OpenScore: should I use two staves for the Continuo?
(Attached score is still work in progress)
As suggested in https://musescore.org/en/user/57401/blog/2017/06/20/openscore-first-edi… (Point 4) I've chosen for continuo as both violincello and harpsichord.
But to have a result similar to the original score: it's useful/allowed (by the conditions of Openscore) to deselect "visible" one instrument of continuo via the instrument dialogue?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| ChristeEleison.mscz | 55.55 KB |
Comments
Hi kuwitt,
If you split the Continuo into two staves they should be named "Violoncello" and "Cembalo", not both named "Continuo".
If you keep them on a single stave then it should be named "Continuo" to match the PDF.
The reason I asked for two staves is (a) it allows you to extract two separate parts, and (b) you get the sound of both instruments during playback. However, it seems a shame to waste that space just to have two staves which are practically identical. Your proposal seems like a good one, so I will change my recommendation to this:
Step 1: Please include only the Continuo stave in your transcription. When creating this stave it should use the Cembalo/keyboard instrument and corresponding Mixer sound, but it should be named "Continuo". Submit your score like this.
Step 2: I will then create a new stave for the Violincello/stringed instrument and copy the Continuo notes (minus figured bass) to this stave. I will make this stave invisible.
You can do step 2 yourself if you like, but it is not required. If you do I will probably delete it anyway and do it again myself just to make sure the staves are identical.
Thanks!
I would say that if you are including a continuo realization, it should be marked "realization", and either in a small staff or hidden -- if you are contributing to Open Score, then the continuo realization is not Bach's but yours. Note that when Bach writes "continuo" on a staff, he means the bass-playing instruments as well as the left-hand of the continuo organist or harpsichordist. See examples under my account (https://musescore.com/user/1831606) of Bach arias and choruses following my advice. I'm not an OpenScore admin, but saying what I do and would want to see or not see. I'd like to hear the Open Score advice as to whether continuo realizations are admissible or wanted.
The score you included doesn't have a realization at all -- that's not what "harpsichord continuo" means. You simply have a harpsichord left-hand with no right hand, implementing a multi-instrument bassline , falling in the category of "hidden instruments used to achieve a sound", which should not be in a visible score. Yes, I'd like to hear the Open Score theory on continuo realizations....
In reply to I would say that if you are… by [DELETED] 1831606
Do you mean something similar as in the attached score (and I'm sure this "realization" won't be exactly match with the notated figured bass and it isn't cleaned up ;-)?
I'm not really familiar with figured bass (my knowledge about it is only from various internet resources, not more). So a realzation would contain to many risks of errors and yes and as you mentioned, maybe it wouldn't be Bach's anymore.
But also without interpreting the figured bass - for me personally (also regarding Openscore projects) it sounds quite better for playback to double the instrument of continuo instead of using only one of them (either violincello or cembalo/harpsichord).
In reply to Do you mean something… by kuwitt
Yes, exactly (except the "Violoncello" (not "violincello") staff should be hidden. Look at Bach's score). There are occasional errors in your realization (parallel 5ths, incorrectly resolved dissonances, etc.), but that is indeed exactly the idea. I would brace the two staves, and the correct (IMO) label is "continuo", not "cembalo", harpsichord, or whatever. You might be interested in my continuo "manual" here, https://musescore.com/user/1831606/scores/1745621 , but the question of what is the Open Score attitude toward continuo and realizations awaits definition.
The issue of realizations highlights a larger issue of using posted MuseScore scores as a reference library/"store", i.e., conflict between the goals of the score representing the composer's unadulterated work and emulating a credible, fully-realized performance. This is also relevant to "colla parte" tracks, expected non-notated ornamentation, hidden tracks representing details MuseScore cannot represent or execute unaided, piano-editor phrasing and hidden artistic tempo control, patching over bugs (e.g., ornaments on tied notes, unison collisions), etc.
In reply to Yes, exactly. There are… by [DELETED] 1831606
> BSG: if you are contributing to Open Score, then the continuo realization is not Bach's but yours.
Indeed, there shouldn't be any realization of continuo/figured base in OpenScore editions (unless the source edition contained a realization). Maybe someday MuseScore will be able to generate a default realization during playback, but the notes will not be explicitly written in the score.
> kuwitt: it sounds quite better for playback to double the instrument of continuo instead of using only one of them (either violincello or cembalo/harpsichord).
The continuo instrument will be doubled in the OpenScore edition, with the keyboard instrument simply playing the same notes as the stringed instrument. There will be no realization of the figured bass. The keyboard instrument's staff will be visible and labelled "Continuo". The stringed instrument's staff will be invisible and labelled with the name of the stringed instrument.
> BSG: the correct (IMO) label is "continuo", not "cembalo", harpsichord, or whatever.
In your opinion, would this apply even if using separate staves for the stringed instrument and the keyboard instrument?
@BSG, thanks very much for your manual of continuo realization!
In reply to > BSG: if you are… by shoogle
In my opinion, it should look as much as the reference edition (e.g., for Bach, Bachgesellschaft, or NBA, although that's copyrighted). Either shows ONE continuo staff, with figures, labelled "Continuo." Baroque manuscripts of Bach and other composers are identical. Harpsichord/organ, contrabass or cello, as well as realization, are performance artifacts, not score artifacts. The score should show what the composer wrote, and that's one staff, with figures, labelled "Continuo" (or sometimes "Continuo + <other instruments>)".
This problem, as I said, is also acute when the composer writes that a single staff is to be played by Violin 1, Oboe1, and Flute 1 (etc.), i.e., "colla parte", which is something MuseScore grievously lacks. I would say reference scores in "Open Score" should resemble the library edition/composer's manuscript as much as possible.
In reply to In my opinion, it should… by [DELETED] 1831606
I also would not put much effort/hope in automatic continuo realization. While figured bass is unquestionably an automatic composition tool of the Baroque, too much intelligence and insight are still required, esp. with respect to omitted figures, omitted accidentals, and other inconsistencies, for this to be of sufficient quality to be musically effective, or even "correct".