Dear Howard,
Thank you for your reply to my email about theorboes. You ask many questions, and I shall do my best to answer some of them. You wrote, "Nobody suggested anything of the sort", i.e. expecting a source to tell us, with specific wording, things we need to know about theorboes for a whole range of circumstances. Well, in your message of 17th February, you wrote: "Does some historical source say both "highest pitch possible" and "thinnest useable string" in discussing theorbos? And if so, is there any reason to believe that every theorbist subscribed to it?" That sounds like quite a bit of the sort to me. You were asking Martyn Hodgson to produce a source with specific wording, for circumstances which must apply to every theorbo player. Unfortunately the implication is, that if he fails to do so, his arguments are specious, which is a bit unfair. You ask, "Who was THEY?". Well, as far as my message is concerned, THEY was Thomas Mace and the musicians he was writing about. You also ask, "When was THEN?" Mace's book was published in 1676, so "THEN", for me, would be Mace's lifetime up to 1676. You can't really hold him to account for not mentioning a theorbo man playing in one of Handel's operas in 1724. Mace does have a good word to say about Monteverdi though. Your next question was, "What is the "thinnest useable string"?" To find your "thinnest useable string", simply measure the thickness of all the strings you possess, and pick out the thinnest one. If you find you can use it on the instrument of your choice, you will have found the "thinnest useable string". If it breaks, it won't be much use any more, except possibly for smaller instruments or for frets. You seem disappointed that Mace does not mention Pittoni and Castaldi, that he doesn't discuss the tiorbino, that he doesn't give exact measurements of the size of instruments and their strings, and doesn't talk about pitch. The implication is that the information to be gleaned from Musick's Monument, is worthless, because Mace doesn't mention all these things. I think we would do better to consider what Mace actually wrote, not what we think he should have written. In fact he does mention pitch, but there is as much chance of him giving Hertz numbers, as there is of him knowing about theorbo players alive in 1724. He writes about "the Pitch of Consort", and says that, if you want to play with other musicians, you have to tune up to their pitch; if that means having to re-tune the 1st string or two down an octave, so be it. It is the pitch of the people you want to play with, which determines the tuning of your theorbo. Mace talks about instruments of different sizes, and says that the size of your instrument will determine whether or not you have to tune the first string, or the first two strings, down an octave. He doesn't need to give exact measurements, because he expects players to use their common sense, and avoid broken strings. So far I have dwelt on the less contentious side of the question: large instruments require a re-entrant tuning, because otherwise there is a risk that their strings will break. I hope we are agreed on that. The more controversial aspect, is whether or not it is appropriate to string smaller instruments with a re-entrant tuning, when their size would allow them to have just one course (instead of two) down an octave, or even all courses at pitch as with an archlute (instead of one course down an octave). To this I would say that there is no law or commandment which tells us how we should tune our instruments. We can do what we like. For Mace to say that our tuning is determined by whether or not we are playing with others at "Pitch of Consort", suggests that some players may have had all their strings at the higher octave (or just the 1st course down an octave), but had to change the tuning to match the change in circumstances, i.e. playing with others at a higher pitch. In other words, he is saying that more than one tuning may have been possible for an instrument, depending on pitch. One reason why Mace seems less than enthusiastic about re-entrant tunings, may be seen in his phrase, "the Life and Spruceness of such Ayrey Lessons, is quite lost". In other words, have a re-entrant tuning if you must, but if you do, you will lose something valuable in the music. The implication is, that if your instrument is small enough to allow it, it would be better to keep as many strings tuned at the higher octave as possible. My previous message was simply to say that the evidence from Thomas Mace concurs with what Martyn Hodgson had written on 17th^h February, to wit: "Of course pitch is relevant to instrument size: as pointed out earlier, it's precisely why the top one, or two, courses were obliged to be lowered an octave. The point, as previously (and tediously) pointed out, is that historically pitch was such that the highest course(s) were obliged to be lowered an octave (as the Old Ones tell us). However, for mysterious reasons, some modern players string small theorboes with low octaves on the second course even when wholly unnecessary at the pitch in which they