[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Thanks to all who have replied. We seem to have arrived at one bar of galliard = half a bar of pavan, which is certainly is more plausible than the original 'Donington' proposal. However I still have a niggling problem with applying this to Dowland, with whom this discussion started. The prevailing note-length for divisions in his solo lute pavans is four flags. For galliards, the prevailing note-length is three flags. At the suggested tempo relationship, the divisions in the galliard will only be three-quarters as fast as the divisions in the pavan. So the 'faster' dance comes out sounding slower. Can that really be right? Donington isn't the best authority to rely on for these things. You will struggle to find anything about renaissance lute in his book, not surprisingly since he explains (page 91) that the book is mainly about baroque music from Monteverdi to JSB. It was first published in 1963, long before Poulton's Dowland volumes. P On 05/02/2008, Jean-Marie Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no such obvious equivalence really, but keep in mind the equivalence of one breve with two beats (Pavan) and one breve with three beats (Galliard). The augmentation of the number of notes to a beat - three for two - gives the feeling of an acceleration sufficient to differentiate the two dances. At least that's how I usually find my way around in this particular matter and it works fine, even with dancers... Hope it helps ! All the best, Jean-Marie === 05-02-2008 21:: === The same is Jean-Marie reminding and everybody agree to it. The problem appeares which time values of each dance equals. That is in what containes one galliarde beat and one pavane beat. After reading you and looking again to the Arthur's exemples, I should have written: 1 galliard measure (one beat) = 1/2 of a pavan measure (one beat) and in an original mensural notation would be: 3 half notes of a galliard (one beat to a measure) = 1 whole note of a pavan (one beat or half of the measure) Is it correct? Jurek __ 1 galliard measure = 1/4 of a pavan measure. In mensural notation (not modern, often changing values) it might be: 3 half notes of a galliard (one measure) = 1 half note in a pavan (1/4 of a measure). On 2008-02-05, at 17:49, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: Exactly Jerzy. I think that's what theoreticians call tactus inequalis : 1 tactus in a binary measure (= normally a half measure in modern transcriptions ) is equivalent to 1 tactus in triple time ( one measure in modern transcrition). In other words if you beat time with a regular tactus in duple time - hand touching down for each breve duration, as you see in some paintings with singers - , not considering the modern concept of bar, as there were no bars then as you know, and if this tactus remains the same for a triple time measure, it means you keep the same tactus all the time with a clear proportion, so it's quite easy to shift from duple time to triple and back, if necessary. Usually a breve, with two demi- breves, in duple time becomes a breve in triple with three semi- breves to it. Try it and you'll see it works almost all the time ! It works all the time for Pavan-Galliard proportion. So, take care, you have to consider what speed your triple time breve will be like to choose a correct tempo for the Pavan, [and be able to keep it ;-)]... Best, Jean-Marie === 05-02-2008 17:27:26 === On 2008-02-05, at 15:15, Arthur Ness wrote: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/dihtml/divideos.html Thank you, Arthur, Then it is 1 galliard measure = 1/4 of a pavan measure. In mensural notation (not modern, often changing values) it might be: 3 half notes of a galliard (one measure) = 1 half note in a pavan (1/4 of a measure). Forgive improper terminology, if that's important. In art music, that is for playing or listening, those proportions loose sense of course. However there are Lute-Listers better then me in Renaissance theory. Jurek __ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --- Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 05-02-2008 -- Peter Martin Belle Serre La Caulie 81100 Castres France tel: 0033 5 63 35 68 46 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.silvius.co.uk http://absolute81.blogspot.com/ www.myspace.com/sambuca999 www.myspace.com/chuckerbutty --
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Peter, I am afraid this is not correct. I've just took the first manuscript from my shelf with Italian renaissance music without any particular digging for something special and what I can see? This is a facsimile edition of Intabolatura de lauto by Antonio Rotta edited in Venetia 1546. If we turn the title page we have the first piece which is Passamezzo with two flags (crotchets using contemporary system of notation) per bar. The next piece is Gagliarda with three flags per bar (of the same value). If we play both pieces it becomes quite clear that one bar from Passamezzo equals one bar from Gagliarda. So Donnington was right I am afraid ( the citation was from his 1990 edition) and most things we can find in his book are still valid. The whole mess with Pavan - Galliard proportions comes from our modern thinking in uni-proportional system. In multi-proportional system which was commonly used in renaissance this problem wouldn't exist because proportion for this set of dances was very clear and easy; modus imperfectus equals modus perfectus. This is why I said the pulse remains the same only dancers change their steps. All the best Jaroslaw -Original Message- From: Peter Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:18 AM To: lute Subject: [LUTE] Re: Playing in time Thanks to all who have replied. We seem to have arrived at one bar of galliard = half a bar of pavan, which is certainly is more plausible than the original 'Donington' proposal. However I still have a niggling problem with applying this to Dowland, with whom this discussion started. The prevailing note-length for divisions in his solo lute pavans is four flags. For galliards, the prevailing note-length is three flags. At the suggested tempo relationship, the divisions in the galliard will only be three-quarters as fast as the divisions in the pavan. So the 'faster' dance comes out sounding slower. Can that really be right? Donington isn't the best authority to rely on for these things. You will struggle to find anything about renaissance lute in his book, not surprisingly since he explains (page 91) that the book is mainly about baroque music from Monteverdi to JSB. It was first published in 1963, long before Poulton's Dowland volumes. P On 05/02/2008, Jean-Marie Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no such obvious equivalence really, but keep in mind the equivalence of one breve with two beats (Pavan) and one breve with three beats (Galliard). The augmentation of the number of notes to a beat - three for two - gives the feeling of an acceleration sufficient to differentiate the two dances. At least that's how I usually find my way around in this particular matter and it works fine, even with dancers... Hope it helps ! All the best, Jean-Marie === 05-02-2008 21:: === The same is Jean-Marie reminding and everybody agree to it. The problem appeares which time values of each dance equals. That is in what containes one galliarde beat and one pavane beat. After reading you and looking again to the Arthur's exemples, I should have written: 1 galliard measure (one beat) = 1/2 of a pavan measure (one beat) and in an original mensural notation would be: 3 half notes of a galliard (one beat to a measure) = 1 whole note of a pavan (one beat or half of the measure) Is it correct? Jurek __ 1 galliard measure = 1/4 of a pavan measure. In mensural notation (not modern, often changing values) it might be: 3 half notes of a galliard (one measure) = 1 half note in a pavan (1/4 of a measure). On 2008-02-05, at 17:49, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: Exactly Jerzy. I think that's what theoreticians call tactus inequalis : 1 tactus in a binary measure (= normally a half measure in modern transcriptions ) is equivalent to 1 tactus in triple time ( one measure in modern transcrition). In other words if you beat time with a regular tactus in duple time - hand touching down for each breve duration, as you see in some paintings with singers - , not considering the modern concept of bar, as there were no bars then as you know, and if this tactus remains the same for a triple time measure, it means you keep the same tactus all the time with a clear proportion, so it's quite easy to shift from duple time to triple and back, if necessary. Usually a breve, with two demi- breves, in duple time becomes a breve in triple with three semi- breves to it. Try it and you'll see it works almost all the time ! It works all the time for Pavan-Galliard proportion. So, take care, you have to consider what speed your triple time breve will be like to choose a correct tempo for the Pavan, [and be able to keep it ;-)]... Best, Jean-Marie === 05-02-2008 17:27:26 === On 2008-02-05, at 15:15, Arthur Ness wrote: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/dihtml/divideos.html Thank you, Arthur, Then it is
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota
Anthony, and all, I knew I would open up a can of works with these observations. There are many, many possibilities. We do not know if the original lutes were bass lutes, or if they were archlutes, or if they were theorbos, or if they were actually new lutes by Edlinger. The evidence seems to point to them being old renaissance lutes that were converted by Edlinger. It is undetermined, but it appears that if they are from the renaissance, that they are probably Fussen or Bolognese in origin. Edlinger was in very high regard and esteem. When he did the 13 course conversions, he certainly would have made the lutes attractive, as he had great skills. All he would have to do is simply sand the top a little to make all those ugly scratches go away. It makes no sense to go to the trouble to convert and instrument, and then leave the top will multiple scratch marks.. that would be silly. The scratches are from after the conversion. No, all the sets of marks are both make by 13 course players, and they were made after the conversion. The nail like scratches were made using an interesting technique the thumb marks are close to the rose, where the finger marks are made quite a distance towards the bridge, which matches a technique that is evident in paintings, with the thumb sticking out quite sharply towards the neck. No, this was not in any way renaissance technique; as well, the scratches perfectly match the 13 courses that are on the lute now. The evidence of the other technique on that lute also suggests the thumb sticking out sharply towards the neck. Thanks! ed At 11:24 AM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: It is interesting that on the museum page, they say that the Edlinger lutes were once thought to have been by Tieffenbrucker, and then baroqued bt Edlinger, but now it is considered that they were entirely built by Edlinger. http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10213ItalianLute.html http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10214ItalianLute.html However, I can't help wondering whether you are not right in returning to the previous interpretation: the double traces, you mention, could well indicate that this was indeed a Renaissance lute, on which Renaissance traces were left when it was later baroqued by Edlinger, and then after that the Baroque technique traces might have been left. One player played near the bridge, due to smudge dirt marks from the fingers, as well as the thumb. These marks were wide, and seemingly from finger marks. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! It tells me that on this particular instrument, there were more than one player using very different techniques. Ed This sounds very much like a Renaissance technique. In a previous message, I had wondered whether any such Renaissance traces might not exist on a Baroque lute that might have kept its Renaissance sound board. I imagine it would be difficult to analyse these lutes to see how old the soundboards are. Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Jaroslaw, I think it's right ! I have attached two examples : the first strain of the Pavane La Bataille in Phalèse, Chorearum Molliorum, 1583, and the eqivalent first strain of the adjoining Gaillarde. What I tried to explain is apparent here and the tactus inequalis applies perfectly. I was probaly confused and confusing too in my attempt to explain. The Pavan has a regular tactus , one breve down, one breve up. The Gaillard keeps the same breve down,( i.e. 2 semibreves) and the up beat is inequalis, that is unequal, so the hand goes up with one semibreve of the Gaillarde instead of one breve in the Pavan. The interesting point is you keep the same tactus for the down beat, and thus it is very easy to return to duple time and keep a proper equivalence. How this applies to the lute litterature is a quite different story altogether... Actually, the transcriptions from polyphonic music to tablature are not always consistent and you can observe variations in the equivalence adopted between score and tablature. Musical flair and good sense have to come to the rescue I'm afraid... Some will split the dance (Pavan) into half measures, which then become whole measures in the tab, some will stick to the original format... So where do we stand ? That's the critical moment when the structure of the piece has to be thoroughly dismantled and analysed to try and understand the better possible solution, in terms of rhythm, phrasing and, possibly, steps. As for Elizbethan dance movements such as Pavan etc., I think we have to be very careful before deciding if theyhave to be danceable or if they are stylised forms. Both cases coexist in the repertoire, and here again nothing is clearly indicated in the sources. Only a very close analysis and a good dose of musical sense will help you come to an acceptable solution. If you think of Chopin's Waltzes for the piano, you can hear very different versions of them, some more dance like than others. IMHO it may be the same with early baroque dance forms and I put a good deal of the Elizabethan lute music in that category. Best, Jean-Marie === 06-02-2008 12:29:10 === Peter, I am afraid this is not correct. I've just took the first manuscript from my shelf with Italian renaissance music without any particular digging for something special and what I can see? This is a facsimile edition of Intabolatura de lauto by Antonio Rotta edited in Venetia 1546. If we turn the title page we have the first piece which is Passamezzo with two flags (crotchets using contemporary system of notation) per bar. The next piece is Gagliarda with three flags per bar (of the same value). If we play both pieces it becomes quite clear that one bar from Passamezzo equals one bar from Gagliarda. So Donnington was right I am afraid ( the citation was from his 1990 edition) and most things we can find in his book are still valid. The whole mess with Pavan - Galliard proportions comes from our modern thinking in uni-proportional system. In multi-proportional system which was commonly used in renaissance this problem wouldn't exist because proportion for this set of dances was very clear and easy; modus imperfectus equals modus perfectus. This is why I said the pulse remains the same only dancers change their steps. All the best Jaroslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Andrea Damiani on You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qiwVIXdiU4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXCmEE5pzeo -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota
Interesting Ed. It is true that is these are just surface scratches, they could have been erased. As you mentioned a long nail, I though they might be thin but deep. However, it would be rather strange for a nail to mark though the strings right up to the diapasons. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! Do you mean that the scratches near the diapasons might be from a thumb nail? In other words, would the player have had long nails on fingers and thumb? It almost sounds as though the player might have had something attached to his fingers (like some blues players do). You say one lute is 76 cm, the other 81 cm. I assume you are speaking of the total length. Do you have any idea of the actual string length? Sorry not to close the can of worms, but this sort of detail is not so easy to come by. Regards Anthony Le 6 févr. 08 à 12:57, Edward Martin a écrit : Anthony, and all, I knew I would open up a can of works with these observations. There are many, many possibilities. We do not know if the original lutes were bass lutes, or if they were archlutes, or if they were theorbos, or if they were actually new lutes by Edlinger. The evidence seems to point to them being old renaissance lutes that were converted by Edlinger. It is undetermined, but it appears that if they are from the renaissance, that they are probably Fussen or Bolognese in origin. Edlinger was in very high regard and esteem. When he did the 13 course conversions, he certainly would have made the lutes attractive, as he had great skills. All he would have to do is simply sand the top a little to make all those ugly scratches go away. It makes no sense to go to the trouble to convert and instrument, and then leave the top will multiple scratch marks.. that would be silly. The scratches are from after the conversion. No, all the sets of marks are both make by 13 course players, and they were made after the conversion. The nail like scratches were made using an interesting technique the thumb marks are close to the rose, where the finger marks are made quite a distance towards the bridge, which matches a technique that is evident in paintings, with the thumb sticking out quite sharply towards the neck. No, this was not in any way renaissance technique; as well, the scratches perfectly match the 13 courses that are on the lute now. The evidence of the other technique on that lute also suggests the thumb sticking out sharply towards the neck. Thanks! ed At 11:24 AM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: It is interesting that on the museum page, they say that the Edlinger lutes were once thought to have been by Tieffenbrucker, and then baroqued bt Edlinger, but now it is considered that they were entirely built by Edlinger. http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10213ItalianLute.html http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10214ItalianLute.html However, I can't help wondering whether you are not right in returning to the previous interpretation: the double traces, you mention, could well indicate that this was indeed a Renaissance lute, on which Renaissance traces were left when it was later baroqued by Edlinger, and then after that the Baroque technique traces might have been left. One player played near the bridge, due to smudge dirt marks from the fingers, as well as the thumb. These marks were wide, and seemingly from finger marks. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! It tells me that on this particular instrument, there were more than one player using very different techniques. Ed This sounds very much like a Renaissance technique. In a previous message, I had wondered whether any such Renaissance traces might not exist on a Baroque lute that might have kept its Renaissance sound board. I imagine it would be difficult to analyse these lutes to see how old the soundboards are. Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Sorry, Jaroslaw, the list doesn't seem to take attachments... :-( JM === 06-02-2008 13:33:01 === Jaroslaw, I think it's right ! I have attached two examples : the first strain of the Pavane La Bataille in Phalèse, Chorearum Molliorum, 1583, and the eqivalent first strain of the adjoining Gaillarde. What I tried to explain is apparent here and the tactus inequalis applies perfectly. I was probaly confused and confusing too in my attempt to explain. The Pavan has a regular tactus , one breve down, one breve up. The Gaillard keeps the same breve down,( i.e. 2 semibreves) and the up beat is inequalis, that is unequal, so the hand goes up with one semibreve of the Gaillarde instead of one breve in the Pavan. The interesting point is you keep the same tactus for the down beat, and thus it is very easy to return to duple time and keep a proper equivalence. How this applies to the lute litterature is a quite different story altogether... Actually, the transcriptions from polyphonic music to tablature are not always consistent and you can observe variations in the equivalence adopted between score and tablature. Musical flair and good sense have to come to the rescue I'm afraid... Some will split the dance (Pavan) into half measures, which then become whole measures in the tab, some will stick to the original format... So where do we stand ? That's the critical moment when the structure of the piece has to be thoroughly dismantled and analysed to try and understand the better possible solution, in terms of rhythm, phrasing and, possibly, steps. As for Elizbethan dance movements such as Pavan etc., I think we have to be very careful before deciding if theyhave to be danceable or if they are stylised forms. Both cases coexist in the repertoire, and here again nothing is clearly indicated in the sources. Only a very close analysis and a good dose of musical sense will help you come to an acceptable solution. If you think of Chopin's Waltzes for the piano, you can hear very different versions of them, some more dance like than others. IMHO it may be the same with early baroque dance forms and I put a good deal of the Elizabethan lute music in that category. Best, Jean-Marie === 06-02-2008 12:29:10 === Peter, I am afraid this is not correct. I've just took the first manuscript from my shelf with Italian renaissance music without any particular digging for something special and what I can see? This is a facsimile edition of Intabolatura de lauto by Antonio Rotta edited in Venetia 1546. If we turn the title page we have the first piece which is Passamezzo with two flags (crotchets using contemporary system of notation) per bar. The next piece is Gagliarda with three flags per bar (of the same value). If we play both pieces it becomes quite clear that one bar from Passamezzo equals one bar from Gagliarda. So Donnington was right I am afraid ( the citation was from his 1990 edition) and most things we can find in his book are still valid. The whole mess with Pavan - Galliard proportions comes from our modern thinking in uni-proportional system. In multi-proportional system which was commonly used in renaissance this problem wouldn't exist because proportion for this set of dances was very clear and easy; modus imperfectus equals modus perfectus. This is why I said the pulse remains the same only dancers change their steps. All the best Jaroslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --- Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008 N ¶è®ß¶¬+-±ç¥Ëbú+«b¢vÛiÿü0ÁË j»f¢ëayÛ¿Á·?ë^iÙ¢ø§uìa¶i
