Howard, --- On Tue, 10/19/10, howard posner <howardpos...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Howard, > > Huh? Wait, that's me! > Yes, it is a custom to say the name of the person I'm addressing. > > Alright, so next time I'll should ask > people if they did not hear me as a discrete component, but > rather as a subconsciously perceivable part of the composite > tonal aggregate? > > Subconscious, no; part of the tonal aggregate, yes. > There's no reason to think the concept was any stranger in > 1700 than it was in 1850 or is now. Lots of > instruments have the job of combining with other instruments > to form a homogenized sound. Listen to a Schumann > symphony for an extreme example in its time. > Schumann, the great baroque composer. > BTW, if the violinist sharing the stand with the > concertmaster at your concert had asked someone in the > audience "Could you hear me?" the answer would have been, > "Never. I couldn't distinguish your sound from the > other first violinists'". Yes, but the function of the soloist and the person sharing his or her stand is different. Baroque composers often pitted small, soloistic groups against larger, massed groups (ripieno). Today we call it concerto grosso. Now, if a solo violinist in a section with reduced forces could not be heard, it would be a more serious matter. > The same is true of the > organist in most ensembles, including rock bands, or the > rhythm guitarist in a jazz big band (or lots of rock bands, > for that matter). The issue in these cases is not > whether you can hear the instrument, but how much better the > group sounds with it than without it. Not at all. Certain instruments have a subsidiary role. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't hear the part. And of course, roles may change throughout a composition. > 35 years ago > Rick Kemp, then the Steeleye Span bass player, told me how > fascinated he was watching Neil Young's bass player staring > at the drummer's foot so he'd play together with the bass > drum, making one percussive bass instrument. "I don't > know whether it's good or bad," Kemp said. > What is the name of this amazing new instrument? Does Praetorius list it? Would you list it under bass instruments or percussion instruments? And how would one describe the sound - drummy-bassy go "boom-boom-thump-thump" good? > In his > operas, Handel typically expected one treble sound composed > of oboe/violin, and a bass sound composed of > cello/bassoon/harpsichord/theorbo/violone. No, he wanted oboes and violins to play the same part. He wanted the rest to play the bass part. Again you're talking about tutti's which, while important, comprise a relatively small percentage of most baroque works. The majority of baroque works are made up mostly or entirely of sections of reduced forces where it is not unreasonable to expect to hear a plucker. If there is a baroque work that uses tutti texture throughout, I suppose you would be right, as this would not be the best piece to hear the theorbo as a distinct component. > He was > obviously unconcerned with whether the bassoons were heard > as bassoons: he just wanted a good, strong sound. > In tutti's perhaps (see above). > > I know of no instance in which Bach is known to have > rewritten a part because someone wasn't available on a > particular day. Do you? > He re-wrote things all the time for different performing forces. Look at the many recycled movements in the Mass in B Minor, for example. In our own repertoire, Bach re-wrote Weiss's lute part for keyboard in BWV 1025 because he presumably knew that a lute (or lutenist of Weiss's level) wouldn't be available for the recital. > > How many times must this sort of thing have > happened on the fly, with nothing being written down? > > Twelve. Thirteen, if you include that time in > Frankfurt in 1752. Not a lot, really... > I for one have certainly never showed up for a wedding gigs or cocktail-hour type one-offs and been handed piano music or a lead sheet or a cello part that I've had to adapt to guitar on the fly. Since it doesn't happen today, I'm sure it didn't happen then. > > And tell the guy, even though it really goes > without saying, that although the theorbo player CAN play to > be heard, he needs to be a part of the musical texture > without actually being noticed as a discrete sound. > > This is a very theorbocentric view of the whole > matter. Of course. I'm a theorbo player. Writing on a list dedicated to lute-related issues. > It's more accurate to say that how the > audience hears the theorbo, as such, is less important to > the director (who needs to worry about the overall sound and > overall balance) Exactly. I'm saying that the director's perspective is different from that of the audience, who will hear the theorbo sound as balanced even if it seems too loud from the director's position so physically close to the instrument. > If > the continuo sounds good and supports the singers, the > director may not care at all if anyone can make out the > theorbo separately. The continuo's role is integral to the affect of the composition and needs to be heard clearly. We expect to hear the harpsichord part and bass line clearly and distinctly, not in a "drummy-bassy go boom-boom-thump-thump" sort of way. If a theorbo is present we should hear it clearly too, not in some organ-pipe mixture sort of way. > And in a lot of venues where the > acoustics are imperfect, the subtlety of different continuo > colors might be an unaffordable luxury. > In an imperfect venue, the same might go for dynamics, articulation, emsemble togetherness, etc. But we kept on workin' our little hearts out to get these things heard. Good performers will recognize the acoustical short-comings of the hall and exaggerate their technique to get these musical aspects across as much as possible. So the theorbo player should with volume. > It could be that your directors are bozos who don't know > what theorbos are for. > "Theorbo look preeeeeetty!" > It could also be that they have > a much better notion of how things sound than the theorbo > player in the middle of the mix does. > I'm only going partly on my perception as a player. This is why I've asked audience members' their opinions of the balance. I'm am also referencing my experience as a listener, having been to too many concerts where I've seen but not heard pluckers. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've never thought "needs less lute." > But worrying > about the theorbo player's desire to be heard isn't in their > job description. > True, in most cases unfamiliarity is probably the culprit. The rest is due to apathy. Chris > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