play." I'm afraid I can't see much difference between them. One final point. At the end of his chapter on the theorbo, having discussed harmony and how to realise a figured bass, Mace explains, by implication, why re-entrant tunings may not be so aesthetically pleasing. On page 230 he writes: "Yet Note One Thing more, That (when we Talk of 3d's, 5th's, and 8th's) we are not Precisely Tyed to give just Those the very Notes to our Bass; but still according to our Best Conveniency, upon the Instrument; sometimes 10th's, 12th's, or 15th's; as you may perceive, I have done in some of Those Examples I set you; which are as the same Thing in Composition: For sometimes you will be very much put to It, to find your Parts Conveniently; especially when the Bass moves in the Lower Sphear; nor will your Parts be so Pleasant to It, if taken Near; but far Better Above, in Their Eights." Mace prefers the bright sound, for example, of 10ths above the bass, rather than gloomy 3rds, particularly when the bass line goes low. This concurs with his comments about losing "Life and Spruceness": a re-entrant tuning will turn many an ayrey 10th^ into a lifeless, spruceless 3rd. You will be right, of course, to say that things are not quite as simple as all that. I have confined my attention to Thomas Mace, but other theorbo players in England and abroad in the 17th century, will no doubt have had their own views, which are not necessarily the same as his. I know less about these characters, and would welcome more information about them. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. PS Thanks for your message about Praetorius, which has just come in. I am sure there is much we can learn from him. -----Original Message----- From: howard posner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 February 2009 02:28 To: Lute Net Subject: [LUTE] Re: Non-Toy Theorbo for rent On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Stewart McCoy wrote: > There are various 17^th-century sources which tell us things about > theorboes, but it is futile to dismiss them all out of hand, just > because they don't happen to have exactly the wording we want, or > because what they say doesn't apply to all circumstances. Nobody suggested doing anything of the sort. I was responding to a categorical statement that "what they did back then" was tune "to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string." If I read a statement like that, I immediately ask: 1. Who was THEY? There were players all over Europe, and we know that there were drastic differences in the sound of their instruments; e.g. Mersenne's comment that archlutes in Italy were louder than French theorbos (a suspicious statement, I know, since I doubt he heard them side by side, but still in line with what we know of Italian and French style of the day). 2. When was THEN? 1603? 1712? Was the the theorbo player in Handel's Giulio Cesare in London in 1724 stringing and playing his instrument the same way as the third theorbo player in Monteverdi's Orfeo in 1610? 3. What is the "thinnest useable string"? Is "thinnest useable" a valid concept? Assuming it is, what does it mean? The thinnest string that won't break as soon as you put it on and tune it up? Not likely. More likely the thinnest string that will give you a sound you like, which is to say, the criterion is not maximum thinness (which has been scientifically proven to equal minimum thickness) but the optimum thickness, which is to say the thickness the player likes, which is to say the whole concept of "thinnest useable string" is meaningless. This is one reason I was curious to know if any historical source says "highest pitch possible with the thinnest useable string." > "By Reason of the Largeness of It, we are constrain'd to make > use of an > Octave Treble-String, that is, of a Thick String, which stands > Eight > Notes Lower, than the String of a Smaller Lute, (for no Strings > can be > made so Strong, that will stand to the Pitch of Consort, upon such > Large Sciz'd Lutes) and for want of a Small Treble-String, the > Life and > Spruceness of such Ayrey Lessons, is quite lost, and the Ayre much > altered. Nay, I have known, (and It cannot be otherwise) that > upon some > Theorboes, they have been forc'd to put an Octave String in the 2d. > String's Place; by reason of the very long Scize of the > Theorboe, which > would not bear a Small String to Its True pitch; because of Its so > great Length, and the Necessity of setting the Lute at such a High > Pitch, which must Agree with the rest of the Instruments." > > This concurs with the points Martyn made earlier, that the > tuning of > the theorbo is determined by the size of the instrument. No it doesn't. It says that at some unknown size and unknown pitch an English theorbo, which was normally single re-entrant, needed to be double re-entrant. It does not say that double re-entrant tuning (or single re-entrant, for that matter) is invariably limited to instruments of a certain size. It tells us nothing about Castaldi or Pittoni. It does not explain the tiorbino. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
