I think we can be seduced into thinking that the instruments evolved in an
orderly sequence from (what? F-a'' or something) to C/E-c''' to GG/BB-d'''
to FF-f''' or whatever.

I suspect the reality is far less orderly and add to this discussion my
observation that Pichhi, published in 1621, uses high d'''# in one piece and
d''' frequently in others (interestingly he never descends below E).  Was
the outrageously avante-garde composer writing for an antique C/E-f'''
instrument (didn't he know those extra notes were only for transposing!!!
what a goose, he was supposed to tune that last note to C!!!), were these in
fact contemporary to him, did he have a some other compass at his disposal?

I'd warn against making assumptions based on a rigid model of harpsichord
evolution (such and such compasses were only made in these places at these
times...).  Our knowledge of these things is based on a smattering of
examples from surviving insts - the more I look the more exceptions there
seem to be.

d.


-----Original Message-----
From: Harpsichords and Related Topics
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Dale Carr
Sent: Thursday, 4 November 2004 4:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Froberger's Blancrocher etc now: ties


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Pickett" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Froberger's Blancrocher etc now: ties


> While considering it an untruth, Dale Carr wrote:
>
> "Composers only composed music for specific instruments which they had at
> their disposal"
>
> Well, we do make a lot of deductions about the interpretation of keyboard
> works on the resonable assumption that they were not written for the
modern
> Steinway, and this seems a safe thing to do.
>
> I can accept the statement above if the word "only" is removed from it.
It
> makes sense that Beethoven wrote the fourth horn part of the third
movement
> of his Ninth Symphony because he expected it to be playable at the
> time.  Likewise, Schubert had Arpeggione players and Haydn Baryton players
> at their respective disposal.  None of these composers wrote for
> hypothetical instruments as far as I can tell.

Can we conclude that JSBach had clarino players who could play his 2nd
Brandenburg concerto?  So far as I know, the jury is still out on that one,
and I for one am glad that they haven't concluded that, since he wrote the
notes down, he must have had a player to play them.

> When one considers Froberger writing down a piece for an instrument of
> which he is an acknowledged master, it makes no sense to me to expect him
> to write other than for an instrument which he had at his
> disposal.

Why then would a painter have painted an instrument which he cannot possibly
have seen?  Just as there is an essential difference between seeing and
painting, there is an essential difference between playing an instrument and
composing for it.

Many things about earlie music which seemed to make no sense to past
generations, make sense to us now.  Maybe we just need more patience &/or
more research.

> Indeed, the special circumstances of this piece which, unlike
> some kind of Klavierubung, is not something he wrote in abstract, but
> rather a piece which we have every reason to believe was written under the
> direct influence of a tragic event (many of his other pieces also appear
to
> have been written in reaction to events in his life), seems to make the
> statement even more likely.

This is like assuming that a poetic elogy, composed on the death of
whomever, must have been spoken out loud.

Regards,
Dale

> Froberger may have encountered the C/E compass more frequently in his
life,
> and it seems likely to me that he would revel in the extended compass of
> the French instruments, parcilarly the extension in the bass that he uses
> in this Tombeau.
>
> Agreed, this is speculation; but I dont think that it is idle speculation.
>
> david