[VIHUELA] Fuenllana-Josquin video
Just in case you are not on the Ning site, here is a link to a fun 'duo' by Fuenllana, or Josquin really. It is intersting how someone could just take two voices from a four-voice texture and make a solo out of them - not something many arrangers do today. [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHF6-FLlPw Rob MacKillop -- References 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHF6-FLlPw To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Fw: [VIHUELA] Händel - Cantata Spagnuola
Further to the below, I've skimmed through the entire 'Libro secondo' of Chrysander's 'Cantate con strumenti' to see if any answers to the question of certainty in the Ms scoring can be found. Always, of course, assuming C accurately transcribed the Ms in his edition. It's a bit of a mixed bag: the ones requiring larger forces mostly specify the particular instruments required on each line, whilst the smaller ones (such as the cantata under discussion) generally do not. The ones which are marked wth instrument names (ie not put in brackets by C) against each stave are: 16 Apollo e Dafne Cantata a 2 - instrumental staves marked as Hautbois, Violini, Basson, Bassi (29pp) 19 Cantata a tre - instrumental staves marked concertino, concerto grosso (presume violins) (22pp) 20' Spande ancor...' - instrumental staves marked violino I, violino II (6pp) 21 'Tra la fiamme..' Staves marked for flauto I, II, Violino I, II, Va da G, Continuo (but not put in brackets - did Handel ever use call it this? - perhaps C wasn't so careful in his transcriptions?) The remainder (ie 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) have non-specified instrumental parts which C usually supposes is for violin(s). I suggest this strengthens the case that the upper instrumental line of No 18 'Cantata Spagnuola' is probably for a melodic instrument (violin, flute or oboe) and the second line (ie v similar to continuo bass) is indeed for guitar to improvise an accompaniment as I previously suggested. But No 21 brings doubts to my mind about C's reliabilty so would still like to see the entire MS or comments from someone who has a copy Martyn --- On Mon, 11/5/09, hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: From: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Haendel - Cantata Spagnuola To: "Monica Hall" Date: Monday, 11 May, 2009, 2:59 PM 1. We (ie you and I) do not know if Chrysander did reproduce the original notation: my guess is (like I think yours is) that he has. The issue is not this but 2 below. 2. The point about seeing the original is, as already said, to see wether any other piece in the MS has no instrument name for a top obligatto instrumental line. If all such pieces are so identified in the MS then we move a step closer to being able to say that the top line is for guitar; if not then a step further away. 3. As mentioned in my first response, the duplicated bass line would be for the guitar - not that uncommon to find two v similar ( or even identical) bass lines in a MS. Indeed the suggestion that it might be for theorbo (but why this and not, say organ or harp? - two rather more Spanish instruments) also overlooks the two similar bass lines. But as said, this isn't a problem. Martyn --- On Mon, 11/5/09, Monica Hall wrote: From: Monica Hall Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Haendel - Cantata Spagnuola To: "Martyn Hodgson" Date: Monday, 11 May, 2009, 12:49 PM > When you say 'seems' does this mean it is an accurate transcription or > may not be? I mean that I have not checked every note of it but it looks as if he has reproduced the original notation and that you probably don't need to see the original ms..to know what the part consists of. > > And, more to the point, if you have a copy of the MS are there no other > pieces in which the top line instrumentation is not marked?. I have a copy only of the manuscript of the Spanish Cantata. > > As already said, like you (and others) I'd like this to be for guitar > but because of problems (such as overlapping lines) think it right to > be cautious. A more critical analysis of the MS would help in settling > the question Well - for starters - why include the bass line if the obligato part is for flute or violin? The obligato part consists of treble and bass staves which presumably means it is for an instrument capable of playing them. This could of course be a lute of some description or a keyboard instrument. As I write I have just had this message from someone on www.earlyguitar.ning.com "There is a great article about this piece (it's in portuguese). Check: [1]http://www.tesis.ufm.edu.gt/pdf/848.pdf Apparently the writer makes a good case for it being for theorbo or chitarrone or whatever you care to call it. Which had crossed my mind it brings us back to the question of what the term "chitarra" might mean in the context. Monica > > MH > --- On Sun, 10/5/09, Monica Hall <[2]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > From: Monica Hall <[3]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Haendel - Cantata Spagnuola > To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> > Cc: "Vihuel
[VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Händel - Cantata Spagnuola
