On 19.01.2007 Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jan 19, 2007, at 3:48 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
You are not implying that he [Kolisch] used a normal strung instrument? That I
am absolutely certain was not what he did.
What can I say? I saw him do it. And from what I was told about the "why" of
i
It's a great story Andrew. You must of been a young fellow.
Jerry
Gerald Berg
On 19-Jan-07, at 12:49 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jan 19, 2007, at 3:48 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
You are not implying that he [Kolisch] used a normal strung
instrument? That I am absolutely certain was not wh
On Jan 19, 2007, at 3:48 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
You are not implying that he [Kolisch] used a normal strung
instrument? That I am absolutely certain was not what he did.
What can I say? I saw him do it. And from what I was told about the
"why" of it all, I'm not even sure he was left
Daniel Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The partials in the sustained portion of a plucked
string are harmonic, and thus tunable to
just intervals by eliminating beats.
This is true only of perfectly flexible strings. Real ones have
some stiffness, which makes the partials slightly sharper th
On 18.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
Yes, indeed, and not uniformly along the string length. When a viol's
strings get to the point that you have to be moving the higher frets
down the fingerboard to play in tune, you know it's time to replace
your strings. And, of course, the wrapped strings c
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 19 Jan 2007 at 11:10, dc wrote:
Daniel Wolf écrit:
Any meantone-like temperament can be fretted with straight frets
Amen!
And both of you have been playing the viol for how long?
I took my first bass viol lesson in '77. I'd play more but d
On 19 Jan 2007 at 11:10, dc wrote:
> Daniel Wolf écrit:
>
> >Any meantone-like temperament can be fretted with straight frets
>
> Amen!
And both of you have been playing the viol for how long?
--
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates http://dfento
On 19.01.2007 Andrew Stiller wrote:
Absolutely. Kolisch was a famous enough violinist that he probably could have
commissioned such an instrument--but by that time he would have been so
accustomed to his own, idiosyncratic playing style that it would have been more
trouble than it was worth to
On 18 Jan 2007 at 23:55, Daniel Wolf wrote:
> David W. Fenton wrote:
> > Does that mean that when playing with the organ you're not playing
> > in a mean-tone temperament? Tuning a viol to a temperament based on
> > tempered 5ths (i.e., a well temperament) is easier than tuning to
> > one based ar
On Jan 18, 2007, at 3:18 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 18 Jan 2007 at 14:26, Daniel Wolf wrote:
He was also was of the few left-handed violinists. Due to injury, he
restrung his violin and switched hands. While it made orchestral
playing awkward (due to bow crossings when sharing a desk), it
On 18 Jan 2007 at 23:41, Daniel Wolf wrote:
> David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > I think this kind of thing works better on harpsichord because
> > tuning problems are not going to be nearly as obvious, since the
> > decay ameliorates any clashes. Do you do much with organ continuo?
>
> More important
David W. Fenton wrote:
Does that mean that when playing with the organ you're not playing in
a mean-tone temperament? Tuning a viol to a temperament based on
tempered 5ths (i.e., a well temperament) is easier than tuning to one
based around pure thirds (i.e., a mean temperament, which has 5ths
David W. Fenton wrote:
I think this kind of thing works better on harpsichord because tuning
problems are not going to be nearly as obvious, since the decay
ameliorates any clashes. Do you do much with organ continuo?
More important than the decay is the attack, which as a plucked string
On 18 Jan 2007 at 22:18, dc wrote:
> David W. Fenton écrit:
> >Do you do much with organ continuo?
>
> Quite a bit. But I generally don't get to tune the organ, so the other
> continuo instruments (theorbo, viol) simply tune to the organ. But
> this means they move their frets around when we swit
On 18 Jan 2007 at 16:08, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
> David W. Fenton / 2007/01/18 / 03:17 PM wrote:
>
> >For all mean-tone fans, if you ever make a trip to Northern Ohio, you
> > must get to Oberlin and try the mean-tone organ in Fairchild Chapel.
