I just went back through Eric's article, then sat down at my computer
and saw his own Reader's Digest version.
On Nov 14, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Eric Liefeld wrote:
> I agree with Eugene that what Vivaldi meant by "leuto" is still
> open to debate. For a number of reasons, I don't think
> these leuto parts work well at the upper (written) octave
> (and yes, I play the mandolino). What ever the instrument,
> I have argued in the past that we need to consider the
> context of these works in seeking answers. Yes, Vivaldi
> was "Italian", but RV 82, 85, 93 and 540 all have Germanic/
> Bohemian ties of one form or another. The man was, after
> all, famous for knowing his customer....
* * *
> In my article, I sought to explore the germanic/bohemian
> mandora/galichone as a possiblity for these pieces, as
> others (Pietro Prosser, principally) have established its
> popularity among Bohemian nobility at the time. I found
> nothing to disqualify the mandora, and some compelling
> idiomatic things, but claim no proof ultimately.
I can't disagree with anything Eric says on the subject. The only
caveat I'd add is that if you conclude Vivaldi intended, say, a
gallichon in D because the music lies well under the hands on that
instrument, you have to first assume that Vivaldi had a practical
familiarity with the instrument of the sort that almost had to be
acquired by playing it.
It's possible that Vivaldi was on intimate terms with the lute and
its variants. It's equally possible that he wasn't, but understood
that there were different sorts of lutes in different places, and
didn't worry about exactly what instrument played his solos. If he
wrote a part for a lute tuned in D minor or a gallichon in D in
Prague, he could scarcely have expected someone back in Venice to use
the same instrument.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
