I had a quick look at information on the lyra viol. It seemed to have
flourished more in the 17th century than the 18th. There were many, many
tunings one website gives about 40. At a quick glance I couldnt see a tuning
like the tuning in the Bang MS.
The signs ornaments or directions to play in a certain way in the MS
probably will prove what instrument is intended. They are unlike anything Ive
seen for a plucked instrument. Somebody must recognise them. Might they
indicate bowed vs pizzicato playing? (
if the music is for a viol
or
pardessus? the pardessus de viole was popular in the 18th century in France.
Were Bergen people Francophiles?).
> > Thanks for making this MS available. Ive just been looking through
> it and trying some of the pieces on a Russian guitar in G tuning (I just
> pretended the fifth string didnt exist and it reproduces the tuning
> exactly).
>
> I've done the same with a waldzither and yes, the pieces are really
> cute. :-)
>
> > The MS is quite faded in places and its difficult to make out some
> of the notes.
>
> Some may have been lost in scanning I'm afraid. The paper copies I have
> are faded but I think all is readable - although only barely so at
> times. Hopefully I can manage to find time to transcribe the entire
> manuscript (done the four first so far).
>
> > The first piece, an Allemande, is straightforward enough. A simple
> little piece and it sounds pleasant enough on the Russian guitar
and
> would sound equally pleasant on a Norwegian sister.
>
> Does that mean the verdict is still open on the question whether it was
> intended for a plucked or a bowed instrument? I posted a few
> transcriptions here earlier and the comments I gave left me with the
> impression that it was almost certainly for the viol.
>
> >
> > But one would expect a GBDGBD tuning rather than a DGDGBD tuning for
> a cittern type instrument. But again, later German citterns, from about
> 1800 had a similar tuning for the top five strings (or courses): CGCEG,
> i.e. omitting the lower major third. Maybe this tuning in the Bang MS is
> a Norwegian variant.
>
> That may well be the case.
>
> > I dont know what cultural interchange there was between Swedes and
> Norwegians in the latter half of the 18th century.
>
> There's always been a rich cultural exchange between Sweden and eastern
> Norway. But the Bang manuscript seems to originate in the Bergen region,
> about as far from Sweden and Swedish influence that you can possibly come.
>
> > The Swedes sometimes called their version of the guittar, the luta.
> (I think this spelling is right!) If Norwegians did too, then this
> really could be the Peter Bang lute MS!.
>
> Well yes, but keep in mind that there seems to be no historical support
> for the "lute" designation. Apparently it was added by some fairly late
> 20th century musicologist who never had a good look at the book but
> simply assumed that since it was in tablature it had to be for the lute.
>
> > But guittar/cistre music in Britain, France, Sweden and elsewhere is
> not in tablature (
maybe it was in tab in Germany?) so that might
> suggest the music is not for a sister.
>
> True, but I don't think viol music was usually notated in tablature this
> late either and I think we can safely ignore the lute (the true lute
> that is, not a renamed cittern).
>
> > (I havent sorted out the final tuning.)
>
> Me neither. To be honest I haven't gotten around to really look at it
> yet (this is a draft, remember). Bang gives each tuning in two different
> ways: a table of the unison notes on adjacent courses and a table of the
> octaves across the strings. When it comes to the third tunings the two
> tables contradict each other.
>
> > I agree that 1679 seems very unlikely. The music, as you suggest, is
> more like a century later.
>
> I didn't intend to suggest that. The 1769 dating on my title page is
> actually a typo!
>
> Moe offers no evidence to support his 1679 dating though, and it's
> important to keep in mind that he wrote his essay attempting to sell the
> book. He may well have exaggerated its age a little bit (or at least be
> less keen than he should have been to double-check his information. ;-)
>
> To me the style of handwriting and the spelling looks more late 18th
> than 17th century. I'd really like to get an expert's view on that -
> preferably one who could also dechipher the text snippets I'm unable to
> read.
>
> The style of the arrangements also look suspiciously similar to what we
> find in the Scottish guittar books.
>
> However, I was told here that there were a couple of concordances with
> Playford's lyra viol publications. If that's true, it may well have been
> 1th C. (and it might also settle the instrumentation question).
>
> > The first piece, the Allemande, now a very simple little country
> dance, was very popular in the guittar and cistre repertoire of 18th
> century Britain and France.
>
> You mean that particular allemande or allemandes in general?
>
> >
> > I can see a few mistakes in the tablature. The piece on page 12 (your
> numbering) in the second bar, the last note should be a line lower. And
> there is a very strange chord on the second half of bar 8 of the same
> piece
a mistake surely.
>
> I have to look at those. Thanks.
>
> > Is this music for the lyra viol?
>
> I thought so and other, more learned, scholars agreed. Then I began
> wondering whether it may have been for a cittern instead, but our
> previous discussion here on the topic convinced me it was for the lyra viol.
> After your comments I'm not so sure anymore.
>
> > I know absolutely nothing about this instrument. Was it popular in
> the second half of the 18th century?
>
> In Norway you mean? I know of no other reference to the lyra viol in
> this country from the 18th or any other century. Can't say I've looked
> into the topic yet though.
>
> When it comes to Europe as a whole it's a bit late, but not impossibly so.
>
> > No doubt this music could as well be bowed as well as plucked and
> there are some strange signs in the music which might settle the matter.
> Sometimes open strings have a dot under them.
>
> It was those dots that got me to think of the cittern in the first
> place. They're quite common as (right hand) fingering indications for
> plucked instruments from the 16th century and right up to today. Never
> seen them used for bwed instruments, but again, I'm not an expert. My
> personal experience as a violist is limited to some basic Susato abuse
> in my youth.
>
> Another detail that puzzled me, are the frequent use of unison notes on
> two courses (one open, one fretted) combined with a higher note on yet
> another course. Quite elementary on a plucked instrument but doesn't
> seem to be worth the bother when played with a bow.
>
> > Sometimes theres a slur with two vertical lines cutting through it.
>
> The two vertical lines appear to be an ornament sign of some kind. They
> don't always coincide with a slur.
>
> > Sometimes theres a wavy horizontal line below a note.
>
> Hmmmm...
>
> I thought these were ornaments too, but they may well indicate that the
> note is supposed to ring on. If that's the case, the music is most
> certainly intended for a plucked instrument. Have a look at piece no 3
> ("Nuvel an vær frisk til mod") and tell me what you think.
> There are also some digonal lines between notes in a chord there. Not
> absolutely sure what they mean.
>
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
