Divide and Conquer: Divisi Strings

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Anyone familiar with Tim Davies' film orchestration/conducting tips site? There's an entry on divisi strings, and I've got a bone to pick/question to ask.

http://www.timusic.net/notation/dived-and-conquer/#.UzIp3M5dD1M

He writes this in reply to one of the comments below:

Yes, all violins look at the same part. Most of the time it has two staves, top is firsts bottom is 2nds. If I mark it div a3 on the top staff and there are 3 notes, they will then divide in even groups. If we need an extra staff we add it. Likewise a long passage in unison or octaves can be written on one staff. I would never have 16 firsts and 12 seconds, I would have 14 and 14 or I have also gone the other way and had more 2nds than firsts. if I have 22, I sometimes do 10/12 so I have more when I divide the 2nds. The differences are pretty subtle. The perception of the size of the group comes from the top. I have done sessions with 16 on a part and that is too many. The back desks were miles away, the section felt lethargic on fast things, and the edge of the attacks was too smoothed out. The larger the section, the lazier players get.

Now this is odd. From all of the Williams scores I've studied over the years, an equal ratio of 1sts and 2nds is just as common as an unequal ratio (12:10, 14:12 etc.). In every blockbuster score since BORN OF THE FOURTH OF JULY, Williams has had 16 1sts and 14 2nds, yet I don't hear any of this supposed sloppiness in the attack and phrasing.

Is this because Williams is a perfectionist and works with top class LA session musicians, whereas this guy doesn't have that luxury?

What are your thoughts?

[dylan345 3]

Strange how he thinks 14 is better than 16. One desk makes only a subtle difference. I also find it strange that he says it's standard to put both the first and second violin parts on one stave. I've never seen that done before.

[karelm 2,914]

I know Tim and he's a pro and very experienced. I think JW is coming from the balance of romantic orchestras that are tuned to a hall and Tim might be coming from a studio microphone balance. For instance a forte in a studio is played for a mic five feet from the trumpet but a forte in a concert hall is for a huge auditorium. The sound is quite different and a pro will approach each uniquely. A lot of films will have an unusual string balance. I forget what film but I think it was Troy that had more violas than violins.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I know Tim and he's a pro and very experienced. I think JW is coming from the balance of romantic orchestras that are tuned to a hall and Tim might be coming from a studio microphone balance.

What's the difference in sound? Does this mean what Williams does with the string sizes is redundant?

What would do if you had 28 violins (14:14 or 16:12) and had two three note chromatic clusters separated just over two octaves apart, one for the first violins and the other for the seconds. Each is marked 'Div a3.'

[WilliamsStarShip2282 308]

Both violin parts on one stave is odd…. the only reason would really be if they didn't have so much to play.

The balancing s beyond odd, but theres definitely a difference between sound in a recording and concert hall, however for John, he still of course orchestrates the usual way of well and equally balancing everything, so not only the strings are balanced within each other, but with the orchestra…. given that its a "standard" orchestra. John's stuff still works and sounds great on recordings, i guess because he always records in huge, acoustically sound rooms. Tim's method seems more suited to sound and work better for maybe a small recording studio and doesn't have the luxury of a large space

I mean to really orchestrate, read rimsky-korsakov, berlioz/strauss, and then take it a step further with a modern orchestration guide by henry mancini.

[karelm 2,914]

I know Tim and he's a pro and very experienced. I think JW is coming from the balance of romantic orchestras that are tuned to a hall and Tim might be coming from a studio microphone balance.

What's the difference in sound? Does this mean what Williams does with the string sizes is redundant?

What would do if you had 28 violins (14:14 or 16:12) and had two three note chromatic clusters separated just over two octaves apart, one for the first violins and the other for the seconds. Each is marked 'Div a3.'

