De Visee's Suite in d minor

[IslandStorm]

Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?

[John Philip Dimick]

Post by IslandStorm
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?

You might Google "Robert Strizich."

Here's a good discussion of the difficulties of transcribing music of
the baroque guitar:
http://guitar.canzona.com/baroque.shtml

The main points involve the tuning of the 4th and 5th courses of the
baroque guitar. Not knowing if the 4th and 5th courses were tuned in
octaves or unison makes it hard to say when a "deviation" has occurred,
I think.

[Kent Murdick]

It appears from the version I have that the 4th and 5th were tuned an
octave higher. If you play it straight from the tab, you constantly
see 2nd inversion chords that were probably meant to be in root
position. The choice is to bring down the 3rd string voice an octave
or transpose the 4th/5th up and octave or eliminate the 4th/5th string
voice altogether. i ended doing all three depending on what sounds
best and where the lines are heading. what to do wiht strums is tough
too since a stum is an inversionless chord, so to speak. Hey, I'm no
expert, I'll go read the the articles.

Post by John Philip Dimick

Post by IslandStorm
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?

You might Google "Robert Strizich."
Here's a good discussion of the difficulties of transcribing music of
http://guitar.canzona.com/baroque.shtml
The main points involve the tuning of the 4th and 5th courses of the
baroque guitar. Not knowing if the 4th and 5th courses were tuned in
octaves or unison makes it hard to say when a "deviation" has occurred,
I think.

[Tom Sacold]

Post by IslandStorm
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?

I've always played the version in the Noad books. Might not be
'musicologically correct' but seems nicely arranged for the guitar.

[Tom Sacold]

<snip>

Post by Tom Sacold
I've always played the version in the Noad books. Might not be
'musicologically correct' but seems nicely arranged for the guitar.

That's the version in the earlier editions. The last edition seems to have
been through a process of historically aware negative improvement!

[Kent Murdick]

Post by Tom Sacold
The last edition seems to have

been through a process of historically aware negative improvement! >>

That's always a problem. You want the piece to sound good, not just
authentic. Parkening has a the prelude and Bouree in his book 2 and
they do sound good. It looks like he took them from somewhere else.

[rcspross]

Post by Kent Murdick

Post by Tom Sacold
The last edition seems to have

been through a process of historically aware negative improvement! >>
That's always a problem. You want the piece to sound good, not just
authentic. Parkening has a the prelude and Bouree in his book 2 and
they do sound good. It looks like he took them from somewhere else.

I've always played Karl Scheit's version which was developed using the
figured bass process. I believe he had access to a manuscript which
illustrated
the melody with the figured bass below.

Bream used Pujol's version ( I think ) which was a bit more
complicated.
Robert Strizich transcribed the complete gutiar works into notation and
Heugal published them years ago. Nice edition. However it is notated as

if one had a baroque guitar in hand. ( Not arranged for the modern
guitar ).

Richard Spross

[Lare]

I have a version by Julio Prol published in 1967 by O. Pagani & Bro. Anyone
ever heard of this one? I paid a whopping $1.75 for it in 1977. I hope I
didn't waste my money.

Larry McDonald

Post by rcspross

Post by Kent Murdick

Post by Tom Sacold
The last edition seems to have

been through a process of historically aware negative improvement! >>
That's always a problem. You want the piece to sound good, not just
authentic. Parkening has a the prelude and Bouree in his book 2 and
they do sound good. It looks like he took them from somewhere else.

I've always played Karl Scheit's version which was developed using the
figured bass process. I believe he had access to a manuscript which
illustrated
the melody with the figured bass below.
Bream used Pujol's version ( I think ) which was a bit more
complicated.
Robert Strizich transcribed the complete gutiar works into notation and
Heugal published them years ago. Nice edition. However it is notated as
if one had a baroque guitar in hand. ( Not arranged for the modern
guitar ).
Richard Spross

[virtual]

Post by rcspross

Post by Kent Murdick

Post by Tom Sacold
The last edition seems to have

been through a process of historically aware negative improvement! >>
That's always a problem. You want the piece to sound good, not just
authentic. Parkening has a the prelude and Bouree in his book 2 and
they do sound good. It looks like he took them from somewhere else.

