Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Fitzwilliam Sonatas

Fitzwilliam Sonatas[edit]

The Handel Fitzwilliam sonatas (1-3) were edited by Thurston Dart. He also realized the figured bass.

The Bach partita BWV 997 was transcribed from the keyboard text by G. Mueller and W, Berndsen. The keyboard version will be found in the keyboard lute directory tracks 10-13

The harpsichord was lent by Lutz Bungart

Handel's Fitzwilliam Sonata 2

The second one

Handel's Fitzwilliam Sonata 3

The third one

This is a series of high-quality recordings of a sonata set by one of the great composers, performed well by Alex Murray (flute) and Martha Goldstein (harpsichord). These files are put to good use illustrating the George Frideric Handel article, and I ~~am about to create an article on the sonatas themselves, which will - of course - also include these~~ created the Fitzwilliam Sonatas article, which also included these. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds good. Nice technique. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality. I played the harpsichord part on piano a few years ago so I'm familiar with the piece. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I own this recording, Frans Brüggen plays No. III. Furioso from HWV 367a (No. 3, 5:30 here). He plays the recorder and the sound is more lively. Here is a part of recording of HWV 377 and HWV 367a played by Frode Thorsen, recorder again, for comparison. The difference in interpretation is apparent. I like more the sound of recorder in this composition, but I'll support also the Alex Murray's version, it's professional and the sound quality is sufficent for Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Dendodge, is it possible to add the titles of movements of Fitzwilliam Sonatas to the article? --Vejvančický (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "titles"? The names of the works are already in there, but I wasn't aware the movements had titles too (I'm more familiar with more modern music, TBH). Where can I find said titles? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see.. No problem, I'll try to add the movements by myself. --Vejvančický (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (weakly). This recording, made in the early 1970s, is badly out of date, though I have to concede I do not know what Wikipedia's standards about such things may be. Technically it is fairly clean (Alex Murray misses a few notes, especially in the first movement of "No. 2"), but the style is anachronistic to Handel and the overall character is rather affected and mincing. This is not my chief objection to these recordings, however. Rather, it is to promoting the now long-discredited 1948 edition by Thurston Dart, who broke the single D minor sonata into two unequal pieces, using the last two of its seven movements (reversed in order) as the first two of his "Sonata No. 2", and adding an unrelated minuet at the end. (See the revisions I have just made to the new Fitzwilliam Sonatas article.) There is in fact a third "Fitzwilliam" sonata, not included here or in Dart's edition. It is in G major, HWV 358, and there is dispute about the intended instrument. Terence Best tentatively assigns it to the violin in the Hallische Händel-Ausgabe (iv/18, 3), though the range is peculiar for Handel's violin writing and editions for recorder have been published both by Klaus Hofmann (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1974) and Winfried Michel (2nd ed., Münster: Mieroprint, 1992), that work best on an alto in G rather than the usual F instrument. The problem with using these recordings as illustrations is that so much of the two articles' content will necessarily have to explain why the sound files do not correspond to facts which are by now extremely well-established.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input - you're obviously far more knowledgeable than me. I don't, however, see how a '70s recording can be considered "out of date" when the work was arranged in '48 (we have FSs recorded on wax cylinders - surely they're even more out of date). The missing of notes is something I did not notice - well done for spotting it. Surely Dart's arrangement was anachronistic to Handel, so this performance should get away with being equally so. We are not attempting to promote Dart's arrangement, simply depict it, and I wasn't aware of the 4th sonata - please, feel free to add a mention of it to the article. (Thanks for your contributions to the article, BTW). In what way do the recordings not correspond to the facts? They seem to show the arrangement quite well (to an uneducated pleb like me). If you have a better version, under a suitable licence, please upload it and nominate it - I think these sonatas deserve representation as featured sounds, simply for their EV. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See the related discussion also here --Vejvančický (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dendodge. You should understand that, in the HIP (or "Early Music Performance") world, ten years is a long time. When Alex Murray and Martha Goldstein made that recording, the truth about these sonatas had not yet surfaced, or was only in the process of surfacing. It is true enough to the Dart arrangement, and in terms of performance practice is a lot closer to 1948 than to 1975. So, if the subject really is Dart's arrangement, then I agree this recording suits admirably. The problem is that so much water has flowed under the bridge in the last thirty (or sixty) years that we are today less likely to accept such editorial interference in matters Handelian. FWIW, I should mention in Dart's favor that he was amongst the first to recognize the correct relationship between the manuscript "Fitzwilliam" Oboe Sonata, HWV 357, and its corruption as a violin sonata in Walsh's op. 1 collection. As to the "fourth" sonata, it was published by Hofmann as "Fitzwilliam Sonata No. 3" (with the B-flat major as no. 1 and the complete D minor as no. 2), and this is complicated by the publication of at least three other "Fitzwilliam" sonatas by various editors (who did not assign numbers) in subsequent years. (See the discussion mentioned by Vejvančický.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is really interesting to observe the changes in interpretation. I´ve checked a lot of recordings of the Fitzwilliam Sonatas on internet and I´ve also found again my tapes and CD´s with Händel´s recorder music (I didn´t know before, that the cycle is called F. S.!) The modern interpretations are more free, sometimes almost improvisational, "jazz-like", with colourful ornamentation. On the other hand, I know the recording of Händel´s Oboe Concerto in G minor, HWV 287 from 1955, with the Czech Philharmonic and Václav Talich, and it´s also very good, even though absolutely out of date. I like historically informed interpretations of baroque music, but I think, it´s possible to award also the older versions. They´re an important evidence of musical development. The facts must be clarified. This is a good example. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted all X clamation point 00:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]