Dear Shaun I am sure you were not knocking the guitar!
My comment was intended for those who claimed that "Guitar players were actually known for their inability to play sophisticated music", Best Monica----- Original Message ----- From: "Shaun Ng" <[email protected]>
To: "Monica Hall" <[email protected]> Cc: "Lutelist" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:18 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Bartolotti's continuo treatise
Monica, I am not knocking the guitar. Campion's 'lack of embarrassment' shows that it was perfectly fine to be known as both theorbo and guitar player. Furthermore, his treatise, which discusses accompaniment on the theorbo, guitar and lute, does not suggest any disdain towards the guitar. My feeling is that if we are to truly understand continuo from historical writings, it is important to consider writings for both instruments; after all, there is so much evidence that historical musicians (at least the professionals) were multi instrumentalists. Did this also mean they had multiple techniques of 'touching' for different instruments? Shaun On 28 Feb 2014, at 12:49 am, Monica Hall <[email protected]> wrote:There is no reason why Campion should have been embarrassed at being a guitar player as well as a theorbo player. Foscarini, Bartolotti, Grenerin, De Visee and Medard were all guitarists and theorboists and indeed most professional players may have played both instruments as and when required in a manner appropriated to the occasion. Please don't knock the guitar!!! Monica ----- Original Message ----- From: Shaun Ng To: Monica Hall Cc: R. Mattes ; Lutelist Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Bartolotti's continuo treatiseCampion 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 treatiseOn 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--