I've always played Karl Scheit's version which was developed using the
figured bass process. I believe he had access to a manuscript which
illustrated
the melody with the figured bass below.
Bream used Pujol's version ( I think ) which was a bit more
complicated.
Robert Strizich transcribed the complete gutiar works into notation and
Heugal published them years ago. Nice edition. However it is notated as
if one had a baroque guitar in hand. ( Not arranged for the modern
guitar ).
Richard Spross

I am using the Scheit edition as well. It is balanced and coherent.

Have fun

[IslandStorm]

Bream's recording follows the Karl Scheit edition almost perfectly,
note-for-note and slur-for-slur. Scheit also recorded this same suite
on Vanguard in the late 1950s.

When you stop to consider the exceptional editorial lineage this modest
Suite has gathered -- Coste, Pujol, Presti, Segovia (with help from
Ponce perhaps?), Bream, Noad, Scheit, and others, plus Alexandre
Tansman's orchestration of it -- it seems remarkable to me that no
enterprising grad student has yet compiled a paper
comparing/contrasting these very different published versions.

Post by rcspross
Bream used Pujol's version ( I think ) which was a bit more
complicated.
Robert Strizich transcribed the complete gutiar works into notation and
Heugal published them years ago. Nice edition. However it is notated as
if one had a baroque guitar in hand. ( Not arranged for the modern
guitar ).
Richard Spross

[IslandStorm]

I'm not a big fanatic of authenticity. Music played in 2006 is being
heard by people in 2006 with ears accustomed to the modern guitar
sound, not the genteel tinklings of the baroque guitar (nice as they
might be in some contexts).

Post by Kent Murdick

Post by Tom Sacold
The last edition seems to have

been through a process of historically aware negative improvement! >>
That's always a problem. You want the piece to sound good, not just
authentic. Parkening has a the prelude and Bouree in his book 2 and
they do sound good. It looks like he took them from somewhere else.

[Tashi]

Post by IslandStorm
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?

Check this out
MT


http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html

[IslandStorm]

Very interesting, thank you for this. He doesn't discuss this
particular Suite very much, but it is good general information on De
Visee. He lived to be almost 100? Very impressive by modern
standards, and nearly miraculous in the 17th century.

Post by Tashi
Check this out
http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html

[Alain Reiher]

Post by IslandStorm
Very interesting, thank you for this. He doesn't discuss this
particular Suite very much, but it is good general information on De
Visee. He lived to be almost 100? Very impressive by modern
standards, and nearly miraculous in the 17th century.

Post by Tashi
Check this out
http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html

A very good book indeed. The information pertaining to the interpretation of the tablature, the ornaments and the style "des batteries" is very helpful for anyone who wish to interpret the music of Robert de Visée with a "semblant" of truth.
I was fortunate enough to be able to consult and work from it.
This is what came out of it : 2-Sarabande (Robert de Visee) 732
I am no expert so I cannot really tell if I was true to the interpretative style ... but I wanted to try!
Alain

[John D. Rimmer]

Post by IslandStorm
Very interesting, thank you for this. He doesn't discuss this
particular Suite very much, but it is good general information on De
Visee. He lived to be almost 100? Very impressive by modern
standards, and nearly miraculous in the 17th century.

Post by Tashi
Check this out
http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html

A very good book indeed. The information pertaining to the interpretation of the tablature, the ornaments and the style "des batteries" is very helpful for anyone who wish to interpret the music of Robert de Visée with a "semblant" of truth.
I was fortunate enough to be able to consult and work from it.
This is what came out of it : 2-Sarabande (Robert de Visee) 732
I am no expert so I cannot really tell if I was true to the interpretative style ... but I wanted to try!
Alain

I liked that, no matter what the authenticity...good is good!

John

[Alain Reiher]

Post by IslandStorm
Very interesting, thank you for this. He doesn't discuss this
particular Suite very much, but it is good general information on De
Visee. He lived to be almost 100? Very impressive by modern
standards, and nearly miraculous in the 17th century.

Post by Tashi
Check this out
http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html

A very good book indeed. The information pertaining to the interpretation of the tablature, the ornaments and the style "des batteries" is very helpful for anyone who wish to interpret the music of Robert de Visée with a "semblant" of truth.
I was fortunate enough to be able to consult and work from it.
This is what came out of it : 2-Sarabande (Robert de Visee) 732
I am no expert so I cannot really tell if I was true to the interpretative style ... but I wanted to try!
Alain

I liked that, no matter what the authenticity...good is good!


John

Thanks.
Alain.

