If you don't have the real simulated thing, try using a normal pizzicato but make it shorter and quieter than normal -- the pinky pizz is always a weak one and sounds like a hint rather than an assertion.

The only extra comments beyond DG's accurate answers:

I believe triple stops most generally are played 1+2, to use DG's symbols, with only the tiniest of time differences betwee the start of sound on the middle string and the start of sound on the top string; quadruple stops, 2+2. Both will generally be started before the beat with the lowest string (and both classically written ON the beat). Double stops exactly at the same time.

"real" players will tune double stop intervals pure, for the most part, whether or not that's appropriate for the music.

As to simulation, using the vsl solo strings vibrato patches will not sound right for the most part (especially the 0.5 sec ). Use vibrato only for sustained moments in thirds or sixths, not for shorter double stops and not for 4th, 5th, 8ve; probably not for 2nds & 7ths (for 2nd or 7th, you'd want to vibrate the dissonant note and not vibrate the consonant note, I think, and that only if the finger position allows it).

My opinion, if you feel you are a legitimate, possible, future buyer, post here. You'll get a different slant to the responses than at NS -- not necessarily better, but sometimes more useful.

that's a harder problem, perhaps. Generally, real players seem to play shorter notes than chosen for samples. If you use a tenuto mark ( _ ) then the player is at least as likely to have a stronger attack as to sustain the note longer. The dot and dash ( . and _ ) both are different if placed under a slur.

In general, at least until you are certain what you want, I would suggest using relatively few note markings and relatively many slur indications. You'll find that the players will insert bowed staccato, hooked bowings, loure's, etc, on their own in a pretty natural manner.

At least in the solo and chamber strings, staccato 1 is a short note and staccato 2 is a VERY short note. Then there are two versions of each, which would be better to use for up/down alternation. As to whether the tenuto would indicate the 0.5 second patch, that is dependant on tempo -- you really can calculate very close to how long the note should last, then choose which is appropriate. Sometimes for a note around 0.5 seconds, the 0sus patch works well, because the 0.5 (again in the strings) has a rather strong vibrato that is not present in the 0.3.

Instead of sequencing the chorale, I almost spent the time addressing, in words, the articulations you chose for the chorale. Maybe after your deadline we can all give some friendly (?) and conflicting opinions about the bowing choices, some of the part writing, etc, etc .... with the nastiest or the longest or the pithiest entrant getting another $100?

And, Polarbear, I've been puzzling over your signature line about the zero for what seems like years ... in english, "decouple" has an O in it, but an O is not a ZERO ... is it nothing more than a spelling pun?

DG's first answer said it best!

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.

It may be one of those situations that seem incredibly important at the level of detail where your nose is next to the manuscript paper -- but I still say you'd get more power with divisi than with a doublestop, and that you'd distract your cello section with trying to perfect the doublestop, and thus lose the musicality. But ... to each his/her own ... good luck!

Also, the notion of celli taking one note of a viola melody is ... problematic, to be polite -- why not just give the melody to cello with the violins an octave higher? Or transpose, give some new power to the music with harmonic richness. Or leave out the strings altogether, and let brass and woodwinds take care of it. Or mask it with percussion. Or rise up an octave at an appropriate spot. Or let the 'celli play a significant part with double stops more frequently. Or let the bass play divisi. Or magnify the harmonic structure with woodwinds/brass on some of the harmonics of the melodic note.

You sound poverty-stricken when in reality the full power of 60-70 people is at your disposal!

Not so amazing, really, if you think about it. I'm kind of a sucker for goofy projects, but it took me over an hour to make a rather simple version of your choral. Even if I were certain of winning, $100 per hour of concentrated work is not that great. And competitions of any sort are notoriously unpredictable, so I must multiply that $100 times the probability of winning, say an optimistic five percent: thus, effectively $5 per hour. Really less, because if I win I have to correspond with you, listen to your student orchestra, etc.

This is not to criticize you, just to point out why most folks might not take the time to respond to your offer.

Since the normal hand stretch for a 'cello in first position is a minor third on one string, and the double stop you ask for would be a major third if both fingers were placed on the same string, it would not be possible with normal fingering.

With a little time to place the hand, the cellist could use a thumb for the A2, and then the stretch is not bad at all. But I'd agree the sound would be pretty turgid and unlovely for most purposes.

The fingering is the same, of course, as C#3-E3 or G#3-B3.

[edit] -- just read your second post, where you say fff, and a group of celli: for that, divisi is far better [/edit]

Me too. Something essential there, in the human jumps-because-of-environment, yet a hidden, unknowable system despite it all.

Maybe I'm beginning to show my age! When I was a student, I whipped through my theory classes as fast and carelessly as I could, thinking they had nothing to do with the music that was bursting to pour out of me. But now, like weslldeckers and the palette/tools, it seems fruitful to organize the mental studio I'm in, and to take the time to wonder if puttering with the colors on the palette before painting might lead to new directions. Not trying to proselityze (golly, can't spell that word ...) anyone else, though other opinions are always interesting.

RK, Here is Jadassohn's way of putting your rule:

The most universal medium for modulating easily and rapidly from one key into another is the diminished chord of the seventh. It may enter freely anywhere, without preparation of the seventh. It admits of very various resolutions and progressions in major and minor, and by means of the enharmonic change of one or several or all of its tones it can pass over to the most diverse keys.

