[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Am 31.01.2014 10:13, schrieb jean-michel Catherinot: the conflict?? Concerning staff notation: there are extremely rare examples of lute parts in staff notation (Fasch's concerto?, and not sure it's for D min tuning) . Indeed we can't be sure about lute parts in notation, for which instrument they had been meant. But possibly the composers there hadn't our problem, that it should be for one very special instrument. There are some examples - I'm really not sure, how many lute parts in notation we have - where for sure the d-minor lute was meant: Probably the Krebs concertos had been written in notation first, as we have two different parts of it (probably intabulations). Conti wrote some Cantatas, where the French lute is obligato. It is written in notation and normally is more or less a line of melody, as it is also meant for violin in some cases. One could argue, that we don't know, for which instrument it is thougth. But! There is one manuscript/print of it - I'm not sure, because I only have some pages of it (there is a facsimile by SPES), where we have notation and tablature for baroque lute. The interesting thing is, that the lute plays this melody and the bass. So I'm pretty sure, this was common practice with the single line melodies for lute, that in most times are written directly over the bass line. Best regards Markus -- Markus Lutz Schulstraße 11 88422 Bad Buchau Tel 0 75 82 / 92 62 89 Fax 0 75 82 / 92 62 90 Mail mar...@gmlutz.de Homepages http://www.slweiss.com (Silvius Leopold Weiss) http://mss.slweiss.com (Baroque lute manuscripts - by Peter Steur) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I'd accept a Trabant! RT On 2/1/2014 10:16 AM, R. Mattes wrote: On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:42:16 -0500, Roman Turovsky wrote No one knows. The only thing known is that the combination of consonants TRB is absent in all European languages, except for the Slavic ones. Where did you get this from? Just because I was drinking one while your mail came in: Teber (also: Träber, Trester) [1]. An acloholic beverage distilled from the leftover grapes after the juces have been pressed out (it's more famous under it's italian name: Grappa). Then I was thinking that you probably meant the combination of Tsome vowel(s)RB - but even for that there is lat. turbare (I guess you won't accept my neighbours Audi-Turbo ... :-) Cheers, Ralf Mattes [1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treber In Ukrainian TORBA means a sack, and TORBYNA means, well, a smaller sack. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Turban (as in the ubiquitous headwear) is Persian, i.e. IndoEuropean word.
RT
On 1/31/2014 5:12 PM, dominic robillard wrote:
Turba in Bulgarian also means a bag.
On 31.01.2014, at 21:43, Roman Turovsky r.turov...@verizon.net wrote:
No one knows.
The only thing known is that the combination of consonants TRB
is absent in all European languages, except for the Slavic ones.
In Ukrainian TORBA means a sack, and TORBYNA means, well, a smaller sack.
RT
On 1/31/2014 4:45 PM, Arthur Ness wrote:
What is the etymology of the word tiorba?
-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf
Of Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:03 AM
To: David Tayler; lute
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
As already pointed out on a number of occasions, the point about
tablature sources, rather than staff notation, is that they oblige a
particular tuning from the named instrument. Thus, for example, the
archlute tablature sources require top courses at the higher octave (ie
non re-entrant) - and vice versa for the theorbo tablatures. Your
stated belief that the archlute and theorbo were simply different names
for the same instrument('The terms arciliuto and tiorba are
high-degree interchangeable.') is not therefore supported by any of the
tablature sources
MH
__
From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net
To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 6:19
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form
of
notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of brilliant
composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying that
it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more efficient
in
showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo
movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as
well, such as ornamentation.
Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does not
fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity of
square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms
high-degree interchangeable.
Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation, there
is
no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the
absence
is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer
styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition.
dt
__
From: jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
To: R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute
[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn
Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider
that
most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be
this
is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that
tuning
is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for
arciliuto
and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide:
ambitus
and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said,
obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others
it
seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach
collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of
the
solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto
with
two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from
the
Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the
Royal
Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for
arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at
Rohrau.
Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while
renaming
the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake
he
has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives
quite
clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two
tunings for archiluth in G and A.
Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject,
but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of
the
use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used,
it's
very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note).
The
only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning
could
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:42:16 -0500, Roman Turovsky wrote No one knows. The only thing known is that the combination of consonants TRB is absent in all European languages, except for the Slavic ones. Where did you get this from? Just because I was drinking one while your mail came in: Teber (also: Träber, Trester) [1]. An acloholic beverage distilled from the leftover grapes after the juces have been pressed out (it's more famous under it's italian name: Grappa). Then I was thinking that you probably meant the combination of Tsome vowel(s)RB - but even for that there is lat. turbare (I guess you won't accept my neighbours Audi-Turbo ... :-) Cheers, Ralf Mattes [1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treber In Ukrainian TORBA means a sack, and TORBYNA means, well, a smaller sack. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
On 2/3/2014 12:29 PM, Geoff Gaherty wrote: As is turbine. Geoff that is not related to turbans or theorbos, but rather to the latin TURBARE, to BOTHER. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
On Feb 3, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Roman Turovsky r.turov...@verizon.net wrote: that is not related to turbans or theorbos, but rather to the latin TURBARE, to BOTHER. If you dismiss out of hand any relationship between theorbos and bother, you lack sufficient experience with theorbos. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
As already pointed out on a number of occasions, the point about
tablature sources, rather than staff notation, is that they oblige a
particular tuning from the named instrument. Thus, for example, the
archlute tablature sources require top courses at the higher octave (ie
non re-entrant) - and vice versa for the theorbo tablatures. Your
stated belief that the archlute and theorbo were simply different names
for the same instrument('The terms arciliuto and tiorba are
high-degree interchangeable.') is not therefore supported by any of the
tablature sources
MH
__
From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net
To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 6:19
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form
of
notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of brilliant
composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying that
it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more efficient
in
showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo
movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as
well, such as ornamentation.
Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does not
fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity of
square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms
high-degree interchangeable.
Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation, there
is
no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the
absence
is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer
styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition.
dt
__
From: jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
To: R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute
[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn
Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider
that
most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be
this
is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that
tuning
is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for
arciliuto
and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide:
ambitus
and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said,
obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others
it
seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach
collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of
the
solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto
with
two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from
the
Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the
Royal
Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for
arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at
Rohrau.
Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while
renaming
the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake
he
has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives
quite
clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two
tunings for archiluth in G and A.
Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject,
but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of
the
use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used,
it's
very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note).
The
only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning
could
be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives
solution for chords, not to play a B.C., and also dedicated to the
harpsichord (did Delair even play the theorbo?). The others
(Grenerin,
Fleury,...) work with re-entrant tuning, even if the solutions
could
be
strange for us (but what about the guitar?).
I think the discontinuity you quote about the lines, with wide
laps,
is
inherent to the theorbo. In very clear solo theorbo pieces, with no
doubt on tuning as Saizenay, you find those strange laps, even in
de
VisA(c)e. It is also very common in guitar pieces, (have a look to
Monica Hall's site). And even changing the tuning doesn't solve
the
problem: you allways find those dicontinuities. This begins with
Piccinini from
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
You write 'People like the archlute-theorbo duality. It isn't historical' Many historical sources describe the differences between the two instruments (Bob Spencer's article still represents a good summary - see link I gave earlier) and, of course, the tablature sources clearly show the differences in tuning of the top courses. MH __ From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 5:54 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 __ Well, if the surviving instruments are, as you say, not reliable, they are still the most reliable of the information we have. However, the surviving instruments are IMHO rare, valuable, informative, vivid and concise. Like any document or postcard from the past, they need to be interpreted. As for labels, I see that as the root of the problem, and essentially a reinterpretation of the based based on the ever changing tastes ofthe present. People like the archlute-theorbo duality. It isn't historical, but people like it. The terms are partially historical, of course, they just create an artificial duality. I don't like it, but that's just because it think it filters out a lot of possibilities. I think one could come up with a better label system, but that isn't going to happen because the lute business is a market driven business, it is not an academic enterprise. In the case of Weiss, you have conflicting information, Weiss's letter, and the surviving parts. Take away the labels, and the problem goes away. Mostly. dt From: jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com To: David Tayler [2]vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute [3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:18 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 If you read the previous messages, and specially, the one from Arthur Ness, you may notice that some of the arciliuto obligato parts in Dresden opera would be by Weiss's own hand. So it seems that arciliuto was eventually practiced by him, at least on stage: it looks that arciliuto was not an ennemy for him! Concerning the instruments, luthiers are more competent: but I've seen some in Europe (it was easy to have in your hands the instruments of the Paris conservatoire at the time, and I helped to draw the plans of some of them, or in Bruxelles and Nueremberg), and not many in their initial shape (many transformed in guitar, shortened, with guitar bridge, ...). So surviving instruments are not such a reliable sourceAnyway, the main information in this letter is that at least 3 types of instruments exist, and different from each others, at Weiss' time: lute, arciliuto and theorbo. And it is not a question of label, it's a question of tuning and quantity of noise it produces! Le Mardi 28 janvier 2014 2h41, David Tayler [4]vidan...@sbcglobal.net a ecrit : __ This is a very interesting quote because it falls in between the classical divisions of prescriptive and descriptive. So it is sort of descriptive in that Weiss is setting up a straw lute argument by describing and then downgrading the other (non-Weiss) instruments, and then it is both self-descriptive and prescriptive in that he goes on to describe the superior instrument, which of course he would be compelled by the rules of rhetoric to claim to have partially invented. You could argue based on this quote that no one played the gallichon, but of course that won't fly nowadays. In analyzing the quote, there is no way to know if it is true or not, but there is certainly no reason to doubt that Weiss had all or some custom instruments. However, there is also no reason to doubt that any of his competitors would not have had custom instruments, which would render his entire argument moot. Certainly it was standard procedure for someone to claim that their method was the right one and everyone else had it wrong, and musicologists rightly take such statements in that context. So for example, most German composers claim that they brought French music to Germany. And therefore those statements are all pretty much suspect. But--it certainly helps make the case that professionals had custom instruments and custom tunings, which would mean that new labels must be invented and applied (the Weiss Theorbo, etc.) or one could stay away
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
