Jorge Torres
Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:40:27 -0800
Nice work Rob: Your post reminded me of an old article by Michael Lowe entitled: "Renaissance and Baroque Lutes: A False Dichotomy," in Proceedings of the International Lute Symposium Utrecht 1986, eds. Lous Peter Grijp and Willem Mook, Utrecht 1988, pp. 124-139. In this article, Lowe makes it pretty clear that the relationship between old Renaissance and d-minor tunings are slight, and that if you take French lutes in old tuning with a hight A for a first course, and compare it to one of the transitional tunings, G c f ab c' eb, and transpose it to a lute with a high A, as was common in France at the time, you get A d g bb d' f', which is pretty darn close to d minor tuning for the top six courses: (from 6th to 1st course) A d g bb d' f' (Transitional tuning #10) A d f a d' f' (d-minor tuning) Best, Jorge On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Rob wrote: > All this talk of string pitches and tensions is getting me > confused, so I > thought I'd take a look at how things might have developed. As you > will see, > I am still confused. Comments welcome. > > > > For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume A = 440, and > let's assume > the strings are all-gut. > > > > Renaissance tuning and Dm tuning (treble to bass): > > > > g d a f c g f e d c - Renaissance > > f d a f d a g f e d c - 'dm' > > > > .hmm, they don't line up as well as I had hoped, but you can see that > although the first course is a tone lower, all the courses from the > fifth > downwards are actually a tone or semitone higher, mostly a whole tone > higher. So, far from lowering the pitch for a more relaxed > resonance, the > whole instrument is MUCH tighter, plus there is an extra course at the > bottom. > > > > If we keep the pitch of the fifth course downwards the same as > Renaissance > tuning, the treble strings must come down further: > > > > g d a f c g f e d c - Renaissance > > eb c g eb c g f e d c (Bb) - 'dm' (actually cm) > > > > This eb and c for the first two courses was used in the harp-flat > tuning, a > transitional tuning (it had no other changes from Renaissance > tuning). There > is little point in listing all the transitional tunings - I believe > there > were over 30! Now, this would make some sense if people like > Perrine notated > the first string as eb, but they called it f. Whether they were at > 440 or > 392 should not affect the pitch name. If we tune to the first > string (A 440) from G to F and put on a heavier string in order to > keep the same > tension we had on a 9 or 10c lute in Renaissance tuning, the > overall tension > will leap up because of all those bass courses (14 individual > strings!) > which have been tuned up a tone. Tuning at 415 would have all the > basses > rise a semitone, again increasing the overall tension. > > > > Many French baroque specialists (though not all) prefer A = 392, so- > called > French Opera Pitch, which is a misleading name - it is unlikely to > have been > used only in the opera houses. By tuning to 'cm' (at 440) on the > first six > courses, the basses would be the same as for a 10c (with the > addition of an > 11th course) and the pitch would be very low on the trebles. An eb > for the > first course is very close to the d of the second course (Renaissance > tuning). I have to admit mind-meltdown when we introduce string length > variables, string material variables, bridge hole diameters.not to > mention > thumb in or out, on the bridge, close to the bridge, near the rose! > > > > Now, I've been experimenting a little with pitch on my 69cms 11c. > With a .44 > at 40N at A=400, it sounded really nice. But, those damn basses just > wouldn't settle. Martin told me he chose the tensions for tuning at > 415, but > by the time I picked up the lute they had settled to a comfortable > 400. So I > thought that maybe the basses were unhappy because they should have > been at > 415. So I tuned the whole instrument to 415, and promptly went > through four > first strings (!) within three days. The basses sounded better, > though! So I > lowered the pitch to 400 (still broke a first-course) and finally > to 392. > I'm going to be playing with a harpsichordist who insists on 392, > so I'd > better get used to it (Resistance is futile! You must comply!). I'm > even > contemplating using nylgut! I haven't yet settled on the correct > tensions > for this pitch, and it may take a bit more experimentation before > I'm happy. > The problem is strings are so damned expensive. I happen to like > the low > pitch of 392 and would like to find a way to make it work. Still > confused. > Playing at 415 with nylgut (Rolf Lislevand does so, I believe) is a > world > away from 392 with gut, almost a different instrument. Haven't yet > heard > nylgut at 392. > > > > Questions: when did the French start to use mainly 392 (I know it > wouldn't > have been 'universal' in France)? Was it the influence of the lute > players > tuning down to cm but thinking dm? Was this why they still used the > 10c for > accompanying singers (not the usual reason, that they couldn't > figure out > the chords in dm tuning!)? Did they tune their theorbos at 392? > Etc. Playing > a theorbo in A but pitched at 392 can be useful - for a French baroque > ensemble, think in Am fingering, when playing Italian ensemble > repertoire at > 440 think in Gm fingering.Now I'm rambling. > > > > Rob > > > > www.rmguitar.info > > > > > > > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Jorge Torres Associate Professor of Music 237 Williams Center Lafayette College Easton, PA 18042 (610)330-5365 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ::::::::::::::::::::::::: --