Basso Continuo: to realize or not to realize?
Posted: 19 Jan 2012 19:20
I'm broaching this possibly sensitive area with some trepidation, but here goes.
The trend I have noticed in recent scholarly editions of baroque music involving basso continuo in its various forms (figured bass, unfigured bass, basso seguente etc.) is to leave it alone. That is all very well for scholars' 'urtext' editions, but it hinders a lot of performers. Personally, as an organist and harpsichordist, I generally appreciate not having some else's editorial realization staring me in the face. Quite frankly, the continuo realizations in some of the published editions of early music are quite horrific and should never be presented to the ears of an audience.
That said, I also have to acknowledge that for most users of CPDL, scholarly purity is not the number one concern. I have found, in my browsing at CPDL, that for whatever reason, many of the editions of baroque music have left the continuo unrealized. Possibly, that is for the better. Keyboard parts with multiple voices are fiddly and time-consuming to produce in any music software. Many editors likely don't feel up to the challenge of producing a realization. Most (and this would also include a large number of keyboard players who can play from figured bass) would hardly know the difference in style required for say, an Italian bass of 1710 versus a German bass of 1710 (let alone an Italian bass of 1610 versus an Italian bass of 1710). A realization for organ is not the same as one for harpsichord, and both differ dramatically from what would be played on the theorbo or chittarone. There is no 'one size fits all' here.
Still, CPDL is about making music available to performers and I would wager that a great many performing groups who want to play this music don't have access to a keyboard player/lutenist who can play from an unrealized bass. In my contributions, I will elect to provide at least a rudimentary realization of the bass so that the work can be performed 'as is' by anyone who doesn't have a good continuo player (see my recent edition of Ghizzolo's Epitalamio for an example). I will grant, of course, that individual players have their own styles and preferences, and some will disagree vehemently with what I have done. I also freely admit that what I put on paper is not at all the same as what I would play in performance. Still, in the interest of less experienced performers, I think my approach is justified.
Do any other CPDL contributors have opinions on the subject?
David Millard
The trend I have noticed in recent scholarly editions of baroque music involving basso continuo in its various forms (figured bass, unfigured bass, basso seguente etc.) is to leave it alone. That is all very well for scholars' 'urtext' editions, but it hinders a lot of performers. Personally, as an organist and harpsichordist, I generally appreciate not having some else's editorial realization staring me in the face. Quite frankly, the continuo realizations in some of the published editions of early music are quite horrific and should never be presented to the ears of an audience.
That said, I also have to acknowledge that for most users of CPDL, scholarly purity is not the number one concern. I have found, in my browsing at CPDL, that for whatever reason, many of the editions of baroque music have left the continuo unrealized. Possibly, that is for the better. Keyboard parts with multiple voices are fiddly and time-consuming to produce in any music software. Many editors likely don't feel up to the challenge of producing a realization. Most (and this would also include a large number of keyboard players who can play from figured bass) would hardly know the difference in style required for say, an Italian bass of 1710 versus a German bass of 1710 (let alone an Italian bass of 1610 versus an Italian bass of 1710). A realization for organ is not the same as one for harpsichord, and both differ dramatically from what would be played on the theorbo or chittarone. There is no 'one size fits all' here.
Still, CPDL is about making music available to performers and I would wager that a great many performing groups who want to play this music don't have access to a keyboard player/lutenist who can play from an unrealized bass. In my contributions, I will elect to provide at least a rudimentary realization of the bass so that the work can be performed 'as is' by anyone who doesn't have a good continuo player (see my recent edition of Ghizzolo's Epitalamio for an example). I will grant, of course, that individual players have their own styles and preferences, and some will disagree vehemently with what I have done. I also freely admit that what I put on paper is not at all the same as what I would play in performance. Still, in the interest of less experienced performers, I think my approach is justified.
Do any other CPDL contributors have opinions on the subject?
David Millard