You write 'So for example, some large lutes had double strings. Mostly these lutes have disappeared'. This is, in fact, the opposite of the case: most extant large extended peghead lutes exhibit double stringing on the fingerboard. MH __ From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 5:57 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 That's an interesting set of labels but it doesn't cover all the historical cases. So for example, some large lutes had double strings. Mostly these lutes have disappeared. However, if anyone chooses to make a concordance nowadays to sort out the old lutes, I can see why one would want to do that. You could also have two types of every instrument. dt __ From: Martyn Hodgson [1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk To: David Tayler [2]vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute [3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 This doesn't address the point I made to you: that the fundamental difference between the archlute and the theorbo is in the manner of stringing - theorbos have the top one or two courses lowered from nominal; archlutes do not. If you don't think this is the case then, to repeat, what's your evidence (ie not merely simple assertion) for supposing otherwise? Further, it is widely understood that there is great diversity in the configuration and shape of these instruments - which is why it is better to identify an instrument in relation to its manner of tuning rather than to any particular physical feature. MH __ From: David Tayler [4]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 1:16 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Well, the evidence is in the museums--there are more than two types of instruments. Therefore, any attempt to categorize the historical lutes as two types does not reflect the historical record. If you look at all the surviving lutes (I haven't seen all of them, but a pretty good percentage over the last 40 years) you will see that most of them are different and there are many types and variations. The label problem is not limited to lutes, it is simply the modern opposite of historical practice. The biggest difference between the way we look at things and the way a 16th or 17th century person would look at things is that we prefer uniformity and they preferred diversity. So the modern take on old instruments is simply a form of acculturation based on a 20th or 21st century point of view. Or you could call it preferential selection, like collecting art works or favorite music works. Preferential selection--collecting things you like or think belong together, like a suite of dances-- is of course historical, just not the way we do it. Another way to look at it: if one labels as an archlute an instrument with a certain size tuning, you instantly create such an instrument, and possibly exclude others. However, if you use a neutral label, you can describe an instrument type. So pluckies, as folksy as it sounds, is historically a much more accurate term., and does not cause the disappearance of an instrument or group of instruments, like the double strung theorbo. One could try to argue that the terms are highly specific, and I would then simply direct people to the the lists of CDs over the last forty years, and you can see different fads about what is an archlute, chitarrone and so on. It clearly changes over time because it is an ongoing process of acculturation, or follows market driven ideas of what will sell or what is popular. And there is nothing wrong with that, it just is pretty far from the original sources. One of the surprising things about the internet is that now a lot of unusual and possibly historical instrument designs are resurfacing, owing to these same market forces. dt __ From: Martyn Hodgson [1][6]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk To: David Tayler [2][7]vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute [3][8]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 You write that 'The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I think Diego Cantaluppi, in his thesis on theorbo (I suppose you can read italian), gives very clear arguments on the subject. Once again, it's a question of sound, not of label (to give names and labels is not the question). And indeed we can choose our own practice (you do it very well), if it is the point you address. You turn all the arguments in a strange way i.e.: concerning the instrument, when I said it's not such a reliable source, it answered your assertion that surviving ones are proofs (and now you turn it in they have to be interpreted, which is true but not what you said previously). Concerning the supposed conflict in the Weiss's letter and arciliuto parts: where is the conflict?? Concerning staff notation: there are extremely rare examples of lute parts in staff notation (Fasch's concerto?, and not sure it's for D min tuning) . Concerning vieil ton in France: I don't know any lute or theorbo piece or whatever you call that instrument in staff notation at any time except Perrine: so no doubt on the tuning, and no archiluth-type stringing (or whatever you call it) in France as a solo instrument. Nor I didn't find any piece of Weiss for lute in mesural notation, neither Hagen, Durant...Wher did you find lute parts in mensural? It would be very interesting for my research. What I noticed is that parts for arciliuto named explicitely are written in mensural (and indeed BC for all the instruments). Le Vendredi 31 janvier 2014 7h23, David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net a ecrit : I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form of notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of brilliant composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying that it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more efficient in showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as well, such as ornamentation. Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does not fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity of square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms high-degree interchangeable. Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation, there is no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the absence is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition. dt __ From: jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com To: R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute [3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider that most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be this is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that tuning is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for arciliuto and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide: ambitus and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said, obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others it seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of the solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto with two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from the Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the Royal Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at Rohrau. Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while renaming the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake he has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives quite clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two tunings for archiluth in G and A. Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject, but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used, it's very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note). The only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning could be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives solution for chords, not to play a B.C
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
The biggest difference between the way we look at things and the way a 16th or 17th century person would look at things is that we prefer uniformity and they preferred diversity.: how do you know that? Le Vendredi 31 janvier 2014 10h17, jean-michel Catherinot jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com a ecrit : I think Diego Cantaluppi, in his thesis on theorbo (I suppose you can read italian), gives very clear arguments on the subject. Once again, it's a question of sound, not of label (to give names and labels is not the question). And indeed we can choose our own practice (you do it very well), if it is the point you address. You turn all the arguments in a strange way i.e.: concerning the instrument, when I said it's not such a reliable source, it answered your assertion that surviving ones are proofs (and now you turn it in they have to be interpreted, which is true but not what you said previously). Concerning the supposed conflict in the Weiss's letter and arciliuto parts: where is the conflict?? Concerning staff notation: there are extremely rare examples of lute parts in staff notation (Fasch's concerto?, and not sure it's for D min tuning) . Concerning vieil ton in France: I don't know any lute or theorbo piece or whatever you call that instrument in staff notation at any time except Perrine: so no doubt on the tuning, and no archiluth-type stringing (or whatever you call it) in France as a solo instrument. Nor I didn't find any piece of Weiss for lute in mesural notation, neither Hagen, Durant...Wher did you find lute parts in mensural? It would be very interesting for my research. What I noticed is that parts for arciliuto named explicitely are written in mensural (and indeed BC for all the instruments). Le Vendredi 31 janvier 2014 7h23, David Tayler [1]vidan...@sbcglobal.net a ecrit : I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form of notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of brilliant composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying that it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more efficient in showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as well, such as ornamentation. Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does not fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity of square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms high-degree interchangeable. Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation, there is no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the absence is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition. dt __ From: jean-michel Catherinot [1][2]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com To: R. Mattes [2][3]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute [3][4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn Hodgson [4][5]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider that most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be this is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that tuning is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for arciliuto and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide: ambitus and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said, obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others it seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of the solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto with two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from the Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the Royal Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at Rohrau. Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while renaming the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake he has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives quite clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two tunings
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
What is the etymology of the word tiorba?
-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf
Of Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:03 AM
To: David Tayler; lute
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
As already pointed out on a number of occasions, the point about
tablature sources, rather than staff notation, is that they oblige a
particular tuning from the named instrument. Thus, for example, the
archlute tablature sources require top courses at the higher octave (ie
non re-entrant) - and vice versa for the theorbo tablatures. Your
stated belief that the archlute and theorbo were simply different names
for the same instrument('The terms arciliuto and tiorba are
high-degree interchangeable.') is not therefore supported by any of the
tablature sources
MH
__
From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net
To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 6:19
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form
of
notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of brilliant
composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying that
it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more efficient
in
showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo
movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as
well, such as ornamentation.
Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does not
fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity of
square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms
high-degree interchangeable.
Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation, there
is
no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the
absence
is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer
styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition.
dt
__
From: jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
To: R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute
[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn
Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider
that
most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be
this
is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that
tuning
is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for
arciliuto
and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide:
ambitus
and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said,
obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others
it
seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach
collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of
the
solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto
with
two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from
the
Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the
Royal
Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for
arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at
Rohrau.
Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while
renaming
the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake
he
has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives
quite
clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two
tunings for archiluth in G and A.
Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject,
but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of
the
use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used,
it's
very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note).
The
only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning
could
be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives
solution for chords, not to play a B.C., and also dedicated to the
harpsichord (did Delair even play the theorbo?). The others
(Grenerin,
Fleury,...) work with re-entrant tuning, even if the solutions
could
be
strange for us (but what about the guitar?).
I think the discontinuity you quote about the lines, with wide
laps,
is
inherent to the theorbo. In very clear solo theorbo pieces, with no
doubt on tuning as Saizenay, you find
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
For what it's worth, here's what Wikipedia has to say:
The etymology of the name tiorba has not yet been explained
sufficiently. It is hypothesized that its origin might have been in the
Slavic or Turkish torba, meaning bag or turban. According to
[1]Athanasius Kircher, tiorba was a nickname in the Neapolitan dialect
that actually denoted the grinding board used by perfumers for grinding
essence and herbs.^[2][1]
^
^Bill
From: Arthur Ness arthurjn...@verizon.net
To: 'Martyn Hodgson' hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; 'David Tayler'
vidan...@sbcglobal.net; 'lute' lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 21:45
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
What is the etymology of the word tiorba?
