments...bass oboe cues, too, iirc...these are written in concert pitch for the bassoon to play.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> I've seen it both ways, I've seen transposed ones,and concert pitches ones for transposing instruments


The latter would be inconsistent with what is considered modern (for well over 125 years) best practice and is certainly far less common, at least among the world's leading music publishers.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Knorf said:


> The latter would be inconsistent with what is considered modern (for well over 125 years) best practice and is certainly far less common, at least among the world's leading music publishers.


I might add that my notation software program, Sibelius, automatically transposes the cues. Copy a cello measure to be a cue and then paste in a French horn part and VOILA! it's transposed up a P5.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Vasks said:


> I might add that my notation software program, Sibelius, automatically transposes the cues. Copy a cello measure to be a cue and then paste in a French horn part and VOILA! it's transposed up a P5.


As far as I know, this is the default on all modern computer engraving programs.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Oops, I had not imagined this question would be divisive! But music notation is inconsistent anyway.

At least, I perceive convergence about what is most useful to the musicians. That matters most to me.

I (mis-) use the Lilypond notation software presently, and it can do (with much patience) pretty much anything the writer desires (or not), whatever the usual conventions are. Transpose or not, change the clef, remove the clues when a part is included in a bigger score, and so on. So I have to choose myself.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

What about the *number of percussionists*?

The (too few) orchestra scores I read specify the desired instruments, usually many more than percussionists. So, does the principal percussionist, or maybe the conductor, check the score and decide how many percussionists are needed? Or shall the composer (or the editor) mention it and risk mistakes?

And still, just one part per instrument? One part grouping all percussions would help decide the number of percussionists.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

The usual procedure is for the section leader to assign parts and come up with the number of people. Depending on the skill level of those players you can use fewer players than needed with less experienced ones. Sometimes you have to share instruments, like glockenspiel, but having two of those can alleviate a lot of problems. Sometimes a score will need two players 99% of the time but then there's one small section where you have to have three. No one wants to sit through a whole 90 minute work to play for 30 seconds and it's expensive to hire a third player, so you learn to fake it and make substitutions. The Nutcracker is one of those. Fortunately, most conductors are ignorant of and ignore the percussion department so you can get away with cheats.

Some composers try to help out by writing their parts Player 1, Player 2 and so on. Then they go on to write parts that are impossible for one player, such as changing from snare to chimes and giving you one beat to make the switch. Players will spend hours working out the logistics. Bernstein's Symphonic Dances from West Side Story is one of these. You need a first-rate player on every part and every part has numerous instruments.

There are publications created by the percussion community that detail hundreds and hundreds of works, the percussion requirements, the number of players and such. There are even modern printings of works made by percussionists that make it so much easier to read and use. 

For percussionists the worst concerts of all are pops concerts where you often have to have every toy imaginable. Finding room for everything and juggling everything is a hassle. But they're a lot more fun to play than so much standard repertoire where there's only bass drum, cymbals, and snare.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Everything mbhaub said is good and true.

Personally, because (1) one of my composition teachers was a percussionist who taught me how to write for percussion ensemble where the composer must assign parts to each player and understand the placement/layout of each player's group of instruments and how much time it takes to move from one instrument to another and to switch mallets and sticks and (2) I directed many bands and orchestras, the percussion in my scores always are labeled Percussion I, II , III etc. The advantage is that the score is less dense than having many staves each devoted to just one instrument and that means a bigger font size can be used for the entire system.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

But a composer with limited experience playing percussions better writes one part per instrument and leaves the section (leader) spread the parts among the musicians. OK, grasped that, thanks!

Since we're here: could *two percussionists play one set of kettledrums* if a handful notes are too fast to switch among the drums? Just like bing bang bung bong, where the tempo leaves too little time to move the mallets a long way.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Yes, that happens sometimes, but it's something the composer really has to think about - you can't have two players on the same drum at the same time. The Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique third movement features the thunderstorm in the timpani and it's pretty normal for other percussionists to move over and play one of the parts on the shared set. Franz Schmidt's 2nd symphony finale requires two players on the same set; it's scored for rolls on two different notes. That happens somewhere in Mahler but I can't remember where off the top of my head. Several years ago I was playing contrabassoon on the third symphony of Boris Tchaikovsky. At some point it required a second timpanist on the high drum while the first timpanist played the lower three. There was no contra part in that section and since I was sitting closer to the timps than anyone i was "promoted" to get up and play that passage. I should have gotten doubling fees, but the manager was too stingy.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Many thanks!

Next: in the baroque - classical - romantic - etc *conductor scores, each instrument is written as in the individual part*: clef, transposition... Is that still the common practice for recent scores? Some composers, some orchestration books recommend to write all parts at concert height, and even all in treble or bass clef, at least in the conductor's score.

