Gentlemen, I am confused.
And I'm not embarrassed by my confusion, the number of instruments with
different names in the registry of lutes is a bit daunting. I am aware that
guitars, violins and cellos - and all sorts of other similar instruments are
categorized as lutes, and made by Luthiers. But within the close family
there are the citterns, the mandolas and the modern mandolin - although the
latter is quite different when played in the Appalachians.
So what is a Theorbo, I know it is a lute with extra bass strings that are
longer than than the base length of the instrument (perhaps on a swan neck -
see, I do learn some things here <g>). Could there be a small Theorbo,
perhaps we could call it a "tenor Theorbo" with a shorter base length such
that one could "octave" the first and second courses and yet be within the
breaking pitch? Or does that instrument have a different name?
I don't present argument, I merely ask the question so I can better
understand the conversation. One could easily design a smaller instrument
with a 1st course an octave above the g that is normal, and then octave that
g' as g. It would have a quite different timbre, but it may have been done.
The low courses, of course, would yet be tenor, but it is an interesting
thought.
Enough, it seems to come down to nomenclature - and the differing attitudes
as to what is properly a lute.
Best, Jon
PS, a bass and a tenor can sing the same song in the same key, the timbre
may be different, but each is singing the music as he feels it. I'm sure the
"Old Ones" would have enjoyed the variations on their compositions that come
with the change of pitch and voice.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
Stewart,
Yes, as I said, if a theorbo is tuned to a nominal pitch significantly
lower than it's size would normally warrant then, of course, it is quite
possible to string it with an octave on the 2nd - , as also said, this
ignores the very reason why the theorbo was developed and why it was so
valued.
However, my principal concern with much of this sort of speculation is that
many (not you Stewart) seem to uncritically accept it as fact because it
meets their (modern) expectations rather than trying to determine what the
Old Ones wld have expected based on the available evidence.
Martyn
PS - 'English' theorboes cld be the same large size as Italian
instruments (*see Talbot MS);
- Castaldi can be played on a large(ish) instrument eg my A theorbo
at 90cm fingered string length;
- Castaldi also writes for a theorbo and an octave theorbo - the
instrument depicted seems not to fill either bill;
- Have you got/seen the Harrach so-called theorbo/archlute book? -
which are for which?
"Stewart McCoy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Lute Net"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rve.co.uk> cc:
Subject: Double 1st
(HIP message included)
07/01/2004 17:19
Dear Martyn,
Many thanks for your reply. I'm a little bothered that we often seem
to end up disagreeing on threads which come up from time to time.
Please don't take it personally. I very much enjoy our exchange of
ideas, and value what you say.
In 1998 I taught the lute on an early music course in Edole, Latvia.
I had taken with me Stephen Haynes' old lute - one he had made
himself, and which he had given to the Latvians. I can't remember
now, but I guess the string length was about 62 or 63 cm.
One day one of the students came to tell me that the first string
had broken, but not to worry: they'd managed to play the lute,
because they had fitted a metal guitar string in place of the broken
nylon string. I was horrified at the thought, wondering if extra
tension might have damaged the lute. When I found the lute, it was
being played by an unruffled Latvian. "Don't worry," he said, "we
thought the metal string might be too much for the lute, so we've
tuned it an octave lower than it should be." In effect (without
realising it) they had re-invented the theorbo.
I mention this, because theoretically any lute could be a theorbo,
as long as one or two courses are tuned down an octave. Thomas Mace
puts at as follows:
"The Theorboe, is no other, than That which we call'd the Old
English Lute;"
He explains how solos are played on so-called French lutes, but the
theorbo is used for continuo. He makes the point that theorbos are
quite large, so the first course is tuned an octave lower. I don't
know what sort of string length he had in mind, but it must have
been shorter than a large Italian chitarrone. I agree that it would
be impossible for such a large instrument to have its 2nd course
tuned at the high octave.
