On 6 Aug 2007 at 15:13, John Howell wrote: > And be aware (as you no doubt already are) that players capable of > realizing the figures themselves really hate having someone else's > realization in front of them, while inexperienced players (including > many students) do need something that lies within their technique. > It's almost impossible to satisfy everyone!
In an ideal world, there would be a score with the realization and a score without it. In the real world, you don't have that luxury, so instead, you provide two copies of the bass part, one with figures (for the keyboardist), one without (for the bass player). Of course, I'm contrary, and when I'm playing the continuo bass on gamba, I want the figures, because they tell me things about phrasing and dynamics (a 6 chord will very often be helped with a swell/crescendo). Another thing I've done in editions I've prepared for the NYU Collegium (when I wasn't playing keyboard) is to do a short score for the continuo player, with one melodic line and the figured bass, with indications of what part the melodic line comes from. For single voice/instrument and continuo, the continuo player will be happy with the "full score," i.e., the voice/instrument part with the figured bass line. In writing realizations, I try to keep it as simple as possible, since the only players who will read my realization are those who don't know how to do a realization. My philosophy is that most realizations have way too much going on in them, and that the realization should reinforce the bass rhythm (and hardly ever contradict or augment it). I also try to limit the number of voices in the realization, and adapt the number of voices to the dynamic level of each passage. This is something that, strangely enough, seems not to be taught to many continuo players. Also, a continuo realization reallly does have to be for a particular instrument. Harpsichord continuo is a different animal than orga, because you can use more notes in the harpsichord part without overpowering because of the decay. But on organ, there is no decay, so you have to use fewer notes. For a general-use realization, I'll always write more for organ, on the assumption that harpsichordists will add doublings (if they pay attention to my realization at all). If you're not a keyboard player, I'd recommend a 2- or 3-voice realization that slavishly follows the rhythm of the bass and figures. I don't think you can go wrong with the simplest possible realization. On the other hand, in fast passages, you need to consider when you ignore figures. In a lot of cases, there is no reason whatsoever to play all the passing harmonies, except when they are not found in any other parts. Also, it's important to recognize when you're working from a source with "synthetic" figures, such as a lot of the 19th- century German editions, which added figures to the bass line that replicate every single passing tone in the parts above (Buxtehude editions from the period exhibit this problem). The original figures very often were quite a bit more sparse. Anyway, I"ll stop babbling now... :) -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
