Thank you Alan and Martin. Martin, I have been, and am still a bit confused by what you have written regarding Dowland and his stringing advice. If, as you quote, he stated in 1610 that one should use unison tuning on the 6th course, why would octave tuning on that course be recommended for his solo music written prior to 1600?
I hope that you - or someone - will gather together in one article the known research regarding octave and unison tuning along with assessments of the advantages/disadvantages of each. Special attention, I think, should be given to the differences between strings of the 1600s and of today, whether they be old versus modern gut, or gut versus synthetic. And, should unison or octave tuning depend in part on whether ti or to technique is used? Certainly, for me, the use of alternating t and i for melodic lines is important in making a choice (perhaps more important than it should be). Best, Ned On Nov 26, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Anthony Hind wrote: > Thank you, Martin (Eastwell), for this; indeed, in a previous mail I > suggested something not unsimilar to what you are saying below (albeit > your analysis is more complete). However, I imagined that both changes > TI to TO and Bass + Octave to unisson (on certain bass courses) might > have coincided, and even be triggered by the arrival of a new bass > string, with better high freqency behaviour (low impedance?) also > permitting a change from 6c to 7c, and later the supposed 9c of Dowland > (etc). > I mused that "Together, better basses, TO, and Unisons could have > allowed better exploration of the bass register" > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg24565.html > However, "trigger" is clearly an exaggeration, as I myself use TI with > my 7c Renaissance lute having unissons on 5c, whereas I use TO on my > 11c baroque lute. > Martin Shepherd also argues that conservative tradition could have > caused some (eg Cutting) to hang on to TI, after others (perhaps > Dowland) had changed over to TO. Does that mean they also refused any > string upgrades? Not necessarilly, I imagine. > Your idea that TO brings a clearer sound, thus compensating for the > darkness of the unissons, is rather different to mine, and perhaps > demonstrably better (not necessarilly precluding the arrival of a > better bass string). > I agree that with Renaissance TO the thumb is probably not that far > from the bridge. Of course, with the later extreme advanced thumb ETO, > the fingers are closer to the bridge and the thumb further away (not > that this effects your analysis). > Best wishes > Anthony > __________________________________________________________________ > > De : Martin Eastwell <[email protected]> > A : Anthony Hind <[email protected]> > Envoye le : Samedi 26 Novembre 2011 0h14 > Objet : Re: [LUTE] Re: Le Roy Dentice and Octave stringing > Hi Anthony > Having looked up Martin Shepherd's 2007 post from your link > [1]http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg19978.html > I'm quite convinced by the Holborne and Cutting examples he gives- >> Cutting, Galliard, Euing f.29 (Burgers no.22)bar 13: >> >> -----------------!------------- >> -a---a-c-d---b---!------------- >> ---d-----------a-!-b-a-b------- >> -----------------!------------- >> -c---------c-a---!-------a-c--- >> -----------------!-d---------d- >> >> (the two notes on the 5th course in the second bar could be an octave >> higher) >> >> Holborne, Patiencia, Euing f.39v. (aus dem Spring no.23) bar 52: >> >> --c-----c-------!--- >> --c-----c---f---!-a- >> --f-e-c-e-f-c-e-!-a- >> --------e-------!-b- >> ----------------!-c- >> --c-------------!--- >> (the "f" on the 2nd course resolves onto the upper octave "b" of the > 4th >> course) >> >> Dowland, Queen Elizabeth's Galliard, VLL Galliard 2(Poulton no.41) > bar 6: >> >> -f--c-d---!-a-----c---a-!--- >> -c--a-a---!-a-----c-----!-e- >> ----------!-------f-e---!-a- >> -e--a-c-a-!-------------!--- >> ----c-----!-e-c---------!-c- >> -c----a---!-d---c-------!