That's an interesting set of labels but it doesn't cover all the
historical cases. So for example, some large lutes had double strings.
Mostly these lutes have disappeared. However, if anyone chooses to make
a concordance nowadays to sort out the old lutes, I can see why one
would want to do that. You could also have two types of every
instrument.
dt
__________________________________________________________________
From: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: David Tayler <vidan...@sbcglobal.net>; lute <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
This doesn't address the point I made to you: that the fundamental
difference between the archlute and the theorbo is in the manner of
stringing - theorbos have the top one or two courses lowered from
nominal; archlutes do not. If you don't think this is the case then, to
repeat, what's your evidence (ie not merely simple assertion) for
supposing otherwise?
Further, it is widely understood that there is great diversity in the
configuration and shape of these instruments - which is why it is
better to identify an instrument in relation to its manner of tuning
rather than to any particular physical feature.
MH
__________________________________________________________________
From: David Tayler <vidan...@sbcglobal.net>
To: lute <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 1:16
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Well, the evidence is in the museums--there are more than two types
of
instruments. Therefore, any attempt to categorize the historical
lutes
as two types does not reflect the historical record. If you look at
all
the surviving lutes (I haven't seen all of them, but a pretty good
percentage over the last 40 years) you will see that most of them are
different and there are many types and variations.
The "label" problem is not limited to lutes, it is simply the modern
opposite of historical practice.
The biggest difference between the way we look at things and the way
a
16th or 17th century person would look at things is that we prefer
uniformity and they preferred diversity. So the modern "take" on old
instruments is simply a form of acculturation based on a 20th or 21st
century point of view. Or you could call it preferential selection,
like collecting art works or favorite music works. Preferential
selection--collecting things you like or think belong together, like
a
suite of dances-- is of course historical, just not the way we do it.
Another way to look at it: if one "labels" as an archlute an
instrument
with a certain size tuning, you instantly create such an instrument,
and possibly exclude others.
However, if you use a neutral label, you can describe an instrument
type. So "pluckies", as folksy as it sounds, is historically a much
more accurate term., and does not cause the disappearance of an
instrument or group of instruments, like the double strung "theorbo".
One could try to argue that the terms are highly specific, and I
would
then simply direct people to the the lists of CDs over the last forty
years, and you can see different fads about what is an archlute,
chitarrone and so on. It clearly changes over time because it is an
ongoing process of acculturation, or follows market driven ideas of
what will sell or what is popular. And there is nothing wrong with
that, it just is pretty far from the original sources.
One of the surprising things about the internet is that now a lot of
unusual and possibly historical instrument designs are resurfacing,
owing to these same market forces.
dt
__________________________________________________________________
From: Martyn Hodgson <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: David Tayler <[2]vidan...@sbcglobal.net>; lute
<[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
You write that
'The terms "arciliuto" and "tiorba" are high-degree
interchangeable.'
What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in
different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - single
re-entrant
if small enough or double reentrant if large; whereas archlutes
retained the highest course at the upper octave.
Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may
have
used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute
instrument
with extended basses?
MH
__________________________________________________________________
From: David Tayler <[4]vidan...@sbcglobal.net>
To: lute <[5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 19:14
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
The terms "arciliuto" and "tiorba" are high-degree interchangeable.
That is, they are not low or medium, and they are also not
completely
interchangeable (since they are sometimes used together). One could
argue that they are "medium" instead of "high", but it would be
difficult to show this based on the sources.
The correlation is the inverse of the degree, so in other words it
is
possible that the difference in terms may "mean" something, but of
a
low order of probability.
Because of the degree order, it isn't really possible to assign
uses
in
a general way, only in specific cases. For every case, there will
be
an
exception. There are certainly some interesting specific cases. So
either "what we call" the theorbo or the archlute could be used to
play
just the single notes of a bass part, or chords, or continuo, or
any
of
a million shades in between, as well as the instruments of the lute
family that we do not normally include in our modern designation of
archlute and theorbo--that is, instruments without modern labels.
However, in these specific cases, like obbligato parts, there is no
reason to believe that there was one type of archlute, so then you
get
into label variations. The variations are also the inverse of
correlation--that is, to make a conclusion about how an instrument
was
used, you would have to reconcile the variants.
There are a few pieces where you can make a correlation based on
range,
but these would have to be fully written out obbligato parts, not
bass
parts, and even these could well be played on other instruments.
If you look at "list label-sets", like encyclopedias or books of
measurements, each instrument is assigned a label; however, there
is
no
other way to make a list, so there is no reason to believe that the
label applied reflected common practice--which explains why the
different label-lists use different labels. You can't have a list
composed of duplicates. This explains why the lists exist, and also
explains why the lists are different.
20th and 21st century mindsets require a label for every
instrument;
however, the renaissance and baroque mindsets required a small
number
of labels for a large number of instruments.
