Thank you for this. I'm not absolutely sure what you're getting at but it seems to be that, because we can't be quite certain what instrument Vivaldi expected for this composition, then really one instrument is just as likely as any another. If this is your position then I can't agree with it.
Certainly any instrument which can play the notes might be employed if you so wish but that doesn't come to the question of what instrument Vivaldi himself might have had in mind for the work and what instrument his audiences expected at the time. In much of musicology and many other disciplines one has to constantly face the question: if we don't know for certain, then what is the most likely? and also its corollary: are there any things which are significantly unlikley? You'll see from the earlier messages that I'm quite prepared to accept that the instrument Vivaldi expected might conceivably have been a mandora (or some other lute type instrument), but that on the weight of evidence it is much more likely to have been a leuto - an instrument known in Italy at the time. As you say, it is the music that counts but are you suggesting that this means we shouldn't bother trying to identify any instrument a composer had in mind? If so, once again, I'm afraid I can't agree with you. But best wishes for 2011 anyway.................... MH --- On Thu, 6/1/11, Christopher Wilke <[email protected]> wrote: From: Christopher Wilke <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: RV93 - which instrument? To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[email protected]>, "David Tayler" <[email protected]>, "Martyn Hodgson" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 6 January, 2011, 13:53 Martyn, Positivistic thinking is one thing when one is writing a paper where the expectation is that a conclusion is going to be brought forth. We've been good kids and set forth our thesis statement clearly in the first paragraph, supported it with several paragraphs linked with transitional sentences and capped off our masterpiece with an irrefutable conclusion. There, case solved. Vivaldi used a Gibson ET440 archtop model lute with Ernie Ball strings. Now we can go home and sleep soundly. The trouble with this mindset is that it is not all that helpful to the artist. To paraphrase Ray Nurse from a lecture he gave on Dowland at an LSA Seminar a few years ago, "So, what's going to happen if you DO play the piece exactly as Vivaldi wanted it done? Is he going to appear in a puff of smoke and put a gold star on your lute?" I think David is pointing out the major short coming of the positivistic ideology in the practical world: in many cases, the sum total of the evidence taken together suggests that there simply was no ossified "instrumentation most likely to have been expected by Vivaldi and his audiences." In the absence of historically clearly defined performing parameters, why limit ourselves to one mode of expression simply because of what we only partially know now? "As you can see from my carefully prepared charts and 150 pages of sluggish prose, that the historical evidence states," says the musicologist in a profound voice with raised finger, "SO and SO." Turning his head to the side, he rapidly mumbles in a low monotone voice into the fist he has raised to his lips to feign a clearing of the throat, "In contradiction to the findings of my predecessors and successors." This game is, after all, ultimately about the notes, not the words. Chris Christopher Wilke Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer www.christopherwilke.com --- On Thu, 1/6/11, Martyn Hodgson <[1][email protected]> wrote: > From: Martyn Hodgson <[2][email protected]> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: RV93 - which instrument? > To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[3][email protected]>, "David Tayler" <[4][email protected]> > Date: Thursday, January 6, 2011, 2:54 AM > > 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 <[5][email protected]> > wrote: > > From: David Tayler <[6][email protected]> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: RV93 - which > instrument? > To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[7][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][8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > > References > > 1. [9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- References 1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 2. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 3. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 4. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 5. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 6. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 7. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
