Thank you for going to so much trouble to answer my query. I have been
busy all afternoon and haven't had time to read it carefully but I
understand that you think that it works better without re-entrant courses.
I will read it all again later.
The reason why I asked was because in a study of Bartolotti which is mainly
concerned with the guitar I mentioned the continuo exercises briefly and
relying on Lynda Sayce commented that they were intended for a theorboed
lute without re-entrant courses. Someone contacted me and said he disagreed
with me!
I sure that Lynda is right and you obviously seem to think the same as she
does. I always like to consult the collective wisdom of this list when in
doubt about these rather obscure matters.
Many thanks
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Mattes" <[email protected]>
To: "R. Mattes" <[email protected]>; "Martyn Hodgson"
<[email protected]>; "Monica Hall" <[email protected]>;
"Lutelist" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 5:41 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Bartolotti's continuo treatise
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:23:03 +0100, R. Mattes wrote
I hate to follow up my own posts.
(f bflat) [1]. To be followed by a chain of 2nd chords ... Yes, we
all know that a 7-6 chain can be inverted (double counterpoint) into
a 2-3 chain but we also know this doesn't work with a third voice
running a third above the bass (since the fith between this voice
and the 7th would invert into a (false/wrong) forth.
Another consideration speaking against this wrong counterpoint: in
this type of 7-6 chain the top/solo voice often sings/plays the
dissonance. While doubling the top voice seems to be perfectly fine
for most 17th century BC treaties, the inverted version would put the
dissonance into the bass and we would end up with parallel octaves
between soloist and bass voice - which is definitely _not_ fine at
all.
Cheers, RalfD
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