> > It's a beautiful Brombaugh, built in the early 80s
At 2:37 PM -0500 1/18/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 at 23:22, John Howell wrote:
But I like your wording, Johannes. If we can agree that Joshua's
belief is indeed an hypothesis--an interesting hypothesis, a
suggestive hypothesis, even a brilliant hypothesis--then the next
stage
Music" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] mozart (OT)
> David W. Fenton / 2007/01/18 / 03:17 PM wrote:
>
> >For all mean-tone fans, if you ever make a trip to Northern Ohio, you
> >must get to Oberlin and try the mean-tone
David W. Fenton / 2007/01/18 / 03:17 PM wrote:
>For all mean-tone fans, if you ever make a trip to Northern Ohio, you
>must get to Oberlin and try the mean-tone organ in Fairchild Chapel.
>It's a beautiful Brombaugh, built in the early 80s (it went in while
>I was a student there) and has split
On 18 Jan 2007 at 21:40, dc wrote:
> David W. Fenton écrit:
> >it's virtually impossible to tune a viol to any form of mean-tone.
>
> Well, I play with _professional_ violists who do it every day, and who
> are perfectly in tune with my meantone harpsichord.
>
> And many others say it is not onl
On 18 Jan 2007 at 12:02, dc wrote:
> Johannes Gebauer écrit:
> >If you really are interested, you should listen to some good
> >recordings in mean tone (17th century music I would recommend),
> >perhaps with a good mixture of string and wind instruments, plus
> >meantone tuned virginal or harpsich
On 18 Jan 2007 at 14:26, Daniel Wolf wrote:
> He was also was of the few left-handed violinists. Due to injury, he
> restrung his violin and switched hands. While it made orchestral
> playing awkward (due to bow crossings when sharing a desk), it was
> useful for both quartet playing and teaching
On 18 Jan 2007 at 10:37, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> Remember, we don't have frets. The tuning depends on the 100th of a
> milimeter of out finger position.
>
> With gut strings the problems get worse, as they change when they get
> older.
Yes, indeed, and not uniformly along the string length. Wh
On 18 Jan 2007 at 10:02, dc wrote:
> What about fretted instruments? I often
> play with viola de gamba or theorbo, and both of them can and do use
> meantone, for instance.
An organist/harpsichordist friend of mine brought this up when he
heard my group's Couperin recording, and scolded us for
On 1/18/07, Andrew Stiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some 30 years ago, Edward Tarr discovered that the intonation problems
those holes were designed to fix came about because modern copies of
Bq. trps. were too perfectly made. If you hand-hammer the instrument
into shape, (as was done historica
On 17 Jan 2007 at 23:22, John Howell wrote:
> But I like your wording, Johannes. If we can agree that Joshua's
> belief is indeed an hypothesis--an interesting hypothesis, a
> suggestive hypothesis, even a brilliant hypothesis--then the next
> stage in the scientific method follows. Test the hyp
On 18 Jan 2007 at 10:02, dc wrote:
> Johannes Gebauer écrit:
> >Well, tempered open strings doesn't mean we play tempered.
>
> But you at least play tempered if and when you play a fifth on open
> strings. John's idea that temperament is only an issue on keyboard
> instruments is completely wrong
On Jan 18, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
The conductor said it was one of the first
recordings to use trumpets that didn't use those "tuning" holes that
modern copies of baroque trumpets have to create a more tuned sound.
Some 30 years ago, Edward Tarr discovered that the intona
On Jan 18, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Daniel Wolf wrote:
He [Rudolf Kolisch] was also was of the few left-handed violinists.
Due to injury, he restrung his violin and switched hands. While it
made orchestral playing awkward (due to bow crossings when sharing a
desk), it was useful for both quartet pl
On 18.01.2007 Ken Moore wrote:
Andrew was committed to Joshua's view (with practical accommodations, such as
addition of ripieno singers for the bigger choruses) by 1985, when he made his
own
recording of the B minor Mass, using some of Joshua's parts.* My recollection
of the
"Early Music" co
On 18.01.2007 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Meantone, isn't it possible that baroque trumpets can use this tuning
system? I have a recording of the Handel's Fireworks music; and I
*think* they use mean tone. The conductor said it was one of the first
recordings to use trumpets that didn't use those "tu
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But the "pure" seconds and sevenths are way out. Unless one is an
alphorn player, I can't recall ever having heard these used in any
kind of common practice.
I recall hearing a broadcast of Weber's "Oberon" overture, when I
immediately knew
that
Meantone, isn't it possible that baroque trumpets can use this tuning
system? I have a recording of the Handel's Fireworks music; and I
*think* they use mean tone. The conductor said it was one of the first
recordings to use trumpets that didn't use those "tuning" holes that
modern copies of baroq
Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, actually, the discussion went on in Early Music between
Joshua and Ton Koopman (I believe this was in the year 2000).
