On Dec 18, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Monica Hall wrote:
> to which I would respond - is there any authority for David's
> proposition other than his own whim?
I'm not sure what David's proposition is, but yours seems to be
something like, "there was no church in Italy in the first half of
the 17th century in which a guitar was ever used for continuo." This
seems extreme enough to ask for some support.
That the guitar was considered (by absolutely everyone?) a secular,
even vulgar, instrument doesn't really get us anywhere. The same was
true of the violin for a generation or two, but then became perfectly
normal in church.
It is not dispositive that the guitar is not mentioned in the
published books of liturgical music that represent a small part of
the music that was heard in churches. Absent some "guitarra taceat
in ecclesia" pronouncement from the Pope, we should keep an open mind
about church practice.
And of course, you've chosen a particularly bad example in any case,
since the title page of Monteverdi's publication says "suitable for
the chapels or chambers of princes," which would make church
practice, even if we knew it exactly, not controlling of the question.
> But briefly I don't think that the guitar would have been used in 17th
> century Italian (or other) religious music intended to be performed
> in a
> liturgical context. I can't see why it should be necessary.
Necessary? Necessary??? NECESSARY??????
O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is cheap as beast's.
It's not NECESSARY to perform the 1610 Vespers at all, particularly
if you're not Catholic. It's not necessary (shudder) to use
theorbos, or any member of the lute family, if you do perform them.
It's not necessary for singers or instrumentalists to sing any
particular ornament, or a continuo player to voice a chord any
particular way, but what they do sing or play isn't wrong for being
unnecessary. "Necessary" is not relevant.
> As far as the Vespers are concerned I wouldn't compare the opening
> with an
> overture to an opera. This is an invocation to God to hear our
> prayers
> and accept our praises. It is not intended to be a dramatic
> performance
> but a spiritually uplifting or inspiring experience. I am not a
> theorbo player but I can't really see the point in strumming
If you'd ever played a theorbo in the midst of trombones and
cornetti, you'd see the point.
In Monteverdi's Domine ad adjuvandumum me festina, the point is that
it's forceful, loud enough not to be completely pointless, and
rhythmically strong, in keeping with the very forceful and
rhythmically driving music that's going on around it, including the
very secular fanfare in canon over the voices, which was likely a
symbol of the Gonzaga family, and of course is familiar to us from
Orfeo. If you're going to argue that secular sounds are
inappropriate in religious music, you might want to pick an example
that doesn't actually refute your position.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
