"Nicolás Valencia" <[email protected]> schrieb: > Do you happen to have Quantz statement on inegalite? I wonder how close > his definition was compared with earlier sources.
Here's what I understand to be Quantz on inegal: "Man muß unter den Hauptnoten, welche man auch: anschlagende, oder, nach Art der Italiäner, gute Noten zu nennen pfleget, und unter den durchgehenden, welche bey einigen Ausländern schlimme heißen, einen Unterschied im Vortrage zu machen wissen. Die Hauptnoten müssen allezeit, wo es sich thun läßt, mehr erhoben werden als die durchgehenden. Dieser Regel zu Folge müssen die geschwindesten Noten, in einem jeden Stück von mäßigem Tempo, oder auch im Adagio, ungeachtet sie dem Gesichte nach einerley Geltung haben, dennoch ein wenig ungleich gespielet werden; so daß man die anschlagenden Noten einer jeden Figur, nämlich die erste, dritte, fünfte, und siebente, etwas länger anhält als die durchgehenden, nämlich die zweyte, vierte, sechste und achte: doch muß dieses Anhalten nicht soviel ausmachen, als wenn Punkte dabey stünden." (Versuch, xi 12, p. 105) (My attempt: "You should know how to make a difference between main, or heavy, notes, which are called good notes in Italy, and subordinate notes, which are called bad notes abroad. Main notes should, where it is feasible, be pointed out more than subordinate notes. Inferentially, the quickest notes in a piece of moderate tempo, or with an adagio, should be played a little uneven, notwithstanding their even values, so that the main notes of any phrase, viz. the first, third, fifth, seventh, be held a little longer than the subordinate notes, viz. the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth. However, this holding should not take as much as a dot.") It is safe to draw the conclusion from the last sentence IMHO that heavy notes aren't only played a little longer than light notes anyway, but that they are prolonged beyond their value, yet not up to the value of a dot. Mathias > 2010/2/22 "Mathias Roesel" <[1][email protected]> > > Reusner's advise to follow the latest fashion in playing inegale can > be > taken as a clue that this "fashion" was not yet selfevident in > German-speaking countries in the mid-17th century. It is often > mentioned > that inegale play was particularly French, but I'm not too sure > about > that. Perhaps, the French put an extra stress on it, but inegale > actually was the old-fashioned heavy vs. light stroke thing. Italian > musicians from Frescobaldi to Corelli will have made use of it well > enough. There's a courante by Corelli in the Saizenay ms. that > certainly > presupposes inegale execution. The last author to mention inegale as > common practise, that I'm aware of, is JJ Quantz (Versuch xi 12). So > Bach is well within he scope IMHO. > Mathias > "Nicolas Valencia" <[2][email protected]> schrieb: > > > Dear b-lute fellows, > > > > Following the recent thread on "inegalite", I'd like to ask your > opinion on the extension of its use. > > > > I know it's mainly a French, XVII century feature and a matter of > "taste" (whatever it means), as well as suitable for the "transition" > composers or "early" German lutists such as Reusner, Gumprecht or Losy. > > > > My question is: when do you stop playing with "inegalite"?, i.e. any > date, composer, etc.? I've heard of some Bach performances with > "inegalite", is this going too far? > > > > Best, > > > > Nicolas To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
