Many good points, Stuart. I myself is a long term fan of this this
little instrument (although not so much nowadays) and have made a number
of copies of both the mandore and mandolino. I could never really see
any hard reasons to distinguish them (I'm talking about early 17th - mid
18th century time frame). In fact, constructionally and in terms of size
it is the same instrument and that's the main thing! There is also an
evidence of a small late 16th century descant lute by Venere that was
converted to a 6-course mandolino (hardly surprising, bearing in mind a
suitable body size at hand!). As for the stringing, there seemed to be
all different sorts of combinations, with 5- and 6-course instruments
being double-strung throughout, or with a single first course, not to
say with 4, 5 and, occasionally, 6 single strings (again, within the
above-mentioned period). The Ulm MS has plenty of right hand fingering
indications (underline for a thumb, single and double dots for fore- and
middle fingers, in other words, finger-plucked entirely).
Alexander
On 01/06/2010 18:11, Stuart Walsh wrote:
EUGENE BRAIG IV wrote:
Indeed, but the late renaissance mandore was distinct from Italian
mandolino.
Not that distinct Eugene. Late Renaissance = Early Baroque? The Ulm
MS (which I would really like to get hold of) is 1625-30 and there are
sources of music throughout the 17th century. (info from Tyler's book)
Aren't we simply talking about one instrument: a small, lute-like
instrument with with gut strings which in France was called the
'mandore' and in Italy, the 'mandola/mandolino'? And for both, there
are references to the top string as at g''. And even, sometimes the
mandore was double-strung. So: same sort of size, shape, string material.
But the French version was in a different tuning (with variants) and
seems to have lost popularity in the 17th century whereas the Italian
version in the fourths tuning (from the 17th century) has never quite
died out.
Unlike the mandola/mandolino, there are contemporary accounts of how
the mandore was played: with a quill, with a quill tied to a finger
(very odd?), with a single finger (presumably dedillo style) and plain
fingerstyle. And there are descriptions of how loud it can sound (e.g.
dominating a consort of lutes - Trichet).
It strikes me as a bit odd that an evidently popular instrument
typically with single strings should get them doubled as it became
more Italianate. Could the single-string instruments be of lighter
construction? But mandolini are incredibly light anyway. Would the
double stringing of courses make the instruments louder. But
contemporary accounts suggest that the mandore was loud. Would the
double stringing favour a particular way of playing the strings?
Lastly, Tyler quotes a French source from 1690 saying that some
mandore players used a plectrum tied to the index finger for the first
course and the thumb on the lower courses. Is it possible that some
mandola/mandolino music was played in some sort of way with both quill
and fingers?
Stuart
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
