IMSLP talk:Categorization/Project Members/archive3

Contents 1 Category Walker test 2 Metamorphosen 3 Strings 4 Tubular bells 5 baryton and cetra 6 duets that are trios, and trios that are quartets 7 Archiving 8 Bass and Alto Flutes 9 Beethoven Trio transcriptions of Symphonies 10 a related issue to baroque choral works above 11 Page that qualifies for no tag whatsoever 12 Concertos in the chamber music sense 13 variable instrumentation in modern works 14 piano 6 hands 15 Works for open/unspecified scoring 16 "Use only for vocal works" 17 William Byrd, Eagle's Force 18 Instrumental hymns? and madrigals 19 Sheng 20 Songs without words 21 6_Concerti,_Op.8_(Corrette,_Michel) 22 Carmen Ave mater omnium (Van Weerbeke, Gaspar) 23 Fantasia prima (Banchieri, Adriano)

Category Walker test

Feldmahler's category walker (which refines searches works by composer, work type, instrumentation and language) can now be used from the link on the new Category:Sonatas page. There are still one or two bugs to be ironed out (like the discarded temporary categories still appearing under "Other", which may take up to 72 hours to flush through the system).

For that reason it's not ready to go public just yet, but everyone here is welcome to post their comments on this page — P.davydov 17:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow!!! Excellent work. My only issue is that it may be hard for many to figure out what the "Step" and "Itct" mean...-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an explanatory note in the page header, but maybe we could substitute some more obvious terms like "list", "narrow" or "refine"? — P.davydov 20:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up, Feldmahler has made a lot of refinements, so please take a look at Category:Sonatas and play with the link to the walker at the top of the page. Thanks — P.davydov 09:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Metamorphosen

Any consensus as to whether this qualifies as a Symphonic Poem, because a couple sources (My cd recording and a classical music site) refer to it as such? --Varnis 00:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Grove and The Oxford Dictionary of Music give it as a "study" (apparently the composer's designation), so "studies" would be the appropriate tag. People can then blame Strauss rather than us if they think it's wrong :-) — P.davydov 10:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Strings

In addition, what is to be done if a composer specifies "7 treble strings" allowing violins and violas? Overture_(Edgerton,_Michael_Edward) being the piece in question.--Varnis 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you tag it as "7str" I'll make sure it gets put under "Works for 7 players" (rather than for 7 string orchestras!). Thanks — P.davydov 10:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Tubular bells

This instrument has come up as a solo instrument, i've tagged it as tbl.--Varnis 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I've added it to the list — P.davydov 10:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

baryton and cetra

Baryton --- Haydn wrote lots of trios for this, but he is likely to be the only composer we have for this. It is a string instrument of the bass variety, similar to a bass viola da gamba but with 16-40 extra strings! New category, or use vdg? Cetra=cittern, which was displaced by the guitar in the 19th c. I only see one piece with this so far, likely to be very rare. Given its period, lute seems like a better option, but does any of our early music experts know if it was close enough to a lute for this to be a reasonable substitution?

I think Haydn wrote 175 baryton trios, and there will probably be other compositions for it dating from the 18th century (though how many will ever turn up at IMSLP remains to be seen). It's a unique instrument though, so I don't believe it should be lumped in with lutes or gambas. There ought not be any issue giving its own instrumental niche, like the arpeggione. (There ought to be more scores than the arpeggione, though!)

The Cetra or cithara are lyres; the cittern is a forerunner to the guitar, so calling it a lute would be rather a stretch, but I can't see a better alternative, or else we would have to have a bestiary of every possible obsolete instrument for which we have at least one score. Perhaps if and when we have a complete list of works with lute on IMSLP it might be time to see if there's a substantial number of pieces for a variant? Regards, Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 10:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take the cetra as lute, and keep track of it on a list I am keeping. At the end I will see how many we have. As to the baryton, I would like to hear from Davydov as well, but if we decide on a separate category, maybe "brtn" would be a logical abbreviation. (Steltz)

Looking into it further, I'd agree that it merits its own label. How about "bryt" (to avoid confusion with "baritone"? — P.davydov 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. It isn't on the list yet, but I've tagged the pieces. (Steltz)

duets that are trios, and trios that are quartets

We have a handful of examples where the title is totally at odds with an accurately descriptive tag. There are a few "Duetto" type designations where the piano part was considered so subservient that the title refers to the two solo parts and ignores the piano, e.g. Duo concertant for two instruments + piano (Baermann) and also a title that translates as "A Trio of woodwinds and a piano" i.e. a quartet. What do we do with these?

