Well to be honest I didn't quite understand what you were saying. This is
what you said originally about the chacona
The ciaconna (lItaly early 17thC) was originally fast with a syncopated triple
rythm:
l l l l 0 / l 0 l 0 (where l = a crotchet; 0 = semibreve; / = bar line)
with the accent on the second crotchet of each bar.
Over time (certainly by the mid 17thC in France) this became corrupted to l l
l / 0 l / 0 l (note the same note lengths but now often starting on the beat
-not always tho).
0 can't be a semibreve in triple time as a semibreve = 4 crotchet in common
time. Do you mean a minim? Do you mean 4 crotchets followed by a minim. Or
do you mean that 1= minim if you have three minims rather than crotchets in a
bar.
Just a cursory glance at Corbetta and Bartolotti, suggests that both dances
start with a two beat anacrusis with the accent falling on the second beat.
Bartolotti's ciaccona does have the dotted crotchet/minim on the 2nd beat of
alternate bars in the opening phrase. Corbetta's chiacona doesn't but some of
his passacaglias do. In fact the 2 beat anacrusis is characteristic of the
Folias and the Zarabandas as is also the tendency for the harmony to change on
the second beat.
But originally the passacalles was as I said simply a refrain inserted between
statements of the dance proper. As such it would be in the metre and major or
minor key which matched this. Both Guerau and Murcia include passacalles in
common time.
The real point is that these dances were not Italian in the first place, but
Spanish. By the time they were taken up in Italy they may have acquired other
charactersitics.
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: Martyn Hodgson
To: Monica Hall ; Vihuela Net
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: advice on 'passacailles'/chaconnes
I can't agree with this Monica: that all that distinguished the two forms was
the harmonic formula. As outlined in my earlier response, it is primarily the
placing of the accent and number of beats in a bar (especially in the earlier,
original, form) - as also mentioned, this soon became corrupted so that even
contemporaries often had difficulty in distinguishing...... plus ca
change..........
Martyn
Monica Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am still not exactly sure which ones you are referring to without the
folio numbers. There is a Passacaille in A minor called Bonne (which I
think just means good in the context), on f. 27v. It is possible that this
is by Bartolotti. It looks sort of Italian. The passacaille on f. 27 and
the allemandes on f. 26 and f.28 are both by Bartolotti. 4 of the other A
minor pieces are from Corbetta's 1648 book.
I can't find the chaconne in G (1679).
If all you are worried about is the speed at which they should be played I
don't think there any hard and fast rules. It depends a lot on the texture
and also the competence of the player.
What originally distinguished the two forms was the harmonic formula on
which they are based and the context in which they were used when dancing.
Early guitar books include examples of the Passacaille in all the different
keys - partly so that the player could learn the chords and partly so that
they can be matched up with the keys of the appropriate dances.
Following on from this the guitar books of Bartolotti and Corbetta also
include sequences of Passacailles in all the different keys. I would
consider these to be more in the nature of studies so that you can gain
practice in playing in different keys. The speed at which you play them
would be whatever you were comfortable with. Sources in general never give
tempo indications.
The problem with Gallot is identifying the sources. But also the pieces
are often inaccurate and very sketchy. It was copied for him for his own
use and he wouldn't just have played the pieces note for note as they are
written. It is manuscript, not a finished product intended for consumption
by the public at large.
Monica
> Monica Hall wrote:
>> I am curious to know which ones you are playing. The relationship
>> between the two forms is complex.
>>
>> In Gallot from f.117to .f.123v some of the the pieces are called
>> passacaglio and others chiacona. All are actually from Corbetta's 1643
>> book. They don't have individual titles but in the index Corbetta refers
>> to them as Passachali con Chiacone. In Gallot those called
>> Passacaglie tend to be in minor keys and the Ciacone in major keys
>> although not consistently. This distinction is found in early guitar
>> books in that chacona are usually in major keys. The Chaconne on f.18v
>> of Gallot is also by Corbetta and some of the others with that title
>> include variations from versions by Corbetta - and Foscarini/Piccini.
>>
>> Originally the Chacona was indeed a very lively Spanish dance noted for
>> its lascivious dance steps... etc The passacalles was a refrain which
>> was played between each section of dance to allow dancers to regroup.
>> The passacalles is based the chords I/ IV//V or i/ iv/ V. The Chacona
>> should have a descending bass line - along the lines of I VII VI
>> IV V - but can vary. These distinctions are also blurred. Murcia's
>> passacalles are all based on I IV V but often include odd variations
>> based on the descending bass line.
>>
>> The distinction between the two forms is often a bit blurred and how you
>> play them would depend a bit on the source. Gallot being a bit rag bag
>> I should think you could play them any which way.
>>
>> Monica
>>
>
> I'm looking at a Chaconne in G by 'De Gallot' (1679) and a 'Passacaille'
> in A minor by someone unreadable...it looks a bit like 'Bonne' but not
> much! Anyway, the chaconne is in a major key as you suggest.
>
> Both are notated in 3 and begin on the second beat - as usual, I think.
> Both have mainly four bar sections but sometimes 8, 12 and there's a 7 bar
> section in the Chaconne - presumably a mistake.
>
> I suppose that its possible to dance lasciviously to anything but it's a
> bit of a stretch of the imagination to hear this as 17th century bump 'n'
> grind, pole dance music. On the other hand, listening to Taro Takeuchi
> masterfully playing two Corbetta ciacconas his Folias CD), I could imagine
> the involvement of mind-altering substances.
>
>
> Stuart
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stuart Walsh"
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:56 PM
>> Subject: [VIHUELA] advice on 'passacailles'/chaconnes
>>
>>
>>> In particular, I'm looking at the the de Gallot MS from the 1670s - but
>>> generally, too.
>>>
>>> 1) Is there a significant difference between the two forms - a
>>> difference that should be made clear in the way that you play them? On
>>> the face of it they look very similar.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) Very roughly, what sort of speed should they be? I mean, what sort of
>>> speed on a guitar. (Everything can go slower and sound very grand on a
>>> lute.)
>>>
>>>
>>> 3) A long time ago, I had a lesson with Nigel North on the Baroque lute,
>>> looking at a De Visee piece in the same territory. He suggested a triple
>>> time feel for the eighth note passages and repeats for each section.
>>>
>>> Would this be appropriate for the de Gallot passacailles/chaconnes?
>>>
>>> The problem with repeating each section is that there are both four bar
>>> sections (which would be straightforward to repeat) but also eight bar
>>> sections which look like complete entities in their own right. So it
>>> seems easier just to play the piece through without repeats.
>>>
>>> Mainly I'm wondering: repeats - yes/no..... notes inegales? - yes/no for
>>> this music?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.
--
