Introduction

​

I would like to set up this presentation by stating the three areas of personal experience from which I have drawn to elaborate the thoughts set out herein: my own years as a student in Italy, Holland, London and Berlin; as an active performer on both early and modern bass instruments; and as an instructor, currently teaching double bass at the “A. Stradivari” Institute, in Cremona, Italy.

​

​

A Few Common Problems

​

In considering the aims of a “historically informed” performance practice course, it becomes suddenly very clear to me the importance, in today's musical ecology, of establishing a fluid continuity right from the beginning of studies between the various instruments, cultivating the ability to switch from one to another instead of encouraging compartmentalization or offering isolated “one-off” experiences (i.e. masterclasses, brief stages, etc.). I can remember myself the frustration at the disjointed nature of my activities when, after having graduated in “modern” instrument studies and beginning to perform with professional modern orchestras, I commenced early music studies and historical performance practice. This new interest and concurrent research begged a re-thinking of the instrumental approach and resulted in a fracture from my previous methods, speaking both of the physical instrument itself and the repertoire.

​

What remains very clear to my mind from those experiences as student and practitioner, are several dichotomies which I had to labour hard to overcome: the sharply-enforced separation of early instruments and modern ones, Baroque/Classical and Romantic/Modern repertoires; of modern and historical bows; of terms such as violone, double bass, bass viol, etc.; Viennese tuning and others; of, more abstractly, the “modern” habit of playing only one particular instrument/bow versus the idea of having to change instruments, bows, tunings and type of strings according to repertoire. And that is all without mentioning attitudes toward interpretive styles, repertoire switching, and more.

Notably, this “switching” is something that rather distinguishes the study and practice of our instrument, common to few others: the privilege of playing several different media, but studying just one—the bass. With regard to this, I recall an interview with Duncan McTier in a very old issue of “The Strad” magazine, where he declared:

​

If there’s any possibility that someone might say, “that sounds pretty amazing on the bass, but it’s so much better on the original instrument” - I won’t do it...

​

This is exactly the attitude I am referring to as potentially useful to performers: specialization on the various bass instruments according to the repertoire they were historically used for—simply that!

​

Undoubtedly, there are difficulties that students encounter when switching from a merely “modern” approach, meaning an attitude not historically informed, to period performance practice. Especially a young or inexperienced student who strongly perceives the “early vs. modern” dichotomy might become stuck in routines of modern playing that make the switch complicated. She or he may encounter several dissonances: for instance, the strikingly different idea of virtuosity. I recall lessons with a former teacher, Maggie Urquhart, at The Hague: I had been previously trained exclusively on modern technique and she continually pushed me to look for a different kind of 'mastery': one more musical, expressive, less technical and acrobatic, whereas hopefully one might not exclude the others...

​

Furthermore, there are numerous clichés about historical performance practice, particularly concerning the Baroque period, which can result in mechanical playing if not well-applied or taken with a grain of salt. I refer to ideas such as the use of messa di voce or the conviction that a step-

wise scale should be played mostly with long notes (even in orchestral passages) while a broken scale with short ones; or the use of vibrato, with the erroneous myths of either not using any at all or its automatic employment so rooted into the approach of many modern players... In actuality, many of these precepts do not often apply to the bass and almost never to the double bass: instead, they tend to lead to an awkward and graceless way of playing, unsuitable for orchestral and chamber music settings alike. Leading bassist Chi-Chi Nwanoku, for example, embodies a well-applied style, endorsing a very precise idea about when and where to use vibrato and despising the «... automatic vibrato which has virtually usurped all expression and versatility...».

 

In terms of early repertoires, intonation can also result in much confusion, primarily because modern instrumentalists are used to playing with a fixed pitch, usually quite sharp and bright, and we as a discipline have lost the practice of and sensitivity to different temperaments or pitches (the A that is not always 440 or 442, but moves, depending on the repertoire, between 390, 415, 430, 440, 465, etc...). Particularly for bass instruments, intonation is never really fixed, but rather “harmonic”, as I like to call it: each note adopts a different function and therefore a different colour and pitch, depending on the chord and harmony in which it is played. It is important to explain and have the students experience this with the instrument, in group sessions, to clarify and avoid confusion.

​

I have also observed closures in some “modern” colleagues towards early printed editions and facsimiles. However, if what we aim for is the deepest familiarity possible with a score, this is probably best achieved with an experience as close as possible to the original one! I must say also that in my experience as a teacher, I have seen my students quite curious and enthusiastic about facsimiles of early étude books, scores and parts: these have stimulated their curiosity and inspired them to ask unexpected questions and to raise doubts that lead to new information. 

​

​

Some Strategies and Solutions

​

Having personally experienced some of these issues and seen them affect students, I have been searching for possible solutions and strategies to avoid the negative consequences of these dichotomies in the study and performance of modern and original instruments.