--- >> >> (the descending scale c4, a4, e5, c5 needs to be an octave higher to >> connect with the f3 in the 4/3 suspension at the cadence. Octaves on >> courses 4 and 5 solve the problem. Octave on course 5 also allows > the >> "e" to resolve at the correct octavein the final chord) >> >> (Yes I know VLL is the very source where Dowland recommends unisons, > but >> this piece was written before 1591 as it appears in Dd.2.11 as "K >> Darcyes Galliard" (f.59) - K.Darcy became Lady Clifton in 1591). >> >> Sorry about the lack of rhythm signs > -less so by the Dowland-I see what he means, but it doesn't sound bad > to me. > In connection with Cutting and Dowland (or has someone already pointed > this > out?), it is worth mentioning that William Barley's "A new book of > Tabliture" (1596) reprints Le Roy's Instructions, complete with > directions > for octave stringing on courses 4 to 6, and the lute music in the book > is > all by either Dowland or Cutting, and for 6 course lute (though the > orpharion and bandora sections of the book use 7 courses. > My feeling about octave vs. unison stringing is that it is to some > extent > connected with the change to thumb outside technique. Assuming all gut > stringing and thumb under technique, my experience of many years is > that > lutes with unison stringing sound rather murky. The basses have lost > the > brightness provided by octave strings, and the warm treble sound > inherent in > thumb under technique seems to merge with them in a rather > unsatisfactory > manner. Played thumb out, where the fingers are significantly closer to > the > bridge (relative to the thumb), the brighter treble seems to be lifted > out > of the texture by virtue of a different tone colour. The comments in > the > Stobeus Ms instructions seem to be thinking along the same lines: "For > it > has been shown to be much better to strike with the thumb outwards. > This > sounds clearer, crisper and brighter. The other sounds very dull and > muffled." > This reminds me very much of the sort of things mix engineers in the > rock/pop world do. They are very concerned that each instrument in a > band > should occupy its own space in the frequency spectrum, and not get in > each > other's way. Often they will electronically equalise sounds to make > this > work-for example filtering the low frequencies off a strummed acoustic > guitar so that it does not conflict with the bass. On its own, the > guitar > sounds poor, but it "sits better" in the mix. > I'll be talking about this and related things at a meeting of the UK > Lute > society in Feb. > Best wishes > Martin (Eastwell, not Shepherd!) > On 25/11/2011 15:54, "Anthony Hind" <[2][email protected]> wrote: >> Bruno, I think it may depend on the stringing you use. Some 5th > course >> basses really do need octave stringing, but 5c unissons with > Venice >> Meanes do seem acceptable. >> In fact, I adopted this pattern, with unissons from 5c up, because > I >> assumed it to be a possible historical late renaissance tuning, > for a 7 >> course lute with the 7th tuned to D ; but didn't quite like the > result >> with a pair of 5c unisson Lyons. The Lyons would no doubt have > been >> better with an octave, but what bothered me was a sort of break in > the >> Meanes area, between the 5c Lyons and the 4c HTs. I wanted a more >> homogenous sound for 5c and 4c. >> This was the reason for which I adopted Venices, as I could have >> Venices unissons both on 5 and 4c (there are no Lyons available > for >> 4c). I felt the result was both more Meanes homogenous, and the > Venices >> had sufficient harmonicity, not to absolutely cry out for octaves, > as >> the Lyons did (nothing wrong with the lyons per se) >> % >> Like yourself, I was striving to achieve the best sound with a >> particular lute type and stringing; however, as Martin Shepherd > has >> explained, the music might actually indicate quite a different > string >> pattern: >> "One of my examples from Cutting (not in the message you quote, I >> think) is the Pavan "Sans per" and its galliard, which makes > extensive >> use of a 7th at D but only makes sense with an octave on the 4th >> course. This suggests he had good enough strings to be able to do >> complicated stuff with the 7th course but still used an octave on > the >> 4th (out of tradition? habit? because he simply liked it that >> way?)."Martin >> % >> This rather goes against looking for one "perfect" stringing for a > lute >> (as I admit I was doing), I suppose we should restring for each > piece, >> or ideally have several lutes tuned for the pieces we intend to > play. >> % >> Martin goes on to explain, that even Dowland's music seems to be >> calling for octaves on 4 and 5c, in spite of his "theoretical" > support >> of unisson: >> % >> "The music often suggests octaves when a cadence is resolved at > the >> "wrong" octave, or a scale passage jumps octave for no apparent > reason, >> or a note which is needed for correct voice leading or point of >> imitation is apparently missing but supplied by the upper octave > of a >> lower course."