Eventually they called in Andrew Parrot as the unbiased mediator,
who then ended up writing a book which basically completely
su
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Actually, Kolisch is one of my idols. And he comes very close to
historical performance in some respect.
Kolisch is the perfect counter-example to one of the critiques (by
Taruskin, among others) of historical performance practice, that in the
focus on the prehistory
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 18.01.2007 John Howell wrote:
I believe that was Wanda Landowska, not Casals, not that that affects
your argument.
Actually, it does. Had Casals said that it would have been rather strange.
Johannes
I had heard it as part of a masterclass he was giving on the Bach
On 18.01.2007 Daniel Wolf wrote:
There are many modern string players who are quite informed about intonation. Kolisch, when playing Schoenberg's Fantasy, tuned all four strings to the piano, in order to play more precisely in equal temperament. Paul Zukofsky and Marc Sabat have both integrated a
On 18.01.2007 Christopher Smith wrote:
I went to the Just Intonation website to listen to the examples, and I don't know about it. It is all well and good for 4ths and 5ths inside an octave, and even the 3rds and 6ths are fine (though I'm not sure that anyone tunes EVERY third this way in any kind
There are many modern string players who are quite informed about
intonation. Kolisch, when playing Schoenberg's Fantasy, tuned all four
strings to the piano, in order to play more precisely in equal
temperament. Paul Zukofsky and Marc Sabat have both integrated
alternative tunings into their
On Jan 18, 2007, at 12:12 AM, John Howell wrote:
Temperament is only necessary--and a necessary evil at that--for
keyboard instruments that cannot make microtonal pitch adjustments.
OK, I'm with you so far.
Tuning involves pure intervals, including the thirds or course.
Call it just in
On 18.01.2007 dc wrote:
Johannes Gebauer écrit:
For early 17th century music they may work very well, though it will require a
mean tone tuning for keyboard instruments, and that requires the tuning of
extremely narrow fifth.
This "extremely narrow fifth" of meantone is still only about HALF
On 18.01.2007 dc wrote:
Johannes Gebauer écrit:
Well, tempered open strings doesn't mean we play tempered.
But you at least play tempered if and when you play a fifth on open strings.
John's idea that temperament is only an issue on keyboard instruments is
completely wrong. What about frette
On 18.01.2007 dc wrote:
John Howell écrit:
Temperament is only necessary--and a necessary evil at that--for keyboard
instruments that cannot make microtonal pitch adjustments. Tuning involves
pure intervals, including the thirds or course.
Johannes just mentioned that a violin's fifth could
On 18.01.2007 John Howell wrote:
But I like your wording, Johannes. If we can agree that Joshua's belief is indeed an hypothesis--an interesting hypothesis, a suggestive hypothesis, even a brilliant hypothesis--then the next stage in the scientific method follows. Test the hypothesis.
Done,
On 18.01.2007 John Howell wrote:
> First: No, those parts which are there could not have been used by two
singers, unless they would have sung everything, including arias.
What is the term? Reduction ad absurdam? Where is it written in scripture
that any given part has to include meticulou
On 18.01.2007 John Howell wrote:
I believe that was Wanda Landowska, not Casals, not that that affects your
argument.
Actually, it does. Had Casals said that it would have been rather strange.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
At 6:01 PM +0100 1/17/07, dc wrote:
Johannes Gebauer écrit:
I do wonder what kind of intonation your friend
used. In my opinion this is actually the
biggest difference between a modern and a good
period instrument performance.
What do you mean exactly by intonation? Temperament? How good th
At 8:07 AM -0500 1/17/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 at 8:33, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> First: No, those parts which are there could not have been used by two
singers, unless they would have sung everything, including arias.
What is the term? Reduction ad absurdam? Where is it
At 7:45 AM -0500 1/17/07, dhbailey wrote:
Casals' supposed remark to some younger musician "You play Bach YOUR
way and I'll play Bach HIS way," while sounding superbly insightful
and wonderfully instructive, is in reality (it has taken me a number
of years to realize this) very bogus, since C
At 8:49 AM +0100 1/17/07, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 17.01.2007 John Howell wrote:
(One of my disagreements with the Rifkin hypothesis, whether or not
it "works" for modern ears, is that in his 1731 memo Bach
specifically mentioned both concertists and ripienists among the
boys, and we do find
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, actually, the discussion went on in Early Music between Joshua
> and Ton Koopman (I believe this was in the year 2000).
