Dear Howard, Donald Gill's important paper in The Lute (Journal of the Lute Society) Vol XXVI (1986) 'Alternative Lutes: the identity of 18th century mandoras and gallichons' is one of papers (other than my own) which describes how Kuhnau's request to the school governors for 'colocion' was turned down. As an aside, and in response to your recent enquiry, I've previously speculated that securing a gallichon might also include engaging the necessary player (much as a modern orchestra might require a First Horn, say, for a particular work) whether temporarily or as the permanent post Kuhnau seemed to be requesting. The assumption that the gallichon was 'in common use' or that it was used in churches aEUR~generally' as you believe still remains highly questionable: although that it was in use in some places and for some purposes is beyond doubt. But this doesn't get us very far either way in seeing what might be the most likely instrument Bach himself expected for his Markus Passion (the original question you may recall). Again we must note that Bach asked for the lute in this work and not for the gallichon (or cognates) which, as previously pointed out, was a name commonly used by his contemporaries who actually required this particular instrument. Of course, the lack of any designation to a part could conceivably imply any instrument capable of playing a thorough bass: but this is clearly not the case here where Bach specifically asks for a lute - so it does matter and ought not to be ignored. Moreover the part is an obbligato one, not the thorough bass generally employed by the gallichon. As already mentioned, as a gallichon player myself, I might wish that the instrument was indeed more likely in this context - but sadly my head must rule my heart and favour the (Dm) lute - tho in slightly arranged part (required, since you ask, to make it playable) to better suit the instrument's technical demands. In short, there really is no evidence that Bach expected the gallichon to play this obbligato part - although, of course, there is some evidence for its use as a thorough bass instrument by a few other composers. I'll copy in the full thread so others can follow the discussion Martyn From: howard posner <howardpos...@ca.rr.com>On Jul 20, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Indeed Kuhnau did press (unsuccessfully!) the church authorities for> one or two instruments to play continuo which he called gallichons Is anyone aware of some piece of evidence as to what the town council actually did about Kuhnau's gallichon request? I've conversed with persons equally sure that the purchase was approved, but they couldn't tell me how they knew. I'm intrigued, come to think of it, by the notion that the player(s) wouldn't simply supply his/their own gallichons. Maybe the instrument was new to those parts in 1704. > Further, a few other contemporary composers (noteably> Telemann) wrote church cantatas with a designated gallichon part (NB> playing from a thorough bass part and not an obligatto lute part as Bach requires in this Passion). But this does not amount to gallichons being in 'common use' at the time (personally, being a gallichon> player, I wish otherwise - but wishful thinking is, alas, not solid evidence for historic usage). Kuhnau's statement that "we always have to borrow" gallichons is pretty strong evidence that they were commonly used in Leipzig churches early in his tenure as Cantor (responsible for music in the town's churches) there. It is evidence, if less strong, for their use by his successor Bach 20 years later. Matheson's statement that gallichons were useful, and lutes useless, in church is pretty strong evidence for gallichons in church generally. (It's also evidence for lutes in church, else Matheson wouldn't have made his denigrating remark about lutes.)A rarity of scores that specify gallichon means very little, because continuo instruments were rarely specified. You could just as well conclude, from the lack of scores specifying harpsichord, that harpsichords weren't used in one setting or another. > Whilst Bach might occasionally overlook designating a particular> obbligato instrument, that is not the case here where he clearly calls> for the lute (ie not gallichon or mandora). If he had required a> gallichon there's no reason to suppose he wouldn't have used the term> (as his contemporaries did - see above) You just made a compelling case for regarding the statistical sample of gallichon designations as inadequate, so seeing above doesn't get us very far.> and that he was so ignorant or> vague as to employ a generic term for all fretted plucked instruments.He might use a generic term not because he was being vague or ignorant, but because it didn't matter. He wasn't publishing a score for use outside the Thomaskirche, and he wasn't writing for our benefit. He knew what instrument the player was going to bring, and if the player always brought a gallichon, that's the instrument Bach would have expected.