Since we know the uniformity rule is almost always true, we can surmise that any work that establishes an unique performance practice is most likely not true. There just was no one way to perform the Vespers. The fact that Monteverdi published two versions should be all the evidence one needs.
However, any work that goes through all of the Vespers settings would be interesting to read, I have counted over two hundred. Since I haven't seen the article I won't comment, but if all two hundred are researched I will be amazed and delighted. There is a payroll for the orchestras in Venice which includes lute players--theorbo--I suppose like most lute players they were routinely fired and rehired for not drinking enough. dt >Just for the record - because 2010 is the 400 anniversary of the >printing of the Vespers the English periodical Early Music Review >has articles on different aspects of them by Clifford Bartlett who >is an authority on them, has examined every surviving source, >including the payrolls of places where they are likely to have been >performed and edited the version which is widely used in this country at least. > >The only option he suggests for the continuo is the organ - the >continuo part is in the form of an organ score. He points out that >they were intended for performance in a private chapel not in a >large public space. He thinks that they would have been performed >with one voice to a part and that the instruments would probably >have only played what is actually written for them. > >He has some interesting things to say on the liturgical background >to them and the feasts of Our Lady on which they might have been performed. > >I though of e-mailing him and asking him he thought about a baroque >guitar in the continuo ...but I know he has a lot of other things on >his mind at the moment. > >As Stuart points out - they may have been performed by musicians in >the nude but the balence of probabilities is against this. I think >the balence of probabilities is against using anything other than >the organ for the continuo group. > >Monica > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Stuart Walsh" <s.wa...@ntlworld.com> >To: "howard posner" <howardpos...@ca.rr.com> >Cc: "Lutelist" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 11:00 AM >Subject: [LUTE] Re: another day at the office > > >>howard posner wrote: >>>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. >> >>How about the proposition that "there was no church in Italy in the >>first half of the17th century in which the singers all performed in >>the nude?" Well.. who knows? But how likely is it? >>>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. >>Any other examples of 'secular, even vulgar, instruments' becoming >>accepted in the church? (strohfiedel? bagpipe?) >>>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. >>Well, it's probably a virtue to keep an open mind on things >>but the evidence suggests that it is really rather unlikely that >>guitarists would be strumming along with the Vespers - and no >>evidence that they did. >>> >>> >>>>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?????? >> >>too much badinage with RT? >> >> >>>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. >>> >>> >> >> >> >>To get on or off this list see list information at >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
