Double 1st (HIP message included)
Dear Jon, I'm pleased my e-mail on the theorbo tuning was useful. I think you understand it now. The word re-entrant is used to describe a tuning where the strings do not ascend in the usual order of pitch. A harp, a violin, a modern guitar - these and many more - do not have re-entrant tunings, because as you go from the lowest string to the highest, each successive string is higher than the previous one. A good example of an instrument with a re-entrant tuning is the five-string banjo, which has that short 5th string tuned higher than the others, yet it lies where you'd expect the lowest string to be: ---(-)-°-- /--o-- --/-|\o--- -(--|-)--o --\-|- _|8 ° String:54321 The English cittern is another instrument with a re-entrant tuning: ---(-)--° /o°-- --/-|\-o- -(--|-)-o --\-| _|8 Course:4321 which is similar to the re-entrant tuning of the ukulele: ---(-)--- /--o--°-- --/-|\---o--- -(--|-)-o --\-| _|8 String:4321 The baroque guitar had various tunings, of which this re-entrant one was common in France: ---(-)- /---o--°--- --/-|\o -(--|-)°-o- --\-|-- _|8 ° Course:54321 The re-entrant tuning of a theorbo with 2 courses down an octave would look like this: --°---o- -(---):-°--- /-o-°--- ---/ --o-°--- --o-° -o- ° ---o--° ° Course:14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I've not tried writing music in this way before. It looks OK on my screen; I just hope it comes out OK on yours. You'll need a mono-spaced font like Courier to get the vertical alignment correct, and with luck the little degree signs will look like notes in the spaces between lines. Best wishes, Stewart. - Original Message - From: Jon Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:29 AM Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included) OK, I'm a retired computer programmer at that level where we wrote the internal code. Re-entrant has a meaning to me that may be different than your use in the musical sense. But there may be a parallel. Do you mean that the theorbo tuning allows you to run up the instrument and re-enter the melody at a lower pitch? Best, Jon
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
Now, I'm confused! If what you say is so, and I am sure it is, why would anyone want to put thick strings on the 1st and 2nd course of their lute and tune them an octave lower? I was under the impression that this was something to do with the string length... Monica - Original Message - From: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:14 AM Subject: Double 1st (HIP message included) Dear Jon, Yes, I think you still haven't grasped the fundamental point about the tuning of theorbos, and it is causing you no end of confusion. Forget the long neck. The long neck is a complete red herring. A theorbo is simply a lute with the first course (or first two courses) tuned an octave lower. That's all it is. Nothing else matters apart from the tuning. If you have a renaissance lute in G, with its first course tuned to the G above middle C, you have a lute. If you take off the first course, replace it with a thicker string, and tune it down an octave to the G below middle C, you have a theorbo. Same instrument, but different tuning. Where I think you are getting confused, is that you are imagining adding a string to the lute, which is an octave higher than the G above middle C, instead of an octave lower. It is true that theorbos generally had giraffe necks with an extra pegbox stuck on the end, and it is that feature which results in phrases like liuto attiorbato (theorboed lute). People associated the word theorbo with long necks and extra pegboxes. I think you're doing the same, but it's causing you no end of confusion. It's the re-entrant tuning which defines the theorbo, not the long neck. Just for the record, if you have a lute with a long neck and extra pegbox, and it keeps its lute tuning (G above middle C), you have an archlute. If you have the same lute with a long neck, and you re-tune the first course (to G below middle C), you have a theorbo. I hope that helps. If you still have a copy of my message Double 1st (HIP message included) on 7th January, do have another look at it, and see if you understand it differently now. Best wishes, Stewart. - Original Message - From: Jon Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:15 AM Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included) Gentlemen, I am confused. And I'm not embarrassed by my confusion, the number of instruments with different names in the registry of lutes is a bit daunting. I am aware that guitars, violins and cellos - and all sorts of other similar instruments are categorized as lutes, and made by Luthiers. But within the close family there are the citterns, the mandolas and the modern mandolin - although the latter is quite different when played in the Appalachians. So what is a Theorbo, I know it is a lute with extra bass strings that are longer than than the base length of the instrument (perhaps on a swan neck - see, I do learn some things here g). Could there be a small Theorbo, perhaps we could call it a tenor Theorbo with a shorter base length such that one could octave the first and second courses and yet be within the breaking pitch? Or does that instrument have a different name? I don't present argument, I merely ask the question so I can better understand the conversation. One could easily design a smaller instrument with a 1st course an octave above the g that is normal, and then octave that g' as g. It would have a quite different timbre, but it may have been done. The low courses, of course, would yet be tenor, but it is an interesting thought. Enough, it seems to come down to nomenclature - and the differing attitudes as to what is properly a lute. Best, Jon PS, a bass and a tenor can sing the same song in the same key, the timbre may be different, but each is singing the music as he feels it. I'm sure the Old Ones would have enjoyed the variations on their compositions that come with the change of pitch and voice.