You mean the discussion continued then? The original publication of
Rifkin's hypothesis was back in the
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
I am not conveying Parrot's case, in fact he makes his own case very
> convincingly. Please read the book, then tell me whether you think he
> doesn't have enough factual evidence.
No amount of evidence improperly interpreted can prove a case, so
it's not h
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
I think he has always overstated his case, because he was reacting to
a climate in which his hypothesis was going to be highly
controversial. Also, as a musicologically-trained performer, he was
seen by many (wrongly, in my opinion) as justifying his perform
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
He doesn't use equal temperament, but he's also not striving for a
particular historical temperament.
In other words, he probably does just what almost every modern violinist
does. In which case I would find it dreadful to listen to.
Johannes
--
http://
On 17.01.2007 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
Where can you obtain a copy of this lecture?
I have no idea, but I can ask him, if you like. I heard it life, with
all his material, and I certainly found it impressive.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
On 17.01.2007 dc wrote:
Johannes Gebauer écrit:
I do wonder what kind of intonation your friend used. In my opinion this is
actually the biggest difference between a modern and a good period instrument
performance.
What do you mean exactly by intonation? Temperament? How good the thirds are
On 1/17/07, Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you get a chance I would recommend you to hear Joshua's lecture, it
is extremely powerful evidence, and I am pretty sure you would
understand why I fight for him so strongly.
Where can you obtain a copy of this lecture?
Thanks
Kim P
On 17 Jan 2007 at 17:02, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> As a matter of fact Joshua is a very serious researcher himself. He
> found out something and he presented it in a provocative way. That
> doesn't de-value the quality of his research. He really knows the
> subject, and did his research trying to
On 17 Jan 2007 at 17:02, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
> >> Actually, when I did a life broadcast of the D minor (no fugue but
> >> the
> >> > Ciaccona) this was one of the points I talked about in the
> >> > interview afterwards.
> >
> > A friend of mine is a vio
On 17 Jan 2007 at 17:02, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
> > I don't have his book, so I can't immediately read it. But there is
> > a problem with interpretation of the evidence here. If you're
> > conveying Parrot's case correctly, he's giving the surviving sources
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, actually, the discussion went on in Early Music between Joshua
> and Ton Koopman (I believe this was in the year 2000).
You mean the discussion continued then? The original publication of
Rifkin's hypothesis was back in the early 80s, around the time
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
If what I've written gives you the idea that I see it that way, I've
written unclearly.
No, sorry, I was in part replying to others opinion, not so much yours.
Appologies.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
Actually, when I did a life broadcast of the D minor (no fugue but the
> Ciaccona) this was one of the points I talked about in the interview
> afterwards.
A friend of mine is a violinist and has a recording of them out and
performs them regularly. He's a m
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't have his book, so I can't immediately read it. But there is a
problem with interpretation of the evidence here. If you're conveying
Parrot's case correctly, he's giving the surviving sources more
weight than they can bear.
I am not conveying Parro
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 17.01.2007 dhbailey wrote:
The very real possibility exists that NONE of Bach's performances were
what he really wanted but he was simply too much of a pragmatist who
needed the job too badly to ever dare to complain too heavily in
writing or in conversation with oth
On 17 Jan 2007 at 14:50, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
> > Robert Marshall was respondent to Rifkin's original article, and
> > he's no slouch as a Bach expert. But his case did not come close to
> > knocking over Rifkin's argument as it was presented, as it involv
On 17 Jan 2007 at 14:52, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
> > But how's your intonation in the fugues? :)
>
> Actually, when I did a life broadcast of the D minor (no fugue but the
> Ciaccona) this was one of the points I talked about in the interview
> afterwards.
On 17 Jan 2007 at 14:46, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
> > I would agree with this, that they have not by any means been "put
> > to rest", but I think they've been severely damaged, at least in
> > regard to Rifkin's most vehement claim, that the surviving parts
>
On 17 Jan 2007 at 14:46, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
> > And, of course, why would Bach have copied ripieno parts, or parts
> > indicating solo/ripieno for a performance he knew would not have
> > anything but solo singers?