-Original Message-
From: [3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
[mailto:[4]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf
Of Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:03 AM
To: David Tayler; lute
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
As already pointed out on a number of occasions, the point about
tablature sources, rather than staff notation, is that they oblige a
particular tuning from the named instrument. Thus, for example, the
archlute tablature sources require top courses at the higher octave
(ie
non re-entrant) - and vice versa for the theorbo tablatures. Your
stated belief that the archlute and theorbo were simply different
names
for the same instrument('The terms arciliuto and tiorba are
high-degree interchangeable.') is not therefore supported by any of
the
tablature sources
MH
__
From: David Tayler [5]vidan...@sbcglobal.net
To: lute [6]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 6:19
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form
of
notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of
brilliant
composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying
that
it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more
efficient
in
showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo
movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as
well, such as ornamentation.
Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does
not
fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity
of
square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms
high-degree interchangeable.
Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation,
there
is
no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the
absence
is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer
styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition.
dt
__
From: jean-michel Catherinot
[1][7]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
To: R. Mattes [2][8]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute
[3][9]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn
Hodgson [4][10]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider
that
most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be
this
is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that
tuning
is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for
arciliuto
and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide:
ambitus
and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said,
obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others
it
seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach
collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of
the
solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto
with
two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from
the
Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the
Royal
Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for
arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at
Rohrau.
Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while
renaming
the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a
mistake
he
has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives
quite
clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two
tunings for archiluth in G and A.
Concerning the use
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Jakob Lindberg had a funny speculation: In the old Venice dialect ti
orba meant I'll blind you.
Just think the problems with the long extension neck...
Once I happened to hit the director of a choir, when he arrived to the
front of the choir and me with the theorbo; tiny river of blood in his
head did not harm his work, luckily...
Arto
On 31/01/14 23:45, Arthur Ness wrote:
What is the etymology of the word tiorba?
-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf
Of Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:03 AM
To: David Tayler; lute
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
As already pointed out on a number of occasions, the point about
tablature sources, rather than staff notation, is that they oblige a
particular tuning from the named instrument. Thus, for example, the
archlute tablature sources require top courses at the higher octave (ie
non re-entrant) - and vice versa for the theorbo tablatures. Your
stated belief that the archlute and theorbo were simply different names
for the same instrument('The terms arciliuto and tiorba are
high-degree interchangeable.') is not therefore supported by any of the
tablature sources
MH
__
From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net
To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 6:19
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form
of
notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of brilliant
composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying that
it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more efficient
in
showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo
movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as
well, such as ornamentation.
Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does not
fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity of
square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms
high-degree interchangeable.
Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation, there
is
no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the
absence
is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer
styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition.
dt
__
From: jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
To: R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute
[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn
Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider
that
most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be
this
is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that
tuning
is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for
arciliuto
and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide:
ambitus
and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said,
obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others
it
seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach
collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of
the
solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto
with
two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from
the
Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the
Royal
Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for
arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at
Rohrau.
Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while
renaming
the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake
he
has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives
quite
clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two
tunings for archiluth in G and A.
Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject,
but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of
the
use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used,
it's
very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note).
The
only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning
could
be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives
solution for chords
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
see:
http://www.accordsnouveaux.ch/de/Instrumente/Mandore/Mandore_Instrumente/Mandore_Instrumente.html
1650: Athanasius Kircher, Musurgia universalis sive ars magna consoni et
dissoni in X. libros digesta, Band 1 2 Rom (Corbellettos Erben) 1650
Der folgende Beitrag stammt von Dr. Joachim Lüdtke und erfasst alle Stellen in
Kirchers Werk, die sich mit der Mandore befassen und eine sehr interessante
Passage über die Theorbe.
Originaltexte:
[Aufgelöste Abbreviaturen sind durch spitze Klammern gekennzeichnet:
postque.
Marginalien, die in den Text integriert sind, sind durch geschweifte Klammern
gekennzeichnet: {Die Lauten ein schwierigs Instrument zu meistern}.
Der doppelte Bindestrich wird durch einfachen Bindestrich wiedergegeben.
Umlaute, die durch Superposition des E über den entsprechenden Vokal
ausgedrückt sind, wurden durch die heute üblichen Schreibweisen (ä, ö, ü)
ersetzt.
Groß- und Kleinschreibung der Texte sind getreu wiedergegeben; die Majuskeln
des Titels der Originalausgabe von 1650 sind mit Ausnahme des Beginns
konsequent in Kleinschreibung umgesetzt worden.]
Artis Magnae Consoni, et Dissoni Lib. VI. De Musica Instrumentali.
Caput II. De Testudinibus, Mandoris, et Cytharis.
Inuentum Neotericum est, cùm apud Antiquos nulla fiat horum instrumentorum
mentio, Tiorba nomen suum inuenit à Circumforaneo quodam Neapolitano, qui
primus testudinis collum productius duplicauit; chordas diuersas addidit, cùm
primò non nisi barytono seruiret, atque hoc instrumentum ioco quodam vocare
solebat Tiorbam; vocant autem Tiorbam id instrumentum, quo Chirothecarij
odorifera molere solent, estque mortarium quoddam prorsus simile molulis
illis, quibus amygdala, synapi, aliaquae grana in superaffuso liquore
conuenienti in lac dissoluere solent.
Die Theorbe hat ihren Namen von einem gewissen neapolitanischen Marktschreier
bekommen, welcher als erster den Hals der Laute verlängert und verdoppelt hat.
Er hat verschiedene Saiten hinzugefügt, deren erste lediglich für den Bariton
dienlich ist, und pflegte dieses Instrument scherzhafterweise Theorbe zu
nennen. Theorbe wird nämlich dasjenige Werkzeug genannt, mit welchem die
Handschuhmacher Duftharze zu mahlen pflegen, und das ist ein gewisser Mörser,
jenen kleinen Mühlen ganz ähnlich, mit denen man Mandelkerne, Senf und andere
Körner in darüber gegossener geeigneter Flüssigkeit zu Milch zu lösen pflegt.
Andreas
Am 31.01.2014 um 19:57 schrieb William Samson:
For what it's worth, here's what Wikipedia has to say:
The etymology of the name tiorba has not yet been explained
sufficiently. It is hypothesized that its origin might have been in the
Slavic or Turkish torba, meaning bag or turban. According to
[1]Athanasius Kircher, tiorba was a nickname in the Neapolitan dialect
that actually denoted the grinding board used by perfumers for grinding
essence and herbs.^[2][1]
^
^Bill
From: Arthur Ness arthurjn...@verizon.net
To: 'Martyn Hodgson' hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; 'David Tayler'
vidan...@sbcglobal.net; 'lute' lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 21:45
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
What is the etymology of the word tiorba?
-Original Message-
From: [3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
[mailto:[4]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf
Of Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:03 AM
To: David Tayler; lute
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
As already pointed out on a number of occasions, the point about
tablature sources, rather than staff notation, is that they oblige a
particular tuning from the named instrument. Thus, for example, the
archlute tablature sources require top courses at the higher octave
(ie
non re-entrant) - and vice versa for the theorbo tablatures. Your
stated belief that the archlute and theorbo were simply different
names
for the same instrument('The terms arciliuto and tiorba are
high-degree interchangeable.') is not therefore supported by any of
the
tablature sources
MH
__
From: David Tayler [5]vidan...@sbcglobal.net
To: lute [6]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 6:19
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form
of
notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of
brilliant
composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying
that
it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more
efficient
in
showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo
movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as
well, such as ornamentation.
Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
At a concert here in Boston many years ago, POD was on stage with his tiorbo
and a guitarist was serenading the audience while dancing in the aisles.
To end he wanted to be on stage, but Paul's tiorbo was blocking the steps.
Paul did a double take and raised the instrument like a railroad crossing
gate, and the dancer gained the stage to take his bows.
I had heard (can't recall where) that the term has some meaning with trees
or branches. But I couldn't find a closely related word. What I heard was
probably just modern speculation like ti orbo. --Arthur
I've been looking at PANs today, Andi
-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf
Of Arto Wikla
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:01 AM
To: Arthur Ness; Martyn Hodgson; David Tayler; lute
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Jakob Lindberg had a funny speculation: In the old Venice dialect ti orba
meant I'll blind you.
Just think the problems with the long extension neck...
Once I happened to hit the director of a choir, when he arrived to the front
of the choir and me with the theorbo; tiny river of blood in his head did
not harm his work, luckily...
Arto
On 31/01/14 23:45, Arthur Ness wrote:
What is the etymology of the word tiorba?
-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
Behalf Of Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:03 AM
To: David Tayler; lute
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
As already pointed out on a number of occasions, the point about
tablature sources, rather than staff notation, is that they oblige a
particular tuning from the named instrument. Thus, for example, the
archlute tablature sources require top courses at the higher octave
(ie
non re-entrant) - and vice versa for the theorbo tablatures. Your
stated belief that the archlute and theorbo were simply different
names
for the same instrument('The terms arciliuto and tiorba are
high-degree interchangeable.') is not therefore supported by any of
the
tablature sources
MH
__
From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net
To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 6:19
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form
of
notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of brilliant
composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying
that
it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more efficient
in
showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo
movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as
well, such as ornamentation.
Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does
not
fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity of
square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms
high-degree interchangeable.
Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation, there
is
no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the
absence
is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer
styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition.
dt
__
From: jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
To: R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute
[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn
Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider
that
most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be
this
is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that
tuning
is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for
arciliuto
and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide:
ambitus
and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said,
obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others
it
seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach
collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of
the
solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto
with
two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from
the
Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the
Royal
Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for
arciliuto is among
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
No one knows.
The only thing known is that the combination of consonants TRB
is absent in all European languages, except for the Slavic ones.
In Ukrainian TORBA means a sack, and TORBYNA means, well, a smaller sack.
