On 23 Feb 2009 at 8:44, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > The violins play the part an octave higher. It just means that they > _function_ as the bass part. It is not uncommon notation.
Would it then be the case that the copyist creating parts would notate it as intended to sound (an octave higher) and in treble clef? > It is more > often found when all string parts play in octave unisons (ie in the > Manchester manuscript of the four seasons). However, I have seen this > more than once. I can't help but wonder what function this notation serves. In the usual score that is nothing but a guide for the copyist, it's not helpful. In a score intended to be played from by a continuo player, it would be useful, I guess (though what continuo player can't read in treble clef?). I suppose that if the score was intended to indicate "this is the bass line, but don't realize it" putting in in bass clef in the violins indicates the former, while having it omitted from the continuo/Bassi line shows that it's not to be realized. Kim, do you think that there should be no continuo realization here? And what about the balance? I suppose one recorder in that range is going to be able to be heard over the first and second violins playing in unison (we're not talking about 32 players here, of course). I'm having a hard time understanding the utility of the practice, to be honest. Seems to me there would have been much easier ways to indicate the same thing. And the corrected clefs indicate to me that it's not just us today who could be confused by it. -- 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