>
> Well, would he have written that v
On 17 Jan 2007 at 14:46, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
> > In a similar example from a later period, it's pretty clear from
> > surviving parts for Mozart piano concertos in Leopold Mozart's hand
> > (I believe they are at St. Peters, and Cliff Eisen prepared an
>
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
And, of course, why would Bach have copied ripieno parts, or parts
indicating solo/ripieno for a performance he knew would not have
anything but solo singers?
Well, would he have written that very same piece had he know he would
have a larger choir?
Inte
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
But how's your intonation in the fugues? :)
Actually, when I did a life broadcast of the D minor (no fugue but the
Ciaccona) this was one of the points I talked about in the interview
afterwards.
Not modern, if I may say so.
Johannes
--
http://www.mus
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
I would agree with this, that they have not by any means been "put to
rest", but I think they've been severely damaged, at least in regard
to Rifkin's most vehement claim, that the surviving parts could only
have been used for one-on-a-part performances. Wit
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
Robert Marshall was respondent to Rifkin's original article, and he's
no slouch as a Bach expert. But his case did not come close to
knocking over Rifkin's argument as it was presented, as it involved
almost as much hand waving as Rifkin's own. Since then, q
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
In a similar example from a later period, it's pretty clear from
surviving parts for Mozart piano concertos in Leopold Mozart's hand
(I believe they are at St. Peters, and Cliff Eisen prepared an
edition for B&H from them that was recorded by Robert Levin at
On 17 Jan 2007 at 7:45, dhbailey wrote:
> Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> > On 17.01.2007 dhbailey wrote:
> >> Raymond Horton wrote:
> >>> So McCreesh's "instinctive feeling" trumps the evidence of Bach's
> >>> 12 voice choir, plus his preference for a larger one?
> >>>
> >>> RBH
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>
On 17 Jan 2007 at 14:03, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 17.01.2007 dhbailey wrote:
> > The very real possibility exists that NONE of Bach's performances
> > were what he really wanted but he was simply too much of a
> > pragmatist who needed the job too badly to ever dare to complain too
> > heavily
On 17 Jan 2007 at 8:33, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
> > While I certainly Bach's music enjoyable and convincing when
> > performed one on a part, I *don't* find Rifkin's argument convincing
> > that this was Bach's intention (and his only intention). As someone
On 17.01.2007 dhbailey wrote:
The very real possibility exists that NONE of Bach's performances were what he
really wanted but he was simply too much of a pragmatist who needed the job too
badly to ever dare to complain too heavily in writing or in conversation with
others.
Well, one thing i
On 1/17/07, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, to me, it seems legitimate to perform Bach's 4-part vocal music
with anywhere from 4 to 20 singers. Anything larger than that seems
outsized (especially given the small-by-modern-standards instrumental
forces),
You mean like *this*?
h
On 17 Jan 2007 at 0:53, Raymond Horton wrote:
> I just remember an article after the first Rifkin recording that
> settled the issue as far as I was concerned. If I am wrong, I'm
> wrong. My "instinctive feeling" is that I am not!
Robert Marshall was respondent to Rifkin's original article, and
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 17.01.2007 dhbailey wrote:
Raymond Horton wrote:
So McCreesh's "instinctive feeling" trumps the evidence of Bach's 12
voice choir, plus his preference for a larger one?
RBH
[snip]
Well, certainly! Isn't that what musicology is all about? Starting
with a precon
On 17 Jan 2007 at 0:25, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
> On 1/16/07, Raymond Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So McCreesh's "instinctive feeling" trumps the evidence of Bach's 12
> > voice choir, plus his preference for a larger one?
>
> What evidence?
>
> "Rifkin's pesky idea" deals with that:
>
On 17.01.2007 dhbailey wrote:
Raymond Horton wrote:
So McCreesh's "instinctive feeling" trumps the evidence of Bach's 12 voice
choir, plus his preference for a larger one?
RBH
[snip]
Well, certainly! Isn't that what musicology is all about? Starting with a
preconception and then finding
Raymond Horton wrote:
So McCreesh's "instinctive feeling" trumps the evidence of Bach's 12
voice choir, plus his preference for a larger one?