[Tashi]

Post by IslandStorm
Very interesting, thank you for this. He doesn't discuss this
particular Suite very much, but it is good general information on De
Visee. He lived to be almost 100? Very impressive by modern
standards, and nearly miraculous in the 17th century.

Post by Tashi
Check this out
http://g.rebours.free.fr/Gerard_Rebours.html

Glad you like it. There used to be site whwere you could download
lots of De Visee but I can't find it agian.
MT

[John Rimmer]

Post by IslandStorm
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?

The

[John Rimmer]

Post by IslandStorm
Is there an article or essay somewhere (preferably available in
English) which talks about all the various editions of this suite? I
know that it's been played for many years, that Napoleon Coste
transcribed parts of it from tablature into notation, and that Presti
and Segovia and Bream and Almeida and Celedonio Romero and doubtless
several others all recorded all of it or sections of it. But there
have been so many editions published and recordings made over the years
that I am wondering if anyone has made a serious study of these, with
the perceived good and bad points of each, or a list of deviations from
the original tab?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.guitar/tree/browse_frm/thread/a98e1210b1cfd993/9cdae658bd8e0c1e?rnum=1&hl=en&q=de+visee+rimmer&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.music.classical.guitar%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fa98e1210b1cfd993%2Fcb2f40f455d1a6e5%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3Dde+visee+rimmer%26rnum%3D1%26hl%3Den%26#doc_f08645f45b0e4831

I use the Eschig edition (M.E. 7768), arranged by Konrad Ragossnig. Error
prone, but I like it.

John

[IslandStorm]

Thank you for that link to a prior thread. As I said above, it really
surprises me that apparently no one has made a compilation of all the
various published versions. Perhaps it is too much viewed as an
intermediate student piece to be worthy of serious scholarship.

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by IslandStorm
Thank you for that link to a prior thread. As I said above, it really
surprises me that apparently no one has made a compilation of all the
various published versions. Perhaps it is too much viewed as an
intermediate student piece to be worthy of serious scholarship.

That's not it at all. It is simply that such a comparison would yield
no significant improvement in understanding the music. And why only de
Visée? why not a comparison of all the 60-70 editions of Carcassi Op.
60, 36,000 transcriptions of the Prelude from the Bach First cello
suite, the 2000 plus recordings of Leyenda and RdlA, etc, etc?


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/

[IslandStorm]

De Visee interests me because there is such a discrepancy in editions.
My question doesn't concern Carcassi or the other pieces you mention,
although they have some validity of their own. Yet the variations
between those pieces do not appear to be as substantial as with this
Suite.

For example, some editions of this Suite have Minuet 1 titled as
Prelude or Entree. Where did this come from? Few of the published
versions have the passacaille included; Scheit indicates it isn't
worthy of consideration. Segovia seems to have at least three distinct
versions, based on his available CD reissues. Recordings on baroque
guitar offer yet another sequence of movements, with the Gigue in the
middle and the optional dances at the end. While there are clearly
different versions of the pieces in your list, the basic sequential
architecture is not moved around to nearly the same degree as with this
Suite. Did de Visee published numerous versions himself, or are these
changes due to later editors?

Beyond that, "why de Visee at all? And why this particular Suite?" It
is a very modest work in size, yet somehow it was the one which got the
attention of Coste and Presti and Pujol? Was it the only known
baroque guitar suite all those years ago?

Post by Matanya Ophee
That's not it at all. It is simply that such a comparison would yield
no significant improvement in understanding the music. And why only de
Visée? why not a comparison of all the 60-70 editions of Carcassi Op.
60, 36,000 transcriptions of the Prelude from the Bach First cello
suite, the 2000 plus recordings of Leyenda and RdlA, etc, etc?

[Tom Sacold]

<snip>

It is important to many enthusiasts like myself because it is one of the few
more substantial multi-movement works that we can perform reasonably
satisfactory.

[John Rimmer]

Post by Tom Sacold
<snip>
It is important to many enthusiasts like myself because it is one of the
few more substantial multi-movement works that we can perform reasonably
satisfactory.

...and that people enjoy hearing, which should be the first
consideration...I have a post on this notion coming, soon.

John

[Larry Deack]

"Tom Sacold"

Post by Tom Sacold
It is important to many enthusiasts like myself because it is one of the
few more substantial multi-movement works that we can perform reasonably
satisfactory.

