On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Christopher Wilke wrote:
> Howard,
Huh? Wait, that's me!
> Alright, so next time I'll should ask people if they did not hear me as a
> discrete component, but rather as a subconsciously perceivable part of the
> composite tonal aggregate?
Subconscious, no; part of the tonal aggregate, yes. There's no reason to think
the concept was any stranger in 1700 than it was in 1850 or is now. Lots of
instruments have the job of combining with other instruments to form a
homogenized sound. Listen to a Schumann symphony for an extreme example in its
time.
BTW, if the violinist sharing the stand with the concertmaster at your concert
had asked someone in the audience "Could you hear me?" the answer would have
been, "Never. I couldn't distinguish your sound from the other first
violinists'". The same is true of the organist in most ensembles, including
rock bands, or the rhythm guitarist in a jazz big band (or lots of rock bands,
for that matter). The issue in these cases is not whether you can hear the
instrument, but how much better the group sounds with it than without it. 35
years ago Rick Kemp, then the Steeleye Span bass player, told me how fascinated
he was watching Neil Young's bass player staring at the drummer's foot so he'd
play together with the bass drum, making one percussive bass instrument. "I
don't know whether it's good or bad," Kemp said.
> Frankly, I'm not a believer in this way of thinking for baroque music.
> There's no evidence that baroque composers thought of blending tone colors
> into "new sonorities" or Klangfarbenmelodie in the manner of Ravel or
> Schoenberg.
But as you point out in your very next sentence, they very conventionally
blended tone colors into familiar combinations of sonorities.
> Yes, bassoons double cellos and basses and oboes and violins play the same
> line in tuttis, but his rather goes to show how little regard baroque
> composers had for the actual colors of the instruments:
I'd be inclined to disagree with this characterization of their regard, but
since it pretty much proves my point, there's a limit to how hard I'll protest.
In his operas, Handel typically expected one treble sound composed of
oboe/violin, and a bass sound composed of
cello/bassoon/harpsichord/theorbo/violone. He was obviously unconcerned with
whether the bassoons were heard as bassoons: he just wanted a good, strong
sound.
> "If the part fits your register, play it for all I care."
I'd be inclined to disagree with this characterization even more than I was
inclined to agree with the characterization above (with which was I inclined to
disagree, as noted above in the sentence that started "I'd be inclined to
disagree...") but since it pretty much proves etc. ...
> If Bach didn't have an oboist on a particular day for an obligato part, he
> had no qualms about re-writing it for traverso or violin, transposing if
> needed.
I know of no instance in which Bach is known to have rewritten a part because
someone wasn't available on a particular day. Do you?
> How many times must this sort of thing have happened on the fly, with
> nothing being written down?
Twelve. Thirteen, if you include that time in Frankfurt in 1752. Not a lot,
really...
> ("We've got a great virtuoso guest chalumeau player with us today, Herr
> Bach." "Well, I ain't got nothin' fer chalumeau, but tell him to take the
> traverso obligato on the third aria.") I don't think Handel or Telemann or
> either one of the Grauns ever thought, "This harpsichord is doing the job
> fine on its own, but it is a little thin sounding. Let's get a theorbo in
> here to warm it up, stat!
They didn't have to think about it. They assumed the theorbo and harpsichord
were both available, for the same reason they assumed the violins and oboes
were both available: because they were available.
> And tell the guy, even though it really goes without saying, that although
> the theorbo player CAN play to be heard, he needs to be a part of the musical
> texture without actually being noticed as a discrete sound.
This is a very theorbocentric view of the whole matter. It's more accurate to
say that how the audience hears the theorbo, as such, is less important to the
director (who needs to worry about the overall sound and overall balance) than
it is to the theorbo player. If the continuo sounds good and supports the
singers, the director may not care at all if anyone can make out the theorbo
separately. And in a lot of venues where the acoustics are imperfect, the
subtlety of different continuo colors might be an unaffordable luxury.
It could be that your directors are bozos who don't know what theorbos are for.
It could also be that they have a much better notion of how things sound than
the theorbo player in the middle of the mix does. But worrying about the
theorbo player's desire to be heard isn't in their job description.
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