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
le 10.1.2004 15:42, Monica Hall à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : - Original Message - From: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:14 AM Subject: Double 1st (HIP message included) Dear Jon, Yes, I think you still haven't grasped the fundamental point about the tuning of theorbos, and it is causing you no end of confusion. Forget the long neck. The long neck is a complete red herring. A theorbo is simply a lute with the first course (or first two courses) tuned an octave lower. That's all it is. Nothing else matters apart from the tuning. If you have a renaissance lute in G, with its first course tuned to the G above middle C, you have a lute. If you take off the first course, replace it with a thicker string, and tune it down an octave to the G below middle C, you have a theorbo. Same instrument, but different tuning. Where I think you are getting confused, is that you are imagining adding a string to the lute, which is an octave higher than the G above middle C, instead of an octave lower. It is true that theorbos generally had giraffe necks with an extra pegbox stuck on the end, and it is that feature which results in phrases like liuto attiorbato (theorboed lute). People associated the word theorbo with long necks and extra pegboxes. The word theorbe is a strange word in french however, and I never read a satisfying etymology of it. Italian readers here can maybe help with a meaning to give to the word tiorba. Has it something to do with the idea of re-entrant tuning ? Philippe I think you're doing the same, but it's causing you no end of confusion. It's the re-entrant tuning which defines the theorbo, not the long neck. Just for the record, if you have a lute with a long neck and extra pegbox, and it keeps its lute tuning (G above middle C), you have an archlute. If you have the same lute with a long neck, and you re-tune the first course (to G below middle C), you have a theorbo. I hope that helps. If you still have a copy of my message Double 1st (HIP message included) on 7th January, do have another look at it, and see if you understand it differently now. Best wishes, Stewart. - Original Message - From: Jon Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:15 AM Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included) Gentlemen, I am confused. And I'm not embarrassed by my confusion, the number of instruments with different names in the registry of lutes is a bit daunting. I am aware that guitars, violins and cellos - and all sorts of other similar instruments are categorized as lutes, and made by Luthiers. But within the close family there are the citterns, the mandolas and the modern mandolin - although the latter is quite different when played in the Appalachians. So what is a Theorbo, I know it is a lute with extra bass strings that are longer than than the base length of the instrument (perhaps on a swan neck - see, I do learn some things here g). Could there be a small Theorbo, perhaps we could call it a tenor Theorbo with a shorter base length such that one could octave the first and second courses and yet be within the breaking pitch? Or does that instrument have a different name? I don't present argument, I merely ask the question so I can better understand the conversation. One could easily design a smaller instrument with a 1st course an octave above the g that is normal, and then octave that g' as g. It would have a quite different timbre, but it may have been done. The low courses, of course, would yet be tenor, but it is an interesting thought. Enough, it seems to come down to nomenclature - and the differing attitudes as to what is properly a lute. Best, Jon PS, a bass and a tenor can sing the same song in the same key, the timbre may be different, but each is singing the music as he feels it. I'm sure the Old Ones would have enjoyed the variations on their compositions that come with the change of pitch and voice.
