On Feb 15, 2006, at 10:27 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
If you're reconstructing 2 parts of a 4-part texture, it's probably recomposition (unless it's a strictly contrapuntal style where the possibilities are highly circumscribed and clearly implied by the remaining two voices). If, on the other hand, you're supplying a viola part in a work with choral parts, basso continuo and two violin parts, then the reasonable possibilities for the viola are pretty narrow, and in that case, it would be reconstruction.
Just out of curiosity (no ax to grind): I am working on a 19th-c. orchl. score that is missing its cornet and tuba parts (they wouldn't fit on the page), Aside from a few verbal cues in the MS (such as "cornet solo" or "tuba furthers doubling of basses etc.") I have nothing to go on but the composer's general style, including the way he handles these instruments in other pieces. Is what I am doing a reconstruction or a recomposition?
To me, I think the line should be drawn based on whether the new material changes the character of the piece as a whole.
The Baroque ensemble Tempesta di Mare has made a name for itself in part through its performances and recordings of reconstructed lute concertos by Sylvius Leopold Weiss--concertos for which only the lute part actually survives. The entire orchestral part had to be recreated. The resulting pieces sound very convincing and realistic, and are credited to Weiss, but I can't help but thinking, each time I hear one of them, that if Handel had done the exact same thing--taken a Weiss lute part and added new orchestral accompaniments--that we would not hesitate a moment to ascribe the resulting work to Handel, not Weiss. Your thoughts?
Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
