Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: Guitar bridges
It is often assumed that after c 1600 most lutenists played thumb out,
because of the separated functions of thumb and fingers in most of the
music (the thumb playing the bass). I don't think that iconography from
the 17th century shows many thumb inside positions on guitar. Which of
course doesn't say all.
That may be the case with the lute - but it is not true that the thumb has
an entirely separate function from the fingers on the guitar. Campanellas
are the obvious example but it goes much further than that. I don't want to
get endlessly involved in this but just to give some example - the first
half
of the Allemanda p.71 of Bartolotti's 1st book -
- the two semiquavers in the first full bar on the first line, one on the
4th course followed by one on the 1st course (f-g)
- the two semiquavers in the second full bar on the first line, one on the
5th course followed by one on the 2nd course (a-b)
- the two semiquavers in the first full bar on the second line, one on the
5th course followed by one on the 4th course (c-d)
- at the cadence - the changing note figure (e-d-e)
in all of these places the notes on the 4th or 5th courses belong to the
upper melodic line but will be played with the thumb.
There are lots of other similar places.
This alternating of the thumb and fingers seems to be derived from playing
with a
plectrum - the melody is split between the outer courses played with up and
down strokes of the plectrum.
Following on from what Chris has said in his later message the Ciaccona on
p.48 - the first variation on the third stave is to be played alternating
the thumb and fingers, the fingers being used for notes on the 4th and 5th
courses.
If we would suppose for one second that Bartolotti used bourdons (we all
seem to consider this an one of the possible stringing options), and has
written a bass in counterpoint to treble melodies, would there be any
reason why the bass should not be clearly audible? And played with good
tone?
In theory perhaps. But I don't think he does very often write a bass in
counterpoint to treble melodies although it may seem like it to you! There
may be odd places - for example in
the E minor gigue on p. 7 of book 2 where there is an imitative entry in
bar 6 on the first stave which appears to be in the bass because it is on
the 4th and 5th courses. Because of the octave doubling - which even you
with whatever strings and technique you are using can't eliminate - sounds
to me in the treble with inappropriate doubling in the octave below. The
entry would be clearest without bourdons on either course. (I listened to
both recordings) I have no difficulty in following the counterpoint one way
or another.
You seem to think that people won't be able to follow the music unless it is
spelt out in the most literal way. You are hooked on the idea that the
counterpoint must be explicit otherwise no-one will be able to follow it.
That may be true of most of your audiences. But to quote an article I.just
been reading - you are trying to perform the music in a way that meets
modern performing needs, not to mention the needs of record companies, not
in the way that it would necessarily have been performed in the 17th
century. Bartolotti's audience - which would have been quite small and of
course would only ever have heard him play live (lucky them) - may have
perceived things differently.
Why I was asking these questions about bridges and such was because I think
we tend to approach the problem the wrong way round. The music is the way
it is because that is how the instrument was, and the instrument was like
that for practical reasons.
And so to bed.
Monica
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
