I just don't see a gap of any sort in the Vivaldi D major concerto when played on mandolin. Perhaps you can be more specific as to what the gap might be.
Obviously it does not fit perfectly on the archlute or people would not transpose it. But definitely playable in D, and even more playable in a "mandolin tuning down the octave" scenario. I just don't see a definitive answer to the precise instrument at this time...there is a lot we don't know about V's orchestra a ton of hours have been spent on the wind parts and the answers are still elusive. I haven't seen anyone's work on all the thousands of pages from the operas, cantatas and oratorios for Vivalsi and Scarlatti, if it is out there I would love to see it. That body of music presumably holds the majority of the interpretive clues. Imagine trying to analyze Handel without reference to the operas, and look at what just one opera, say, Julius Caesar of Handal or Juditha Triumphans of Vivaldi gives us in terms of information. These pieces are a treasure trove of information. dt At 10:13 AM 11/14/2007, you wrote: >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
