Stewart,
I posted something about this over a year (or so) ago when it first emerged
in this forum, so I'll not repeat myself other than to say it's simply a
question of the physics: the highest courses were tuned down an octave
because the string stress exceeded the breaking stress of the string
material available (ref. various early sources). One can only have a second
course at both octaves if the instrument is tuned well below its normally
expected nominal tuning (eg tuning a small theorbo with stopped string
length of, say, 75cm in A ) but clearly, as said earlier, this largely
defeats the advantage of having a theorbo (well described by Piccini's
version of the earliest development of the Chitarrone).
There is very often a real danger of imposing our (modern) expectations on
the music and reaching a conclusions not justified by the actual evidence.
As mentioned earlier, I agree that there are a few passages (in other
theorbo sources as well) which, on the face of it, might make us demur
these days but, if we're at all serious about 'historical performance',
we ought to defer to the evidence. As also said earlier, we do know that
the Old Ones were content to accept octave transpositions in the all
important bass and to accept compromise (see earlier re. odd inversions in
some early intabulations) and generally seem to have been rather less
pedantic
In actual performance many of these seemingly bizarre effects are rather
less startling; often due to use of the thumb on the all important bass
line.
Martyn
"Stewart McCoy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rve.co.uk> cc:
Subject: Double 1st (HIP message
included)
07/01/2004 00:06
Dear Martyn,
Many thanks for your message.
The question of whether particular courses should be tuned in
octaves or unisons is fundamental to our understanding of how music
was played in the past. Whether we are discussing lutes, baroque
guitars, theorboes, or even ukuleles, this same question will keep
re-appearing. I am always willing to take a fresh look at whatever
evidence we may have, and re-assess it, hopefully with an open mind.
Unfortunately so far there is not enough evidence to keep everyone
in agreement.
The idea of a second course on the theorbo tuned in octaves was put
forward by Andrea Damiani in his article, "An hypothesis on the
tuning of the Italian theorbo", in Federico Marincola's _Lutebot_
(1999). I find his arguments very persuasive, although I confess
that, unlike Andrea Damiani, I have not actually experimented with
this tuning myself. I wish I could, because I have never been
convinced by Melii's music played on my single-strung theorbo with
the first two courses tuned down the octave. I just cannot accept a
trill ending like this (_Libro Quinto_, p. 51):
|\ |\ |\ |\ |\
| |\ |\ |\ |
| | |\ | |
| |. |\ | |
8
=0==3==========|============||=
===============|====3=======||=
=2==0==========|============||=
=1==1=====3====|==========1=||=
=1==1==0====0==|=1========1=||=
===============|==========o=||=
T
The letter T under the 3rd event indicates a trill, which is
completed with a termination involving the 3rd course. Played on a
single-strung theorbo with the first two courses down an octave, it
is musical nonsense.
Here's another, this time from page 37:
|\ |\ |\
|\ |\ |\
| |\ |
| | |
8 =0=
=========|===================|====3==1=|=
=2=======|===================|=========|=
=========|===================|=========|=
====0====|=======3=========3=|=1=======|=
====3====|=1==0=========0====|=========|=
=========|===================|=========|=
There are so many examples of this kind, hopping back and forth from
one octave to the other, that I cannot believe that this is what any
sane composer would write.
Examples like these suggest that the 2nd course of Melii's tiorba
was tuned at the high octave, yet on page 35 we have this:
|\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\
| |\ | |\ |\ |
| | | |\ |\ |
| | | |\ |\ |
| | |__| | |
=0=
=========|=======2===================|===
=========|===========================|=0=
=0=======|=======2===========2=0=====|===
=3=====3=|=======2=====3=1=0=========|===
=3=====3=|=3==1==0===============2=0=|===
=2=====2=|===========================|===
For that downward scale to make any musical sense at all, the 2nd
course must be tuned at the lower octave. The only way all these
passages can sound anything like music is to have a 2nd course which
provides notes at two different octaves. QED.
Your point about maximum breaking stress is an important one, and
led Damiani to conclude that the sort of theorbo Melii had in mind
was probably quite a small one. As Howard Posner has pointed out,
although the English theorbo (with a high 2nd course) was normally
tuned to G, there is evidence that it was sometimes tuned to A.
Thomas Mace makes it very clear that the theorbo in A needs to be
smaller than the one in G. On page 216 of _Musick's Monument_
(London, 1676) he shows how the open strings of the theorbo in G
would look like in staff notation. He then says:
"These are the Natural Notes of the Scale, the Sixth String being
Generally us'd for Gam-ut, upon a Full-Sciz'd Lute; but upon Lutes
of a Smaller Scize, which will not bear up to Speak Plumply, or
Lustily, according to a Consort-Pitch; then we make the 7th. String
Gam-ut, as here in This next Under-Line you may see."
Mace then shows what the open strings would be in staff notation for
a theorbo in A. By the way, when he uses the word "lute" in this
context, he means "theorbo".
The problem we have is that, as far as I know, there is no concrete
evidence (like a surviving instrument or a description in a book) to
support Damiani's hypothesis. It's a similar situation to the many
discussions we have had with regard to the baroque guitar's 3rd
course - was it ever tuned in octaves, and if so, how widespread was
this? We fall back on looking at the music, where there are funny
shifts from one octave to another. The octavists (like me) argue
that the music can only make proper sense if we have courses tuned
in octaves; the unisonists argue that this is over-fussy, and that
these strange shifts are an integral part of the instrument's style.
You pays your money and takes your choice. :-)
All the best,
Stewart.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Martin Shepherd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
> Stewart,
>
> This matter was discussed at length a year or so ago: it is a
chimera.
> Other than wishful thinking, there is no evidence for use of a
theorbo
> second course strung in octaves; indeed, since the stress of a
higher
> octave second would exceed the maximum breaking stress, it is
highly
> unlikely. You could, I suppose, adopt a very low nominal tuning
to allow
> the physics to work but then the lower fingered courses would be
at such a
> low stress that the very sound the instrument was invented to
produce (a
> stronger, more focussed bass) would be
lost........................
>
> There are examples of this octave melodic shift in other theorbo
tablatures
> and, bearing in mind their willingness to transpose basses an
octave,
> there's really no reason to suppose the Old Ones were as
intransigent as us
> on these matters (also see earlier communications).
>
> rgds
>
> Martyn
________________________________________________________________________
The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the
intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient,
please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please
delete this email (and any attachment) from your system.
Service of legal documents is not accepted by email
________________________________________________________________________
