Basso Continuo - help wanted

[Tetrachord]

I'm researching Figured Bass/Continuo for a lecture in 2 weeks and I'm stuck. Anybody who can give advice please do so (as I don't want to run to the Conservatorium to see a harpsichordist lecturer/musician and embarrass myself with this question). I'm looking at a Trio Sonata by Schmelzer "Lamento sopra la morte Ferdinandi". The score is described as "Sonata for two violins and continuo" and here it is with 4 parts actually written out (I have trouble reading the varied C clef). How is this a Trio Sonata because the Cello is part of the continuo line - in short are the TWO parts considered as ONE at the bottom two staves (even though they don't appear similar)?

Ergo: Violin 1 = 1 part, Violin 2 = 2nd part, Viola and Cello (Continuo) = 3rd part? I'm confused:

http://imslp.org/wiki/File:PMLP131089-Schmelzer-Lament-Ferdinand.pdf

(Would you believe, decades ago I wrote an essay on the Trio Sonata!!! Sheesh).

[Richard Barrett]

That piece isn't a trio sonata and shouldn't have been described as such. As you can see from looking at the score, the top line is actually different in kind from the two inner parts, which would both be better described as viola parts (the nomenclature of instruments in this period is sometimes confusing), although the second part could of course be played on the violin. Scoring for a single violin against an ensemble of lower string parts is a common practice in chamber music of the German-speaking countries in the late seventeenth century. The fourth part is the only continuo part.

[Tetrachord]

Thanks a lot. Yes, it is very confusing. The liner notes on the CD (London Baroque/Charles Medlam) say that it is a "Sonata for violin, bass viol and basso continuo" in "Italianate" form and vocabulary. Further, that "it was not at all unusual to substitute the bass viol - by then a fully-fledged solo instrument in its own right - for the more usual second violin".

I get what you're saying, though, about the distinctiveness of the 'soprano' voice and how the other voices appear supportive rather than interactive. My interest is in basso continuo - so for that purpose can I say that all but the top line constitute the continuo where, in this case, all the parts seem fully realized rather than figured?

[Richard Barrett]

I get what you're saying, though, about the distinctiveness of the 'soprano' voice and how the other voices appear supportive rather than interactive. My interest is in basso continuo - so for that purpose can I say that all but the top line constitute the continuo where, in this case, all the parts seem fully realized rather than figured?

You could - another example might be Antonio Bertali's "Taussent Gulden" Sonata which exists in a version for two violins and continuo as well as one with another three "viola" parts which act as realisations of the bassline and occasionally have passages on their own which are merely omitted in the trio version. (The Schmelzer piece might also exist in more than one version now I think of it.) This reminds me that Lully is known to have written out the top line and bassline of his dance movements and have someone else fill in the three "parties de remplissage" in between, since this was a mechanical task that didn't require any imaginative input.

[Tetrachord]

Thanks, Richard. This is exactly the sort of information I was after. The whole practice of Thoroughbass - whatever you want to call it - seems to have been a bit of a 'movable feast' altogether!! Wonderful.

[Tetrachord]

I'm looking at this example and noticing a figured bass. I believed that Bach is generally supposed to have written out his realizations for continuo himself; but this shows only 'figures'. I'm having trouble ascertaining who did exactly what when composing - figured or fully realized BC. It looks to me here that Bach has 'realized' the continuo in his stringed instruments on the staves above, which accompany the voices. Would I be correct in assuming that? (This question is sure to come up for me.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sj-NKqR0tw

I hasten to add, it's 'problem' I'm only too happy to have!!!!!

[Richard Barrett]

I believed that Bach is generally supposed to have written out his realizations for continuo himself

I don't think there are any grounds for believing that, of Bach or any of his contemporaries - it would have been a waste of time and energy since everyone was adept in realising figured basses at sight.

It looks to me here that Bach has 'realized' the continuo in his stringed instruments on the staves above, which accompany the voices. Would I be correct in assuming that?

You could claim that to be the case for many of the inner parts in Bach's ensemble compositions, but it's something of a chicken-and-egg situation - you could equally claim that the figured bass is a condensed shorthand for the harmony resulting from the part-writing. I'm not sure that Bach himself would recognise the idea of one of these elements being a "realisation" of the other.

[Tetrachord]

OK, thanks. Much reading is yielding some conflicting information, and that's the problem.

Back to the drawing board!!

[Tetrachord]

OK, now I've found some comments which gave rise to my perceptions about Bach (and which I know I've read in one of these books I'm reading):

"The realization of the basso continuo was not always essential; that is to say, many pieces were provided with a continuo even though all the notes necessary for the full harmony were already present in the notated melodic vocal or instrumental parts". ('A History of Western Music', 4th edition, ed Grout & Palisca, London, Dent 1988, p.352). So, I'm suggesting that what the continuo could play in the earlier Bach example was already present in the score below the top melody line. In short, the continuo could double parts.

[Tetrachord]

I presented this program today and we had an equipment failure so I had to delete about a quarter of it to keep to time!! Also, another of my newer CDs wouldn't play on their BlueRay DVD player. I'm having this trouble occasionally and I don't know why. Anyway, the people told me I'd made the subject very accessible and they thoroughly enjoyed what I actually could present. I found myself editing as I went along and reducing the number of recorded examples I could use. Very annoying for everybody. We need a designated CD player - or bust!!

They'd better be up to speed next year for my program on Richard Strauss (that's why I'm looking for the best possible Four Last Songs!).