Orchestral Seating in

Modern Performance
Origins & Variations

The New Queens Hall Orchestra under Sir Henry Wood, 1920

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MMus in the
University of Glamorgan at the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, 2009

by

Jack D Smith

Contents
Acknowledgements

page

List of Illustrations

Introduction

Part I - Modern Practice

Part II - Traditions & Their Development

16

Part III - Practical & Musical Considerations

31

Part IV - Conclusions

50

Bibliography

52

Typeset in 9/11pt Palatino Linotype

Printed by Abbey Bookbinding & Print, Cardiff

Acknowledgements
This project is the result of several years of pondering on the subject of orchestral
seating, during which time I observed the use of various plans, and wondered what
the possible causes and effects of these might be. I remain indebted to a number of
people who have enabled me to organise these thoughts into something tangible,
and which I hope will prove useful to others.

Special mention should be made of the library staff at the Royal Welsh College of
Music and Drama, who were of great assistance in locating and obtaining those
reference materials I did not own, and kindly looked after one of my own books
when I absent-mindedly left it in the library. I must also extend my gratitude to
those in the fields of conducting and orchestral playing (at professional and amateur
levels) who have patiently listened to my ramblings on this subject for some time. It
was these conversations which enabled me to clarify my own thoughts and also
opened up various new avenues for exploration, in some cases providing valuable
insight into certain aspects of orchestral seating.

The naming of individuals inevitably courts omission and/or embarrassment, and so

I should simply like to dedicate this work to those who have aided and inspired its
creation. To my teachers, friends and colleagues, I offer this dedication, and of
course my sincerest thanks.

JDS
Cardiff
27.iv.MMIX

List of Illustrations
Title

The New Queens Hall Orchestra under Sir Henry Wood, 1920

Two versions of traditional string seating arrangements

Two versions of modern string seating arrangements

page

Modern seating arrangement for triple woodwind section

Modern seating arrangement for full orchestra

10

16

British version of traditional seating arrangement

European version of traditional seating arrangement

19

20

Paris Conservatoire Orchestra under Habaneck, 1828

21

Concert des amateurs, reconstruction by Zaslaw

22

Viennese-style seating arrangement

24

10 Modern amphitheatre style seating arrangement

26

11 Leipzig Gewandhaus c.1844

26

12 Haydn-Salomon concerts, reconstruction by Zaslaw

29

13 Woods seating plan for Queens Hall, 1936

33

14 Woods seating plan for a large amateur orchestra

35

15 Mozart, Overture to Don Giovanni, b.133-41

37

16 Haydn, Symphony No. 103/iv b.368-73

38

17 Elgar, Symphony No. 2/ii b.1-4

38

18 Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 6/iv b.1-4

39

19 Dvok, Symphony No. 8/iv b.121-24

20 Schumann, Symphony No. 4/i, b.91-98
48

40

Introduction
What is an orchestra? Whether it is considered as a collection of individuals, or a
single, quasi-organic entity, it is widely accepted that there is no standard form for
the orchestra; that its size and instrumental makeup will vary to suit the needs of the
music. Such requirements may be stipulated by the composer, or implied by the
style and period of the repertoire to be performed. Another element of orchestral
design is its seating arrangement, or placement, which again has no single standard,
yet can have as much influence on overall sound as numbers or instrumentation.

Orchestral seating receives scant attention, if any, in many of the handbooks to be

found on conducting or orchestration.

Arguably it is less important than basic

principles of technique in either discipline; however the way in which an orchestra is

arranged undeniably has a bearing on its sound and function. In spite of its possible
impact on performance outcomes namely the practicalities of music-making for
players and conductor, and the way in which the music sounds to an audience
seating does not often receive the flexible treatment afforded to many other aspects
of performance practice.

This study does not to attempt to provide an exhaustive account of all possible
variations in orchestral seating, however it is intended to be of use and relevance to
musicians working today; a need which is not often addressed by existing literature,
with a few notable exceptions.* It is not sufficient simply to catalogue various seating
arrangements; players and conductors alike should be aware of the heritage behind
these traditions.

Coupled with this knowledge should be an understanding of the

implications that seating may have not only for the practicalities of orchestral
playing, but very often on how effectively a composers intentions may be conveyed.

Particularly Orchestral Performance by Christopher Adey and Normal Del Mars Anatomy of the
Orchestra, both referenced fully in the Bibliography.
*

This work will not attempt to cover areas which might otherwise prove a distraction
from this primary goal. The historical aspect of the study is designed to illustrate
and inform a discussion of modern practice, as the fascinating yet complex story of
the orchestras early development has already been told.

Those seeking more

detailed historical information will find the reference materials cited to be invaluable
in this respect.* Similarly, with regard to twentieth-century practice, the more radical
arrangements used by Leopold Stokowski (1882-1977) are not detailed as these do
not have such an important bearing on modern performance, having turned out to be
little more than ephemeral experiments. Furthermore this study focuses solely on
seating for concert performance, as while the arrangements for opera and theatre
orchestras are equally interesting and varied, they are subject to a number of other
additional and very different considerations, which could easily give rise to
confusion if an attempt were made to include them in so small a work as this. Whilst
it is recognised that the reality of concert platforms and other performance spaces
encountered is of great variety, and often far from the ideal, it is expected that the
reader will have some experience of the issues of space which often arise in setting
out an orchestra.

The sketch-plans provided are as illustrative examples and

although based on actual practice may often vary depending on the nature of the
performance space. Once again for clarity and simplicity, the issue of platform space
is discussed only in cases where it has a direct and noticeable impact on the
orchestral layout.

Primary source material used in the course of this study consists of my own
observations, gathered during various activities as an orchestral musician,
conductor, chorister and concert-goer. Confirmation has been sought from more
experienced colleagues as necessary, as has relevant material from other secondary
sources, with direct references being acknowledged where appropriate.

The

bibliography is comprehensive, incorporating those sources which have been used

for background reading but not cited in the text.
Daniel Kourys Orchestral Performance Practices in the Nineteenth Century contains much information
concerning eighteenth century practices, particularly with regard to seating arrangements. The Birth of
the Orchestra by John Spitzer and Neal Zaslaw provides more general, yet equally useful background
reading. As before, full references for these are given in the Bibliography.
*

Whilst it does not pretend to provide definitive answers, this study sets out and
analyses various permutations of orchestral seating found in current use for concert
performance not only in terms of their practical advantages and disadvantages, but
also in the context of their origins in historical performance practices. By so doing, it
is hoped that seating may be understood as a significant element of orchestral
performance, yet one as flexible and subject to interpretation as any other. Such an
understanding may enable a conductor to make more informed decisions on seating
rather than resorting to default. It might also enlighten the occasional begrudging
player of the reason for his* being transplanted to unfamiliar territory

I have tried to avoid the over-use of such gender-specific terms in writing this piece. However where
such instances do occur, and with the greatest respect for female colleagues, please read as his or her
throughout.
*

Part I - Modern Practice

Strings

The placement of the strings is most often affected by variations in orchestral seating;
therefore it seems pertinent to begin by explaining the various formations in isolation
from other sections of the orchestra.

Figure 1a

Figure 1b

Two versions of traditional string seating arrangements

The traditional practice of seating second violins opposite the firsts has two basic
forms, as the lower strings may be arranged differently. As will be seen in due
course, the arrangement shown in fig. 1a has a longer history, bearing hallmarks of
some of the earliest orchestral practices. The configuration shown in fig. 1b provides
a more modern approach to the position of the lower strings, with the basses closer
to the lower brass and woodwind. This arrangement also provides a less radical
departure from normal practice for those orchestras who do not use it regularly.
Figure 2a

Figure 2b

Two versions of modern string seating arrangements

Perhaps the most familiar arrangement in use today is that in fig. 2a. However this
was only arrived at via the plan shown in fig. 2b, a reworking of fig. 1b which

substituted the violas in place of the second violins.

Having established the

principles of these basic formations, it is now possible to embark on a more in-depth

examination of seating practices in use today.

Violins

It is one of the few constants in modern orchestral practice that the first violins are
seated to the left of the conductor. Almost equally consistent is the seating of the
second violins, who are now most often found in a centre-left position behind the
first; however this practice was only introduced comparatively recently by Sir Henry
Wood (1869-1944) in the early twentieth century. This represents a radical departure
from the traditional seating, which placed the second violins on the conductors
right, opposite the first. Simple as the differences may seem, the question of seating
the violins is easily the most controversial in any discussion of orchestral seating.
Whilst the arguments will be addressed in due course, it is should here be pointed
out that traditional practice was based on a principle of balance: Arturo Toscanini
(1867-1957) described the first and second violins as being like a pair of shoulders,
and like shoulders they must be strong and equal. 1 Arguably the perception of the
second violins as a subordinate and subsidiary section is a recent invention, which
may have arisen as an indirect result of the modern seating.