...and that people enjoy hearing, which should be the first
consideration...I have a post on this notion coming, soon.
John

This is a very good piece for students. Great bang for buck and lots
that they can learn about larger forms and details like ornaments. Is
this in any of the ranked systems? What grade level do they give it?

[Stanley Yates]

----- Original Message -----
From: "ktaylor" <***@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.guitar
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: History of glissandi - Follow up

Kevin,
You're welcome. Did you look at the two pages that comprise Merchi's
article
on the glissando?

No, but I am receiving the volumes from the UT library. I did not see
that in your PDFs.

They're linked from the page at
http://www.stanleyyates.com/goodies/Merchi.html

Speaking of L'hoyer, did Merchi write any quartets?

Not that I know of. He did write a trio for guitar with mandolin (or violin)
with bass. The Lhoyer guitar quartet (that Matanya published) seems to be an
anomaly for the period. von Call and Diabelli did write guitar trios a
little later, but I' not aware if any others (though there may well be
some - Matanya might know more about that).

SY

[virtual]

Post by IslandStorm
De Visee interests me because there is such a discrepancy in editions.
My question doesn't concern Carcassi or the other pieces you mention,
although they have some validity of their own. Yet the variations
between those pieces do not appear to be as substantial as with this
Suite.
For example, some editions of this Suite have Minuet 1 titled as
Prelude or Entree. Where did this come from? Few of the published
versions have the passacaille included; Scheit indicates it isn't
worthy of consideration. Segovia seems to have at least three distinct
versions, based on his available CD reissues. Recordings on baroque
guitar offer yet another sequence of movements, with the Gigue in the
middle and the optional dances at the end. While there are clearly
different versions of the pieces in your list, the basic sequential
architecture is not moved around to nearly the same degree as with this
Suite. Did de Visee published numerous versions himself, or are these
changes due to later editors?
Beyond that, "why de Visee at all? And why this particular Suite?" It
is a very modest work in size, yet somehow it was the one which got the
attention of Coste and Presti and Pujol? Was it the only known
baroque guitar suite all those years ago?

Post by Matanya Ophee
That's not it at all. It is simply that such a comparison would yield
no significant improvement in understanding the music. And why only de
Visée? why not a comparison of all the 60-70 editions of Carcassi Op.
60, 36,000 transcriptions of the Prelude from the Bach First cello
suite, the 2000 plus recordings of Leyenda and RdlA, etc, etc?

Hi,

Your research is very valid but you will find the answer in the realm of
general history, music history, baroque interpretation, baroque
ornamentation. Plus a lot of listening of gamba, theorbo, harpsichord
etc...

Be ready for a long journey, but it is worth it!

Have fun

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by IslandStorm
De Visee interests me because there is such a discrepancy in editions.

There are even more substantial discrepancies in the works I
mentioned.

Post by IslandStorm
My question doesn't concern Carcassi or the other pieces you mention,
although they have some validity of their own. Yet the variations
between those pieces do not appear to be as substantial as with this
Suite.

As one who published an edition of Carcassi's Op. 60, I can tell you
that the differences between the various editions is very substantial.

Post by IslandStorm
For example, some editions of this Suite have Minuet 1 titled as
Prelude or Entree. Where did this come from? Few of the published
versions have the passacaille included; Scheit indicates it isn't
worthy of consideration. Segovia seems to have at least three distinct
versions, based on his available CD reissues. Recordings on baroque
guitar offer yet another sequence of movements, with the Gigue in the
middle and the optional dances at the end. While there are clearly
different versions of the pieces in your list, the basic sequential
architecture is not moved around to nearly the same degree as with this
Suite. Did de Visee published numerous versions himself, or are these
changes due to later editors?

There is one simple way to find out: get the original tablature and
make your own transcription.

Post by IslandStorm
Beyond that, "why de Visee at all? And why this particular Suite?" It
is a very modest work in size, yet somehow it was the one which got the
attention of Coste and Presti and Pujol? Was it the only known
baroque guitar suite all those years ago?

I can tell you why it got the attention of Coste. See this:

http://www.editionsorphee.com/trans/trans.html

Scroll down to Coste and you will find out that it was not the only
thing Coste did in this direction. It was simple the one he published
in his 1851 edition of the Sor method. As such, it had definite
didactical purpose, spawned by Fétis' attempts to revive interest in
Early Music.

Once published, it got the attention of others.

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/

[IslandStorm]

Post by Matanya Ophee
As one who published an edition of Carcassi's Op. 60, I can tell you
that the differences between the various editions is very substantial.

