G.B. Buonamente, Sonate from "Quarto Libro" (1629)
Hi,
This is the first installment -- the 10 'sonate' -- of an edition of the Quarto Libro di G.B. Buonamente for 2 violins and cello (the title says 'basso di viola' but the extension and the context tends more to the cello). Separate parts and the other pieces of the work will follow.
Fitting all the book in a single MuseScore score proved impractical: the contents of this 1st part (about a third of the whole book) already seems to push MuseScore to its limits: adding a single note (or any other editing) takes for ever, so I preferred to break it into several parts (this is not a complain, only an assertion).
Any suggestion to improve the result is welcome, but please keep in mind that it is intended more as a critical edition than as a performing score.
Thanks,
M.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Buonamente_Libro4_1_1.mscz | 98.04 KB |
Comments
The score has been made with 0.9.6 rev. 3080; so you need at least 0.9.6 RC1 to be sure to open it correctly.
M.
In reply to Forgot to say: by Miwarre
Fantastic work!
As a stylistic note: There is a beaming bug in MuseScore that affects many of your pieces
#3459: Beaming of sixteenth and eighth note sequences in 4/4
You can work around it by setting the beams manually. See Beam in the handbook for details.
In reply to Fantastic work! As a by David Bolton
Thanks for appreciating!
About the 'bug', thanks for noting the issue. In fact, there might be a bug in MuseScore but, in this case, I on purpose left what it defaulted to (after some incertitude).
It is intended as a hint (perhaps too subtle?) that, in most cases, the tactus should be the minim and then I like all the quavers and semiquavers of a minim to be beamed together. When the tactus is not a minim, it is usually a semibreve (or a dotted semibreve).
As an aside, it is debatable that "C" in this case means 4/4. In theory, it would mean tempus imperfectum - prolatio imperfecta (i.e. it would refer to ratios between note lengths, rather than to a rhythm); in practice, in this time it usually means 1 down-beat on a minim and 1 up-beat on the next minim ("alla semibreve"); i.e. the tactus is the minim for most practical purposes.
Thanks,
M.
I noticed "Sonata Sesta" (page 21) does not have an F sharp in the bass clef key signature. The treble staves do have an F sharp. It sounds odd in measure 30 and 54 where you have an F sharp in one staff played against an F natural in the other. You might also double check measures 78, 124, and 139, which have an F natural in the bass.
A similar thing happens on page 42, measure 36 and page 43, measure 68
In reply to I noticed "Sonata Sesta" by David Bolton
You have a sharp eye (and ear!).
Of course, you are right generally speaking: these pieces would not pass a post-XVIII century exam of harmony. But...
(Incidentally, I double checked all the points you quote and they all correspond to the source.)
In sonata sesta, the bass lacks the key signature in the source and I didn't dare to invent one. The bulk of the issue is that the theme (Ruggero, which was a well-known song dating from much earlier) is essentially modal, while the treatment (particularly in the more florid passages) is moving toward tonality.
So, in all the 5 cases you spot (meas. 30, 54, 78, 124, 139), the bass line is the bass of the song and I think very unlikely that a sharp were provided on the spot by the bass player; the other players could provide a natural, but look at measure 30: if cantus II plays a g fnat g, the harmony 'improves' but the imitation is spoiled.
As things stand, I assume we have to accept them and 'blame' our modern ear (look for instance at meas. 58, where the anonymous player glossing the source felt compelled to add a C#; do we feel any need for it?). Possibly a different typography device could be devised to add 'less mandatory' accidentals than the ones indicated between parentheses in the staff, meaning "if really you cannot stand it as it is, try this"; what about accidentals between parentheses above the staff (there are already accidentals above the staff with another meaning)?
In sonata decima (meas. 36 and 68), the case is very similar albeit exchanged: the bass flourishes and the two cantus play (a skeleton of) the song; removing the cantus' sharp is out of question, adding sharps to the bass diminutions would look strange. Again, some 'ad libitum' accidentals as above?
So, the matter is far from settled, I'm afraid. But I'm very grateful for spotting and collecting all these dubious cases for further consideration.
Thanks,
M.
In reply to Hmmmm... by Miwarre
It is interesting to see chromaticism and "dissonance" in music from several centuries ago. Thanks for your informative response. This time period of music is not my expertise by any means.
In reply to It is interesting to see by David Bolton
I cannot claim to be an expert either (as a job, I'm a programmer!). I simply frequent and play Renaissance and early Baroque music (and almost nothing else) since several decades and inevitably I have gathered some familiarity with the languages and the treatises.
Both chromaticism and 'dissonances' are not uncommon in late XVI - early XVII centuries: many Marenzio's and Gesualdo's madrigals are well known examples, as are some keyboard pieces by Frescobaldi which explicitly tell about durezze (lit. hardness, = dissonances) in their titles (and incidentally are of the very same years of our Buonamente).
M.
Enjoyed listening to it ;-)
A small remark about the license. You may want to use the universal standard for granting non commercial copying: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial or any other variant. It's easier for people to recognize the Creative Commons license.
In reply to License by Thomas
Hi,
Really did you enjoy listening to it? It is almost a hour of music, more than a Beethoven's symphony and much more boring than it!
About the license: I do not intent to rule out commercial usage: if somebody wants to record them and makes a huge planetary success (ha ha!), it's fine with me as long as he gives proper credit. At page 2, the Creative Common "Attribution - Share Alike" license is explicitly quoted with the proper URL.
If the issue is about the sentence "Non-commercial copying welcome" at the bottom of the pages, the intended meaning is literal: "please do circulate it, freely if possible" without excluding commercial usage. If the sentence is not clear I can change it. Any suggestion?
Thanks,
M.
In reply to Why non-commercial? by Miwarre
The way licensing works is it gives people permission to use the music (under the terms of the license) without the hurdle of contacting the copyright holder. If someone wants to use the music in a way that is not permitted by the license (i.e. commercial use) they would need to contact you and ask for individual permission and you would have the prerogative to accept, deny, or negotiate the request.
As someone who is very young and not so much exposed to this style of classical composition, I am extremely intrigued by this music. Admittedly, I only read though and listened to about page 26, but through that point it was simply enlightening to listen to. Normally I probably would have found it somewhat boring, but being able to read the score while it played makes the whole experience so much more interesting. Basically, this is great, and I cannot wait to hear more.
(Maybe you could look at my posted composition and tell me what you think? Thanks if you can.)
rokr258, thanks for your comments.
I also appreciate the sincerity about the possibility for this kind of music to be boring; because often its is boring! Even more so, with an 'execution' like the one offered by a sequencer-synthesizer, which lacks all the subtlety of articulation, phrasing and accents required by any music, but by Baroque music in particular (this is not a criticism to MuseScore: its purpose is different). And, of course, Buonamente is not Monteverdi!
Also, it is music more to be played than to be heard: hearing conterpoint is not as satisfying and interesting as playing it!
In the second part (posted here ), you'll find something which is somewhat less music for the sake of music, in particular the galliards which were dances.
I have heard at your "Time machine", but here roles are reversed: I know too little of the language(s) of contemporary music to be able to say anything meaningless: how can you comment on a poem written in a language you do not know?
M.
In reply to Thanks by Miwarre
thanks for reading my comments. And yes, it does seem like that style of music would be much more fun to play than listen to. And thanks also for looking at my piece. I completely understand how you feel as clueless with my music as I feel with yours, although yours is just a tad longer, to say the least. Anyways, thanks again!