Violas

Early seating practices often treated the violas as a subsidiary bass instrument,
placing them alongside the cellos and basses. They were sometimes found at the
outside of the string group, perhaps forced into this position by the practice of
having both cello and bass principals at the front of the orchestra alongside the first
1

Howard Taubman, The Maestro: The Life of Arturo Toscanini, quoted in Daniel J. Koury, Orchestral

Performance Practices in the Nineteenth Century: Size, Proportions and Seating (Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1986),
319.

violins. Examples may be found which show such arrangements lasted well into the
nineteenth century; however it has become the norm in modern practice to place the
violas in a position towards the front of the orchestra, grouped with the violins and
cellos around the conductors stand. Still harking back to earlier conventions, the
violas have remained adjacent to the cellos (if not also the basses) in modern seating
arrangements. Normally this is in a fairly central position within the orchestra, to the
left or right of centre depending on the position of the cellos, in effect mirroring that
section.

The modern violin seating was achieved by swapping the positions of

second violins and violas, bringing the latter section from centre-left inside the
orchestra to sit on the outside (front of platform) to the conductors right. This
arrangement was later altered by another exchange of positions, this time between
the violas and cellos; i.e. the violas returned to a position inside the orchestra, to the
right of centre, which is perhaps their most familiar placing in current practice.

Cellos

Like the violas, the cello section remains quite mobile in the modern orchestra, being
found in three basic positions. The most frequently encountered of these is at the
front of the orchestra on the conductors right, which first appeared in the 1920s as
an adjustment to Woods seating plan. Traditional seating arrangements place the
cellos inside the orchestra, either to the left or right of centre, of which the former has
perhaps the stronger tradition, stemming from the seating of violin and cello
principals together as a common feature of continuo practice.*

The centre-right

position is more commonly used by orchestras when traditional seating is adopted

temporarily, largely because it more closely resembles the modern practice of
keeping cellos and basses on the right.

Such an arrangement placed these players near to the keyboard instrument when one was used,
allowing orchestras to be led by co-operation before the advent of the recognisably modern conductor.
*

Double Basses

The basses may be placed in a variety of positions, often (but not always) in close
proximity to the cellos, but further away from the centre of the orchestra. In modern
seating this usually finds them on the conductors right, behind the last desk of cellos
at the front of the platform and effectively on the edge of the orchestra, although
sometimes a more inclusive arrangement is seen where the section curves in from
this point towards the centre of the orchestra. Whilst the position of the cellos may
be altered, the basses are not always moved to match this, which may result in some
distance arising between the two sections.

Traditional seating arrangements

sometimes place the double basses in a single row, encompassing the back of the
orchestra, or as a slight variation place them in a similar style, but around the other
string sections.

Woodwind

Whilst the position and formation of the wind section in the modern orchestra is
more or less constant, there are a number of variations which reflect aspects of both
modern and traditional practices. The most familiar arrangement of the section is as
follows:

Fig. 3

Modern seating arrangement for triple woodwind section

This block-formation, coupled with a central position in the orchestra, is eminently

suited to most of the repertoire; however the traditional method of seating was to
place wind instruments near, if not adjacent to those string parts which they often

doubled. This principle (which was surely as haphazard in practice as it sounds, and
resulted in arrangements of almost infinite variety) was refined over the course of
the nineteenth century into a crescent-shaped formation, placing the winds around
the back of the strings. The block-formation creates a more cohesive section in both
visual and aural terms, however this seating arrangement can create problems in a
very large orchestra (such as those required by Mahler or Richard Strauss) by virtue
of the sheer distance between the outer players, who may be the fourth, fifth or even
sixth in their section. Woods principle of seating was to have an individual row for
each set of instruments (from front to back: flutes, oboes, clarinets and bassoons), a
principle he would adopt even with only two or three each of the woodwind, with
the first players in line, one behind the other second players ditto so that the
conductor can, at a glance, see his first wind players second third... 2 Whilst
the usual seating in modern practice remains that seen in fig. 3, a formation such as
Wood suggested is sometimes applied to large sections, for the reasons given above.
Another variation on the block-formation (albeit one rarely seen nowadays) reverses
the position of bassoons and clarinets. This may seem logical when the other bass
instruments have been positioned on the left-hand side of the orchestra, and
furthermore provide greater support to the higher wind from the bassoons, who
would project into the section (both aurally and physically) from such a position.
However a slight offset of the back row as shown in fig. 3 not only improves the line
of sight for those players, but ensures that the principal (and indeed second) bassoon
will be closer to both principal flute and oboe, an arrangement of mutual benefit in
matters of ensemble and intonation.3

Henry Wood, About Conducting (London: Sylvan Press, 1945), front end-paper
Christopher Adey, Orchestral Performance: A Guide for Conductors and Players (London: Faber & Faber,
1998), 35.
2
3

Horns

As with the woodwind, the seating of the horn section is largely standardized in
modern practice, but with a number of important variations.

The most usual

arrangement for the horns today is in a single row, to the left of the wind section
(from the conductors point of view), with the principal seated nearest the centre of
the orchestra.

Alternative arrangements may place the horns behind the

woodwinds, either partially with the first horn chair in the centre with the wind
principals, or wholly, with the horns effectively forming a third row to the wind
section. Less common is a positioning on the right of the orchestra, either in front of
the other brass, or in their place if this section has also been removed from its usual
position.

As well as the placing of the horn section in the orchestra, its internal organisation
may sometimes vary. At one time it was the preference of some principals to seat
their sections in what would now be considered a reverse formation, although this
has now been obsolete for some years despite its potential advantages, such as
allowing the first horn to hear more directly the sound being produced by the rest of
his section. The horns are sometimes seen arranged in two pairs rather than a single
row, particularly where space is limited, although this may also be effected to
emphasise the use in some of the classical repertoire of pairs of horns in different
keys. Two rows are also used where a larger section than normal is used; as in the
case of expanded woodwind sections mentioned above, this formation provides
greater cohesion and security, as well as economizing on space.

Brass

The trumpets, trombones and tuba, sometimes referred to collectively as the heavy
brass, are usually grouped together at the rear of the orchestra, to the right as viewed
from front. Like the horns, they may be arranged in a single row or in a more
compact two-row formation. In the case of the latter it is more usual for the trumpets
to form the first row with trombones and tuba ranged behind, both trumpet and
trombone principals sitting nearest the centre of the orchestra. When the section is
arranged in a single row, the trumpets are placed towards the centre and trombones
nearer the outside of the orchestra. In this formation the principal players usually
but not always sit together, effectively reversing the seating of the trumpets.
Whilst the internal organization of the brass may sometimes vary, their general
position is virtually standardized. However some seating arrangements occasionally
see them transported to the rear left of the orchestra, to match a corresponding
position for the double basses, although (as with that placing of the basses) this
arrangement is only rarely seen in Britain, but is encountered somewhat more
frequently in European orchestras.

Timpani & Percussion

The timpani are almost always found at the back of the orchestra, either in a central
position behind the wind section or to one side, in which case they tend to be placed
on the right, nearer to the brass.

Similar principles are applied to the other

percussion, although more space for these instruments is likely to be found to the left
of the orchestra, behind the horns.

It should be borne in mind that such

arrangements depend very much on the size and type of platform being used,
particularly as space tends to be more restricted at the back of the orchestra owing to
the nature of risers or tiered staging. Variations on the above may occur when space
is at a premium; for example when the double basses are placed at the back of the
orchestra, which may see the percussion moved to one side of the platform (perhaps

even in the position more usually taken by the basses).

As a result of these

limitations, it is hard to define current practice beyond the rather vague terms
already described. However there are a number of works, particularly in the more
modern repertoire, in which a particular arrangement is specified by the composer.
Examples of this may be found throughout the works of Bartok (such as the First
Piano Concerto, where a small percussion section with a quasi-concertante role is
placed in front of the first desks of strings) and also in such striking cases as
Nielsens Fourth Symphony, where two sets of timpani are placed at opposite sides
of the orchestra, engaging in an antiphonal duel during the finale.