Keeping in mind that the new categories for "Works for 3 players", etc. will list them correctly, it's less of a problem. But in the Baermann example you could ignore the duo and just tag as "concertantes", and it can be argued that the second is really saying "For 3 woodwinds and piano", so "trio" isn't the official designation. If the accompaniment was originally basso continuo, but changed by a later publisher (or uploader) to a realized piano part, then that might explain some of these apparent anomalies — P.davydov 10:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I will keep the "Duettos" as duets, and do the duo concertantes as concertantes. The "3 woodwinds plus piano" will become a "piece". (Steltz)

sorry for posting as a non-member, just try to help you...(send me a message, if I should move such comments to the forum). This was actually very frequent in Italy in the 19th century, to have titles like Duos and Trios with piano acc. You also will find a Quartetto by Ponchielli with piano acc on IMSLP that is actually a quintet for fl ob Ebcl cl and piano. You will have to tag them with the larger group tag, and leave the title alone to avoid confusing everybody. There could be an explanation on the workpage under instrumentation or in the Alternative title field. See also my comment regarding the Duo concertant in the other topic below--Kalliwoda 16:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Because this page was getting rather long I've archived the threads from the first three days, which can be accessed through the link at the top of this page. All the topics there appear to have been dealt with, except that Samuel Guzman still hasn't replied to the question about the instrumentation of his work "Late" (make of that what you will), and my thanks to Steltz for sorting out the scoring on that messy Bottesini piece — P.davydov 11:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bass and Alto Flutes

These have come up as solo instruments, so ive marked them bfl and afl respectively --Varnis 21:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Varnis, most instruments described as "bass flutes" are actually the same as "alto flutes" – a transposing instrument in G sounding a perfect fourth lower than written. Have you got any examples of a bass flute using a different transposition? If not, then please use afl (on the grounds that the bass oboe (heckelphone), bass clarinet, and contrabassoon usually sound an octave lower than the normal instruments; a "real" bass flute ought to obey the same sort of logic). Regards, Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 8:19, 11 January 2010 (AEDT)

I'd recommend sticking to "fl" for the tag, but indicating the alto or bass flute in the "Instrumentation" section of the work concerned — P.davydov 21:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's this piece: Music for Flute Choir (Bakalian, Craig)‎ and upon checking the parts, yes the alto flute is in G and the bass flute is an octave below written pitch. PML _{@ © talk} 8:32, 11 January 2010 (AEDT)

I can see the logic to leaving it as fl, but surely thats rather inconsistent with Bass Clarinets, or Contrabassoons? --Varnis 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The initial list of instruments we used was based on the international library guidelines for cataloging classical music, which includes bass clarinets and contrabassoons as individual instruments, but these are the only exceptions they make (not taking acccount of alto flutes, bass horns or tenor trombones, for example). Adding the alto or bass flutes at this point would inevitably mean that we miss any in works that had already been tagged as "fl", and possibly have to repeat the same process later on to take account of bass horns, or treble clarinets, etc. So let's keep it simple :-) — P.davydov 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I know full well that this is a losing battle, but I wil stick up for the flautists out there, I know I have only seen one piece for alto and bass flute, and the only other place they would be is in Flute CHoirs, or as fl pf, which are all going to be released under CC, so few of those. I would consider the difference between the concert flute and bass flute at least, sufficient to warrant a separate tag, where it plays within chamber music, or as a solo instrument?--Varnis 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Varnis. If you feel so strongly about it, then tag them 'afl' and 'bfl' for now, which will keep our options open — P.davydov 19:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven Trio transcriptions of Symphonies

