Talk:Fitzwilliam Sonatas

Can we talk?

Editor User:Shoemaker's Holiday has just added a very understandable "clarify" query, which I think suggests that the editors currently working on this article need to have a pow-wow. This article started out being about Thurston Dart's Fitzwilliam Sonatas, and has quickly run into the confusion and contradiction caused by the fact that Dart shortened Handel's D minor sonata to five movements, and created a third sonata out of the remaining two movements (in reverse order) plus an unrelated movement, with a double composed by Dart himself. I am on the verge of adding that there is yet another "Fitzwilliam" Sonata—the one in G major—that has been published (twice) as "Fitzwilliam Sonata no. 3" for recorder and continuo (though it is the earliest of the three by several years at least), not to mention other publications as "Violin Sonata in G Major". Before I do so, however, I would like some input from other active editors. It seem to me that the article ought to be based on the sonatas as Handel wrote them (three unrelated sonatas, composed over a span of as much as twenty years), rather than the 1948 arrangement of two of them by Dart, divided into three—though of course that arrangement needs not only to be mentioned, but described in some detail. What do you think?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Terence Best doesn´t mention the Sonata in G Major, HWV 358 as a part of Fitzwilliam Sonata in the last urtext of Händel´s recorder and violin sonatas. The solo part of HWV 358 never goes below g´, which is a full octave above the lowest note of the violin, and the distortion of the melodic line in the bar 24 of the first movement suggests a need to avoid f ♯. These were the main reasons why Klaus Hofmann decided that the work was intended for the recoder (an instrument with a limited range). However, the bar 33 of the last movement contains four unusually high notes, which supports the idea, that the sonata was intended perhaps for some kind of violino piccolo, with the g´ as the lowest note. It is of course possible and even necessary to clarify that fact in the article, if you say, that it "has been published (twice) as "Fitzwilliam Sonata no. 3" for recorder and continuo", and you can add also published sources. It is, unfortunately, not mentioned in my sources. Thank you for the expert input. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My sources:

• Händel, Georg Friderich (2003). Complete Sonatas for Recorder and Basso continuo. Kassel: Bärenreiter. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) BA 4259, ISMN M-006-52192-0
• Händel, Georg Friderich (2002). Complete Sonatas for Violin and Basso continuo. Kassel: Bärenreiter. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) BA 4226, ISMN M-006-44628-5

--Vejvančický (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the phrase "Fitzwilliam Sonatas" referred only to Dart's mangling arrangement and re-composition of Handel's work. If that's untrue, let's work on it, but everything I've read about them speaks only of Dart's arrangement. Densock|Dendodge^{in public} 12:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. I think a lot of editors of Handel compositions have entered into the mix and are understandably confused. It almost sounds like there should be a Recorder Sonatas (Handel) article which would list out in detail the eight pieces and then there could be a section on the Fitzwilliam arrangements of HWV 358 and HWV 367a into three sonatas? How important are Dart's arrangements? Was the article started because the sound files were in the commons? DavidRF (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That was one reason, but I figured that this set of arrangements is notable enough, and enough material is available, for its own article. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To get back to Vejvančický's questions, I don't think that Terence Best uses the expression "Fitzwilliam Sonatas" at all, except when referring to Dart's 1948 edition. You are absolutely right about the lower pitch limit of HWV 358, cited by Hofmann in his edition. I don't find his reference to the evasion of high F#, but I do see his suggestion that it could have been intended for a recorder in G, rather than the usual instrument in F. This would render the high-F# problem moot, since that is a good note on a G alto (a comparatively rare instrument, to be sure, but more common in Italy and Germany than in England—and the paper Handel used for that sonata dates from his Italian journeys in 1707–09). The high notes at the end of the third movement are problematic, not least for the fact that, as they stand, they do not agree with the harmonies dictated by the figured bass. In the manuscript, there is an abrupt change of clef at that point, and Hofmann speculates that Handel moved the pitches by the right degree, but in the wrong direction. His suggested correction places the notes within easy reach of an alto in G, but still very difficult for an alto in F. The violino piccolo argument is possible, though that instrument was often written as a transposing part, rather than at sounding pitch.

Besides the Hofmann and Michel editions, both including HWV 358, there is also Sonate en sol majeur pour flûte à bec alto et basse continue (Fitzwilliam MS 261), transcription Jean-Claude Veilhan, réalisation de la basse, Danièle Salzer (Paris: Alphonse Leduc, 1990).There are actually several other Handel sonatas in the Fitzwilliam collection (not a single manuscript, BTW), and some of these have also been published with the rubric "Fitzwilliam Sonata" attached. Specifically, HWV 364a, published as Fitzwilliam Violin Sonata in G minor, edited by Robert Illing (Adelaide: Robert Illing, 1982); HWV 357, the Oboe Sonata in B-flat major (found arranged for violin in the op. 1 publication), published as part of Three Authentic Sonatas for Oboe & Basso Continuo: in F, opus 1 no. 5; B flat, "Fitzwilliam"; c, opus 1 no. 8, edited by David Lasocki ([London]: Nova Music, 1975). Three more sonatas have so far escaped this label, but are also found in manuscripts in the Fitzwilliam collection. They are HWV 359a, the great D minor Violin Sonata; HWV 403, a Trio Sonata in C major for two violins and continuo; and the fragmentary HWV 406, published in a modern edition as Fantasia and Sonata for violin and basso continuo in A major .

Finally, you are very welcome. I am always happy to put my expertise (such as it is) at your disposal.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It´s clear now. More than half of the violin/recorder sonatas by Händel is today stored in the Fitzwilliam collection, and they are often published with the rubric "Fitzwilliam". Is it better to create the redirect or rename the article to Recorder sonatas (Händel) and add the missing sonatas, as DavidRF suggests? This is the only article dealing with Händel´s recorder sonatas, I think. The analysis by Jerome Kohl perfectly corresponds to my sources, thanks for your clarification. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have by now extensively revised this article to include all of the sonatas that have been published under the rubric "Fitzwilliam". Since these include one sonata for oboe and two for violin (one of disputed instrumentation, the other with an authorized alternate version for viola da gamba), it does not seem reasonable to redirect or rename to an article about Händel's recorder sonatas. It would be possible to create an entirely new article on the six (or seven) recorder sonatas, in which case a link to this article should be provided, of course.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Fitzwilliam Sonatas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321090807/http://gfhandel.org:80/faqs.htm to http://gfhandel.org/faqs.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223082116/http://gfhandel.org:80/301to400.htm to http://gfhandel.org/301to400.htm#HWV377
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223082116/http://gfhandel.org:80/301to400.htm to http://gfhandel.org/301to400.htm#HWV367a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311032941/http://gfhandel.org:80/401to558.htm to http://gfhandel.org/401to558.htm#HWV409
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311032941/http://gfhandel.org:80/401to558.htm to http://gfhandel.org/401to558.htm#HWV462
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223082116/http://gfhandel.org:80/301to400.htm to http://gfhandel.org/301to400.htm#HWV377
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130024748/http://gfhandel.org:80/1to42.htm to http://gfhandel.org/1to42.htm#HWV20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223082111/http://gfhandel.org:80/201to300.htm to http://gfhandel.org/201to300.htm#HWV292
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223082116/http://gfhandel.org:80/301to400.htm to http://gfhandel.org/301to400.htm#HWV361

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)