Well, for one thing - it is an aesthetic choice. Like the beer commercial about tastes great/less filling. To my ears, I prefer a balanced and classical sound. To others who might not have grown up with live classical music, they might prefer more of a studio/spot mic sound. Even though JW's music is generally composed and orchestrated to sound great in a hall, there are still spot mics all over the place. This is because what sounds great to our ears is very hard to replicate in a controlled environment. Strings have a warmth so you'll use a vintage large diaphragm Neumann. Meanwhile, you don't want a harsh and piercing woodwind to come in to the string's sensitive mic. So you'll either mix out those EQ's or select a microphone pattern that is more restrictive. Loud brass, will rarely use Neumann's on a pro studio. They'll use something more attuned to either a ribbon mic or powerful overtones. These will most likely have a very limited directionality and as a result suffer from excluding too many wonderful overtone frequencies - so will need to also blend in the room sound further. The end result is these all get mixed and blended to produce a semblance of balance in the final mix we hear. OR - JW approach would be most of the signal is already in the room from the decca tree and very sparingly use the spot mics (to bring out an important texture or raspy quality for instance). In the past, the sound that was favored was for a room/concert hall sound. Now, it is mostly close mic but with artificial reverb added and a taste of room ambience. I was shocked at hearing the new Esa Pekka Solonen/Philharmonia orchestra recording of The Planets. It sounded like it was all close mic so exaggerates clarity which to me doesn't feel particularly realistic. It fits well into Solonen's precision approach, but not so much a Leonard Bernstein grand sweeping gesture approach. Overall, the point is both are valid, but different philosophies. I was taught that a self balancing string section has a ratio of roughly 5:4:3:2:1 give or take. So this would mean something like Violin 1 could be 16, violin 2 would be 14. viola would be 12, cello would be 10, double bass would be 8. This is roughly the string ratio for a modern professional symphony orchestra. There are obvious allowances for repertoire/era flexibilities, but think of this as a general guideline rather than hard fast rule. This also supports the traditional Rimsky Korsakov orchestration model which would say the first violin is the melody, second violin is counter melody, viola is the accompaniment, and celli, bass are harmony.

In general adding more violins does not make the section louder, but smoother. So then you get some orchestrators thinking - if I have limited budget and want to get more sound, does it really make sense for me to add a 15th and 16th violin or 4th and 5th trumpet? For the same cost you can get more sound depending on the genre and dramaturgy. So suddenly you have shifts in orchestration that are more for practical reasons than musical reasons. The thought being no one will notice the omission of the last stand of violins but you will notice the addition of two trumpets if its a brassy score. This is now pretty close to the point where someone wants to add emphasis to a warmth found in violas rather than having a traditional orchestral setup. My recollection was that for Troy, James Horner wanted a more rustic sound so brought in more violas than violins because the change in the ratio brought out more emphasis the mid tones in the orchestral blend. It was an aesthetic/dramatic choice like when Bernard Herrmann removed all strings for an other worldly sound but added four tubas, 8 horns, 2 organs, etc. Sorry for being so verbose but I love this topic.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I know Tim and he's a pro and very experienced. I think JW is coming from the balance of romantic orchestras that are tuned to a hall and Tim might be coming from a studio microphone balance.

What's the difference in sound? Does this mean what Williams does with the string sizes is redundant?

What would do if you had 28 violins (14:14 or 16:12) and had two three note chromatic clusters separated just over two octaves apart, one for the first violins and the other for the seconds. Each is marked 'Div a3.'