Whoever uploaded the transcription of Symphony no.2 says it is the composer's transcription, in which case it should also get a trio tag. However, Grove's doesn't list the transcription, which makes me a bit sceptical that it is Beethoven's own work. The cover page says nothing specific about who did the transcription, but on the other hand, it is part of Breitkopf's official series. Does anyone have any concrete information on this? (Steltz)

It rings a bell with me, but I don't have a handy reference. Cooper's Beethoven Compendium ought to confirm it. Regards PML

I'm sure I've seen it listed somewhere, and will check when I get home tonight... — P.davydov 12:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, unless the transcription has a work page to itself then we don't take into consideration any later reductions for other instruments, whether these are done by the composer or not. The exceptions are where the composer gave the arrangement a different title and/or opus number from the original work. (Before too long it should be possible to make all arrangements and transcriptions ssearchable, but that's likely to use a different method, rather than tagging) — P.davydov 13:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Again from memory, Beethoven issued his piano trio under the same opus # 36 (unlike later cases of the Grosse Fuge being given a separate Op. 134 in the other version). That would not rate for an exception. Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

a related issue to baroque choral works above

Many of the late Renaissance and early Baroque works could be either sung or played, and the designations cantus 1, cantus 2, etc. weren't necessarily vocal. I am running into a few of these in the trios, but will run into many more in the quartets. Examples: Merula's Ciaccona for two treble instruments and b.c., Johann Stadlmayr's Canzon, for 2 soprano voices and basso. Others that are still in mensural notation have the "cantus" designations. Any suggestions as to how to deal with these so they aren't confused with the vocal works? (Steltz)

Yes, there will be a number of these. We already have sop alt ten bass as a "family" of voice types to match to singers, when for a number of Ren./Baroque works you will need a similar family of instrumental types for otherwise unspecified players (unspecified apart from what clef and range they play in). These ought to be classed by range simply because clef types are helpful: parts in the alto or tenor clefs can usually be made to work transferred to the modern string, wind, or brass equivalents, and everything else (with some caveats!) may then be given to treble or bass instruments. The main issue I suppose is coming up with a generic description that won't be confused with the actual voice types? Regards, Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to come up with a general rule, if there are lyrics to these pieces then it seems sensible to tag them for "2sop alt" in the usual way (omitting any other instruments). Otherwise we could assume that the pieces would be played by strings, and tag them "2vn vdg", etc. as appropriate. Not an entirely satisfactory solution perhaps, so I'm open to better suggestions :-) — P.davydov 09:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, lots of brass players use them, and the main instruments of the time were cornetti and sackbuts (close enough to trombone to be a tbn). Perhaps two tags: 2vn vdg ; 2crt tbn

Page that qualifies for no tag whatsoever

Liszt's Oh quand je dors has been transcribed for piano trio, and it has its own page. The problem is that it isn't Liszt's transcription, so it qualifies for nothing. Perhaps the best solution here would be to move it to the page where the song is and treat it like an arrangement of that (which it is)? (Steltz)

Yes, certainly. The way that the Liszt transcriptions have been placed on separate pages doesn't fit with the current way of doing things, and we should probably raise the issue on the forums, to see if there's an appetite for changing that — P.davydov 13:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I will ask one of the moderators to move this particular piece, but in doing general moving, we need to make sure there is a strict division between a straight transcription, which would go on the original composer's page, and the type of piece where a composer makes a separate composition out of a few (usually opera) themes where the structure of the piece as a whole is not original to the original composer. Those pieces usually go under the "other" name. For example, I've just asked for a piece "d'apres Methfessel" by Jancourt to be listed under Jancourt, not Methfessel. (Steltz)