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota
At 01:40 PM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: Interesting Ed. It is true that is these are just surface scratches, they could have been erased. As you mentioned a long nail, I though they might be thin but deep. However, it would be rather strange for a nail to mark though the strings right up to the diapasons. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! Do you mean that the scratches near the diapasons might be from a thumb nail? Yes. In other words, would the player have had long nails on fingers and thumb? Yes, definitely, for the thumb. It almost sounds as though the player might have had something attached to his fingers (like some blues players do). I doubt that but who knows? You say one lute is 76 cm, the other 81 cm. I assume you are speaking of the total length. Do you have any idea of the actual string length? Those ARE the string lengths. 76 and 81 or 82 cm. HUGE baroque lutes! They would have had to been tuned at a much lower pitch than f at 415. Sorry not to close the can of worms, but this sort of detail is not so easy to come by. Regards Anthony Le 6 févr. 08 à 12:57, Edward Martin a écrit : Anthony, and all, I knew I would open up a can of works with these observations. There are many, many possibilities. We do not know if the original lutes were bass lutes, or if they were archlutes, or if they were theorbos, or if they were actually new lutes by Edlinger. The evidence seems to point to them being old renaissance lutes that were converted by Edlinger. It is undetermined, but it appears that if they are from the renaissance, that they are probably Fussen or Bolognese in origin. Edlinger was in very high regard and esteem. When he did the 13 course conversions, he certainly would have made the lutes attractive, as he had great skills. All he would have to do is simply sand the top a little to make all those ugly scratches go away. It makes no sense to go to the trouble to convert and instrument, and then leave the top will multiple scratch marks.. that would be silly. The scratches are from after the conversion. No, all the sets of marks are both make by 13 course players, and they were made after the conversion. The nail like scratches were made using an interesting technique the thumb marks are close to the rose, where the finger marks are made quite a distance towards the bridge, which matches a technique that is evident in paintings, with the thumb sticking out quite sharply towards the neck. No, this was not in any way renaissance technique; as well, the scratches perfectly match the 13 courses that are on the lute now. The evidence of the other technique on that lute also suggests the thumb sticking out sharply towards the neck. Thanks! ed At 11:24 AM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: It is interesting that on the museum page, they say that the Edlinger lutes were once thought to have been by Tieffenbrucker, and then baroqued bt Edlinger, but now it is considered that they were entirely built by Edlinger. http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10213ItalianLute.html http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10214ItalianLute.html However, I can't help wondering whether you are not right in returning to the previous interpretation: the double traces, you mention, could well indicate that this was indeed a Renaissance lute, on which Renaissance traces were left when it was later baroqued by Edlinger, and then after that the Baroque technique traces might have been left. One player played near the bridge, due to smudge dirt marks from the fingers, as well as the thumb. These marks were wide, and seemingly from finger marks. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! It tells me that on this particular instrument, there were more than one player using very different techniques. Ed This sounds very much like a Renaissance technique. In a previous message, I had wondered whether any such Renaissance traces might not exist on a Baroque lute that might have kept its Renaissance sound board. I imagine it would be difficult to analyse these lutes to see how old the soundboards are. Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1261 - Release Date: 2/5/2008 8:57 PM Edward Martin 2817 East
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time (linking)
Thank you for the tip, Anthony. I am just as glad to know you are around ! So, Jaroslaw and all those interested, my music examples are here : http://adueliuti.free.fr/examples.htm Best, Jean-Marie === 06-02-2008 13:43:17 === Jean-Marie You have to attatch by links, to a photographic site for example. Nice to see you on this list. Regards Anthony Le 6 févr. 08 à 13:38, Jean-Marie Poirier a écrit : Sorry, Jaroslaw, the list doesn't seem to take attachments... :-( JM === 06-02-2008 13:33:01 === Jaroslaw, I think it's right ! I have attached two examples : the first strain of the Pavane La Bataille in Phalèse, Chorearum Molliorum, 1583, and the eqivalent first strain of the adjoining Gaillarde. What I tried to explain is apparent here and the tactus inequalis applies perfectly. I was probaly confused and confusing too in my attempt to explain. The Pavan has a regular tactus , one breve down, one breve up. The Gaillard keeps the same breve down,( i.e. 2 semibreves) and the up beat is inequalis, that is unequal, so the hand goes up with one semibreve of the Gaillarde instead of one breve in the Pavan. The interesting point is you keep the same tactus for the down beat, and thus it is very easy to return to duple time and keep a proper equivalence. How this applies to the lute litterature is a quite different story altogether... Actually, the transcriptions from polyphonic music to tablature are not always consistent and you can observe variations in the equivalence adopted between score and tablature. Musical flair and good sense have to come to the rescue I'm afraid... Some will split the dance (Pavan) into half measures, which then become whole measures in the tab, some will stick to the original format... So where do we stand ? That's the critical moment when the structure of the piece has to be thoroughly dismantled and analysed to try and understand the better possible solution, in terms of rhythm, phrasing and, possibly, steps. As for Elizbethan dance movements such as Pavan etc., I think we have to be very careful before deciding if theyhave to be danceable or if they are stylised forms. Both cases coexist in the repertoire, and here again nothing is clearly indicated in the sources. Only a very close analysis and a good dose of musical sense will help you come to an acceptable solution. If you think of Chopin's Waltzes for the piano, you can hear very different versions of them, some more dance like than others. IMHO it may be the same with early baroque dance forms and I put a good deal of the Elizabethan lute music in that category. Best, Jean-Marie === 06-02-2008 12:29:10 === Peter, I am afraid this is not correct. I've just took the first manuscript from my shelf with Italian renaissance music without any particular digging for something special and what I can see? This is a facsimile edition of Intabolatura de lauto by Antonio Rotta edited in Venetia 1546. If we turn the title page we have the first piece which is Passamezzo with two flags (crotchets using contemporary system of notation) per bar. The next piece is Gagliarda with three flags per bar (of the same value). If we play both pieces it becomes quite clear that one bar from Passamezzo equals one bar from Gagliarda. So Donnington was right I am afraid ( the citation was from his 1990 edition) and most things we can find in his book are still valid. The whole mess with Pavan - Galliard proportions comes from our modern thinking in uni-proportional system. In multi-proportional system which was commonly used in renaissance this problem wouldn't exist because proportion for this set of dances was very clear and easy; modus imperfectus equals modus perfectus. This is why I said the pulse remains the same only dancers change their steps. All the best Jaroslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html - -- Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti- virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --- Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008 N ¶è®ß¶¬+-±ç¥Ëbú+«b¢vÛiÿü0ÁË
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Was Proportio sesquialtera (3/2) already mentioned? For reference cf http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensuralnotation#Wei.C3.9Fe_Mensuralnotation_.28ca._1430-1600.29 (German) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensural_notation#Proportions_and_colorations Mathias Jean-Marie Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Sorry, Jaroslaw, the list doesn't seem to take attachments... :-( JM === 06-02-2008 13:33:01 === Jaroslaw, I think it's right ! I have attached two examples : the first strain of the Pavane La Bataille in Phalèse, Chorearum Molliorum, 1583, and the eqivalent first strain of the adjoining Gaillarde. What I tried to explain is apparent here and the tactus inequalis applies perfectly. I was probaly confused and confusing too in my attempt to explain. The Pavan has a regular tactus , one breve down, one breve up. The Gaillard keeps the same breve down,( i.e. 2 semibreves) and the up beat is inequalis, that is unequal, so the hand goes up with one semibreve of the Gaillarde instead of one breve in the Pavan. The interesting point is you keep the same tactus for the down beat, and thus it is very easy to return to duple time and keep a proper equivalence. How this applies to the lute litterature is a quite different story altogether... Actually, the transcriptions from polyphonic music to tablature are not always consistent and you can observe variations in the equivalence adopted between score and tablature. Musical flair and good sense have to come to the rescue I'm afraid... Some will split the dance (Pavan) into half measures, which then become whole measures in the tab, some will stick to the original format... So where do we stand ? That's the critical moment when the structure of the piece has to be thoroughly dismantled and analysed to try and understand the better possible solution, in terms of rhythm, phrasing and, possibly, steps. As for Elizbethan dance movements such as Pavan etc., I think we have to be very careful before deciding if theyhave to be danceable or if they are stylised forms. Both cases coexist in the repertoire, and here again nothing is clearly indicated in the sources. Only a very close analysis and a good dose of musical sense will help you come to an acceptable solution. If you think of Chopin's Waltzes for the piano, you can hear very different versions of them, some more dance like than others. IMHO it may be the same with early baroque dance forms and I put a good deal of the Elizabethan lute music in that category. Best, Jean-Marie === 06-02-2008 12:29:10 === Peter, I am afraid this is not correct. I've just took the first manuscript from my shelf with Italian renaissance music without any particular digging for something special and what I can see? This is a facsimile edition of Intabolatura de lauto by Antonio Rotta edited in Venetia 1546. If we turn the title page we have the first piece which is Passamezzo with two flags (crotchets using contemporary system of notation) per bar. The next piece is Gagliarda with three flags per bar (of the same value). If we play both pieces it becomes quite clear that one bar from Passamezzo equals one bar from Gagliarda. So Donnington was right I am afraid ( the citation was from his 1990 edition) and most things we can find in his book are still valid. The whole mess with Pavan - Galliard proportions comes from our modern thinking in uni-proportional system. In multi-proportional system which was commonly used in renaissance this problem wouldn't exist because proportion for this set of dances was very clear and easy; modus imperfectus equals modus perfectus. This is why I said the pulse remains the same only dancers change their steps. All the best Jaroslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --- Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008 N ¶è®ß¶¬+-±ç¥Ëbú+«b¢vÛiÿü0ÁË j»f¢ëayÛ¿Á·?ë^iÙ¢ø§uìa