RT
On 1/31/2014 4:45 PM, Arthur Ness wrote:
What is the etymology of the word tiorba?
-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
Behalf
Of Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:03 AM
To: David Tayler; lute
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
As already pointed out on a number of occasions, the point about
tablature sources, rather than staff notation, is that they oblige a
particular tuning from the named instrument. Thus, for example, the
archlute tablature sources require top courses at the higher
octave (ie
non re-entrant) - and vice versa for the theorbo tablatures. Your
stated belief that the archlute and theorbo were simply different
names
for the same instrument('The terms arciliuto and tiorba are
high-degree interchangeable.') is not therefore supported by any
of the
tablature sources
MH
__
From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net
To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 6:19
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard
form
of
notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of
brilliant
composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries
saying that
it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more
efficient
in
showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo
movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as
well, such as ornamentation.
Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that
does not
fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the
superfluity of
square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms
high-degree interchangeable.
Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation,
there
is
no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the
absence
is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer
styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious
competition.
dt
__
From: jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
To: R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute
[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn
Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I
consider
that
most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be
this
is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that
tuning
is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for
arciliuto
and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide:
ambitus
and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said,
obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many
others
it
seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach
collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the
composer of
the
solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for
arciliuto
with
two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from
the
Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the
Royal
Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for
arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber
music at
Rohrau.
Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while
renaming
the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a
mistake
he
has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives
quite
clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two
tunings for archiluth in G and A.
Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our
subject,
but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature
evidence of
the
use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be
used,
it's
very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note).
The
only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the
tuning
could
be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives
solution for chords, not to play a B.C., and also dedicated
to the
harpsichord (did Delair even play
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
An Italian lutenist told me it was the equivalent of de-orba, to de orb
thus to blind, the initial, 'd' would frequently be devoiced, giving teorba,
but it is notoriously difficult to prove the etymology of a single word, and
the explanation while amusing seems un peu tirée par les cheveux as they say
in France.
Regards
Anthony
On 31 janv. 2014, at 20:00, Arto Wikla wi...@cs.dartmouth.edu wrote:
Jakob Lindberg had a funny speculation: In the old Venice dialect ti orba
meant I'll blind you.
Just think the problems with the long extension neck...
Once I happened to hit the director of a choir, when he arrived to the front
of the choir and me with the theorbo; tiny river of blood in his head did not
harm his work, luckily...
Arto
On 31/01/14 23:45, Arthur Ness wrote:
What is the etymology of the word tiorba?
-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf
Of Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:03 AM
To: David Tayler; lute
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
As already pointed out on a number of occasions, the point about
tablature sources, rather than staff notation, is that they oblige a
particular tuning from the named instrument. Thus, for example, the
archlute tablature sources require top courses at the higher octave (ie
non re-entrant) - and vice versa for the theorbo tablatures. Your
stated belief that the archlute and theorbo were simply different names
for the same instrument('The terms arciliuto and tiorba are
high-degree interchangeable.') is not therefore supported by any of the
tablature sources
MH
__
From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net
To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 6:19
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form
of
notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of brilliant
composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying that
it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more efficient
in
showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo
movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as
well, such as ornamentation.
Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does not
fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity of
square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms
high-degree interchangeable.
Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation, there
is
no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the
absence
is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer
styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition.
dt
__
From: jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
To: R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute
[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn
Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider
that
most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be
this
is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that
tuning
is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for
arciliuto
and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide:
ambitus
and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said,
obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others
it
seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach
collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of
the
solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto
with
two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from
the
Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the
Royal
Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for
arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at
Rohrau.
Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while
renaming
the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake
he
has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives
quite
clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two
tunings for archiluth in G and A.
Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Turba in Bulgarian also means a bag.
On 31.01.2014, at 21:43, Roman Turovsky r.turov...@verizon.net wrote:
No one knows.
The only thing known is that the combination of consonants TRB
is absent in all European languages, except for the Slavic ones.
In Ukrainian TORBA means a sack, and TORBYNA means, well, a smaller sack.
RT
On 1/31/2014 4:45 PM, Arthur Ness wrote:
What is the etymology of the word tiorba?
-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf
Of Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:03 AM
To: David Tayler; lute
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
As already pointed out on a number of occasions, the point about
tablature sources, rather than staff notation, is that they oblige a
particular tuning from the named instrument. Thus, for example, the
archlute tablature sources require top courses at the higher octave (ie
non re-entrant) - and vice versa for the theorbo tablatures. Your
stated belief that the archlute and theorbo were simply different names
for the same instrument('The terms arciliuto and tiorba are
high-degree interchangeable.') is not therefore supported by any of the
tablature sources
MH
__
From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net
To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014, 6:19
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form
of
notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of brilliant
composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying that
it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more efficient
in
showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo
movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as
well, such as ornamentation.
Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does not
fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity of
square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms
high-degree interchangeable.
Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation, there
is
no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the
absence
is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer
styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition.
dt
__
From: jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com
To: R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute
[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn
Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider
that
most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be
this
is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that
tuning
is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for
arciliuto
and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide:
ambitus
and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said,
obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others
it
seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach
collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of
the
solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto
with
two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from
the
Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the
Royal
Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for
arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at
Rohrau.
Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while
renaming
the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake
he
has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives
quite
clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two
tunings for archiluth in G and A.
Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject,
but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of
the
use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used,
it's
very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note).
The
only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning
could
be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives
solution for chords
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
__ Well, if the surviving instruments are, as you say, not reliable, they are still the most reliable of the information we have. However, the surviving instruments are IMHO rare, valuable, informative, vivid and concise. Like any document or postcard from the past, they need to be interpreted. As for labels, I see that as the root of the problem, and essentially a reinterpretation of the based based on the ever changing tastes ofthe present. People like the archlute-theorbo duality. It isn't historical, but people like it. The terms are partially historical, of course, they just create an artificial duality. I don't like it, but that's just because it think it filters out a lot of possibilities. I think one could come up with a better label system, but that isn't going to happen because the lute business is a market driven business, it is not an academic enterprise. In the case of Weiss, you have conflicting information, Weiss's letter, and the surviving parts. Take away the labels, and the problem goes away. Mostly. dt From: jean-michel Catherinot jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com To: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:18 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 If you read the previous messages, and specially, the one from Arthur Ness, you may notice that some of the arciliuto obligato parts in Dresden opera would be by Weiss's own hand. So it seems that arciliuto was eventually practiced by him, at least on stage: it looks that arciliuto was not an ennemy for him! Concerning the instruments, luthiers are more competent: but I've seen some in Europe (it was easy to have in your hands the instruments of the Paris conservatoire at the time, and I helped to draw the plans of some of them, or in Bruxelles and Nueremberg), and not many in their initial shape (many transformed in guitar, shortened, with guitar bridge, ...). So surviving instruments are not such a reliable sourceAnyway, the main information in this letter is that at least 3 types of instruments exist, and different from each others, at Weiss' time: lute, arciliuto and theorbo. And it is not a question of label, it's a question of tuning and quantity of noise it produces! Le Mardi 28 janvier 2014 2h41, David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net a ecrit : __ This is a very interesting quote because it falls in between the classical divisions of prescriptive and descriptive. So it is sort of descriptive in that Weiss is setting up a straw lute argument by describing and then downgrading the other (non-Weiss) instruments, and then it is both self-descriptive and prescriptive in that he goes on to describe the superior instrument, which of course he would be compelled by the rules of rhetoric to claim to have partially invented. You could argue based on this quote that no one played the gallichon, but of course that won't fly nowadays. In analyzing the quote, there is no way to know if it is true or not, but there is certainly no reason to doubt that Weiss had all or some custom instruments. However, there is also no reason to doubt that any of his competitors would not have had custom instruments, which would render his entire argument moot. Certainly it was standard procedure for someone to claim that their method was the right one and everyone else had it wrong, and musicologists rightly take such statements in that context. So for example, most German composers claim that they brought French music to Germany. And therefore those statements are all pretty much suspect. But--it certainly helps make the case that professionals had custom instruments and custom tunings, which would mean that new labels must be invented and applied (the Weiss Theorbo, etc.) or one could stay away from the labels d In a letter to Johann Mattheson written in 1723 Weiss describes the lutes he used: a|.I am of the opinion that after the keyboard there is no more perfect instrument than this one (the lute) especially for Galanterie. The theorbo and Arciliuto, which are quite different even from each other, cannot be used at all in Galanterie piecesa|I have adapted one of my instruments for accompaniment in the orchestra and in church. It has the same size, length, power and resonance of the veritable theorbo and has the same effect, only that the tuning is different. This instrument I use on these occasions. But in chamber music, I assure you that a cantata a voce sola, next to the harpsichord, accompanied by the lute
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