​

Firstly, I would suggest that a crossover of repertoires may be a very effective way to proceed. This is not a recommendation to sweepingly connect any given repertoire to any instrument, but rather to leave open and encourage avenues of experimentation such as playing late music on early instruments or earlier music on modern ones. In the former case, there does already exist a body of contemporary music that has been conceived for performing on gut strings and earlier set-ups. In fact, there are several ties between early and contemporary music: the repertoires are not yet firmly canonized, so performers often must take a very autonomous, research-based approach, and rather than the prevailing oral apprenticeship style of assimilating standard repertoire, they go to direct sources like the composer and the ürtext for notational clues; the notation itself is often more 'skeletal' than explicit (asking for extemporisation/improvisation, or in is technical demands, such as the indication ponticello, which denotes a position for the bow but not the precise overtones or distortion to be produced, etc.). This sometimes unanticipated pairing could be an effective tool for working on the expressive kind of virtuosity I mentioned previously. In the latter case, using facsimile scores and method books already from the beginning of a student's course of studies would be quite useful. To this end, I have delved into an interesting pedagogic tool: numerous “concert etudes” and concert pieces from the 19th and early 20th centuries, written by French, Italian and German musicians (Hrabe, Negri, Gallignani, Nanny, Marangoni, etc...). This period of composition was a crucial moment for the history of music, as it falls in the middle of early music traditions with original instruments and the modern, post-Romanticist ideas about composing/performing/considering music. These concert pieces demand a modern technique but can be satisfactorily played on gut strings with an early set-up and historical bow. Because of this, one is able to “unpack” the one-track, rigid way of playing both styles that is normally associated with a particular instrument and repertoire.

​

Another personal recollection for me has to do with the use of gut strings with later repertoires: Prof. Thomas Martin, after some lessons with modern instrument, looking for a precise and particular idea of sound for some late 19th century repertoire, confided to me that he went on playing with gut strings (also unwound), even as a Principal Bassist with the London Symphony Orchestra until 1978, because he couldn’t find any other kind of strings as satisfying as those, with any repertoire...

​

With the aim of contributing to a fluid approach to the various bass instruments, I have found it extremely useful to design personalized practice-performance repertoire for students—taking into account students' level, skills and personal tastes. For those who are used to strictly modern playing, it can be particularly helpful to study repertoire in a backwards chronological progression: starting with the better-known double bass literature of the 19t h century and work backwards until the 15th century—this certainly always accompanied by careful reading of treatises as well as other primary and secondary sources. I am fortunate to teach in Cremona in a school that is also renowned for its “International Lutherie School.” Furthermore, I happen to teach, some hours every week, in the school's library: there, it is at times a great help and exciting opportunity for the students (and for me, too!) to have in our reach such an immense resource of books, advices, treatises, drawings, blueprints, etc.

​

A crucial point I would like to make regarding this is the importance of information and theoretical data. We find this missing sometimes in the old methods, which were generally solely oriented to the practical skills of performing rather than a discussion of aesthetic choices or influences. Now, however, contemporary performers must not overlook the history and theory regarding their instrument.

​

With this in mind, it becomes easy to understand the necessity of the libraries, documents and sources which form an essential part of the teaching strategy. It is my opinion that this source-based research, together with several other formative steps, will form a holistic path of study:

​

• Individual lessons: study of solo repertoire, études, orchestra and chamber music excerpts; personalized and customized list of exercises and concert pieces that obliges the student to target his/her limitations, while also enhances the skills and personal strengths (a sort of double-faced Socratic method, based on “irony and maieutics”, to increase both the desire for new information/skills and also confidence).

​

• Chamber music: in mixed-instrument groups as well as within the studio (i.e. duos and trios, with violone solo and double bass playing the continuo line). This activity acquires a special importance when shared with wind players or singers, pushing students to think differently about issues such as the attack and production of notes, the rhetoric of sounds and phrasing, etc... (Another very personal anecdote: the first time I played Mozart’s “Gran Partita” and with all winds present, it made such a strong impact that I still remember it vividly after so many years: a new way of playing, of achieving a blended sound, new dynamics, harmonic sensitivity, and so on).

​

• Performances: once a month an exhibition in front of the full studio, in solo, or bass consort; also, once or twice a year a public exhibition of chamber music compositions studied in collaboration with other studios.

​

• Sectionals: for orchestra repertoire, from Haydn onward; sometimes also with mixed early and modern instruments, using gut or steel strings.

​

• Workshops and seminars on particular themes (please see appendix for some workshop proposals): notably some also led by students themselves after individual study and research. This would consist of speeches, PowerPoint presentations, articles, etc., involving other studios and sometimes connected with short performance-demonstrations to “realize” the theoretical discourse.

​

 

Some History

​

A Brief Overview on the Early Use of the Term “Violone”

​

-- Following this text, please find attached a chart specifying the tuning trends, quotations and direct various sources (authors, theorists, writers, players, composers, etc.) in chronological order showing instruments’ variants and concordances. --

​

The term “violone” now mainly refers to the direct ancestor of the double bass, or to the bass gamba viol that reaches the sub-bass register, whereas historically it has embraced a large variety of meanings. Largely used to denote any size of viol, from the 1530s onwards, Giovanni Francesco Prandi used the term in his treatise of 1606 (“Compendio della Musica”) to mention a low-pitched viola da gamba. However, during the same period and subsequently—in particular in numerous Italian prints dating from 1609 to the 1730s—the term seemed to refer to the early, larger size of bass violin that existed before the invention of wire-wound strings (in the mid-17th century). In certain parts of Italy from 1660 and later on in other countries “violone” was used for the double bass.