Or perhaps more useful answer: What would you recommend?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There was an attempt in the mid 20th c to make scores more conductor friendly by having all the parts printed in concert pitch as they sound, although octave displacements for basses and contrabassoons were ok. The most notable composer to adopt this was Prokofieff. It didn't catch on. Conductors are trained to read scores and deal with the transpositions. Writing a score in the traditional manner is still the way to go. A concert-pitch score sure makes reading it at the piano easier! Stick with tradition for scores.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Yes, I guess the easier dialogue between the conductor and the musicians matters more than an easy read. But this demands intensive training from the conductor.

========== Several part options?

Some instruments differ among the countries, or have varied writing conventions. Examples:

Orchestra trumpets are normally in C in France, in Bb elsewhere
A tenor trombonist receiving an alto trombone and part may prefer to read it in tenor clef as an instrument transposing a fourth higher
What do you think of providing several parts for such instruments, so the musician chooses his preferred convention?


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Professional trumpet players and many who are less than professional own both C and B-flat instruments. 

Professionals prefer C over B-flat. But use B-flat if your piece is slightly more mellow. Use C if your piece is more brilliant.

Professional lead/tenor trombonists will most likely have an alto trombone and know how to read the alto clef. However, the alto trombone's tone is weaker/lighter and most likely is not desired in most contemporary pieces.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Vasks said:


> Professional lead/tenor trombonists will most likely have an alto trombone and know how to read the alto clef. However, the alto trombone's tone is weaker/lighter and most likely is not desired in most contemporary pieces.


True...the alto trombone has a weaker tone that may not project thru the modern orchestra...the greatest trombone players play the altissimo parts on tenor, but they have the chops to do it....they can boom out the high stuff with a big ringing sound....


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Trombones...rarely do I ever see anyone use an alto these days. They all play on tenor bones, even things in the upper stratosphere like the Brahms 2nd. That high descending scale at the end has been messed up more than once! But if you ever get a chance to hear a good chamber orchestra play it and they use alto, tenor and bass trombones as written and the correct sized string section it's a fantastic sound. On occasion when I've been in situations where someone is playing an alto it's really obvious that it's not their main instrument - intonation is really iffy. They get used to slide positions on a tenor but aren't as facile with the shorter throws on the alto. Amazon has a cheap alto; maybe it's time to take up another instrument!


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

What do you think about the *Obukhov notation*? Example (click for full size):







[The example is artificial: it served to explain a bassoon system
scienceforums and around, introduction scienceforums​If you want to discuss it here, I can open a topic.]

Obviously, Obukhov is one more notation to learn, and it won't replace the others so musicians must still know them. Other drawback: notation softwares ignore the Obukhov notation (it could be programmed in Lilypond).

For not-so-tonal music it's much easier to read. On my instruments, I could get used to it quickly. On the piano or vibraphone it would be natural, since crosses correspond to black keys.

Hindemith (?) advocated the Obukhov notation and used it for many works, but music editors translate meanwhile to sharps and flats.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I don't see the point - those noteheads like an 'x' are too much like a double-sharp - brain freezes. Our notation system, however imperfect, has been evolving and improving for 400 years or so. What works is kept, what doesn't goes away.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

OK, one negative opinion then.

I'm enthusiastic about the Obukhov notation. So much easier to read!

No risk to mistake with a double sharp, once you know a part uses Obukhov, since all accidentals disappear.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

*One score for two instruments* seems common for orchestras. Works well for intervals with note durations identical or most times identical.

But if two clarinets play very different music at some point: have a double staff there? Or have completely separate scores?

How messy is it to switch from a common score to separate scores in a concert?

And if two viola groups shall play very different music: I suppose a double staff is bad, due to bow collisions and to the visual impression. So, define two separated viola groups and print different viola scores?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthalpy said:


> *One score for two instruments* seems common for orchestras. Works well for intervals with note durations identical or most times identical.
> 
> But if two clarinets play very different music at some point: have a double staff there? Or have completely separate scores?
> 
> ...


If two clarinets are playing very different parts that would be confusing or messy notated on one staff, one would give each a separate staff in the score for as long as that is the case. Same for divisi strings: One can keep them on the same staff to save space or give them separate staves, depending on issues of clarity and readability.

I'm not sure what you mean about switching from common to separate scores. Winds will always have individual parts, strings share parts, two players on a stand. It is common that all the divisi parts for a section will be notated on each part, especially if they are divisi a2. If the divisi is more complicated (like a 4 or all of the stands having separate parts) it makes more sense to make multiple different 1st violin parts (for example).


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Sometimes Enthalpy's nomenclature gets mixed-up, Edward

A "score" for an orchestra equals all instruments visible to the conductor. So if you're talking about the two clarinets in an orchestral score needing separate staves because they are too dissimilar. Then yes, it's OK to have one staff for Clarinet I and a separate staff for Clarinet II for the duration of the dissimilar passage. Once that's over and they both have similar material, they then return to sharing a single staff.

Now if you're confusing the word "score" with "parts" (parts = what individual players read) then all winds and brass have their own. Clarinet I sees only his/her notes. Clarinet II's part shows only his/her notes.