I'm not quite convinced. There are only 7 measures at in the third section where the bass line is significantly different between the second system (which you are proposing as a continuo part for the guitar) and and the 3rd system, the bass line part. (There are a couple of octave differences between the two parts, which do not seem all that significant to me.) As David (I believe) asked, why write out two "continuo" parts if they are virtually the same? It makes more sense to me to include it if you were writing/thinking of a single instrument and the part went between continuo and obligato roles. It brings to mind Nigel North's suggestion to write your continuo bass line parts with a staff above on which to write details for your realization. -- R On May 14, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: I suggest this strengthens the case that the upper instrumental line of No 18 'Cantata Spagnuola' is probably for a melodic instrument (violin, flute or oboe) and the second line (ie v similar to continuo bass) is indeed for guitar to improvise an accompaniment as I previously suggested. Martyn To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Händel - Cantat a Spagnuola
As previously pointed out, MS not infrequently contained 'duplicate' or near similar bc lines MH --- On Thu, 14/5/09, Mjos & Larson wrote: From: Mjos & Larson Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Haendel - Cantata Spagnuola To: "Martyn Hodgson" Cc: "Monica Hall" , "Vihuela Dmth" Date: Thursday, 14 May, 2009, 3:16 PM I'm not quite convinced. There are only 7 measures at in the third section where the bass line is significantly different between the second system (which you are proposing as a continuo part for the guitar) and and the 3rd system, the bass line part. (There are a couple of octave differences between the two parts, which do not seem all that significant to me.) As David (I believe) asked, why write out two "continuo" parts if they are virtually the same? It makes more sense to me to include it if you were writing/thinking of a single instrument and the part went between continuo and obligato roles. It brings to mind Nigel North's suggestion to write your continuo bass line parts with a staff above on which to write details for your realization. -- R On May 14, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: > > >I suggest this strengthens the case that the upper instrumental line of >No 18 'Cantata Spagnuola' is probably for a melodic instrument (violin, >flute or oboe) and the second line (ie v similar to continuo bass) is >indeed for guitar to improvise an accompaniment as I previously >suggested. > > > >Martyn > > To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Händel - Cantata Sp agnuola
I am not convinced either. You don't write at the top of a piece "Cantata spagnuola a voce sola e chitarra" if the "chitarra" does not have a significant role to play. It is true that there are quite long passages where you have only the bass line and the treble line is silent. This suggests to me that you would have a gamba on the bass line with the "chitarra" playing the obligato part and filling in the harmony as appropriate. I am more persuaded by the idea that the "chitarra" might be a theorbo. Monica - Original Message - From: "Mjos & Larson" To: "Martyn Hodgson" Cc: "Monica Hall" ; "Vihuela Dmth" Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:16 PM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Händel - Cantata Spagnuola I'm not quite convinced. There are only 7 measures at in the third section where the bass line is significantly different between the second system (which you are proposing as a continuo part for the guitar) and and the 3rd system, the bass line part. (There are a couple of octave differences between the two parts, which do not seem all that significant to me.) As David (I believe) asked, why write out two "continuo" parts if they are virtually the same? It makes more sense to me to include it if you were writing/thinking of a single instrument and the part went between continuo and obligato roles. It brings to mind Nigel North's suggestion to write your continuo bass line parts with a staff above on which to write details for your realization. -- R On May 14, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: I suggest this strengthens the case that the upper instrumental line of No 18 'Cantata Spagnuola' is probably for a melodic instrument (violin, flute or oboe) and the second line (ie v similar to continuo bass) is indeed for guitar to improvise an accompaniment as I previously suggested. Martyn To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA ] Händel - Cantata Spagnuola
When you say 'you don't write' I presume you mean you rather than a composer of the period. In any event, I'm not trying to ram home one view against any others: merely trying to point out that, despite wishful thinking by guitar players (me included!) there is a good case for another interpretation of the evidence Martyn --- On Thu, 14/5/09, Monica Hall wrote: From: Monica Hall Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Haendel - Cantata Spagnuola To: "Mjos & Larson" Cc: "Vihuelalist" Date: Thursday, 14 May, 2009, 5:54 PM I am not convinced either. You don't write at the top of a piece "Cantata spagnuola a voce sola e chitarra" if the "chitarra" does not have a significant role to play. It is true that there are quite long passages where you have only the bass line and the treble line is silent. This suggests to me that you would have a gamba on the bass line with the "chitarra" playing the obligato part and filling in the harmony as appropriate. I am more persuaded by the idea that the "chitarra" might be a theorbo. Monica - Original Message - From: "Mjos & Larson" <[1]rockype...