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
Stewart, Thank you, I'm going to have to print your fine letter in order to keep track of the terminology. You are right, I was confused in my assumption. But I won't say I'm fully with the musical logic. Yes, I think you still haven't grasped the fundamental point about the tuning of theorbos, and it is causing you no end of confusion. Forget the long neck. The long neck is a complete red herring. A theorbo is simply a lute with the first course (or first two courses) tuned an octave lower. That's all it is. Nothing else matters apart from the tuning. So that means that the theorbo isn't just a bass lute, the middle courses are tuned as a lute but the upper one are two drop an octave? (My original assumption, as you said, was the extra courses on the long neck, but as I first read this I assumed a drop of an octave on all courses, but a re-reading says the third and below are as on a lute). That makes the octaving of the strings logical, but still confuses me. If you have a renaissance lute in G, with its first course tuned to the G above middle C, you have a lute. OK, got that. (although I'm still not clear on the definition of a Renaissance lute in contrast to a Baroque or Medieval one, assuming all to be gut fretted and allowing the differences of tuning and number of courses). If you take off the first course, replace it with a thicker string, and tune it down an octave to the G below middle C, you have a theorbo. Same instrument, but different tuning. OK, I'm with you. Where I think you are getting confused, is that you are imagining adding a string to the lute, which is an octave higher than the G above middle C, instead of an octave lower. Actually, knowing strings, I was assuming the addition of an octave below the g', or a much smaller instrument in length that would take g'', but I see I was wrong. It is true that theorbos generally had giraffe necks with an extra pegbox stuck on the end, and it is that feature which results in phrases like liuto attiorbato (theorboed lute). People associated the word theorbo with long necks and extra pegboxes. I think you're doing the same, but it's causing you no end of confusion. It's the re-entrant tuning which defines the theorbo, not the long neck. OK, I'm a retired computer programmer at that level where we wrote the internal code. Re-entrant has a meaning to me that may be different than your use in the musical sense. But there may be a parallel. Do you mean that the theorbo tuning allows you to run up the instrument and re-enter the melody at a lower pitch? Ah, a Satori or Epiphany. I can't find the place in your message where you said the theorbo came to match the male voice, so it must have been another message or a message from another. I couldn't understand why one would do that instead of making a baritone lute by changing the length. Revelation, by dropping the first, and maybe the second, course an octave one can use the same instrument at a different basic pitch level. A bit complicated for free play, but if notated not so bad. One uses the lower registers with a retuning, and the third or second course becomes the treble, and the first a re-entry into the melody. Logical, the string changes would only have to be for the treble (now baritone) as the others would be in range. Hell Stewart, you got me thinking and I always get in trouble when I do that (and drink beer). Let me know if I'm close to understanding the instruments. Just for the record, if you have a lute with a long neck and extra pegbox, and it keeps its lute tuning (G above middle C), you have an archlute. If you have the same lute with a long neck, and you re-tune the first course (to G below middle C), you have a theorbo. When I had the unfortunate set of LaBella strings sent with my flat back kit, and tuned to e' at the top, yet with a lute spacing of relative intervals, did I have a lute (no wisecracks about the flat back and the fixed frets from purists)? Is the absolute pitch a defining criterion (don't see how it could be, absolute pitch wasn't prevalent in the days of the lute)? I hope that helps. If you still have a copy of my message Double 1st (HIP message included) on 7th January, do have another look at it, and see if you understand it differently now. That message is carefully saved among my archives. I'll not look at it now, a number of messages to go through and I don't have the privilege of staying up all night tonight as I have a harp rehearsal tomorrow. Best, Jon
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
Sorry, I meant Goess (also known as the Ebenthal MSs I believe). Facsimiles of all these tablature MSs are available from Tree Editions Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] rve.co.ukcc: Subject: Double 1st (HIP message included) 08/01/2004 23:02 Dear Martyn, I'm afraid I don't know anything at all about the Harrach book, but I'd certainly like to know more about it, if you or any one else on the list could help. All the best, Stewart. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included) - Have you got/seen the Harrach so-called theorbo/archlute book? - which are for which? The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. Service of legal documents is not accepted by email
RE: Double 1st (HIP message included)
Thank-you Stewart, This has been the most en-lightening description of the theorbo I have ever seen. Only, one thing still puzzles me... One of the American girls on the list (is it Caroline Usher?) always ends her messages with a 'bumper-sticker' which reads, I brake for theorboes If it is only a case of first strings being an octave lower, how can she tell? !!! I slow down for anything pear-shaped! Best Wishes Ron (UK)
