I'm sorry to say it but all that you write on this is mere personal preference with scant regard for the historical facts. ALL the evidence on theorboes with first two courses an octave down is for instruments larger than the biggest you recommend. You mention the Talbot MS but say the large theorbo he reports is smaller than generally reckoned - how do you conclude this? Smaller theorbos did, of course, exist but with the first course an octave down as also commonly used throughout the 17thC. I'd refer you to Lynda Sayce's website where she discusses the matter of theorbo size. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that because you are not able to manage a proper sized instrument you feel obliged to favour smaller unhistorical instruments. If this merely affected you it would be of no consequence; the problem is that you're offering spurious advice to others. MH . David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'll say one thing about the iconography, it is not consistent. They come in all sizes. I don't see any overwhelming items except they used double strings alot, we don't.
I'm not saying they didn't have big instruments, they did. Really big ones. And I've played them, I would never recommend buying one, if you read my post, as the only theorbo. By all means, as a third instrument. There's lot's of reasons not to as the only instrument. And it is great to have all the different sizes. The thing is, it is entirely possible that the really big instruments had there own repertory and technique. And that's important. Clearly, they had back then "one line players", and a big instrument with a big sound can do that, and a lot more. Everyone has a different perspective, for me, there is a musicianship gap. The faster that is closed, the better. A medium (which may seem on the small side, but makers often call them medium) instrument is better at closing the muscianship gap. Historically, I don't see a problem there, extant instruments come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and setups in both surviving examples and iconography. If those are all toys, well that may be. I notice that people are still recalculating Talbot--I project the Talbot instruments will fit in a shoebox at this rate. I think the Talbot instruments were big--why not? But people make them smaller because they want them smaller. But even if they did not, let's look at the situation with other instruments. All the baroque cellists nowadays play cut down cellos. An up and coming professional will be playing in an ensemble with a really loud cello, with heavy metal strings, and so on. And it's a competitive marketplace. The double basses are strung with telephone wire. At a lute gathering, I am always struck by the fact that the renaissance lutes have often been made smaller, though that is really changing. But there were small lutes, and I would never advise anyone to buy, as their only renaissance lute, a 70 cm Laux Maler. I have one, and it's a stretch. I have a smaller one as well for that parlous chord in Hunsdon's Puff. On the other hand, one of my best theorboes is a Tieffenbrucker which has been made bigger (scaled up to 82) Did they have medium theorboes? Looking through my by-no-means complete list I see Anonymous, (not the 98cm anon here in Berkeley, the other one) , Atton, Ecco, Hoess, Kaiser, Aman, Koch, Langenwalder, Attore, Mascotto, Stehelin, Greiff, Hoffmann,Tieffenbrucker, and a big bunch of later ones. They can't all be fakes. I think a Greiff would be fun, More fun than a Kaiser I'm a big fan of historical performance, I'd like to see it make a comeback instead of heading towards modernism; the big anachronisms seems to me to be more in the area of style, articulation, musicianship, ornamentation; and, in continuo, doublings and voice leading. If I had to teach a class on continuo and the student with the theorbosaurus could not grip all the chords--not just the basics but the ones with the right voicing, I would never get past square one; happens all the time. In fact, I'm still at square one myself. Historically, as a musicologist, I know that for the repertory I love, you need a boxy harpsichord with a short octave, As a performer, that does not happen much. There's a conflict there. But I would never recommend someone buy a harpsichord with a short octave as their only instrument. Also, the smaller theorbos go through revolving doors better and quicker, important if you spend lots of time in Hotels. Historically, Hotels did not have revolving doors. dt At 12:39 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote: >Would you kindly tell me the precise evidence you have for >suggesting such small instruments (ie 77-82cm)? The overwhelming >historical evidence (iconography, extant instruments, written >descriptions) is that theorboes with both the first and second >course lowered the octave had string lengths in the high 80s to low 90s. > >Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy' theorboes are possible >but that is insufficient reason for suggesting them as the first choice > >MH To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. --
