Looking at the hisory of music performance in the
forty years we can see that everything is always
changing. So the violone, the lute, the flute,
and so on, of today will be something else
tomorrow. Which is fine. But it also means that
the reality is that our concepts are changing,
not that the past is changing. If you read for
example the violin article and the cello article
in Grove, you will see very different accounts of
the bass instruments. That is so cool! And why is
that? Well, people have different opinions.
In the cello article, we have the following "From
the 1660s Venetians seem to have applied this
term [violone] to a contrabass instrument"
So what do we do in the face of conflicting
opinions? Well, some people go with the most
recent articles, some people go with the one that
fits the performance budget, and so on. For me, I
do more research. That's my approach.
Regarding the violone, if one were to make a
very, very big list of all the operas and
concertos in the baroque, you would find that
there are pieces that call for both instruments
at the same time by name, and, in a smaller
number, direct one stay out and the other stay
in. And, of course, there are thousands of
paintings, drawings, accounts and, there is a big
variety, going back to the renaissance, of
surviving instruments. And they arent all in Venice, of that we are sure.
And in these places, it often looks like the kind
of situation, that is BIG, that would have 16 foot.
So, I happen to think it was quite common.
However, it was also quite common to use the term
violone for any bass instrument.
And why is this? Because it is exactly the way
that terms were used back then, They did not use
absolute, precise definitions for things.
Instrument terms had multiple meanings, just like
the term fiddle or bass does today.
We have a choice, which is to accept that the
term has both a specific and a generic meaning, or to try to square peg it.
Any attempt to reduce the universality of the
term will have to downplay all the exceptions.
There is a trend in scholarship to redefine
things. Sometimes this gives us more information, sometimes it gives us less.
Getting back to the lute world, as soon as the
important article came out about the archlute,
theorbo and chitarrone, (and it was, and is, a
great article) it had an enormous unintended consequence.
It reduced the use of the term chitarrone, and
also helped standardize modern versions of old
instruments, effectively eliminating variation
(part of this is due to other factors, such as
the adaptation of guitar strings and guitar technique).
So let's say we have roughly, by my count, about
twelve common types of extended neck lutes.
Now we have basically two, the archlute and the theorbo.
So did we gain anything by this? I think we, as performers, lose by this.
Or, getting back to the violone, maybe we should
find out all the different kinds that existed,
and explore why composers used this instrument,
and how, instead of redefining the label.
In the D Minor Double of Bach, if you do not add
a Violone at 16 foot pitch, you get inverted
fifths in few places. So no Violone=counterpoint
mistakes. Well, I would never record or perform
the piece like that. So we can draw a parallel
here, to pieces that have similar issues, where
the violone and the cello are specifically
mentioned. We can build on these widely scattered
clues, to shape our knowledge.
And Bach, Scarlatti, Handel, Vivaldi, all used
this term. Put those guys together, and you
actually have more operas, cantatas and concertos
than can be studied ina lifetime. Are we done
with all that repertory? Has anyone even seen all of it?
And all of that is but a tiny fraction of what
still survives. Opera is the big elephant in the room.
And regarding RV93, which is definitely not BIG,
one can add a violone part, either at 8 foot, 16
foot or quint pitch, as a performer, basically
because there is no compelling reason not to on the scholarship side.
But one can also perform it with smaller forces.
And here, we can take Corellis instruction to heart.
Corelli clearly states that the orchestra is
optional. So the right way, according to Corelli, is both.
And both is a good answer for me as an artist-more choice, more freedom.
So we can also say, well, he didnt mean that.
Corelli was just trying to sell books. We can
redefine, relabel optional as not-optional.
We can take Corelli's own words, and make them
mean the *exact opposite*--this happens all the time.
But we dont gain by that, we lose variety.
Whether it works, or sounds good is a different
question. And Vivaldi's specific use of the
Violone, where he in his own handwriting
calls for both instruments, is an intriguing question.
Some may think the question is settled, I
consider it still open, still interesting--still worthy of research.
dt
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
