Mozart's Orchestration: Let's Talk About It

Destroyed wrote:

Andante con moto, starting from the very first measures, violas and vc handle the melody and the cb have (on their own), the accompaniment without doublings

Hmm, not "starting from the very first measures," but only in the first measures and, pay attention, it is pizzicato

ok, but it is a sign of independence for the cb ...in the end he could have even let the vc do it.

Instead, I didn't quite understand well whether Mozart gave a more "dignified" part to the cb or not, and in which opera.

Destroyed wrote:

ok, but it's a sign of independence for the cb ...in the end he could have made the vc do it too.

Sure, right. Okay, let's do this: could you explain the bowing division at the beginning of the Allegretto of the Seventh?

Carlos wrote:

could you explain to me the division of the strings at the beginning of the Allegretto of the Seventh?

From what I see in the score, for the strings there is a section of violins I, violins II, violas, cellos I, cellos II and double basses.

The section of cellos II and double basses are doublings of each other and provide the harmonic bass for the violas and the cellos I which tend to proceed in thirds. The violas divide (I am always referring to the first 15 bars) to complete the harmony.

Anyway, I have described what I read from the score; I didn't properly understand what you mean by "division of the strings.".

Destroyed wrote:

From what I see in the score, for the strings there is a section of violins I, violins II, violas, cellos I, cellos II and double basses.

The section of cellos II and double basses are each other's doubling and provide the harmonic bass to the violas and the cellos I which tend to proceed in thirds. The violas divide (I am always referring to the first 15 measures) to complete the harmony.

Anyway, I have described what I read from the score; I didn't properly understand what you mean by “division of the strings”.

Division of the strings is exactly what you wrote. But you missed the point, or you did not grasp the reason for my question. You noted that «Beethoven emancipates the db in the Fifth», but I pointed out to you that it is only a few measures and that anyway the db are pizzicato. You replied to me that «it is a sign of independence of the db... in the end he could have even made the vc do it» and so I asked you to explain the reason for the division of the strings in the Allegretto of the Seventh; namely: in your opinion, why did Beethoven need to divide the cellos into two (for the first 98 measures of the Allegretto, pay attention) if the second section of the cellos doubles (in agreement, at the high octave, but it is still a doubling) the db: couldn't he have had only the double basses do it? Answer: no. Because who knows how the double basses sounded in Beethoven's time... If we want, even in the Fourth there are brief moments where the db play alone, but they are almost always long notes (in one case, in the Adagio, at m. 34, they play the accompaniment alone for an entire measure (!) - I didn't go looking for it, mind you! I am reviewing the Fourth these days because I have to conduct it soon...). This is to say that even B. was aware that the double bass was a "not very prudent" instrument to use alone, partly because intonation was difficult, and partly because technically the instrumentalists were nothing special and, if it remained a complicated instrument, imagine at that time. Once Solti, commenting on the Overture to The Marriage of Figaro, said that surely at the beginning (unison of the strings) the double basses played one note yes and three no, because at that time it was impossible for there to be a double bassist capable of executing all the notes at the correct tempo (even if the "correct tempo" had been slower than how we perform it today).

I understand Carlos, this latest post of yours is interesting. In my first post, I only wanted to point out that anyway, at least in "intention," Beethoven felt the need to emancipate this blessed cb. With caution, he shows these signs ... Timidly in the fifth, certainly in the seventh; as you say, the cb would never have been able to sustain that design, that rhythm, etc. ...

I am asking, but then regarding Mozart, what and which work was being referred to (also to return to the topic)?

Sorry, I was going by memory.

Croma said

CromaDiBrera wrote:

P.S. Just to reiterate something relevant to the topic, I would note that Mozart is among the very first to emancipate the basses (bassoons, violas, and cellos) from the customary doubling of early symphonism. And, if I remember correctly and specifically regarding the bassoons, this happens primarily in his piano concertos.

ok, all clear

I'll take this opportunity, Carlos, given your experience or for anyone interested in the matter, who was truly the first to exploit a more "emancipated" (technically) cb?