Harps & Keyboard instruments

The positioning of the harp has long caused problems for conductors, particularly as
the instrument is easily drowned out by the rest of the orchestra. One solution was
found by Hector Berlioz (1803-1869), who would specify that the harp(s) should be
placed near to the audience (sometimes manifested as a position in front of the
strings) and reinforced where possible; in the Symphonie Fantastique, for instance, he
asked that the two harp parts should be at least doubled. * This placing at the front of
the orchestra persisted until the end of the nineteenth century, but often gave rise to
problems

in

maintaining

ensemble

between

solo

woodwind

and

harp

accompaniments. This is perhaps one of the main factors in the almost universal
adoption today of a position for the harp within the orchestra, best described as near
to the wind section, but a little forward and to one side, usually the left. This
preference is largely due to reasons of space, besides grouping the harp along with
any keyboard instruments when these are used; however there are a few instances
where a position on the right may be desirable. Mahlers First Symphony may be

It is worth mentioning that problems with the harps lack of natural projection are still encountered,

and often one sees two harps doubling a single part, either where this has been specified by the
composer, or as an addition at the discretion of the conductor.

considered an example of this, as a piece in which the harp often doubles the lower
strings.4

The piano is often found in a similar position to that usually taken by the harp, on
the left and behind the first violins, to allow for sound projection and line of sight
when the lid of the instrument is raised. By virtue of its size and weight the piano
remains at stage-level, although the lighter instruments such as harp and celesta are
sometimes found on risers, but still grouped near to the piano; such a position has
become adopted more or less as standard even when no piano is used. There are
some works in the repertoire which call on the same player to double on both piano
and celelsta, which of course requires that the two instruments be placed adjacently.
A particularly quick change between the two may be affected by placing the celesta
alongside the piano at a right angle, allowing the player to remain on the same stool.
However such an arrangement may cause problems of sighting between the player
and conductor, as well as render the smaller celesta invisible to the audience.

Norman Del Mar, Anatomy of the Orchestra (London: Faber & Faber, 1981), 441.

Part II - Traditions & Their Development

Modern Seating

The widespread usage by British and American orchestras of the plan shown in fig. 4
belies the fact that it is less than a hundred years old, and much of its rise to
popularity has taken place in the last fifty years or less. Its most prominent (and
controversial) feature is the arrangement of the strings in a high to low, left to right
formation. The debate arising from this was pithily summarized by Norman Del
Mar, who observed that advocates of this arrangement hold it advantageous that all
the higher sound is on one side and all the lower on the other, while others oppose it
for this very reason.5

Figure 4

Modern seating arrangement for full orchestra

This seating is a development of that originally devised by Sir Henry Wood and
introduced by him c.1911 at the concerts of the London Philharmonic Society.6

ibid., 51.
NB. Sections labelled in parentheses may be found in alternative positions, or not always required.

Woods initial plan featured the strings arranged as shown in fig. 2b above.
5
*

Galkin, ibid., 168.

Wood gave the rationale for his plan in typical no-nonsense manner:

I prefer my first and second violins on my left, as from long experience I maintain that by this
placing better ensemble is assured, and volume and quality of tone improved with all the S
holes (sic) facing the auditorium; the cellos and basses on my right, because they too are of a
colour, and ensemble is better assured by placing together instruments of the same family.

The above remarks, published posthumously, give a more aesthetic reading of

Woods new seating than an interview published by the Musical Times at the time of
the plans first appearance.

The article quotes Wood explaining how the

arrangement facilitates the giving of cues and economizes time at rehearsals, a

remark which reveals much more about the nature of his long experience.
Everything Wood did was designed to produce the optimum performance in
concerts which were often assigned as little as three hours of rehearsal time as with
marking every nuance and beating into the parts in his famous blue pencil, his
seating plan was surely borne out of necessity rather than a desire to revolutionise
orchestral performance. The revolution, if it may be called that, took place in the
United States rather than in British orchestras, with the adoption of Woods seating
plan by Serge Koussevitzky (1874-1951) and Stokowski at the Boston Symphony and
Philadelphia Orchestras respectively. Both conductors had strong links with British
musical life; Stokowski for all his affectations had been born and raised in Londons
East End, emigrating to America when still in the early stages of his career, and
Koussevitzky had appeared as a guest conductor with the Queens Hall Orchestra
whilst building his career in Europe, before also crossing the Atlantic.

Whilst there is little doubt that the seating of the cellos to the conductors right
followed soon after Woods original plan, being introduced in the 1920s, it remains
unclear as to who should receive the credit for this. A seating plan of the Boston
Symphony under Koussevitzky in 1925, the year after he took up the post, shows the
cellos on the conductors right.8 However in including this, Daniel Koury notes some
ibid., 53.
Daniel J. Koury, Orchestral Performance Practices in the Nineteenth Century: Size, Proportions and Seating
(Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1986), 309.
7
8

ambiguity amongst

contemporary

sources

as

to whether this plan

was

Koussevitzkys preferred arrangement or if he later reverted to Woods original

seating, with the violas in that position (the latter is here referred to as a seating
which corresponds to the usual string quartet sequence, perhaps shedding further
light on the plans original inspiration9).

Whilst Koussevitzky adopted Woods

seating early on, and appears to have had the cellos to his right in 1925, Stokowski is
credited by John Mueller with having placed the cellos in this position first, but not
for the innovation of the whole plan, as is sometimes (incorrectly) supposed.10 Even
if the entire arrangement was not originally Stokowskis, this alteration would
become known as the Stokowski shift, rightly or wrongly attaching his name to it as
its inventor. Mueller refers to it by this name when noting how it was taken up in
1931 by Eugene Ormandy (1899-1985) at Minneapolis11, and although Herbert
Kupferberg credited Stokowski with the entire concept of modern seating, he did
observe more accurately in 1969 that the plan had by then become the standard
deployment of most American orchestras.12

It is clear from Woods diagrams,

reproduced as end-papers in About Conducting, that he also came to modify his

original plan in this way, however it is not clear at what point this took place (the
photograph of Wood with the New Queens Hall Orchestra in 1920 shows the violas
were at that time still placed to his right13). However the principal defining element
of modern seating remains placing of the two violin sections together, rather than the
seating of the cellos.

John H. Mueller, The American Symphony Orchestra: A Social History of Musical Taste, quoted in Koury,
ibid., 309.
10
Koury, ibid., 309.
11
Koury, ibid., 309.
12
Herbert Kupferberg, Those Fabulous Philadelphians: The Life and Times of a Great Orchestra, quoted in
Koury, ibid., 309.
13
Robert Elkin, Queens Hall 1893-1941 (London: Rider, 1944), plate facing 115. The photograph is
reproduced here on the title page.
9

Traditional Seating

Woods modifications were described as having switched the positions of violas and
second violins, which implies that a plan such as that given in fig. 5 (or at any rate
one similar to it) had previously held sway in Britain. Quite apart from the vivid
antiphonal effect which can achieved by the seating of first and second violins
opposite each other, supporters of the arrangement also argue that it creates a much
better blend of the whole orchestral sound.

Figure 5

British version of traditional seating arrangement

Del Mar points out that the arrangement of the strings as shown above has the
important virtue of keeping the basses [and cellos] to the conductors right14,
thereby maintaining their proximity to the lower woodwind and brass besides being
more akin to their position in modern seating plans. It is perhaps for this reason that
this plan is the most familiar version of traditional seating in use today, particularly
among British orchestras, however there are a number of important variations which
warrant further attention.

14

ibid., 50.

The arrangement more often found in European orchestras is represented by fig. 6,

its main difference being the positioning of cellos and basses on the left.

Figure 6

European version of traditional seating arrangement

Whilst this plan remains in current use, there are obvious drawbacks, particularly
given the distance between the basses and lower brass.* This may be addressed by
switching the positions of the horns with the rest of the brass, an arrangement used
by the Orchestre National in 1949,15 and more recently by Christoph von Dohnyni
with the Philharmonia.16 Other variations sometimes seen include the horns moving
to a position in front of the other brass, sometimes referred to as the German
position. The disruption caused in either case by such a radical change, coupled
with the aforementioned weaknesses of the above plan, does much to explain the
greater popularity (if not the origins) of the seating given in fig. 5.

In some cases, such as the Orchestre National plan referred to above, the basses might
be found in a more strung-out formation than that suggested by fig. 6. This was a
prevalent feature of nineteenth-century practice, which stemmed from the even
longer-held principle that the bass should be heard throughout the orchestra.
This arrangement was in use by the Ensemble Orchestral de Paris during 2008, when the writer
performed with them as a member of the BBC National Chorus of Wales.
15
Galkin, ibid., 171.
*

16

<http://www.mti.dmu.ac.uk/~ahugill/manual/seating.html> Accessed 17/04/09.