Then in parallel to my query on Visee, are you saying there are
published editions and recordings of this collection which have the
sequence of the Etudes changed, and titles changed as well? Or are the
differences more subtle, note values and fingerings and so forth?

Post by Matanya Ophee
Once published, it got the attention of others.

This seems reasonable. In the 80-odd years between Coste and Presti,
are there indications of this being performed? Was Coste responsible
for renaming Minuet 1 as Entree? That movement is not on the scanned
page in your article, although Minuet 2 is there.

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by IslandStorm

Post by Matanya Ophee
As one who published an edition of Carcassi's Op. 60, I can tell you
that the differences between the various editions is very substantial.

Then in parallel to my query on Visee, are you saying there are
published editions and recordings of this collection which have the
sequence of the Etudes changed, and titles changed as well? Or are the
differences more subtle, note values and fingerings and so forth?

All of the above.

Post by IslandStorm

Post by Matanya Ophee
Once published, it got the attention of others.

This seems reasonable. In the 80-odd years between Coste and Presti,
are there indications of this being performed?

Not that I know of.

Post by IslandStorm
Was Coste responsible
for renaming Minuet 1 as Entree? That movement is not on the scanned
page in your article, although Minuet 2 is there.

The sequence of movements in the Coste are:

1. Minuetto
2. Bourée
3. Minuetto
4. Sarabande
5. Gavotte
6. Minuetto

The six pieces are subtitled:

Extraites du livre publiée en 1686 et dedié à S.M. Louis XIV Par
Robert de Visée maître de Guitar de ce prince; Revues et écrited
d'après l'ancienne tablature.

Note that Coste does not say that this a transcription, but rather a
revised work. Now you have the source cited, and you compare Coste's
work to it. The Coste-Sor book, BTW, is available for free download
from the R&B-S site.






Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/

[virtual]

Post by Matanya Ophee

Post by IslandStorm
Thank you for that link to a prior thread. As I said above, it really
surprises me that apparently no one has made a compilation of all the
various published versions. Perhaps it is too much viewed as an
intermediate student piece to be worthy of serious scholarship.

That's not it at all. It is simply that such a comparison would yield
no significant improvement in understanding the music. And why only de
Visée? why not a comparison of all the 60-70 editions of Carcassi Op.
60, 36,000 transcriptions of the Prelude from the Bach First cello
suite, the 2000 plus recordings of Leyenda and RdlA, etc, etc?
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/

I agree with you. Comparing all the piano editions of Rameau and
Couperin would distracts from the sense of the music. They both wrote
for the harpsichord. De Visee wrote for the baroque guitar and the
classical guitar is not a baroque guitar. The best one can do is to
imagine what the author would have done with a contemporary instrument.

Have fun

[IslandStorm]

Since I know little of the harpsichord literature, I have some
questions, to see if we are really comparing accurately.

Do the published and recorded suites by Rameau and Couperin suffer from
the same wide range of movement sequence from edition to edition? Is
there one particular suite by either of these fellows (or any of their
contemporaies) which has had exceptional prominence for students and
professionals alike over the last 150 years? Did this very same
harpsichord suite also have its sequence of movements altered seemingly
at random?

These are my questions on De Visee Suite in D minor, not small details
such as which finger should be used for a given note or the direction
of a mordent.

Post by virtual
I agree with you. Comparing all the piano editions of Rameau and
for the harpsichord. De Visee wrote for the baroque guitar and the
classical guitar is not a baroque guitar. The best one can do is to
imagine what the author would have done with a contemporary instrument.

[Stanley Yates]

The French dance suite rarely contained the standardized series of dance
movements that general textbooks lead us to believe. The standardized
movement sequence (which is actually first found in embryonic form in the
the Italian guitar repertoire of the mid 17th century) derives mainly from
the German appropriation of the genre by such keyboard players as Froberger
and Buxtenhude. This was the standard form inherited by Bach that led
general history writers to regard it as the standard for the period. In
reality, it's actually the exception. The French literature itself, whether
for keyboard, ensemble, theorbo or guitar, is a different story. The suites
often contain a large number of movements - often rhetorically titled - and
often conclude with a minuet (the slowish final dance of an evening, danced
by the heavily adorned and likely quite inebriated monarchs themselves). The
passacalle is often included in these suites, and is usually the most
harmonically and texturally interesting movement (shame on Karl Scheit!).
Opinions differ as to an appropriate approach to performign these wroks
today - some players prefer to make a selection of movements, others prefer
to play a complete suite as presented in the original scores.

