The problem here is that single stringing is historical, lutes, theorbos, archlutes and even baroque guitars--it was just less frequent or even rare. I don't see a difference historically between attiorbato and theorbo, but perhaps there is one, it seems a modern distinction. If there is an historical basis I would be very interested to see it. I cannot *disprove* that liuto attiorbato means "theorbo lute" either. The large archlutes could be archlutes, "continuo" archlutes, or they could be small theorbos, or even some instrument in a different tuning altogether. However, it would be difficult to say it is too big to play as a solo instrument considering the solo repertory for the theorbo. Lastly, I would have to consult my books but I don't think that there were only two sizes of archlute, and again, the surviving instrument have two things in common--they have usually been modified and they are usually different for the others. The diversity of the surviving instruments is blurred and obscured by the selective recatagorizations of articles attempting to define them. dt
t 02:44 AM 7/10/2009, you wrote: >Dear All, > >Just a comment on the more general "what is an archlute?" question, >in terms of the surviving instruments and music: > >Robert Spencer's article (1976) distinguished between the liuto >attiorbato and what I tend to call the "continuo archlute". The >liuto attiorbato seems to have been especially popular in Venice in >the 1630s and 40s and large numbers of them survive from the Sellas workshop. >They usually have 14 courses, all double, and string lengths of >about 58/85 or 64/93 (two sizes a tone apart). I assume these are >essentially solo instruments. This is the instrument I associate >with the music of Piccinini and Melii. > >The continuo archlutes appear later, 1660s-70s, and they are mostly >converted lutes with string lengths of about 67cm (double courses) >and single basses of about 145cm. I think Lynda Sayce has suggested >that these instruments were something of a Roman phenomenon, and >indeed a low Roman pitch would make sense of the size of these >instruments - if they are nominally in G we must be talking about a >pitch at least a tone below modern. > >In modern times we have all kinds of hybrid instruments, small >single-strung liuti attiorbati, etc., and a tendency to play at >a'=440 or a'=415, neither of which are really practical for continuo >archlutes. I think it is a pity to string any of these instruments >with wire-wound strings, since the design, with the extended basses, >was obviously intended to enhance the sound of gut strings. I >suppose the problem for the modern continuo player is that there are >no modern orchestras which play at a suitably low pitch. >When I hear the single-strung, wire-wound, small archlute I wonder >why pretend it is a historical instrument? The electric guitar is >very versatile, you can play at any volume you want, seems like a >good idea to me - oh, I forgot, it's not lute-shaped. > >Best wishes, > >Martin > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