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time (linking)
Oops ! I forgot about those accents in French - on Phalèse - that IE refuses to accept ! It should be OK now. Jean-Marie === 06-02-2008 14:25:16 === there seems to be a path error! So, Jaroslaw and all those interested, my music examples are here : http://adueliuti.free.fr/examples.htm the pictures don't appear. best wishes Bernd --- Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
1/It depends what you mean by pulse, but in this case I count one in a measure for practical reasons (not theoretical). 2/No, I am afraid there is no proportio sign at the beginning of the galliarda. 3/Word modus was also used for the time-signature 4/If you think that suddenly in 1550 al musicians abandoned multi-proportional system, then my question is what had happened that year? And even if it wasn't already so popular people didn't start to think a new way just in one day. Best wishes Jaroslaw . That would mean : the flags in the passamezzo have two thirds of the speed of the flags in the gagliarda.. In this case the pulse (=tactus?) would have to be a whole measure? modus perfectus. This is why I said the pulse remains the same only dancers change their steps. Is there no proportio sign at the beginnig of the gagliarda? I think that modus is not the best term here. (It refers to the division of the longa in two or three brevis.) In multi-proportional system which was commonly used in renaissance this problem wouldn't exist because proportion for this set of dances was very clear and easy; Somehow I ask myself whether the multi-proportional system was not outdated for instrumental music around 1550. The values used (minima, semiminima, fusa, semifusa) are only divided in two... Best wishes Bernd To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota
Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:57:10 + (GMT) From: Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota To: Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you for this. Just a thought, but the marks on the belly over and above the rose sound a bit like the sort of marks left by a strumming guitarist. Could it have been used as a 'Wandervogel' lute/guitar in the early20th century? I realise it's got many more than 6 courses but I presume they might not have felt the need to string them all if it was just, say, a son of the house having a strum on the old lute he found in the attic.. MH Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear ones, I have an interesting story. Dan Larson and I just returned from the National Museum of Music, in South Dakota. It was an absolutely fantastic experience. They have many, many lutes by Harton, Diefenbrouchar, Sellas, Edlinger. They also have guitars by Stradivarius, Sellas and Voboam. Many violins by Stradivarius, Ganeri, Amati, etc. It was unbelievable. The museum let us have full access to the Edlingers! We examined them for about 10 hours, and I got to hold them in the playing position, etc. They have been examined in the 1970's by Lundberg and others. One is 76 cm mensur, the other is 81 or 82 cm, and they were perhaps originally by Tieffenbrucker, or perhaps a Bolognese maker. Later, they were converted to 13 course baroque lutes by Thomas Edlinger; the longer instrument in 1724, the shorter one in 1728. The 76 cm is flat back in 11 ribs of bird's eye maple, the 82 cm is multi ribbed yew. What really startled me was the 76 cm lute. It is documented that these lutes had been in a Czeck castle for hundreds of years. It appeared to me that 2, or 3 different players used this lute. It showed heavy usage, so it was more than likely played at a professional level. One player played near the bridge, due to smudge dirt marks from the fingers, as well as the thumb. These marks were wide, and seemingly from finger marks. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! It tells me that on this particular instrument, there were more than one player using very different techniques. As well, they played a technique with the thumb pointed towards the rose, as the old paintings show, but _NOT_ by the bridge. The longer lute in yew showed patterns and evidence of it being played very close to the bridge. The little area at the treble end of the bridge was worn down from overuse of the pinky being planted there. It seems that these lutes, although in possession by the same family in the same castle, are similar in that they are both Edlinger conversions to 13 course baroque lutes with bass riders. They do appear to have had dissimilar techniques and player positions, as evidenced by the wear on the sound boards, suggesting that the same player did not play the 2 instruments, and the shorter one had at least 2 different players. All in all, in was a humbling experience, to examine these masterpieces, so close up, and to hold them in playing position. The marks I mentioned on the shorter instrument do not show up well on photography, but are very open obvious to the naked eye. ed Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html - Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. - Sent from Yahoo! #45; a smarter inbox. --
[LUTE] Re: Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota
Marvelous! Thanks for spinning your yarn, Ed. They also hold the 1680 Cutler-Challen mandolino by Stradivari and a number of other interesting early mandolins. http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Mandolins/StradMandolin/StradMandolin.html At 08:11 AM 2/6/2008, Edward Martin wrote: I sent this to the baroque list yesterday, but I re-thought this, and I am also sending it to the general lute list (sorry if it offends anyone). ed Dear ones, I have an interesting story. Dan Larson and I just returned from the National Museum of Music, in South Dakota. It was an absolutely fantastic experience. They have many, many lutes by Harton, Diefenbrouchar, Sellas, Edlinger. They also have guitars by Stradivarius, Sellas and Voboam. Many violins by Stradivarius, Ganeri, Amati, etc. It was unbelievable. The museum let us have full access to the Edlingers! We examined them for about 10 hours, and I got to hold them in the playing position, etc. They have been examined in the 1970's by Lundberg and others. One is 76 cm mensur, the other is 81 or 82 cm, and they were perhaps originally by Tieffenbrucker, or perhaps a Bolognese maker. Later, they were converted to 13 course baroque lutes by Thomas Edlinger; the longer instrument in 1724, the shorter one in 1728. The 76 cm is flat back in 11 ribs of bird's eye maple, the 82 cm is multi ribbed yew. What really startled me was the 76 cm lute. It is documented that these lutes had been in a Czeck castle for hundreds of years. It appeared to me that 2, or 3 different players used this lute. It showed heavy usage, so it was more than likely played at a professional level. One player played near the bridge, due to smudge dirt marks from the fingers, as well as the thumb. These marks were wide, and seemingly from finger marks. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! It tells me that on this particular instrument, there were more than one player using very different techniques. As well, they played a technique with the thumb pointed towards the rose, as the old paintings show, but _NOT_ by the bridge. The longer lute in yew showed patterns and evidence of it being played very close to the bridge. The little area at the treble end of the bridge was worn down from overuse of the pinky being planted there. It seems that these lutes, although in possession by the same family in the same castle, are similar in that they are both Edlinger conversions to 13 course baroque lutes with bass riders. They do appear to have had dissimilar techniques and player positions, as evidenced by the wear on the sound boards, suggesting that the same player did not play the 2 instruments, and the shorter one had at least 2 different players. All in all, in was a humbling experience, to examine these masterpieces, so close up, and to hold them in playing position. The marks I mentioned on the shorter instrument do not show up well on photography, but are very open obvious to the naked eye. ed Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Eugene C. Braig IV Assistant Director Ohio Sea Grant College Program, F.T. Stone Laboratory, CLEAR, and GLAERC The Ohio State University Area 100 Research Center 1314 Kinnear Rd. Columbus, OH 43212 Phone: 614-292-8949 FAX:614-292-4364 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ohioseagrant.osu.edu/ http://snr.osu.edu/myhome/braig.1
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? last gasp