Just personal interaction: he was pointlessly rude to me when he was a respected (?) composer and I a student.

Back to Piston, one very good quality of his book is the breadth of examples from music. Another of the old harmony books I've been reading also has a wide selection of examples -- but from composers whose names I've never heard: alongside Schubert and Wagner and Mozart, I get "Cadman", "Lwoff", "Nevin", "Page", and ""Kroeger". These from William J. McCoy, 1916.

Here is another quote, and something of a warning about rules. From G. W. Chadwick, "HARMONY: A Course of Study", 1897. Chadwick was the Director of the New England Conservatory.



This is a rule unique, so far, in my recent reading. It is extremely specific, yet wrong, I think (at least, it omits any mention of the notion of deceptive cadence, which -- I think -- allows the third of the dominant to progress to the third of the vi chord).

But it is attempting (at least, by my reading) to address the problems of the dominant followed by the subdominant, and the outlined tritone that will be likely to occur.

As a result of all this recent reading (12 harmony books in 24 days), I just recently used a consciously-chosen augmented sixth chord for a consciously-identified modulation problem. Benefits, therefore, somewhere ....

Persichetti, btw, was a jerk! And a bad composer, imo. He did reputedly have an extremely good ear, however. I've never looked into his harmony book, and I'd never program any of his music, for personal reasons.

Maybe this has been said, wondered, asked; seems easy to anticipate:

-- whether the new 'instrument' will work perfectly. Even as an appreciator of gigastudio, I've lost weeks, maybe months, from bugs, bug avoidance, bug workarounds, and more weeks and months from learning kontakt2's bugs, bug avoidances, and workarounds. And those are both products with years of development, large, vocal user bases ... hard to imagine myself being willing to start all that with a new piece of software.

It is a very good subject, and jbacal and others have the beginning of the answer, perhaps: much wider use of dynamic, timbral, and pitch expressiveness. One difficulty I have been having is trying to 'espressivize' a line as a solo, when any live player would be responding to the whole mass of music into which the line might fit. I still don't think that simply eq'ing the whole of a string line makes sense, though modifying individual recorded notes as part of making them expressive might work (but getting us perilously close to the same total length of time involved as the 15 years of violin study)

Think of a French Horn with no valves -- any note in the harmonic series of F is playable (in the right octave). If you want a different harmonic series, you replace a "crook" (a piece of tubing) to make the total length of tube tuned to another note (E or D or C, typically).

Many interesting replies; I too have appreciated Alan's pages, and will return to explore some more. I did read Shillinger, years ago, at a time when it had been almost forgotton -- it was like walking on the moon, or some other out-of-nature experience.

Yes, my first quote is from Piston, who has been steadily sliding lower in my estimation on closer and closer reading of his works. There is so much "usually" and "often" and "it seems", all the while giving rules like the one I quoted: if you'd write exciting music, then you should break the rules.

Hmmm... how about breaking THAT rule .....!

Most of us would probably agree that one can write thoroughly boring or otherwise bad music despite following rules.

Most of us would probably agree that one can write thoroughly exciting or
otherwise good music despite breaking rules.

What gives me pause is the notion that the music is boring BECAUSE of following rules or exciting BECAUSE of breaking rules.

Maybe a mistake to bring in tuning to thoughts on harmony -- except that they are intimately related -- -- reminds me of Tristram Shandy's Uncle Toby's hobby horse -- -- -- if you haven't read Tristam Shandy yet, you should drop that harmony book and read it first -- -- -- which applies here not only to style but also to substance -- -- and that relation requires a little explanation -- so here is why the second quote is marvelous (and wrong in substance) to me :

In the key of C, there are two tunings for C, the tonic: one at 0 cents and one 22 cents flat;

there are two tunings of C sharp: 8 cents and 30 cents flatter than 100 cents above tonic;

there are two tunings of D natural: the pythagorean, 4 cents sharp and the lowered supertonic, 14 cents flatter than 200 cents above tonic.

From C to C# is either 92, or 70, or 114 cents, depending on context.
From C# to D is either 112, or 90, or 134 cents, depending on context.

Here's another quote, different author, who quotes a third author:



I might have also said originally: if you agree, could you please provide an example of "greater musical interest" BECAUSE of rule breaking; if you disagree, could you please provide an example of "greater musical interest" DESPITE following rules.

using sonar and gigastudio 3, there are (at least) 4 ways to record:

(1) in gs3, "arm" an output then use "capture to wave" function. This saves whatever you hear from gigastudio into a file.

(2) in sonar, use "rewire", setting up your midi and rewire tracks correctly. Select both the midi and the rewire track and choose "bounce to tracks" in the edit menu.

(3) if your sound card has a software mixer (the m-audio audiophile 24/96 that I use has one) then you can have the gigastudio output routed INTO the mixer, and use the mixer as INPUT to sonar, then use normal audio track to record in sonar. this does not require or use rewire.

(4) route audio out that gs3 uses with physical cables back into the input for your soundcard

Here is an extract from a harmony book. Do you agree or disagree?

the quote below is preceded by an extremely abbreviated summary of
voice leading rules ...