That's an interesting set of labels but it doesn't cover all the historical cases. So for example, some large lutes had double strings. Mostly these lutes have disappeared. However, if anyone chooses to make a concordance nowadays to sort out the old lutes, I can see why one would want to do that. You could also have two types of every instrument. dt __ From: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk To: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 This doesn't address the point I made to you: that the fundamental difference between the archlute and the theorbo is in the manner of stringing - theorbos have the top one or two courses lowered from nominal; archlutes do not. If you don't think this is the case then, to repeat, what's your evidence (ie not merely simple assertion) for supposing otherwise? Further, it is widely understood that there is great diversity in the configuration and shape of these instruments - which is why it is better to identify an instrument in relation to its manner of tuning rather than to any particular physical feature. MH __ From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 1:16 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Well, the evidence is in the museums--there are more than two types of instruments. Therefore, any attempt to categorize the historical lutes as two types does not reflect the historical record. If you look at all the surviving lutes (I haven't seen all of them, but a pretty good percentage over the last 40 years) you will see that most of them are different and there are many types and variations. The label problem is not limited to lutes, it is simply the modern opposite of historical practice. The biggest difference between the way we look at things and the way a 16th or 17th century person would look at things is that we prefer uniformity and they preferred diversity. So the modern take on old instruments is simply a form of acculturation based on a 20th or 21st century point of view. Or you could call it preferential selection, like collecting art works or favorite music works. Preferential selection--collecting things you like or think belong together, like a suite of dances-- is of course historical, just not the way we do it. Another way to look at it: if one labels as an archlute an instrument with a certain size tuning, you instantly create such an instrument, and possibly exclude others. However, if you use a neutral label, you can describe an instrument type. So pluckies, as folksy as it sounds, is historically a much more accurate term., and does not cause the disappearance of an instrument or group of instruments, like the double strung theorbo. One could try to argue that the terms are highly specific, and I would then simply direct people to the the lists of CDs over the last forty years, and you can see different fads about what is an archlute, chitarrone and so on. It clearly changes over time because it is an ongoing process of acculturation, or follows market driven ideas of what will sell or what is popular. And there is nothing wrong with that, it just is pretty far from the original sources. One of the surprising things about the internet is that now a lot of unusual and possibly historical instrument designs are resurfacing, owing to these same market forces. dt __ From: Martyn Hodgson [1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk To: David Tayler [2]vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute [3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 You write that 'The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable.' What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - single re-entrant if small enough or double reentrant if large; whereas archlutes retained the highest course at the upper octave. Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may have used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute instrument with extended basses? MH __ From: David Tayler [4]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 19:14 Subject
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
__ a) Have read that (read it when it came out, yikes) and did not agree with it then and don't agree with it now. Especially the part on the chitarrone. You could certainly retitle it putting labels on lutes, and the research, for the time, was good. But left out lots. aa) Musicological articles have a shelf life of twenty years. Sad but true. b) Tablature is a form of musical notation and not necessarily a definition of tuning. Those trained in a fixed pitch environment will find this odd, but those trained in a transposing environment will find this fits. I just look at it differently. No biggie. dt From: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk To: R. Mattes r...@mh-freiburg.de; David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:35 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Have a look at: a) the early sources (Bob Spencer's famous paper still represents a good summary [1]http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/spencer/html/index.html ); b) tablatures identified for the two instruments and the tuning required MH __ From: R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de To: Martyn Hodgson [3]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; David Tayler [4]vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 11:22 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:59:29 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote This doesn't address the point I made to you: that the fundamental difference between the archlute and the theorbo is in the manner of stringing - theorbos have the top one or two courses lowered from nominal; archlutes do not. Yes, that's how you happen to match a name with a feature set. The open question is: can we assume that this mapping is historic? Let me just list some of the possible features that could come to mind: 1 reentrant tuning 2 low ambitus 3 tuning in vielle tone (even if reentrant) 4 extended neck 5 enough open bass strings to put (most of) the bass line on open strings 6 use of the instrument (orchestra vs. chamber vs. solo) Your claim is that feature 1 alone defined what was called a tiorba? IMHO this is wishfull thinking - esp. in places/times where there is a mixup of instruments used. Have a look at the early french theorbe sources (the first BC methods). It's pretty obvious that these prints where meant for instruments in vielle tone (I hope we can all agree on this). So, here the distinguishing feature was probably feature 4 and _not_ feature 1. If you look at the so-called theorbo book from the Goess collection you'll find a irritating mixture of pieces for reentrant and non-reentrant tuning (some might even be written for single-reentrant tuning). Also, let's not forget that feature 1 is only really relevant/obvious to the player himself - any observer would probably just use the name most common to him for an instrument with those _visual_ features. How do you think Weiss called his instrument? If his director asked: Silvius, could we try this aria with you playing fundament on your theorbo?, o you really think he would reply: that's not a theorbo, it's a Weissophone!? With all their love for classifications the baroque has an amazing tendency to use terms as hypernyms. So, by he beginning of the galant style anything with a low ambitus and/or an extended neck might be labeled theorbo (and I have a nagging feeling that even a gallichon with extended neck was called theorbo) HTH Ralf Mattes If you don't think this is the case then, to repeat, what's your evidence (ie not merely simple assertion) for supposing otherwise? Further, it is widely understood that there is great diversity in the configuration and shape of these instruments - which is why it is better to identify an instrument in relation to its manner of tuning rather than to any particular physical feature. MH __ From: David Tayler [1][6]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [2][7]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 1:16 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Well, the evidence is in the museums--there are more than two types of instruments. Therefore, any attempt to categorize the historical lutes as two types does not reflect the historical record. If you look at all
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I don't see that staff notation is peculiar; it was a standard form of notation. It is elegant and descriptive, and the choice of brilliant composers. There are even accounts in letters and diaries saying that it is better than tablature, presumably because it is more efficient in showing the individual voices, or as part of the basso continuo movement, or to parallel the viol, and so on. Many more reasons as well, such as ornamentation. Mersenne's quote: one can interpret all the square data that does not fit into the round hole as errors, but because of the superfluity of square data I think it makes more sense to consider the terms high-degree interchangeable. Absence of viel ton: if music is written in mensural notation, there is no way to know if it is viel ton or not in many cases, so the absence is evidence only that ppl stopped using tab for some of the newer styles of music. Certainly the tuning had some serious competition. dt __ From: jean-michel Catherinot jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com To: R. Mattes r...@mh-freiburg.de; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:14 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider that most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be this is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that tuning is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for arciliuto and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide: ambitus and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said, obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others it seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of the solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto with two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from the Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the Royal Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at Rohrau. Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while renaming the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake he has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives quite clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two tunings for archiluth in G and A. Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject, but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used, it's very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note). The only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning could be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives solution for chords, not to play a B.C., and also dedicated to the harpsichord (did Delair even play the theorbo?). The others (Grenerin, Fleury,...) work with re-entrant tuning, even if the solutions could be strange for us (but what about the guitar?). I think the discontinuity you quote about the lines, with wide laps, is inherent to the theorbo. In very clear solo theorbo pieces, with no doubt on tuning as Saizenay, you find those strange laps, even in de VisA(c)e. It is also very common in guitar pieces, (have a look to Monica Hall's site). And even changing the tuning doesn't solve the problem: you allways find those dicontinuities. This begins with Piccinini from place to place, but the campanella parts prove that his tuning was completely re-entrant. Le Mardi 28 janvier 2014 18h26, R. Mattes [1]r...@mh-freiburg.de a A(c)crit : On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:10:18 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote I'm sorry you find Bob Spencer's paper so very poor. No need to be sorry, esp. since I don't find Spencer's paper very poor (where did I write that?). I only tied to say that it a) shows it's age b) seems to be an overview-type of publication and hence tends to over-generalize c) seems to often prove my points more than yours. My point about the tablatures (rather than staff notation) is that it is with these that we find an unequivocal indication of the tuning required for a particular named instrument. And my point is that a lot of the tablatures I kow of and played are much less unequivocal in indicating the required tuning - just as an example there seem to be some rather equivocal places
