 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Write down/out
Hello: I'd be interested to know more clearly when to use "write down" and when "write out" esp in contexts related to writing music, but not only. ---- Creation apart, the writing of a symphony is physically arduous. Every second of playing time involved WRITING OUT, note by note, the parts of up two dozens instruments .... Ian McEwan, Amsterdam, p. 24 ------ and: ------ He could neither WRITE DOWN nor harmonize his songs--he could barely even sing them. theatlantic.com ------ These definitions for "write down/out" are awfully close to me: ------ write down 1 : to commit to writing : record in written form <write down each letter as you receive it -- Boy Scout Handbk.> <instruments ... which automatically write down their impressions of temperature -- Waldemar Kaempffert> <writes herself down as a United States citizen -- Current Biography> ------- write out 1 : to put in writing <wrote out the Greek alphabet -- Joseph Gaer>; especially : to put into a full and complete written form : make a full record or statement of in writing <the book in which he wrote out his plots -- Peter Forster> http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ------- Thanks. Marius Hancu > I'd be interested to know more clearly when to use "write down" and > when "write out" esp in contexts related to writing music, but not only. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com > ------- Use "write down" when the idea is, getting the (possibly new) idea down in written form at all, recording it, capturing it, snatching it out of the air and putting it down on paper. Use "write out" when the idea is, writing something (probably already known) *in full*, in expanded form, possibly in great detail. I would write down your address if you dictated it me, and I would write out my address to hand to you. But I might also say "write down" for that second one, "down" being very general. I hope that helps.  SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > Use "write down" when the idea is, getting the (possibly new) idea down > in written form at all, recording it, capturing it, snatching it out of > the air and putting it down on paper. Use "write out" when the idea is, > writing something (probably already known) *in full*, in expanded form, > possibly in great detail. "snatching it out of the air" is very suggestive. Thank you. Marius Hancu Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> had it: > Use "write down" when the idea is, getting the (possibly new) idea down > in written form at all, recording it, capturing it, snatching it out of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > out my address to hand to you. But I might also say "write down" for > that second one, "down" being very general. In addition, "write out" can carry with it a sense of making a copy, especially in the area of music. If you have a full score for a musical work, I might ask you to write out the bassoon part for me. SignatureDavid ===== > Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > especially in the area of music. If you have a full score for a > musical work, I might ask you to write out the bassoon part for me. You beat me to it: I was going to suggest the same thing. Above all, I would say "writing out" implies a more laborious task than "writing down" or plain "writing". SignatureRob Bannister >> In addition, "write out" can carry with it a sense of making a copy, >> especially in the area of music. If you have a full score for a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would say "writing out" implies a more laborious task than "writing > down" or plain "writing". I'd tend to say "copy (out) the bassoon part", for what it's worth, but I accept "write out" as synonymous, and I might sometimes say it. It's "copy out" rather than just "copy" if I need to make it clear that I'm talking about extracting the part from a score rather than just running over to the photocopier with an already prepared bassoon part. If it's already clear from context, then just "copy". If it's one of those newfangled computer-readable scores and the bassoon part can be extracted (more-or-less) automatically, then it's not "copy" but "extract". If it's a photocopy of a score or scan of a score as a graphic image that's going to be sliced and diced and reassembled into one or more parts (respectively either with scissors and glue or with software), that's neither extraction nor copying, but "cutting and pasting". SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > >> In addition, "write out" can carry with it a sense of making a copy, > >> especially in the area of music. If you have a full score for a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > over to the photocopier with an already prepared bassoon part. If it's > already clear from context, then just "copy". Interesting. Thanks. Marius Hancu > > write down > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > writing something (probably already known) *in full*, in expanded form, > possibly in great detail. Any idea why "writing OUT of the specifications" or "specification(s) writing OUT" are practically not used? Could it be that in English the "-ing" forms (participles/gerunds) don't keep the prepositions of the original phrasal verbs? Or that the related nouns don't keep them? Thanks. Marius Hancu Marius Hancu > Any idea why > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > are practically not used? Maybe I am misunderstanding your question, but "the writing out of the specifications" seems perfectly normal to me, although perhaps not quite something that would come up during a normal conversation. The second one, however, sounds very odd. SignatureRob Bannister > > "writing OUT of the specifications" > > or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > specifications" seems perfectly normal to me, although perhaps not quite > something that would come up during a normal conversation. Well, indeed, it seems normal to me, especially after all the discussion in this thread:-) However, why this discrepancy in usage: Google hits: 215 for "writing of the specifications" 0 "writing out of the specifications" Thanks. Marius Hancu >>>"writing OUT of the specifications" >>>or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 215 for "writing of the specifications" > 0 "writing out of the specifications" Because the "writing out" has an implication of copying out something already written. "Setting out" might get more hits. SignatureRob Bannister >> > "writing OUT of the specifications" >> > or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 215 for "writing of the specifications" > 0 "writing out of the specifications" What Google finds is often not very representative of general usage. You asked about a very similar usage (write out some music) back in November. Much of what was said in that thread would be relevant to this: http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.usage.english/browse_thread/thread/29742b6 91ed2b350 SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > Creation apart, the writing of a symphony is physically arduous. Every > second of playing time involved WRITING OUT, note by note, the parts > of up two dozens instruments .... > > Ian McEwan, Amsterdam, p. 24 [...] > write out > > 1 : to put in writing <wrote out the Greek alphabet -- Joseph Gaer>; > especially : to put into a full and complete written form : make a > full record or statement of in writing <the book in which he wrote out > his plots -- Peter Forster> "Full and complete" are the relevant words in the music example. A composer might instead write a more condensed version, like a piano score for an orchestral work, or just guitar chord notation for a pop song. I'm not sure I agree with the McEwan quote. In the old days, composers had a lot of tricks to avoid having to write every single note by hand. They would employ a copyist, or write "simile" when the same accompaniment was to be repeated. No doubt there were also cases where somebody else did the orchestration -- as with Gershwin, for example. This is the normal procedure in Hollywood as well. Also, 24 instruments playing different parts at the same time is a bit of a stretch -- it could happen in Richard Strauss, perhaps. But anyway, should we feel so sorry for composers? I just finished reading a novel by Trollope that was nearly 800 pages. In the same year, he also published another work of the same size, and one shorter one. Not to mention essays, short stories, and doubtless hundreds of letters. I'm sure he wrote down every word himself (unlike Victor Hugo and Dumas père). So I'm not going to worry about Beethoven, or whoever, getting writer's cramp. "Write down", when it doesn't mean just the same thing as "write", carries the suggestion of actually writing as opposed to just thinking -- "You should write down your dreams when you wake up in the morning if you want to remember them." Or you could tell your amanuensis, "Write this down for posterity, Boswell." > > Creation apart, the writing of a symphony is physically arduous. Every > > second of playing time involved WRITING OUT, note by note, the parts [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > might instead write a more condensed version, like a piano score for an > orchestral work, or just guitar chord notation for a pop song. Thus, for a reduced version, you'd use "write," not "write out?" > "Write down", when it doesn't mean just the same thing as "write", carries > the suggestion of actually writing as opposed to just thinking -- "You > should write down your dreams when you wake up in the morning if you want to > remember them." Or you could tell your amanuensis, "Write this down for > posterity, Boswell." Thank you for the "amanuensis," great word:-) Thanks. Marius Hancu >> "Write down", when it doesn't mean just the same thing as "write", >> carries the suggestion of actually writing as opposed to just [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thank you for the "amanuensis," great word:-) Yeah, but was she a callipygian amanuensis? SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> "Write down", when it doesn't mean just the same thing as "write", >>> carries the suggestion of actually writing as opposed to just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yeah, but was she a callipygian amanuensis? Not Boswell, he was more like priapian. >> > Creation apart, the writing of a symphony is physically arduous. Every >> > second of playing time involved WRITING OUT, note by note, the parts [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Thus, for a reduced version, you'd use "write," not "write out?" I think you can usually get away with that. "Out" would be needed where you want to emphasize the contrast, as in the McEwan quote. >> second of playing time involved WRITING OUT, note by