Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: Guitar bridges
I have looked at the examples. It is true that melodies are spread over
'high' and 'low' courses (5 & 4 vs 1,2 & 3). That is different from the
lute, but something similar also occurs on the theorbo.
Well - exactly - and Bartolotti was a theorbo player.
Normally the fingers and the thumb stay in their own domain, on lower and
higher courses. Also on the guitar.
I don't think so. Certainly not in guitar music. Use of alternating
finger and thumb over different courses is a feature of the music in
Bartolotti's first book and elsewhere. e.g.
The Ciaccona on p.49. First of all - the descending "bass" line is
actually in the middle register. It goes C B A G. With a bourdon
on the 5th course it goes down to A and then leaps up a 7th and disappears
in surrounding counterpoint. A clear example of this is the variation at
the beginning of stave 2 on the first page. Without a bourdon in most
places it is present as a clearly audible descending scale.
Secondly - the passing notes between the chords usually belong to the upper
melodic line. This is obvious in a number of places - notably in the two
variations at the end of line 2 where the 3-part chords are to be played
with the first and second fingers. All the passing notes are split between
courses but belong to the melody.
There are lots of place in Foscarini - where passing notes on the 4th and
5th courses really belong to the upper melody - the Corrente detta la
Fauorita on p.60 for example.
In Corbetta 1648 - the second half of the Almanda on p.40 - the passing
notes between the chords belong to the melody.
(These are all pieces I play - and I have never heard them played by anyone
else).
But it doesn't change anything, in these treble melodies the high octave
string can be singled out if you like (or you can play the course in such
a way that the high octave will dominate). The point is that we can
choose. The 4th and 5th courses can be used as either a bass or a treble.
I thought that this was commonly understood.
It may be commonly understood by you and some other players today but that
doesn't prove that that is how composers in the 17th century intended the
music to be played. You are arguing that because it is possible (although
in practice it doesn't seem to me to work very effectively) this proves that
the music is not intended to be played with a re-entrant tuning.
In his tutor of course James Tyler has not only suggested this but has put a
cross under the notes where he thinks the bourdon should be included -
rather than omitted - which seems to me to be taking it to absurd lengths.
But I
know of no evidence at all that that is what players did in the 17th
century.
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.
So you have misunderstood. With or without doubling in the high octave,
the entry is in the bass. (I guess you are only thinking of the first two
notes?)
I actually made a staff notation transcription of the opening bars of this
piece some time ago including the octave doubling - and no, I haven't
misunderstood. The first four notes sound in the upper register (they do
when you play it anyway). Then the intervals of the theme are inverted so
that the theme is split into two with a little question and answer which
creates some variety instead of having it exactly the same. It doesn't
have to belong to the bass at all.
Last week I was at a rehearsal with a marimba player. I complained about
the overtones in the bass register, an E producing a very loud b (the 3rd
harmonic) in a diminished chord E -g - b-flat. He told me that you have
that all the time, cannot be avoided but he still loved the instrument.
That is a two way argument. You think that octave doubling is something we
have to put up with. I think that there is less to put up with with a
re-entrant or partially re-entrant tuning and the part writing is often
clearer.
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.
What practical reasons?
It seems that we don't actually know very much about how guitars were
constructed and the instruments we play today and the strings we use may not
resemble very closely those which Bartolotti, Foscarini and Corbetta played.
I believe your guitar is modeled on the Stradivarius in the Ashmolean made
in 1688 but presumably scaled down since the present string length is 74cms?
From what you have said I assume you also have a slotted bridge. And as
far as I can remember you are using nylgut for at least some of the strings.
Stadivarius instruments are apparently regarded as untypical. Bartolotti
wouldn't have played one (he was dead by 1688) and may not have had a
slotted bridge so wouldn't have been able to make the adjustments you say
you make. And he would have been using plain gut strings not nylgut.
There is more to historical informed performance than analysing the music in
a quasi academic fashion.
Nobody seems to be particularly interested in this aspect of things but I
think we should be asking more questions about how things worked in
practice - something which you seem to be reluctant even to consider.
As ever
Monica
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