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
Plse read my earlier replies carefully. Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: mcast.net cc: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message 07/01/2004 18:16included) martyn hodgson writes: You misunderstand the point: for larger theorboes, ie those that would normally be required to lower the 2nd an octave as well as the first, the physics doesn't work. I understood you perfectly the first time. I just don't agree. Neither do you, when it comes down to it. You insist that a theorbo string tuned to e above middle C is impossible. I say it was done all the time. In any event, you disagree with yourself, since you acknowledge that it is possible when you tell Stewart that any theorbo small enough to be tuned that way would defeat the advantage of having a theorbo. This is just an assertion of your own idea of what a theorbo has to sound like, perhaps colored by a refusal to consider local variations in pitch that would make the e possible on a theorbo larger than 75 cm. You speak of theorbos that would be required to lower the second course. I think this is irrelevant to the discussion. The re-entrant tuning did not persist because it was required but because players liked it and found that they could achieve wonderful idiomatic effects with it. Your citation to displaced octaves in bass lines is also of marginal relevance to octave jumps in melodic lines. I'm sure virtually every composer of the time in every medium wrote a bass line in which a note or two is in a different octave (either because of missing accidentals or to accomodate the range of the bass instrument), but you don't find such displacement in melodic parts for voice or violin or harpsichord or organ, or in the treble lines of lute music. The two things are not the same. Howard The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. Service of legal documents is not accepted by email
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
You misunderstand the point: for larger theorboes, ie those that would normally be required to lower the 2nd an octave as well as the first, the physics doesn't work. Of course, for smaller theorboes (say, less than around 80cm) only the first would normally be required to be lowered (as the Old Ones, indeed, tell us). Might I also refer you to earlier communications on this; both in this forum, FoMRHI etc. Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: mcast.net cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message 06/01/2004 17:16included) [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it is a chimera. Other than wishful thinking, there is no evidence for use of a theorbo second course strung in octaves; indeed, since the stress of a higher octave second would exceed the maximum breaking stress, it is highly unlikely. The second course at the upper octave was standard for English theorboes, some of which were pitched in A. So either your maximum breaking stress is overly pessimistic, or you've just proved that the English theorbo was also a chimera. HP The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. Service of legal documents is not accepted by email
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
Stewart, I posted something about this over a year (or so) ago when it first emerged in this forum, so I'll not repeat myself other than to say it's simply a question of the physics: the highest courses were tuned down an octave because the string stress exceeded the breaking stress of the string material available (ref. various early sources). One can only have a second course at both octaves if the instrument is tuned well below its normally expected nominal tuning (eg tuning a small theorbo with stopped string length of, say, 75cm in A ) but clearly, as said earlier, this largely defeats the advantage of having a theorbo (well described by Piccini's version of the earliest development of the Chitarrone). There is very often a real danger of imposing our (modern) expectations on the music and reaching a conclusions not justified by the actual evidence. As mentioned earlier, I agree that there are a few passages (in other theorbo sources as well) which, on the face of it, might make us demur these days but, if we're at all serious about 'historical performance', we ought to defer to the evidence. As also said earlier, we do know that the Old Ones were content to accept octave transpositions in the all important bass and to accept compromise (see earlier re. odd inversions in some early intabulations) and generally seem to have been rather less pedantic In actual performance many of these seemingly bizarre effects are rather less startling; often due to use of the thumb on the all important bass line. Martyn Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] rve.co.ukcc: Subject: Double 1st (HIP message included) 07/01/2004 00:06 Dear Martyn, Many thanks for your message. The question of whether particular courses should be tuned in octaves or unisons is fundamental to our understanding of how music was played in the past. Whether we are discussing lutes, baroque guitars, theorboes, or even ukuleles, this same question will keep re-appearing. I am always willing to take a fresh look at whatever evidence we may have, and re-assess it, hopefully with an open mind. Unfortunately so far there is not enough evidence to keep everyone in agreement. The idea of a second course on