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider that most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be this is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that tuning is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for arciliuto and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide: ambitus and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said, obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others it seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of the solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto with two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from the Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the Royal Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at Rohrau. Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while renaming the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake he has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives quite clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two tunings for archiluth in G and A. Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject, but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used, it's very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note). The only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning could be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives solution for chords, not to play a B.C., and also dedicated to the harpsichord (did Delair even play the theorbo?). The others (Grenerin, Fleury,...) work with re-entrant tuning, even if the solutions could be strange for us (but what about the guitar?). I think the discontinuity you quote about the lines, with wide laps, is inherent to the theorbo. In very clear solo theorbo pieces, with no doubt on tuning as Saizenay, you find those strange laps, even in de VisA(c)e. It is also very common in guitar pieces, (have a look to Monica Hall's site). And even changing the tuning doesn't solve the problem: you allways find those dicontinuities. This begins with Piccinini from place to place, but the campanella parts prove that his tuning was completely re-entrant. Le Mardi 28 janvier 2014 18h26, R. Mattes r...@mh-freiburg.de a A(c)crit : On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:10:18 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote I'm sorry you find Bob Spencer's paper so very poor. No need to be sorry, esp. since I don't find Spencer's paper very poor (where did I write that?). I only tied to say that it a) shows it's age b) seems to be an overview-type of publication and hence tends to over-generalize c) seems to often prove my points more than yours. My point about the tablatures (rather than staff notation) is that it is with these that we find an unequivocal indication of the tuning required for a particular named instrument. And my point is that a lot of the tablatures I kow of and played are much less unequivocal in indicating the required tuning - just as an example there seem to be some rather equivocal places in the Pittoni on my music stand ... I'm not aware of any tablature sources which require, for example, a re-entrant tuning for an archlute (or various cognates). Do you? No, but there are hardly any archlute tablatures from the Corelli time I know of. Please provide some - I'm really interested in this topic. And of course there is the case of inverse reentrantness (read: excessive use of octave stringing) in the recently mentioned Basso Continuo/Partimento manuscipt from Rome. Cheers, Ralf Mattes To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640: indeed you have to read 1650 (I think the last one is FranAS:ois de Chancy airs de cour-1649) Le Mercredi 29 janvier 2014 11h14, jean-michel Catherinot jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com a A(c)crit : Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider that most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be this is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that tuning is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for arciliuto and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide: ambitus and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said, obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others it seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of the solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto with two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from the Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the Royal Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at Rohrau. Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while renaming the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake he has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives quite clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two tunings for archiluth in G and A. Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject, but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used, it's very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note). The only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning could be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives solution for chords, not to play a B.C., and also dedicated to the harpsichord (did Delair even play the theorbo?). The others (Grenerin, Fleury,...) work with re-entrant tuning, even if the solutions could be strange for us (but what about the guitar?). I think the discontinuity you quote about the lines, with wide laps, is inherent to the theorbo. In very clear solo theorbo pieces, with no doubt on tuning as Saizenay, you find those strange laps, even in de VisA(c)e. It is also very common in guitar pieces, (have a look to Monica Hall's site). And even changing the tuning doesn't solve the problem: you allways find those dicontinuities. This begins with Piccinini from place to place, but the campanella parts prove that his tuning was completely re-entrant. Le Mardi 28 janvier 2014 18h26, R. Mattes r...@mh-freiburg.de a A(c)crit : On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:10:18 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote I'm sorry you find Bob Spencer's paper so very poor. No need to be sorry, esp. since I don't find Spencer's paper very poor (where did I write that?). I only tied to say that it a) shows it's age b) seems to be an overview-type of publication and hence tends to over-generalize c) seems to often prove my points more than yours. My point about the tablatures (rather than staff notation) is that it is with these that we find an unequivocal indication of the tuning required for a particular named instrument. And my point is that a lot of the tablatures I kow of and played are much less unequivocal in indicating the required tuning - just as an example there seem to be some rather equivocal places in the Pittoni on my music stand ... I'm not aware of any tablature sources which require, for example, a re-entrant tuning for an archlute (or various cognates). Do you? No, but there are hardly any archlute tablatures from the Corelli time I know of. Please provide some - I'm really interested in this topic. And of course there is the case of inverse reentrantness (read: excessive use of octave stringing) in the recently mentioned Basso Continuo/Partimento manuscipt from Rome. Cheers, Ralf Mattes To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
and I've forgot the one of 1655 (I've never seen it, but I suppose it's in vieil ton). But no solos till ca 1640. Le Mercredi 29 janvier 2014 13h02, jean-michel Catherinot jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com a ecrit : don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640: indeed you have to read 1650 (I think the last one is FranAS:ois de Chancy airs de cour-1649) Le Mercredi 29 janvier 2014 11h14, jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com a A(c)crit : Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider that most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be this is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that tuning is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for arciliuto and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide: ambitus and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said, obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others it seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of the solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto with two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from the Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the Royal Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at Rohrau. Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while renaming the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake he has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives quite clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two tunings for archiluth in G and A. Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject, but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used, it's very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note). The only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning could be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives solution for chords, not to play a B.C., and also dedicated to the harpsichord (did Delair even play the theorbo?). The others (Grenerin, Fleury,...) work with re-entrant tuning, even if the solutions could be strange for us (but what about the guitar?). I think the discontinuity you quote about the lines, with wide laps, is inherent to the theorbo. In very clear solo theorbo pieces, with no doubt on tuning as Saizenay, you find those strange laps, even in de VisA(c)e. It is also very common in guitar pieces, (have a look to Monica Hall's site). And even changing the tuning doesn't solve the problem: you allways find those dicontinuities. This begins with Piccinini from place to place, but the campanella parts prove that his tuning was completely re-entrant. Le Mardi 28 janvier 2014 18h26, R. Mattes [2]r...@mh-freiburg.de a A(c)crit : On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:10:18 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote I'm sorry you find Bob Spencer's paper so very poor. No need to be sorry, esp. since I don't find Spencer's paper very poor (where did I write that?). I only tied to say that it a) shows it's age b) seems to be an overview-type of publication and hence tends to over-generalize c) seems to often prove my points more than yours. My point about the tablatures (rather than staff notation) is that it is with these that we find an unequivocal indication of the tuning required for a particular named instrument. And my point is that a lot of the tablatures I kow of and played are much less unequivocal in indicating the required tuning - just as an example there seem to be some rather equivocal places in the Pittoni on my music stand ... I'm not aware of any tablature sources which require, for example, a re-entrant tuning for an archlute (or various cognates). Do you? No, but there are hardly any archlute tablatures from the Corelli time I know of. Please provide some - I'm really interested in this topic. And of course there is the case of inverse reentrantness (read: excessive use of octave stringing) in the recently mentioned Basso Continuo/Partimento manuscipt from Rome. Cheers, Ralf Mattes To get on or off this list see list information at [1][3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1.
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
in fact, the chansons de Chancy are for voices alone. So my firts mistake was not a mistake1640 Le Mercredi 29 janvier 2014 14h18, jean-michel Catherinot jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com a ecrit : and I've forgot the one of 1655 (I've never seen it, but I suppose it's in vieil ton). But no solos till ca 1640. Le Mercredi 29 janvier 2014 13h02, jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com a ecrit : don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640: indeed you have to read 1650 (I think the last one is FranAS:ois de Chancy airs de cour-1649) Le Mercredi 29 janvier 2014 11h14, jean-michel Catherinot [1][2]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com a A(c)crit : Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider that most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be this is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that tuning is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for arciliuto and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide: ambitus and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said, obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others it seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of the solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto with two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from the Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the Royal Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at Rohrau. Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while renaming the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake he has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives quite clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two tunings for archiluth in G and A. Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject, but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used, it's very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note). The only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning could be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives solution for chords, not to play a B.C., and also dedicated to the harpsichord (did Delair even play the theorbo?). The others (Grenerin, Fleury,...) work with re-entrant tuning, even if the solutions could be strange for us (but what about the guitar?). I think the discontinuity you quote about the lines, with wide laps, is inherent to the theorbo. In very clear solo theorbo pieces, with no doubt on tuning as Saizenay, you find those strange laps, even in de VisA(c)e. It is also very common in guitar pieces, (have a look to Monica Hall's site). And even changing the tuning doesn't solve the problem: you allways find those dicontinuities. This begins with Piccinini from place to place, but the campanella parts prove that his tuning was completely re-entrant. Le Mardi 28 janvier 2014 18h26, R. Mattes [2][3]r...@mh-freiburg.de a A(c)crit : On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:10:18 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote I'm sorry you find Bob Spencer's paper so very poor. No need to be sorry, esp. since I don't find Spencer's paper very poor (where did I write that?). I only tied to say that it a) shows it's age b) seems to be an overview-type of publication and hence tends to over-generalize c) seems to often prove my points more than yours. My point about the tablatures (rather than staff notation) is that it is with these that we find an unequivocal indication of the tuning required for a particular named instrument. And my point is that a lot of the tablatures I kow of and played are much less unequivocal in indicating the required tuning - just as an example there seem to be some rather equivocal places in the Pittoni on my music stand ... I'm not aware of any tablature sources which require, for example, a re-entrant tuning for an archlute (or various cognates). Do you? No, but there are hardly any archlute tablatures from the Corelli time I know of. Please provide some - I'm really interested in this topic. And of course there is
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
