Category: Sheet music

Für Violine (Sopranblockflöte) und Basso Continuo.
Ed. Dagmar Wilgo.
Kölner Reihe Alter Musik, iv + 11pp.
Edition Walhall EW971. ISMN: M-50070-971-8

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his edition seems to have been produced with the recorder in mind. The treble line is notated with the octave symbol above the clef and where Schmelzer writes notes below that instrument’s range, Dagmar Wilgo provides sensible alternatives.

The bound score includes a fairly minimal introduction (it is a well-known piece, after all) and Daniel Ivo de Oliveira’s continuo realization; there are two further copies of the score (one had a loose sheet with p. 1, presumably to avoid the page turn, on one side and p. 6 on the other – I’m not entirely sure why, since that section fits a two-page spread and the treble instrument’s first bar is silent, so there is time to turn from 5, whereas from page 3 to 4 is a nightmare, since both hands are needed for the last note of 3 and there is only a quaver rest at the beginning of 4…; the second copy did not have this sheet at all!)

As a violinist who also plays recorder, I have no problem with anyone wanting to play music specifically written for one instrument on the other – as long as it works! Personally, I hear the cuckoo as a mellow instrument, more tenor recorder (which is, in fact, exactly what I used when I played that part in Hansel und Gretel many years ago!) than soprano; the very thought of those high Ds and Es chirping away in a confined space made me wince – more songthrush than cuckoo. Personally, I would have opted for alto recorder and reworked the really low music. I also have to say that I don’t find the lack of bar lines a great help, either – in this typesetting, normal bar lines have been used and hidden, so the spacing is slightly odd; that technique also produces anomalies like repeated accidentals in the editorial continuo part. Besides, having inferred from the brief notes that the original source consists of a couple of parts, it would be useful to know if the irregular barring was entirely consistent between them, or have they – like time signatures – been rationalised for the edition? [Incidentally, I doubt the two consecutive bars marked 6/4 on page 9 of the bound score are original.] There are a few notational quirks that are visually upsetting: I’m not sure why the third, fourth and fifth groups of quavers of the bass part are in opposition to two even groups of four notes in the continuo’s right hand; I am puzzled, too, by the need for the right-hand part to be written as (at least) two voices throughout; in the Bertali-like third section, the lower voice of the violin/recorder part uses semibreve rests when they should be pairs of minim rests. So some minor reservations, but a welcome addition to the catalogue, especially for violinists!

Brian Clark

[iframe style=”width:120px;height:240px;” marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ src=”//ws-eu.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=DE&source=ss&ref=ss_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=earlymusicrev-21&marketplace=amazon&region=DE&placement=0500709718&asins=0500709718&linkId=2UCTHG2HWW3V3ZHC&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true”]

“arranged by Johann Sebastian Bach…”
Edited by Peter Wollny.
Full Score.
Carus (35.503), 2015.
24pp, €18,00.

[dropcap]F[/dropcap]rancesco Gasparini (1668-1727) was born near Lucca and studied probably with Corelli and Pasquini, along with a wide range of formal or informal teachers. He was maestro di coro (the German term is repeated in the English text) at Venice’s Ospedale della Pietà for 12 years; subse­quently he was based around Rome, composing operas, church music, etc. There are several extant copies of the Mass in F, distinguished by its title Missa canonica. This edition is based on Bach’s parts, which comprise SATB (only one of each), 2 oboes or violins, taille or viola, unfigured continuo and figured organ, 1 cornett and 3 trombones. The copies were by Fritsche (see introduction) though Bach copied the woodwind, continuo and organ; Bach also emended the cornett/trombones. Until fairly recently, a score with four systematically polyphonic parts would have been assumed to be a cappella, with a keyboard reduction assumed to be for rehearsal! But Bach wanted more. The three groups of instruments (strings, woodwind and brass) are unlikely to have played together. The strings and woodwind are notated a tone higher including the unfigured continuo, whereas the figured bass for organ is in F. The brass has presumably gone down to the low pitch, unlike the Leipzig addition of brass down a tone for Christ lag in Todesbanden. The work was presumably composed in Italy, which doesn’t exclude strings or brass (but wind is less likely). The music itself is absolutely clear: Bach seems to have played it at least three times in the 1740s.

