Hmm--what makes it distinctive? An abundance of melodic beauty that can shoot out of the texture anytime, anyplace, with two double fugues (different kinds) along the way. Sounds like geeky theory talk (that, IIRC, most musicians despise), doesn't it? The edition is aimed at bands because there already is one (if not several) based on the original for strings. I started this transcription by hearing on oboe on the top line of the first movement, and things took off from there. (And yes, there is an equivalent clarinet part for those bands that are double-reed challenged.) Note that there is no contention that Wasenaer imitated Pergolesi or anyone else, just that for over 200 years no one knew who wrote these pieces, and Pergolesi was one of the "suspects" to whom this work and its 5 sisters were ascribed. (When they played this piece on WFIU's Ether Game they required "Ricciotti" as the answer. And interestingly enough the string orchestra version woke me up on the radio in Zlín the morning before we recorded part of it.) My only other band transcription is of an overture by Joseph Haydn, whose name needs no introduction to most practicing musicians.
My goal is to get my blurb done over the next couple of days--see if I can turn the ideas from this list into workable and effective sales copy. ajr > At 10:52 PM -0500 7/14/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>I am currently preparing some program notes for a transcription that is >>about to be published of a Concertino by Unico Willem Graf van Wasenaer. >>Who's that, you say? Well for over 200 years his work was variously >>ascribed to Pergolesi, Handel, and the original publisher, Carlo >>Ricciotti. My question to the group is, how do you got about convincing >>band directors to try this composer that they've likely never heard of? >>(Don't know how the "illustrious hand" ascription that worked in 1740 >>would go over in 2008.) Does anyone have any examples of houw to do this? > > Hi, Aaron. No examples, because I haven't tried to do this, but a > couple of thoughts. > > First, I'm surprised that the edition (transcription, whatever) is > aimed at bands, since I assume that the original was for orchestra, > BUT that could actually be an advantage. Bands and band directors > are MUCH MORE OPEN to music that is either new or different than are > orchestras and Music Directors. Fact of life. > > So what's your hook? Why should band directors consider this > transcription? Given that it's 200 years old, what makes it > distinctive today? (Ya gotta have a gimmick!) If it's "just like" > Pergolesi, Handel, etc., why get excited by an imitator? (Of course > *I* might be interested in it, but in the original as early music and > not in a band transcription.) > > Just some random thoughts in response to your post, and probably not > very helpful. > > John > > > -- > John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music > Virginia Tech Department of Music > College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences > Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 > Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 > (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) > http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html > > "We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition > of jazz musicians. > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
