This is wrong also. A double stop sounds very good in the right place. Obviously it is not the same as a fluid single line, and you can't use it for that purpose since the players are being forced to play two notes simultaneously. This is done sometimes in solo writing and sounds quite different. But in orchestra, on single notes, it sounds BETTER THAN DIVISI in many instances - for example, Borodin, In the Steppes of Central Asia, not to mention the Beethoven. In fact, this is an obvious orchestration question. So why am I responding?

Because I am still waiting for spackle to dry.

Sorry to be obnoxious about the double stops!! (This is one of the few places on earth one could make a statement like that I suppose.) However I was simply trying to state that they do have a strong, full effect if used for certain purposes, like accents, etc. , as in those powerful triple/quadruple stops at the end of the Eroica 1st movement. Also "In the Steppes" actually replaces the melodic line in an ff orchestral tutti with all triple stops throughout the strings precisely for that effect.

@William said:

"but I still say you'd get more power with divisi than with a doublestop"

This is total MISINFORMATION and I am surprised that DG accepts this.

A double, triple or quadruple stop increases the sound level, and a divisi divides it. You have effectively more strings playing simultaneously with multiple stops. Beethoven knew this, and used it prominently in the Eroica for sforzandi.

Any questions?

Contact him via a psychic. Don't complain to me, because I don't really care. I just am waiting for some spackle to dry on walls I am trying to paint and had nothing better to do than attempt to be irritating. [6]

William, the theory of twice as many on more strings is correct, but reality is not quite as clear cut. The volume of the double stop has just as much to do with the positioning as the number of notes. For example, as soon as you get out of first position (particularly on the middle strings) the sound decreases, whereas divisi, the length of the string would be longer.

Another thing to remember is that with Beethoven's multiple stops (to use your example), most of the time one of the strings is an open string and the rest are in first position. Therefore the sound is increased by multiple stopping. However, you will find that many times players still play these chords divisi, although not usually only one note. If you want to check with Beethoven, I suggest that you call John Lill, and ask him to pass on a message.

The last point is practicality, as many double stops are possible, but not reliable at speed, without a great deal of practice. Therefore in an orchestral situation human nature will mean that these notes will be played quieter, after all who (apart from me) would want to come crashing in on an out of tune double stop [:D]

DG

Thanks for that very useful clarification DG and please forgive my ranting.

spackle could make anyone rant -- I still say THIS doublestop is better divisi, and as DG said, Beethoven's use of them in general is a very different matter.

@William said:

Thanks for that very useful clarification DG and please forgive my ranting.

I never have a problem when people are passionate about what they do. In any case Double Stopping is a can of worms, and even the best orchestrators miscalculate on occasion.

DG

it might be helpful for some to relate the difference in double stops and divisii by thinking of a guitarist playing power chords (double stops) and two guitarists playing single lines in harmony. obviously a completely different sound but a big difference in attitude. double stops work for their particular sound; not as a voice leading solution in isolated areas because the difference will pop out of the texture - just as a power chord would suddenly if a guitarist was playing a lead line.

I have read and considered with care everything that has been said so far. And I do understand that there is difference in tone between divisi and multiple stops. But I have to say that I still believe double stops will be more effective in this context. Without any of you hearing the section of music in question, there is no way for you to know whether your advice is fitting or not. I have given a loose description, but words are not a very good alternative to actually hearing it. OK, so my programmed version is not 100% real either. I accept that laying down 2 notes in my sequencer for the cellos, will not sound the same as each cello playing a double stop for real. I understand the fact that the soundwaves of the 2 strings resonating inside the body of the instrument will interact with one another and emerge as a different tone, than with 2 cellos playing each note side by side. So without a set of multiple stop samples, or a real cellist, I cannot hear the true sound.

However, the reason I believe it will work is that we are talking about the lower octave of a fairly low melody, that is doubled by 4 horns in unison, and 2 tenor trombones in unison. The passage is fff. It is meant to be dark and rough and tense. The upper octave is strong with both violin sections in unison, sul G, and doubled (or tripled?!) by 3 trumpets. The lower octave is also strong and heavy. The bulk of the lower melody is taken by the violas. So even if there is a discrepancy in tone, which I accept will likely occur, it will not stand out like a sore thumb. The very first note of the lower melody and upper bass is taken by a double stop on the cellos (E2 and B2). This is meant to be a strong beat. And the double stop I posted about, the F#2 and A2, comes towards the end of the melody, before repeating again. This substitutes the viola section as the lower melody dips below their range.

I cannot afford the upper bass and lower melody to weaken. That is why I am sticking to my guns. While I understand everything you guys have said, I believe double stops will work. If the melody had been higher, quieter, and with less intensity, then you would be right. Divisi would have been better. But here I feel it is not.

Incidentally, as a result of this discussion, I will be amending a section of music earlier in my piece to divisi (a 3 as it happens) rather than multiple stops.

Cheers,
Mobius.

@William said:

"but I still say you'd get more power with divisi than with a doublestop"

This is total MISINFORMATION and I am surprised that DG accepts this.

A double, triple or quadruple stop increases the sound level, and a divisi divides it. You have effectively more strings playing simultaneously with multiple stops. Beethoven knew this, and used it prominently in the Eroica for sforzandi.

Any questions?

Contact him via a psychic. Don't complain to me, because I don't really care. I just am waiting for some spackle to dry on walls I am trying to paint and had nothing better to do than attempt to be irritating. [6]

William, the theory of twice as many on more strings is correct, but reality is not quite as clear cut. The volume of the double stop has just as much to do with the positioning as the number of notes. For example, as soon as you get out of first position (particularly on the middle strings) the sound decreases, whereas divisi, the length of the string would be longer.



Hi DG,
i agree with your arguments.

In my opinion, the most important argument, if a passage should be played divisi or by ms-s, is the fact, that with ms-s, the intonation will be much rougher than played divisi.
That means, the sound becomes in reality more harsh with double stops - which, psychoacousticaly results in a sound, that because it's broader, is better audible in context with other instruments; so it sometimes results in a sound, that seems to be louder, even it's not.
Thats the reason, why it makes sense not to play some passages divisi, when there are double stops in the score.

Greez:
HTF

One thing additional (to beat a dead horse) on this topic - though DG is of course right (as usual)...

In ordinary orchestration, the use of double/triple/quadruple stops needs to be understood in context. It is a different effect to use them, as opposed to playing a single line. It is basically a "special effect" (or close to that) and not something that one would use as an ordinary single-line expression for any stringed instrument, though a good player is used to them. What I was alluding to (and that is what I generally do, being a largely subconscious person) was the situation of having a very commonplace doubling of octaves. Write this for 1st and 2nd violins, playing single lines, and it is as American as apple pie or as German as sauerkraut or Indian as curry, or as Mexican as red peppers or fill in the national blanks as you wish. (Hey! I'm getting hungry!) However, score this for double stops, in both sections, and you have done something rather WEIRD. Not unplayable, but... WEIRD.

Though of course, I tend to like... WEIRD. Being a surrealist.