the theorbo tuned in octaves was put forward by Andrea Damiani in his article, An hypothesis on the tuning of the Italian theorbo, in Federico Marincola's _Lutebot_ (1999). I find his arguments very persuasive, although I confess that, unlike Andrea Damiani, I have not actually experimented with this tuning myself. I wish I could, because I have never been convinced by Melii's music played on my single-strung theorbo with the first two courses tuned down the octave. I just cannot accept a trill ending like this (_Libro Quinto_, p. 51): |\|\ |\ |\|\ | |\ |\ |\| | | |\ | | | |. |\ | | 8 =0==3==|||= ===|3===||= =2==0==|||= =1==1=3|==1=||= =1==1==00==|=11=||= ===|==o=||= T The letter T under the 3rd event indicates a trill, which is completed with a termination involving the 3rd course. Played on a single-strung theorbo with the first two courses down an octave, it is musical nonsense. Here's another, this time from page 37: |\|\ |\ |\|\ |\ | |\ | | | | 8 =0= =|===|3==1=|= =2===|===|=|= =|===|=|= 0|===3=3=|=1===|= 3|=1==0=0|=|= =|===|=|= There are so many examples of this kind, hopping back and forth from one octave to the other, that I cannot believe that this is what any sane composer would write. Examples like these suggest that the 2nd course of Melii's tiorba was tuned at the high octave, yet on page 35 we have this: |\|\|\ |\ |\ |\ | |\| |\ |\ | | | | |\ |\ | | | | |\ |\ | | | |__| | | =0= =|===2
Double 1st (HIP message included)
to another in the bass lines of baroque lute music. I guess the sort of thing you have in mind is this downward scale in the Prelude from Weiss's Suite in F: | |\ |\ | |\ | | | | e_ca___c_a_c__ d_c_a|__|_ _|__|_ _a___|__|_ _|__|_ _|__|_ 8 9 8 9 10 |\ |\ |\ |\ | |\ ||\ | | || c_a c_a___c,_|_d_c_a_|_ e_c_a|___d_b_a___|_ _|_c_a___|_ _|_c_|_ _e__e|___|_ 10 The low C# is not available, so Weiss plays at the 6th course instead. Yes, it works fine, if we just go for it without worrying about which octave it is at. I can cope with that sort of thing, because somehow the music works in spite of such apparent quirks. Ultimately it's a personal judgement. I can readily accept that passage from Weiss's Prelude, but I still feel unhappy with Melii's problem passages. Jumping from one octave to another in the bass is acceptable - it can be very attractive - but it is a different matter with a melody at the top of the texture. I would very much like the chance to experiment with Damiani's tuning, because ultimately the proof of this particular pudding may have to be in the eating, if it's the only proof we've got. :-) Best wishes, Stewart. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included) Stewart, I posted something about this over a year (or so) ago when it first emerged in this forum, so I'll not repeat myself other than to say it's simply a question of the physics: the highest courses were tuned down an octave because the string stress exceeded the breaking stress of the string material available (ref. various early sources). One can only have a second course at both octaves if the instrument is tuned well below its normally expected nominal tuning (eg tuning a small theorbo with stopped string length of, say, 75cm in A ) but clearly, as said earlier, this largely defeats the advantage of having a theorbo (well described by Piccini's version of the earliest development of the Chitarrone). There is very often a real danger of imposing our (modern) expectations on the music and reaching a conclusions not justified by the actual evidence. As mentioned earlier, I agree that there are a few passages (in other theorbo sources as well) which, on the face of it, might make us demur these days but, if we're at all serious about 'historical performance', we ought to defer to the evidence. As also said earlier, we do know that the Old Ones were content to accept octave transpositions in the all important bass and to accept compromise (see earlier re. odd inversions in some early intabulations) and generally seem to have been rather less pedantic In actual performance many of these seemingly bizarre effects are rather less startling; often due to use of the thumb on the all important bass line. Martyn Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] rve.co.ukcc: Subject: Double 1st (HIP message included) 07/01/2004 00:06 Dear Martyn, Many thanks for your message. The question of whether particular courses should be tuned in octaves or unisons is fundamental to our understanding of how music was played in the past. Whether we are discussing lutes, baroque guitars, theorboes, or even ukuleles, this same question will keep re-appearing. I am always willing to take a fresh look at whatever evidence we may have, and re-assess it, hopefully with an open mind. Unfortunately so far there is not enough evidence to keep everyone in agreement. The idea of a second course on the theorbo tuned in octaves was put forward by Andrea Damiani in his article, An hypothesis on the tuning of the Italian theorbo, in Federico Marincola's _Lutebot_ (1999). I find his arguments very persuasive, although I confess that, unlike Andrea Damiani, I have not actually experimented with this tuning myself. I wish I could, because I have never been convinced by Melii's music played on my single-strung theorbo with the first two courses tuned down the octave. I just cannot accept a trill ending like this (_Libro Quinto_, p. 51): |\|\ |\ |\|\ | |\ |\ |\| | | |\ | | | |. |\ | | 8 =0==3
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
- Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martin Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:29 PM Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included) On Sunday, January 4, 2004, at 02:47 PM, Martin Shepherd wrote: ...we should not ignore the evidence just because it suits our prejudices. I am quite willing to ignore it if it fails to suit my needs! If gut strings sound too dull and heavy in the bass, or fail to stay in tune because of the weather, or fray and break too readily in the treble, I am not going to use them. If I can get a better sound playing thumb-one way as opposed to thumb-some other way, I will do it. I've been playing the lute long enough to know what works for me and what doesn't, and it's that consideration that shapes my playing, not the tyranny of history (not even the benign dictatorship of history!). I'm not suggesting that anyone should be subject to any kind of dictatorship. I explicitly said that we ought to be guided by our own ideas (we can't have any others, after all) in evaluating our experiments. If we try gut bass strings and they don't work, we will have to use something else - but at the same time we might wonder why they don't work and try to find some that *do* work. Of course the most important thing is the music,! I agree, but learning to reproduce old masters, fascinating as that may be, is only a small part of learning how to play the lute. The painting analogy is only useful up to a point. A musician has to create something new each time, basing the creation on a set of (imperfect and incomplete) instructions - the score. Dowland's tablature will not teach anyone to play the lute, any more than having exactly the right lute and exactly the right strings will guarantee a good performance. But that doesn't mean that we should not study such information as the score does provide (ornament signs, for example). We may still choose to ignore some of this information, of course (still no dictatorship here). ...we wouldn't be doing what we're doing if we didn't believe that the technology which makes the music possible wasn't inportant too otherwise we'd all be playing it on the electric guitar... I dont know about electric guitar, but a lot of orchestras, bands, brass ensembles and soloists of all types and from all imaginable backgrounds, do play early music on modern instruments. We lutenists are not the only ones making music with this old repertoire. Are you going to say all the rest of the world is wrong? If you are, then I would have to suggest that you do so because it suits your, uh, I hate that word predjudices, let's say your likes and dislikes. Again, I'm not saying what people should and should not do. Personally I am quite happy for people to play lute music on any instrument which comes to hand (including the electric guitar), but that doesn't preclude me from being intensely interested in historical information about what lutes may have been like in the past. I just noted that, as an observer of the modern revival of the lute, some unhistorical things have been discarded (metal frets, single second course) while others (wound strings) still remain. The double first course was common in the past but is almost unheard of today, so I was merely encouraging others to try it. Incidentally I don't own a lute with a double first and have never played on one in public - but I have tried it, and I may try it more seriously next time. When building lutes, I have found that the closer I get to the historical models, the better they sound, so I have some faith that the old guys knew what they were doing, and histori! cal research is not in vain. Sorry, no flames, David - thanks for your input. Martin
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
Stewart, This matter was discussed at length a year or so ago: it is a chimera. Other than wishful thinking, there is no evidence for use of a theorbo second course strung in octaves; indeed, since the stress of a higher octave second would exceed the maximum breaking stress, it is highly unlikely. You could, I suppose, adopt a very low nominal tuning to allow the physics to work but then the lower fingered courses would be at such a low stress that the very sound the instrument was invented to produce (a stronger, more focussed bass) would be lost There are examples of this octave melodic shift in other theorbo tablatures and, bearing in mind their willingness to transpose basses an octave, there's really no reason to suppose the Old Ones were as intransigent as us on these matters (also see earlier communications). rgds Martyn Martin Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] net.co.uk cc: Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message 04/01/2004 19:47 included) - Original Message - From: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 January 2004 16:24 Subject: Double 1st Dear Sterling, There seems to have been considerable variety in instruments known as theorboes. Single or double strings on the fingerboard is one of many variants. From the purely musical point of view (i.e. recreation of different notes, not tone quality), the only significant difference between a single-strung theorbo and a double-strung one would be if the double course consisted of two strings tuned an octave apart. Andrea Dammiani has suggested that this tuning is likely for the theorbo music of Melii, where there are some odd melodic shifts from one octave to another. A single-strung theorbo would not produce the same (desired?) effect. Dear Stewart, You're quite right that we tend to oversimplify, and someone has already hauled me over the coals for suggesting that Italian theorboes were double, French