Howard, -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 3/17/14, howard posner <howardpos...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> Chris, it took you three and a half > hours to join battle this time. You must be slowing in > your old age. No, just growing tired of going around in circles. > The fact is that we can only guess at > what the historical attitude was, and risk being > simple-minded if we assume there was only one historical > attitude. I had assumed your authoritatively stated position had some basis in empirical evidence. > The second cellist > doesn’t sit around worrying about whether he’ll be heard > separately from the other two cellists, and if he plays so > as draw attention to himself, the conductor won’t ask him > back. This analogy doesn't work. The three cellists are doubling - actually, tripling - an identical part for volume, precisely so that it can be heard in balance with the rest of the group. (Or should the celli make it their goal to blend their line into the mix so that it can't be heard separately within the ensemble as you suggest the lute should do?) Although the lute's continuo realization is generated from the same bass line the celli are playing, it is really a separate entity and not directly comparable. Only in the case of an obligato part specifically written for a section of multiple lutes playing identical notes would one be able to say that no particular lute should stand out from the others. (In this hypothetical case, would you suggest that the lute section should blend into the mix as well?) Of course one is accompanying and not soloing! But worrying that you're hogging the spotlight is a baseless fear. No one in the history of humanity has ever said, "Sure, the lute provided solid harmonic support, but I couldn't hear the rest of the group because it was just so loud!" When you play FFF on a lute, it MIGHT be equal to a mezzo forte on even a baroque string instrument. (Playing that loud for long stretches at a time is not sustainable for the player or the instrument anyway, but it can be used for important accents.) If one plays in the F-FF range, it is roughly equivalent to the volume level of a harpsichord. What about having parity with the keyboard is there to fear? I guess it's probably a different matter if one comes unprepared, ready to "chalk it up to practice time"... >> On the contrary, Weiss writes, "I have adapted one of >> my instruments for accompaniment in the orchestra and >> church. It has the size, length, power and resonance of the >> veritable theorbo and has the same effect, only the tuning >> is different... [The archlute and theorbo] are ordinarily >> played with the nails and produce in close proximity a >> coarse, harsh sound.” > Weiss was a star, > the most highly-paid musician in the star-studded Dresden > establishment, and he would have been in a featured > position, probably doing a lot of sole continuo in the > Dresden orchestra. Weiss was speaking about an established practice as done by others. Note that he adapted one of his instruments so that he could get in the large ensemble game already being played by his contemporary theorbo and archlute players using nails. > Or you’ve never played an > orchestra gig with clueless modern cellists and electronic > keyboards. I have worked in similar situations many times. Beginning with a strange notion that I'm paid for my contribution to be heard (just like all the other instruments) make an effort to be heard. I've listened to the recordings and - lo and behold! thar's a theorbo a-playin' in that thar professional modern orchestry!. I've been asked back, so they must not have thought I overstepped my bounds too much. > They heard me pretty > distinctly, I’m sure, but there were times when the group > would sound better if I weren’t heard... If you really practice what you preach that "it doesn't matter at all what you play," I'm sure that's very true. ;-) Chris -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
