Indeed very telling. But we need to be careful that 'batterie' is not generally interpreted in practice always as a fully strummed chord - it might equally mean a broken (arpeggiated) chord depending on the context.
MH >________________________________ > From: Shaun Ng <[email protected]> >To: Monica Hall <[email protected]> >Cc: R. Mattes <[email protected]>; Lutelist <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, 27 February 2014, 8:28 >Subject: [LUTE] Re: Bartolotti's continuo treatise > > >>> Campion actually says that he reccommends his pupils to take a few lessons >>> on the guitar before starting with the lute. > > >What I have found interesting is how Campion—who doesn’t seem to be >embarrassed to call himself both a theorbo and guitar master—seems to suggest >that the way to play (or more precisely ’touch') the theorbo is really similar >to the guitar. I wonder what this says about French eighteenth century >performance style. > >Campion (my translations): > >There is an art to touching [the notes of] the chords. The thumb, after having >touched the essential note, must then do a batterie with the other fingers, >restruming [the strings] and alternately multiplying the chord, unless the >strings are separated [….] This is why I always give a dozen guitar lessons to >those who intend to accompany on the theorbo. > >The harpègement of chords on theorbo makes up superbly when abbreviating the >bass [in quick] movements. It is for this reason that I usually give, as I >said, a dozen lessons on the guitar to those who intend to accompany on the >theorbo. Its facility brings about in a short time [an understanding of] the >touch [of the instrument]. > >Shaun Ng > >On 27 Feb 2014, at 9:46 am, Monica Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have read all the messages in order but there are rather a lot of them and >> no reason why I should reply to all of them in detail. To repeat again what >> you >> actually said... >> >> "First, as I've said before: a guitar accompaniment is not a vaild source >> for continuo realizations! Guitar players where actually known for there >> inability to play sophisticated music (and that's why everyone and their >> grandmother sneered at them)." >> >> There were a lot of amateur guitarists but many of them were perfectly >> capable of playing sophisticated music. In the passage which Jean-Marie has >> quoted Gramont says >> >> The King's taste for Corbetta's compositions had made this instrument so >> fashionable that everyone played it, well or ill. >> The Duke >> of York could play it fairly well, and the count of Arran as well as >> Francisco himself. >> >> Clearly many of these people could play sophisticated music as well as a >> professional player.. >> >> The memoires are a witty and entertaining account of life at the Restoration >> Court but you don't have to take everything in them at face value. >> >> Some people may have sneered at the guitar but this is very often just a >> matter of cultural snobbism which was alive and well in >> the 17th century as it is today. >> >> There is no reason why a guitar accompaniment should not be a vaild source >> of information about realizing a continuo. Many guitarists were quite able >> to do this within the limitations which the instrument imposes and they may >> have had a better grasp of the way chords can be used than some lutenists. >> Campion actually says that he reccommends his pupils to take a few lessons >> on the guitar before starting with the lute. >> >> That will have to do for tonight. >> >> Monica >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Mattes" <[email protected]> >> To: "Monica Hall" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Lutelist" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:18 PM >> Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Bartolotti's continuo treatise >> >> >>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:10:03 -0000, Monica Hall wrote >>> >>> Monica - are you still reading up? It's really hard to answer without >>> knowing which of my posts you have read so far. >>> >>>> > First, as I've said before: a guitar accompaniment is not a vaild >>>> > source >>>> > for continuo realizations! Guitar players where actually known for >>>> > there >>>> > inability to play sophisticated music (and that's why everyone and >>>> > their >>>> > grandmother sneered at them). >>>> >>>> This is an outrageous remark. Certainly there were some people in >>>> the 17th century who disliked the guitar and had their own agenda to >>>> pursue. There are apparently some in the 21st century too. >>> >>> Please, no conspiracy theories. Even the very text Jean-Marie posted and >>> you had so much fun translating hints at the guitar's problems (as do >>> many other 17th century sources). >>> >>>> But there is a substantial repertoire of fine music for the guitar - >>>> by Bartolotti in particular, as well as Corbetta, De Visee and many >>>> others. >>> >>> As I have said before - I'm not critisising baroque guitar music. >>> There's indeed some very fine ideomatic music written for that >>> instrument. >>> >>>> Several of the guitar books include literate example on how to >>>> accompany a bass line. These do sometimes indicate that compromise was >>>> necessary because the instrument has a limited compass. >>> >>> Yes, and the more refined these treaties get, the more the guitar gets >>> treated like a "mini-lute". >>> >>>> There are for >>>> examples in Granatas 1659 book where although the bass line indicates >>>> a 4-3 suspension over a standard perfect cadence with the bass line >>>> falling a 5th he has rearranged the parts so that the 4-3 suspension >>>> is in the lowest sounding part. There is no earthly reason why this >>>> should not be acceptable. >>> >>> Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. You can't have a 4-3 suspension >>> in the lowest voice. You can have a forth between the lowest two voices, >>> but than the higher on would need to resolve downwards to a third. What >>> you describe sounds like a 4-3 voice played an octave to low (or rather, >>> the bass voice being displaced an octave too high), but that would >>> result in a 5th resolving to a 6th [1] ... I'm absolutely convinced that >>> this would make any 17th century musician cringe. This is something that >>> just does never happen outside the guitar world. It's not as if we had >>> no information about how musicians (including amateurs) learned and >>> perceived music. >>> >>> >>>> And no reason why lutenists should not have done the same if this was >>>> inconvenient. >>> >>> For me the issue pretty much is: should I (as a lute player) take as >>> a model an instrument which is severly limited (as a _basso_ continuo >>> instrument) as already noticed by contemporary writers or should I just >>> follow contemporary BC instructions (literally hundreds of them!). When >>> switching from the organ or harpsichord to a lute or theorbo, why should >>> I all of a sudden ignore what I've learned about proper voice leading? >>> With all the stylistic differences between the different continuo styles >>> the common agreement seems to be that continuo should follow the "rules" >>> of music (BC quasi beeing a "contapunto al mente") [2] >>> >>> There really seems to be a great divide between the so-called guitar >>> world and the rest of the baroque crowd. To the later it seems pretty >>> clear that BC was first and foremost a shorthand notation for >>> colla-parte playing. It's rather unfortunate that modern time picked >>> "basso continuo" and not Fundamentbass or "sopra la parte" or >>> "partimento" (the last literally meaning "little score" or "short-hand >>> score"). >>> >>> Cheers, Ralf Mattes >>> >>> >>> [1] unless someone else provides a lower bass voice. >>> [2] im very reluctant to use the word "rules" here. This sounds like >>> something imposed from the outside. Maybe "grammar" would be the more >>> fitting term. >>> >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >-- > > >