For your viola example, what I said about an orchestral score and the Clarinets holds true for viola also. But for a viola "part" that has to be divisi because of dissimilar material, the single staff spilts into two separate staves for the duration of the dissimilar passage and returns to a single staff once that passage is over.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Enthalpy said:


> What do you think about the *Obukhov notation*? Example (click for full size):
> View attachment 153706
> 
> [The example is artificial: it served to explain a bassoon system
> ...


Well perhaps with keyboard instruments it works, but it seems to show F# and Gb exactly the same, which can't be right (speaking as a string player). Or at least, it appears to reduce each pitch to a note, and a semi-tone above. Might work for strings (sort-of) but I can see it driving brass players nuts! And as mbhaub says, we've all got x=double sharp in our brains anyway.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Vasks said:


> Sometimes Enthalpy's nomenclature gets mixed-up, Edward
> 
> Now if you're confusing the word "score" with "parts" (parts = what individual players read) then all winds and brass have their own. Clarinet I sees only his/her notes. Clarinet II's part shows only his/her notes.
> 
> For your viola example, what I said about an orchestral score and the Clarinets holds true for viola also. But for a viola "part" that has to be divisi because of dissimilar material, the single staff spilts into two separate staves for the duration of the dissimilar passage and returns to a single staff once that passage is over.


Although I've seen plenty of parts (Kalmus reprints of Debussy for instance) where Oboe I and II have a double-staff throughout the entire piece. Effectively the orchestral set contains two identical oboe parts, double-staved. I guess it helps one player know what the other's doing at all times.

String divisi in the parts all depends on the publisher really. Sometimes two lines of music on the same stave. But if it's more than a few bars then split into multiple staves bracketed together. 
Check del Mar's _Anatomy of the Orchestra_. Great book. Has all this stuff in it, along with a million other things too.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Yes, there are many part in the bassoon world where both parts are printed on the same page. It does seem more popular to do in French music - maybe that was the publisher's style? It can be a help: when the parts are not the same it gives you assurance that you're not supposed to be together; when one player is absent the other can fill in when possible. In some works (Carmen suites) there are important bassoon parts that switch from the 1st to the 2nd part but sometimes the conductor prefers the 1st player to play the entire passage and having both parts on the same page makes it easy. On the other hand, printing this way makes the part many more pages long.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

All this is quite interesting. My solution for "_when the parts are not the same it gives you assurance that you're not supposed to be together_" is to cue the entrance of the part that starts first on the other part, because once it starts each player is too busy reading their own notes to bother with what the other is doing simultaneously.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Vasks said:


> cue the entrance of the part that starts first on the other part, because once it starts each player is too busy reading their own notes to bother with what the other is doing simultaneously.


That's the usual procedure, but it's not always there. The old 19th c publishers and composers really did a good job of providing those cues, but modern music? Forget it. So many composers who print their own parts are really negligent in helping players this way.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Many thanks to all! Looks like the preferred method, and the most usual one, is to decide for best legibility. Good to know that orchestra musicians won't get disturbed by varied options.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Vasks said:


> Sometimes Enthalpy's nomenclature gets mixed-up, Edward. [...]


Absolutely right. I have one mothertongue for music, an other for the rest, and none is English. Worse, I never played in an orchestra. Maybe I should have put a warning somewhere.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

What about *musicians playing several instruments*?

I read "double pay", but it must rather be some bonus less than doubling the pay. Or?

If only one clarinettist (or flautist, oboist...) has to play the bass (or the piccolo, the English horn...) too, is it always the second (or last) clarinettist?

Does anything speak against a clarinettist playing the Bb, Eb and bass in the same piece? Or is it better to ask one clarinettist to double on the bass and the other on the Eb?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Enthalpy said:


> What about *musicians playing several instruments*?
> 
> I read "double pay", but it must rather be some bonus less than doubling the pay. Or?
> 
> ...


Good question- 
In theater orchestras, pit band, etc. 2bling is common and very fruitful (if it's a union job)...i played many, many show runs years ago - all the standard Broadway stuff, plus other things as well...I'd play a Reed 5 book - might be bassoon, bari sax, bass clarinet....tripling pay....you always made more for each instrument, but less than 3 full amounts....works for the musician, and the producer...
In orchestra work, there are standard 2bles, which may be set by contract....for pickup gigs, they don't pay extra -


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

As Heck148 says, whether or not you get doubling pay is a contract negotiation. When I play a gig with bassoon and contra I expect doubling pay. Some contractors don't think it's warranted. 

Another cost to consider is cartage. Some players with some instruments also ask for and sometimes get cartage for having to lug around large, unwieldy instruments, or many of them. Percussionists are the biggest recipients. A friend of mine plays Broadway road shows and has to lug a truck load of gear and the cartage is pretty steep. Harp players are due it, too, if the circumstances are difficult.


----------