> In short, the burden of evidence points to Bach expecting the (Dm) lute> proper in this Passion - any technical difficulties in playing what he> wrote to be put down to his relative unfamiliarity with the detailed> technical demands of the instrument. No doubt the player would have> adjusted the part to make it technically possible (as in the> intabulations we have of the lute works by contemporary lutenists).I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the notion of technical difficulty, only to knock it down as a straw man. Nobody else is mentioning it. The argument for gallichon is that it projects better in a large space and, being a continuo instrument, is likely to have been present in the orchestra already. I jumped into the conversation only because you made a blanket statement that there is "no evidence" that Bach had gallichon in mind. Obviously, there is evidence in the form of his predecessor's use of gallichon, and indications that the gallichon was the preferred instrument in churches.The question of instrument choice makes more intriguing the question of why Bach replaced the lute/gallichon obbligatos in the St. John and St. Matthew passions with organ in the St. John and gamba in the St. Matthew. Did he find the original instrument unsatisfactory? Did he write the parts for a specific player who retired or died or was traded to Hamburg for a violinist and a singer to be named later? From: Martyn Hodgson: Dear Howard, Thank you for a constructive response. Indeed Kuhnau did press (unsuccessfully!) the church authorities for one or two instruments to play continuo which he called gallichons (I suggest large continuo instruments in A or B - but that's another story). Further, a few other contemporary composers (noteably Telemann) wrote church cantatas with a designated gallichon part (NB playing from a thorough bass part and not an obligatto lute part as Bach requires in this Passion). But this does not amount to gallichons being in 'common use' at the time (personally, being a gallichon player, I wish otherwise - but wishful thinking is, alas, not solid evidence for historic usage). Whilst Bach might occasionally overlook designating a particular obbligato instrument, that is not the case here where he clearly calls for the lute (ie not gallichon or mandora). If he had required a gallichon there's no reason to suppose he wouldn't have used the term (as his contemporaries did - see above) and that he was so ignorant or vague as to employ a generic term for all fretted plucked instruments. The Bach works I had in mind are those clearly designated for lute, and not the keyboard works sometimes wrongly, in my view, also thought to be lute works.In short, the burden of evidence points to Bach expecting the (Dm) lute proper in this Passion - any technical difficulties in playing what he wrote to be put down to his relative unfamiliarity with the detailed technical demands of the instrument. No doubt the player would have adjusted the part to make it technically possible (as in the intabulations we have of the lute works by contemporary lutenists). Martyn From: howard posner <howardpos...@ca.rr.com>On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:03 AM, Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > There is no evidence that Bach had the gallichon/mandora in mind for> this.There's rather stronger evidence than usual for gallichon in German church music and particularly in Leipzig, if not specifically in any Bach work. His predecessor Kuhnau wrote to the town council in 1704 asking for money to buy "at least one" gallichon, noted that its sound was able to penetrate better than a lute and thus was "necessary for all contemporary concerted music;" he wrote that 'we always have to borrow" them but they weren't always available. A later memorandum Kuhnau lists gallichons among the continuo instruments. He mentions them each time in the plural. In Das neu-erAP:ffnete Orchestra (1713) Matheson wrote that the gallichon was more useful in churches and operas than the lute, the sound of which was too small "and serves more to put on airs than to help the singer." This may not be sufficient to establish the gallichon in Bach's music beyond reasonable doubt, but it is strong evidence for its common use. > The names were very well known at the time for specific> instruments and widely used to distinguish them from the (Dm) lute> proper.This would be important if Bach were always meticulous, precise and clear in designating instruments in his scores, but he wasn't, as anyone who has worked through his designations of the lower lines in the Brandenburg Concertos (or puzzled about the "echo flutes" in Brandenburg 4) can attest. He sometimes failed to designate an obbligato instrument altogether; the unlabeled solo in cantata 90 that is now known as the Hardest Trumpet Part Ever being a good example. The blank wasn't a problem because the part would be given to the appropriate player at the first rehearsal, and Bach knew what instrument that player would use. He was working in a close community of musicians with established working habits and conventions. He didn't have to be precise, just as renaissance composers didn't have to write down whether or not instruments would play with the singers at all, and didn't have to write the text underlay. They were in charge of the performance in a musical establishm!ent in which the composer and the musicians all knew how things were done. > Any use of the gallichon/mandora in this context is a modern invention> - presumably to overcome perceived technical difficulties. But if we> look at the extant Bach 'lute' works, there are many similar (if not> more severe) comparable technical hurdles yet this has not led to these> to being identified as gallichon/mandora works.But several of them have been identified as keyboard works. ---- Forwarded Message -----From: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> There is no evidence that Bach had the gallichon/mandora in mind for this. The names were very well known at the time for specific instruments and widely used to distinguish them from the (Dm) lute proper.Any use of the gallichon/mandora in this context is a modern invention - presumably to overcome perceived technical difficulties. But if we look at the extant Bach 'lute' works, there are many similar (if not more severe) comparable technical hurdles yet this has not led to these to being identified as gallichon/mandora works. MH Am 17.07.2013, 15:43 Uhr, schrieb Hilbert JAP:rg <hilbert.jo...