SY

Post by IslandStorm
Since I know little of the harpsichord literature, I have some
questions, to see if we are really comparing accurately.
Do the published and recorded suites by Rameau and Couperin suffer from
the same wide range of movement sequence from edition to edition? Is
there one particular suite by either of these fellows (or any of their
contemporaies) which has had exceptional prominence for students and
professionals alike over the last 150 years? Did this very same
harpsichord suite also have its sequence of movements altered seemingly
at random?
These are my questions on De Visee Suite in D minor, not small details
such as which finger should be used for a given note or the direction
of a mordent.

Post by virtual
I agree with you. Comparing all the piano editions of Rameau and
for the harpsichord. De Visee wrote for the baroque guitar and the
classical guitar is not a baroque guitar. The best one can do is to
imagine what the author would have done with a contemporary instrument.

[IslandStorm]

Thank you for this information.

Do you have any idea why Minuet 1 is titled as "Entree" or "Prelude" in
some recordings?

[Tashi]

Post by Stanley Yates
The French dance suite rarely contained the standardized series of dance
movements that general textbooks lead us to believe. The standardized
movement sequence (which is actually first found in embryonic form in the
the Italian guitar repertoire of the mid 17th century) derives mainly from
the German appropriation of the genre by such keyboard players as Froberger
and Buxtenhude. This was the standard form inherited by Bach that led
general history writers to regard it as the standard for the period. In
reality, it's actually the exception. The French literature itself, whether
for keyboard, ensemble, theorbo or guitar, is a different story. The suites
often contain a large number of movements - often rhetorically titled - and
often conclude with a minuet (the slowish final dance of an evening, danced
by the heavily adorned and likely quite inebriated monarchs themselves). The
passacalle is often included in these suites, and is usually the most
harmonically and texturally interesting movement (shame on Karl Scheit!).
Opinions differ as to an appropriate approach to performign these wroks
today - some players prefer to make a selection of movements, others prefer
to play a complete suite as presented in the original scores.
SY

Stanley whilst I have you held captive on this thread, I was
wondering if you had any thoughts as to the tempo at which the Weiss
Passigallia should be taken at. I had always thought that both Bach
and Weiss ended there suites with a rather fast movement of either a
allegro, guige, etc. However the Passigalia ends the suite In D-Major
by Weiss. Most recordings I heard to date< Breams exspecialy seem to
take this in a rather relaxed tempo. I'm working the piece up and feel
like the tempo should be quite fast, any thoughts on this? Sorry a bit
off topic, but not entirely.
MT

[Stanley Yates]

Michael,

First let me say that I don't know the answer to your question...but I do
have some thoughts about it. Weiss was quite a bit more varied in his choice
of movements than Bach, and generally lighter in character. While you're
right that fast, light movements are usually used to end a suite, at least
in Germany, it's not always the case. As for Weiss' passacaglia - the final
movment of his Sonata No. 18 in D, I think the best clues are found in the
character of the opening harmonic statement. The notated appoggiaturas, to
my ear, tend the hold the tempo back a bit. This is also supported by the
figuration of the second variation which, with it's unpredicatble leaps and
appoggiaturas (more Bach-like than usual for Weiss, I think) suggests
cantabile rather than brilliance. On the other hand, it can easily become
stodgey and labored if too slow.

SY

Post by Tashi

Post by Stanley Yates
The French dance suite rarely contained the standardized series of dance
movements that general textbooks lead us to believe. The standardized
movement sequence (which is actually first found in embryonic form in the
the Italian guitar repertoire of the mid 17th century) derives mainly from
the German appropriation of the genre by such keyboard players as Froberger
and Buxtenhude. This was the standard form inherited by Bach that led
general history writers to regard it as the standard for the period. In
reality, it's actually the exception. The French literature itself, whether
for keyboard, ensemble, theorbo or guitar, is a different story. The suites
often contain a large number of movements - often rhetorically titled - and
often conclude with a minuet (the slowish final dance of an evening, danced
by the heavily adorned and likely quite inebriated monarchs themselves). The
passacalle is often included in these suites, and is usually the most
harmonically and texturally interesting movement (shame on Karl Scheit!).
Opinions differ as to an appropriate approach to performign these wroks
today - some players prefer to make a selection of movements, others prefer
to play a complete suite as presented in the original scores.
SY