RBH
[snip]
Well, certainly! Isn't that what musicology is all about? Starting
with a preconception and then finding evidence to support it, while
On 17.01.2007 John Howell wrote:
I think there's entirely too much evidence that suggests it was not his
intention or his ideal, starting with the 2 copies of each vocal part.
No, John, there are no two copies of _each_ part. In fact there are no
two copies of one single part. In some cantat
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
I just don't think it was his ideal, however often he may have found
himself in that situation himself.
It wasn't his ideal, but he composed differently when he composed for 8
singers than when he composed for 4.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.c
On 17.01.2007 John Howell wrote:
Has anyone actually been inside St. Tom's, to estimate how many singers and
instrumentalists would have been sufficient? I doubt it was cathedral-sized.
Well, I have played there, incidentally with Joshua, but you cannot
compare it to the 18th century, as all
On 17.01.2007 Raymond Horton wrote:
I just remember an article after the first Rifkin recording that settled the issue as far
as I was concerned. If I am wrong, I'm wrong. My "instinctive feeling" is
that I am not!
Unfortunately this is the kind of way many people have dealt with the
evide
On 17.01.2007 John Howell wrote:
(One of my disagreements with the Rifkin hypothesis, whether or not it "works" for modern ears, is that in his 1731 memo Bach specifically mentioned both concertists and ripienists among the boys, and we do find such vocal parts in his hand or that of one of his re
On 17.01.2007 Raymond Horton wrote:
Joshua Rifkin's arguments of "one-on-a part" Bach choruses were long ago shown
to be without merit. Bach's church choir, as a rule, numbered 12, and he regularly
nagged unsuccessfully for it to be enlarged to 16. Rifkin based his argument on the
existence
On 17.01.2007 Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
What annoys me in some sense about the whole "Early Music" business is
that ... you know, I have no objection to people performing Bach with
a large orchestra-and-chorus or a small orchestra-and-chorus or
quartet of saxophones. It doesn't worry me in the slig
On 17.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
While I certainly Bach's music enjoyable and convincing when
performed one on a part, I *don't* find Rifkin's argument convincing
that this was Bach's intention (and his only intention). As someone
who's been involved in a lot of church music, I know that yo
I just remember an article after the first Rifkin recording that settled
the issue as far as I was concerned. If I am wrong, I'm wrong. My
"instinctive feeling" is that I am not!
RBH
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
On 1/16/07, Raymond Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So McCreesh's "instinctive fe
On 1/16/07, Raymond Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So McCreesh's "instinctive feeling" trumps the evidence of Bach's 12
voice choir, plus his preference for a larger one?
What evidence?
"Rifkin's pesky idea" deals with that:
(taken from http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/oneperpart.html)
*
So McCreesh's "instinctive feeling" trumps the evidence of Bach's 12
voice choir, plus his preference for a larger one?
RBH
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
On 1/16/07, Raymond Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rifkin got some attention with his project, and got the musical world
thinking
about small
At 8:19 PM -0500 1/16/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
I always felt his one-on-a-part dogmatism was ridiculously
overstated, but I really don't think one can take the nominal number
of choir members as the actual number for performance. I have sung in
choirs with nominally 12-16 members that almost n
At 1:43 PM -0500 1/16/07, Phil Daley wrote:
> Payroll records weren't the only way to figure out how many musicians
performed at concerts, the number of parts tells us how many played as
well. (Of course as Joshua Rifkin's research as proved, not everyone
agrees.
So if there was one 1st cl
On 16 Jan 2007 at 20:18, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
> On 1/16/07, Raymond Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rifkin got some attention with his project, and got the musical
> > world thinking about smaller choirs, perhaps, but the one-on-a part
> > B Minor Mass is just silly.
>
> Really?
>
> Tel
On 16 Jan 2007 at 19:56, Raymond Horton wrote:
> Joshua Rifkin's arguments of "one-on-a part" Bach choruses were long
> ago shown to be without merit. Bach's church choir, as a rule,
> numbered 12, and he regularly nagged unsuccessfully for it to be
> enlarged to 16. Rifkin based his argument on
On 1/16/07, Raymond Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rifkin got some attention with his project, and got the musical world thinking
about smaller choirs, perhaps, but the one-on-a part B Minor Mass is
just silly.
Really?
Tell that to Paul McCreesh:
**snip**(from an interview Paul McCreesh ga
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