Martyn Hodgson wrote: I now see from your mention of my guitar stringing email that you seem to equate 'information' solely with figures whereas I also include other things such as tunings, examples of solo music, etc which you do not count as information - we'll bear this in mind. Actually I was thinking of the Stradivari notes, which contained no figures, but did give clues about stringing. I was not referring to your conclusions about string tensions in the same post; I had either not noticed them or forgotten about them until I reread it just now. So you assumed that by information I meant to give the force of historical evidence to your conclusions, which in fact made no impression on me at all. That pretty much tells you what you need to know about this dialogue. Since this thread has exceeded its shelf life, I'll just summarize: There are surviving small theorbos. For each of these instruments, we can say with confidence: We don't know how it was strung and tuned historically. We don't know all the 17th and 18th-century players who owned it. We don't know that it was strung/tuned the same way by all the 17th and 18th-century players who played it. We don't know the specific musical purpose for which it was built, or the purposes for which it was actually used. We don't know where it was taken during the 17th or 18th centuries, so even with a lot of resarch, we could do no more than guess about the prevailing pitches at which it might have been played. If it was built to allow double stringing, as several of them were, we don't know whether it was ever played single-strung, or double- strung in octaves. We particularly don't know whether the second course was strung in octaves. Indeed, we can make many of the same statements about bigger theorbos, though, as you repeatedly point out, there are physical limitations that narrow the possibilities. Of course, I am equating we don't know with we have no evidence. I suppose it might not be a valid equation to practitioners of faith- based musicology. So yes, David Tayler can't claim historical support for his remark that Anything over 82 is a specialty instrument, for people with huge hands, or for people who only play in very high positions, which I assume is based on his own playing experience (I don't know about huge hands, but I'd caution that large theorbos are for people with no history of back, neck or shoulder problems), but is contradicted by other players' experience. Nor can you claim historical support for your sweeping statement that any theorbo smaller than 82 cm, or whatever your cutoff number is, had to be a theorbo in D or tuned with the second course at lute pitch. The statement assumes uniformity of practice over a century and a half, disregards questions of regional practice and pitch, and is grounded on a leap in logic from Big theorbos had to be tuned double reentrant for physical reasons to Small theorbos didn't have to be tuned double reentrant and therefore never were. BTW, you wrote: I would surprised if Lynda Sayce doesn't tune her 78cm English theorbo as single reentrant - but you'll need to ask her. In the post to which you were responding, I had written: I gather from her web site that its fingerboard strings are 80cm (thus scaled up or down from the original, depending on your point of view) and she strings it single reentrant in G. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Jean-Marie, Actually I haven't said I don't agree with what you wrote. I just reacted to Peter's email in which he said: we seem to have arrived at one bar of galliard = half a bar of pavan Which in my opinion is not correct because it depends what you mean by bar. If you use modern notation and play from contemporary transcriptions than yes it is true, but if we use original manuscripts then very often it won't be so. And this is exactly what you write later in your email. The whole discussion started after my citation from Donnington. Actually I feel respect to his work and wouldn't be so keen to negate everything he wrote only on the basis that it was some time ago. For me as a active musician the problem Pavan - Galliard doesn't exist because when I accompany dancers the pulse is so obvious that I don't need to analyze all the history of these dances. What I only wanted to say originally was that Galliard was not as fast a dance as some may think. As I said in my previous email Galliards by Dowland particularly have to be dealt with care because they are mostly solo instrumental pieces not suited for dancing. Best wishes Jaroslaw -Original Message- From: Jean-Marie Poirier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:33 PM To: lute Subject: [LUTE] Re: Playing in time Jaroslaw, I think it's right ! I have attached two examples : the first strain of the Pavane La Bataille in Phalčse, Chorearum Molliorum, 1583, and the eqivalent first strain of the adjoining Gaillarde. What I tried to explain is apparent here and the tactus inequalis applies perfectly. I was probaly confused and confusing too in my attempt to explain. The Pavan has a regular tactus , one breve down, one breve up. The Gaillard keeps the same breve down,( i.e. 2 semibreves) and the up beat is inequalis, that is unequal, so the hand goes up with one semibreve of the Gaillarde instead of one breve in the Pavan. The interesting point is you keep the same tactus for the down beat, and thus it is very easy to return to duple time and keep a proper equivalence. How this applies to the lute litterature is a quite different story altogether... Actually, the transcriptions from polyphonic music to tablature are not always consistent and you can observe variations in the equivalence adopted between score and tablature. Musical flair and good sense have to come to the rescue I'm afraid... Some will split the dance (Pavan) into half measures, which then become whole measures in the tab, some will stick to the original format... So where do we stand ? That's the critical moment when the structure of the piece has to be thoroughly dismantled and analysed to try and understand the better possible solution, in terms of rhythm, phrasing and, possibly, steps. As for Elizbethan dance movements such as Pavan etc., I think we have to be very careful before deciding if theyhave to be danceable or if they are stylised forms. Both cases coexist in the repertoire, and here again nothing is clearly indicated in the sources. Only a very close analysis and a good dose of musical sense will help you come to an acceptable solution. If you think of Chopin's Waltzes for the piano, you can hear very different versions of them, some more dance like than others. IMHO it may be the same with early baroque dance forms and I put a good deal of the Elizabethan lute music in that category. Best, Jean-Marie === 06-02-2008 12:29:10 === Peter, I am afraid this is not correct. I've just took the first manuscript from my shelf with Italian renaissance music without any particular digging for something special and what I can see? This is a facsimile edition of Intabolatura de lauto by Antonio Rotta edited in Venetia 1546. If we turn the title page we have the first piece which is Passamezzo with two flags (crotchets using contemporary system of notation) per bar. The next piece is Gagliarda with three flags per bar (of the same value). If we play both pieces it becomes quite clear that one bar from Passamezzo equals one bar from Gagliarda. So Donnington was right I am afraid ( the citation was from his 1990 edition) and most things we can find in his book are still valid. The whole mess with Pavan - Galliard proportions comes from our modern thinking in uni-proportional system. In multi-proportional system which was commonly used in renaissance this problem wouldn't exist because proportion for this set of dances was very clear and easy; modus imperfectus equals modus perfectus. This is why I said the pulse remains the same only dancers change their steps. All the best Jaroslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Jaroslaw, I'm afraid missed your point altogether :-(( ! Sorry about that. I totally agree with what you say in this last mail, of course... All the best, Jean-Marie === 06-02-2008 15:17:10 === Jean-Marie, Actually I haven't said I don't agree with what you wrote. I just reacted to Peter's email in which he said: we seem to have arrived at one bar of galliard = half a bar of pavan Which in my opinion is not correct because it depends what you mean by bar. If you use modern notation and play from contemporary transcriptions than yes it is true, but if we use original manuscripts then very often it won't be so. And this is exactly what you write later in your email. The whole discussion started after my citation from Donnington. Actually I feel respect to his work and wouldn't be so keen to negate everything he wrote only on the basis that it was some time ago. For me as a active musician the problem Pavan - Galliard doesn't exist because when I accompany dancers the pulse is so obvious that I don't need to analyze all the history of these dances. What I only wanted to say originally was that Galliard was not as fast a dance as some may think. As I said in my previous email Galliards by Dowland particularly have to be dealt with care because they are mostly solo instrumental pieces not suited for dancing. Best wishes Jaroslaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 06-02-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Pittoni's theorbo?
Monica Hall wrote: I was tempted to point out early on in this discussion that skips of a 7th and 9th in scale passages (known as campanellas) Campanellas are not necessarily skips of 7ths and 9ths. That's not how they're defined. They are passages of notes that ring over other notes on other strings, usually adjacent notes in what could otherwise be written as linear scale passages. are commonplace in baroque guitar music and whatever method of stringing is used (short of octave stringing on all 5 courses which is hardly practical) these can't be eliminated altogether. Not being a theorbo players I refrained but I am glad Martyn has pointed this out. I think one should be rather cautious about assuming that something that doesn't match our pre-conceived ideas about what 17th century music might have sounded like would necessarily have been a problem to 17th century players. Short of radical brain surgery, we have no choice but to approach the question with pre-conceived ideas. The more significant question is where we get those ideas. If I want to form an idea of how a composer meant passages in 17th-century guitar or theorbo music to sound, do I form those ideas from other 17th-century guitar or theorbo music, or do I spend a lot of time with the vocal music that the composer would have spent his time listening to, accompanying, composing and (probably) singing? Trying to resolve a question about solo theorbo or guitar music by referring to other theorbo or guitar music is not only circular, but it introduces a bias -- a pre-conceived idea-- from the second half of the 20th century: that solo music is what baroque guitars and theorbos were all about. The Segovia Syndrome, if you will, named after a famous guitarist who rarely played with anyone else and could go for years without getting within a mile of a singer. In the 17th century the guitarists and theorbists were part of a musical mainstream in which vocal music was dominant and it was impossible to conceive instrumental music without having vocal music in your ear. Vocal music of the 17th century does not have a lot of displaced 7ths and 9ths. Nor does keyboard keyboard music or violin music. I haven't heard them in harp music of the time, but I count myself no expert. Trying to decide how to string an instrument for Pittoni or Melli solely by referring to assumptions about Corbetta or Sanz is a fool's game. Start with Monteverdi, Rossi, and Strozzi. Then Castaldi and Kapsberger and Piccinini. At least you'll then have relevant pre- conceived ideas. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
On Feb 6, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Mathias R=F6sel wrote: Was Proportio sesquialtera (3/2) already mentioned? Would that be like the two bar passage in Dowland's Fancy numbered 5 in Poulton where in bars 26 and 27 the meter changes from common time to 12/8 and there is a marking that calls for the quarter note to become a dotted quarter (when it goes back into common time starting at bar 28, the quarter note once again gets the beat)? David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Pittoni's theorbo?
