IMSLP Forums

I'm working on typesetting Francesco Araja's Sinfonia, and the viola part has this clef change, which to me seems to be a change from alto clef (which the rest of the part is in) to bass clef, then back to alto clef at the end of the line:



It's on page 11, line 7 of the manuscript scan PDF.

But when I play this back it sounds very wrong, which is making me think I must be misunderstanding what's happening here. Any ideas?


On a tangential topic, there's an arpeggio section in the second violin part:



I rendered this out into an arpeggio like this to emulate what was happening with the first violin:



Does that seem like a reasonable interpretation?

noktulo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 12:50 am I'm working on typesetting Francesco Araja's Sinfonia, and the viola part has this clef change, which to me seems to be a change from alto clef (which the rest of the part is in) to bass clef, then back to alto clef at the end of the line:
It's on page 11, line 7 of the manuscript scan PDF.

But when I play this back it sounds very wrong, which is making me think I must be misunderstanding what's happening here. Any ideas?

I believe it is a pencil addition but we have to visit this library to know.

Interesting. It doesn't sound right without the clef change either. I wonder if because those notes sounded wrong someone was taking a guess as to whether a clef change was meant to be there?

Does anybody know how to reach this "S-Skma" library? If we are in luck this score is in grayscale or color and Fynnjamin has monochromized it. Then we could see if it is a pencil addition.

The templates for that library appear to be needing a refresh, but I located the catalogue entry:

https://sok.statensmusikverk.se/Record/ ... d=13416770

See the images beginning at page 26 in the PDF linked from that page.

I also suspect the clef changes (to bass clef and back to alto clef) are penciled in. Not sure why that is...

If I'm reading the parts correctly, if there is no clef change at all, then the viola and basso parts are playing an octave apart in that section. So, if you omit any clef change there, do the parts look/sound correct?

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see that you had already tried ignoring the clef change, and that it didn't sound right...

One idea I just had that might explain the clef change (assuming it is penciled in): Perhaps the change to bass clef was meant as a hint for the viola to briefly (for 1.5 measures) play in unison with the basso. The assumption might have been that it would be easy enough to mentally transpose down a whole step while reading in bass clef for a short amount of time, and the bass clef was a sufficient cue to the player to do this transposition.

Edit2: But I have just realized this would not be playable on a viola, since a G2 and A2 would have to be played... I still think it's possible this was the idea though, maybe to play in unison with the basso when possible.

noktulo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 12:50 am On a tangential topic, there's an arpeggio section in the second violin part:

My interpretation:

Compare editions of https://imslp.org/wiki/Violin_Partita_N ... Sebastian) Ciaccona meas. 91 etc.

or see the end of https://imslp.org/wiki/Chaconne_in_G_mi ... o_Antonio)