@earthlink.net> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[2]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: "Monica Hall" <[3]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>; "Vihuela Dmth" <[4]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:16 PM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Haendel - Cantata Spagnuola > I'm not quite convinced. > > There are only 7 measures at in the third section where the bass line is significantly different between the second system (which you are proposing as a continuo part for the guitar) and and the 3rd system, the bass line part. (There are a couple of octave differences between the two parts, which do not seem all that significant to me.) > > As David (I believe) asked, why write out two "continuo" parts if they are virtually the same? > > It makes more sense to me to include it if you were writing/thinking of a single instrument and the part went between continuo and obligato roles. It brings to mind Nigel North's suggestion to write your continuo bass line parts with a staff above on which to write details for your realization. > > -- R > > > On May 14, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: > >> >> >>I suggest this strengthens the case that the upper instrumental line of >>No 18 'Cantata Spagnuola' is probably for a melodic instrument (violin, >>flute or oboe) and the second line (ie v similar to continuo bass) is >>indeed for guitar to improvise an accompaniment as I previously >>suggested. >> >> >> >>Martyn >> >> > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > [5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rockype...@earthlink.net 2. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk 3. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk 4. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu 5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA ] Händel - Cantata Spagnuola
Perhaps I should have said "One doesn't" I agree with you that the piece as it appears in the manuscript poses a number of problems not the least of these being the possibility that Handel wasn't sufficinetly familiar with the guitar to write a suitable part for it. I looked through it again and the bass part goes down to G in places. This is possible - since some sources - including Kremberg - give the first course as d' I am afraid it is one of life's mysteries which we will never be able to solve. Monica - Original Message - From: [1]Martyn Hodgson To: [2]Mjos & Larson ; [3]Monica Hall Cc: [4]Vihuelalist Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Haendel - Cantata Spagnuola When you say 'you don't write' I presume you mean you rather than a composer of the period. In any event, I'm not trying to ram home one view against any others: merely trying to point out that, despite wishful thinking by guitar players (me included!) there is a good case for another interpretation of the evidence Martyn --- On Thu, 14/5/09, Monica Hall <[5]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: From: Monica Hall <[6]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Haendel - Cantata Spagnuola To: "Mjos & Larson" Cc: "Vihuelalist" Date: Thursday, 14 May, 2009, 5:54 PM I am not convinced either. You don't write at the top of a piece "Cantata spagnuola a voce sola e chitarra" if the "chitarra" does not have a significant role to play. It is true that there are quite long passages where you have only the bass line and the treble line is silent. This suggests to me that you would have a gamba on the bass line with the "chitarra" playing the obligato part and filling in the harmony as appropriate. I am more persuaded by the idea that the "chitarra" might be a theorbo. Monica - Original Message - From: "Mjos & Larson" <[7]rockype...@earthlink.net> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[8]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: "Monica Hall" <[9]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>; "Vihuela Dmth" <[10]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:16 PM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: [VIHUELA] Haendel - Cantata Spagnuola > I'm not quite convinced. > > There are only 7 measures at in the third section where the bass line is significantly different between the second system (which you are proposing as a continuo part for the guitar) and and the 3rd system, the bass line part. (There are a couple of octave differences between the two parts, which do not seem all that significant to me.) > > As David (I believe) asked, why write out two "continuo" parts if they are virtually the same? > > It makes more sense to me to include it if you were writing/thinking of a single instrument and the part went between continuo and obligato roles. It brings to mind Nigel North's suggestion to write your continuo bass line parts with a staff above on which to write details for your realization. > > -- R > > > On May 14, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: > >> >> >>I suggest this strengthens the case that the upper instrumental line of >>No 18 'Cantata Spagnuola' is probably for a melodic instrument (violin, >>flute or oboe) and the second line (ie v similar to continuo bass) is >>indeed for guitar to improvise an accompaniment as I previously >>suggested. >> >> >> >>Martyn >> >> > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > [11]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk 2. mailto:rockype...@earthlink.net 3. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk 4. mailto:vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu 5. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk 6. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk 7. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rockype...@earthlink.net 8. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk 9. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk 10. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu 11. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Elizabeth Cromwell
Three very simple tunes - first and third from Elizabeth Cromwell's
guitar book ('The cannaris' and 'The Sheprd's dance') and 'Over the
Mountains' which I'm almost sure (!) I wrote out from the De Gallot MS.
- for a guitar in fully re-entrant tuning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE39sodN5J8&feature=channel_page
Stuart
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