@t-online.de>: > Dear all,> > I was invited to play the continuo part of some arias of Bachs Markus-Passion. Two lutes are requested, but that's all of the information I have got. Does anybody know witch is the right lute type to choose? Seams to be E or D keys the most time, so I would preferably go for theorbo in A aEUR| but maybe Bach intension was more a gallicon. Any other experiences or things one should know about this fragment?>> Thanks for any help,> JAP:rg __________________________________________________________________
From: howard posner <howardpos...@ca.rr.com> To: Lute Dmth <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>; lute List <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Sunday, 21 July 2013, 2:07 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Markus Passion by Bach On Jul 20, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Martyn Hodgson <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Indeed Kuhnau did press (unsuccessfully!) the church authorities for > one or two instruments to play continuo which he called gallichons Is anyone aware of some piece of evidence as to what the town council actually did about Kuhnau's gallichon request? I've conversed with persons equally sure that the purchase was approved, but they couldn't tell me how they knew. I'm intrigued, come to think of it, by the notion that the player(s) wouldn't simply supply his/their own gallichons. Maybe the instrument was new to those parts in 1704. > Further, a few other contemporary composers (noteably > Telemann) wrote church cantatas with a designated gallichon part (NB > playing from a thorough bass part and not an obligatto lute part as > Bach requires in this Passion). But this does not amount to gallichons > being in 'common use' at the time (personally, being a gallichon > player, I wish otherwise - but wishful thinking is, alas, not solid > evidence for historic usage). Kuhnau's statement that "we always have to borrow" gallichons is pretty strong evidence that they were commonly used in Leipzig churches early in his tenure as Cantor (responsible for music in the town's churches) there. It is evidence, if less strong, for their use by his successor Bach 20 years later. Matheson's statement that gallichons were useful, and lutes useless, in church is pretty strong evidence for gallichons in church generally. (It's also evidence for lutes in church, else Matheson wouldn't have made his denigrating remark about lutes.) A rarity of scores that specify gallichon means very little, because continuo instruments were rarely specified. You could just as well conclude, from the lack of scores specifying harpsichord, that harpsichords weren't used in one setting or another. > Whilst Bach might occasionally overlook designating a particular > obbligato instrument, that is not the case here where he clearly calls > for the lute (ie not gallichon or mandora). If he had required a > gallichon there's no reason to suppose he wouldn't have used the term > (as his contemporaries did - see above) You just made a compelling case for regarding the statistical sample of gallichon designations as inadequate, so seeing above doesn't get us very far. > and that he was so ignorant or > vague as to employ a generic term for all fretted plucked instruments. He might use a generic term not because he was being vague or ignorant, but because it didn't matter. He wasn't publishing a score for use outside the Thomaskirche, and he wasn't writing for our benefit. He knew what instrument the player was going to bring, and if the player always brought a gallichon, that's the instrument Bach would have expected. > In short, the burden of evidence points to Bach expecting the (Dm) lute > proper in this Passion - any technical difficulties in playing what he > wrote to be put down to his relative unfamiliarity with the detailed > technical demands of the instrument. No doubt the player would have > adjusted the part to make it technically possible (as in the > intabulations we have of the lute works by contemporary lutenists). I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the notion of technical difficulty, only to knock it down as a straw man. Nobody else is mentioning it. The argument for gallichon is that it projects better in a large space and, being a continuo instrument, is likely to have been present in the orchestra already. I jumped into the conversation only because you made a blanket statement that there is "no evidence" that Bach had gallichon in mind. Obviously, there is evidence in the form of his predecessor's use of gallichon, and indications that the gallichon was the preferred instrument in churches. The question of instrument choice makes more intriguing the question of why Bach replaced the lute/gallichon obbligatos in the St. John and St. Matthew passions with organ in the St. John and gamba in the St. Matthew. Did he find the original instrument unsatisfactory? Did he write the parts for a specific player who retired or died or was traded to Hamburg for a violinist and a singer to be named later? -- To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html