Perhaps the most well-known example of this is the plan, shown in fig. 7, of the
Socit des Concerts at the Paris Conservatoire under Franois-Antoine Habaneck
(1781-1849).17 Both cellos and double basses are mixed quite freely with the winds
and brass towards the back of the orchestra, although the principals of these sections
are relatively near the front (adjacent to the flutes) of what seems an unusually deep
or elongated stage plan. Note also the position of the brass at the rear left corner, but
here with the horns on the same side.

Figure 7

Paris Conservatoire Orchestra under Habaneck, 1828

17

Galkin, ibid., 152.

Another Parisian seating plan which reveals much about the origins of traditional
seating is that of the Concert des amateurs in the 1770s, as reconstructed by Neal
Zaslaw, and reproduced here in fig. 8.18

Figure 8

Concert des amateurs, reconstruction by Zaslaw

The plan strongly suggests a number of features which were to become standard
practice in the nineteenth century, and although it should be borne in mind that
Zaslaws ideas might inevitably be inclined to reflect more modern practices, he does
qualify this arrangement as being a hypothetical reconstruction.19

However a

number of contemporary sources offer a good deal of supporting evidence, and

reveal much about the principles of seating adopted at this time not only by the
Concert des amateurs, but also by the Concert spirituel. A state of open rivalry existed
between these two, which led to various seating reforms being introduced as each
orchestra sought to improve the quality of its playing:

The orchestras disposition counts for much, and one must observe the following rules,
namely: put the second violins opposite and not alongside the firsts; place the bass instruments
as near as possible to the first violins, for in harmony the bass is the essential part of the
chords; finally, bring together the wind instruments such as the oboes, flutes, horns, etc.
and finish it off with the violas. Of all the orchestras, the best composed and the best arranged
was, without doubt the Concert des amateurs. However, they had the bass instruments
separated too much from the first violins, and I recall that, when I performed solos there, I took
18
19

Neal Zaslaw, Mozarts Symphonies: Context, Performance Practice, Reception (Oxford: OUP, 1989), 321.
Zaslaw, ibid., 320.

care, on the example of the famous violinist Lamotte, to ask the [principal cellist] to draw near
me, so that I could indicate and strictly mark the tempo that the orchestra had to follow. For
the delay of the sound caused by distance must necessarily disturb the musical ensemble and,
as the bass is the foundation of a concert, it must then be close to the melody. Hence put the
first and second violins alongside the bass instruments; then the ensemble will be perfect.

20

Meude-Montpass account remains frustratingly ambiguous in some respects. Not

least among these is his casual treatment of the wind instruments and violas; he also
neglects to specify to which side the two violin sections should be seated. Further
insight is offered by the following description of concert seating for Italian orchestras
during the same period. This draws a number of interesting parallels with MeudeMontpas, which may well be of relevance given the increasing popularity of the
Italian repertoire in Paris at that time.

The violins [should be] placed in two rows, one opposite the other so that the firsts are looking
at the seconds. With regard to the bass-line instruments, if there are only two, place them
near the harpsichord (if there is one) in such a way that the violoncello remains near the leader
of the first violins and the double-bass on the opposite side, and between them the maestro or
harpsichordist; but if there are more bass-line instruments, and if they are played by good
professional musicians, place them at the foot that is, at the other extremity of the orchestra;
otherwise [i.e. if they are not played by good professional musicians] you should place them as
near to the firsts as you possibly can. The violas are always best near the second violins, with
whom they must often unite in thirds, in sixths, etc., and the oboes are best alongside the firsts.
The brass can then be placed not far from the leader. In this disposition all the heads of
sections namely the leader, the principal second violin, the maestro etc. are neighbours,
by which means perfect ensemble cannot but result.

21

Although Galeazzi is not entirely clear placing the basses at the foot of the
orchestra, for instance he essentially seems to expound the same principles as
Meude-Montpas, and in more detail, perhaps lending greater credence to Zaslaws
reconstruction of the Concert des amateurs, particularly its anticipation of nineteenthcentury practices. Although, like Meude-Montpas, he does not specify which way
J. J. O. de Meude-Montpas, Dictionnaire de musique, quoted in Zaslaw, ibid., 320.
Francesco Galeazzi, Elementi teorico-pratici di musica con un saggio sopra larte di suonare il violino,
quoted in Zaslaw, ibid., 195.
20
21

the violins should be seated, Galeazzi does imply an increasing independence

between first and seconds (naming the principal second violin as a head of section).
Unity between the first violins (as the main melodic line) and bass instruments is still
of paramount importance, although almost as important is that the bass should be
heard by as much of the orchestra as possible; perhaps by at the foot Galeazzi
meant that the tutti bass instruments should be arranged along or around the back of
the orchestra. Note how the violas are considered not so much a part of the group of
bass instruments, but as a subsidiary violin part, being placed best near the second
violins, with whom they must often unite

One of the most important variations on traditional seating is shown in fig. 9, made
distinctive by the placing of the double basses in a single row at the back of the
orchestra, an arrangement preferred by Sir Adrian Boult (1889-1983) and referred to
him as Vienna-fashion.22

Figure 9

Viennese-style seating arrangement

Startling as this may seem, the formation may be considered a natural extension of
the nineteenth-century practice of placing the basses along one side of the orchestra,
reaching to the back, which can be seen from a number of photographs to have lasted
into the twentieth century. Although unusual, this plan remains in current use in

22

Adrian C. Boult, Thoughts on Conducting (London: Phoenix, 1963), 22.

Britain beyond Boults championing, notably by the Hall Orchestra at Bridgewater

Hall (from which fig. 9 is drawn) and the Philharmonia under Sir Charles Mackerras.
Boult was influenced in this seating, as with much of his conducting style, by his
teacher Arthur Nikisch (1855-1922). An undated plan of the Berlin Philharmonic
under Nikisch shows a similar arrangement, with the basses at the rear of the
orchestra.23 Although this drawing suggests a more compact formation, perhaps in
two rows, a photograph of Nikisch with the Boston Symphony in 1891 shows the
basses ranged in a single row.24 Perhaps more revealingly, the photograph suggests
a similar arrangement for the cellos, which (although the whole section is not visible)
appear also to face directly outwards, the first desks at least being arranged in a
single row. This formation has virtually fallen out of use in modern practice, but has
been seen in recent broadcasts of the Vienna Philharmonics New Years Day concert,
suggesting that it might be as much a part of the Viennese style as the arrangement
of the basses.

One of the main obstacles to the Vienna-fashion placing of the basses is a lack of
space (note, for instance, the position of the timpani and percussion in fig. 9). Boult
acknowledged this, but lamented their having to go away in some corner[as] the
string foundation should be central, and pointed out that Hans Richter (1843-1916)
would in such cases separate the basses into two equal groups, placing one at each
side, thereby achieving a similar balance.25 An alternative to placing the basses at the
back of the orchestra is shown in fig. 10, where they return to the fold of the string
section in this separated form.

23
24
25

Galkin, ibid., 173. Note also the similarities of Toscaninis seating, reproduced on the same page.
Koury, ibid., 229.
ibid., 22-23.

Figure 10

Modern amphitheatre style seating arrangement

Such an arrangement has recently been used by the Hall at the BBC Proms, perhaps
as a more practical alternative to the Viennese style seating given the steep rise of the
Royal Albert Halls tiered staging. However this plan has also appeared on more
versatile and spacious platforms, such as that at St Davids Hall in Cardiff, in a
performance by the BBC National Orchestra of Wales of Mendelssohns Elijah. The
choice of this seating over other, more usual arrangements may well have been
influenced by the plan shown in fig. 11, of the Leipzig Gewandhaus.26
Figure 11

Leipzig Gewandhaus c.1844

26

Galkin, ibid., 160.

Koury suggests that this layout is probably that used by Mendelssohn himself, as he
had conducted the orchestra until the previous year.27 The plan implies a Viennesestyle arrangement (if not positioning) of both cellos and basses, as well as a
recognisably modern position for the brass; the horns in particular are well-placed to
blend with either the woodwind or the other brass. However the winds are in a less
compact formation, being dispersed around the back of the strings, and the violas are
similarly situated in a peripheral position, features which bear comparison with fig.
8. Note the seating of the violins, with the firsts to the conductors right, which
Koury points out as reminiscent of many eighteenth-century plans28 it should be
remembered that sources relating to fig. 8 did not specify which way the violins were
seated, and that Zaslaws conjecture is a hypothetical one.

