Hi Chris--
Very interesting question! I hope this very question will be
revisited in Monteverdi's anniversary year. I'm sure there is a lot
to be discovered, when I started playing 40 years ago (41 I guess)
there was no lirone and now it has become a big part of continuo.
One scholarly opinion states ("The Performance of Italian Basso Continuo..."):
"The Roman Sonatas of Landi and Nicoletti for violin, theorbo and
basso continuo, for example, could not possibly be performed with a
string bass as the solo theorbo part would be overpowered..."
Well, of course that can't be true. What is interesting, though, is
if you use a gamba or cello that has *all plain gut strings" --no
metal--with a an early style clip frog bow with 100 hairs and a thick
bridge, you have a soft, sweet sound that gets softer as it gets
lower. And it balances perfectly with the theorbo.
Good luck finding one in an orchestra today! Those instruments get
louder as they go lower, the opposite of early baroque!
Composers such as Turini specifically wrote dual bass part sonatas
for the bowed instrument to play against the harpsichord and/or
theorbo. The bass parts often always play either the bass, or a riff
on the bass. Buonamente and Uccellini are also fascinating in their
heterophonic use of the obbligato "doubling" bass. It is, however,
possible that sometimes reduced forces would be used to avoid
covering up the voice in places. But which reduced forces? Well, the
trombones and bassoons would seem to be a candidate, but then there
are those pieces with trombone parts, and so on and so on. So the
answer may be that is some situations they pared down the instruments
depending on the imagination and context, or scored for effect, as in
Orfeo. But maybe not--there are too many written out "exceptions".
I don't know that there is a scholarly consensus, but from a
musicological point of view I truly believe the bowed instrument
played always in the continuo group. Maybe I'm a "minority report".
To argue against bowed continuo in arias is to argue specifically
against the Lirone. I just can't see that, there are too many mss.
with arias arranged for bowed instrument chordal accompaniment.
Why would they use the lirone if they did not really want that
specific sound? One can argue historical evidence in any number of
ways, but there is an overabundance of evidence supporting bowed continuo.
Several things do, however stand out. Many of the extant sources from
the early 17th century suggest that multiple continuo instruments
were used, and furthermore that they played different music. To do
this requires a very different approach to the music, even for the
basics such as voice leading and counterpoint. In the video, you can
see that we are all playing different parts, although some doubling
is necessary. I also think if posed with the question back then, do
you want lots of continuo, they would have said yes please.
Nowadays, for whatever reason, the trend is to have multiple
instruments play the same or very similar music--this is effective of
course in a loud orchestra where the softer instruments need to be
heard. But historical orchestras would have presumably been much
softer, and there the doubling would then become prominent instead of
blending. So maybe we are really talking "modern baroque" vs.
"baroque baroque" volume here. Again, this is musicological, not
practical for gigs or annoying conductors.
There are a number of other interesting details to consider. In
addition to instruments like the Lirone, which have a clear continuo
function, cello makers specifically designed larger instruments for
continuo and smaller ones for solo work. The continuo pattern was the
favored size until the solo repertory really took off, even
accounting for differences in strings. A common depiction from the
time is of a keyboard instrument, with a farsighted large cello
player seated directly behind with a clear sight line. How would we
know when this player "stopped" playing, if there is no part? Why
would they even make a part if one was never needed? In addition, you
also see a creative solutions to the wide ranging bass lines, such as
the alternative "violetta" performance of the bass part, in which a
larger cello plays the low notes and a smaller cello, or large viola,
plays the higher notes. The fact that the musicians would go to such
lengths to bow out the bass part by assigning the part to two
different specialized cellos reveals how crucial were not only the
presence of the sound but the evenness of the registration to the performance.
There would be no real need to go to such lengths for full tuttis,
where the parts could simply be assigned to other voices.
Monteverdi's portrait is illuminating, he is playing a large bowed
instrument that looks like a viol or a viol/cello hybrid, and there
is a smaller bowed instrument on the wall behind him. The Maestro was
definitely not just playing on the tutti sections!
Agazzari's comments seem on point, the harp is useful everywhere--how
true. But of course we can't believe everything Agazzari says, for
long and complicated reasons, the main one being that he is
contradicted elsewhere.
(from Arto's website)
"The player of lirone must bow with long, clear sonorous strokes, ...
The violin requires beautiful passages, distinct and long, with
playful figures and little echoes and imitations repeated in several
places, passionate accents, mute strokes of the bow, groups, trills,
etc. The violone ... proceeds with gravity ... The theorbo, with its
full and gentle consonances, reinforces the melody greatly,
restriking and lightly passing over the bass strings, its special
excellence, with trills and mute accents played with left hand. The
arpa doppia, which is everywhere useful, as much so in the soprano as
in the bass, explores its entire range with gentle plucked notes,
echoes of the two hands, trills, etc.; in short, it aims good counterpoint."
"... if the instruments are alone in the consort, they must lead it
and do everything; if they play in company, each must regard the
other, giving it room and not conflicting with it; if there are many,
they must each await their turn and not, chirping like sparrows, try
to shout one another down. Let these few remarks serve to give some
light to him, who seeks to learn."