For Liszt, if it has a Searle number, we separate (as I found out rather harshly, having made a few changes to symphonic poems...oops :). But other transcriptions...move 'em-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 01:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Searle numbers are rubbish. Just sayin’. Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 01:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Having a different catalogue number doesn't automatically qualify other composer's transcriptions of their works to go on a separate page, so why should they for Liszt? I know this was done in the early days of IMSLP, when it probably seemed like a good idea, but now it's just glaringly incongruous — P.davydov 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I gather from Perlnerd’s comment above that meddling with Liszt would potentially bring the wrath of hordes of demons the Liszt fan club upon you. (It must really bring out the OCD traits in some, when their favourite composer is “Liszt”.) Oh dear that was bad, I promise I won’t throw any more stones, I don’t like donating money to glaziers. Regards, Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Concertos in the chamber music sense

We have a few things entitled Concerto that are not with orchestra, but the tagging chart specifies the use of the concerto tag as soloist with orchestra. Since it is in the title, do we still use it? Similarly, I just tagged Hummel's Trio Concertant (no.6) as a concertante because it was in the title, and now it comes up under concertos as well, which it isn't. (Steltz)

Yes, the first part of the tag should follow the composer's description where there is one, so in such cases it would be a concerto. Because the boundary between concertantes and concertos becomes a little fuzzy later on, at the moment the categories are set up so that concertantes are treated as concertos as a wider group. This can easily be changed to an independent category, if no-one here objects? — P.davydov 13:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if people are looking specifically for pieces with orchestra, they would look under "cl orch", etc. I know in the previous re-categorization discussions we were looking at using the "concertante" for things with orchestra that don't have the word "concerto" in the title, but we have other ways of categorizing these now, so maybe it isn't necessary to peg the word to things that are with orchestra. (Steltz)

Again, sorry for posting here, but I think with tagging every old print labelled Trio (or Duo or Quatuor or Quintette) concertant as a Concertante work, you just set yourself up for lots of corrections later on. This was the way to differentiate a piece for a concert from purely educational works. It has nothing whatever to do with the possibility to perform with an orchestra. In modern editions this adjective concertant or concertans is usually left out. The word has a completely different meaning in the title Symphonie concertante or Concertante.--Kalliwoda 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually we're following guidelines prepared for librarians who have to catalogue classical music, and the rule is only to use "concertante" when it's part of the composer's title. Works tagged as concertante will no longer automatically also be classed as concertos, so hopefully that's resolved the issue — P.davydov 17:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're all on the same page here, I am finding a few works where the work page title isn't what's on the title page. I am not going to worry about it too much unless it is the first printing (where it is likely the composer proofread it), or Grove lists it in a certain way, but my choice of tag has more to do with what's on the actual music or in Grove, than what the uploader put as the title. In the vast majority of cases, those are the same, but I found 3 trios today listed as "Trio" where the title page was actually "Grandes Sonates" for piano trio. It was most likely the first printing (and I think Grove also listed them as sonata), so the tag is sonatas. (I don't know how to change page names, and so I have to ask for moderator help from time to time to get page titles to be consistent.) So there may be some misunderstandings because tags don't seem to match work page names. (Steltz)

I've also found a worryingly high number of works where the uploader's title bears no resemblence to that of the composer (cross-checking with Grove to make sure). Incidentally, if you want to rename a page then it's really easy: just use the "move" tab at the top of the page (it's more tricky if you need to change a composer's name though) — P.davydov 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing the composer name as part of a page move isn't a big drama, as normally Feldmahler's cunning parsers will detect the composer name and automatically reassign the work to the correct category page (provided the spelling matches). As for the concerto/concertante division, it might have meant different things at different times (or used for two categories of works simultaneously). Some JS Bach and Mozart harpsichord/piano concertos are of the dimensions of quintets – solo cembalo plus string quartet, while Mozart and Haydn’s sinfonia concertantes are of full symphonic dimensions (for the classical period). I think to some degree the cleverness of this system of tagging is that it actually deals with erroneous titles in a logical way – ah yes, these works might be “concertantes” but looking at the instrumentation, half are for orchestra, the other half are duos/trios/quartets... Regards, Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 21:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, next time I have one of these, I'll try it myself. But for the moment, the Methfessel will stay under Methfessel. Kalliwoda had proof that it was a complete transcription of something Methfessel wrote (he had the original to compare), so Jancourt wasn't being so honest . . . . (Steltz)