Clifford Bartlett

BWV Anh, III 162…
Anthem for double choir (SATB/SATB) formerly attributed to Johann Sebastian Bach, edited by Klaus Winkler.
Carus (35,013), €15,50.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his really has no relationship with Bach at all. Early in the 19th century it was attributed to Bach, and edited by Johann Gottfried Schicht (1753-1823) for Breitkopf & Härtel in 1819. The first edition of the BWV publications seems to have been accepted it as not being by Bach but by Georg Gottfried Wagner (1698-1756). He was a member of the St Thomas choir from 1712, but left in 1726 to become Kantor in Plauen (Saxony), staying there until his death in 1756. Considering his minimum quantity of composition, this is impressive. The earliest source dates from 1755, copied by Christian Friedrich Penzel – he was a student and stayed till he became Kantor at Merseburg in 1765; he also produced a set of parts. The absence of a continuo part possibly suggests use at a burial – if so, it must honour a very positive character!

The edition was translated into English for Novello: the copy used is labelled “Anthem for double chorus by G. G. Wagner (formerly by J. S. Bach) adapted to English words by Alfred Angel. Revised for the use of the ‘Bach Choir’, 1876. London: Novello and Company, Ltd. No. 661 in Novello’s Octavo Choruses.” It is very difficult to trust Novello dates – library catalogues tend to add a relevant year without relating them to the original numbers: the suggestion of 1876 may merely have been adjusted to Angel’s year of death. A Catalogue of the valuable musical library of the late Alfred Angel: And rare autograph letters by Alfred Angel (1876) was likely to have a careful respect for dates. What is of primary interest, however, is the skill by which he underlaid the English text which was printed under the German.

Clifford Bartlett

Brepols, 2014.
217pp, €60.00.
ISBN 1 978 2 503 55328 3

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his is primarily significant for the completion of the basso continuo, of which only four pages survive. I’ll concentrate primarily on the edition rather than the discussion of the music. Back in the early 1970s, I had a considerable interest in Marini, copying and performing some of his music, including three items from op. 7 requiring six voices and six instruments, which were included in a concert at St John’s Smith Square in aid of another of the Venice floods. Sadly, I never persevered with publishing them.

The volume reviewed here is frustrating in its layout. Publishing it for performance requires much more thought than the editors or publishers have considered. The simplest solution would be to sing/play from facsimile, and the continuo player could read from the existing score. But as it stands, the underlaid texts are too small. It would be more helpful if two-page pieces began where possible (as in the opening six pieces) on the even-numbered pages and minimising turns subsequently. avoiding a start on the odd-number pages if possible.

As a continuo player, I find the editorial figuring to the continuo part erratic. At the time, figuring is often sketchy. The full closing phrase of a section (for instance, in no. 1, bars 13, 22, 29 & the last chord) has no figure. Most players now would assume a major chord, but it’s safer to add a sharp (and the sharp stands for the major chord: ignore modern pedants who insist on a the later usage! Bar 17 would begin with a 6 were it figured, followed by the #6 as edited: but is the cadence D major, and continuing through the next bar? I get the feeling that just a little more help might be given. I always keep to major and minor as sharp or flat and avoid naturals – there are naturals that I would write as sharps in bars 37 & 38. I have no desire to avoid naturals other than in the figuring, but there is some inconsistency of repetition within a bar.

