Perhaps you are right, and certainly Tyler has done a lot of work here, but there are some lacunae. My basic feeling is that when mandolino or its various spellings are called for then it probably in Vivaldi's time is the 6 course (sometimes fewer, perhaps) as Tyler/Sparks suggest, and I see no reason to doubt the tunings they suggest either.
However when the generic term liuto is applied, and the range, style and figuration are so close to the violin, I see no reason not to see horse rather than zebras (or zebras rather than quaggas). One of the primary identifiers for Vivaldi is the wideness of the range. People are still arguing over the various terms flauto, flautino etc Vivaldi uses for recorder and flute, and there can be ultimately only sets of theories, no real answers. But here again, in the case of the lute you have music written in an implied octave, again inconclusive. So then there is just how it lies on the instrument, as well as the wideness of the range and any parallels in bad counterpoint that clue in the right octave. Here, in the D maj. there are some phrases that really work better in mandolin tuning, which is why some people transpose it out of D. But it is playable, though creaky. So again, inconclusive; just leanings. I think that the tutti parts, oddly eough, are not a reliable source of info. The tutti parts in non "archi" concerti often, if not invariably, contain material that is unplayable, and there are lots of theories as to why this is, the most common being that the soloist did not play the tuttis. So the tutti parts are unfortunately are usually disregarded as far as figuring out which instrument to use. Tutti parts, if you will forgive the tautology, are tutti parts. As for the clef, this is not silly at all since Vivaldi, for whatever reason, frequently wrote violin parts in the bass clef. Why he did this I don't think anyone knows, but that definitely rules out the clef as an indicator of the instrument. In transit aetas, one of the best known mandolin pieces, the violin parts are written in the bass clef, but this is by no means a lone example.See the unusual disposition of the violin parts in Op 8. One theory is that the clef showed a change of role, as it may well do in Handel. Or even scordatura as is theorized for the strange cleffing of RV396. So we can rule out the clef. Gianoncelli 1650--far removed in style and time from Vivaldi Zamboni--not much info on him, I only know the one book, is there more? And some madrigals--very old fashioned.I don't think he wrote any music in the style of Vivaldi. Is the date of 1718 incorrect or was there a reprint in 1750? Or more than one Zamboni.....that would be something. The iceman cometh. That leaves Scarlatti, whose gigantic oeuvre closely mirrors Vivaldi (both wrote lots of operas). And here, as in Vivaldi, little work has been done on the obbligato parts in the operas, which total at least 140 combined operas. These works, not the concertos, reflect both composers primary interests. And here, as in Handel, are sprinkled references. And here, as in the cantatas, sometimes things are abbreviated. So we have to sort through that, first. I've been through 6.......not really representative. Maybe Tyler/Sparks have been through all the operas, but I didn't find it in the book. As far as Vivaldi being consistent in his instrument specifications, unfortunately the mss do not show that. Part of the problem is that the Vivaldi often rearranged and reorchestrated the material. The fact that he used different terms does not prove that they are different instruments, as in the recorder/flute controversy. They do, however, occasionally contain cryptic rubrics for transpositions, though not to my knowledge in the D major concerto. Also, a substantial chunk of the archlute repertory goes way low. These Vivaldi and Scarlatti parts sometimes do not. The smoking gut! Lastly, there is the extremely remote possibility that aciliuto was at this time the archlute, mandolino the 6 course instrument, tiorba/e theorbo and liuto a fourth instrument, as well as a generic term. But that is just speculation. The quartet by Giuliani that includes arcileuto, mandolino and liuto is somewhat later. does the later reference reflect an earlier distinction? Probably not. So the answer is, uhhhhhhh I don't know. Just what it isn't. It isn't the clef. Zamboni is not the Rosetta stone for Vivaldi, etc. Next week I'll look it up in the old Italian dictionary--the one that says the theorbo is a country instrument. And somewhere I have a facsimile of Juditha triumphans devicta Holofernes barbarie --should look at that again. That has everything in it. And perhaps there is a really good example in Vivaldi, that spells it out. If there is, I would like to see it. But the operas are his main work. dt At 07:14 PM 11/13/2007, you wrote: >Re Luca Pianca's single-strung liuto attiorbato in A, Bruno asks: > > > Is there any advantage on playing such an instrument in Vivaldi? > >I suspect the primary advantage of a small instrument is that it's >easy to travel with it. But in late baroque music, where the >continuo lines tend to lie higher than in earlier music, an archlute >in A has a minor advantage over a G instrument, at least in >execution. Whether having one more note at the top is worth the loss >of resonance from the smaller string mass is another question. > >On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:40 PM, David Tayler wrote: > > > Though people debate this issue, liuto in Scarlatti Vivaldi land > > generally meant mandolin, you can read Tylers book for the different > > tunings, I use 6 double courses. > > >I believe this is dated, or perhaps just backward. Tyler will tell >you that there was no soprano "liuto" in Italy, and when Vivaldi >wanted mandolino he wrote "mandolino." And I believe Vivaldi's >"liuto" parts contain continuo parts in the tutti sections (Malipiero >left these parts out of his landmark Vivaldi edition), written in >bass clef, which would be silly for a mandolino. There's no reason >not to think that when Vivaldi wrote "liuto" he meant "archlute," >which is what Zamboni meant by "leuto" in 1750 and what Gianoncelli >meant when he titled his 1650 archlute collection "Il Liuto." > > >-- > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
