Martyn,
In light of the fact that the gallichon/mandora was certainly
employed within the milieu of Bach and his contemporaries and that Bach
did not write idiomatically for either the D minor lute or the
gallichon, there is little compelling musicological or artistic reason
to exclude the gallichon from performances of these works.
I'm afraid that the quest to find "the" instrument Bach "intended"
is an example of the retrograde projection of very modern
preoccupations with classification, categorization and - most
importantly - consistency culled from attitudes developed during the
rise of industrialization, mass production and the use of digital
thinking tools (computers). The study of historically informed
performance clearly demonstrates that there is no Absolute Answer in
the pursuit of the always-chimeric "Historically Authentic". (That
doesn't leave performers free to do as they feel, however. Far from it.
Research is essential.)
Chris
Dr. Christopher Wilke D.M.A.
Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer
www.christopherwilke.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Martyn Hodgson <[email protected]>
To: howard posner <[email protected]>; Lute Dmth
<[email protected]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 4:43 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Markus Passion by Bach 2
Dear Howard,
Donald Gill's important paper in The Lute (Journal of the Lute
Society)
Vol XXVI (1986) 'Alternative Lutes: the identity of 18th century
mandoras and gallichons' is one of papers (other than my own) which
describes how Kuhnau's request to the school governors for 'colocion'
was turned down. As an aside, and in response to your recent enquiry,
I've previously speculated that securing a gallichon might also
include
engaging the necessary player (much as a modern orchestra might
require
a First Horn, say, for a particular work) whether temporarily or as
the
permanent post Kuhnau seemed to be requesting.
The assumption that the gallichon was 'in common use' or that it was
used in churches aEUR~generally' as you believe still remains highly
questionable: although that it was in use in some places and for some
purposes is beyond doubt. But this doesn't get us very far either
way
in seeing what might be the most likely instrument Bach himself
expected for his Markus Passion (the original question you may
recall).
Again we must note that Bach asked for the lute in this work and not
for the gallichon (or cognates) which, as previously pointed out, was
a
name commonly used by his contemporaries who actually required this
particular instrument. Of course, the lack of any designation to a
part
could conceivably imply any instrument capable of playing a thorough
bass: but this is clearly not the case here where Bach specifically
asks for a lute - so it does matter and ought not to be ignored.
Moreover the part is an obbligato one, not the thorough bass
generally
employed by the gallichon.
As already mentioned, as a gallichon player myself, I might wish that
the instrument was indeed more likely in this context - but sadly my
head must rule my heart and favour the (Dm) lute - tho in slightly
arranged part (required, since you ask, to make it playable) to
better
suit the instrument's technical demands. In short, there really is no
evidence that Bach expected the gallichon to play this obbligato part
-
although, of course, there is some evidence for its use as a thorough
bass instrument by a few other composers.
I'll copy in the full thread so others can follow the discussion
Martyn
From: howard posner <[1][email protected]>On Jul 20, 2013, at
1:11
AM,
Martyn Hodgson <[2][email protected]> wrote:
> Indeed Kuhnau did press (unsuccessfully!) the church authorities
for> one or two instruments to play continuo which he called
gallichons Is anyone aware of some piece of evidence as to what the
town council actually did about Kuhnau's gallichon request?
I've conversed with persons equally sure that the purchase was
approved, but they couldn't tell me how they knew. I'm intrigued,
come
to think of it, by the notion that the player(s) wouldn't simply
supply
his/their own gallichons. Maybe the instrument was new to those
parts
in 1704.
> Further, a few other contemporary composers (noteably> Telemann)
wrote church cantatas with a designated gallichon part (NB> playing
from a thorough bass part and not an obligatto lute part as Bach
requires in this Passion). But this does not amount to gallichons
being in 'common use' at the time (personally, being a gallichon>
player, I wish otherwise - but wishful thinking is, alas, not solid
evidence for historic usage).