1643 precisely Jean-Michel, with Anthoyne Boesset XVIe Livre d'Airs de cour avec la tablature de luth... Cheers, Jean-Marie -- in fact, the chansons de Chancy are for voices alone. So my firts mistake was not a mistake1640 Le Mercredi 29 janvier 2014 14h18, jean-michel Catherinot jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com a ecrit : and I've forgot the one of 1655 (I've never seen it, but I suppose it's in vieil ton). But no solos till ca 1640. Le Mercredi 29 janvier 2014 13h02, jean-michel Catherinot [1]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com a ecrit : don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640: indeed you have to read 1650 (I think the last one is FranAS:ois de Chancy airs de cour-1649) Le Mercredi 29 janvier 2014 11h14, jean-michel Catherinot [1][2]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com a A(c)crit : Yes: Zamboni in tablature., but indeed you know that!. I consider that most of the arciliuto music is written in staff notation, may be this is a particularity of the instrument, and there is no doubt that tuning is not re-entrant (just have a look to Hasse's Cleofide, for arciliuto and compare with obligato parts for tiorba in Conti's Davide: ambitus and tessiture). . In staff notation, you mat consult, as I said, obligato parts in Hasse's and Haendel's operas (and many others it seems, I'm trying to list them), and the concerti from Harrach collection. It is not impossible that Zamboni was the composer of the solo sonata for arciliuto and the two aconcertinos' for arciliuto with two violins and organ (all anonymous and in staff notation) from the Harrach library formerly owned by Robert Spencer and now at the Royal Academy of Music, London; another similar anonymous concerto for arciliuto is among the newly-discovered items of chamber music at Rohrau. Concerning Mersenne, it is quite clear in french that while renaming the picture untitled tuorbe in archiluth, he corrects a mistake he has previously done (and he says explicitly that): and he gives quite clearly the tuning for thA(c)orbe (re-entrant, in A) and the two tunings for archiluth in G and A. Concerning the use of archiluth in France (this is not our subject, but...): at first 2 points, I don't know any tablature evidence of the use of vieil ton after ca1640. If this type of lute would be used, it's very strange that there is no written music for it (not a note). The only strange book of Delair gives the impression that the tuning could be not re-entrant: but it's a quite basic book, which only gives solution for chords, not to play a B.C., and also dedicated to the harpsichord (did Delair even play the theorbo?). The others (Grenerin, Fleury,...) work with re-entrant tuning, even if the solutions could be strange for us (but what about the guitar?). I think the discontinuity you quote about the lines, with wide laps, is inherent to the theorbo. In very clear solo theorbo pieces, with no doubt on tuning as Saizenay, you find those strange laps, even in de VisA(c)e. It is also very common in guitar pieces, (have a look to Monica Hall's site). And even changing the tuning doesn't solve the problem: you allways find those dicontinuities. This begins with Piccinini from place to place, but the campanella parts prove that his tuning was completely re-entrant. Le Mardi 28 janvier 2014 18h26, R. Mattes [2][3]r...@mh-freiburg.de a A(c)crit : On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:10:18 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote I'm sorry you find Bob Spencer's paper so very poor. No need to be sorry, esp. since I don't find Spencer's paper very poor (where did I write that?). I only tied to say that it a) shows it's age b) seems to be an overview-type of publication and hence tends to over-generalize c) seems to often prove my points more than yours. My point about the tablatures (rather than staff notation) is that it is with these that we find an unequivocal indication of the tuning required for a particular named instrument. And my point is that a lot of the tablatures I kow of and played are much less unequivocal in indicating the required tuning - just as an example there seem to be some rather equivocal places in the Pittoni on my music stand ... I'm not aware of any tablature sources which require, for example, a re-entrant tuning for an archlute (or various cognates). Do you? No, but there are hardly any archlute
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
If you read the previous messages, and specially, the one from Arthur Ness, you may notice that some of the arciliuto obligato parts in Dresden opera would be by Weiss's own hand. So it seems that arciliuto was eventually practiced by him, at least on stage: it looks that arciliuto was not an ennemy for him! Concerning the instruments, luthiers are more competent: but I've seen some in Europe (it was easy to have in your hands the instruments of the Paris conservatoire at the time, and I helped to draw the plans of some of them, or in Bruxelles and Nueremberg), and not many in their initial shape (many transformed in guitar, shortened, with guitar bridge, ...). So surviving instruments are not such a reliable sourceAnyway, the main information in this letter is that at least 3 types of instruments exist, and different from each others, at Weiss' time: lute, arciliuto and theorbo. And it is not a question of label, it's a question of tuning and quantity of noise it produces! Le Mardi 28 janvier 2014 2h41, David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net a ecrit : __ This is a very interesting quote because it falls in between the classical divisions of prescriptive and descriptive. So it is sort of descriptive in that Weiss is setting up a straw lute argument by describing and then downgrading the other (non-Weiss) instruments, and then it is both self-descriptive and prescriptive in that he goes on to describe the superior instrument, which of course he would be compelled by the rules of rhetoric to claim to have partially invented. You could argue based on this quote that no one played the gallichon, but of course that won't fly nowadays. In analyzing the quote, there is no way to know if it is true or not, but there is certainly no reason to doubt that Weiss had all or some custom instruments. However, there is also no reason to doubt that any of his competitors would not have had custom instruments, which would render his entire argument moot. Certainly it was standard procedure for someone to claim that their method was the right one and everyone else had it wrong, and musicologists rightly take such statements in that context. So for example, most German composers claim that they brought French music to Germany. And therefore those statements are all pretty much suspect. But--it certainly helps make the case that professionals had custom instruments and custom tunings, which would mean that new labels must be invented and applied (the Weiss Theorbo, etc.) or one could stay away from the labels d In a letter to Johann Mattheson written in 1723 Weiss describes the lutes he used: a|.I am of the opinion that after the keyboard there is no more perfect instrument than this one (the lute) especially for Galanterie. The theorbo and Arciliuto, which are quite different even from each other, cannot be used at all in Galanterie piecesa|I have adapted one of my instruments for accompaniment in the orchestra and in church. It has the same size, length, power and resonance of the veritable theorbo and has the same effect, only that the tuning is different. This instrument I use on these occasions. But in chamber music, I assure you that a cantata a voce sola, next to the harpsichord, accompanied by the lute has a much better effect than with the Arciliuto or even theorbo, since these two latter instruments are ordinarily played with the nails and produce in close proximity a coarse, harsh sound. Le Samedi 25 janvier 2014 10h45, Martyn Hodgson [1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk a A(c)crit : You write that 'The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable.' What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - single re-entrant if small enough or double reentrant if large; whereas archlutes retained the highest course at the upper octave. Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may have used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute instrument with extended basses? MH __ From: David Tayler [1][2]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [2][3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 19:14 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable. That is, they are not low or medium, and they are also not completely interchangeable (since they are sometimes used
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
This doesn't address the point I made to you: that the fundamental difference between the archlute and the theorbo is in the manner of stringing - theorbos have the top one or two courses lowered from nominal; archlutes do not. If you don't think this is the case then, to repeat, what's your evidence (ie not merely simple assertion) for supposing otherwise? Further, it is widely understood that there is great diversity in the configuration and shape of these instruments - which is why it is better to identify an instrument in relation to its manner of tuning rather than to any particular physical feature. MH __ From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 1:16 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Well, the evidence is in the museums--there are more than two types of instruments. Therefore, any attempt to categorize the historical lutes as two types does not reflect the historical record. If you look at all the surviving lutes (I haven't seen all of them, but a pretty good percentage over the last 40 years) you will see that most of them are different and there are many types and variations. The label problem is not limited to lutes, it is simply the modern opposite of historical practice. The biggest difference between the way we look at things and the way a 16th or 17th century person would look at things is that we prefer uniformity and they preferred diversity. So the modern take on old instruments is simply a form of acculturation based on a 20th or 21st century point of view. Or you could call it preferential selection, like collecting art works or favorite music works. Preferential selection--collecting things you like or think belong together, like a suite of dances-- is of course historical, just not the way we do it. Another way to look at it: if one labels as an archlute an instrument with a certain size tuning, you instantly create such an instrument, and possibly exclude others. However, if you use a neutral label, you can describe an instrument type. So pluckies, as folksy as it sounds, is historically a much more accurate term., and does not cause the disappearance of an instrument or group of instruments, like the double strung theorbo. One could try to argue that the terms are highly specific, and I would then simply direct people to the the lists of CDs over the last forty years, and you can see different fads about what is an archlute, chitarrone and so on. It clearly changes over time because it is an ongoing process of acculturation, or follows market driven ideas of what will sell or what is popular. And there is nothing wrong with that, it just is pretty far from the original sources. One of the surprising things about the internet is that now a lot of unusual and possibly historical instrument designs are resurfacing, owing to these same market forces. dt __ From: Martyn Hodgson [1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk To: David Tayler [2]vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute [3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 You write that 'The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable.' What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - single re-entrant if small enough or double reentrant if large; whereas archlutes retained the highest course at the upper octave. Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may have used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute instrument with extended basses? MH __ From: David Tayler [4]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 19:14 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable. That is, they are not low or medium, and they are also not completely interchangeable (since they are sometimes used together). One could argue that they are medium instead of high, but it would be difficult to show this based on the sources. The correlation is the inverse of the degree, so in other words it is possible that the difference in terms may mean something, but of a low order of probability. Because of the degree order, it isn't really possible to assign uses
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
You write below that ' You could argue based on this quote that no one played the gallichon,'. How does the quote you give suggest that no one played the gallichon? MH __ From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 1:35 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 __ This is a very interesting quote because it falls in between the classical divisions of prescriptive and descriptive. So it is sort of descriptive in that Weiss is setting up a straw lute argument by describing and then downgrading the other (non-Weiss) instruments, and then it is both self-descriptive and prescriptive in that he goes on to describe the superior instrument, which of course he would be compelled by the rules of rhetoric to claim to have partially invented. You could argue based on this quote that no one played the gallichon, but of course that won't fly nowadays. In analyzing the quote, there is no way to know if it is true or not, but there is certainly no reason to doubt that Weiss had all or some custom instruments. However, there is also no reason to doubt that any of his competitors would not have had custom instruments, which would render his entire argument moot. Certainly it was standard procedure for someone to claim that their method was the right one and everyone else had it wrong, and musicologists rightly take such statements in that context. So for example, most German composers claim that they brought French music to Germany. And therefore those statements are all pretty much suspect. But--it certainly helps make the case that professionals had custom instruments and custom tunings, which would mean that new labels must be invented and applied (the Weiss Theorbo, etc.) or one could stay away from the labels d In a letter to Johann Mattheson written in 1723 Weiss describes the lutes he used: a|.I am of the opinion that after the keyboard there is no more perfect instrument than this one (the lute) especially for Galanterie. The theorbo and Arciliuto, which are quite different even from each other, cannot be used at all in Galanterie piecesa|I have adapted one of my instruments for accompaniment in the orchestra and in church. It has the same size, length, power and resonance of the veritable theorbo and has the same effect, only that the tuning is different. This instrument I use on these occasions. But in chamber music, I assure you that a cantata a voce sola, next to the harpsichord, accompanied by the lute has a much better effect than with the Arciliuto or even theorbo, since these two latter instruments are ordinarily played with the nails and produce in close proximity a coarse, harsh sound. Le Samedi 25 janvier 2014 10h45, Martyn Hodgson [1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk a A(c)crit : You write that 'The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable.' What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - single re-entrant if small enough or double reentrant if large; whereas archlutes retained the highest course at the upper octave. Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may have used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute instrument with extended basses? MH __ From: David Tayler [1][2]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [2][3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 19:14 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable. That is, they are not low or medium, and they are also not completely interchangeable (since they are sometimes used together). One could argue that they are medium instead of high, but it would be difficult to show this based on the sources. The correlation is the inverse of the degree, so in other words it is possible that the difference in terms may mean something, but of a low order of probability. Because of the degree order, it isn't really possible to assign uses in a general way, only in specific cases. For every case, there will be an exception. There are certainly some interesting specific cases. So either what we call the theorbo or the archlute could be used
