Thanks for that, Stuart.
Just for the record - because 2010 is the 400 anniversary of the printing of
the Vespers the English periodical Early Music Review has articles on
different aspects of them by Clifford Bartlett who is an authority on them,
has examined every surviving source, including the payrolls of places where
they are likely to have been performed and edited the version which is
widely used in this country at least.
The only option he suggests for the continuo is the organ - the continuo
part is in the form of an organ score. He points out that they were
intended for performance in a private chapel not in a large public space. He
thinks that they would have been performed with one voice to a part and that
the instruments would probably have only played what is actually written for
them.
He has some interesting things to say on the liturgical background to them
and the feasts of Our Lady on which they might have been performed.
I though of e-mailing him and asking him he thought about a baroque guitar
in the continuo ...but I know he has a lot of other things on his mind at
the moment.
As Stuart points out - they may have been performed by musicians in the nude
but the balence of probabilities is against this. I think the balence of
probabilities is against using anything other than the organ for the
continuo group.
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Walsh" <[email protected]>
To: "howard posner" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Lutelist" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 11:00 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: another day at the office
howard posner wrote:
On Dec 18, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Monica Hall wrote:
to which I would respond - is there any authority for David's
proposition other than his own whim?
I'm not sure what David's proposition is, but yours seems to be
something like, "there was no church in Italy in the first half of
the 17th century in which a guitar was ever used for continuo." This
seems extreme enough to ask for some support.
How about the proposition that "there was no church in Italy in the first
half of the17th century in which the singers all performed in the nude?"
Well.. who knows? But how likely is it?
That the guitar was considered (by absolutely everyone?) a secular,
even vulgar, instrument doesn't really get us anywhere. The same was
true of the violin for a generation or two, but then became perfectly
normal in church.
Any other examples of 'secular, even vulgar, instruments' becoming
accepted in the church? (strohfiedel? bagpipe?)
It is not dispositive that the guitar is not mentioned in the
published books of liturgical music that represent a small part of
the music that was heard in churches. Absent some "guitarra taceat
in ecclesia" pronouncement from the Pope, we should keep an open mind
about church practice.
Well, it's probably a virtue to keep an open mind on things but the
evidence suggests that it is really rather unlikely that guitarists would
be strumming along with the Vespers - and no evidence that they did.
But briefly I don't think that the guitar would have been used in 17th
century Italian (or other) religious music intended to be performed
in a
liturgical context. I can't see why it should be necessary.
Necessary? Necessary??? NECESSARY??????
too much badinage with RT?
O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is cheap as beast's.
It's not NECESSARY to perform the 1610 Vespers at all, particularly
if you're not Catholic. It's not necessary (shudder) to use
theorbos, or any member of the lute family, if you do perform them.
It's not necessary for singers or instrumentalists to sing any
particular ornament, or a continuo player to voice a chord any
particular way, but what they do sing or play isn't wrong for being
unnecessary. "Necessary" is not relevant.
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