Kuhnau's statement that "we always have to borrow" gallichons is
pretty
strong evidence that they were commonly used in Leipzig churches
early
in his tenure as Cantor (responsible for music in the town's
churches)
there. It is evidence, if less strong, for their use by his
successor
Bach 20 years later. Matheson's statement that gallichons were
useful,
and lutes useless, in church is pretty strong evidence for gallichons
in church generally. (It's also evidence for lutes in church, else
Matheson wouldn't have made his denigrating remark about lutes.)A
rarity of scores that specify gallichon means very little, because
continuo instruments were rarely specified. You could just as well
conclude, from the lack of scores specifying harpsichord, that
harpsichords weren't used in one setting or another.
> Whilst Bach might occasionally overlook designating a particular>
obbligato instrument, that is not the case here where he clearly
calls>
for the lute (ie not gallichon or mandora). If he had required a>
gallichon there's no reason to suppose he wouldn't have used the
term>
(as his contemporaries did - see above)
You just made a compelling case for regarding the statistical sample
of
gallichon designations as inadequate, so seeing above doesn't get us
very far.> and that he was so ignorant or> vague as to employ a
generic term for all fretted plucked instruments.He might use a
generic
term not because he was being vague or ignorant, but because it
didn't
matter. He wasn't publishing a score for use outside the
Thomaskirche,
and he wasn't writing for our benefit. He knew what instrument the
player was going to bring, and if the player always brought a
gallichon, that's the instrument Bach would have expected.>
In short, the burden of evidence points to Bach expecting the (Dm)
lute> proper in this Passion - any technical difficulties in playing
what he> wrote to be put down to his relative unfamiliarity with the
detailed> technical demands of the instrument. No doubt the player
would have> adjusted the part to make it technically possible (as in
the> intabulations we have of the lute works by contemporary
lutenists).I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the notion of
technical difficulty, only to knock it down as a straw man. Nobody
else is mentioning it. The argument for gallichon is that it
projects
better in a large space and, being a continuo instrument, is likely
to
have been present in the orchestra already. I jumped into the
conversation only because you made a blanket statement that there is
"no evidence" that Bach had gallichon in mind. Obviously, there is
evidence in the form of his predecessor's use of gallichon, and
indications that the gallichon was the preferred instrument in
churches.The question of instrument choice makes more intriguing the
question of why Bach replaced the lute/gallichon obbligatos in the
St.
John and St. Matthew passions with organ in the St. John and gamba in
the St. Matthew. Did he find the original instrument unsatisfactory?
Did he write the parts for a specific player who retired or died or
was
traded to Hamburg for a violinist and a singer to be named later?
From: Martyn Hodgson:
Dear Howard,
Thank you for a constructive response.
Indeed Kuhnau did press (unsuccessfully!) the church authorities for
one or two instruments to play continuo which he called gallichons (I
suggest large continuo instruments in A or B - but that's another
story). Further, a few other contemporary composers (noteably
Telemann) wrote church cantatas with a designated gallichon part (NB
playing from a thorough bass part and not an obligatto lute part as
Bach requires in this Passion). But this does not amount to
gallichons
being in 'common use' at the time (personally, being a gallichon
player, I wish otherwise - but wishful thinking is, alas, not solid
evidence for historic usage).
Whilst Bach might occasionally overlook designating a particular
obbligato instrument, that is not the case here where he clearly
calls
for the lute (ie not gallichon or mandora). If he had required a
gallichon there's no reason to suppose he wouldn't have used the term
(as his contemporaries did - see above) and that he was so ignorant
or
vague as to employ a generic term for all fretted plucked
instruments.
The Bach works I had in mind are those clearly designated for lute,
and not the keyboard works sometimes wrongly, in my view, also
thought
to be lute works.In short, the burden of evidence points to Bach
expecting the (Dm) lute proper in this Passion - any technical
difficulties in playing what he wrote to be put down to his relative
unfamiliarity with the detailed technical demands of the instrument.