note, the parts >> of up two dozens instruments .... > >Also, 24 instruments playing different parts at the same time is a bit of a >stretch -- it could happen in Richard Strauss, perhaps. You can easily have 24 instrumental parts: five strings, double woodwind except bassoon makes seven, plus piccolo, a good helping of brass - say three trumpets, three horns, two trombones, tuba, timps and percussion. Doesn't need to be Strauss, though I admit you wouldn't quite make it in Bach (where, on the other hand you may need six oboes of three different sorts). Of course, for 40 singers all singing different parts at the same time, there are now four major published works to my knowledge. I wouldn't want to have to write them out. Katy K. Edgcombe <ke10@cus.cam.ac.uk> had it: > Of course, for 40 singers all singing different parts at the same time, there > are now four major published works to my knowledge. I wouldn't want to have to > write them out. Ah, thanks for the prompt. The mass performance of Spem In Alium in which I participated along with about 700 other people will be broadcast by BBC4 on Saturday 9th December. Look out for me! SignatureDavid ===== > K. Edgcombe <ke10@cus.cam.ac.uk> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > which I participated along with about 700 other people will be > broadcast by BBC4 on Saturday 9th December. Look out for me! Which part are you singing? (Or should we recognize your voice from your accent alone?). SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > > K. Edgcombe <ke10@cus.cam.ac.uk> had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Which part are you singing? (Or should we recognize your voice from your > accent alone?). Choir 3, Bass. We were asked to decorate our music folders - mine says "JUST 50" in a red octagon (like a Stop sign). Looking from the conductor's POV, I was about half way back in the stalls, in the centre block against the aisle. We had to reverse the normal use of the Bridgewater Hall - the choirs were in the audience seats and the audience sat on the stage. SignatureDavid ===== > Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the Bridgewater Hall - the choirs were in the audience seats and the > audience sat on the stage. Oh, then it's TV. (Of course it is. BBC4, not BBC Radio 4. I should have noticed that.) Alas, there's no way to watch that stateside, as far as I know. (We get all the radio services via the Internet of course. Thanks for that, all you licence payers in the UK! Oh, and taxpayers, too, since I believe the Foreign Office pays the Internet freight at least for the World Service.) SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > Oh, then it's TV. (Of course it is. BBC4, not BBC Radio 4. I should have > noticed that.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > licence payers in the UK! Oh, and taxpayers, too, since I believe the > Foreign Office pays the Internet freight at least for the World Service.) Ah, I had wondered how you planned to watch it. I may capture the video for posterity and the curious. The World Service is entirely funded from general taxation. SignatureDavid ===== > Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The World Service is entirely funded from general taxation. Indeed it is. I should have written what I meant. I think we have here a rare example of a sentence whose meaning can be repaired by inserting a comma: "...pays the Internet freight, at least for the World Service". I think (though I can't remember for certain) they may fund sending the other BBC radio services overseas via the Internet, too. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >> The World Service is entirely funded from general taxation. > >Indeed it is. I should have written what I meant. Good grief, man, no! AUE wouldn't be what it is today if people wrote what they meant. SignatureBrad Germolene >>> The World Service is entirely funded from general taxation. >> >>Indeed it is. I should have written what I meant. > > Good grief, man, no! AUE wouldn't be what it is today if people wrote > what they meant. And the problem you'd have with that would be... ? SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>> The World Service is entirely funded from general taxation. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >And the problem you'd have with that would be... ? Actually, that's not what I meant. SignatureBrad Germolene >>> second of playing time involved WRITING OUT, note by note, the parts >>> of up two dozens instruments .... >> >>Also, 24 instruments playing different parts at the same time is a bit of >>a stretch -- it could happen in Richard Strauss, perhaps. Well, yes, frequently there will be some doubling of lines at any given moment, but that ordinarily changes phrase by phrase and indeed almost moment by moment, so for the piece as a whole you really do get 24 different parts for 24 instruments as quite the normal thing. > You can easily have 24 instrumental parts: five strings, double woodwind > except bassoon makes seven, plus piccolo, a good helping of brass - say > three trumpets, three horns, two trombones, tuba, timps and percussion. Three horns is very uncommon (they normally come in pairs so you have either two or four -- or if you are Strauss possibly six or eight or Gott-allein-weiss-wieviel, some of them possibly doubling on tuben; Beethoven's third symphony is a notable exception with its three [count 'em, three] horns). Two trombones is