| Trio Vanhal ⟨User:Tim.willis1685⟩ |
[#9921] |
Hi Tim, do you really think "continuo" is justified in this case [1] ?
| Posted at 10:51, 18 February 2015 by Notenschreiber (administrator) |
|
Hi Notenschreiber. What alternative would you suggest? Since "Basse" or "basso" don't refer to specific instruments I think it's the most suitable. A tag for anything else would be based on an assumption, and also stylistic grounds (ie. the idea that continuo playing died with Bach in 1750). I've been advised against suggesting tags based on stylistic grounds. Continuo playing still took place at this time, and if composers wanted only a cello (for example) on the bass line, they would write "violoncello".
| Posted at 20:59, 18 February 2015 by Tim.willis1685 (administrator) |
| I would think, that "basso" in this case let the possibilities open to use a cello or a bassoon or even a contrabass (in connection with clarinet and bassoon).
"Basso continuo" sounds like a request for a cembalo or something like that, and i don´t think, that that is the composers intention. In the instrumentation
field we can easily change "continuo" to "basso". But i wonder, what consequences this would have for our "taggers".
| Posted at 21:26, 18 February 2015 by Notenschreiber (administrator) |
| Mozart's scores from the same period often used "Basso" to refer to the double bass (even as in "Violoncello e basso"). The important difference is the presence of figurings to indicate continuo. It's still possible that a "basso" part without figurings *could* be played as if it were continuo, but we have to tag the instrumentation as it's given by the composer.
In the case of Vanhal Op.18 it's not at all obvious what the unfigured "basso" part refers to, so perhaps it should be categorized as a generic bass instrument. This would change the categories to "For clarinet, bassoon, bass instrument" and "For clarinet, bass instrument". Would you have any objections?
| Posted at 23:27, 18 February 2015 by P.davydov (administrator) |
| A different trio of Vanhal's for clarinet, violin and piano has been published with a continuo keyboard and cello part, but just a note with it saying that it is unclear what he intended, and that it can be done with just cello as well.
In a lot of these Vanhal trios, I think "bc" is in itself open enough to cover both possibilities. I can ask a continuo player at work whether this is something he would look at and say "this could be for us". Would that help?
| Posted at 05:53, 19 February 2015 by Steltz (administrator) |
| I like davydovs proposal, the "bc" tag seems to demand for an accordic instrument in my eyes.
| Posted at 08:19, 19 February 2015 by Notenschreiber (administrator) |
| Thanks Steltz, your colleague's view might be helpful in similar situations. Let's hold off any re-tagging until then.
| Posted at 09:29, 19 February 2015 by P.davydov (administrator) |
| It seems like a complicated issue. As I've said before, a lack of figures doesn't mean a chordal instrument shouldn't be employed. A good continuo player can read from a part without figures. Just because these works are from the classical period, continuo practice should not be discounted. I had a look at some of mozart's autograph scores (cosi fan tutte and some of the last 10 symphonies available here in autograph) and he only writes "Basse" or "bassi" for the bottom stave. I didn't see any "cello and basso" but I didn't look far. Since we know Mozart directed his many of his works from the keyboard, then surely this means that a keyboard instrument COULD be used when basso is written. Could there be a few tags for these disputed pieces? Something needs to be decided for these classical works where the bass part is unclear. Can I suggest you ask Emily Gunson, who has done some good work with Wendling. I also had a look at his trios, and found a wide variety of terminology.
| Posted at 14:28, 19 February 2015 by Tim.willis1685 (administrator) |
| My apologies, there does already seem to be a system for tagging such works. Looking at the list of trios, those with "violoncello" on the title page have been tagged appropriately and those with "basso", or some variant have been tagged for continuo and cello. Perhaps bass instrument is more suitable?
| Posted at 21:35, 19 February 2015 by Tim.willis1685 (administrator) |
| Sorry to come back to this discussion, but I found an interesting article about continuo playing existing well into the 19th century. I hope that if you find time to read just a small part of this, you will consider it as an option when tagging future works for "bass".
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=d-cp7V2PKgAC&pg=PA157&dq=continuo+accompaniment+19th+century&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gz78VNyLFMLImAWchoDQDw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=continuo%20accompaniment%2019th%20century&f=false
It's very mainstream (at least in period instrument performances) to have keyboard accompaniment in late 18th century works. Unfortunately if you type "continuo in the classical period" (or variations of that) into google, you will get mostly "continuo playing died out in the classical period". There are, however a few bits and pieces in between which proove that this is a very old fashioned attitude.
Ps. I also found a source (which I can't find now) from the 19th century which teaches cellists and bass players how to harmonise bass parts in case a keyboard player is not available.
| Posted at 12:25, 8 March 2015 by Tim.willis1685 (administrator) |
| Thanks Tim. The tags must reflect what the composer calls for in the score: if the bass part is figured then it's tagged for continuo, otherwise it's treated as a single bass instrument. Just because it's possible to play single bass lines as continuo, or a continuo part on a solo instrument, my view is that shouldn't be taken into account, because they would constitute arrangements rather than the original works.
| Posted at 16:09, 8 March 2015 by P.davydov (administrator) |
| |