No
doubt the player would have adjusted the part to make it technically
possible (as in the intabulations we have of the lute works by
contemporary lutenists).
Martyn
From: howard posner <[3][email protected]>On Jul 18, 2013, at
1:03
AM, Martyn Hodgson <[4][email protected]> wrote:
> There is no evidence that Bach had the gallichon/mandora in mind
for> this.There's rather stronger evidence than usual for gallichon
in
German church music and particularly in Leipzig, if not specifically
in
any Bach work. His predecessor Kuhnau wrote to the town council in
1704
asking for money to buy "at least one" gallichon, noted that its
sound
was able to penetrate better than a lute and thus was "necessary for
all contemporary concerted music;" he wrote that 'we always have to
borrow" them but they weren't always available. A later memorandum
Kuhnau lists gallichons among the continuo instruments. He mentions
them each time in the plural. In Das neu-erAP:ffnete Orchestra
(1713)
Matheson wrote that the gallichon was more useful in churches and
operas than the lute, the sound of which was too small "and serves
more
to put on airs than to help the singer." This may not be sufficient
to
establish the gallichon in Bach's music beyond reasonable doubt, but
it
is strong evidence for its common use.
> The names were very well known at the time for specific>
instruments
and widely used to distinguish them from the (Dm) lute> proper.This
would be important if Bach were always meticulous, precise and clear
in
designating instruments in his scores, but he wasn't, as anyone who
has
worked through his designations of the lower lines in the Brandenburg
Concertos (or puzzled about the "echo flutes" in Brandenburg 4) can
attest. He sometimes failed to designate an obbligato instrument
altogether; the unlabeled solo in cantata 90 that is now known as the
Hardest Trumpet Part Ever being a good example. The blank wasn't a
problem because the part would be given to the appropriate player at
the first rehearsal, and Bach knew what instrument that player would
use. He was working in a close community of musicians with
established
working habits and conventions. He didn't have to be precise, just
as
renaissance composers didn't have to write down whether or not
instruments would play with the singers at all, and didn't have to
write the text underlay. They were in charge of the performance in a
musical establishm!ent in which the composer and the musicians all
knew
how things were done.
> Any use of the gallichon/mandora in this context is a modern
invention> - presumably to overcome perceived technical
difficulties.
But if we> look at the extant Bach 'lute' works, there are many
similar (if not> more severe) comparable technical hurdles yet this
has not led to these> to being identified as gallichon/mandora
works.But several of them have been identified as keyboard works.
---- Forwarded Message -----From: Martyn Hodgson
<[5][email protected]>
There is no evidence that Bach had the gallichon/mandora in mind for
this. The names were very well known at the time for specific
instruments and widely used to distinguish them from the (Dm) lute
proper.Any use of the gallichon/mandora in this context is a modern
invention - presumably to overcome perceived technical difficulties.
But if we look at the extant Bach 'lute' works, there are many
similar
(if not more severe) comparable technical hurdles yet this has not
led
to these to being identified as gallichon/mandora works. MH
Am 17.07.2013, 15:43 Uhr, schrieb Hilbert JAP:rg
<[6][email protected]>:
> Dear all,>
> I was invited to play the continuo part of some arias of Bachs
Markus-Passion. Two lutes are requested, but that's all of the
information I have got. Does anybody know witch is the right lute
type
to choose? Seams to be E or D keys the most time, so I would
preferably
go for theorbo in A aEUR| but maybe Bach intension was more a
gallicon.
Any other experiences or things one should know about this
fragment?>>
Thanks for any help,> JAP:rg
__________________________________________________________________
From: howard posner <[7][email protected]>
To: Lute Dmth <[8][email protected]>; lute List
<[9][email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 21 July 2013, 2:07
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Markus Passion by Bach
On Jul 20, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Martyn Hodgson
<[1][10][email protected]> wrote:
> Indeed Kuhnau did press (unsuccessfully!) the church authorities
for
> one or two instruments to play continuo which he called gallichons
Is anyone aware of some piece of evidence as to what the town council
actually did about Kuhnau's gallichon request? I've conversed with
persons equally sure that the purchase was approved, but they
couldn't
tell me how they knew.
