Talk:Emerson Concerto

Viola
I am sympathetic to the statement that "the 'viola part' to the Sonata movement is not to be played by a viola," but the manuscript evidence is not conclusive. At manuscript page f3950 there is a note, “This copy is just to try to show better the rhythmic position of the viola part (small notes).” I agree the viola is probably better omitted, but the manuscripts have not convinced me Ives didn't want it. Kylegann (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder if anyone who knows could please add any references that support this, as I think it is a contentious statement. I know that there are recordings that *do* include the viola part, including Roberto Szidon's excellent and precise rendering, and it works very well indeed.  This is the first time I have read that it was not intended to be performed - and common sense leads one to wonder why Ives would have written in the part if he hadn't intended it to be performed.  If there is evidence that he didn't intend it, I think it would make this section of the article more informative if this could be included.  If there isn't any real evidence, then perhaps the statement needs to be removed.  If the evidence is itself ambiguous, then that would require further discussion of both the "pro" and "con" sides.


 * What's interesting about the viola part is that, although it's mostly in crotchet triplets, each triplet group begins in between the (non-triplet) crotchets of the piano part (that is where intervening quavers would occur if they appeared at all in the piano part, which they don't). Must be very hard to perform, but it's done with complete accuracy in the Szidon performance I cited above, which I highly recommend for this Sonata generally. M.J.E. (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)