Another earlier plan which bears a strong resemblance to those in figs. 10 & 11 is that
of the orchestra at the Haydn-Salomon concerts, held in London between 1791 and
1795. H. C. Robbins Landon gives the following account of the first concert from a
contemporary diary:

The orchestra was arranged on a new plan. The Pianoforte [from which Haydn conducted]
was in the centre, at each extreme end the double basses, then on each side two violoncellos,
then two tenors [violas] and two violins, and in the hollow of the piano a desk on a high
platform for Salomon with his ripieno. At the back, verging down to a point at [the centre of
the orchestra], all of these instruments were doubled, giving the requisite number for a full
orchestra.

Still further back, raised high up, were the drums, and on either side the

trumpets, bassoons, oboes, clarinets, flutes &c., in numbers according to the requirements of
the music to be played.

29

According to Zaslaw, this marked the introduction of an arrangement which, in one

form or another, was used [in Britain] for orchestral concerts throughout much of the
nineteenth century.30 Zaslaw has again provided a reconstruction of this seating
ibid., 206.
ibid., 206.
29
H. C. Robbins Landon, Haydn in England 1791-1795: Chronicle and Works (London: Thames and
Hudson, 1976), 52.
30
ibid., 464.
27
28

plan using sources from various contemporary accounts, justifying the semicircular
shape as having been drawn from a description of the arrangement as en amphithtre
but not explaining the rationale behind the violin seating. 31 This later manner of
seating, as Koury has it, leaves us wondering whether this was stipulated in the
descriptions or conjectured because [the violins] were divided.32 If the above diary
account, brief as it may be, is anything to go by, the writer might not have noticed to
which side the first or second violins were seated, or even have thought it
particularly important.

Zaslaws diagram, despite the apparently arbitrary

positioning of the first and second violins, carries a more implicit justification for this
arrangement: as soloist or concertmaster, Salomon was effectively the leader of the
first violins, and one can safely assume that Haydn (and so the instrument from
which he conducted) would have faced the audience for reasons of etiquette. It
would seem logical therefore that the first violins should have been seated nearest to
Salomon on his platform in the curve of the piano, rather than on the other side of
that instrument.

31
32

ibid., 464.
Koury, ibid., 45.

Figure 12

Haydn-Salomon concerts, reconstruction by Zaslaw

The appearance of organ, chorus and soloists (as if for oratorio performances)
notwithstanding, there are a number of notable features in this plan. A departure
from previous conventions of continuo practice is the removal of all bass instruments
(bar the keyboard) to the outside of the orchestra, but here with a division into two
groups which perhaps reflects the importance still placed on the whole orchestra
being able to hear the bass. Note that the violas are similarly divided, a small group
being placed between the violins and bass instruments on each side; a possible
indicator that at this time they remained associated with the bass instruments
whether or not their parts suggested it. The arrangement of the wind section is
noticeably similar to that later seen at Leipzig. The position of the bassoons next to
what one might suppose is the first group of cellos and basses seems logical;
however the placing of the horns alongside the bassoons results in the displacing of
flutes and oboes to a position well away from the first violins, whose part they

would surely be more likely to double.

Zaslaws positioning of the flutes has

perhaps been influenced by the principle, commonly held in the eighteenth century,
that instruments of similar timbre and pitch should be separated for better contrast
Zaslaw notes how flutes and trumpets were used as an example of this (not as
ridiculous as it sounds if one considers the character of the clarino trumpet style).33
However there seems no reason from Zaslaws reconstruction why the trumpets
should not be placed to the other side of the timpani, which would enable the horns
to take the position formerly occupied by the trumpets, and allow the oboes and
flutes nearer to the first violins. Whilst Zaslaws plan does not suggest whether there
were circumstances which in reality would have prevented such alterations, it can be
clearly seen that Haydns arrangement is only a few relatively minor adjustments
away from modern practice. The continuing influence of this plan can be seen in
drawings of the London Philharmonic Society orchestra some fifty years later.34
Even under such a progressive conductor as Sir Michael Costa (1808-1884) some
elements of eighteenth-century practice remained, particularly the seating of cello
and bass principals at the front of the orchestra. Arrangements such as this persisted
into the mid-nineteenth century, despite being clearly considered archaic by some Charles Hall noted with alarm that the Gentlemens Concerts in Manchester (later to
become the Hall Orchestra) persisted in such an arrangement prior to his
appointment as their conductor.35

33
34
35

Zaslaw, ibid., 463, 464.

Galkin, ibid., 161.
C. B. Rees, One Hundred Years of the Hall (London: Macgibbon & Kee, 1957), 21.

Part III - Practical & Musical Considerations

General Principles

As has been seen from the evolution of the various traditions in orchestral seating, no
single plan is universally suited to every orchestra, concert platform or area of
repertoire. Whatever arrangement is adopted, there are a few fundamental factors
which must be taken into consideration. Besides those which may be necessary for an
orchestra to play well in the basic functional sense, there are more human
considerations, such as the players comfort and morale, which play an equally
important part in the life of any orchestra.

From a purely practical point of view, a players line of sight is critical. Whilst sightlines are more obviously problematic for those sections at the back of the orchestra,
particularly the lower brass and percussion who are sometimes told to fit in as best
they can (!) it should be remembered that similar issues may arise at the very front of
the orchestra. Communication between the front desks of strings is vital, yet all too
often the conductors rostrum is placed within this semicircle, which once occupied
will prevent most, if not all such contact. If the music stand is placed in line with the
front desk of first violins, this may be looked around much more easily, with the
conductor able to maintain contact as part of a more friendly inner circle with the
front desks, rather than as an intruder. Unless the platform is a very cramped one,
the strings should then be arranged in a fan-like formation, so that the back desks are
further up-stage than the front, even if only slightly. This is a mutually beneficial
arrangement, as it enables the conductor to maintain contact with a greater
proportion of the orchestra without resorting to frantic pivoting, and improves the
line of sight for those players further back in the string sections.

Such an

arrangement will avoid the situation sometimes seen where players towards the back
desks are compelled to turn inwards in order to see clearly, a solution with
undesirable consequences both aurally and visually. These principles are detailed

rigorously by Wood in About Conducting,36 where he considers the placing of the

orchestra first and foremost in the conductors duties.37

Of equal importance to an orchestra is its ability to blend well, in the sense of sound
quality as distinct from ensemble and intonation. Wherever possible, the seating
should be arranged so that no section is left isolated, too far from other sections with
which it may share some prominent doubling. Very often, notably in the case of
church concerts given by amateur orchestras, one has to work within a very
restricted performance area, where the brass may be pushed back to fifty feet or
more from the conductor, with a similar distance (plus assorted masonry) lying
between them and the lower strings, for instance. In some cases this is of course
unavoidable, and it is here that the conductor must work especially hard to ensure a
correct blend and ensemble. Arguably venues which present such problems for
large orchestras should only be used for performances of the smaller repertoire. As
before, maintaining the morale and physical ease of players is an important
consideration, and the hard work put into preparing an ambitious programme will
have been for nothing if the performance is not an enjoyable and successful one.

Whilst space often impacts on the arrangement of those sections at the back of the
orchestra, it may also arise in the seating of the strings, particularly if a plan is
considered which would place the cellos within the orchestra. The nature of the
instrument dictates that the cello requires more room than any of the upper strings if
it is to be played comfortably and effectively, either on an individual basis or as a
section. Adey gives the wing-span of a desk of cellos as at least two metres overall,
pointing out that the modern position on the conductors right allows some of this
room (presumably for bowing rather than actual seating) to be provided by nonorchestral space, whereas such room is not always to be found within an
orchestra.38 Even where adequate space is available, this is not always used to best
effect, most noticeably in the case of the bass section, the first desk of which is almost
53-55 and end-papers.
ibid., 53.
38
ibid., 19.
36
37

invariably placed at the outside edge of the orchestra. Clearly such a practice was
considered dated even in the early twentieth century, as Wood tantalisingly refers to
it in passing as the old-fashioned placing but without revealing what alternatives
he had in mind.39 One possibility is given by the drawing by Wood for seating a
large orchestra on the platform of Queens Hall (fig. 13), which shows the basses
placed well within the orchestra to the right of centre.40

Figure 13

Woods seating plan for Queens Hall, 1936

39
40

ibid., 55.
ibid., rear end-paper.

