Dear David,

My answers and comments are scattered amongst your questions.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Rastall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 4:35 AM
Subject: Continuo Question


> Dear luters,
>
> I have a continuo question (or two):
>
> In a minor key, I'm not entirely sure what to do with the V chord.
> When there's *no other* indication to tell me what kind of third
to
> play (e.g. a melody note, or some other written part, or a sharp
sign
> in the figures), does the V chord take a major third or a minor
third?
> In a major key, obviously the V is major, but what about a minor
key...?

The rule is that the dominant is a major chord, whether the key is
major or minor. Unless you have a good reason not to, you should
keep chord V major. Generally speaking this applies to music in the
16th and 17th centuries as in more recent times, although there are
always exceptions to quibble over, especially where modal issues
predominate.

> And, for that matter, is the third in any 4-3 (11-10) suspension
> *always* a major third?

No, not necessarily, because a 4-3 suspension doesn't always have to
be on the dominant (chord V). If it is on the dominant, it will
involve a major 3rd, apart from exceptional circumstances. If it is
on the tonic or sub-dominant in a minor key, the 3 without a sharp
sign would indicate a minor chord.

> I'm looking at Caccini's "Amarilli mia bella."  One flat, but I'm
> assuming that the key is G minor.  Bar 2 begins with an 11x10
> suspension over D in the bass:  does the "x" mean a major 3rd?  If
> there were no "x" there, would you still play a major third?

The x means sharp. (In fact Caccini's x looks more like two crosses
superimposed, but the meaning is the same.) In figured bass a sharp
without figures means play a major chord. If there were no x for the
dominant chord, I might still be tempted to play a major chord, but
that decision would be based on a number of factors.

As far as key signatures are concerned, the rule of thumb is that
17th-century musicians would normally have one flat fewer than we
would expect today. They would have a key signature of one flat for
G minor, of two flats for C minor, and so on.

> Bar 3 begins with the note D in the bass with A in the melody.
What
> about the middle note?  Assuming D is the dominant (assuming the
key is
> G minor), does that mean that it always takes a major third?

This is a very interesting question. Caccini seems to have been
careful to notate the figured bass he wanted, and there is no sharp
for that chord. There are three possibilities:

1) He wanted D major, but didn't put (forgot to put?) a sharp sign
for it;
2) He wanted D minor, so deliberately left out the sharp sign;
3) He didn't want a 3rd in the chord - just the notes D and A - so
again he put no sharp.

We are extremely fortunate that "Amarilli mia bella" is one of the
three Italian songs which Robert Dowland included in _A Musicall
Banquet_ (London, 1610). Dowland realises Caccinini's figured bass,
so we can see from his tablature exactly what he understood the
harmony to be. There is always the chance that Dowland's
interpretation is not quite what Caccini had in mind, but his
setting is nevertheless extremely useful to us. For the chord under
consideration Dowland opted for the first possibility, i.e. a major
chord. Here is Dowland's tablature for the first few bars:

 |\ |\  |\ |\     |\ |\    |\ |\ |\
 |  |\  |  |\     |  |\    |\ |\ |\
 |  |   |  |      |  |     |. |\ |
 |  |   |  |      |  |     |  |  |
_d__c___a__c__a_________c__c__c__c__a_____
_a__a___a__a____|_f__e__d__d__d__d__a_|_e_
______d____a__d_|____f__f__d__d__d____|_f_
_c__b___c_______|_e__e_____a__a__a__c_|___
___________c__d_|_c__c__c_____________|_c_
________________|_____________________|___

The last chord of the extract is clearly D major.

I think it would be unwise to follow Dowland slavishly. His
tablature was conceived for a lute, not a chittarone. The chittarone
has a re-entrant tuning, and it can often be effective with fewer
notes to fill out the texture. However, it is certainly worth
keeping at least half an eye on Dowland's interpretation.

Best wishes,

Stewart.



Reply via email to