Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
Do you have an exact date for the parts? I'm looking at my copy of Daniel Koury's Orchestral performance Prcatices in the Nineteenth Century, where he gives many lists of the strengths of different orchestras. For example, in Munich in 1803, the Churbayerishe Kapelle, led by Cannabich, contained: 1 flute 2 oboes 2 bassoons 2 (or possibly 4) horns 4 trumpets 1 timpani 1 keyboard 10 violins 2 violas 3 cellos 2 basses In 1806, the Königlich Bayersiche Kapelle, also led by Cannabich, had: 4 flutes 4 oboes 3 clarinets 3 bassoons 6 horns 12 trumpets 3 trombones 4 timpani 4 keyboards or organs 27 violins 4 violas 5 cellos 7 basses The 1803 orchestra wouldn't be far from what is indicated by the parts you describe: just a couple more violins and a couple less violas. Are there actually two separate viola parts? In this case it's well possible that 2 violinists played viola for this particular piece. On 15 Nov 2008, at 20:37, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: As a sidebar, I was surprised at the smallness of the orchestra Cannabich used (I'm using the original performance part manuscripts)- the string parts are only 2 per string chair, although he was VERY heavy on the bass line, there are two parts for a cello, contrabass, and 2 bassoons, something that the classical period orchestras liked a great deal ( I believe that Mozart's Paris symphony was first played by 10 or 12 cellos!) Thanks so much for your feedback! Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
Hi everyone: I'm just asking for different perspectives on a topic. I know everyone may have different views on it, so don't get into any flame wars over this please ;) I'm working on some Wanhal (or Vanhal) and Cannabich symphonies, which have 2 oboes, 2 horns, 2 bassoons, etc plus the strings. I have been putting each wind instrument on its own stave because I assumed at the time it's just easier for part extraction. Because I'm working from manuscript parts, it's just less of a chore to mark up the score with a2 or solo or tutti. I've seen some engraved scores which use the traditional 2 instruments per part and sometimes it's so cluttered with the markings about when the instruments are playing together or not. But on the other hand, I can see where having 2 instruments on a single stave can be LESS confusing because the chords being created in the winds are much more obvious. Any advice on this topic? As a sidebar, I was surprised at the smallness of the orchestra Cannabich used (I'm using the original performance part manuscripts)- the string parts are only 2 per string chair, although he was VERY heavy on the bass line, there are two parts for a cello, contrabass, and 2 bassoons, something that the classical period orchestras liked a great deal ( I believe that Mozart's Paris symphony was first played by 10 or 12 cellos!) Thanks so much for your feedback! Kim -- Kim Patrick Clow Early Music enthusiasts think outside the Bachs! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
Any advice on this topic? I guess it depends on a few things: 1) Is the score for performance, publication, or some other use? 2) (If it's for performance) Are you going to be the only conductor/music director using the score? 3) (If for publication) on what size paper will it be printed? 4) Are there any divisi figures between two chairs that, if put on one staff would look REALLY busy, and hard to read with up-stems and down-stems on the same staff? If it'll be hard to read because the music's too small, double up. If it's going to be on reasonable size paper, but you're more concerned about quick eyeballing of sections, double-up. If one staff per instrument works well for you, then go for it (if you'll be the only music director looking at the score). Also, if there isn't anything too complicated in one layer of a staff going against something equally complicated in another layer of the same staff, then you (or other conductors) won't have a problem looking at it, and making heads or tails of it while in rehearsal. I hope this was helpful. Early Music enthusiasts think outside the Bachs! OUCH! :) Dana ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
At 2:37 PM -0500 11/15/08, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: Hi everyone: I'm just asking for different perspectives on a topic. I know everyone may have different views on it, so don't get into any flame wars over this please ;) I'm working on some Wanhal (or Vanhal) and Cannabich symphonies, which have 2 oboes, 2 horns, 2 bassoons, etc plus the strings. I have been putting each wind instrument on its own stave because I assumed at the time it's just easier for part extraction. Because I'm working from manuscript parts, it's just less of a chore to mark up the score with a2 or solo or tutti. I've seen some engraved scores which use the traditional 2 instruments per part and sometimes it's so cluttered with the markings about when the instruments are playing together or not. But on the other hand, I can see where having 2 instruments on a single stave can be LESS confusing because the chords being created in the winds are much more obvious. Any advice on this topic? Personal opinion: If you have room on the page, give each instrument its own line. As a sidebar, I was surprised at the smallness of the orchestra Cannabich used (I'm using the original performance part manuscripts)- the string parts are only 2 per string chair, although he was VERY heavy on the bass line, there are two parts for a cello, contrabass, and 2 bassoons, something that the classical period orchestras liked a great deal ( I believe that