On 18 Feb 2006 at 16:10, Andrew Stiller wrote: > 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.
And I'm questioning the appropriateness of your definition. > > 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. It's not surprising to me that you would be basing your assertions entirely on Zaslaw and Spitzer, who are equally guilty of the reification and grandiloquent pan-Europeanism that your assertions exhibit (and that you defend). > 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." My lack of contrary citations does not make your statement true. I haven't the evidence available to me to provide a counter-example, but my problem is with the entire formulation of the definition. I don't actually really think it's important if your strictly defined statement is actually true or not, because it really doesn't tell us much about the use of 16' instruments, which were still commonly used in several contexts (which you admit), just not ensembles that fit your highly delimited definition. > And by the way, my statement about orchestral practices was not > pan-European, it was worldwide. Oh, give me a frigging break. There was no possibility of there being any such thing anywhere except in Europe. It doesn't change the point that statements that are intended to apply to all countries often overlook the details. > > Well, I consider that to be yet another example of the same > > ridiculously narrow definition. > > Lost another argument, I see. Well, I withdraw. Is this about winning and losing for you Andrew? If it is, then, yes, I think you should withdraw. I'm not trying to win. I'm seeking truth unobscured by inappropriate assumptions and modern conceptions transparently laid atop historical fact. Doing the latter tends to hide the truth of history, and any time I see any possible evidence of it, I question it. Questioning it doesn't mean I have any kind of "proof," it only means that I suspect a weakness in an argument. I point out that weakness not to "beat" the person with whom I'm having the discussion, but in an attempt to elicit more information that might put to rest my suspicions. By the method of your response you've failed to put to rest any of my doubts. Indeed, the form of your response has served only to strengthened them. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