By applying the small number of labels categorically, the effect is
simply to exclude the larger number of instruments from the general
discussion. For example the chitarrone has disappeared, because its
label was changed. Same is true for the viola.
To exist in the renaissance and baroque mindset, one must learn to
think in the instrumentarium of a small number of terms and a large
number of instruments. And within these terms, family has priority,
So
"lute" or "flute" or "viola" first refers to a family of
instruments,
and terms like archlute have a familial tendency. Erase that, and
the
interconnections disappear.
That's why we have fewer lute types today than in the past, as well
as
fewer instrument types, with the exception of "sideways marketing",
where an instrument is rediscovered or elevated for marketing
purposes
in a crowded subfield. Marketing definitely creates more labels.
dt
__________________________________________________________________
From: Gary R. Boye <[1][6]boy...@appstate.edu>
To: jean-michel Catherinot <[2][7]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com>;
Martyn
Hodgson <[3][8]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>; R. Mattes
<[4][9]r...@mh-freiburg.de>; Ed
Durbrow <[5][10]edurb...@gmail.com>; LuteNet list
<[6][11]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 6:19 AM
Subject: [LUTE] archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Dear Jean Michel,
Yes; interesting! We are only talking about Corelli's Op. 1 (Opp.
2-4
all call for archlute according to surviving editions--no mention
of
theorbo there). I suppose this could either reflect common practice
in
a city (Rome vs. Bologna/Venice) or publisher preference. Or just
happenstance--what editions the publishers happened to copy. The
raw
numbers:
There are 15 known editions of Op. 1, published between 1681-1735.
Archlute is called for in the first edition in Rome, as well as 2
other
Roman editions, 1 edition from Modena, and 3 editions from London.
Theorbo ("tiorba") is called for in 7 editions, published between
1682-1707. 5 of the editions are from Bologna (printed by G. Monti
or
Silvani) and 2 are from Venice.
There is an additional Dutch edition by Roger that calls for both
instruments in a catalog published later. This seems to support
Martyn's statement about different uses for the instruments in this
music (violone vs. figured bass parts).
There are some that see a very limited role for the archlute in
general, mainly in Rome. But in addition to Corelli, the archlute
was
called for in title pages of other's music outside of Rome more
often
than in Rome itself:
London 21
Rome 10
Amsterdam 10
Venice 6
Bologna 5
Modena 3
Antwerp 1
Florence 1
Lucca 1
[To search on my web page, go to:
[1][7][12]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.
html
and CRTL + F "archlute"]
This is not counting the solo music in tablature, just the continuo
sources. For a list of the solo music for archlute, see:
[2][8]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.
htm
l
So I have some trouble limiting the archlute to Rome, but perhaps
it
starts there . . .
Gary
On 1/24/2014 2:51 AM, jean-michel Catherinot wrote:
> Dear Gary ,
> Here are the links to the first editions, on IMSLP. Both are
published
> in Roma, and mention arcileuto. The publications you cited are
all
not
> in Roma. This fact is indeed interessant, isn'it?
> [3][9][13]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129
> [4][10][14]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136
> Le Jeudi 23 janvier 2014 17h45, Martyn Hodgson
> <[5][11][15]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> a ecrit :
> Dear Gary,
> Indeed, and often overlooked (tho' I suspect not by you) is
that
> theorbo is an alternative to the bass violin and not the
principal
> figured bass continuo instrument so a stratospheric higher
register
> is
> not required.
> rgds
> Martyn
>
__________________________________________________________________
-- Dr. Gary R. Boye
Professor and Music Librarian
Appalachian State University
To get on or off this list see list information at
[6][12][16]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1.
[13][17]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.ht
ml
2.
[14][18]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlut
e.ht
ml
3. [15][19]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129
4. [16][20]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136
5. mailto:[17][21]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
6. [18][22]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:[23]boy...@appstate.edu
2. mailto:[24]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
3. mailto:[25]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
4. mailto:[26]r...@mh-freiburg.de
5. mailto:[27]edurb...@gmail.com
6. mailto:[28]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
7.
[29]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html
8.
[30]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.ht
m
9. [31]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129
10. [32]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136
11. mailto:[33]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
12. [34]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
13.
[35]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html
14.
[36]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.ht
ml
15. [37]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129
16. [38]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136
17. mailto:[39]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
18. [40]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net
3. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
4. mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net
5. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
6. mailto:boy...@appstate.edu
7. mailto:jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
8. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
9. mailto:r...@mh-freiburg.de
10. mailto:edurb...@gmail.com
11. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
12. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html
13. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129
14. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136
15. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
16. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
17. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html
18. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.ht
19. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129
20. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136
21. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
22. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
23. mailto:boy...@appstate.edu
24. mailto:jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
25. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
26. mailto:r...@mh-freiburg.de
27. mailto:edurb...@gmail.com
28. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
29. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html
30. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.htm
31. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129
32. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136
33. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
34. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
35. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html
36. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.html
37. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129
38. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136
39. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
40. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
