I mention page 43 because It seems to encapsulate most of the perceived 'problems' in Pittoni and, with the link from the previous phrase, does suggest that he well understood the implications of the low second course when he choose to do so; especially note that here he isn't too 'lazy' to get the 'correct' register. As said, rather like with the contemporary guitar, the 'Old Ones' (or at least some Italians) didn't seem obsessed with always continuing a line in the same octave and may, as with other instrumental music, have positively liked it as a compositional effect. Regarding just ONE theorbo: I very much agree that there are different sizes: principally related to single or double reentrant and to usage (solo or basso continuo use) and some variation due to local pitch. The previous discussions were principally about the size of instruments used by accomplished/professional musicians for continuo work for which the large theorbo (perhaps with only 8 tied frets) is necessary. MH
Jerzy Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martyn, Indeed, the Liste archives give ample exemples the 'Pittoni case' is an unsolved problem. Of course you know, the problem is not only on page 43, but on almost every page of this interesting from several points of view publication. I've played in concert one of the sonatas and have a score of it, and now I've examined the whole volume again. There are several types of scalic passages. The ones before cadences with lips of a seventh presents no problem at all, they are idiomatic to any instrument of the time. But there are many others which are broken around the second course. Some are explicable by common practice of braking passages, say, like in transcriptions from one medium to another - eg. JS Bach's own converting traverso flute part to a flauto dolce part in one [or more] of his cantata, or many adaptations of violin music to a traverso flute in the XVIIIth C. But some others seems less hit home and it's either Pittoni's laziness to get the 'proper' tone on the 3rd c. in high position or he had the second in octave. In this case a matter of 'taste' in evaluation is inevitable... On the other hand Pittoni is a virtuoso and he knows well the very 'tiorbistic' campanella devises and is using them readily, often high, using the 1st, the 3rd and the 4th c. (but I spoted also campanella with 2nd). Sometime the campanellas are just neighbouring with the 'spoiled' scalic passages ...In fact almost any possible situation you can finde on the 44 + 40 pages of quite dense music. There is no point for citations, it would have to be a long paper including a fair number of statistics - not for a mailing liste. I do not have an easy answer but I feel the second course in octave would greatly _pacify_ most situations, at the same time not creating a bright conflict in passing from the 1st to the 2nd c. As to the sonic qualities of the so called 'toy theorbo', as I sad, it would be a sort of 'big baroque lute' (a tone lower), nothing, really nothing strange. Besides, I have some other observation on music of the time and lutenists/theorbists position within, which may add life to the concept. How much of such solo music survived? - you know, very little. And why? Becouse virtuosos might play anything at hand, including the violin music. Having an instrument in A with 2nd c. with the high octave - well, a hipothetical instrument - one can play straight from the violin part, it will just sound and octave lower, without any transposition. The same of course may concern an archlute players. Look for example at Maurizio Cazzati, ''Correnti, e balletti per sonare nella spinetta, leuto, o tiorba; overo violino, e violone, col secondo violino a beneplacito '' opera XXX, Bologna 1662. Obviously, only string parts in music notation exists. Italians on the list may help, but for now I understand it as if Cazzati created his pieces for 'spinetta, leuto, o tiorba', which now one can play them on bowed strings, too. Worth to bring back at this point is the Harrah/Spencer MS with Italian anon. archlute concerti notated in treble (solos) or bass (continuo) clef on one staff, or SL Weiss able to play 'violin concerti straight from their notation' (Baron). Anyway, the exchange of repertoire seems to me almost axiomatic at the time. No need to publish it in tablature. The less paper and transmission techniques, the better. In the end they were improvising much more then we now. Perhaps then, there is no just ONE 'theorbo'? Thanks for yours and Others attention to this longish epistle, Jurek _______________ On 2008-02-04, at 10:51, Martyn Hodgson wrote: > Thank you Jerzy. > > I take it you're referring to the hypothesis that the occasional > leap in a scalic passage played on the 2nd and 3rd course of a > double reentrant theorbo (say, as found in Pittoni 1669, eg last > bar page 43 in da Chiesa volume) might possibly suggest there could > have been octave stringing on the 2nd course. Pttoni writes for a > theorbo in A. > > As you'll probably know, this was discussed some time ago (see > archives) and no concencus seemed to emerge as to wether one just > accepted this whenever it occurred or wether he did indeed employ a > high octave on the 2nd (or some other device? eg putting a low > octave on the 3rd!). You'll not be surprised that I fall into the > first camp and my and others views will be found in the archives. > But in short, as with similar 'discontinuities' in much baroque > guitar music, I believe that the 'Old Ones' weren't over concerned > about these occasional leaps (indeed, contemporary music for other > instruments, eg Corelli, sometimes employs wide leaps as a > compositional effect). The important thing for me (and this is, of > course, subjective) is that there is a clear sense of the melodic > and of the bass line and I find that with the firmer thumb stroke > on the bass line and/or allied with the continuo Pittoni calls for > (organo or clavicembalo) there is no real sense of any strange > harmonic inversion. > > The bar on page 43 also illustrates another problem: if one accepts > an octave on the 2nd, where does it all end? - since here the > scalic passage, both ascending and descending, crosses all three > top courses: there has to be a discontinuity somewhere; wether it > be between the 2nd and 3rd or 1st and 2nd. Note also that at the > beginning of this bar he completes the previous ascending phrase on > the same course (3rd at fret 7) and then plays the same note on > course 2 (fret1) to start the next short phrase. This, I suggest, > shows he made a concious choice to start the next phrase at the > lower octave - in short double reentrant. > > Personally, I rather like the octave leap at the end of the > bar.................... > > MH > > > > > Jerzy Zak wrote: > Martyn, > > All this is very persuasive, but what about the story of a double re- > entrant instrument with double strings and the second course in > octaves, in G or A? > > From my sketchy calculations it appeares it must be an instrument of > about 74 cm (stopped), considering on one side the breaking point of > the high octave of the second (the _e'_) and the musical quality of > the 6th (or 7th) course. As a theorbo it's a toy instrument, useless > (?), but in therms of say a baroque d-m lute, with which it shares > the tessitura, it is a huge one. In this case such a theorbo would > have the 5th and the 6th (+ the 7th?) in octaves as well. > > Someone said that already. > > Gratefull for comments, > Jurek > ______________ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --------------------------------- Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good --