Monica Hall wrote: I was tempted to point out early on in this discussion that skips of a 7th and 9th in scale passages (known as campanellas) Campanellas are not necessarily skips of 7ths and 9ths. That's not how they're defined. I didn't say that they are. What I said was skips of a 7th and 9th in scale passages (known as campanellas) are commonplace in baroque guitar music. It is the scale passages that are known as campanellas not the skips of a 7th etc. Otherwise the sentence would have read skips of a 7th and 9th (known as campanellas) in scale passages etc. Grammar is everything... I think one should be rather cautious about assuming that something that doesn't match our pre-conceived ideas about what 17th century music might have sounded like would necessarily have been a problem to 17th century players. Short of radical brain surgery, we have no choice but to approach the question with pre-conceived ideas. The more significant question is where we get those ideas. If I want to form an idea of how a composer meant passages in 17th-century guitar or theorbo music to sound, do I form those ideas from other 17th-century guitar or theorbo music, or do I spend a lot of time with the vocal music that the composer would have spent his time listening to, accompanying, composing and (probably) singing? I would suggest that you start off first and foremost by asking what would work in practice with the kind of strings which might have been available in the 17th century. This is surely the reason why the 1st and 2nd courses on the theorbo were tuned down an octave - at least that is what I have always understood. Tuning them to the upper octave was incompatible with the string length. You seem to be suggesting that instrumental music was still essentially the same as vocal music in the 17th century but surely the whole point is that instruments have their own idioms which reflect what they are capable of. They don't simple imitate vocal music - even when they are accompanying it. Have you ever tried singing Bach's unaccompanied violin sonatas? Or John Bull's keyboard music? Monica To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Pittoni's theorbo?
Campanellas are not necessarily skips of 7ths and 9ths. That's not how they're defined. I didn't say that they are. What I said was skips of a 7th and 9th in scale passages (known as campanellas) are commonplace in baroque guitar music. It is the scale passages that are known as campanellas not the skips of a 7th etc. Scale passages are not known as campanellas. I can sing scale passages. I can't sing campanellas. If I want to form an idea of how a composer meant passages in 17th-century guitar or theorbo music to sound, do I form those ideas from other 17th-century guitar or theorbo music, or do I spend a lot of time with the vocal music that the composer would have spent his time listening to, accompanying, composing and (probably) singing? I would suggest that you start off first and foremost by asking what would work in practice with the kind of strings which might have been available in the 17th century. This is surely the reason why the 1st and 2nd courses on the theorbo were tuned down an octave - at least that is what I have always understood. Tuning them to the upper octave was incompatible with the string length. Don't believe everything you read on the lute net. If reentrant tuning were purely a matter of necessity --an inconvenience endured for the sake of increased size (and thus volume) the theorbo wouldn't have been popular for more than a century. Reentrant tuning might have started as a concession to necessity, but it persisted because of its musical advantages, which You seem to be suggesting that instrumental music was still essentially the same as vocal music in the 17th century but surely the whole point is that instruments have their own idioms which reflect what they are capable of. They don't simple imitate vocal music - even when they are accompanying it. I hope I'm not suggesting anything other than what I said -- that the sound picture a 17th-century theorbist or guitarist had in his head was a 17th-century sound picture first and a theorbo or guitar sound picture second, and would have been dominated by the vocal models of the day. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the only instruments in which we have to discuss whether octaves should be displaced in melodic passages are the instruments about which we're unsure of the stringing? Is it more reasonable to assume that they're an island in the musical landscape, or that we haven't figured out the stringing questions? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Pittoni's theorbo?
--- Monica Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest that you start off first and foremost by asking what would work in practice with the kind of strings which might have been available in the 17th century. This is the elephant in the room, though! With all due respect to the researchers and excellent practical string makers active today, our knowledge of exactly how gut strings where made is incomplete. Since many of the procedures entailed in making any particular type of string were special to a specific region, and since large portions of this knowledge was kept a closely guarded secret from their own contemporaries by the guilds and master/apprentice relationship even in the ancient days, we may never know exactly what gut strings were capable of. Endeavoring to speculate on the stringing - and, by extension in this case, the implied character of the music itself - based upon our modern reconstructions of early strings is an extremely dangerous enterprise. Such speculations are valuable only so much as they offer possibilities, not absolutes. We have to be careful of making the tautological declaration that the pyramids can't possibly exist because we have no recorded evidence that all the technology to build them was available at the time. Chris This is surely the reason why the 1st and 2nd courses on the theorbo were tuned down an octave - at least that is what I have always understood. Tuning them to the upper octave was incompatible with the string length. You seem to be suggesting that instrumental music was still essentially the same as vocal music in the 17th century but surely the whole point is that instruments have their own idioms which reflect what they are capable of. They don't simple imitate vocal music - even when they are accompanying it. Have you ever tried singing Bach's unaccompanied violin sonatas? Or John Bull's keyboard music? Monica To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[LUTE] Re: Pittoni's theorbo?
Scale passages are not known as campanellas. I can sing scale passages. I can't sing campanellas. Campanellas are a particular kind of scale passage in which each note of the scale is played on a different string so that the notes overlap creating a bell like effect. In that context the displaced notes are acceptable. Of course you can't sing them because they are an effect which can only be created on a plucked stringed instrument. Which is the whole point. Instruments don't have to imitate vocal music. They can do some things which voices can't do or which wouldn't work in vocal music. This is surely the reason why the 1st and 2nd courses on the theorbo were tuned down an octave - at least that is what I have always understood. Tuning them to the upper octave was incompatible with the string length. Don't believe everything you read on the lute net. If reentrant tuning were purely a matter of necessity --an inconvenience endured for the sake of increased size (and thus volume) the theorbo wouldn't have been popular for more than a century. Reentrant tuning might have started as a concession to necessity, but it persisted because of its musical advantages What are it's musical advantages? It seems to be creating rather a problemSurely it would make more sense from a musical point of view to tune the instrument straight down from treble to bass - like the violin, harpsichord etc... You seem to be suggesting that instrumental music was still essentially the same as vocal music in the 17th century but surely the whole point is that instruments have their own idioms which reflect what they are capable of. They don't simple imitate vocal music - even when they are accompanying it. I hope I'm not suggesting anything other than what I said -- that the sound picture a 17th-century theorbist or guitarist had in his head was a 17th-century sound picture first and a theorbo or guitar sound picture second, and would have been dominated by the vocal models of the day. Certainly not as far as the guitar is concerned! Singers can't strum 6/4 chords! The earliest guitar music is very unvocal. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the only instruments in which we have to discuss whether octaves should be displaced in melodic passages are the instruments about which we're unsure of the stringing? Is it more reasonable to assume that they're an island in the musical landscape, or that we haven't figured out the stringing questions? I see no reason why they shouldn't have their own peculiarities. Certainly other instruments do. Harps weren't always fully chromatic. Brass instruments could only play the notes of the harmonic series and so on. It would be interesting to know what sort of strings you are using to put a high octave string on the second course of your theorbo. There are people who argue that you should have a high octave string on the 3rd course of guitar - and then they tell you that they use nylgut. Monica To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Was Proportio sesquialtera (3/2) already mentioned? Would that be like the two bar passage in Dowland's Fancy numbered 5 in Poulton where in bars 26 and 27 the meter changes from common time to 12/8 and there is a marking that calls for the quarter note to become a dotted quarter (when it goes back into common time starting at bar 28, the quarter note once again gets the beat)? Not exactly, but the effect is very similar. Sesquialtera literally means one and a half. Proportio sesquialtera is the name of that case when there is a change from tempus perfectum (a brevis is divided into three) to tempus imperfectum (a brevis is divided into two) and vice versa, with the pulse of the brevis continuing to be the same. The usual sign for this is 3/2 which in terms of maths equals one and a half (sesquialtera). It was common usage until, say, 1600. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Pittoni's theorbo?
Don't believe everything you read on the lute net. Now you tell me! Rob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Pittoni's theorbo?
On Feb 6, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Rob Lute wrote: Don't believe everything you read on the lute net. Now you tell me! Well, you didn't ask... -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Pittoni's theorbo?
From: Monica Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scale passages are not known as campanellas. I can sing scale passages. I can't sing campanellas. Campanellas are a particular kind of scale passage in which each note of the scale is played on a different string so that the notes overlap creating a bell like effect. In that context the displaced notes are acceptable. There are no displaced notes in those passages (these would sound SOUR). Only displaced fingerings. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Pittoni's theorbo?