Well, for one thing - it is an aesthetic choice. Like the beer commercial about tastes great/less filling. To my ears, I prefer a balanced classical sound. To others who might not have grown up with classical music, they might prefer more of a studio/spot mic sound. Even though JW's music is generally composed and orchestrated to sound great in a hall, there are still spot mics all over the place. This is because what sounds great to our ears is very hard to replicate in a controlled environment. Strings have a warmth so you'll use a vintage large diaphragm Neumann. meanwhile, you don't want a harsh wind to come in the string mic. So you'll either mix out the EQ or select a microphone pattern that is more selective. Loud brass, will rarely use Neumann's on a pro studio. They'll use something more attuned to either a ribbon mic or powerful overtones. These will most likely have a very limited directionality. The end result is these all get mixed and blended to produce a balance in the final mix. OR - JW approach would be most of the signal is already in the room from the decca tree and very sparingly use the spot mics (to bring out an important texture or raspy quality for instance). In the past, the sound that was favored was for a room/concert hall sound. Now, it is mostly close mic but with artificial reverb added and a taste of room ambience. I was shocked at hearing the new Esa Pekka Solonen/Philharmonia orchestra recording of The Planets. It sounded like it was all close mic so exaggerates clarity which to me doesn't feel particularly realistic. It fits well into Solonen's precision approach, but not so much a Leonard Bernstein grand sweeping gesture approach. Overall, the point is both are valid, but different philosophies. I was taught that a self balancing string section has a ratio of roughly 5:4:3:2:1 give or take. So this would mean something like Violin 1 could be 16, violin 2 would be 14. viola would be 12, cello would be 10, double bass would be 8. This is roughly the string ratio for a modern professional symphony orchestra. There are obvious allowances for repertoire/era flexibilities, but think of this as a general guideline rather than hard fast rule. This is also supports the traditional Rimsky Korsakov orchestration model which would say the first violin is the melody, second violin is counter melody, viola is the accompaniment, and celli, bass are harmony.

In general adding more violins does not make the section louder, but smoother. So then you get some orchestrators thinking - if I have limited budget and want to get more sound, does it really make sense for me to add a 15th and 16th violin or 4th and 5th trumpet? For the same cost you can get more sound depending on the genre and dramaturgy. So suddenly you have shifts in orchestration that are more practical reasons than musical reasons. The thought being no one will notice the omission of the last stand of violins but you will notice the addition of two trumpets if its a brassy score. This is now pretty close to the point where someone wants to add emphasis to a warmth found in violas rather than having a traditional orchestral setup. My recollection was that for Troy, James Horner wanted a more rustic sound so brought in more violas than violins because the change in the ratio brought out more emphasis the mid tones in the orchestral blend. It was an aesthetic/dramatic choice like when Bernard Herrmann removed all strings for an other worldly sound but added four tubas, 8 horns, 2 organs, etc. Sorry for being so verbose but I love this topic.

Brilliant reply. Thank you.

For the example I gave, I was referring to a moment in a cue (mm. 109-110, p. 20 from 7m1 That's Gotta Hurt) from THE MATRIX. Both when orchestrating his and own scores and others, I've noticed Don Davis is incredibly precise about string divisis and numbers. Sometimes even writing how many players on each note. You rarely see this with Williams.

I'll send you the cue.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Shore does it too. I've seen it in a fair amount of Williams though, I think, at least when the division wouldn't split the section into equal parts.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Williams rarely lists the numbers of violins on each note, though.

[karelm 2,914]

I know Tim and he's a pro and very experienced. I think JW is coming from the balance of romantic orchestras that are tuned to a hall and Tim might be coming from a studio microphone balance.

What's the difference in sound? Does this mean what Williams does with the string sizes is redundant?

What would do if you had 28 violins (14:14 or 16:12) and had two three note chromatic clusters separated just over two octaves apart, one for the first violins and the other for the seconds. Each is marked 'Div a3.'

