Paul, et all,
I can offer up some of my own experience.
Earlier this year I played theorbo in Handel's
Ariodante at the local conservatory, which was
probably the largests ensemble I've performed with.
Since I was coming to rehearsals straight from
teaching all day, it was logistically impossible to
bring my own istrument - a big Italian theorbo with
99cm fingerboard. (Lets please leave aside for the
moment whether this was the appropriate instrument to
use in Handel or not.) I was able to use the school's
theorbo, however, which has a string length in the
upper 70's.
Before one rehearsal, I had the chance to go home
and gather my own instrument, so I thought I'd compare
the two. The verdict, based on my own judgement and
that of the archlute player sitting next to me: The
big instrument had a really great bass sound when the
diapasons were involved, but the sounds of the chords
got swallowed up even when only a few
instruments/voices were involved. Meanwhile, the
smaller instrument didn't have as much boom down in
the low range, but it had more overall projection and
"punch" that could be heard even when the orchestra
played. I have to to honestly say that the longer
fingerboard was a real disadvantage: the strings need
to be so thin at that length that it's very difficult
to grab into them much.
As Lynda correctly points out, big chords can not
feasibly be played on an instrument of this size. So
you end up playing little dinky chords that sound -
well, dinky. And composers seem to conspire to put
accidentals right in the middle of the most effective
diapason runs, forcing you to resort to plinky-plinky
range. Frustrating!
Chris
--- Paul Pleijsier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What a waste of words, to talk about historically
> correct theorboes.
> First learn to phrase, learn to improvise, learn to
> love the music etc (see
> Ariels mail) , only then can you start to think
> about getting a historically
> correct theorbo. Many professionals are using a
> small one, they're not
> crazy. Besides, the audience will not hear it
> anyway. It is mostly the bad
> players, worrying about correct theorboes.
> ;-)
> PP
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Benjamin Narvey"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Lutelist" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:55 PM
> Subject: [LUTE] Lynda Sayce
>
>
> > Dear Thomas,
> >
> > I think you are right that modern pros sometimes
> have to make compromises
> > (usually with regards to stringing), but I think
> you may have
> > misunderstood
> > what Lynda means regarding theorbo size. I refer
> to the following quote
> > from
> > your message - I realise you may have been
> expressing your views here and
> > not
> > Lynda's, so I apologise if I am getting this
> wrong. I thought it would be
> > best to clarify Lynda's views for the lutenet in
> light of recent
> > conversations
> > I have had with her on the subject. Anyway, here
> goes:
> >
> > "I am sure this is mainly for practical reasons.
> And as Linda Sayes has
> > pointed out in the recent lute news we have a
> "concert life" now which
> > produces somehow not historic reasoned effects
> (relating to instruments
> > which
> > never existed or have never been used in the way
> they are nowadays and
> > stringing habits which never existed). One could
> say: "Then stay at home
> > and
> > play for yourself" but how realistic is that? We
> need professionals (who
> > need
> > to make compromises to earn their living) and we
> need players playing for
> > the
> > public to "promote" our instrument. It's important
> to recognize what is
> > not
> > historic and to have the ideal of recreating HI
> Performances but we also
> > need
> > to accept what's possible."
> >
> > Lynda and I were speaking last week - with regards
> to a HUGE full-size
> > reproduction of the Nuremberg Schelle that I
> should be picking upnext week
> > (which is fully 2m (sic) in length!) - and rather
> than being on the side
> > of
> > compromise regarding theorbo size, she rather
> thinks that lute players
> > just
> > have to get used to the idea of schlepping the
> huge beasts about and
> > learning
> > how to play on them. Making scaled-down toy
> versions of historic
> > instruments
> > that are based on the current size restrictions of
> British Airways is
> > *not*
> > the solution that she advocates. She often makes
> an analogy with bass
> > players, saying that even though their size makes
> them harder to play on
> > than
> > a cello, and even though they are more dificult to
> carry around, people
> > still
> > learn the bass! Indeed, she knows more than
> anyone about theorboes,
> > having
> > recently finished her PhD specifically on the
> topic, and having done
> > extensive
> > field research. Her findings are that *anything*
> with a stopped string
> > length
> > of less than 85cm is historically *extremely*
> exceptional; and for those
> > few
> > instruments that are so small, there is no
> evidence that they were used
> > for
> > continuo but rather for solo pieces (i.e. the
> French "theorbe de pieces"),
> > or
> > that they were meant to be in D (like the said
> theorbe de pieces), or
> > Campion
> > style with the 2nd course up. She develops these
> ideas very nicely in the
> > article below which I have taken the liberty of
> pasting on.
> >
> > All best,
> >
> > Benjamin
> >
> > Theorbo sizes: the uncomfortable truth
> >
> > One of the questions I am frequently asked is how
> large a theorbo one
> > should
> > buy - or rather, to be more accurate, how small a
> theorbo one can get away
> > with! Modern theorbo players in the majority are
> marked by their extreme
> > reluctance to use instruments of historical size,
> preferring instead to
> > commission inauthentically small instruments.
> There are two main - and
> > perfectly understandable - reasons for this. One
> is that larger
> > instruments
> > are more tiring to play than smaller ones,
> especially for solo music. The
> > other is that the extreme length of a large
> theorbo makes it very
> > difficult to
> > travel with, especially by air.
> >
> >
> > I will address those specific difficulties later,
> but first I must be
> > blunt
> > here: many of the so-called theorbos which modern
> makers are producing
> > (often
> > at the request of theorbo players) are in no way
> historical. Many have too
> > many strings on the neck, and thus a larger
> chromatic range and a weaker
> > bass
> > register than their historical counterparts. The
> overwhelming majority of
> > surviving theorbos have only six stopped courses,
> which is enough to play
> > all
> > of the surviving Italian and French solo theorbo
> music. Many modern
> > theorbos
> > are too small in all of their dimensions, but
> especially in their string
> > lengths. As a result of this, a great number can
> only work in theorbo
> > tuning
> > if they are strung with overtly modern strings,
> such as fluoro-carbon
> > trebles
> > and overspun nylon diapasons. The small size of
> the instruments results in
> > a
> > small volume, which is usually compensated for by
> increasing the string
> > tension and playing with nails, for which there is
> at best, very limited
> > historical evidence. Needless to say, the sound is
> far from that of a
> > large,
> > historically accurate theorbo.
> >
> >
> > Historically, theorbos came in several sizes,
> almost all of them larger
> > than
> > the average modern instrument. The largest are
> instruments by Buchenberg
> > and
> > Graill, which have stopped string lengths of 98-99
> cm.
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
