John Howell and David Fenton offer very good suggestions on this. I'll
offer a few of my own observations/preferences as a conductor, keyboard
player, and teacher:
As a conductor I very much prefer to see just the figures, no realization.
As a continuo player I like playing from the full score with only figures,
and my second choice is to play from a sort of "short score" as suggested by
David.
I heartily endorse the idea of a VERY sparse realization, if you provide
one. If I'm playing from a realized b.c. part, it's MUCH easier to add to
it, if needed, rather than trying to pare it down from a too-busy part.
I've found that's also a good idea when handing a realized part to a student
or inexperienced b.c. player...and their confidence gets a boost if, after a
rehearsal or two, you ask them to exercise their creativity and maybe add a
few passing tones, "bigger" chords or whatever.
Finally, from the editor/engraver point of view, the best time to create
options for all the players or conductors is probably now, while you're
hip-deep in the engraving project. As someone (David, I think) suggested, go
ahead and create a couple of optional parts to hand out. If you're doing it
for a school or other amateur ensemble, all of the options will get used
eventually, and if you're editing this for sale, you'll be accommodating the
needs of more potential customers.
Good luck! -LK
Larry Kent
Tampa, FL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> John Howell:
> 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!
David Fenton:
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).
_________________________________________________________________
Booking a flight? Know when to buy with airfare predictions on MSN Travel.
http://travel.msn.com/Articles/aboutfarecast.aspx&ocid=T001MSN25A07001
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
