Whereas I totally agree that snip I've found it more than a little dangerous to assume a certain target instrument because of particular things that may seem idiomatic to that instrument. In the early mandolin world, for instance, its quite common for people to claim idiomatic superiority
snip and I think the expreession "idiomatic superiority" is perfect... I don't think it invalidates the process. We just need good musicology, good opinions on it. And if it is unplayable, outside the range, etc, then this is important information. Sometimes that comes down to conflicts between what players think is playable, and we need to sift through that. Philip Brett always used to say "a little musicology is dangerous" :) The path to understanding the types of recorders and flutes that Vivaldi used has been long and arduous, yet we have learned a great deal. And the research now being done on the types of reed instruments used is very intriguing. It is easy to think that Vivaldi wrote these pieces with a shaky flip of the pen on a coach ride between two operas, but many of the concerti present studies in contrast, not uniformity. And some of the problems arise from trying to group everything together. Some of these pieces are easy, some appear hastily scribbled, but some are finely wrought. Until we look through all the operas, we won't have the full picture. Just playing through Montezuma changed completely my idea about the way Vivaldi writes for cello, the Scarlatti Vespers I think are terribly important for interpreting the the bass parts and continuo in Vivaldi as well. dt At 02:55 PM 11/14/2007, you wrote: >Hi Howard, > >>The only >>caveat I'd add is that if you conclude Vivaldi intended, say, a >>gallichon in D because the music lies well under the hands on that >>instrument, you have to first assume that Vivaldi had a practical >>familiarity with the instrument of the sort that almost had to be >>acquired by playing it. > >I agree, though I wouldn't propose something like a gallichon in D >as a possibility only because of the way the music falls under the >hands. I'd see that as more of a final check, once the historical >circumstantial context and the rest has been worked out. Where >was he when he was writing? When? Who was he writing for? >What did they (likely) play? Is there anything that makes that >instrument an absolute impossibility? etc. > >I've found it more than a little dangerous to assume a certain >target instrument because of particular things that may seem >idiomatic to that instrument. In the early mandolin world, for >instance, its quite common for people to claim idiomatic superiority >in arguing for one mandolin variant/tuning or another... while their >opponent claims many of the same things for their argument. >Mostly, we are what we know, and its very hard to pull that out >of the equation. As a violinist, many things look like violin chords >to me... though they may ultimately not be. > >This is actually one of the problems with the simpler Vivaldi leuto >pieces... they are so simple as to be generally playable (and even >somewhat idiomatic) on a wide range of different instruments. >I was able to hack my way through them on all manner of unfamiliar >tunings when I was exploring various options years ago... > >I'm also not convinced that a huge amount of familiarity beyond the >basic animal would have been required. He clearly wrote reasonably >well for a very broad range of instruments, and I don't imagine that he >was expert on all of them. Its clear that his pupils at the Pieta >played >numerous instruments, and I presume he must have as well, or at >least had a "composers understanding", or the ability to gain it >quickly. >In any case, I guess I wouldn't expect him to throw up his hands in >the face of a possible commission on an unfamiliar instrument. > >>It's possible that Vivaldi was on intimate terms with the lute and >>its variants. It's equally possible that he wasn't, but understood >>that there were different sorts of lutes in different places, and >>didn't worry about exactly what instrument played his solos. If he >>wrote a part for a lute tuned in D minor or a gallichon in D in >>Prague, he could scarcely have expected someone back in Venice to use >>the same instrument. > >Agreed. In reading about Vivaldi, he seems very much focused on >where his next commission is coming from, and I rather doubt that >he expected many of his smaller compositions to have much shelf- >life beyond the immediate paycheck. Why else would he write >for "violini in tromba marina" for crying out loud?! His >correspondences are often about money. In one well-known >letter he asks his correspondent "do you still play the mandolino"... >possibly picking around for a commission. He bragged fairly >openly about being able to spin these compositions out quickly >(like overnight) with relatively little effort. > >I guess I see him taking a much more practical approach... "OK... I've >got the Dresden court coming... oh yeah.. they have that great German >lutenist... so let it be in D-minor.... lets see, what are the open >courses"... >or "Yes, I will write a set of [simple] trios for you... Mr... how do >you say... >Wrtby... what is that curious "lute" you play... ah yes... tuned like an >archlute without the top course... very good... how will you be paying?" > >Not that either of these things happened, necessarily, just that they >could have. Flip rampant speculation, of course. > >But.. I prattle on... > >Eric > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
