Dear Lex, Damiani's hypothesis can apply only to theorbos with double courses on the neck.
Whether it is theorbos, guitars, or lutes, if you don't have the appropriate stringing, there is a good case for supplying the missing notes. To pick a well-known example, Francesco da Milano's Fantasia [Ness] No. 40, has the last chord as: === =0= =2= === =2= === If you played this on a lute strung in unisons, or on a single-strung modern classical guitar, you would hear just those three notes. However, Milano's lute would have had high octaves on the 4th, 5th, and 6th strings. If you wanted to reproduce the sound of what he heard (instead of what happened to be written on paper), you might be tempted to play this instead: === =0= =2= =3= =2= =0= One disadvantage of that 5-note chord is that you are forced into spreading the notes, because there are too many to pluck simultaneously. If you assume Milano wanted the three courses plucked together, you might consider a compromise with: === =0= =2= === =2= =0= To know when it might be appropriate to add an extra note, you would have to decide first whether or not the upper octave of any particular course merely strengthened the tone of the bass, or if it was a melody note in its own right. The example I always give of a missing melody note is the opening of Spinacino's intabulation of Stockhem's "Haray tre amours", _Intabulatura de Lauto Libro secondo_ (Venice, 1507), f. 15v: |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ | |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ | | | |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ | | | =========================|===========|= =========================|=2===2=====|= =========================|========2==|= =2==4==5==4==5==4==2==4==|===========|= =========================|===========|= =========================|===========|= If your lute does not have high octaves at the 4th, 5th, and 6th courses, there is a good case for completing the opening flourish like this: |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ | |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ | | | |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ |\ | | | =========================|===========|= =========================|=2===2=====|= =========================|========2==|= =2==4==5==4==5==4==2==4==|===========|= =========================|=0=========|= =========================|===========|= Of course such decisions are a slippery slope. Just how far should one go in restoring notes lost because of trying to play a piece on an instrument with the wrong stringing? I think there is a strong case for adding a few crucially important notes as in this last example, but taken to excess it can soon get very silly. Where Melii fits into all this is anyone's guess, because we still don't know for sure exactly how he tuned his theorbo. Best wishes, Stewart. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lex Eisenhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:46 AM Subject: Re: Losy Menuet > Dear Stewart, > > It was Gaspar Sanz who tells us why he preferred to play without bourdons on > his guitar. But others did different: > Granata wrote campanela sections for his 'chitarra atiorbata' in the Soavi > Concenti 1659 on p. 98 > Bartolotti, who probably was the campanela champion of his time, most likely > stringed his guitar with bourdons. > The 'funny buzzy noise' can be avoided. We don't know if anyone ever tried > to avoid it in the 17th c. > Sometimes the notes have double functions, like Thomas said. > > A question comes to mind: The Damiani hypothesis is only valid for theorboes > strung in courses. So what to do on a single strung instrument? > > Hartelijke groeten, > Lex