variable instrumentation in modern works

Josef Irgmaier didn't seem to ever specify instrumentation in anything that is uploaded here. Unlike baroque music, where we can make reasonably sound combinations to come up on lists that people are likely to be looking for, this is far more open-ended than that. Each part is done in every conceivable transposition, for every conceivable instrument. Any suggestions, other than trying to do an SST-style tag for instruments? (Steltz)

piano 6 hands

Rachmaninoff has written 2 pieces for piano 6-hands, which I presume to be 2 pianos, otherwise, it would be very intimate, indeed! I seem to remember there is something here for 8-hands as well. Should we add a tag for it? (Steltz)

Agreed. I'll add pf6h and 2pf8h to the list — P.davydov 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Intimate, pf6h? I can hear in my mind one of the Goons, saying, “it’s for two pianists with three arms each...” Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 21:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for open/unspecified scoring

This discussion has thrown up some difficult issues, but I'd like to offer a possible solution. Where the instrumentation is "open" or not specfied (especially in renaissance works and those of Irgmaier), we could use a special form of tag, like this:

• open 2sop bass (= for 2 treble parts and 1 bass part)
• open alt 2ten (= for alto and 2 bass parts)

... which would respectively appear in the categories:

• For open instrumentation (2 treble, bass)
• For open instrumentation (alto, 2 tenor)

For ease of use I'd suggest retaining the standard "sop alt ten bass" ranges in the tags, but the tag for "sop" would be converted to "treble" in the category description.

If we're really stuck, then we have the option of using:

• open (= "For open instrumentation")
• 2open (= "For open instrumentation (2)") [for 2 instruments]

For the renaissance specialists here, is this system likely to be (a) practical, and (b) useful? I'm thinking it might also help us with other situations where we only have lead sheets, etc. — P.davydov 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In early music, the clefs are usually a solid indicator of range as composers avoided too many ledger lines and clef changes in mid-course are rare, so as with vocal music I'd suggest:

• G1, G2, and C1 clefs = sop (treble instrument)
• C2 clef = sop (or possibly alto)
• C3 clef = alto
• C4 clef = tenor
• C5/F3 clef = bass (or possibly tenor)
• F4, F5, and Γ3 clefs = bass

This proved a reasonable match to a fair number of scores (e.g. Gabrieli) with as many as 19 staves and using every clef under the sun (apart from G1 and the exceedingly rare Gamma clef). The C2 and C5/F3 clefs are ambiguous (fitting more to Mezzo and Baritone voicings in vocal music).

With modern music you can't always "follow the clef" as some composers shy away from using C clefs.

Would use of the "open" tag preclude specifying what instruments are known? How would vocal music (e.g. for soprano and unspecified instrumental choir, "sop open 2sop alt bass") distinguish between the use of sop for soprano voice and sop for treble instrument?

Regards, Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the tag preceding the "open" would be treated as a normal instrument, so your example of "sop open 2sop alt bass" would be placed in the categories "Works for voice and unspecified instruments (2 treble, alto, bass)", "Works for soprano voice", and "Works with unspecified instruments".

Should this prove too unwieldy, then the alternative solution would be "Works for voice and unspecified instruments (3)", "Works for soprano voice", "Works featuring unspecified treble instruments", "Works featuring unspecified alto instruments", "Works featuring unspecified bass instruments" (the last three being a sub-category of "Works with unspecified instruments"). Hmmm, actually I like that option better. Any thoughts? — P.davydov 21:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a summary of the above, plus PML's very ueful table to our Tagging Guide — P.davydov 09:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Use only for vocal works"

This note was against several entries in the tagging table (e.g. "romances"), but the Category Walker means that people can now easily distinguish, say, vocal romances from instrumental ones, so this note has now been removed (except in the case of "vocalises", where it's still essential) — P.davydov 12:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