It is ironic that the so-called old-fashioned placing remains in such widespread use,
particularly given the difficulties such a position may create for orchestra as a whole,
besides the basses themselves.

Not only does this placing give the maximum

possible distance between the basses and the last desks of first violins, but it is likely
to create a noticeable imbalance as the basses may well be further from the centre of
the orchestra than those players opposite. A considerable distance may also arise
between the basses and the heavy brass, creating problems in maintaining unity
between two sections which can often wield a disproportionate influence over the
quality of an orchestras playing for better or worse. All of these needs would be
much better addressed by the placing of the basses within the orchestra, as far as
space permits. Where a large orchestra is seated on the flat, sight-lines must of
course be taken into consideration but notice how Woods plan for an amateur
orchestra (fig. 14)41 manages to place the basses deep inside the orchestra without
compromising these.*

ibid., front end-paper.

Fig. 14 suggests that even the tuba player, for instance, would have an unobstructed view of the
conductor. There are a number of other interesting features such as the seating of the large wind section
along Woods row-by-row principle, and the unusual positioning of the harp.
41
*

Figure 14

Woods seating plan for a large amateur orchestra

It is worth bearing in mind that a less isolated position for the basses (such as either
of those shown in figs. 13 and 14) may be of mutual benefit, particularly in the case of
amateur or youth orchestras which often have to rely on a far smaller section than
might be wished for. Placing such an under-powered section on the periphery of the
orchestra is likely to provide its members with a lack of confidence, and
consequently have a noticeable impact on the power and accuracy of their playing.
The adoption of a more inclusive position could do much to prevent such issues
arising, whilst also enabling the whole orchestra to hear the basses more clearly.

One might be forgiven for thinking that the maximum space available to the
orchestra should be taken up at all times, however this does not necessarily
constitute the best use of such space. Whilst sight-lines should be maintained, and
sufficient room allowed for players to perform their roles with freedom and comfort,
one of the few absolute ideals in orchestral seating is to enable and present a
cohesive formation, the benefits of which will be clearly audible besides its visual
effectiveness. Although the orchestra is often thought of as a single, quasi-organic
musical instrument, Adey puts it in more detailed, yet no less elegant terms:

the seating of the entire orchestra should be considered as one compact unit and not as a
sprawling conglomeration of players making use of every inch of available space. The smallest
practical performance area should ideally be the regular set-up for every orchestra, regardless
of how much extra space might sometimes present itself. It must never be forgotten that there
are delicately scored passages within even the most lavish orchestral scores.

42

ibid., 64.

42

Use of the Score

Obvious as it may seem, the score is the starting point for any conductor in shaping a
performance, being the main (and often only) source of contact with the composers
intentions.

Whilst the elements of the music the notes themselves, dynamic

markings, articulations and phrasing are clearly set out as a matter of course, there
is often an implication with regard to seating arrangements, which may be all too
readily overlooked.

The Classical and Romantic repertoire abounds with antiphonal violin writing, the
effective portrayal of which is surely one of the greatest benefits of traditional seating
(but not, it will be recalled, one of the original reasons for it). Although some
proponents of modern seating may dismiss these notions, one has to wonder how
selective they have been in studying the scores of such works. Boult maintained that
almost every piece in the main repertoire contains moments of antiphony, with
answering phrases from the second violins becoming a pale reflection instead of a
vigorous rejoinder when they were placed in the modern position.43 Whilst it might
be counterproductive to illustrate every single case of antiphonal violin writing, one
finds a number of useful examples in passages which could have been written more
simply, but are instead designed to create antiphonal interplay with striking effect:

Figure 15

Mozart, Overture to Don Giovanni, b.133-41

43

Koury, ibid., 304.

Figure 16

Haydn, Symphony No. 103/iv, b.368-73

The particularly virtuosic exchange shown in fig. 16 appears in the coda to one of
Haydns most effective symphonic movements, described by Robbins Landon as a
finale of unusual tension and strength.44

Other quite different effects have been achieved by later composers through the
divided seating of first and second violins. Often-quoted is the case of Mahlers
Ninth Symphony where, as Adey puts it, the second violin part is quite exceptional
in its individuality and rarely even complements the firsts45, having widely differing
markings for dynamics and articulation even where the notes themselves are in
unison, a contrast which would be lost if the violins were seated together. Another
example is that of Elgars Second Symphony, where at the beginning of the slow
movement the leading voice is given to the upper second violins and violas:

Figure 17

Elgar, Symphony No. 2/ii b.1-4

44
45

ibid., 603.
ibid., 18.

Whilst Elgars works teem with antiphonal violin writing (the first movement of the
same symphony is a particularly strong example) we find here the divided seating
being exploited to more subtle effect. Whilst it is widely accepted that the second
violins are able to project adequately from their traditional position (discussed
below), one can easily imagine how different a rescoring of the above passage might
sound with the melody given instead to the first violins. Their direct projection of
the line would lend it a completely different quality, more strident even in pianissimo
than the slightly veiled tone which may be provided by the seconds, mellowed
further by the violas.

Another more familiar example, usually given as one of antiphonal writing, is the
opening to the finale of Tchaikovskys Sixth Symphony. The interplay between parts
is constant in the first two phrases, with the upper melodic line passing from second
to first violins and back again, with a similar effect in the writing for cellos and
violas:

Figure 18

Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 6/iv b.1-4

A number of commentators often utilise this particular passage in support of a strong

case for antiphonal seating, which seems odd given how many other, more vivid
examples may be drawn from across the repertoire. It may be questionable whether

such a rapid and continual exchange of the melodic lines is intended as true
antiphony, or if the scoring is primarily designed to affect a more sustained sound, as
some maintain. Whilst one can feel fairly confident in assuming that Tchaikovsky
was writing for an orchestra seated in the traditional fashion, it is significant that
Boult, one of the strongest champions of traditional seating, considered the modern
arrangement suitable for certain types of orchestration which so frequently
requires first and second violins to play the same part in octaves or in unison, a
device that was perhaps more prevalent than antiphonal writing in Tchaikovskys
orchestral style.

However Boult adds a cautionary note, given that [in such

instances] it is not impossible that the composer wished the sound to come from all
parts of the orchestra46, giving the long melodies of Rimsky-Korsakovs Scheherazade
as a particularly strong example.47

Quite aside from the issue of violin seating, there are a number of cases in which
other sections of the orchestra may benefit from a particular seating arrangement.
The drum-like viola feature in the finale of Dvoks Eighth Symphony is one which
might easily pass unnoticed, but would naturally be highlighted in an uncontrived
fashion by their being placed on the conductors right.

Figure 19

Dvok, Symphony No. 8/iv b.121-24

46
47

Koury, ibid., 304.

ibid., 307.

Such an arrangement would also by implication seat the violins together, which may
provide a further advantage. Dvoks later works in particular often feature
demanding unison or octave work for violins, where the mutual support offered by
modern seating may be considered beneficial. This plan would also see the cello
section placed in the centre-right position, which some might argue carries less
prestige than that to the right of the conductor, particularly in a piece which is
sometimes referred to as Dvoks Cello Symphony. However it is worth bearing in
mind that a greater blend and ease of ensemble might be obtained through a more
central positioning of the cellos, whose melodies are often doubled by horns or other
wind instruments.*

There are also a number of instances where the scoring of a piece clearly calls for the
orchestra to be seated in line with modern practice, although inevitably these are
fewer in number.

Perhaps the most well-known case is Shostakovichs Fifth

Symphony, where for the third movement alone the entire violin strength is divided
into three equal sections. The orchestral parts for both first and second violins (as
ordinarily given) are printed with all three lines for this movement, allowing the
allocation of these to be made evenly. Del Mar describes how a three-part violin
section is required by Richard Strauss for both Elektra and Josephlegende, and that of
further interest

in the former he further arranged that in the case of the violas, who are also divided into
three, the first players should muta in IV Violinen (i.e. change to). This doubling of the
two instruments creates an unusual problem, but whether or not carried out to the letter the
whole disposition of the parts with their various groupings is clearly only practicable on the
assumption that the violins are seated in a single body adjacent to the violas, although this was
not Strausss normal practice in the concert hall.