After writing this, however, I came across Thomas D. Dunn’s edition, and I’ve checked the opening song. He begins with a bottom G rather than one at unison pitch with the tenor, with an A as second minim on bar two figured 7 #6. No figure is given for the G in bar 3, which could be minor. In bar 5, Dunn has an E flat figured 7 6. It’s worth comparing the two editions, and on the whole Dunn is preferable, in particular when the voice is tenor. (The print-out is odd, but OK on screen.) Returning to the first three bars, although the principle of having the accom­paniment generally below the voice, it doesn’t necessarily apply to a tenor, but Dunn’s lower octave enables the opening phrase to have some shaping harmony.

The work contains 13 vocal pieces, ranging from one to five singers, followed by 12 instrumental ones. The layout on p. 87, presumably following the original, would have been much more useful had it been placed on the Sommario page, with the list of musical items in the two-column version. However, an additional requirement is the numbering of each piece: the page-number agrees with the 1-12, but then the remaining items should continue the sequence. However, the p. 87 version should stay as is, but with a note saying which part has those page numbers. It would have been more convenient if each piece were numbered. [This is meaningless if you don’t have the score!]

The items are varied, beginning with four solo voices, the first pair for tenor, the second pair for treble. 5 & 6 are tenor duets, 7 is SB, 8 is ST, 9 is STB, 10 is SSB, 11 is SST, 12 is SSATB and 13 is SSATB + 2 vlns. There follow 12 instrumental pieces, for which I’ll only name specific instruments on specific scoring: 13 for vln, cnt, trmbn + Bc. There are unnamed staves for violins or cornetti and the bottom line can be string bass, trombone or fagotto. I don’t know the timings, but a CD of the volume should mix vocal and instrumental items.

The substantial Marenzio book by the same publisher reviewed in this issue is in English: not all singers can manage exact understanding but there is room in the printing of the text to add an English version in the virtually empty right column. I feel that the writers are more concerned with a musicological study accompanied by lengthy footnotes but the music itself squashed to economise the music by having small print of the notes and even smaller size of the underlay. Instead, the page-size should be bigger, and the musicological text could be in double columns and smaller. It would then be circulated more widely. But I’m not sure that the editors’ Basso continuo is better than the exemple of Dunn. Performers may decide to make their own basses!

Clifford Bartlett

Edited by Armin Kircher.
Carus (27.318), €52.50, 72pp.
Vocal score (27.318/03), €18.50, 56pp.
Parts €5.80 each.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]’ve played organ for the F-minor Requiem nearly as many times as Monteverdi’s 1610 Vespers, though mostly (in both cases) for workshops or small-scale concerts. I reckon this and the 23-part Mass are significant works, whereas the 53-part Mass (my parts have 57) is a bit boring, since the rich texture doesn’t produce enough beyond that. The other Requiem in A has nowhere near the power of the F minor one. The edition I have been using was by Michael Pilkington. I can’t remember the details, but it was his copyright in 1992 (though I had the material) and it became ours in 2001. The source was DTO 50 (1918) by Guido Adler. There were arguments that missing parts were available. Our edition, based on DTO 50, is written as 3 trombones, 2 vlns, 3 violas & violone, SSATB (Rip & Solo on the same staves), bassoon & figured continuo. Carus cues the trombones with the A, T & B voices in ripieni. The continuo includes, as required, organ, violone, fagotto & violoncello, while the Kings Music edition has the Violone within the group of strings, which is sensible, as well as the bassoon part on the part above the Bc. (The fagotto doesn’t have any specific function other than as playing the bass, whereas the violone seems much better as part of the string group in our edition.) There used to be discussions about the number of parts – not that there were any missing. But they are now known to have the five vocal parts for soloists repeated by two further sets for additional singers. At probably a later stage, a second fagotto part appeared, and there were three organ parts (not surprising for Salzburg Cathedral). I’ve been rather too busy to compare our score with the new one – I’ll make a comparison if anyone offers to buy it! The difference in layout is that our score is mostly on only one system per page whereas Carus, with a larger format, generally has two staves per page. The Carus vocal score is a normal vocal-score and is slightly easier to read than ours and is a bit more expensive.