single, etc. - more of which another time... I know what you mean about there being no difference in *notes* between single and double, but tone quality (and perhaps quantity) is important, which is why I worry about the tendency of modern lutenists to avoid double firsts. I see it as something which has just been quietly swept under the carpet, just as gut frets, thumb-under on renaissance lute, thumb-out on baroque lute, double frets, double second, no wound strings, etc., etc., have been in the past (and some of them still into the present). If we're serious about what lutes might have sounded like in the past, I think we have to try some things which seem a bit odd. We have to be realistic about the success or otherwise of our experiments, of course, and we can't expect to get it right first time (gut stringing being an example of a still unresolved problem). But I think you would agree that we should not ignore the evidence just because it suits our prejudices. Of course the most important thing is the music,! and I feel we've made considerable progress in understanding that (though there's still a long way to go) - but we wouldn't be doing what we're doing if we didn't believe that the technology which makes the music possible wasn't inportant too, otherwise we'd all be playing it on the electric guitar... Enough of that. Having tried a double first, I can say that it makes a different sound, and requires a different (well, more careful) technique. If it was what Dowland Co. had in mind, it seems more than a historical curiousity and more like something we should take seriously. Best wishes to all, Martin The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. Service of legal documents is not accepted by email
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it is a chimera. Other than wishful thinking, there is no evidence for use of a theorbo second course strung in octaves; indeed, since the stress of a higher octave second would exceed the maximum breaking stress, it is highly unlikely. The second course at the upper octave was standard for English theorboes, some of which were pitched in A. So either your maximum breaking stress is overly pessimistic, or you've just proved that the English theorbo was also a chimera. HP
Double 1st (HIP message included)
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:14 PM Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included) Stewart, This matter was discussed at length a year or so ago: it is a chimera. Other than wishful thinking, there is no evidence for use of a theorbo second course strung in octaves; indeed, since the stress of a higher octave second would exceed the maximum breaking stress, it is highly unlikely. You could, I suppose, adopt a very low nominal tuning to allow the physics to work but then the lower fingered courses would be at such a low stress that the very sound the instrument was invented to produce (a stronger, more focussed bass) would be lost There are examples of this octave melodic shift in other theorbo tablatures and, bearing in mind their willingness to transpose basses an octave, there's really no reason to suppose the Old Ones were as intransigent as us on these matters (also see earlier communications). rgds Martyn
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
- Original Message - From: Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 January 2004 16:24 Subject: Double 1st Dear Sterling, There seems to have been considerable variety in instruments known as theorboes. Single or double strings on the fingerboard is one of many variants. From the purely musical point of view (i.e. recreation of different notes, not tone quality), the only significant difference between a single-strung theorbo and a double-strung one would be if the double course consisted of two strings tuned an octave apart. Andrea Dammiani has suggested that this tuning is likely for the theorbo music of Melii, where there are some odd melodic shifts from one octave to another. A single-strung theorbo would not produce the same (desired?) effect. Dear Stewart, You're quite right that we tend to oversimplify, and someone has already hauled me over the coals for suggesting that Italian theorboes were double, French single, etc. - more of which another time... I know what you mean about there being no difference in *notes* between single and double, but tone quality (and perhaps quantity) is important, which is why I worry about the tendency of modern lutenists to avoid double firsts. I see it as something which has just been quietly swept under the carpet, just as gut frets, thumb-under on renaissance lute, thumb-out on baroque lute, double frets, double second, no wound strings, etc., etc., have been in the past (and some of them still into the present). If we're serious about what lutes might have sounded like in the past, I think we have to try some things which seem a bit odd. We have to be realistic about the success or otherwise of our experiments, of course, and we can't expect to get it right first time (gut stringing being an example of a still unresolved problem). But I think you would agree that we should not ignore the evidence just because it suits our prejudices. Of course the most important thing is the music,! and I feel we've made considerable progress in understanding that (though there's still a long way to go) - but we wouldn't be doing what we're doing if we didn't believe that the technology which makes the music possible wasn't inportant too, otherwise we'd all be playing it on the electric guitar... Enough of that. Having tried a double first, I can say that it makes a different sound, and requires a different (well, more careful) technique. If it was what Dowland Co. had in mind, it seems more than a historical curiousity and more like something we should take seriously. Best wishes to all, Martin
