Thank you fr ths.
I'm pleased you now accept that a 'violone' does not always (or indeed
generally) indicate a double bass instrument. If you care to examine
relevant journals (even the internet!) you'll find that the subject has
been looked into over the years. You'll also see that a great deal has
been done on establishing which bowed bass instruments were likely to
have been employed by different composers in different circumstances
(including opera). Incidentally the term 'violone' was very widespread
and not just restricted to those composers you mention ("...And Bach,
Scarlatti, Handel, Vivaldi, all used this term").
I do, however, continue to worry about your unsubstantiated assertions
such as that below "...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.". As has already been said, the issue
is not what instruments can possible play a given line and then
concluding that any of these would have been expected in a performance
of RV93 at the time, but what is the instrumentation most likely to
have been expected by Vivaldi and his audiences. You have previously
said that Vivaldi expected the piece to be played on any sort of lute
(leuto, mandora, or other) but I'd still be grateful for any evidence
of this assertion
MH
--- On Wed, 5/1/11, David Tayler <[email protected]> wrote:
From: David Tayler <[email protected]>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: RV93 - which instrument?
To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, 5 January, 2011, 20:43
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 Corelli's 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 didn't 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 don't 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
[1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