​

ITALY

 

In 16th century Italy, the term “violone” was used generically for the entire viol family (see Silvestro Ganassi “Regula Rubertina”, 1542, or Diego Ortiz “Trattado de Glosas”, 1553) that separated the viol family, from the violins. From about 1600 on “violone” had come to indicate the large bass viol.

 

Adriano Banchieri (“Conclusioni nel Suono dell’Organo”, 1609) referred to the “violone da gamba”, which was tuned at G’-C-F-A-d-g (a 5th below the normal six-string bass viol) and to a larger instrument, “violone del contra-basso”, tuned D’-G’-C’-E-A-d.

 

The bass part of Caterina Assandra’s motet “O Salutaris Hodie” (“Mottetti”, op. 2, Milan, 1609) calls for “violone” as stringed bass, meaning probably the early, larger form of the bass violin, as opposed to Banchieri’s “violone da gamba”.

​

The first known example for the term “violone” to be expressly associated with the violin family is found in Giovanni Ghizzolo’s motet “Quem Terra Pontus” (“Seconda Raccolta de’ Sacri Canti”, Venice, 1624) that says “due canti o tenori con due violini et chitarrone o violone da brazzo”.

 

Some confusion in terminology persisted into the early 18th century; the “Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca” (Florence, 4/1729) defined the violone as a “large viol which is also called «bass viol» and, when of smaller size, «violoncello»”.

​

GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES

 

Michael Praetorius, who cited Italian sources (including Agazzari) in “Syntagma Musicum” (2/1619), illustrated in “Theatrum Instrumentorum” (1620) a five-string “Gross Contra-Bas-Geige” (pl. V) and a six-string “Violon, Gross Viol-de Gamba Basz” (pl. VI), both fretted and tuned in 4ths; the length of the latter has been estimated at 114 cm and the smaller instrument at 80 cm. He also referred to the “Bas-Geig da Bracio”, later known as “violoncello”. To avoid any confusion he stressed the distinction between Violonistam (bass player) and Violinistam (violin player).

 

Heinrich Schütz (“Musicalische Exequiem”, 1636) referred to the violone, or Gross Bassgeige, as the “most convenient, agreeable and best instrument to go with the concertato voice with the accompaniment of a quiet organ”.

​

Several German authorities of the late 17th century and the early 18th give tunings that correspond with the Italian. The earliest known instructions for the instrument are by Johann Jacob Prinner (“Musicalischer Schlissl”, 1677) with the tuning of F’-A’-D-F#-B. Georg Falck (“Getreu und gruendliche Anleitung”, 1688), Daniel Speer (“Grundrichtiger ... Unterricht” 2/1697), J. F. B. C. Majer (“Museum Musicum”, 1732) and J. G. Walther (“Musicaliches Lexicon”, 1732) all give the tuning G’-C-F-A-d-g. J. P. Eisel (“Musicus Autodidatticus”, 1738) gave G’-C-F-A-d-g for the “Basse Violon” and, for a larger violone, a tuning one 4th lower. He also mentioned a four-string “violone grosso” tuned in 5ths C’-G’-D-A. T. B. Janovka (“Clavis ad Musicam”, 2/1715) cited the tuning G-A-d-g for the violone and an octave below for the violone grosso. The lower tuning (with E’ as an alternative for the bottom string) is consistent with that given by the Italian Bartolomeo Bismantova (“Compendio Musicale”, 1677).

​

Among the composers who apparently distinguished between the violone and the violone grosso are Heinrich Schütz and Johann Sebastian Bach. Georg Muffat, in the preface to his “Florilegium Secundum”, 1698), stated that the instrument called “contrabasso” in Italy went under the name “violone” in Germany. He distinguished between this and the “Welsches Violoncino” or “Bassetl” (the later cello). Johann Walther expressed a greater of appreciation of the old violone more than the harsher-sounding bass violin (cello); Johann Joachim Quantz, instead, wrote of the so-called “German Violone” with five or six strings which “has justly been abandoned” (“Versuch einer Anweisung die Floete Traversiere zu spielen”, 1752). From Leopold Mozart’s time (1756) the double bass, “commonly known as violone”, usually had four or five strings, sometimes only three. Heinrich Christoph Koch (“Musikalisches Lexikon”, 1802) referred to “violone” in terms of the double bass.

 

Writing in England, both Johann Christoph Pepusch (“Rules, or a short and Complete Method for attaining to Play Thorough a Bass”, c1730) and Peter Prelleur (“The Modern Musick-Master”, 1731) unambiguously identified the violone as the double bass, as did Sebastian Brossard (“Dictionaire de Musique”, 1703) in France, where the term “violone” was not commonly used at that time. 

​

​

​

​

Download the Chart with Tuning Trends

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Download the Entire Course Proposal as a .pdf

​

​

​

​