Talk:Trio sonata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

trio sonata with two parts?[edit]

"A further innovation of Bach was the creation of what are strictly trio sonatas, involving a concertante (obligato) harpsichord part and one melodic instrument, thus for two players." -- Then what is the third part? And what is meant by "strictly"? I'm not familiar with the construction of a harpsichord, but I think that unlike an organ, it does not have a foot pedal. (I'm totally out of my depth here, just came looking for an explanation.)

Also, "The trio sonatas by Arcangelo Corelli (opus I, 1681, opus III, 1689) set an inspiring example." This sounds like opinion, should be rewritten.

Milkunderwood (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In keyboard texture, one line is customarily given to the right hand, and another to the left. It is of course possible to incorporate three, four, five, or more voices into a part for one keyboard player, but the essential element here is that the harpsichord is most commonly found in trio sonatas as a continuo instrument only. As such, it plays from a figured bass, and represents therefore only one of the three lines of music defining the composition as a "trio". In Bach's trios with obligato harpsichord, one line is assigned to a melody instrument (violin, flute viola da gamba), a second line is written out for the right hand of the harpsichordist, and the third line (as usual) is played by the left hand. Bach also composed trio sonatas for organ alone, in which the two upper lines are played on the manual by the two hands, and the bass is given to the pedals. Your point about the Corelli is well-taken, and should either be cited to a source, or rewritten.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Musical Form[edit]

The article notes that the Trio Sonata is a "musical form", but does not describe its formal structure. If there is no standard formal structure, perhaps it should instead be linked to "musical genre" or another article about common instrumentations? 108.212.227.57 (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. There is a normal four-movement slow-fast-slow-fast formal structure to trio sonatas (and some common variants, such as the Corellian five-movement design), which ought to be mentioned but is not. I shall see what I can do to rectify this shortcoming.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Re. "established Harvar citation format, per WP:CITEVAR"[edit]

Re. "established Harvar citation format, per WP:CITEVAR; ..." ([1]):

  1. The citation format (not Harv.) was established by this edit which contained the first citation added to the article.
  2. Considering various parentheses used in the article, e.g.:
    • Not being references: "... (Opus 1, 1681, Opus 3, 1689) ..." – "... (BWV 525–530)," – "... (BWV 1014–1019)," – "... (BWV 1027–1029)," – "... (BWV 1030–1032; BWV 1031 is doubtful)." – "... (BWV 1039)," – "... (BuxWV 266 and 271)," – " (BuxWV 270, fragmentary),"
    • Harv. references: "... (Talbot 2001)." – "... (Bach 1740-1760)." – "... (Dürr and Kobayashi 1998, 466)." – "... (Hofmann 2006)."
    • Succession of both types: "... (BuxWV 267) (Snyder 2001)."
I'd say that for this article overriding the established CITEVAR style, i.e. footnoted references, was a bad choice.

Anyhow, I'll undo the WP:CITEVAR change and go back to the originally established citation style. As it was nicely put in the edit summary of the diff given above: "please discuss any suggested changes of format on the Talk page and obtain consensus before making such arbitrary changes". --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect: the Harvard citation format was esteblished with this edit, which contained the first citation added to the article, on 16 May 2011. As for the non-citation parentheses, this can easily be addressed without changing the citation format.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
No, the above diff doesn't establish a citation format: at the time there wasn't a single {{harv}} reference in the article – these only started appearing after I had introduced a footnoted reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Further, re. "this can easily be addressed without changing the citation format", and still easier with keeping to the established footnoted CITEVAR format. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Rubbish. The Harvard citation is there in 2011. All you have to do is look at it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Now I see (maybe present a diff in a more usual format next time). Still, no {{harv}} format at the time (as I said), and footnoted references still the easiest way to avoid multiple parentheses typology (no "rubbish"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we may be on different planets here. The presence or absence of a particular template does not define a formatting style. You may not believe it, but Harvard formatting is even used in printed paper books and journals, where such templates are meaningless. The established format is (Harvard) parenthetical referencing, not footnotes, a referencing style that has gotten along quite happily in this article for more than five years now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"... inspiring slavish imitation ..."[edit]

The expression "... inspiring slavish imitation ..." seems like an appreciation of the author (i.e. Talbot 2001). Such interpretive claims need more context (not necessarily putting Corelli above whoever followed in his footsteps) and/or more reliable sources that say the same, or at least in-text attribution "according to Michael Talbot Corelli's trio sonatas inspired slavish imitation". Especially while the next composer mentioned, Bach, was all but a slavish imitator of Corelli's models. Personally I'd simply remove the "slavish imitation" expression from that sentece. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say (nor can I imagine Talbot saying) that Corelli's trio sonatas inspire nothing but slavish imitation. Still, I agree that this lacks some necessary context, and should probably be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)