Well, for one thing - it is an aesthetic choice. Like the beer commercial about tastes great/less filling. To my ears, I prefer a balanced classical sound. To others who might not have grown up with classical music, they might prefer more of a studio/spot mic sound. Even though JW's music is generally composed and orchestrated to sound great in a hall, there are still spot mics all over the place. This is because what sounds great to our ears is very hard to replicate in a controlled environment. Strings have a warmth so you'll use a vintage large diaphragm Neumann. meanwhile, you don't want a harsh wind to come in the string mic. So you'll either mix out the EQ or select a microphone pattern that is more selective. Loud brass, will rarely use Neumann's on a pro studio. They'll use something more attuned to either a ribbon mic or powerful overtones. These will most likely have a very limited directionality. The end result is these all get mixed and blended to produce a balance in the final mix. OR - JW approach would be most of the signal is already in the room from the decca tree and very sparingly use the spot mics (to bring out an important texture or raspy quality for instance). In the past, the sound that was favored was for a room/concert hall sound. Now, it is mostly close mic but with artificial reverb added and a taste of room ambience. I was shocked at hearing the new Esa Pekka Solonen/Philharmonia orchestra recording of The Planets. It sounded like it was all close mic so exaggerates clarity which to me doesn't feel particularly realistic. It fits well into Solonen's precision approach, but not so much a Leonard Bernstein grand sweeping gesture approach. Overall, the point is both are valid, but different philosophies. I was taught that a self balancing string section has a ratio of roughly 5:4:3:2:1 give or take. So this would mean something like Violin 1 could be 16, violin 2 would be 14. viola would be 12, cello would be 10, double bass would be 8. This is roughly the string ratio for a modern professional symphony orchestra. There are obvious allowances for repertoire/era flexibilities, but think of this as a general guideline rather than hard fast rule. This is also supports the traditional Rimsky Korsakov orchestration model which would say the first violin is the melody, second violin is counter melody, viola is the accompaniment, and celli, bass are harmony.

In general adding more violins does not make the section louder, but smoother. So then you get some orchestrators thinking - if I have limited budget and want to get more sound, does it really make sense for me to add a 15th and 16th violin or 4th and 5th trumpet? For the same cost you can get more sound depending on the genre and dramaturgy. So suddenly you have shifts in orchestration that are more practical reasons than musical reasons. The thought being no one will notice the omission of the last stand of violins but you will notice the addition of two trumpets if its a brassy score. This is now pretty close to the point where someone wants to add emphasis to a warmth found in violas rather than having a traditional orchestral setup. My recollection was that for Troy, James Horner wanted a more rustic sound so brought in more violas than violins because the change in the ratio brought out more emphasis the mid tones in the orchestral blend. It was an aesthetic/dramatic choice like when Bernard Herrmann removed all strings for an other worldly sound but added four tubas, 8 horns, 2 organs, etc. Sorry for being so verbose but I love this topic.

Brilliant reply. Thank you.

For the example I gave, I was referring to a moment in a cue (mm. 109-110, p. 20 from 7m1 That's Gotta Hurt) from THE MATRIX. Both when orchestrating his and own scores and others, I've noticed Don Davis is incredibly precise about string divisis and numbers. Sometimes even writing how many players on each note. You rarely see this with Williams.

I'll send you the cue.

Looking forward to seeing it. Also note, that the higher the violin, the thinner the sound so you typically want more players on higher notes (unless it is just a texture). JW does not like to have violin 1 melodies divisi. Conrad Pope mention his receiving that feedback early on in their partnership. So in a way, that does mean he is deciding how the divis are happening.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I know Tim and he's a pro and very experienced. I think JW is coming from the balance of romantic orchestras that are tuned to a hall and Tim might be coming from a studio microphone balance.

What's the difference in sound? Does this mean what Williams does with the string sizes is redundant?

What would do if you had 28 violins (14:14 or 16:12) and had two three note chromatic clusters separated just over two octaves apart, one for the first violins and the other for the seconds. Each is marked 'Div a3.'