Mahler almost always provides a dedicated staff for the double basses, and this already says a lot. Brahms does not yet, and the DBs remain very constrained to the role of simple reinforcement of the bass line. In Mahler's symphonies, the issue is a bit different, and Mahler very often uses the DBs as a "downward extension" of the cellos, ... not bad, great Gustav. Meanwhile, I want to emphasize that when Mahler wants a "unison" between cellos and basses, he writes the DBs an octave higher than the cellos, so that the result is truly unison and not an octave. However, the DB in the orchestra never fully emancipates itself and, even in Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra, or in Stravinsky's ballets, or in R. Strauss's tone poems—even if naturally, besides no longer being written in pairs with the cellos but on a dedicated staff, it is used much more and often autonomously (but always together with the others)—the DB "disappears" when particularly virtuosic passages appear (unless, naturally, playing them together with the cellos, obviously). The reasons, at this point, are primarily of a timbral nature: the double bass has a timbre and an extension that, in the low register, makes it difficult to perceive sounds accurately (and on the other hand: try executing a fast passage in the extreme low register of a piano: even there it is not so easy to make sense of anything...), so it is clear that a wise composer cannot fail to take this crucial aspect into account. To such an extent that Beethoven himself takes advantage of it (let me jump back) and exploits the "noisy" role of the DB (forgive the double bassists if they are reading). In the "Pastoral," during the "Storm" at letter C of the score, B. divides cellos and basses: the cellos play repeated quintuplets, the basses quadruplets. The passage represents the arrival of the storm, thunder in the distance, a storm approaching: down there there is nothing melodic, and the concomitance of quintuplets and quadruplets makes the whole thing even more "muddled": B. knew this very well and, never like this time, he used an objective limit, transforming it into a timbral effect (here one can truly speak of "orchestration"!). Another indispensable example, but, due to its characteristics, highly emblematic, is the DB solo (all of them! not just one as is still often heard performed) in the 3rd movement of Mahler's First Symphony. That solo, of eight bars (Frère Jacques in D minor), exploits a high register (and not very comfortable?) of the double bass, and we must also assume that in the years when Mahler wrote that symphony, that passage was truly daunting for double bassists; another example of how to "make necessity a virtue," namely a solo that recalls a folk motif, originally joyful, re-proposed in a bleak and grim minor key, entrusted to the double basses in the high register where they undoubtedly sounded poorly intonated due to lack of familiarity with those positions, and where the DB has a decidedly nasal and "empty" timbre. Call him foolish... Excuse me, while I'm at it and since the subject passions me, I'll add one thing that has nothing to do with DBs, but which came to mind regarding solos entrusted to instruments in their most uncomfortable registers. An equivalent example that must be made is the beginning of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. Today the bassoon plays (almost) well and has lost any hint of uncertainty, bad sound, or hesitation in the vast majority of performances. Bassoonists know that it is a solo they must be able to do. But we are in 2012 and exactly one hundred years have passed. To Stravinsky, many years after he had written the Rite, someone said: "See, Maestro? Finally bassoonists can now perfectly execute that extremely difficult solo, despite the high register!" and Stravinsky replied: "If I had ever imagined it, I would have written that solo a fifth higher!". Do you get the point? He wanted it to sound bad and he wrote the solo in a register that, at that time, was almost taboo for bassoonists (imagine what must have happened at the first performance: I'm sure they threw chairs!). Since we were talking about orchestration, here: I consider these things to be categorized under "orchestration," whereas when talking about Mozart, the discussion is so embryonic that, if it weren't for the eternal dilemma of whether the two terms are synonyms or not, I would simply speak of "instrumentation," understood as the distribution of the forces at play, nothing more and nothing less."

Interesting perspective Carlos, I am glad that you shared this interesting piece of your writing.

Thanks Carlos, what can I say ... from Mahler ... I probably had a completely wrong idea about the subject.

Carlos wrote:

when talking about Mozart, the discussion is so embryonic that, if it weren't for the eternal dilemma regarding whether the two terms are synonyms or not, I would simply speak of "instrumentation," understood as the distribution of forces at play, nothing more and nothing less.

I think this perfectly embodies what I wanted to say or anyway what I couldn't manage to express.... in the end perhaps it is a merit of Mozart, I like it and in fact I opened the topic not in a derogatory sense. Let's just say that upon listening it seems "more interesting" (read between the lines) then in the score what do you find...? ... exactly

Thank you all for your interest, if you feel like it, please continue to discuss freely ... I think I have satisfied my curiosity...

Frank wrote:

Interesting perspective Carlos, I am glad you shared this interesting piece of your writing.

Freshly baked specifically for the piano concerto, nothing recycled!

AAAAAAhhhhhhh....... How recycled? Aren't you going to post the leftovers here?

Perhaps I am saying something out of place, but I don't know if it is interesting to recall that a brief "independent" use of the double basses occurs in the opening bars of the Unfinished Symphony where, in the cello ostinato, they almost function as a "muted timpani". Pizzicato here too, if I remember correctly.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Perhaps I am saying something out of place, but I don't know if it is interesting to recall that a brief "independent" use of the double basses occurs in the opening bars of the Unfinished where, on the ostinato of only the cellos, they almost have the function of a "muted timpani". Pizzicato here too, if I remember correctly.

Hmm that's not quite right... After the intro with cellos and basses together, the ostinato belongs to the violins and that "muted timpani" effect is achieved by cellos, basses, and violas (!) together...

Carlos wrote:

Hmm it's not quite like that... After the intro of cellos and basses together, the ostinato is by the violins and that "muted timpani" effect is achieved by cellos, basses and violas (!) together...

Whoops... Right...!