48

Although the above examples focus on the seating arrangements for strings, this is in
no small way due to the frequency and strength of such cases arising in the
*

Whilst such orchestration may be found throughout the repertoire, this symphony again provides a
notable example, at the opening of the first movement.
48

ibid., 55-56.

repertoire, as well as the seating of this section being altered more often than others.
However it must be pointed out that there are instances in which a works scoring
may have implications for the seating of other sections. A familiar tale is that of the
orchestra which, whilst preparing for a concert in a large cathedral, found its horns
and other brass unable to maintain ensemble during the rehearsal of a Bruckner
symphony in the over-generous acoustic. A solution was reached by moving the
horns to the same side of the orchestra as the rest of the brass, to what is known in
the vernacular as the German position. Tenuous as the link may seem, it does raise
the question of whether works such as this were designed with a similar seating in
mind, or whether (as above) the demands of the music led to the emergence of this
arrangement. Either way, the case demonstrates how subtle adaptation of modern
seating practices may make life easier for players and conductor alike. Smaller
instances occur where one or two players may wish to move in order to sit in greater
proximity, such as in Nielsens Flute Concerto where the single [bass] trombone has
much in common with the two horns, or in Richard Strausss Don Quixote where the
tenor tuba is sometimes seated next to the bass clarinet, at the request of the former.
Del Mar acknowledges that whilst in this latter case the two instruments have much
difficult ensemble work to knit together, such a position also has its disadvantages
(presumably the direct result of removing the tenor tuba from the rest of the brass
section) and is only condoned unwillingly.49 More clear-cut perhaps is the case of
the Shostakovich Violin Concerto, in which the heavy brass consists of a lone tuba.
This instrument is here used primarily to provide a foundation to the four horns, and
would surely be able to do so much more effectively if the seating were modified to
reflect this (not to mention look less ridiculous than if left isolated in its usual
position).

Other factors which do not suggest themselves so immediately from a reading of the
score may also be taken into consideration. The block formation of the wind section
for example need not be considered as absolute. In performances of repertoire which
requires smaller wind forces, a more intimate feeling (as well as a greater sense of
49

ibid., 304.

chamber ensemble) may be created by bringing forward instruments from the back
row, creating a formation approaching, if not similar to the traditional crescentshape. Such a move might be of particular benefit with a small string section, giving
any doublings a greater reinforcing power, whilst still allowing wind solos to project
sufficiently.

In particular an under-powered cello and bass section could be

strengthened most effectively by placing the bassoon(s) nearer to them, as indeed

would have been the original practice for much of the baroque and classical
repertoire, where bassoons traditionally formed part of the bass group of
instruments to the point where they were often used as a matter of course even if no
independent part was suggested in the score.

Modern or Traditional Seating?

Among the many questions arising during this study, perhaps the most crucial (not
to mention vexed and complicated) is whether to adopt modern seating practices, or
revert to more traditional arrangements. As has been outlined above, there are many
practical and musical factors which should be taken into account in making such a
decision.

Ultimately the responsibility for these choices lies with the conductor

(unless he is faced down by a particularly militant orchestra) and so it seems only

right to consider at this stage the role of the conductor in the evolution of orchestral
seating.

As has been seen, the earliest orchestras were led not by a single, baton-wielding
conductor, but by the principal violin player in co-operation with those of the bass
instruments, sometimes by direction from the keyboard. The main principles of
seating were to place these joint leaders together, to ensure that the bass should be
heard by the rest of the orchestra (sometimes distributing the bass instruments across
the orchestra in order to achieve this) and to place the other instruments in a way
which allowed them to blend well and play together with one another. Whilst it may
seem simplistic to say so, these principles had a lasting influence which can be traced

through the nineteenth century, during which period the entity of the modern
conductor emerged, and his role evolved. Woods new seating arrangement not only
affected the physical appearance of the orchestra, but also represents a sea-change in
the relationship between orchestra and conductor.

That Wood had practical

considerations at the forefront of his mind when he introduced his plan may be in no
doubt, but his comment that it facilitates the giving of cues is particularly
revealing, implying as it does that the needs of the conductor were now as important
in determining an orchestras seating as were those of its players.

The most basic and fundamental difference between the modern and traditional
principles of seating is their treatment of the various instrumental sonorities. Woods
plan puts together those instruments that are of a colour, but by so doing creates a
direct contrast between the violins on the left, and the lower strings on the right.
Boult described the traditional seating plan as one based as far as possible on a
principle of balance, going on to relate the story of a friend

who had always sat in the middle of the Queens Hall circle, [but with Woods new plan] he
couldnt sit there any longer: all the bass came into his right ear and all the treble to his left,
and he to sit round at the side to get a blend.

50

Trivial as the anecdote sounds, it encapsulates perfectly the difference between the
two principles of seating (besides confirming the nature of the British concert-going
public as creatures of habit). Previous seating arrangements had not only balanced
the violin sections, one to each side like Toscaninis pair of shoulders, but by
implication had placed the cellos and basses nearer to the centre of the orchestra, an
arrangement which would maintain the traditional principle of relying on the bass as
a foundation for both harmony and rhythm. This would naturally create a more
blended sound, with the uppermost strings evenly distributed along the front of the
platform, and the bass end in a noticeably less biased (if not entirely central) position.
Conversely, it may be found that the modern seating not only divides the orchestra
along treble and bass lines, but also affects the blending of these voices, particularly
50

Koury, ibid., 302.

in the case of the strings. The placing of cellos on the conductors right creates a
sequence (from left to right) of high to low parts, an arrangement which may sound
brilliantly in the soaring unison or octave-doubled string melodies in some of the
later Romantic repertoire, yet sometimes induces a noticeably muddied, almost
turgid effect in more complex textures, often within the same piece of music. A
greater clarity of texture and sound would surely result from the breaking up of this
consecutive arrangement, as could be achieved by a return to a more traditional
seating. Even the placing of violas to the right of the conductor has some impact in
this regard, it may be found, particularly in creating greater contrast between the
middle to lower voices.

One of the principal arguments against traditional seating claims that the second
violins are unable to project sufficiently from their position on the conductors right,
an opinion often put in terms of the instruments pointing (or the sound going) the
wrong way.

Players who have become used to the modern seating, which

undeniably does much to reinforce the violin sound and boost their general
confidence, may find the traditional arrangement unsettling at first, a concern which
is of course understandable but not insurmountable. Whilst it is true that the earliest
orchestras with very small string forces would group the violins together, the
development of larger orchestras enabled the two violin sections to sit opposite each
other in numbers sufficient to bolster confidence, sound and ensemble. Surely if the
second violins were found to be disadvantaged by such an arrangement it would
have been abandoned long before Woods plan came into being. Whilst it may be
admitted that the instruments are designed to project their sound from the f-holes on
the front of the body, they are also built to resonate as a whole; the back of the
instrument is not a dead weight. Boult asserted that more sound was lost in this
position as a result of players themselves turning into the orchestra,51 a habit that can
easily be rectified or rendered unnecessary by the careful laying-out of the string
seating as described above. Del Mar does not propose a practical solution such as
this, but instead suggests that any apparent loss of tone will be, like all matters of
51

Koury, ibid., 304.

balanceinstinctively rectified by the players.52 Boult in fact found the second

violins weaker in the modern position behind the first than when placed to his right,
particularly for the purposes of antiphonal interplay, the resulting effect described by
him as a pale reflection. It is worth referring once again to the drawing in fig. 13,
which shows the second violins behind the first but in an elevated position, from
which they would at least have been able to project reasonably well.

Such an

arrangement seems much fairer in this respect than that often found on more
modern concert platforms, where there is usually space to seat all the violins together
on the flat. As far as traditional seating is concerned, the issue of ensemble is
perhaps a greater concern than sound or balance; Del Mar notes that the wide
separation of the violins can cause difficulties in playing together,53 a point which
Boult acknowledged, but confidently maintained that such a challenge would be
eagerly met by most orchestras, in which respect he rarely had cause for complaint.54

Another misconception arising from the seating of the second violins is the view
often held (even subconsciously) that they are somehow second-class. This is surely
a modern invention, having stemmed from their being placed in an inferior position
behind the first violins, whereas traditional practice suggests the two sections were
treated as equal partners. Evidence for this may be drawn not only from methods of
seating, but again can be found in the music itself. Beethoven gives the lead voice to
the second violins at the beginning of the second movement in his First Symphony,
and at the opening of the Fifth Symphony in both cases the first violins are resting,
and could easily have been expected to dovetail these initial statements with their
actual written entries. Besides their unequal positioning in modern practice, there is
also the recent tendency to allocate a smaller strength of players to the second
violins, contrary to the traditional practice of maintaining equal numbers in both
sections, which can be traced in any historical study of orchestral size and
proportions. Toscaninis pair of shoulders analogy surely refers as much to this

52
53
54

ibid., 54.
ibid., 54.
Koury, ibid., 304.

equality of numbers as to aural and visual balance. Del Mar even goes so far as to
suggest a possible psychological effect of the second violin seating:

Many a passage that is merest drudgery when [the second violins] are no more than a
subsidiary section of a great mass of fiddlers can become of liveliest interest when they are in
opposition to their colleagues as well as in full view of the audience; it is surprising how much
better they can sound when seated separately.