William Byrd, Eagle's Force

Does anyone know what the original voice ranges for this song are? We only have a transcription by Dana Hawkes, so the page doesn't qualify for a tag, but I will re-do the page to put in the Arrangements and Transcriptions header. She has arranged this as SST, but I don't know if that was Byrd's original ranges, and I will need them for the tag. (Steltz)

Instrumental hymns? and madrigals

Can this designation be used for instrumental works if it is in the title? In the case of Gounod's Hymne a St. Cecilia, the original was for violin, although he later did his own arrangement with soprano. In the case of dos Santos' Hymne a l'Amour, there is no vocal version at all. Tag as a hymn? Similarly, Martinu's Madrigaux for oboe, clarinet, bassoon -- is madrigals reserved for vocal? (Steltz)

Originally there was a distinction, as there had to be some way of telling vocal works apart from instrumental ones. But now the category walker takes care of that, we can use the composer's title (see also my posting on vocal works above) — P.davydov 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sheng

Michael Edgerton's Kut uses a sheng, a mouth-blown free reed instrument of vertical pipes. This is kind of the thin end of the wedge--if we do a tag for this, do we have to create one for every ethnic instrument that is scored? On the other hand, I don't know what else to give it. (Steltz)

I'd suggest that we note those examples here and leave them untagged for now, so we can get an idea of how many there are likely to be... — P.davydov 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Songs without words

How should we categorize these?-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 16:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that the category walker shows which "songs" are instrumental and which aren't, we can just go with the composer's title (see my posting above on vocal works) — P.davydov 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But if they're titled "Lied ohne worte"...we just list them as lieder?-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 17:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's the composer's original title, then yes. Or if it's Chant sans paroles then that would be "songs", Romansy bez slov = "romances", as indicated in the table — P.davydov 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

6_Concerti,_Op.8_(Corrette,_Michel)

Any ideas on instrumentation here, it looks like (vn fl ob (bagpipe) (hurdy gurdy) (vielle) bc) - I really can;t see anyne wanting to search for compositions including the hudry-gurdy, but you never know ;) --Varnis 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Grove lists Corrette's Op.8 as being 24 concertos for 3 treble instruments and continuo, although there are other concertos involving the hurdy-gurdy (strange as that might seem!). So the question is whether this work really is from Op.8 or somewhere else. It's probably better leave it untagged until we know for sure... — P.davydov 21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Carmen Ave mater omnium (Van Weerbeke, Gaspar)

I just classified this as a 'piece' for the time being, but I'm guessing it shouldn't be. Does anyone know more accurately what it might be? (Unfortunately, my knowledge of renaissance-era vocal music is sadly deficient...) KGill _{talk email} 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Grove lists it as a motet, if that helps? — P.davydov 21:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (N.B. I might have guessed 'motet' earlier except the guide page says to only put 'motet' if the composer specifically styled it as such.) KGill _{talk email} 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case we can't be sure what the composer styled it as, so we'll have to hope that Grove's 'motet' designation is authentic :-) — P.davydov 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fantasia prima (Banchieri, Adriano)

Does anyone know the original instrumentation of this work? (And also Fantasia Secunda?) KGill _{talk email} 21:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit of a puzzle, but both fantasias might belong to "Moderna armonia di canzoni alla francese, a 1–2, bc (org/hpd), con l’aggiunta in fine di 2 fantasie, a 4, et uno Magnificat, 4vv, op.26 (Venice, 1612)" listed in Grove. Don't ask me to explain it :-) — P.davydov 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a bit confusing...I think at least for now (i.e. until someone confirms they actually belong to that opus), 'fantasias ; 4vv' could work. Thanks! KGill _{talk email} 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Grove only lists "vv" after the Magnificat indicates that Banchieri didn't specify vocal for the other works. Though I am also not a Renaissance specialist, I've seen enough of these Renaissance works that were done both ways -- vocal or instrumental -- that I would bet this is one of them. Technically, it only gets tagged for vocal if there are words, otherwise it's instrumental, but of course IMSLP only has the arrangement, I would think an extra tag for instrumental, using the "open" terminology would also be a safe bet. The voicing (if the arranger stayed with the original ranges is SATB for both Fantasias. (Steltz)