The twelve days of christmas - Maurice Bale

Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by chuckletonian, Nov 22, 2006.

  1. chuckletonian

    chuckletonian New Member

    We were playing this piece at band last night, and had one of these crazy disagreements about split parts on the front row:biggrin: . The Solo Cornet part at 8 is unison and marked '2 soli'. A bar and a half later the parts split with a '(2)' above the top notes and '(1)' below the bottom notes. Two and a half bars later the part is marked 'unis'. Of course, I appreciate that this is not the biggest issue in the world, but there seemed to be at least a couple of interpretations of the arrangers intentions that led to a bit of a stand off:) ! Anybody else had this problem with this piece?
     
  2. Adrian Horn

    Adrian Horn Member

    Where it is marked 2 soli there should be just 2 players playing that line (soli being the plural of solo - therefore 2 soli = 2 soloists). Where it splits, you should have 2 players playing the top part and 1 on the bottom part, then when it says unison, all the front row should be playing.

    Sounds like the composer was just wanting to build up the number of players playing this section gradually.
     
  3. Redhorn

    Redhorn New Member

    Id suggest differently!!!
    2 soli, as Adrian suggests, means just two players playing that line.
    Then when it splits, the 1st player plays the lower line, the 2nd player plays the upper line.
    When its unison, the rest of the section join in. (unless theres a 'tutti' a little later, in which case it might just mean the two players play unison)
     
  4. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    It can be interpreted differently again however! Only 2 players play this section ... both as soli, parts split and the same two players play the line in unison. That's how I would read it! Is there a tutti section after this one?
     
  5. GJG

    GJG Well-Known Member

    Wouldn't this be a case of the arranger overstepping his authority ... ?

    I think the arranger is within his rights to specify relative balance of a divisi (such as was suggested above ie. 2 on the upper line against one only on the lower), but I think it's the players' (or MD's) prerogative to determine allocation of parts. The only exception to this might be where a counterpoint crosses over, although such an instance should be clear from the notation (stem direction etc.)

    Whatever the actual intention, the example referred to seems to be a case of unclear notation.
     
  6. Redhorn

    Redhorn New Member

    Certainly from an 'orchestral' view point if the arranger wanted two players on the upper line he would use the word 'two' rather than the number '2' (which would just suggest the 2nd player playing that line), similarly he would use 'one' if he wanted just one player on a line (but '1' if he wanted to indicate that player 1 should play a line)

    Hope that makes sense!

    In response to GJG, it could just be that the 'main line' or 'tune' goes below the second part, or that he feels this line should be slightly stronger... as suggested.
     
  7. GJG

    GJG Well-Known Member

    ... in which case the most "correct" (or least ambiguous) notation would have been an "a3" indication with "(1.+2.)" above the stave and "(3.)" below it

    ... which is exactly what I meant when I wrote "The only exception to this might be where a counterpoint crosses over, although such an instance should be clear from the notation (stem direction etc.)". Sorry if that wasn't clear.
     
  8. Redhorn

    Redhorn New Member

    Sorry- my fault... I meant 'in agreement with GJG, not 'in response to..' !
     

Share This Page