Well, for one thing - it is an aesthetic choice. Like the beer commercial about tastes great/less filling. To my ears, I prefer a balanced classical sound. To others who might not have grown up with classical music, they might prefer more of a studio/spot mic sound. Even though JW's music is generally composed and orchestrated to sound great in a hall, there are still spot mics all over the place. This is because what sounds great to our ears is very hard to replicate in a controlled environment. Strings have a warmth so you'll use a vintage large diaphragm Neumann. meanwhile, you don't want a harsh wind to come in the string mic. So you'll either mix out the EQ or select a microphone pattern that is more selective. Loud brass, will rarely use Neumann's on a pro studio. They'll use something more attuned to either a ribbon mic or powerful overtones. These will most likely have a very limited directionality. The end result is these all get mixed and blended to produce a balance in the final mix. OR - JW approach would be most of the signal is already in the room from the decca tree and very sparingly use the spot mics (to bring out an important texture or raspy quality for instance). In the past, the sound that was favored was for a room/concert hall sound. Now, it is mostly close mic but with artificial reverb added and a taste of room ambience. I was shocked at hearing the new Esa Pekka Solonen/Philharmonia orchestra recording of The Planets. It sounded like it was all close mic so exaggerates clarity which to me doesn't feel particularly realistic. It fits well into Solonen's precision approach, but not so much a Leonard Bernstein grand sweeping gesture approach. Overall, the point is both are valid, but different philosophies. I was taught that a self balancing string section has a ratio of roughly 5:4:3:2:1 give or take. So this would mean something like Violin 1 could be 16, violin 2 would be 14. viola would be 12, cello would be 10, double bass would be 8. This is roughly the string ratio for a modern professional symphony orchestra. There are obvious allowances for repertoire/era flexibilities, but think of this as a general guideline rather than hard fast rule. This is also supports the traditional Rimsky Korsakov orchestration model which would say the first violin is the melody, second violin is counter melody, viola is the accompaniment, and celli, bass are harmony.

In general adding more violins does not make the section louder, but smoother. So then you get some orchestrators thinking - if I have limited budget and want to get more sound, does it really make sense for me to add a 15th and 16th violin or 4th and 5th trumpet? For the same cost you can get more sound depending on the genre and dramaturgy. So suddenly you have shifts in orchestration that are more practical reasons than musical reasons. The thought being no one will notice the omission of the last stand of violins but you will notice the addition of two trumpets if its a brassy score. This is now pretty close to the point where someone wants to add emphasis to a warmth found in violas rather than having a traditional orchestral setup. My recollection was that for Troy, James Horner wanted a more rustic sound so brought in more violas than violins because the change in the ratio brought out more emphasis the mid tones in the orchestral blend. It was an aesthetic/dramatic choice like when Bernard Herrmann removed all strings for an other worldly sound but added four tubas, 8 horns, 2 organs, etc. Sorry for being so verbose but I love this topic.

Brilliant reply. Thank you.

For the example I gave, I was referring to a moment in a cue (mm. 109-110, p. 20 from 7m1 That's Gotta Hurt) from THE MATRIX. Both when orchestrating his and own scores and others, I've noticed Don Davis is incredibly precise about string divisis and numbers. Sometimes even writing how many players on each note. You rarely see this with Williams.

I'll send you the cue.

Looking forward to seeing it. Also note, that the higher the violin, the thinner the sound so you typically want more players on higher notes (unless it is just a texture). JW does not like to have violin 1 melodies divisi. Conrad Pope mention his receiving that feedback early on in their partnership. So in a way, that does mean he is deciding how the divis are happening.

Yes, when has a three-part divisi he has it 10,10,8. I guess one stand less doesn't make that much of a difference.

[karelm 2,914]

I know Tim and he's a pro and very experienced. I think JW is coming from the balance of romantic orchestras that are tuned to a hall and Tim might be coming from a studio microphone balance.

What's the difference in sound? Does this mean what Williams does with the string sizes is redundant?

What would do if you had 28 violins (14:14 or 16:12) and had two three note chromatic clusters separated just over two octaves apart, one for the first violins and the other for the seconds. Each is marked 'Div a3.'