I'm intrigued, come to think of it, by the notion that the player(s)
wouldn't simply supply his/their own gallichons. Maybe the
instrument
was new to those parts in 1704.
> Further, a few other contemporary composers (noteably
> Telemann) wrote church cantatas with a designated gallichon part
(NB
> playing from a thorough bass part and not an obligatto lute part
as
> Bach requires in this Passion). But this does not amount to
gallichons
> being in 'common use' at the time (personally, being a gallichon
> player, I wish otherwise - but wishful thinking is, alas, not
solid
> evidence for historic usage).
Kuhnau's statement that "we always have to borrow" gallichons is
pretty
strong evidence that they were commonly used in Leipzig churches
early
in his tenure as Cantor (responsible for music in the town's
churches)
there. It is evidence, if less strong, for their use by his
successor
Bach 20 years later. Matheson's statement that gallichons were
useful,
and lutes useless, in church is pretty strong evidence for gallichons
in church generally. (It's also evidence for lutes in church, else
Matheson wouldn't have made his denigrating remark about lutes.)
A rarity of scores that specify gallichon means very little, because
continuo instruments were rarely specified. You could just as well
conclude, from the lack of scores specifying harpsichord, that
harpsichords weren't used in one setting or another.
> Whilst Bach might occasionally overlook designating a particular
> obbligato instrument, that is not the case here where he clearly
calls
> for the lute (ie not gallichon or mandora). If he had required a
> gallichon there's no reason to suppose he wouldn't have used the
term
> (as his contemporaries did - see above)
You just made a compelling case for regarding the statistical sample
of
gallichon designations as inadequate, so seeing above doesn't get us
very far.
> and that he was so ignorant or
> vague as to employ a generic term for all fretted plucked
instruments.
He might use a generic term not because he was being vague or
ignorant,
but because it didn't matter. He wasn't publishing a score for use
outside the Thomaskirche, and he wasn't writing for our benefit. He
knew what instrument the player was going to bring, and if the player
always brought a gallichon, that's the instrument Bach would have
expected.
> In short, the burden of evidence points to Bach expecting the (Dm)
lute
> proper in this Passion - any technical difficulties in playing
what
he
> wrote to be put down to his relative unfamiliarity with the
detailed
> technical demands of the instrument. No doubt the player would
have
> adjusted the part to make it technically possible (as in the
> intabulations we have of the lute works by contemporary
lutenists).
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the notion of technical
difficulty, only to knock it down as a straw man. Nobody else is
mentioning it. The argument for gallichon is that it projects better
in a large space and, being a continuo instrument, is likely to have
been present in the orchestra already. I jumped into the
conversation
only because you made a blanket statement that there is "no evidence"
that Bach had gallichon in mind. Obviously, there is evidence in the
form of his predecessor's use of gallichon, and indications that the
gallichon was the preferred instrument in churches.
The question of instrument choice makes more intriguing the question
of
why Bach replaced the lute/gallichon obbligatos in the St. John and
St.
Matthew passions with organ in the St. John and gamba in the St.
Matthew. Did he find the original instrument unsatisfactory? Did he
write the parts for a specific player who retired or died or was
traded
to Hamburg for a violinist and a singer to be named later?
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
[2][11]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:[12][email protected]
2. [13]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:[email protected]
2. mailto:[email protected]
3. mailto:[email protected]
4. mailto:[email protected]
5. mailto:[email protected]
6. mailto:[email protected]
7. mailto:[email protected]
8. mailto:[email protected]
9. mailto:[email protected]
10. mailto:[email protected]
11. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
12. mailto:[email protected]
13. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
