Ooops, "so much" in the end ;-) !!!
JM
--------------
>Exactly Monica, but I tried to keep the same awkwardness in English as the
>French original conveys and did not want to brush it up s mauch ;-) !
>
>All the best but obviously YOU understand FRench ;-),
>
>Jean-Marie
>
>
>--------------
>
>>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" <[email protected]>
>>To: "Shaun Ng" <[email protected]>; "Monica Hall" <[email protected]>
>>Cc: "'Lute List'" <[email protected]>
>>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 <[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 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>
>>
>
>
