Thank you for your doubt, Monica. I'm looking at the second Conte Clare in
Morlaye's second book and the frequent use of the
d
a
a
a
chord as the tonic. It keeps suggesting to my ear that to put the lowest
sounding note on the 3rd course and to use the 4th octave as the 5th in its
more proper place. Granted, he may have less ambiguously used
d
d
e
f
but he didn't - quite a few times. There would have been no question of where
the root was.
Also look at m. 12 going to 13. If one plays the 4th low string you get a
parallel octave against the treble line (again in m. 22).
Was Morlaye simply 'less discriminationg' or did he have other tricks up his
sleeve? The practice made sense to my ear long before I read Michael's article.
I'll admit I was appreciative to see some support for it. If we assume that all
of Michael's argument is bunk is there any evidence that it was never done?
Forbidden even?
Oddly - and confusingly to this bundle of threads - it was Capirola that first
suggested it. The final chord to Nunqua fuit (53r) wants clarification - that
low A in the F chord is a curious note, isn't it? In the vocal original, no
note went to the lower octave (which we don't have in this tuning of the 6c
anyway) and neither was there a third. Did he want just any old low note there
- even the 3rd will do even though nothing leads to it? A solution is to play
only the 6th octave where the 3rd falls into a better place and adds the
lightest hint of 3rd to the root-5th. What do other players suggest here?
Sean
And if I might ask you a lute question, what do you make of the final chord in
'Nunqua fuit' in the Capirola (f53)?
Sean
On May 13, 2015, at 1:42 AM, Monica Hall wrote:
I am sorry to say that what Michael has said in this article is highly
contentious and doesn't support the idea that the 4-course guitar was
deliberately strung so that the strings of the fourth course could be used
independently.
1. The three examples which Michael refers to are flawed and can't be taken as
proof of the stringing arrangement which he proposes.
Giovanni Smit 4-course guitar (Vienna Kuntsthistorisches Museum SAM 49)
This is actually one of a pair of similar instruments dating 1646. The present
stringing is just what the Museum has come up with and gives no indication of
the original arrangement. It is uncertain whether the bridge, or the spacing
of the strings is original.
What is not clear from the photos is that both instruments are very small with
a scale length of only 37cms - much smaller than what is considered the norm
for 4-course guitar;
Michael says "The Smit guitar was undoubtedly tuned according to Ex.2a"
i.e.with a bourdon on the 4th course. We simply don't know whether this was
so. It would certainly have been tuned at least a minor 3rd higher than what
is assumed to be standard 4-course guitar pitch today. Pitch: c" (or d" ).
Hardly suitable for the 16th century 4-course repertoire.
The two other drawings which he has reproduced are just artists impressions -
they are not photographs. The Cellier drawing may not be accurate. There are
obvious errors in the some of the other drawings in the manuscript. The
illustration of Carlo Cantu dates from the 1630s or later and may actually be
of a 5-course guitar.
French/Flemish iconography.
The illustrations in the Morlaye books and in Phalese clearly show the strings
equally spaced on all courses.
There are at least two other illustrations showing normal string spacing.
Harvey Turnbull pl. 17a & 18 & p. 141. Both show the strings of the 4th
course close together.
17a French - engraving from Bib. Nat. Paris.
18. Atributed to Tobias Stimmer 1539-1584. Swiss painter and
illustrator. Died in Strasbourg. One of 10 engravings in N.Y. Public Library -
Astor, Llennox and Tilden Foundation.
There is also an illustration of a 4-course guitar in a Spanish source
Francisco Guerrero - Sacrae Cantiones (Seville, 1555). It is difficult to see
the spacing but it seems to be equal. Harvey Turnbull pl. 16a & p. 141.
I have posted these on my earlyguitar.ning.com site. This topic was discussed
there in some length a few weeks ago.
Bermudo
What Bermudo says does not really underline the universal use of standard
tuning. Like so many people Michael has just taken the sentence out of
context. He has omitted part of it and is just reading into it what he wants.