Stanley whilst I have you held captive on this thread, I was
wondering if you had any thoughts as to the tempo at which the Weiss
Passigallia should be taken at. I had always thought that both Bach
and Weiss ended there suites with a rather fast movement of either a
allegro, guige, etc. However the Passigalia ends the suite In D-Major
by Weiss. Most recordings I heard to date< Breams exspecialy seem to
take this in a rather relaxed tempo. I'm working the piece up and feel
like the tempo should be quite fast, any thoughts on this? Sorry a bit
off topic, but not entirely.
MT

[Tashi]

Post by Stanley Yates
Michael,
First let me say that I don't know the answer to your question...but I do
have some thoughts about it. Weiss was quite a bit more varied in his choice
of movements than Bach, and generally lighter in character. While you're
right that fast, light movements are usually used to end a suite, at least
in Germany, it's not always the case. As for Weiss' passacaglia - the final
movment of his Sonata No. 18 in D, I think the best clues are found in the
character of the opening harmonic statement. The notated appoggiaturas, to
my ear, tend the hold the tempo back a bit. This is also supported by the
figuration of the second variation which, with it's unpredicatble leaps and
appoggiaturas (more Bach-like than usual for Weiss, I think) suggests
cantabile rather than brilliance. On the other hand, it can easily become
stodgey and labored if too slow.
SY

Stanley thanks for your thoughts. Sounds like the middle road is
best ... not too fast and no too slow. The Passigalia seems similar to
Stairway to heaven, it starts out rather stately and slow but wants to
build to a climax at the end, and has a self perpetuating drive. I
think what I'm feeling also is the effect of playing it on 13 strings
which gives one a little more relaxed feel technically and therefore
taking it a bit faster than most guitar recordings is seductive.
MT

Post by Stanley Yates

Post by Tashi

Post by Stanley Yates
The French dance suite rarely contained the standardized series of dance
movements that general textbooks lead us to believe. The standardized
movement sequence (which is actually first found in embryonic form in the
the Italian guitar repertoire of the mid 17th century) derives mainly from
the German appropriation of the genre by such keyboard players as Froberger
and Buxtenhude. This was the standard form inherited by Bach that led
general history writers to regard it as the standard for the period. In
reality, it's actually the exception. The French literature itself, whether
for keyboard, ensemble, theorbo or guitar, is a different story. The suites
often contain a large number of movements - often rhetorically titled - and
often conclude with a minuet (the slowish final dance of an evening, danced
by the heavily adorned and likely quite inebriated monarchs themselves). The
passacalle is often included in these suites, and is usually the most
harmonically and texturally interesting movement (shame on Karl Scheit!).
Opinions differ as to an appropriate approach to performign these wroks
today - some players prefer to make a selection of movements, others prefer
to play a complete suite as presented in the original scores.
SY

Stanley whilst I have you held captive on this thread, I was
wondering if you had any thoughts as to the tempo at which the Weiss
Passigallia should be taken at. I had always thought that both Bach
and Weiss ended there suites with a rather fast movement of either a
allegro, guige, etc. However the Passigalia ends the suite In D-Major
by Weiss. Most recordings I heard to date< Breams exspecialy seem to
take this in a rather relaxed tempo. I'm working the piece up and feel
like the tempo should be quite fast, any thoughts on this? Sorry a bit
off topic, but not entirely.
MT

[virtual]

Post by IslandStorm
Since I know little of the harpsichord literature, I have some
questions, to see if we are really comparing accurately.
Do the published and recorded suites by Rameau and Couperin suffer from
the same wide range of movement sequence from edition to edition? Is
there one particular suite by either of these fellows (or any of their
contemporaies) which has had exceptional prominence for students and
professionals alike over the last 150 years? Did this very same
harpsichord suite also have its sequence of movements altered seemingly
at random?
These are my questions on De Visee Suite in D minor, not small details
such as which finger should be used for a given note or the direction
of a mordent.

Post by virtual
I agree with you. Comparing all the piano editions of Rameau and
for the harpsichord. De Visee wrote for the baroque guitar and the
classical guitar is not a baroque guitar. The best one can do is to
imagine what the author would have done with a contemporary instrument.

The answer is no, but many transcribers have added pedals and phrasing
which makes no sense.

The situation is worse for the guitar. This is where a good well trained
and experienced teacher is invaluable.

Bye