also a bit oddball (unlike the horns, they normally _do_ come in threes). But see below for a very standard arrangement with precisely 24 parts. > Doesn't need to be Strauss, Indeed, there are exactly 24 parts in the more-or-less standard full orchestra (Ger: grosses Orchester) in its near-minimal configuration -- i.e. without any extra players for piccolo, English horn [BrE cor anglais], contrabassoon, tuba, percussion other than timp, harp, odd-sized clarinets, etc. This is the scoring that becomes standard in the first half of the 19th century (e.g. middle-period Beethoven, Schumann, Mendelssohn). The normal 24 parts are: Flute I and II Oboe I and II Clarinet I and II Bassoon I and II Horns I II III and IV Trumpets I II and II Alto, Tenor and Bass Trombone (or three tenor trombones in French scores). Timpani (one player) Violin I and II Viola Cello Bass You could cut it down to as few as 21 parts by dropping third and fourth horn and third trumpet. If you drop the trombones, by definition you no longer have a full orchestra, but a chamber orchestra (kleines Orchester). > though I admit you wouldn't quite make it in > Bach (where, on the other hand you may need six oboes of three different > sorts). Indeed, some Bach gets you both!: both more than 24 parts _and_ your six oboes of three different sizes. I count 25 independent parts in the opening chorus of the Matthew Passion: Two orchestras with 2 flutes, 2 oboes, strings and continuo each makes 8 x 2 = 16 parts for instruments. Double SATB chorus plus "Soprano in ripieno" (kiddy-choir on the chorale _cantus firmus_) makes 9 parts for voices. Total: 25. Then in subsequent movements you get your pairs of oboes d'amore and oboes da caccia (playable by the same players as the ordinary oboe I and II), vocal soloists (to the extent that theses are distinct from the choral parts, which remains _sub judice_), not to mention the odd lute (original version) or viola da gamba (Bach's revised version: one player serving in both orchestras version; apparently the player also played second flute in the original performances -- I don't know many who could do that doubling nowadays!). Have I left anybody out? Glad I never had to recruit performers for all that -- just playing the gamba obligatos is plenty enough work for me! SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > I count 25 independent parts in the opening chorus of the Matthew Passion: > > Two orchestras with 2 flutes, 2 oboes, strings and continuo each makes 8 x 2 > = 16 parts for instruments. I'm sure there's a bassoon in there, and we usually include a portative organ. Are these in your continuo? Although I don't remember double continuo. SignatureDavid ===== > Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > portative organ. Are these in your continuo? Although I don't > remember double continuo. The organ and the orchestral bassi are all playing (not necessarily all the time) from the lines marked "Organo e continuo" in my score. There are different continuo lines for orchestra I and orchestra II. I flipped through the score looking for an explicit mention of bassoon and didn't find one -- which of course does not preclude its use in the tuttis and/or when the oboes are playing. Unless I've missed or forgotten something, however, the only instruments that are singled out in the continuo department are the pizzicato cello doing a sort of _basse chantante_ elaborating the continuo line for "Ach, Golgotha" and the viola da gamba doubling the continuo line for the aria "Geduld, geduld" (after playing an obbligato part -- acutually a written-out realization of the continuo -- in the preceding accompanied recitative). One might get a different impression looking at Bach's own set of parts or at the NBA edition, which has far more extensive critical notes than my miniature score (Edition Peters, Leipzig, 1967 revision of Georg Schumann's edition of 1929). Or, indeed, one could -- and should! -- look at the now-classic book-length study of "Bach's Continuo Group" (1987) by Larry Dreyfus. The notes of this Peters edition do mention a surviving harpsichord part (for the choruses and arias of choir II) and the fact that the continuo for the Evangelist appears only in the organ part of choir I. The editor (Schumann) does mention being influenced (or, rather, being renforced in his own views on Bach's continuo scoring) by Arnold Schering's opinions on the scoring of Bach's Leipzig church music, which viewed the organ as Bach's essential continuo instrument for this music and the harpsichord in church as something of an interloper. Hey, I had to spend my compulorily purchased East-German marks on something! And it's actually quite a good score, hardbound, that cost me all of the equivalent of about two dollars American at the rate of exchange prevailing in 1985. Handy to carry around, it gives me something to read while sitting in rehearsal waiting to play "Komm, süßes Kreutz". SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >I count 25 independent parts in the opening chorus of the Matthew Passion: Well, of course, I did consider the St Matthew, but I thought that would be cheating. And I don't think the original posting concerned the chorus-and-orchestra combination, which very readliy gets above 24. Katy K. Edgcombe <ke10@cus.cam.ac.uk> had it: > >I count 25 independent parts in the opening chorus of the Matthew Passion: > > Well, of course, I did consider the St Matthew, but I thought that would be > cheating. And I don't think the original posting concerned the > chorus-and-orchestra combination, which very readliy gets above 24. Mahler 8 has 21 separate woodwind parts, 17 brass, 4 keyboards, and 8 string parts including mandolin and 2 harps. That's about 50 separate instrumental lines before you add percussion, chorus and soloists. Then there's Havergal Brian, whose First Symphony is simply gigantic with about 66 separate parts before counting 20-odd percussion and vast assemblies of choirs. http://hbsociety.