One anomaly is that the foot of the first music page follows the German note with “Concerning the basso continuo part see the Critical Report”, but the Kritischer Bericht is only in German. One might expect scholars to understand it, but offering an apparently English commentary when one does not exist is odd. I find that the detailed comments are manageable, but the prose is more complicated, and if the edition has a Vorwort and a Foreword, it’s sensible to include an English Critical Report. It is sensible to see occasionally the orchestral parts, so I requested the violin I and cello. It is way above ours – but it doesn’t actually have to be quite so large when the work was played with one player per part. The cover shows the four galleries, but not for a performance of the Requiem. The title page lists the forces as 5 solo voice and strings, five ripieno voices, 3 trombones ad lib – the continuo was evidently obvious.

It is a marvellous work, whether performed by any decent edition (I don’t know if there are more). A tour de force for performers is Judex ergo in 3/2, with the six crotchets accented on the 2nd and 5th note of the bar, and the music continues except for a cadence at bar 76 (to close one group while another starts the offbeat simultaneously) and at bars 84-85 there is a new phrase “Rex tremendae” stressed by the last syllable filling a whole bar, then starts again with 8 bars of the off-beat rhythm, with the final chord at the beginning of the last bar. The three chords that break the pattern need to keep the penultimate strong, with the concluding note equally significant. Somehow, the performers need to be aware of this: the bar-line shape is still vestigially recognised by performers and listeners! (NB The movement does not start at 1 but at 68.) This is only one of the triple-time sections; Te decet hymnus has the more usual 3/2 with frequent hemiolas. I won’t go on – there are brief remarks on the music in the Foreword. I’d love to hear the piece rehearsed while I was still alive, then had it performed for my funeral or commemoration.

Clifford Bartlett

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] received three recent issues in mid-April. The most substantial is No. 239, which is quite expensive (£40.10), especially for those who already have the score in Musica Britannica, vol. 70. There are two sets – 28 for three strings and organ, followed by another 21 with no organ. There are no problems with the latter, which is not included here. But the work at issue requires an organ, even if it is rarely independent. If you want to play without organ, not too much is missing, and that can be done from the string parts available from Stainer and Bell: professional players aren’t going to play without the organ: better to use a harpsichord or theorbo than nothing! In addition to MB 70, we now have two complete sets of parts of the 28 Fantasias (including the Pavan, no. 18), both without the organ. For economical reasons, an organist is not likely to buy just the first of the two sets, since the second set doesn’t have one. Meanwhile, Stephen Peglar has produced quite an expensive edition that is distorted to squeeze in essential organ passages.

No. 240 (£7.20) comprises the last pair of six Divisions for treble and bass on a ground, with the composer headed as Anon. (John Jenkins?) No. 5 in in g, No. 6 in G. There’s no shortage of semiquavers and some demisemiquavers, while a budding organist should be able to place the chords in the right place. Andrew Ashbee is the editor, informed by Peter Holman.

No. 241 (£17.00) is a set of 10 Fantasies in 3 Parts for TrTrT & TrTrB by John Okeover. The top part is treble, the second part varies between G2 and C1, and the lowest part of the first four are for tenor, with the fifth having a compass from two octaves below middle C up to the 440 A; the other five have more normal bass ranges. Andrew Ashbee is again the editor.

Clifford Bartlett

transcribed and edited by Jonathan P. Wainwright.
(Music Britannica, 98).
Stainer & Bell, 2015.
xxxviii + 135pp, £88.00.

