Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Why re-entrant tunings
> Apart from this specific case: who is to decide whether arguments are > pseudo-academic. To take everything on the paper for granted is not > necessarily 'more scientific'. The very unusual (maybe even unique) harmonic > language of Corbetta is in need of an explanatory theory. Corbetta's harmony is by no means unique. Similar or the same chords occur in many other guitar books - Carbonchi, Granata, De Visee, Grenerin for example, even Bartolotti. So far I have not > seen any better explanation. This is because you have committed yourself to this theory on your CD and in several places in print and are not willing to consider in an unbiased way any other explanation. In fact one obvious explanation to anyone who has played the music with an open mind is that the dissonance occurs in conjunction with standard alfabeto chords which cannot be completely fingered because of auxiliary notes or ornamentation. This is clearly the case in Pinnell's first example which is a cadential formula which Corbetta uses frequently. The dissonant chord is actually chord H3 in which the 4th course has been left unfingered so that the ornament can be played on the first course. There is a precedent for this in the variant chord L and some other alfabeto chords which are slightly altered because of the fingering. It is a feature of the strummed repertoire. Nearly all of Corbetta's dissonance can be explained in this way. > > He has mentioned it very briefly and he can at least recognise a misprint > > when he sees one - which apparently some guitarists cannot. The fact that > > he has put forward this theory doesn't mean that it should be accepted > > uncritically. > > certainly not. I found out about the existence his theory _after_ I had > reached similar conclusions. Then perhaps you should say so and set out examples of your own instead of quoting Pinnell and suggesting that what he says is established and widely accepted fact. > > > > Whether or not they are ugly is a matter of personal taste. I have been > > listening to a lot of Frescobaldi's keyboard recently and I think a lot of > > it is very ugly. If I were to suggest that the dissonance should be > > eliminated people would laugh at me - and quite right too. > > Corbetta's dissonance can not be compared to Frescobaldi's. Eric Belloq > (booklet of the Naxos CD) compared it to Darius Milhaud. Quite right > actually. Only the wrong period for this music, unfortunately. Of course Corbetta's dissonance is different from Frescobaldi's because the 5-course guitar is not capable of playing the kind of dissonance or chromaticism found in Frescobaldi. It simply wouldn't work. The point is that in the early baroque period composers were particularly interested in exploring dissonance and experimenting in one way or another with harmonic language. Guitraists are experimenting with what works on their instrument. Eric Belloq may not be so far wrong in making this comparison. Your assumption that interest in the baroque guitar has only arisen in the last 30 years is a bit mistaken. People like Respighi and Chilesotti were familiar with a lot of it. De Visee's music was certainly known and continued to be played in France. Early 20th century French composers were certainly interested in and influenced by "ethnic"and "early" music. I remember reading somewhere that the composer Varese ran a choir which sang Palestrina. > > In fact Corbetta puts dots on the line when courses are to be > > omitted and wavy lines under the tablature when a barre is to be used - > > fairly consistently, not only in chordal passages but also in melodic > > passages. > > Not correct. Anyone who has access to La Guitarre Royalle (1671) can see for > himself. The notation with the dots is used really inconsistently. As an > example could serve the first bar of p.2. It is typically a 'players > notation'. What should our 'scientific' judgement be here, about Corbetta's > consistency in notational matters ? You seem to think that no-one else except you has ever bothered to look at the music! Basically he puts in the dots when it may be unclear whether the open courses are to be included. In the particular passage you refer to it is fairly obvious that which open courses are to be included. I haven't got time to go into details. Although he doesn't always put in the dots if you study the places where he does it is not difficult to understand what is standard. The fact that he is inconsistent doesn't mean that there is a hidden agenda which he hasn't bothered to mention in the preface. You should be condemned to copy out the whole of La guitarre royale by hand backwards. You might not be so keen to put in a lot of superfluous dots or ciphers then! Everyone who wishes to play 'what is > written' is welcome to do so. Thank you for your gracious permission. M > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
