Quite so. The idea that curved violin bows were ever actually conceived as early as the Baroque is as absurd as is the notion of any evidence for such a thing...

As is clear here, there is no "as you well know" about it. Perhaps you might care to consult the following (inter alia), not omitting to take in par. 3...

http://www.baroquemusic.org/barvlnbo.html

Baz

But the critics, who reject the 'curved bow' idea, do not clarify upon what scientific criteria they (merely) pronounce that a depth of 10cm is, or would have been, "necessary". The bows clearly shown in the woodcut (together with the manner in which they are being handled) indicates that the hair tension is variable. Neither is anything said by them about the stringing (including tension) of Baroque violins, or the ways in which the strings on these early instruments were aligned with respect to each other (i.e. in comparison with later instruments). They also reject - even on the basis of this woodcut - that with a slackened hair tension the bow curve (and therefore flexibility this provides) was in any way intended to permit the playing of chords.

I think the boot is really on the other foot here.

Baz

FWIW, the last photo on the page cited looks seriously implausible to me! Not a fiddlist, but I would be terrified of losing control completely with a bend like that!

Indeed! This is where Musicology stops, and mere 'creativity' begins. That 'photo is clearly of a modern instrument (high-tension strings, distinctly curved bridge, long fingerboard angled away from the instrument to support the high tension). But early instruments were not like this: the gut strings were not tensioned so greatly, the fingerboard was shorter, and the geometry of the instrument meant that the strings (because the shorter fingerboard was aligned with the instrument rather than angled downwards) required less 'attack' from the bow to produce clean and clear sounds. Bows of less tension (than modern ones) produced clean notes (rather like they had always done on the Viol).

It was the Italians who - because of their relentless 'showpiece' Sonatas - increased the length and tension of their bows. This caught on, and soon even the French (whose bows had always been shorter than those in Italy) started to copy them.

Baz

This is a silly piece of misconceived nonsense! It is known that Baroque keyboardists tended to use the middle three fingers in playing scales (i.e. by regularly crossing the 2nd finger with the 3rd). But the presumption that they ever used "only the middle three fingers" is rubbish (especially since there is hardly a Baroque keyboard piece in existence that does not somewhere require 6ths, 7ths and octaves to be played with a single hand.


Yes - but just because the piece in question has recently (only) been challenged as inauthentic Bach, the substantive point is not thereby diminished. We could choose from a range of other pieces - such as (say) the 'great' Organ Prelude and Fugue in A Minor. Had that been chosen instead, nobody could have argued with it!

It may not 'have' to be - and with regard to those who do not therefore 'expect' it to be performances that do not are perfectly acceptable. But this is not the point is it? If, by chance, it had originally been intended for the bass theme to flow continuously without such arpeggiations, then we should give the matter some serious consideration should we not?


This is not a convincing argument Ollie. There is nothing in the notation to indicate that the performance was intended to sustain the lower notes right through rather than cut them short as a normal means of articulating the upbeat in the next bar. Even were the notes initially sounded simultaneously, only a player of total perversity would fail to do that! The issue remains ONLY one of deciding whether the initial sounding of the chords (hence therefore throughout) should be effected simultaneously instead of being 'spread'.

Baz

No time to contribute to this at the moment - just would like to throw in the notion that gut string set-ups were not necessarily low tension.  Violins are built quite differently from gambas, with structure and reinforcements that allow for much higher tension.  If you've ever tried to play, say, the Monteverdi Vespers single strings in a cavernous acoustic similar to San Marco, you'd know you need a high-tension instrument and a very taut bow to produce a sound that will cut through the swimminess.

I know polyphonic solo violin writing came later, but the later composer/players were dealing with an instrument they knew from that basic set-up.

I could go on but I've got stuff to do...

Oh ok just one more thing about creating a flowing bass theme under broken or arpeggiated chords - not at all impossible, just difficult.  Harpsichordists do it all the time, of course, and arguably have a harder time of it seeing as they're playing a percussion instrument (more so than a violin anyway).  Doesn't seem to bother most people listening.  Maybe it's just a matter of getting used to it.

More later.

Metal strings mounted upon an instrument with angled fingerboard and high bridge tuned to A440 must (surely) have a greater tension than gut strings mounted upon an instrument with a parallel fingerboard and lower bridge tuned to A415. Indeed was not the purpose of changing the design to the former specification (from the latter) a result of a desire to generate a larger sound? Presumably also the greater tension arising from a longer, more concave bow was designed to enhance this bigger sound (and dynamic range) by creating a greater attack.

Obviously the creation of a flowing bass under essentially arpeggiated chords is possible, but the point is one of deciding whether this was the original intention. If it was not (though it may well have been) then presumably only 'specialist' players using original equipment and playing techniques could hope to give a proper realization of this intention.

Baz