Mozart's Paris symphony was first played by 10 or 12 cellos!) Kim Patrick, I think there may be a small flaw in your reasoning. Composers did not, generally, specify how many players were to play their music. If they worked for a patron, they wrote for the orchestra (or chorus, or band) that patron supported, period. True, when Mozart was freelancing in Vienna, and later for Beethoven, they hired their own orchestras for the concerts they personally produced, but even then there would have been financial incentives to keep the size as small as was acceptable. Similarly, we can usually identify Mozart's Salzburg works because they lack viola parts, because the Archbishop didn't employ violists. There may also, in some cases, have been space considerations. We know that Bach's orchestra at Leipzig was quite small, judging by the parts that were copied for that orchestra, and I suspect that there was a limited amount of space in the Thomaskirche (although I've never seen a good picture of it). I have seen a picture of Haydn's opera pit orchestra, and the space was very definitely limited. Probably Handel's in London, too. Our massive concept of large ensembles simply didn't exist until the advent of amateur choral societies, formed at first to continue performing the works of Handel. And of course there is never any way to make sure that the surviving parts are the ONLY parts that were copied. You can't prove a negative! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And of course there is never any way to make sure that the surviving parts are the ONLY parts that were copied. You can't prove a negative! John Thanks for your reply John, but the interesting thing is, for this Cannabich score, he wrote on it Sinfonia a 18 the parts match that number on the wrapper sheet, so there aren't any missing parts from what I can see. Thanks! Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
At 6:00 PM -0500 11/15/08, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And of course there is never any way to make sure that the surviving parts are the ONLY parts that were copied. You can't prove a negative! John Thanks for your reply John, but the interesting thing is, for this Cannabich score, he wrote on it Sinfonia a 18 the parts match that number on the wrapper sheet, so there aren't any missing parts from what I can see. You may be quite right, and he may have meant it that way. Normally a note like that indicates the number of lines used in the score (which might inform your score layout), with the assumption that if there were more than 2 players on each string part or each vocal part extra (individual) copies would be prepared. That's the case with Bach's choral works, usually one part for each voice with the solo movements and a second one without. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On 15 Nov 2008 at 18:11, John Howell wrote: At 6:00 PM -0500 11/15/08, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And of course there is never any way to make sure that the surviving parts are the ONLY parts that were copied. You can't prove a negative! Thanks for your reply John, but the interesting thing is, for this Cannabich score, he wrote on it Sinfonia a 18 the parts match that number on the wrapper sheet, so there aren't any missing parts from what I can see. You may be quite right, and he may have meant it that way. Normally a note like that indicates the number of lines used in the score (which might inform your score layout), with the assumption that if there were more than 2 players on each string part or each vocal part extra (individual) copies would be prepared. That's the case with Bach's choral works, usually one part for each voice with the solo movements and a second one without. John, your reply has actually confused me. I do think Kim seems to be mistaken, but I may have understood him, too. I've lots of experience with MSS from the period Kim is working and what I see is that Sinfonia a 18 would mean that there are 18 individual lines (parts) in the score. That wouldn't mean 18 staves, as the two oboes are likely written on a single line, and so forth. A Sinfonia a 18 might have many more parts copied out. For instance, a title page might read thus (pardon my mixed spelling, i.e., plurals versus singular -- a surprisingly large number of these MSS are in Italian but written by non-native speakers and don't always make sense in terms of Italian grammar): Sinfonia à 11 2 Violini Viola [or Viole] Violoncello [or Violoncelli] Bassus [or, more often, Bassi] 2 Corni 2 Oboi 2 Fagotti Very often, this same title page will have been annotated by someone (the music librarian or a later owner) indicating duplicate parts, thus: Sinfonia à 11 2 Violini 2+2 Viola 2 Violoncello 3 Bassus 2 2 Corni 2 Oboi 2 Fagotti It might also be written thus: Sinfonia à 11 Violino Prima 2 Violino Seconda 2 Viola 2 Violoncello 3 Bassus 2 2 Corni 2 Oboi 2 Fagotti What this would mean is either 14 or 18 actual copied parts (depends on whether the winds have been supplied with individual parts). So, there's a difference between parts and parts (contrary to the old advertisement, it's not true that parts is parts), with the number of parts in the score usually determining the title number rather than the number of copied parts. So, 11 parts in the score could generate 14 or 18 actual copied parts. It is my experience that the title instrument count is supplied by the original copyist of the title page, while the count of copied parts is almost always a later addition by someone else (if it's there at all). My experience is that Sinfonia a 18 would almost never indicate that there were 18 copied parts, but that there were 18 individual parts in the score. That would be an awfully big orchestra for this period -- 2 additional horns + clarinets + flutes added to the original 11 gets you to 17, and I'm not sure where the other part would come from (perhaps a solor violin part, Violino Principale?). On the other hand, I'm not as familiar with the Mannheim/Munich traditions as I am with those from other locations, so they may have been different. