First thanks to DVO for putting up the numbers--now we have some real world material. I find this very helpful. I'm still working though the chords, but in a real gig scenario I would set three basic levels-- I'm sure I will make mistakes so correct me if I am wrong
Level one, the simplest of grounds, like Uccellini's bergamasca Level two a harmonized tetrachord like the thousands based on the notes descending from A to E Level three La Follia These three very basic patterns cover a lot of ground (pun alert). In the Bergamasca, one can play lute or archlute or theorbo in G or A, and we have a nice G chord, a nice D chord and an OK A chord Assuming the A chord is barred, and we don't use the fourth course, we will avoid the out of tune octaves, Not ideal for full chords but perfectly playable, and more in tune than ET. More importantly, it will clash less with the organ. By the way, they seemed to like the clash of temperaments. Go figure. The picture is good as well in A tuning, where we are looking essentially at F G C on the chart instead of G A D Here the open A is two high for F major, but the second fret gives a slightly lower one. Perhaps is not meantone in the the strict sense because the octaves can be out of tune--particularly in the F chord, but for me, the bergamasca works OK. In the C chord the fifth is too flat but that is easy to pull up a few cents by pulling the string sideways, something I do all the time (mostly between E and B). On the keyboard, the octaves are NOT out of tune, but there is a bit of a trade off. As far as I can see, this first set works OK. On to the lament. Assuming a basic harmony of a minor, e minor (sometimes G) D minor (7 suspended over F) and E major, we see that the A minor with a bar chord (again, leaving out any out of tune octaves on the A) and E minor are workable. D minor can be played with the open A to yield a better fifth, and the minor third is nicely high. Then the crunch--E major--the workaround here is to use the sixth fret only, or a fretlet, either of which work As far as I can see, this second set works OK. Which means La Follia works too, even adding G minor. Can't wait to try it. dt At 02:31 AM 11/13/2007, you wrote: >Dear Martyn > >We seem to be talking about almost the same thing. There's a Dutch >saying I cannot quite translate that goes something like: >communicating is talking as closely as possible about the same >thing, meaning you don't talk about the same thing at all. Human >contact is difficult, each man his own universe in his own head, how >will we ever make contact? > >>> I'm afraid you don't appear to grasp the essentials ><< > >I'm sure your theory is better. When you talked about modulation I >assumed you meant a change of key, or tonal centre, within one >piece. Starting in a-minor, after five bars you find yourself >playing in C-major, cadenses and all. If you'd agree that an >MT-tuned organ can play these modulations, and if you'd agree that >the lute's notes matches those of the organ, you'd agree the lute >can play the modulation. But it appears I've lost you one step >before, as you don't seem to agree the lute can match the organ note >by note. Because of the straight frets: > >the semitone fret intervals on each string do not follow precisely >the same sequence of diatonic and chromatic intervals as you move up >the fingerboard ><< > > >No, you're right, a lute with straight frets is not as perfect as an >organ, but it isn't quite bad either. My simple look on things is >purely practical. If meantone is used by other instruments, how do I >tune my lute to match these? >Let's assume 1/4 comma MT, deviations from ET in cents: > >Eb = 21 >Bb = 17 >F = 14 >C = 10 >G = 7 >D = 3 >A = 0 >E = -3 >B = -7 >F# = -10 >C# = -14 >G# = -17 >D# = -21 > >Lute in g' >Fret = note = cents deviation > >First course: >0 = G = 7 >1 = G# = -24 >2 = A = -7 >3 = Bb = 10 >4 = B = -14 >5 = C = 3 > >Second course: >0 = D = 3 >1 = Eb = 18 >2 = E = -6 >3 = F = 11 >4 = F# = -13 >5 = G = 4 > >Third course: >0 = A = 0 >1 = Bb = 17 >2 = B = -7 >3 = C = 10 >4 = C# = -14 >5 = D = 3 > >Fourth course: >0 = F = 14 >1 = F# = -24 >2 = G = -7 >3 = G# = -31 >4 = A = -14 >5 = Bb = 3 > >Fifth course: >0 = C = 10 >1 = C# = -24 >2 = D = -7 >3 = Eb = 11 >4 = E = -13 >5 = F = 4 > >This gives the following ideal fret positions on all five courses: > >First fret: -24, 18, 17, -24, -24 >Two positions: high is in agreement, low equally so. > >Second fret: -7, -6, -7, -7, -7 >Perfect enough for me. > >Third fret: 10, 11, 10, -31, 11 >Ouch for the G# on the fourth course. Perfect Ab, but otherwise a >note to avoid. The high fret positions are in agreement, though. > >Fourth fret: -14, -13, -14, -14, -13 >Perfect enough for me. > >Fifth fret: 3, 4, 3, 3, 4 >Perfect enough for me. > > >Not too many typos, I hope, however, the math is simple enough to >correct these yourself. Calculating with more decimals will make the >figures agree more in theory, by the way, but is nonsense in >practice. Other varieties of meantone (1/6, 1/7, 1/8 comma) will >give less extreme fret positions, and might make the g# on the >fourth course acceptable, depending on your ears (or ensemble). This >leaves us with the problematic first fret. I, and others, have found >different practical ways of living with that, let it rest for now. >Fretting from 6th fret repeats basically what is done in the first five. > >I think I have shown it is possible to tune a lute in meantone to >match all the notes on the organ, with the practical problems of g# >on fourth course and first fret to be solved in a practical way >(tastini, split fret or avoidance of wrong notes. Been there, done >that, it works). > >I have no idea about historical evidence for this, but I would >assume that a lutenist of old, faced with an organ in meantone, >would come up with something similar to make his life workable. I >see modern viol, violone and lute players move their frets all the >time to match the organ, I see no reason why that would have been >different in olden times. I know that is not evidence, but >musicians' ears and their desires to solve problems cannot have >changed that much. > >Additionally, I find, when tuned in meantone, a part of the lute and >notably theorbo solo repertoire to work very well. That's my liking >only, perhaps, but would a lutenist of old change his frets and >retune for his solo pieces, if these can be played with the frets in >ensemble setup? Purely speculation, no historical evidence, take it >or leave it, but do try it. > >David > >To Roman: last count was closer to 30 than 20, but I'm sure not >nearly as many as POD's, whose solo cds are perhaps the only ones >you've counted. Mine are all ensemble of some sort or other. No big >deal, then. Furthermore, quality is more important than quantity; >only for my late mother was I world-famous, for the rest of the >world I'm just another plucker trying to scrape together an income >from music. Not famous then, please. > > >**************************** >David van Ooijen >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.davidvanooijen.nl >**************************** > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
