"But on the guitar (in alfabeto) you don't really raise basses to other
octaves, as 'parts' are mixed up all the time. What would be an exception
on a bass instrument (theorbo) is ubiquitous in guitar accompaniment. That
seems an essential
difference."
I think that the essential difference is that when strumming an
accompaniment you are not going to reproduce the bass line at all.
Bringing in Caccini was really irrelevant.
However, later on - post Foscarini 1640 - when the bass line was reproduced
in the accompaniment there may have been odd occasions when the bass line
might have crossed with a voice part because of the lack of a low G but I
can't think of any actual examples.
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lex Eisenhardt" <eisenha...@planet.nl>
To: "Martyn Hodgson" <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>; "Stewart McCoy"
<lu...@tiscali.co.uk>; "Vihuela List" <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 8:28 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Caccini's instrument
Dear Stewart,
We all seem to think that the printed bass line is what should be played
ideally. And probably it was played like it is on the keyboard (which
Caccini was master of). In practice (on his beloved theorbo?) adaptations
would have to be made regarding octaves, and, as an exception, the bass
may have crossed the tenor. I just don't think we can say that the music
was written (notated) with the theorbo in mind, although in the end even
that could be merely a semantic discussion. I am aware that there was
music 'in theory' and music 'in practice'.
This endless thread started with Martyn's question whether raising the
bass an octave in a theorbo realization differs
substantially from doing the same sort of thing on the guitar. Both
solutions are a practical in the first place. But on the guitar (in
alfabeto) you don't really raise basses to other octaves, as 'parts' are
mixed up all the time. What would be an exception on a bass instrument
(theorbo) is ubiquitous in guitar accompaniment. That seems an essential
difference.
best, Lex
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart McCoy" <lu...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: "Vihuela List" <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 12:55 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Caccini's instrument
Dear Lex,
One hesitates to mention it without 101 caveats, but what about a
theorbo in G? Evidence for such an instrument is pretty thin on the
ground (pace Praetorius), but at least some of Caccini's songs are in
flattish keys which would favour a theorbo in G.
I have not played any Caccini for a long time and cannot remember, but
could the missing notes be provided by re-tuning the relevant string -
e.g. have F# at the expense of F natural - or are there songs where you
need both?
The other possibility is that Caccini did not have only the theorbo in
mind, but wrote bass parts for all instruments, expecting the player to
adapt what he saw for his own particular instrument. Lutes were more
common than theorboes, and may have been used by at least some people
buying Caccini's book. The "missing" chromatic notes would have been
available as stopped notes on the lute.
Best wishes,
Stewart.
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