(...) >> % >> (...) >> Dowland, Queen Elizabeth's Galliard, VLL Galliard 2(Poulton no.41) > bar 6: >> >> -f--c-d---!-a-----c---a-!--- >> -c--a-a---!-a-----c-----!-e- >> ----------!-------f-e---!-a- >> -e--a-c-a-!-------------!--- >> ----c-----!-e-c---------!-c- >> -c----a---!-d---c-------!--- >> >> (the descending scale c4, a4, e5, c5 needs to be an octave higher to >> connect with the f3 in the 4/3 suspension at the cadence. Octaves on >> courses 4 and 5 solve the problem. Octave on course 5 also allows > the >> "e" to resolve at the correct octavein the final chord). Martin" >> % >> [3]http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg19978.html >> Regards >> Anthony >> >> > __________________________________________________________________ >> >> De : Bruno Fournier <[4][email protected]> >> A : Anthony Hind <[5][email protected]> >> Cc : Miles Dempster <[6][email protected]>; > "[7][email protected]" >> <[8][email protected]> >> Envoye le : Vendredi 25 Novembre 2011 15h12 >> Objet : [LUTE] Re: Le Roy Dentice and Octave stringing >> I personally like the sound of octaves starting on the 5th > course and >> going down.A I have always found the 4th in octaves to be > difficult >> at >> tuning.A On my soprano lute 6 course however, I use unisons. >> A >> Bruno >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Anthony Hind >> <[1][1][9][email protected]> >> wrote: >> A You are right of course, A and I do have unissons on the > fourth >> and >> A fifth, but octaves beginning on the 6th. >> A I wasn't thinking straight, but vaguely remembering that > someone >> jumped >> A to the conclusion that because I >> A had unissons on the fifth I also had them on the sixth, > which of >> course >> A is not at all the same thing. Appologies, Miles and > Matthias, >> for >> A my half-awake state, in spite of the late hour. >> A Regards >> A Anthony >> A A >> > __________________________________________________________________ >> A De : Miles Dempster <[2][2][10][email protected]> >> A A : Lute List <[3][3][11][email protected]> >> A Envoye le : Vendredi 25 Novembre 2011 14h43 >> A Objet : [LUTE] Re: Le Roy Dentice and Octave stringing >> A My understanding is that, generally speaking, the purpose > of the >> octave >> A is to brighten up a course which would otherwise sound too >> muddy. >> A Since 'muddiness' increases with string thickness, if the > 5th >> course >> A doesn't need an octave, then why would the 4th course would > need >> one? >> A Miles >> A On 2011-11-25, at 8:04 AM, Anthony Hind wrote: >> A > A Matthias, I am not quite sure why we may infer the >> following: >> A > A "I understand the author as saying that a) he himself > has an >> octave >> A > A string >> A > A with his 5th course, as opposed to b) Dentice and > followers >> A (Italians >> A > A in >> A > A general?) who have unisons for the 5th course. One may > infer >> that >> A > A Dentice >> A > A also had unisons for his 4th course." Mathias >> A > A I have unissons on the 5th course of my 7c lute, but > octaves >> on >> my >> A > A fourth, but perhaps I have missed something. >> A > A Regards >> A > A Anthony >> A > A >> A >> __________________________________________________________________ >> A > >> A > A De : Mathias Roesel > <[1][4][4][12][email protected]> >> A > A A : 'Lute Net' <[2][5][5][13][email protected]> >> A > A Envoye le : Jeudi 24 Novembre 2011 17h35 >> A > A Objet : [LUTE] Re: Le Roy Dentice and Octave stringing >> A >> Neverthelesse the Tune self of the same .F. Is found in > the >> same >> A >> compainie, and eight of the greate fift stryng: >> A >> which reason could not be in Lutes, tuned after the > manner of >> A Fabrice >> A > A Dentice >> A >> the Italian, and other his followers. Where those > strynges >> that >> A > A satnde >> A > A twoo and >> A >> twoo together, bee sette in one Tune and not by eightes, >> which >> thei >> A > A do for >> A > A a >> A >> perfection of harmonie, in avoiding many unissons, which >> those >> eight >> A > A would >> A >> cause." >> A >> 2. I understand Le Roy is saying that Dentice used a > unison >> 5th >> A > A course, >> A > A not just a >> A >> unison 4th. Is this right? >> A > A I understand the author as saying that a) he himself > has an >> octave >> A > A string >> A > A with his 5th course, as opposed to b) Dentice and > followers >> A (Italians >> A > A in >> A > A general?) who have unisons for the 5th course. One may > infer >> that >> A > A Dentice >> A > A also had unisons for his 4th course. >> A > A Mathias >> A > A To get on or off this list see list information at >> A > >> A >> > [1][3][6][6][14]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> A > >> A > A -- >> A > >> A > References >> A > >> A > A 1. >> > [4][7][7][15]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> A > >> A -- >> A -- >> References >> A 1. mailto:[8][8][16][email protected] >> A 2. mailto:[9][9][17][email protected] >> A 3. >> > [10][10][18]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> A 4. >> > [11][11][19]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> -- >> A >> Bruno Cognyl-Fournier >> A >> [12]www.estavel.org >> A >> -- >> References >> 1. mailto:[12][20][email protected] >> 2. mailto:[13][21][email protected] >> 3. mailto:[14][22][email protected] >> 4. mailto:[15][23][email protected] >> 5. mailto:[16][24][email protected] >> 6. > [17][25]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 7. > [18][26]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 8. mailto:[19][27][email protected] >> 9. mailto:[20][28][email protected] >> 10. > [21][29]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 11. > [22][30]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 12. [23][31]http://www.estavel.org/ >> >> -- >> >> References >> >> 1. mailto:[32][email protected] >> 2. mailto:[33][email protected] >> 3. mailto:[34][email protected] >> 4. mailto:[35][email protected] >> 5. mailto:[36][email protected] >> 6. [37]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 7. [38]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 8. mailto:[39][email protected] >> 9. mailto:[40][email protected] >> 10. [41]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 11. [42]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 12. mailto:[43][email protected] >> 13. mailto:[44][email protected] >> 14. mailto:[45][email protected] >> 15. mailto:[46][email protected] >> 16. mailto:[47][email protected] >> 17. [48]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 18. [49]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 19. mailto:[50][email protected] >> 20. mailto:[51][email protected] >> 21. [52]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 22. [53]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html >> 23. [54]http://www.estavel.org/ >> > > -- > > References > > 1. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg19978.html > 2. mailto:[email protected] > 3. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg19978.html > 4. mailto:[email protected] > 5. mailto:[email protected] > 6. mailto:[email protected] > 7. mailto:[email protected] > 8. mailto:[email protected] > 9. mailto:[email protected] > 10. mailto:[email protected] > 11. mailto:[email protected] > 12. mailto:[email protected] > 13. mailto:[email protected] > 14. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 15. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 16. mailto:[email protected] > 17. mailto:[email protected] > 18. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 19. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 20. mailto:[email protected] > 21. mailto:[email protected] > 22. mailto:[email protected] > 23. mailto:[email protected] > 24. mailto:[email protected] > 25. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 26. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 27. mailto:[email protected] > 28. mailto:[email protected] > 29. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 30. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 31. http://www.estavel.org/ > 32. mailto:[email protected] > 33. mailto:[email protected] > 34. mailto:[email protected] > 35. mailto:[email protected] > 36. mailto:[email protected] > 37. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 38. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 39. mailto:[email protected] > 40. mailto:[email protected] > 41. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 42. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 43. mailto:[email protected] > 44. mailto:[email protected] > 45. mailto:[email protected] > 46. mailto:[email protected] > 47. mailto:[email protected] > 48. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 49. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 50. mailto:[email protected] > 51. mailto:[email protected] > 52. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 53. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > 54. http://www.estavel.org/ >
