tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post109716635208822082..comments2023-11-03T11:37:13.579-04:00Comments on Something Old, Nothing New: Orchestral ArcanaJaime J. Weinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15128500411119962998noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-30284355184439591542011-10-31T14:41:18.173-04:002011-10-31T14:41:18.173-04:00P.s. I agree completely about the antiphonal effec...P.s. I agree completely about the antiphonal effect being great on stereo recordings, but this is precisely why I think mono recordings are, in principle, superior. Stereo recordings rely on an acoustical fallacy that we experience directly radiated sound, and this is not how concert halls work. In a room or small hall, sure, but not when you're sitting in the balcony at Carnegie Hall.Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-38727586671827254602011-10-31T14:37:17.111-04:002011-10-31T14:37:17.111-04:00Just stumbled upon this very informative post. The...Just stumbled upon this very informative post. The flaw with your analysis is that most modern concert halls are too large for the antiphonal violin seating to make an acoustic impact. Unless we're sitting close to the stage, we hear mostly reflected sound, and not directly radiated sound. In the smaller, dryer halls of Beethoven's time, it's a different story. So it seems that any perceived acoustic advantage of antiphonal violins is psychological. In reality, the antiphonal effects usually work worse, because the seconds have their f-holes facing the wrong way. This DOES reduce the amount of reflected reverberation, and it means that the 2nd violin "answer" usually sounds weaker. (In order for the voices to sound equal, the seconds need to play about 125% louder than the firsts, which entails a strong second violin section and also a conductor with a good ear for balance). This is rarely a problem when the firsts and seconds are adjacent, as the f-holes are all pointed outward. <br /><br />But antiphonal "gags" (like the ending of Beethoven 7) are the exception rather than the norm; more often, the first and violin sections play together, and antiphonal seating makes this much more difficult. Playing difficult, rapid passagework together is an impractical challenge, especially when an ensemble is on tour and has to quickly adjust to an unfamiliar or problematic hall. Other problems of ensemble crop up as well: the cello and bass are moved to the left side, which means they are now on opposite sides from the lower brass. <br />Finally, in Romantic music, the second violins often play an octave lower than the firsts, supporting their sound and stabilizing the intonation. To this end, the conductor will often ask the second violins to play their lower octave louder. With antiphonal seating, it's hard for the firsts to hear the seconds, and as a result, the massed violin sound is usually thinner and less in tune. For juicy Romantic music, it's rarely an attractive option.<br />That being said, I'm not sure why anyone actually endorses antiphonal seating. I think part of it is based on an unreflective appeal to tradition, saying "this is how it was always done" without taking into account how concert halls have changed, and so on. Everyone likes to give the "antiphonal effects" reason, but I've hopefully demonstrated how this reasoning is based on acoustically unsound principles. If anything, antiphonal effects work better with the modern seating....nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-12559839256432136682008-12-23T03:36:00.000-05:002008-12-23T03:36:00.000-05:00Kubelik at first didn't do it this way (c.f. his B...Kubelik at first didn't do it this way (c.f. his BRSO recordings of the Weber overtures, Mendelssohn's A Midsummer Night's Dream, and the Dvořák 8th). Other early proponents of this layout include the Boult disciple Vernon Handley, Norman del Mar, Giuseppe Sinopoli, and the trumpeter-turned conductor Gerard Schwarz, who managed to make a US orchestra, the Seattle Symphony, adopt it where Kubelik and Sinopoli had failed (with the Boston Symphony in Ma Vlast and the NYPO in R. Strauss, respectively).Clifford Loohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400790774297797579noreply@blogger.com