Well, for one thing - it is an aesthetic choice. Like the beer commercial about tastes great/less filling. To my ears, I prefer a balanced classical sound. To others who might not have grown up with classical music, they might prefer more of a studio/spot mic sound. Even though JW's music is generally composed and orchestrated to sound great in a hall, there are still spot mics all over the place. This is because what sounds great to our ears is very hard to replicate in a controlled environment. Strings have a warmth so you'll use a vintage large diaphragm Neumann. meanwhile, you don't want a harsh wind to come in the string mic. So you'll either mix out the EQ or select a microphone pattern that is more selective. Loud brass, will rarely use Neumann's on a pro studio. They'll use something more attuned to either a ribbon mic or powerful overtones. These will most likely have a very limited directionality. The end result is these all get mixed and blended to produce a balance in the final mix. OR - JW approach would be most of the signal is already in the room from the decca tree and very sparingly use the spot mics (to bring out an important texture or raspy quality for instance). In the past, the sound that was favored was for a room/concert hall sound. Now, it is mostly close mic but with artificial reverb added and a taste of room ambience. I was shocked at hearing the new Esa Pekka Solonen/Philharmonia orchestra recording of The Planets. It sounded like it was all close mic so exaggerates clarity which to me doesn't feel particularly realistic. It fits well into Solonen's precision approach, but not so much a Leonard Bernstein grand sweeping gesture approach. Overall, the point is both are valid, but different philosophies. I was taught that a self balancing string section has a ratio of roughly 5:4:3:2:1 give or take. So this would mean something like Violin 1 could be 16, violin 2 would be 14. viola would be 12, cello would be 10, double bass would be 8. This is roughly the string ratio for a modern professional symphony orchestra. There are obvious allowances for repertoire/era flexibilities, but think of this as a general guideline rather than hard fast rule. This is also supports the traditional Rimsky Korsakov orchestration model which would say the first violin is the melody, second violin is counter melody, viola is the accompaniment, and celli, bass are harmony.

In general adding more violins does not make the section louder, but smoother. So then you get some orchestrators thinking - if I have limited budget and want to get more sound, does it really make sense for me to add a 15th and 16th violin or 4th and 5th trumpet? For the same cost you can get more sound depending on the genre and dramaturgy. So suddenly you have shifts in orchestration that are more practical reasons than musical reasons. The thought being no one will notice the omission of the last stand of violins but you will notice the addition of two trumpets if its a brassy score. This is now pretty close to the point where someone wants to add emphasis to a warmth found in violas rather than having a traditional orchestral setup. My recollection was that for Troy, James Horner wanted a more rustic sound so brought in more violas than violins because the change in the ratio brought out more emphasis the mid tones in the orchestral blend. It was an aesthetic/dramatic choice like when Bernard Herrmann removed all strings for an other worldly sound but added four tubas, 8 horns, 2 organs, etc. Sorry for being so verbose but I love this topic.

Brilliant reply. Thank you.

For the example I gave, I was referring to a moment in a cue (mm. 109-110, p. 20 from 7m1 That's Gotta Hurt) from THE MATRIX. Both when orchestrating his and own scores and others, I've noticed Don Davis is incredibly precise about string divisis and numbers. Sometimes even writing how many players on each note. You rarely see this with Williams.

I'll send you the cue.

Looking forward to seeing it. Also note, that the higher the violin, the thinner the sound so you typically want more players on higher notes (unless it is just a texture). JW does not like to have violin 1 melodies divisi. Conrad Pope mention his receiving that feedback early on in their partnership. So in a way, that does mean he is deciding how the divis are happening.

Yes, when has a three-part divisi he has it 10,10,8. I guess one stand less doesn't make that much of a difference.

One other point that is worth making - we are really taking here about the cream of the crop players. In LA, JW will get the best players block off a month if they hear they might be needed for one of his scores. One thing about the best players is they are phenomenally good and hearing each other and self balancing. They are very active listeners. It is almost like having an orchestra that plays together 52 weeks a year for decades where they know each others sound extremely intimately. I just bet a JW studio orchestra is all made up of first call players and does not need to be told exactly how and where to blend plus he will have as much freedom and flexibility as he wants to get it right (no one will tell him "sorry, but you have enough time for one more take only.") If we didn't know exactly who was playing, we'll be more deliberate to get the goal quicker. That might explain why you won't see it in his works as much as you do in others. This is really quite a big topic. I do see in Star Wars sheet music that he will give a melody line to horn 2 and not horn 1 at some places. I find myself asking why would he do that - that doesn't make any sense. But you see that horn 1 has a very hard line coming up and is giving a moment to prep. So you want to be as concise yet specific as possible while maintaining room for flexibility.