Mace in England in 1676 is a long way in time and distance from
Melii in 1620, so is he really relevant? Damiani's hypothesis
depends on what theorbos were like c. 1620. If they were all big
then, I would have to agree that a high octave on the 2nd course was
totally out of the question. However, I believe that it wasn't that
simple. In 1619 Praetorius, for example, says about the theorbo,
"Since constant changes take place in these various matters, nothing
very definite may be stated about them here." (Translation From
Robert Spencer's article on the theorbo in _Early Music_ (October
1976), p. 419).
The portrait of Castaldi in his _Capricci a due stromenti_ (Modena,
1622) shows what looks like a smallish theorbo, which would be
understandable in view of the difficulty of his music. This is just
two years after the publication of Melii's _Quinto Libro_ with his
pieces for theorbo. Piccinini's _Libro Primo_ was published in 1623,
so all three books appeared more or less at the same time.
Castaldi's theorbo is single-strung throughout, but it confirms that
theorbos were not always big. Mace makes the connection between size
and virtuosity. He acknowledges that there are players who can show
"Agillity, and Nimbleness enough" on a theorbo, but that sort of
playing is really intended for smaller instruments. Castaldi's music
is very difficult to play, and so as far as his music is concerned,
the smaller the instrument the better.
So why have a theorbo with a re-entrant tuning, when you could as
well have a lute instead? If the theorbo is made the way it is
(large with a re-entrant tuning) for fullness and depth of sound,
why have a tiny one? As you say, this largely defeats the advantage
of having a theorbo in the first place. I can only surmise, but what
I think happened is this:
1) In the 1580's and 1590's the Italians wanted large instruments
with deep notes and a full sound to accompany male singers, so they
made large chitarroni. The instruments were so big, that they had to
do what my Latvian friends did, and used a re-entrant tuning.
2) They liked the fuller sound of their new, large instrument, were
perhaps attracted by campanella possibilities (there are examples in
Piccinini's music), and started to play solos as well as just
accompany singers.
3) To be able to play solos - not just simple continuo
accompaniments - they needed smaller instruments, or the sheer size
would inhibit the music they could play. Some small theorbos were
made.
Two years before Melii's book was published, Besard published his
_Novus Partus_ (1617). In this book there are lute trios for lutes
in G, G, and D. One of the G lutes is called "Nova Testudine" and is
tuned like a theorbo: "Esti enim � Teorb� (quam vocant) in
accordatione". Presumably this is quite a small instrument - smaller
than the Testudo Major in D.
I conclude that, by the time Melii produced his _Quinto Libro_,
there were all sorts of shapes and sizes of theorbo, including
smaller ones more suitable for solos than for playing with a large
ensemble.
-o-O-o-
I agree that there are some pretty odd bits of writing for early
plucked instruments, whether all those second inversion chords for
solo cittern and solo renaissance guitar, or odd shifts from one
octave to another in the bass lines of baroque lute music. I guess
the sort of thing you have in mind is this downward scale in the
Prelude from Weiss's Suite in F:
| |\ |\
| |\ |
| | |
____e_c________a___c_a_c__________
________d_c_a____|______________|_
_________________|______________|_
_a_______________|______________|_
_________________|______________|_
_________________|______________|_
8 9 8 9 10
|\ |\ |\ |\
| |\ | |\
| | | |
____c_a____________________________________
________c_a_______c,_|_d_c_a_____________|_
____________e_c_a____|_______d_b_a_______|_
_____________________|_____________c_a___|_
_____________________|_________________c_|_
_e______________e____|___________________|_
10
The low C# is not available, so Weiss plays at the 6th course
instead. Yes, it works fine, if we just go for it without worrying
about which octave it is at. I can cope with that sort of thing,
because somehow the music works in spite of such apparent quirks.
Ultimately it's a personal judgement. I can readily accept that
passage from Weiss's Prelude, but I still feel unhappy with Melii's
problem passages. Jumping from one octave to another in the bass is
acceptable - it can be very attractive - but it is a different
matter with a melody at the top of the texture.
I would very much like the chance to experiment with Damiani's
tuning, because ultimately the proof of this particular pudding may
have to be in the eating, if it's the only proof we've got. :-)
Best wishes,
Stewart.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included)
>
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________________
____
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________