[dropcap]D[/dropcap]ering first appears in modern editions in Consort Songs (MB 22, 1667) with City Cries and Country Cries. His Secular Vocal Music (MB 25, 1969), edited by Peter Platt, contains 20 Canzonette a3 and 24 a4, two volumes published by Phalèse in 1620. The Italian MS pieces from UK MS sources are mostly in three parts. It ends with a trio and a sextet in English. My impression is that these are under-sung. Wainwright’s first volume of Dering (MB 87, 2008) contains chiefly music that survived long after Dering’s death: Playford’s Cantica Sacra 1662 and The Second Sett 1674. The 1662 set has 14 sacred songs for two voices and and ten for three (all with continuo); the 1674 set has 8 duets for treble or tenor, bass & Bc. There are a dozen more from MS sources and 12 incomplete works. Ardens est cor meum appears differently as the first and the last item in the volume. There is just one volume from Early English Church Music (15, 1974), Cantica Sacra a6, 1618. Platt was editor, but overdid the transposition with keys of G, D and A – the notational practice of sharp signatures didn’t exist in Dering’s period.

The main contents of MB 98 are Cantiones Sacrae quinque vocum cum basso continuo ad organum. That contains 18 Latin pieces, many with familiar texts, and is followed by two English translations, Lord thou art worthy (19) and Therefore with Angels (20), both based on the O nomen Jesu, the second part of no. 1. The volume ends with three anthems: Almighty God which through thy only-begotten Son (21), And the King was moved (22) and Unto thee O Lord (23, perhaps by Wilkinson).

Jonathan Wainwright’s editorial remarks and practice are sensible. I’ve known him since he called on me to discuss what his doctorate should be, and I’ve been impressed by him for something like 30 years. The addition of slashed slurs to indicate where a note has two or more letters is hardly necessary since the words are clearly spaced. I’m not entirely convinced that repeated accidentals in a bar can be omitted: I prefer the system of repeating accidentals unless consecutive – it’s clearer. It also seems unnecessary to leave the original mensuration sign – 4/2 looks odd!

The pitches present a problem – and it is easier to solve performance if the compass of each part is shown. The current assumption of standard pitch is about three quarters of a tone higher, though it can be sung either a semitone or a tone above. High-pitch clefs (nos 5 & 10-15) in theory should be a fifth or thereabouts lower. But care needs to be taken when a continuo organ is necessary: omitting it is regrettable, partly for the backing, but also for the occasional isolated organ chords.

The music itself is impressive, though features are perhaps a little similar. I think on the whole that I’d prefer to hear anthologies of Dering rather than complete Dering record­ings. MB scores are rather large to read and expensive to buy: the A4 compromise would need minimal change of the adjustment apart from narrower edges – or does Stainer and Bell reprint individual pieces thus?

Clifford Bartlett

[iframe style=”width:120px;height:240px;” marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ src=”//ws-eu.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=DE&source=ss&ref=ss_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=earlymusicrev-21&marketplace=amazon&region=DE&placement=0852499396&asins=0852499396&linkId=CWF2QEBRELZB2TMV&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true”]

“set for the Harpsichord or Organ by Francesco Geminiani (1743) & Anonymous (ca. 1749)…”
Arranged and edited by Siegbert Rampe.
Bärenreiter (BA 9254), 2015, £29.00.
xiv + 50pp + 3 parts.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]was puzzled when I saw adverts of this, but it turns out to be interesting. For a start, there is considerable information on the two works in the introduction. The Water Music for keyboard was issued in 1725, 1733/34 and 1743, the last version being arranged by Geminiani. (The comment in the introduction in the second column of the second paragraph of page x is confusing, since three dates are described as “the latter”! The German text is correct.) As the introduction says, Geminiani was not primarily a keyboard composer, but it works quite well. Some cadences look bare, but perhaps that is left to the player to fill in. The Fireworks keyboard version is not very sophisticated, so the editor has produced a solo keyboard version as well as another for treble and continuo; three parts are provided – flute/violin/oboe & Bc, and realised continuo with right-hand fill-in in the middle stave. Odd bits of facsimile fill in gaps, but could be more precisely related to the main score. Fun to play, but with so many CDs, playing on keyboard is rather old fashioned – but perhaps the custom will change.

Clifford Bartlett