Bermudo says that "They usually put on the 4th course another string" which
suggests that they did not always.
f.96 - Suelen poner a la quarta de la guitarra otra cuerda, que le llaman
requinta. No se, si quando este nombre pusieron a la tal cuerda: formava con
la dicha quarta un diapente, que es quinta perfecta: y por esto tomo nombre de
requinta. Ahora no tienen este temple: mas forman ambas cuerdas una octava:
segun tiene el laud, o vihuela de Flandes Este instrumento teniendo las tres,
o quatro ordenes de cuerdas dobladas, que forman entre si octavas: dizen tener
las cuerdas requintadas.
They usually put on the fourth course of the guitar another string which they
call "requinta". I do not know whether when they gave this name to this string
{in the past] it made the interval of a 5th with the fourth course, and for
this reason it has this name. Today it is not tuned in this way; instead the
two strings form an octave in the same way as on the lute, or "vihuela de
Flandes" [i.e. another name for the lute]. Because this instrument [i.e. the
lute] has three or four strings doubled in octaves they say that it has its
strings "requintadas".
On a purely practical level it simply isn't necessary to string the guitar in
this way to avoid six-four chords. Invariably the upper octave note on the
fourth course is doubled on one of the higher courses in 4-part chord and if
players were worried about six-four chords they could simply have omitted the
fourth course altogether from chords which have the 5th of the chord on the
4th course. In fact in the Leroy books this is what often happens; the
Morlaye books are less discriminating. Also quite frequently the 4th course is
to be tuned down a tone and this eliminates the second inversion chords in some
keys. It just isn't necessary to go to such length.
I think people should be more careful in the way that they evaluate their
information...
Monica
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Smith" <[email protected]>
To: "lute" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:13 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Vihuela Stringing
>
> There may be reason to rethink the splitting of the 4th course in
> renaissance guitar technique. In the December 2012 LSA Quarterly, Michael
> Fink has strongly argued for playing the octave seperately in the lowest
> course of the renaissance guitar under cetain circumstances and for
> certain reasons.
>
> Apparently the Giovanni Smit chitarrina (1646) is a prime example. He
> reproduces the plate (6.5) from James Tyler's 2002 book and it is a
> significantly wider space within that course.
>
> He also reproduces the drawing (~1583-1587) by Jacques Cellier for
> presentation to Henry III of France. It requires a bit of photoshop magic
> to bring it out but it, too, has a wider split at the 4th course.
>
> The Commedia dell'Arte Guitar (ca. 1630?) in the print of actor Carlo
> Cantu ("Buffetto") printed as the frontispiece in Tyer's 1980 book also
> reveals course IV is split wider.
>
> He further shows the usefulness of playing the octave over the full course
> in a variety of examples.
>
> Sean
>
>
>
>
> On May 12, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote:
>
> Let's not get confused here - the "split course" technique consists of
> stopping only one string of a unison course so that the course produces
> two different notes. This was used by Capirola, Fuenllana, Bakfark, and
> possibly others. Playing the strings of an octave course separately is a
> completely different technique, not used (as far as I know) before Mouton
> in the late 17th century.
>
> Martin
> On 12/05/2015 18:25, Lex van Sante wrote:
>> Yes, for instance in Rechercar XIII one has to finger one string of the
>> fourth course and plucking both of them.
>> Op 12 mei 2015, om 18:18 heeft Monica Hall het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> Does Capirola say that you should play one or other string of an octave
>>> strung course?
>>> Monica
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Wilke"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:20 PM
>>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Vihuela Stringing
>>>
>>>
>>>> I suppose he meant Capirola.
>>>> Chris
>>>> [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>>>>
>>>> At May 12, 2015, 8:27:26 AM, Monica Hall<'[email protected]'>
>>>>
>>>> "Fuenllana (1554) prescribes playing only one of the two strings in
>>>> the
>>>> course in some passages (as does Dalza - does he?)"
>>>> As far as I am aware this is not what Fuenllana does. What he does do
>>>> is
>>>> play two different notes on the same course - stopping one string of a
>>>> course and leaving the other unstopped.
>>>>
>>>> References
>>>>
>>>> 1. https://yho.com/footer0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
>
