Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:51:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Pittoni's theorbo? To: Jerzy Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lute Net <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Thank you Jerzy. I take it you're referring to the hypothesis that the occasional leap in a scalic passage played on the 2nd and 3rd course of a double reentrant theorbo (say, as found in Pittoni 1669, eg last bar page 43 in da Chiesa volume) might possibly suggest there could have been octave stringing on the 2nd course. Pttoni writes for a theorbo in A. As you'll probably know, this was discussed some time ago (see archives) and no concencus seemed to emerge as to wether one just accepted this whenever it occurred or wether he did indeed employ a high octave on the 2nd (or some other device? eg putting a low octave on the 3rd!). You'll not be surprised that I fall into the first camp and my and others views will be found in the archives. But in short, as with similar 'discontinuities' in much baroque guitar music, I believe that the 'Old Ones' weren't over concerned about these occasional leaps (indeed, contemporary music for other instruments, eg Corelli, sometimes employs wide leaps as a compositional effect). The important thing for me (and this is, of course, subjective) is that there is a clear sense of the melodic and of the bass line and I find that with the firmer thumb stroke on the bass line and/or allied with the continuo Pittoni calls for (organo or clavicembalo) there is no real sense of any strange harmonic inversion. The bar on page 43 also illustrates another problem: if one accepts an octave on the 2nd, where does it all end? - since here the scalic passage, both ascending and descending, crosses all three top courses: there has to be a discontinuity somewhere; wether it be between the 2nd and 3rd or 1st and 2nd. Note also that at the beginning of this bar he completes the previous ascending phrase on the same course (3rd at fret 7) and then plays the same note on course 2 (fret1) to start the next short phrase. This, I suggest, shows he made a concious choice to start the next phrase at the lower octave - in short double reentrant. Personally, I rather like the octave leap at the end of the bar.................... MH Jerzy Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martyn, All this is very persuasive, but what about the story of a double re- entrant instrument with double strings and the second course in octaves, in G or A? >From my sketchy calculations it appeares it must be an instrument of about 74 cm (stopped), considering on one side the breaking point of the high octave of the second (the _e'_) and the musical quality of the 6th (or 7th) course. As a theorbo it's a toy instrument, useless (?), but in therms of say a baroque d-m lute, with which it shares the tessitura, it is a huge one. In this case such a theorbo would have the 5th and the 6th (+ the 7th?) in octaves as well. Someone said that already. Gratefull for comments, Jurek ______________ On 2008-02-03, at 10:50, Martyn Hodgson wrote: > > Thanks for this; I'd be grateful for a fuller response to cover > all the points in my previous email to you. Nevertheless I'll > respond to this one below: > > INFORMATION > > I now see from your mention of my guitar stringing email that you > seem to equate 'information' solely with figures whereas I also > include other things such as tunings, examples of solo music, etc > which you do not count as information - we'll bear this in mind. > > BOB SPENCER'S & LYNDA SAYCE'S PAPERS > > In fact, Bob Spencer gave examples of large double reentrant > theorbos in A and G (with string lengths around 89 and 91cm - the > same ones I gave details earlier). He also cites Mace on tuning of > single and double theorbos in G and A and says that large theorbos > need the two highest courses down the octave and not just the first > (ie smaller theorbos just had the first course on actave down p. 412). > > Similarly, Lynda Sayce does in fact provide much information > including sizes of some large extant theorbos. > > TALBOT MS > > Talbot fortunately gives more than the minimum number of > dimensions and it is quite possible to recreate the instrument > based on what he gives at a string length of between 88/91cm (as > Michael Prynne and later others) without making unecessary > assumptions as David did (I'm told it's mostly to do with > measurements of body to body/neck joint or to the end of the tongue > and not by excluding the rose diameter). > > David doesn't mention reentrant tuning type (Talbot gives double > reentrant in A for his measured instrument) and I would surprised > if Lynda Sayce doesn't tune her 78cm English theorbo as single > reentrant - but you'll need to ask her. Incidentally, 78cm seems > an ideal size for a single reentrant theorbo - mine is 76cm which I > now feel is marginally too small. > > EVIDENCE > > In short, the evidence I gave still stands and, little as it is, > is indeed overwhelming (100%). I still await David Tayler's or your > own evidence that small theorboes (say 75 to 82cm) were generally > tuned as double reentrant. > > PITCH > > I don't quite understand your last point on pitch but if you are > equating maximum acceptable breaking stress of solo and continuo > instruments, I refer you to my recent email to Rob McKillop ... it > contains figures too. > > > WHEN SINGLE OR DOUBLE REENTRANT? > > Whilst no one denies that it is physically possible to string a > small