On Feb 18, 2006, at 3:30 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
the "orchestra" strictly
defined was not really a separate reified concept yet as it later
came to be.
This is perfectly true. For most of the 17th c. (and beyond, for
many) the word did not denote an ensemble at all, but a place. But of
course I was using the term in its *standard* modern sense, as perforce
I must if that is the thing I wish to talk about.
the extremely limited
definition of "orchestra" is almost chosen specifically to
circumscribe the ensembles it applies to sufficiently to make it
true.
Actually the definition I used (which IMO corresponds to what almost
anyone, musician or civilian, would think the word means: a marching
band, for example, is not an orchestra, nor is a string quartet, even
if it is accompanying an opera) is considerably broader than that used
by the authors of _The Birth of the Orchestra_, to whom an ensemble is
not an orchestra unless it not only meets my definition but also is a)
dominated by the violin itself (over and above all other violin-family
instruments), b) includes winds, c) has a distinct administrative
structure applicable to and limited to the specific body of musicians
involved, and d) (here's the kicker) includes at least one bowed
contrabass instrument playing at 16' . They would say, therefore,
though they do not actually do so, that there were no 17th-c.
orchestras *at all.* Please do not attempt to argue with me about this:
any argument must be with Neal Zaslaw and John Spitzer.
But I don't say that. I prefer a broad, common-sense definition of
"orchestra," not because I think such an ensemble is better than
another, or as some ad-hoc, trick-question definition to serve some
argument of mine, but because, once again, the purpose of language is
to communicate, and everybody (or so I thought) knows what an orchestra
is. Don't they?
I still believe that you can't make grand pan-European statements
about practices everywhere. National and local traditions were strong
and there was not that much standardized practice in any number of
areas, including the voicing of instrumental music.
OK, so cite me a counter-example. Using my definition of "orchestra."
And by the way, my statement about orchestral practices was not
pan-European, it was worldwide.
Well, I consider that to be yet another example of the same
ridiculously narrow definition.
Lost another argument, I see. Well, I withdraw.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
