[LUTE] Re: Bartolotti's continuo treatise

[Monica Hall]

Well I don't know about French grammar but I would translate this passage as
I beg those who know how to compose and who are not familiar with the 
guitar, not to be shocked if they find that I sometimes break  the rules; 
the instrument requires it and above all it is necessary to satisfy  the 
ear.

Monica

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Marie Poirier" <jmpoiri...@wanadoo.fr>
To: "Shaun Ng" <shaunk...@gmail.com>; "Monica Hall" <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: "'Lute List'" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Bartolotti's continuo treatise


"Et je prie ceux qui sçaurons bien la composition et qui ne connoistreront 
pas la Guittare, de n'estre point scandalizez, s'ils trouvent que je 
m'escarte quelquefois des regles, c'est l'Instrument qui le veut, et Il 
faut satisfaire l'Oreille preferablement à tout."
Robert de Visée, Advis du Livre de Guittarre dédié au Roy (1682)
[ I pray those who know how to compose and would not know the guitar, not 
to be shocked if they find that I sometimes depart from the rules, the 
instrument commands it and the ear must be satisfied preferably to all ]

Just one quote out dozens in the same vein, from guitar players (not 
modern ones) to justify what is one of the specificities of the so called 
"baroque" guitar...Best,

Jean-Marie

PS : Robert de Visée was obviously one of the best on the guitar, theorbo 
and lute of his time, but his French grammar was not really spotless... 
;-)

------------

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 <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> 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 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 <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> 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" <r...@mh-freiburg.de>
To: "Monica Hall" <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: "Lutelist" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
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




--