On Feb 6, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Monica Hall wrote: Campanellas are a particular kind of scale passage in which each note of the scale is played on a different string so that the notes overlap creating a bell like effect. Yes, I think we got the definition right on the third try. In that context the displaced notes are acceptable. This, of course, is a conclusion, which is based on pre-conceived ideas. Do you get the impression we're going round in circles? Reentrant tuning might have started as a concession to necessity, but it persisted because of its musical advantages What are it's musical advantages? It seems to be creating rather a problemSurely it would make more sense from a musical point of view to tune the instrument straight down from treble to bass - like the violin, harpsichord etc... Are you, baroque guitar maven, really asking what the advantages of reentrant tuning are? Singers can't strum 6/4 chords! But there are plenty of 6/4 chords in vocal music, and in any event I can't see how it bears on the point. Harpsichords can play 6/4 chords but the octave displacement we're talking about doesn't occur in harpsichord music; and even lute or keyboard in the broken style usually makes sense as separate lines. So it proves nothing to say that instruments are not voices. If you're really arguing that guitar or theorbo music should be considered in isolation in considering the octave displacement question, fine. We can agree to disagree. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the only instruments in which we have to discuss whether octaves should be displaced in melodic passages are the instruments about which we're unsure of the stringing? Is it more reasonable to assume that they're an island in the musical landscape, or that we haven't figured out the stringing questions? I see no reason why they shouldn't have their own peculiarities. Certainly other instruments do. But none of them have the particular peculiarity that you contend guitars and theorbos have. It would be interesting to know what sort of strings you are using to put a high octave string on the second course of your theorbo. Without knowing the size of the theorbo, pitch standard and nominal pitch involved, it would be merely mysterious. But my theorbo can only be single strung, so for me the split-octave second course is not an option, and neither is Melii. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Pittoni's theorbo?
Monica, --- Monica Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are it's musical advantages? It seems to be creating rather a problemSurely it would make more sense from a musical point of view to tune the instrument straight down from treble to bass - like the violin, harpsichord etc... There are a number of advantages to having the top two strings down an octave: the ability to voice chords very closely; the ability to double notes within a chord for voice leading and increased volume; the ability to set up and play suspensions without too many awkward shapes that are difficult to transition to and from musically; the ability to play the exact same note in different places without shifting for tone color or to take advantage of a particular temperment; the ability to easily play close melodic intervals (i.e. thirds, seconds and even unisons) very smoothly; and of course the cross-string effects. Of course, many of these things are possible in a standard tuning, too. The re-entrant tuning, however, gives more practical and easy options. There are of many solo pieces that are impossible to play in anything BUT re-entrant tuning. Note that most of the above things are especially useful for someone providing an accompaniment. Lots of the solo repertoire takes advantage of the tuning in a more subtle way, however. Chris You seem to be suggesting that instrumental music was still essentially the same as vocal music in the 17th century but surely the whole point is that instruments have their own idioms which reflect what they are capable of. They don't simple imitate vocal music - even when they are accompanying it. I hope I'm not suggesting anything other than what I said -- that the sound picture a 17th-century theorbist or guitarist had in his head was a 17th-century sound picture first and a theorbo or guitar sound picture second, and would have been dominated by the vocal models of the day. Certainly not as far as the guitar is concerned! Singers can't strum 6/4 chords! The earliest guitar music is very unvocal. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the only instruments in which we have to discuss whether octaves should be displaced in melodic passages are the instruments about which we're unsure of the stringing? Is it more reasonable to assume that they're an island in the musical landscape, or that we haven't figured out the stringing questions? I see no reason why they shouldn't have their own peculiarities. Certainly other instruments do. Harps weren't always fully chromatic. Brass instruments could only play the notes of the harmonic series and so on. It would be interesting to know what sort of strings you are using to put a high octave string on the second course of your theorbo. There are people who argue that you should have a high octave string on the 3rd course of guitar - and then they tell you that they use nylgut. Monica To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota
Good idea, but no, absolutely unlikely. They were documented to be in storage, and were removed for observation in 1907, when a Heckel looked at them, and put back into storage in the castle.. ed .At 01:57 PM 2/6/2008 +, Martyn Hodgson wrote: Thank you for this. Just a thought, but the marks on the belly over and above the rose sound a bit like the sort of marks left by a strumming guitarist. Could it have been used as a 'Wandervogel' lute/guitar in the early20th century? I realise it's got many more than 6 courses but I presume they might not have felt the need to string them all if it was just, say, a son of the house having a strum on the old lute he found in the attic.. MH Edward Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear ones, I have an interesting story. Dan Larson and I just returned from the National Museum of Music, in South Dakota. It was an absolutely fantastic experience. They have many, many lutes by Harton, Diefenbrouchar, Sellas, Edlinger. They also have guitars by Stradivarius, Sellas and Voboam. Many violins by Stradivarius, Ganeri, Amati, etc. It was unbelievable. The museum let us have full access to the Edlingers! We examined them for about 10 hours, and I got to hold them in the playing position, etc. They have been examined in the 1970's by Lundberg and others. One is 76 cm mensur, the other is 81 or 82 cm, and they were perhaps originally by Tieffenbrucker, or perhaps a Bolognese maker. Later, they were converted to 13 course baroque lutes by Thomas Edlinger; the longer instrument in 1724, the shorter one in 1728. The 76 cm is flat back in 11 ribs of bird's eye maple, the 82 cm is multi ribbed yew. What really startled me was the 76 cm lute. It is documented that these lutes had been in a Czeck castle for hundreds of years. It appeared to me that 2, or 3 different players used this lute. It showed heavy usage, so it was more than likely played at a professional level. One player played near the bridge, due to smudge dirt marks from the fingers, as well as the thumb. These marks were wide, and seemingly from finger marks. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! It tells me that on this particular instrument, there were more than one player using very different techniques. As well, they played a technique with the thumb pointed towards the rose, as the old paintings show, but _NOT_ by the bridge. The longer lute in yew showed patterns and evidence of it being played very close to the bridge. The little area at the treble end of the bridge was worn down from overuse of the pinky being planted there. It seems that these lutes, although in possession by the same family in the same castle, are similar in that they are both Edlinger conversions to 13 course baroque lutes with bass riders. They do appear to have had dissimilar techniques and player positions, as evidenced by the wear on the sound boards, suggesting that the same player did not play the 2 instruments, and the shorter one had at least 2 different players. All in all, in was a humbling experience, to examine these masterpieces, so close up, and to hold them in playing position. The marks I mentioned on the shorter instrument do not show up well on photography, but are very open obvious to the naked eye. ed Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Sent from http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailuk/taglines/isp/control/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51949/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.htmlYahoo! - a smarter inbox. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1261 - Release Date: 2/5/2008 8:57 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota
Yes, they do! It is breathtaking. I did take some time looking at the Strad mandolin, as well as the Strad guitar, Sellas guitars, Voboam guitar, etc, etc. Incredible. ed At 09:07 AM 2/6/2008 -0500, Eugene C. Braig IV wrote: Marvelous! Thanks for spinning your yarn, Ed. They also hold the 1680 Cutler-Challen mandolino by Stradivari and a number of other interesting early mandolins. http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Mandolins/StradMandolin/StradMandolin.html At 08:11 AM 2/6/2008, Edward Martin wrote: I sent this to the baroque list yesterday, but I re-thought this, and I am also sending it to the general lute list (sorry if it offends anyone). ed Dear ones, I have an interesting story. Dan Larson and I just returned from the National Museum of Music, in South Dakota. It was an absolutely fantastic experience. They have many, many lutes by Harton, Diefenbrouchar, Sellas, Edlinger. They also have guitars by Stradivarius, Sellas and Voboam. Many violins by Stradivarius, Ganeri, Amati, etc. It was unbelievable. The museum let us have full access to the Edlingers! We examined them for about 10 hours, and I got to hold them in the playing position, etc. They have been examined in the 1970's by Lundberg and others. One is 76 cm mensur, the other is 81 or 82 cm, and they were perhaps originally by Tieffenbrucker, or perhaps a Bolognese maker. Later, they were converted to 13 course baroque lutes by Thomas Edlinger; the longer instrument in 1724, the shorter one in 1728. The 76 cm is flat back in 11 ribs of bird's eye maple, the 82 cm is multi ribbed yew. What really startled me was the 76 cm lute. It is documented that these lutes had been in a Czeck castle for hundreds of years. It appeared to me that 2, or 3 different players used this lute. It showed heavy usage, so it was more than likely played at a professional level. One player played near the bridge, due to smudge dirt marks from the fingers, as well as the thumb. These marks were wide, and seemingly from finger marks. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! It tells me that on this particular instrument, there were more than one player using very different techniques. As well, they played a technique with the thumb pointed towards the rose, as the old paintings show, but _NOT_ by the bridge. The longer lute in yew showed patterns and evidence of it being played very close to the bridge. The little area at the treble end of the bridge was worn down from overuse of the pinky being planted there. It seems that these lutes, although in possession by the same family in the same castle, are similar in that they are both Edlinger conversions to 13 course baroque lutes with bass riders. They do appear to have had dissimilar techniques and player positions, as evidenced by the wear on the sound boards, suggesting that the same player did not play the 2 instruments, and the shorter one had at least 2 different players. All in all, in was a humbling experience, to examine these masterpieces, so close up, and to hold them in playing position. The marks I mentioned on the shorter instrument do not show up well on photography, but are very open obvious to the naked eye. ed Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Eugene C. Braig IV Assistant Director Ohio Sea Grant College Program, F.T. Stone Laboratory, CLEAR, and GLAERC The Ohio State University Area 100 Research Center 1314 Kinnear Rd. Columbus, OH 43212 Phone: 614-292-8949 FAX:614-292-4364 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ohioseagrant.osu.edu/ http://snr.osu.edu/myhome/braig.1 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1261 - Release Date: 2/5/2008 8:57 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota
Great question. The answer is simple. It would have been strung with a standard treble, in the usual fashion. I have not worked out what the top pitch would be - certainly _not_ f at 415, but perhaps at d at 415. The whole instrument would have been about a minor third lower, so the lowest course would have been around F, not A. Keep in mind, these are 13 course baroque lutes with first 2nd course single, then courses 12 13 on bass riders. To me, this leans in favor of tuning the top string as high as it goes, and not concerning where f is. ed At 04:00 PM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: Ed What sort of treble string could support 81cm? I am amazed. Anthony Le 6 févr. 08 à 14:08, Edward Martin a écrit : At 01:40 PM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: Interesting Ed. It is true that is these are just surface scratches, they could have been erased. As you mentioned a long nail, I though they might be thin but deep. However, it would be rather strange for a nail to mark though the strings right up to the diapasons. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! Do you mean that the scratches near the diapasons might be from a thumb nail? Yes. In other words, would the player have had long nails on fingers and thumb? Yes, definitely, for the thumb. It almost sounds as though the player might have had something attached to his fingers (like some blues players do). I doubt that but who knows? You say one lute is 76 cm, the other 81 cm. I assume you are speaking of the total length. Do you have any idea of the actual string length? Those ARE the string lengths. 76 and 81 or 82 cm. HUGE baroque lutes! They would have had to been tuned at a much lower pitch than f at 415. Sorry not to close the can of worms, but this sort of detail is not so easy to come by. Regards Anthony Le 6 févr. 08 à 12:57, Edward Martin a écrit : Anthony, and all, I knew I would open up a can of works with these observations. There are many, many possibilities. We do not know if the original lutes were bass lutes, or if they were archlutes, or if they were theorbos, or if they were actually new lutes by Edlinger. The evidence seems to point to them being old renaissance lutes that were converted by Edlinger. It is undetermined, but it appears that if they are from the renaissance, that they are probably Fussen or Bolognese in origin. Edlinger was in very high regard and esteem. When he did the 13 course conversions, he certainly would have made the lutes attractive, as he had great skills. All he would have to do is simply sand the top a little to make all those ugly scratches go away. It makes no sense to go to the trouble to convert and instrument, and then leave the top will multiple scratch marks.. that would be silly. The scratches are from after the conversion. No, all the sets of marks are both make by 13 course players, and they were made after the conversion. The nail like scratches were made using an interesting technique the thumb marks are close to the rose, where the finger marks are made quite a distance towards the bridge, which matches a technique that is evident in paintings, with the thumb sticking out quite sharply towards the neck. No, this was not in any way renaissance technique; as well, the scratches perfectly match the 13 courses that are on the lute now. The evidence of the other technique on that lute also suggests the thumb sticking out sharply towards the neck. Thanks! ed At 11:24 AM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: It is interesting that on the museum page, they say that the Edlinger lutes were once thought to have been by Tieffenbrucker, and then baroqued bt Edlinger, but now it is considered that they were entirely built by Edlinger. http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10213ItalianLute.html http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10214ItalianLute.html However, I can't help wondering whether you are not right in returning to the previous interpretation: the double traces, you mention, could well indicate that this was indeed a Renaissance lute, on which Renaissance traces were left when it was later baroqued by Edlinger, and then after that the Baroque technique traces might have been left. One player played near the bridge, due to smudge dirt marks from the fingers, as well as the thumb. These marks were wide, and seemingly from finger marks. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! It tells me that on this particular instrument, there were more than one player using very
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota
Amen. ed At 04:29 PM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: I am also struck by the small number of lutes that actually are copied now; and when we think that extant lutes are such a small number of the great variety that once existed, I can't help thinking that this is further restricting the wide tonal variety that once must have existed. Anthony Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Thank you Mathias - this is the word I was looking for :-) All the best Jaroslaw -Original Message- From: Mathias Rösel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:10 PM To: David Rastall Cc: lute Subject: [LUTE] Re: Playing in time Was Proportio sesquialtera (3/2) already mentioned? Would that be like the two bar passage in Dowland's Fancy numbered 5 in Poulton where in bars 26 and 27 the meter changes from common time to 12/8 and there is a marking that calls for the quarter note to become a dotted quarter (when it goes back into common time starting at bar 28, the quarter note once again gets the beat)? Not exactly, but the effect is very similar. Sesquialtera literally means one and a half. Proportio sesquialtera is the name of that case when there is a change from tempus perfectum (a brevis is divided into three) to tempus imperfectum (a brevis is divided into two) and vice versa, with the pulse of the brevis continuing to be the same. The usual sign for this is 3/2 which in terms of maths equals one and a half (sesquialtera). It was common usage until, say, 1600. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Edlinger Lutes in South Dakota
I really do not know. It is possible that it could have been in that tuning. These instruments were in the possession of a noble family, and it is not known if the family members played them, or if they had professional musicians on staff. Obviously big baroque lutes were built by Edlinger, but we have more questions than answers. At 12:59 AM 2/7/2008 +0100, Are Vidar Boye Hansen wrote: Does this mean that this instrument could have been tuned in the theorbo tuning mentioned by Baron? Are Great question. The answer is simple. It would have been strung with a standard treble, in the usual fashion. I have not worked out what the top pitch would be - certainly _not_ f at 415, but perhaps at d at 415. The whole instrument would have been about a minor third lower, so the lowest course would have been around F, not A. Keep in mind, these are 13 course baroque lutes with first 2nd course single, then courses 12 13 on bass riders. To me, this leans in favor of tuning the top string as high as it goes, and not concerning where f is. ed At 04:00 PM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: Ed What sort of treble string could support 81cm? I am amazed. Anthony Le 6 févr. 08 à 14:08, Edward Martin a écrit : At 01:40 PM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: Interesting Ed. It is true that is these are just surface scratches, they could have been erased. As you mentioned a long nail, I though they might be thin but deep. However, it would be rather strange for a nail to mark though the strings right up to the diapasons. One player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the neck, on all the diapason courses! Do you mean that the scratches near the diapasons might be from a thumb nail? Yes. In other words, would the player have had long nails on fingers and thumb? Yes, definitely, for the thumb. It almost sounds as though the player might have had something attached to his fingers (like some blues players do). I doubt that but who knows? You say one lute is 76 cm, the other 81 cm. I assume you are speaking of the total length. Do you have any idea of the actual string length? Those ARE the string lengths. 76 and 81 or 82 cm. HUGE baroque lutes! They would have had to been tuned at a much lower pitch than f at 415. Sorry not to close the can of worms, but this sort of detail is not so easy to come by. Regards Anthony Le 6 févr. 08 à 12:57, Edward Martin a écrit : Anthony, and all, I knew I would open up a can of works with these observations. There are many, many possibilities. We do not know if the original lutes were bass lutes, or if they were archlutes, or if they were theorbos, or if they were actually new lutes by Edlinger. The evidence seems to point to them being old renaissance lutes that were converted by Edlinger. It is undetermined, but it appears that if they are from the renaissance, that they are probably Fussen or Bolognese in origin. Edlinger was in very high regard and esteem. When he did the 13 course conversions, he certainly would have made the lutes attractive, as he had great skills. All he would have to do is simply sand the top a little to make all those ugly scratches go away. It makes no sense to go to the trouble to convert and instrument, and then leave the top will multiple scratch marks.. that would be silly. The scratches are from after the conversion. No, all the sets of marks are both make by 13 course players, and they were made after the conversion. The nail like scratches were made using an interesting technique the thumb marks are close to the rose, where the finger marks are made quite a distance towards the bridge, which matches a technique that is evident in paintings, with the thumb sticking out quite sharply towards the neck. No, this was not in any way renaissance technique; as well, the scratches perfectly match the 13 courses that are on the lute now. The evidence of the other technique on that lute also suggests the thumb sticking out sharply towards the neck. Thanks! ed At 11:24 AM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: It is interesting that on the museum page, they say that the Edlinger lutes were once thought to have been by Tieffenbrucker, and then baroqued bt Edlinger, but now it is considered that they were entirely built by Edlinger. http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10213ItalianLute.html http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10214ItalianLute.html However, I can't help wondering whether you are not right in returning to the previous interpretation: the double traces, you mention, could well indicate that this was indeed a Renaissance lute, on which Renaissance traces were left when it was later baroqued by Edlinger, and then after that the Baroque technique traces might have been left. One player
