Talk:Brandenburg concertos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brandenburg concertos is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

Contents

[edit] A "microcosm of Baroque music"

" The concertos have been called a 'microcosm of Baroque music,' " -- by whom? If you can't find the source I suggest somebody changes it to something like "The concertos could be described as a microcosm of Baroque music".

I couldn't find any source for this on Google, just a lot of people quoting it unsourced. Let's get rid of it entirely; removing the quotes doesn't change the fact that it's unsourced. See WP:CITE and WP:V. Anyway, they're not a microcosm: they're all in a single genre. What about opera, trio sonata, oratorio, organ prelude, ground bass, and other characteristic Baroque styles? That quote is just bogus. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Will remove it if no-one complains in a little while --Lambyuk 02:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Done--Lambyuk 00:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source needed for statement on the fifth concerto

"A minor detail about the Fifth Concerto indicates something about the size of the ensembles with which they were originally performed. This concerto (see below) features a harpsichord solo, which was almost certainly performed by Bach himself. It also lacks a second violin part. The best explanation of this goes as follows: We know that when playing in the string section, Bach preferred to take the viola part; according to a surviving letter, this was so he could sit "in the middle of the harmony." Since as keyboard soloist Bach was not available to take the viola part for this concerto, one of his violinists must have had to move over to play the viola. The explanation, of course, relies on the assumption that Bach's ensemble used only one musician per part."

The quoted passage above appears in section 2. Do we have a source for this? I believe it's too elaborate to have here without a source specified, so if there is none it shouldn't be here. If we get a source, we at least shouldn't claim that it's the best explanation.

Also, though this doesn't really matter right now, I think it's a pretty strange explanation. IIRC, there's not a lot that supports the idea of one instrument per part in Bach's orchestra, and I don't see much reason to assume Bach always played the viola (to such an extent that there was no other violist) just because of a single letter. A to me more satisfying explanation would be that he simply chose to write it like that, perhaps because there were unusually few competent violinists or something. EldKatt (Talk) 12:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have seen this statement repeated a lot. I don't think there is a reason to remove it. It's a reasonable opinion. The other thing is that with more than 1 player to a part, it tends to overwhelm the sound of the harpsichord. 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astonishment over valveless trumpeting

In hope that someone is watching this page, I'll share my doubtfulness regarding the following passage, in the section about the second concerto:

Scholars today continue to be astonished that the intended trumpeter (probably the court trumpeter in Cothen, Johann Ludwig Schreiber) was able to handle the rapid passagework while playing an instrument that had no valves.

Astonished? Maybe a few decades ago, but nowadays there are plenty of trumpeters who can handle it on a natural trumpet. I'm not feeling very bold at the moment, but I will remove (or rephrase) this if nobody objects. EldKatt (Talk) 20:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recording section revert

I just reverted Trisdee's "Recordings" section addition. Great as they may be, I don't feel Wikipedia is the place list recordings in this form, especially as other sites [1] do it much better and will be updated far more often. There is almost certainly precedent for this elsewhere in WP. Lambyuk 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Concertos" or concerti?

I always thought the plural of concerto was concerti (e.g. Concerti Grossi) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.121.66.156 (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, I think that the plural of concerto is concerti also. Seanbow 03:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. Concerti is proper.

If nobody objects, then, I will rename this article accordingly. Calaf 18:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To re-iterate what I wrote on the other version of this page: The Wikipedia naming conventions specifies, and general English usage tends towards 'concertos'. Also, almost all recordings use the nomenclature 'concertos'. While Italian plural 'concerti' is correct in Italian, it is not the current English usage (though has been used variably in the distant past). Please don't think that using the phrase 'if nobody objects...' gives license to make such large changes: two or three people discussing a point on the talk page does not constitue consensus. It is more appropriate to check the Wikipedia naming conventions if you are in doubt. 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See this page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). I quote: "Plurals of Italian terms should be anglicized:

  • cellos
  • concertos
  • tempos"

13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fractal

can anybody confirm that one of the concertos has been analyzed and found to be fractal, and document that? an altavista search was not helpful.

[edit] Removed section

I removed this section, titled Orchestral versus chamber music because it is only tangentially related to the article:

The fifth concerto is used in arguments that Bach's concertos were played with one player to a part. Uniquely, it has one violin part rather than two in the orchestra. Bach is known to have preferred to take the viola part often when playing in ensembles, so he could sit "in the middle of the harmony". The argument goes that, since Bach was not available to take the viola part for this concerto (since he was playing the solo harpsichord), one of his violinists must have had to move over to play the viola, and that was the reason for the sole orchestral violin part. This is by no means conclusive evidence and is taken as merely a possible explanation. The inference is not necessarily that Bach would have only ever used one player per part but that the number of players per part was ad libitum from one upwards. In purely practical terms, the smaller size of the one-player-per-part ensemble would make sense in the 5th concerto, as the sound of the harpsichord would tend to get drowned out in a larger ensemble; this would be particularly unfortunate in a work designed to show off the harpsichord and its player.

There is a rather interesting set of arguments about OPPP (one player per part), and the specific conditions of performance in Cöthen are a separate strand, but neither on this page, I think.

Hope the general tidy is better...

JH(emendator) 22:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] inaccuracies in the instrumentation?

I know virtually no Italian, but the English instrumentations don't seem to match up with what the Italian inscriptions say.

1st: 2 Corni di Caccia, 2 Hautb: è Bassono, Violino Piccolo concertato, 2 Violini, una Viola è Violoncello, col Basso Continuo.
... three oboes ...
2nd: 1 Tromba, 1 Fiauto, 1 Hautbois, 1 Violino concertati, è 2 Violini, 1 Viola è Violone in Ripieno col Violoncello è Basso per il Cembalo
... basso continuo including cello.
3rd: tre Violini, tre Viole, è tre Violoncelli col Basso per il Cembalo
Instrumentation: three violins, three violas, three cellos, and basso continuo including violone.

The Italian for 2nd and 3rd concertos sounds to me like "basso continuo using the harpsichord." All of the links to "basso continuo" link to double bass, which I don't think is the correct thing. The fourth one has an unspecified continuo. The fifth one refers to la flûte traversière. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an exact English name or page for it (other than the flute). The sixth one has no inscription listed. --MinorContributor 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixing some of this. First of all, basso continuo obviously shouldn't link to double bass--and no longer does.
The first concerto definitely has three oboes, but I'm slightly reluctant to change the Italian quotation--theoretically it's possible that Bach made a mistake. I'm changing it anyway, though, since that's not too likely.
I'm changing all of the "basso continuo including x" to either just "basso continuo" or "basso continuo including harpsichord", since it's really not right for us to make our own editorial choices about suitable continuo instruments. Only where the autograph score suggests particulars should we mention it.
"Traversiere" simply means what we now would call flute. "Flute" or "flauto" alone would at this time refer to the recorder, hence the "traversiere" qualifier. We could call it "transverse flute" as well, and some modern texts on early music do use this term, but it's not necessary.
I'll probably try to dig up the autographs myself and have a look to add missing information when I have time. EldKatt (Talk) 11:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)