55

It is worth pausing to consider whether seating has at times become the leading
influence in the way an orchestra thinks, behaves and plays, as well as in purely
musical matters such as orchestration.

Whilst arguments are raised against the placing of second violins to the right of the
conductor (though largely without foundation, as has been seen) it might be argued
that this position is not ideally suited to any of the sections which may be placed
there.

The placing of the violas on the right might do something to address the

instruments natural lack of penetrating power, but could arguably be said to offer
them less of an advantage than the second violins in this position. The seating of
cellos in this position will result in their instruments being at a right-angle to the
audience, and it is surely of significance that Toscanini, himself a cellist and a man
with (as a conductor) a life-long obsession for the singing qualities of an orchestras
sound, preferred to place his cello section in a more central, traditional position.
Such an arrangement would turn the cellos more towards the front, allowing greater
projection; indeed in some cases they would be seated facing directly outwards, quite
literally in opposition to modern practice.

In addition to his vivid descriptions of balance in orchestral seating, Toscanini would

also remark, in a more grumbling fashion, that the trouble with some conductors is
they conduct by eye instead of ear56, a comment that may well have been inspired
by the experimental plans of Stokowski, who was surely more of a showman than he
55
56

ibid., 54.
Howard Taubman, The Maestro: The Life of Arturo Toscanini, quoted in Koury, ibid., 319.

was an acoustician. One wonders if the eye plays a more important role than the ear
for Del Mar on some occasions, as he acknowledges a preference for modern seating
in passages where a motif passes from cellos up to violins (or vice versa) as in the
scherzo of Beethovens Seventh Symphony or, as fig. 20 shows, in Schumanns
Fourth Symphony.
Figure 20

Schumann, Symphony No. 4/i b.91-98

Whilst it may look impressive for the conductor to sweep around the semicircle of
desks in this formation, and have a certain aural effect, this would surely be even
more striking if the traditional seating were used, creating antiphony between violas
and cellos as well as between the violins. If modern seating is used in order to
provide such a sweeping effect, more obviously antiphonal passages will be lost
which often occur within the same work. In the case of the Schumann, for instance,
during the scherzo different themes of equal importance are played simultaneously
by first and second violins in a passage (bar 135 onwards) which would be difficult
to prevent sounding muddled with the two sections grouped together.

That the modern seating was arrived at for practical, rather than musical reasons has
already been discussed, and one should not begrudge this of Wood, hard-working
and meticulous as he was he needed to make life easier for himself as well as for his
orchestra.

The subsequent adoption of this modern seating by many other

conductors and orchestras, even those who were provided with more generous
rehearsal schedules, strongly suggests that the benefits of the new plan were widely
felt, in particular the ease with which good ensemble could be obtained. Sir John
Barbirolli (1899-1970), a master of string sonorities, appeared to like the extra
brilliance of violin tone which the plan provided, and though he came to adopt it in
later years acknowledged that passages of antiphonal or fugal interplay were hard to
distinguish when the two violin sections were seated together.57 Besides conceding
how it might be considered suitable for certain types of orchestration, as
mentioned above, Boult also admitted that the modern seating was easier for
players and conductor. However, perhaps crucially, he summed up his position as
follows:

No placing of the orchestra is perfect for everybody, but I claim (and I have Toscanini and
Bruno Walter on my side) that a first-class orchestra should not choose the easy way, but that
which gives its audience the most completely balanced whole

57
58

Rees, ibid., 115.

Koury, ibid., 304.

58

Part IV - Conclusions
It has been seen that orchestral seating may be influenced by a wide variety of
factors, such as the need to address purely practical requirements, the strength of
various historical traditions, or the nature of the music to be performed. Within the
last hundred years orchestral seating has become largely standardized due to the
reforms introduced by Sir Henry Wood, however a number of plans in current use
show strong traces of much earlier traditions.

Seating remains a flexible and

changing aspect of orchestral performance even Woods modern seating

underwent an evolutionary process of its own, being found in two basic forms.

As a versatile element of an orchestras makeup seating could surely be considered

equal to numbers or instrumentation in shaping a performance, particularly in the
case of the smaller or more traditional repertoire.

The ever-growing historical

performance movement has done much to raise awareness of authentic performance

practices, many of which have been adopted elsewhere. It is widely acknowledged
that an orchestra playing on modern instruments can adopt a more historically
informed approach to matters of style and interpretation, something which has
surely done much to enrich and refresh modern performance in recent years.
However an orchestra may still adopt these practices in its performance of a Mozart
or Beethoven symphony, perhaps reducing the size of its string sections by a desk or
two, yet remain seated in a modern formation; a compromise which seems halfbaked at best. The modern seating arrangements obviously have their practical
benefits, and indeed are implied by the scoring of some works yet many orchestras
persist with these layouts for performances of music written many years before, and
which would clearly benefit from being performed in a more traditional formation.
The lack of adequate rehearsal time which Wood had to overcome is thankfully a
thing of the past in most cases, yet the easy way persists.

Whilst it would be unrealistic to expect this small work to bring about a second
revolution in orchestral seating, it may serve to provoke a wider discussion of the
subject, and enable more informed decisions to be made with regard to this aspect of
orchestral performance. In many cases there are strong arguments for a return to
traditional seating, and whilst these arrangements may pose some initial difficulties
for less experienced players, it is hoped that they may be persuaded to adopt them
with greater enthusiasm, even if only on an experimental basis. If such experiments
prove successful, the sense of achievement following an effective performance will
surely be greatly increased.

It is the shared responsibility of conductor and orchestra to communicate with their

audience, and to bring music to life in accordance with the composers intentions.
Surely it is these considerations, of music and the traditions which surround it,
which should be allowed to have the greater influence in decisions on orchestral
seating. Although the ideal method of seating may remain elusive, it is still possible
and surely desirable to reconcile an informed approach to performance with a
personal interpretation of the composers intentions as laid out in the score, whilst
making use of the available resources (in terms of both orchestra and space) to best
effect.

Bibliography
Adey, Christopher. Orchestral Performance: A Guide for Conductors and Players.
London: Faber & Faber, 1998.
Boult, Adrian C. Thoughts on Conducting. London: Phoenix, 1963.
Daniels, David. Orchestral Music: A Handbook (3rd edition).
Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 1996.
Del Mar, Norman. Anatomy of the Orchestra. London: Faber & Faber, 1981.
Del Mar, Norman. Conducting Beethoven: The Symphonies. Oxford: OUP, 1992.
Dvok, Antonin. Symphony No. 8, Op. 88.
Elgar, Edward. Symphony No. 2, Op. 63.
Elkin, Robert. Queens Hall 1893-1941. London: Rider, 1944.
Galkin, Elliott W. A History of Orchestral Conducting.
New York: Pendragon Press, 1986.
Haydn, Franz Joseph. Symphony No. 103 (The Drum-Roll), Hob.I:103
Koury, Daniel J. Orchestral Performance Practices in the Nineteenth Century: Size,
Proportions and Seating. Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1986.
Lebrecht, Norman. The Maestro Myth. London: Simon & Schuster, 1991.
Macdonald, Hugh. Berliozs Orchestration Treatise: A Translation and Commentary.
Cambridge: CUP, 2002.
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Overture to Don Giovanni, K 527.
Rees, C. B. One Hundred Years of the Hall. London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1957.
Robbins Landon, H. C. Haydn in England 1791-1795: Chronicle and Works.
London: Thames & Hudson, 1976.
Schonberg, Harold C. The Great Conductors. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1967.
Schumann, Robert. Symphony No.4, Op. 120
Spitzer, John & Zaslaw, Neal. The Birth of the Orchestra. Oxford: OUP, 2004.

Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich. Symphony No. 6 (Pathtique), Op. 74

Wood, Henry. About Conducting. London: Sylvan Press, 1945.
Zaslaw, Neal. Mozarts Symphonies: Context, Performance Practice, Reception.
Oxford: OUP, 1989.

Webography
<http://www.mti.dmu.ac.uk/~ahugill/manual/seating.html> Seating Plans.
Last accessed 17/04/09.