theorbo in A or G as double reentrant (especially using > modern overwound strings), the question I, at least, am trying to > address is what would have been expected historically. Early > sources, when bothering to mention the matter at all (eg Piccini, > Mace - cited earlier), stress that smaller instruments are single > reentrant and that double reentrant is only employed when the > breaking stress of the highest pitched string (in this case the > second course) is approached. I can, of course, well understand > that if you play a small theorbo in an unlikely historical > stringing (ie A or G double reentrant) you'll feel an almost > Pavlovian obligation to defend your decision but surely you should > be doing this on this basis of modern convenience and personal > preference and not on the unsupportable position that it's somehow > following historic models. > > MH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > howard posner wrote: > Martyn Hodgson wrote: > >> In subsequent messages I gave more information (you must have >> missed it): - how such small instruments were strung (just top >> course an octave down or at a much higher nominal pitch eg D), - >> early written evidence of theorbo sizes, - examples of solo music >> for such instruments - > > Again, there was no information; just your own conclusion that > smaller theorbos were not tuned double reentrant. You may be > confusing these posts (I've just reread them) with your post about > guitar stringing, which actually contained information. > >> and gave Lynda Sayce's website and Bob Spencer's article as >> providing more information. You may say that I only refer to these >> articles because they support the position on theorbo sizes which I >> take - which it is true they do - > > But they don't. Spencer doesn't correlate single-reentrant stringing > with size. Linda Sayce does, but like you, states only her > conclusions. > >> As already said, I'm still waiting for David Tayler's and your own >> evidence that small theorboes (say mid 70s to low 80s) in the A or >> G tuning were generally strung as double reentrant. Regarding >> evidence to support the case that such stringing only generally >> applies to larger instruments (say mid 80s to high 90s), I had >> hoped the sources I gave were sufficiently well known to avoid me >> having to do more than refer to them, but obviously not. > > It's not that the sources aren't well known. It's that your > conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. It boils down to "big > theorbos were strung double reentrant because they had to be; smaller > theorbos didn't have to be, therefore they never were." This makes > sense only if you assume that necessity was the only reason for > double reentrant, an assumption which is hardly justifiable (If it's > correct, you've proved that the tiorbino never existed). Players > obviously liked its possibilities and gleefully exploited it in solo > music. > >> The ones that come to mind include: >> >> Praetorius (1620): Lang Romanische Theorbo:Chitarron). Scaled >> engraving showing an instrument with six fingered and 8 long bass >> courses, fingered string length 90/91cm. Tuning given as the >> theorbo G tuning (double reentrant). >> >> Talbot MS (c 1695): English Theorboe A tuning (double reentrant), >> detailed measurement and tunings given. Fingered string length >> 88/89cm (you tell us that you have other information on the string >> length of this instrument - I'd be grateful for it) > > The Talbot MS doesn't actually give the total length, does it? > David van Edwards calculated the Talbot "English Theorbo" at 77 cm. > See his explanation at > http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/47.htm > He made a "Talbot" theorbo for Linda Sayce. I gather from her web > site that its fingerboard strings are 80cm (thus scaled up or down > from the original, depending on your point of view) and she strings > it single reentrant in G. > >> Talbot MS: Lesser French theorbo in D (double reentrant) string >> length 76cm. > > If we have one 76cm French theorbo in double reentrant D and one 77cm > English Theorbo in double reentrant A, we scarcely have a small- > theorbo trend, let alone "overwhelming" evidence. > >> 'POWER' >> I'm really not sure if I quite follow your argument here, > > Simply that it was not universally the only consideration in building > or stringing a theorbo. This is not to say that it wasn't > important. As I said, players and builders must have had a wide > range of desires and motivations. And not everyone had to be heard > in choruses in the Paris opera or with trombones in San Rocco in > Venice. > >> there is no evidence to support A or G double rentrant theorbos >> between the mid 70s and low 80s. > > And no evidence against it. There may be all sorts of practical or > artistic reasons for drawing conclusions about smaller theorbos, but > the appeal to history comes up empty. > > This whole discussion has glossed the complicating question of pitch. > > I have made the point before that we would expect an instrument > designed to be played at AF6 to have strings about 83% the length > of an instrument designed to be played at A=390. If so, all other > things being equal, you'd expect that a 76cm instrument designed for > AF5 to be tuned the same way as a 92cm instrument designed for > A=390. Whether this was historically the case is a matter of > speculation. > > > -- 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. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. --