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/sym1.htm: 2 piccolos (1 also flute), 6 flutes (1 also alto flute), 6 oboes (1 also oboe d?amore, 1 also bass oboe), 2 cors anglais, 2 Eb clarinets (1 also Bb clarinet), 4 Bb clarinets, 2 basset horns, 2 bass clarinets, contrabass clarinet, 3 bassoons, 2 contrabassoons, 8 horns, 2 Eb cornets, 4 trumpets in F, bass trumpet, 3 tenor trombones, bass trombone, contrabass trombone, 2 euphoniums, 2 tubas, 2 sets (min 3 [in practice 4] drums) timpani, 2 harps, organ, celesta, min 18 percussion: glockenspiel, xylophone, 2 bass drums, 3 side drums, long drum, 2 tambourines, 6 pairs cymbals, gong, thunder machine [not thunder sheet], tubular bells, chimes, chains, 2 triangles, birdscare; strings. SignatureDavid ===== > K. Edgcombe <ke10@cus.cam.ac.uk> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > thunder machine [not thunder sheet], tubular bells, chimes, > chains, 2 triangles, birdscare; strings. Wot no ophicleide? SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > > Then there's Havergal Brian, whose First Symphony is simply gigantic with > > about 66 separate parts before counting 20-odd percussion and vast [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Wot no ophicleide? There wasn't room in the hall. The only recent recording I know of this work was made in Eastern Europe by Naxos, because the cost of staging it in Britain or Germany would be prohibitive. Just like our Spem in Alium recording, the hall had to be reversed with the performers arranged around the auditorium. SignatureDavid ===== > Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > There wasn't room in the hall. In the hall, heck! One wonders where he found manuscript paper with enough lines. > The only recent recording I know of this work was made in Eastern > Europe by Naxos, because the cost of staging it in Britain or Germany > would be prohibitive. Just like our Spem in Alium recording, the > hall had to be reversed with the performers arranged around the > auditorium. Well, one wouldn't really expect an ophicleide, but I do note with interest the presence of some brass-band instruments (E-flat cornet, euphoniums) and the absence of tuben (Wagner tubas). It also occurs to me that I never before had occasion to think about what the plural of "cor anglais" might be. (AmE "English horns", of course.) By the way, AmLowBrassE also seems to have the forms "a tuben", "four tubens" (consisting of two tenor tubens and two bass tubens or four double tubens). Or so I am told. Must be a consequence of the same linguistic process that gave us "agendas". SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > > The only recent recording I know of this work was made in Eastern > > Europe by Naxos, because the cost of staging it in Britain or Germany [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the presence of some brass-band instruments (E-flat cornet, euphoniums) and > the absence of tuben (Wagner tubas). And there's no theremin, neither. > It also occurs to me that I never before had occasion to think about what > the plural of "cor anglais" might be. (AmE "English horns", of course.) Yes, I had to look at that twice. SignatureDavid ===== >> Well, one wouldn't really expect an ophicleide, but I do note with interest >> the presence of some brass-band instruments (E-flat cornet, euphoniums) and >> the absence of tuben (Wagner tubas). > >And there's no theremin, neither. It's the serpent that I miss. Once performed with one (along with various other west-gallery-type instruments) and was delighted to hear about their international convention. I think there were 90 of them, all with serpents. Katy K. Edgcombe <ke10@cus.cam.ac.uk> had it: > >> Well, one wouldn't really expect an ophicleide, but I do note with interest > >> the presence of some brass-band instruments (E-flat cornet, euphoniums) and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > other west-gallery-type instruments) and was delighted to hear about their > international convention. I think there were 90 of them, all with serpents. That sounds a bit scary. I've never seen more than two in the same place. SignatureDavid ===== > K. Edgcombe <ke10@cus.cam.ac.uk> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That sounds a bit scary. I've never seen more than two in the same > place. The West Gallery Music Association annual meeting that I went to a few years back not only had a couple of serpents, but the anaconda (contrabass serpent -- twice the size!) showed up as well. Talk about yer scary! And assorted trombone and valve-trombone like bass instruments, some of them homemade. (I don't _think_ there was an ophicleide. But if you love the serpent you've got to love the ophicleide as well, when well played.) One advisedly says "_the_ anaconda", by the way -- at last count, I think there was only one in the kingdom; indeed, on the planet. My impression is, however, that the commonest bass instrument historically for W. Gallery-style psalmody was the cello, followed by the bassoon, and then the serpent in a rather distant third place. As so often happens, reality comes up somewhat lacking in its quaintness quotient. Of course we are talking about pre-Heckel models of bassoon, so there's still some salvageable quantity of quaintness there, I reckon. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > The West Gallery Music Association annual meeting that I went to a few years > back not only had a couple of serpents, but the anaconda (contrabass [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > One advisedly says "_the_ anaconda", by the way -- at last count, I think > there was only one in the kingdom; indeed, on the planet. There's something which might be the anaconda on this page: http://www.fanfare-piston.org/rubriques/repertoire/souba.php along with some other splendid superbasso stuff. Bass saxophones are also pretty terrifying. > My impression is, however, that the commonest bass instrument historically > for W. Gallery-style psalmody was the cello, followed by the bassoon, and > then the serpent in a rather distant third place. As so often happens, > reality comes up somewhat lacking in its quaintness quotient. I've been playing the trombone for fun, so I could probably manage a serpent. I wonder if there's any on Ebay. > Of course we are talking about pre-Heckel models of bassoon, so there's > still some salvageable quantity of quaintness there, I reckon. I know - they're dead scary, they are. Only three or four keys and you still have to be able to play all the notes. I would have to hope that everything was in F. I've always fancied playing the racket, but it's such an impractical thing. Maybe I'll build one when I retire - the Early Music Shop in Leeds has kits (they once let me play a contrabass recorder which was taller than me). SignatureDavid ===== > Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: >> One advisedly says "_the_ anaconda", by the way -- at last count, I think >> there was only one in the kingdom; indeed, on the planet. > > There's something which might be the anaconda on this page: > http://www.fanfare-piston.org/rubriques/repertoire/souba.php Yes, that looks like him. I should have said "only one in the wild" (a 20th-century built instrument). There's a captive antique one (the only such known) kept at the collection of the University of Edinborough. Pictures and audio online here: http://www.music.ed.ac.uk/euchmi/ujt/ujt2929.html But it turns out I was just plain _wrongity wrongity wrong_ about the number of modern ones. There are now no fewer than half a dozen anacondas in the known universe, although a couple of the modern ones are built in unconventional materials and/or shapes. Pix of all six here: http://www.serpentwebsite.com/CBS_gallery.htm > I've always fancied playing the racket, but it's such an impractical > thing. Go for it! I don't know why you'd think it impractical... > Maybe I'll build one when I retire - the Early Music Shop in > Leeds has kits Bradford, innit? (I guess that's just outside Leeds proper.) I have a Hermann Bächle bass gamba from them that I absolutely adore, purchased about 30 years ago. I've never actually set foot in the shop, though I subesequently have met Richard Wood, who sold it to me, at instrument shows in London and in the US. I also got to meet the maker at his home and workshop near Nürnberg in Germany, about 10 years after I bought the instrument. It was a bit of good luck, finding that instrument. I had had an instrument stolen and the Early Music Shop was virtually the only shop on the planet that had viols available for immediate delivery when I got my insurance settlement. They shipped it over by air and I had to pursuade a friend to drive me in a blizzard (fortunately, he was Canadian) in another friend's car to the airport in Boston (Massachusetts) to collect it. Another stroke of good luck was that the customs inspector that they pretty much dragged out of bed to deal with it (who collects shipments from the airport in a blizzard, after all!) had played violin professionally before losing the use of a couple of fingers in an industrial accident in WW II -- so he proved very sympathetic and helpful, making sure we got it in under the lowest applicable rate of dute and generally adding his good wishes to the already congratulatory atmosphere. (On unpacking it, I had played a few notes of the first Bach sonata on this pig-in-a-poke that I had bought, and my friend -- an accomplished pianist -- said merely, "You did good". And so I had.) SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > > I've always fancied playing the racket, but it's such an impractical > > thing. > > Go for it! I don't know why you'd think it impractical... I'd need to find some friends - it would not be terribly good as a solo instrument. A baroque recorder ensemble, perhaps. > > Maybe I'll build one when I retire - the Early Music Shop in > > Leeds has kits > > Bradford, innit? (I guess that's just outside Leeds proper.) Oops, yes, Bradford. A proud and distinct city - 10 miles separates the two city centres. SignatureDavid ===== > Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'd need to find some friends - it would not be terribly good as a > solo instrument. A baroque recorder ensemble, perhaps. If you build it, they will come. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.