As for the required skills, counterpoint is listed first, and in
practice, that is the most important skill if you play without
doubling the other parts, resolving suspensions properly and adding
excessive parallels in a multiple continuo setting:
"... I say, then, that he who wishes to play well should understand
three things. First he must know counterpoint (or at least sing with
assurance, understand proportions and tempora, read in clefs) and
must know how to resolve dissonances with consonances, how to
distinguish the major and minor thirds and sixths, and other similar
matters. Second he must know how to play his instrument well,
understanding the tablature or score, and must be very familiar with
its keyboard or finger board in order not to have search painfully
for the consonances and the beats during the music, knowing that his
eye is busy watching the parts before him. Third, he must have a good
ear in order to perceive the movements of the parts in their relation
to one another. Of this I do not speak, for I could not say anything
that would help those poor in nature."
Some musicologists look specifically at the distribution of part
books and part-book rubrics as a clue to performance practice.
However, since we know absolutely unambiguously that musicians
customarily shared "desks",, there can be no real information gleaned
from even a complete set of books. The printed books lacked complete
information ,and we know this because of correspondence between say,
Scheutz and his publisher: S. did not even include a continuo part!
He had to be asked to make one. This shows that one bass part was
used for all; the books were printed for distribution. In Vespers
1610. Monteverdi wrote in instrument names on top of other parts,
again, to save making extra parts.
There is a sort of Zen question here. I was taught in art history to
ask first as a scholar whether we are acting as a window or a mirror.
Are we looking into the past as it was, or selecting things that
reinforce our own ideas? And here, I think that all attempts to
resolve the past into one single concept always fail. I think there
was no uniformity, just diversity. Many pitches, many styles.
Surviving treatises, iconography, music, and so on, all have these
different ways of doing things, many of which are often contradicted
by diarists. We cannot accept that; we try to fix it.
One can certainly comment about specific pieces. Unfortunately for
the lute world, if we compare Orfeo to Vespers, Monteverdi clearly
and unambiguously lays out Chitarrone (presumably a bass lute, note a
theorbo), Arpa, and so on in Orfeo, but makes zero mention in
Vespers. That means that the very best evidence is that no pluckies
were used in the Vespers 1610. No one is really advocating this, but
someone will eventually, for the very reason that it is
controversial. That leaves either the organ alone or the organ with
the big cello for the bass part. The avoidance of the low C in some
pieces could be an indication that either a transposing cello or some
sort of viol was used. Why is there no low C in Nigra sum? We may
never know :) In the meantime, I will continue to play the Nigra Sum
as the Music Director *always* asks for theorbo. How cool is that?
dt
05:16 AM 10/21/2009, you wrote:
David,
Thanks for this. Very interesting. You've certainly borrowed a
lot from that last guy. But keep practicing: you'll eventually get
the hang of playing properly left-handed ;-).
I'm curious about the cello, though. My understanding of the
present consensus of scholarly opinion on the performance practice of
this period was that the bass line in arias and recits was typically
not doubled by a bowed bass. Perhaps I'm thinking only of secular
music. Is the practice different in sacred music?
I must say, I hardly found it necessary. The organ + theorbo
combo is quite adequate and you both did an excellent job. The organ
provides the sustained harmony while the theorbo adds shaping as well
as rhythmic and declamatory events. Its funny, I might have thought
that the cello would enhance a vocal-like shaping of the phrases in
order to compliment the singer, but for me it detracted somewhat from
the range of expression in the continuo group.
Just my two cents. All three were very nice performances.
Chris
--- On Tue, 10/20/09, David Tayler <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: David Tayler <[email protected]>
> Subject: [LUTE] A Tale of Three Vespers
> To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[email protected]>
> Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 11:50 PM
> I found it really interesting to view
> three versions of the same
> Nigra Sum from the 1610 Vespers. I deliberately did not
> look at any
> before performing it, because it is too tempting to borrow
> the really
> good riffs.
> Even though Monteverdi left no particular instructions for
> the piece,
> it has become some of an urban legend in the Theorbo world,
> a little
> moment in the sun before the darkness of the thundering
> herds of
> Mordor descend.
> Oooops wrong piece.
> But in any case, what is kind of cool, really very cool, is
> that all
> three versions use different orchestrations, different
> ornaments,
> different techniques, different playing styles,
> arpeggiation,
> stringing, frets, tastini, and so on.
> All three theorbos are in a different tuning, so all of the
> chords
> look different. Not to mention two are playing right handed
> instead
> of the proper left handed (joke, joke)
> Even more remarkable is that harmonization of the largely
> unfigured
> bass is different as well. Different chords. Different
> suspensions.
> If I had to do it over again I would borrow mucho! (with
> permission, of course)
> Numbers 1 and 3 are in tastini meantone.
>
> Three Vespers
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94-NIURkU8I
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRUEFcWJ7Js
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUqdpFYTatI
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