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
I would support your point in general - just an addendum: It's somehow like a relation between pupil and teacher: We need the teacher to learn the basics, technique and - yes! to get a feeling for the music but at a certain point in the education we also need to emanzipate ourselfs from our teachers and try to become our own musical personality. Otherwise we would just be copies, some better, some worse. The problem is at what point one should feel ready for amanzipating. The lute is a world of it's own and one's life cannot be long enough to just get more than a glimpse. So a teacher can be very helpfull as a guiding hand. That's the same with historic lute and us nowadays. It's okay to feel free from historic forces but it's okay for me to rely on the secure guidance of the historic. Best wishes Thomas Am Mon, 2004-01-05 um 22.29 schrieb David Rastall: On Sunday, January 4, 2004, at 02:47 PM, Martin Shepherd wrote: ...we should not ignore the evidence just because it suits our prejudices. I am quite willing to ignore it if it fails to suit my needs! If gut strings sound too dull and heavy in the bass, or fail to stay in tune because of the weather, or fray and break too readily in the treble, I am not going to use them. If I can get a better sound playing thumb-one way as opposed to thumb-some other way, I will do it. I've been playing the lute long enough to know what works for me and what doesn't, and it's that consideration that shapes my playing, not the tyranny of history (not even the benign dictatorship of history!). Of course the most important thing is the music,! I agree, but learning to reproduce old masters, fascinating as that may be, is only a small part of learning how to play the lute. ...we wouldn't be doing what we're doing if we didn't believe that the technology which makes the music possible wasn't inportant too otherwise we'd all be playing it on the electric guitar... I dont know about electric guitar, but a lot of orchestras, bands, brass ensembles and soloists of all types and from all imaginable backgrounds, do play early music on modern instruments. We lutenists are not the only ones making music with this old repertoire. Are you going to say all the rest of the world is wrong? If you are, then I would have to suggest that you do so because it suits your, uh, I hate that word predjudices, let's say your likes and dislikes. I await the flames. David Rastall -- Thomas Schall Niederhofheimer Weg 3 D-65843 Sulzbach 06196/74519 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.lautenist.de / www.tslaute.de/weiss --
Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
Hi David: Here is the Heresy of Heresies: I use different weights of clear monofilament fishing line. I can but it in bulk cheaply, it is available in many different diameters, I have very little problem with it and if it does mess up it is easy enough and cheap enough to just change it out. It does not mash down or lose its elasticity. The best part: I don't agonize over the stuff. If I lose a fret because the knot failed I just roll off a bunch more mono and away we go. Not that it matters much, but I suppose this admission, or revelation if you prefer, relegates me to the back room as an ahistorical bore that does not have a clue and should not be allowed to even look at a Lute let alone own one and try to play it. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vance Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 6:00 PM Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included) Hi Vance, Nylon frets, eh? That's downright heretical! To answer your question, I always think I'm going to get flamed when I disagreee with lute players on certain subjects, and the sacredness of history is one of them. Over the years, I've come to regard music history as more and more interesting the more I learn about it, but less and less of a lifeline. I fear that many of the Wise on the list don't see it that way. ...I hope this discussion does not cause the usual slash and burn so common around here when something seems to offend someone else's idea of the way things should be. So do I. I think sometimes we forget that the Lute has a long and often obscure history where the people, instruments, strings and music were in constant change and evolution. To think that there is one sacred way to play is just plain ignorant and narrow sighted. The same can be said about the instrument itself. The more I try to learn about the Lute the more I realize how much I and We don't, and possible cannot, know about it. Well, I'm one of those people who believes that nearly all theoretical questions regarding music can be answered on stage. I've been thinking about this lately, as I just recently joined a local music society in Washington DC that consists almost entirely of people trained in 19th-century Romantic music. I'm the only performing member on the lute. When I get up to play the lute for these folks, I pretty much know that they are not very knowledgeable in music history pre-Bach. I have to make the lute music real to them, yet I can't rely on any common historical knowledge to do it. It's turning into an interesting challenge. BTW, I'm just curious: what do you use for nylon fret material? guitar strings maybe? David R