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've lots of experience with MSS from the period Kim is working and what I see is that Sinfonia a 18 would mean that there are 18 individual lines (parts) in the score. That wouldn't mean 18 staves, as the two oboes are likely written on a single line, and so forth. A Sinfonia a 18 might have many more parts copied out. This particular symphony only has parts ( I believe that's the case for most of Cannabich's music, which survives largely complete in Munich). All I noticed was the relative lack of string parts and when I counted the parts that survive, it matches the number on the wrapper sheet. I'm not saying that's exactly what was used to perform this symphony, but the collection in Munich does seem pretty complete, and I have seen some Vanhal/Wanhal symphonies that have duplicate string parts (for example in Schwerin and in Regensburg and in Prague). Again, I'm just found this a bit odd considering the size of the orchestra in Mannheim, and with the heavy bass parts (why would there be two parts for bassoons and double basses when just a single cello would have sufficed if someone was going to toss out duplicate parts to save library shelf space?). Thanks for your ideas though David! :-) Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On 15 Nov 2008 at 18:45, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've lots of experience with MSS from the period Kim is working and what I see is that Sinfonia a 18 would mean that there are 18 individual lines (parts) in the score. That wouldn't mean 18 staves, as the two oboes are likely written on a single line, and so forth. A Sinfonia a 18 might have many more parts copied out. This particular symphony only has parts ( I believe that's the case for most of Cannabich's music, which survives largely complete in Munich). That's the case with almost all the surviving MSS from this period (parts only, no score). And the title page we're talking about is for the wrapper that holds the parts. Scores (composer autograph or not), are very, very rare in this period. The fact that we have Mozart's, for instance, is really only because he became famous at about the same time that people started to value a composer's autograph scores for their own sake. All I noticed was the relative lack of string parts and when I counted the parts that survive, it matches the number on the wrapper sheet. What you delineated in terms of balance between strings and basses doesn't sound all that unusual to me at all, to be honest. I'm not saying that's exactly what was used to perform this symphony, but the collection in Munich does seem pretty complete, and I have seen some Vanhal/Wanhal symphonies that have duplicate string parts (for example in Schwerin and in Regensburg and in Prague). Again, I'm just found this a bit odd considering the size of the orchestra in Mannheim, and with the heavy bass parts (why would there be two parts for bassoons and double basses when just a single cello would have sufficed if someone was going to toss out duplicate parts to save library shelf space?). This is very common -- they seem to have performed with forces that were much more bass-heavy than we would think appropriate. Another thing to consider is whether or not there were any ripieno/concertino oral traditions. For instance, the Leopold Mozart parts for Mozart's piano concertos in St. Peters in Salzburg show that it may very well have been common practice to use a ripieno/concertino approach to performing them (the LM parts were made by LM for performance in Salzburg from WAM's autograph scores; Christopher Hogwood and Robert Levin released a recording of these versions using editions prepared by my former dissertation advisor, Cliff Eisen -- they are a sonic revelation). That is, it may be that all those extra parts may not have been playing all the time. It's not clear whether there were certain oral traditions for this, or if the fact that LM had to copy them out means that it was an unusual realization of his son's concertos. It could be that LM copied out the separate ripieno/concertino parts just because he was preparing a new set of parts, and if he'd gotten a pre-prepared set of parts he might have just used them as is with oral instructions as to when the individual desks/players should be silent. We just don't know for certain. In regard to the bass parts in your Cannibich, it may be that all the basses played only in tutti sections. But if the parts are all identical, having the complete bass line in them, we don't have any evidence to suggest that, suggesting that it was the case would be only pure speculation. We just don't know. It seems odd to think they'd have had so much bass-heaviness, but that's what the surviving parts for a lot of works tell us. On the other hand, it could have as much to do with where the parts were used to perform -- perhaps in a live hall that emphasized the treble and obscured the bass, in which case that's exactly what you might want to do, ie., overdouble the low parts and leave the top parts somewhat scantily covered. Again, we just don't know for certain. What we do know is that what you've described is not at all out of the ordinary -- though it's not the norm, there are plenty of sets of parts in all kinds of locations in which you see exactly what you've described. Also, it might be helpful to examine the paper types and copyists. It could be that a full set of undoubled parts were prepared, and doubling parts were created later for the strings and in actual performance some of the bass parts remained completely unused. Or the whole set was created at once, and only some of the parts used in any particular performance. It may be that all the bass parts would not have been used in any actual performance, and that if they had forces large enough to use all the bass parts, they would have copied out other string parts. Again, we just don't know for certain! There are plenty of studies of archival records of payrolls for orchestral musicians, but that doesn't tell us much, since it only says who got paid for the week/month, not what
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:14 PM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The really surprising thing to me has been not so much the heavy bass, but the completely sparse *inner parts*. Heavy bass can work very well with a full harmony filled out above them, but in so many cases you see part sets with lots of treble parts, lots of bass parts and very little in between. Yes, of course, there might be one or two harmonic continuo parts that would fill out the middle, but a harpsichord or two can't really balance out all the bass and treble parts! There are two separate viola parts, I don't know how common that is for this period. I haven't moved far enough on this particular piece to see if the viola parts simply double or not. There are some sections of the opening movement that are marked Violoncelli soli and then a few bars later, Con tutti bassi. I know Christopher Hogwood recorded Mozart's Paris symphony based completely on what the forces were in Paris, VERY bass heavy-- it was a pretty unusual performance, but I've noticed the same things in Graupner and Endler symphonies-- many parts for the basso continuo-- especially Endler where there are up to 4 parts-- yet only a single 1st violin! Very odd. Again thanks for an interesting discussion ;) Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
At 6:37 PM -0500 11/15/08, David W. Fenton wrote: John, your reply has actually confused me. I do think Kim seems to be mistaken, but I may have understood him, too. I've lots of experience with MSS from the period Kim is working and what I see is that Sinfonia a 18 would mean that there are 18 individual lines (parts) in the score. That wouldn't mean 18 staves, as the two oboes are likely written on a single line, and so forth. A Sinfonia a 18 might have many more parts copied out. Yes, that's what I was suggesting, but your experience with these scores makes it a lot more clear than my awkward statement. I actually couldn't remember whether e.g. oboes were combined on one line in photos I've seen of manuscript score pages--especially Mozart. Thanks! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On 16 Nov 2008 at 0:45, John Howell wrote: At 6:37 PM -0500 11/15/08, David W. Fenton wrote: John, your reply has actually confused me. I do think Kim seems to be mistaken, but I may have understood him, too. I've lots of experience with MSS from the period Kim is working and what I see is that Sinfonia a 18 would mean that there are 18 individual lines (parts) in the score. That wouldn't mean 18 staves, as the two oboes are likely written on a single line, and so forth. A Sinfonia a 18 might have many more parts copied out. Yes, that's what I was suggesting, but your experience with these scores makes it a lot more clear than my awkward statement. I actually couldn't remember whether e.g. oboes were combined on one line in photos I've seen of manuscript score pages--especially Mozart. Well, I was talking specifically about title pages, or, in most cases, what is really just a wrapper for a set of parts (not actually a title page). In Mozart's autographs, there is no title page, and none of what I wrote applies to his autographs. He did mostly combine parts on single staves. He used a doubled treble clef for those staves as a handy way of making it clear which staff was which (though he doesn't repeat the clefs on subsequent pages). Here's the first page of Der Schauspieldirektor, the first Mozart facsimile that turned up on the pile: http://dfenton.com/images/DerSchauspieldirektor.jpg For some reason, he did it for flutes, clarinets, horns and trumpets, but not for oboes. I have no idea why. And he never does it for bass clef instruments, so far as I can remember. But this is typical score layout for him (especially the Italianate practice of putting the strings at the top, as contrasted to modern score order). But the main point: Mozart (and Haydn and most other 18th-century composers with which I'm familiar) tended to put pairs of instruments on a single staff, except where the parts became too complicated for that. I can't think of an instance of Mozart placing a divisi part on two staves, but certainly later composers did it. And these scores are not hard to read, as for most of these pairs of instruments, the parts are not complex (especially the horns and trumpets). And they are often à2, such as in the bassoons, which (as in the illustration) often just double the bass in both parts. I wouldn't think there would be anything difficult with a modern edition that used exactly the same layout as that found here in Mozart's autograph. I can't see what would be gained by splitting the parts into separate staves. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