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
This quote is part of a letter, and I think most letters show a very personal point of view. Also Weiss clearly states that he gives his opinion. He doesn't want to be descriptive or prescriptive at all beyond the fact that he describes his playing and opinion on the lute! BTW - this letter is part of the controversy between Mattheson and Baron, and Mattheson gives this excerpt in his Lautenmemorial, which was a sort of swan song of the lute. Weiss obviously - in this letter and in composing - prefered the 13course baroque lute (1723). It is his opinion, that this instrument fits best galant music. He also states that he plays a sort of adjusted lute instrument in orchestra and church. Most probably this was a d minor German theorbo, without the highest string (but this is an assumption only, that is strengthened by Baron). He criticises that theorbos often - he even says ordinarily - are played with nails and therefore have a coarse, harsh sound (also primarily his opinion!). The most interesting facts in this letter are (in my humble opinion): - Weiss had an adjusted lute for orchestra and church - the fact, that theorbos and archiluths also had been played with nails (if this was done ordinaryly, as Weiss says, I don't want to judge, but it seems to have been happening quite more often than we think today) Best regards Markus Am 28.01.2014 02:35, schrieb David Tayler: __ This is a very interesting quote because it falls in between the classical divisions of prescriptive and descriptive. So it is sort of descriptive in that Weiss is setting up a straw lute argument by describing and then downgrading the other (non-Weiss) instruments, and then it is both self-descriptive and prescriptive in that he goes on to describe the superior instrument, which of course he would be compelled by the rules of rhetoric to claim to have partially invented. You could argue based on this quote that no one played the gallichon, but of course that won't fly nowadays. In analyzing the quote, there is no way to know if it is true or not, but there is certainly no reason to doubt that Weiss had all or some custom instruments. However, there is also no reason to doubt that any of his competitors would not have had custom instruments, which would render his entire argument moot. Certainly it was standard procedure for someone to claim that their method was the right one and everyone else had it wrong, and musicologists rightly take such statements in that context. So for example, most German composers claim that they brought French music to Germany. And therefore those statements are all pretty much suspect. But--it certainly helps make the case that professionals had custom instruments and custom tunings, which would mean that new labels must be invented and applied (the Weiss Theorbo, etc.) or one could stay away from the labels d In a letter to Johann Mattheson written in 1723 Weiss describes the lutes he used: a|.I am of the opinion that after the keyboard there is no more perfect instrument than this one (the lute) especially for Galanterie. The theorbo and Arciliuto, which are quite different even from each other, cannot be used at all in Galanterie piecesa|I have adapted one of my instruments for accompaniment in the orchestra and in church. It has the same size, length, power and resonance of the veritable theorbo and has the same effect, only that the tuning is different. This instrument I use on these occasions. But in chamber music, I assure you that a cantata a voce sola, next to the harpsichord, accompanied by the lute has a much better effect than with the Arciliuto or even theorbo, since these two latter instruments are ordinarily played with the nails and produce in close proximity a coarse, harsh sound. Le Samedi 25 janvier 2014 10h45, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk a A(c)crit : You write that 'The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable.' What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - single re-entrant if small enough or double reentrant if large; whereas archlutes retained the highest course at the upper octave. Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may have used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute instrument with extended basses? MH __ From: David Tayler [1]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 19:14 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:59:29 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote This doesn't address the point I made to you: that the fundamental difference between the archlute and the theorbo is in the manner of stringing - theorbos have the top one or two courses lowered from nominal; archlutes do not. Yes, that's how you happen to match a name with a feature set. The open question is: can we assume that this mapping is historic? Let me just list some of the possible features that could come to mind: 1 reentrant tuning 2 low ambitus 3 tuning in vielle tone (even if reentrant) 4 extended neck 5 enough open bass strings to put (most of) the bass line on open strings 6 use of the instrument (orchestra vs. chamber vs. solo) Your claim is that feature 1 alone defined what was called a tiorba? IMHO this is wishfull thinking - esp. in places/times where there is a mixup of instruments used. Have a look at the early french theorbe sources (the first BC methods). It's pretty obvious that these prints where meant for instruments in vielle tone (I hope we can all agree on this). So, here the distinguishing feature was probably feature 4 and _not_ feature 1. If you look at the so-called theorbo book from the Goess collection you'll find a irritating mixture of pieces for reentrant and non-reentrant tuning (some might even be written for single-reentrant tuning). Also, let's not forget that feature 1 is only really relevant/obvious to the player himself - any observer would probably just use the name most common to him for an instrument with those _visual_ features. How do you think Weiss called his instrument? If his director asked: Silvius, could we try this aria with you playing fundament on your theorbo?, o you really think he would reply: that's not a theorbo, it's a Weissophone!? With all their love for classifications the baroque has an amazing tendency to use terms as hypernyms. So, by he beginning of the galant style anything with a low ambitus and/or an extended neck might be labeled theorbo (and I have a nagging feeling that even a gallichon with extended neck was called theorbo) HTH Ralf Mattes If you don't think this is the case then, to repeat, what's your evidence (ie not merely simple assertion) for supposing otherwise? Further, it is widely understood that there is great diversity in the configuration and shape of these instruments - which is why it is better to identify an instrument in relation to its manner of tuning rather than to any particular physical feature. MH __ From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 1:16 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Well, the evidence is in the museums--there are more than two types of instruments. Therefore, any attempt to categorize the historical lutes as two types does not reflect the historical record. If you look at all the surviving lutes (I haven't seen all of them, but a pretty good percentage over the last 40 years) you will see that most of them are different and there are many types and variations. The label problem is not limited to lutes, it is simply the modern opposite of historical practice. The biggest difference between the way we look at things and the way a 16th or 17th century person would look at things is that we prefer uniformity and they preferred diversity. So the modern take on old instruments is simply a form of acculturation based on a 20th or 21st century point of view. Or you could call it preferential selection, like collecting art works or favorite music works. Preferential selection--collecting things you like or think belong together, like a suite of dances-- is of course historical, just not the way we do it. Another way to look at it: if one labels as an archlute an instrument with a certain size tuning, you instantly create such an instrument, and possibly exclude others. However, if you use a neutral label, you can describe an instrument type. So pluckies, as folksy as it sounds, is historically a much more accurate term., and does not cause the disappearance of an instrument or group of instruments, like the double strung theorbo. One could try to argue that the terms are highly specific, and I would then simply direct people to the the lists of CDs over the last forty years, and you can see different fads about what is an archlute, chitarrone and so on. It clearly changes over time because it is an ongoing process of acculturation, or follows market driven ideas of what will sell or what is popular. And there is nothing wrong with that, it just is pretty far from the original sources. One of the surprising things about the internet is that now a lot of unusual
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:56:46 +0100, Markus Lutz wrote This quote is part of a letter, and I think most letters show a very personal point of view. Yes, this is important to point out. Also Weiss clearly states that he gives his opinion. He doesn't want to be descriptive or prescriptive at all beyond the fact that he describes his playing and opinion on the lute! BTW - this letter is part of the controversy between Mattheson and Baron, and Mattheson gives this excerpt in his Lautenmemorial, which was a sort of swan song of the lute. Weiss obviously - in this letter and in composing - prefered the 13course baroque lute (1723). It is his opinion, that this instrument fits best galant music. And this is probably the most important fact to keep in mind: Weiss writes about the problems of using the traditional instruments for galant style (and let's keep in mind: the galant style doesn't replace the older style - it coexists with it for quite some time). It might be interesting to study _why_ theorbo/archlute aren't capable to play galant music (I have my theories but the unfortunately margins of this email are too small to elaborate ...;-) He also states that he plays a sort of adjusted lute instrument in orchestra and church. Most probably this was a d minor German theorbo, without the highest string (but this is an assumption only, that is strengthened by Baron). And this might be his personal prefence an instrumentalist being very eloquent on the baroque lute. He criticises that theorbos often - he even says ordinarily - are played with nails and therefore have a coarse, harsh sound (also primarily his opinion!). Hmm, that's not what he writes - he writes that it sounds harch/coarse in close proximity. The same can be said of a tuba ;-) The most interesting facts in this letter are (in my humble opinion): - Weiss had an adjusted lute for orchestra and church - the fact, that theorbos and archiluths also had been played with nails (if this was done ordinaryly, as Weiss says, I don't want to judge, but it seems to have been happening quite more often than we think today) Why would that be interesting? Doesn't he state what a lot of sources show? Cheers, Ralf Mattes To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Have a look at: a) the early sources (Bob Spencer's famous paper still represents a good summary http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/spencer/html/index.html ); b) tablatures identified for the two instruments and the tuning required MH __ From: R. Mattes r...@mh-freiburg.de To: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 11:22 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:59:29 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote This doesn't address the point I made to you: that the fundamental difference between the archlute and the theorbo is in the manner of stringing - theorbos have the top one or two courses lowered from nominal; archlutes do not. Yes, that's how you happen to match a name with a feature set. The open question is: can we assume that this mapping is historic? Let me just list some of the possible features that could come to mind: 1 reentrant tuning 2 low ambitus 3 tuning in vielle tone (even if reentrant) 4 extended neck 5 enough open bass strings to put (most of) the bass line on open strings 6 use of the instrument (orchestra vs. chamber vs. solo) Your claim is that feature 1 alone defined what was called a tiorba? IMHO this is wishfull thinking - esp. in places/times where there is a mixup of instruments used. Have a look at the early french theorbe sources (the first BC methods). It's pretty obvious that these prints where meant for instruments in vielle tone (I hope we can all agree on this). So, here the distinguishing feature was probably feature 4 and _not_ feature 1. If you look at the so-called theorbo book from the Goess collection you'll find a irritating mixture of pieces for reentrant and non-reentrant tuning (some might even be written for single-reentrant tuning). Also, let's not forget that feature 1 is only really relevant/obvious to the player himself - any observer would probably just use the name most common to him for an instrument with those _visual_ features. How do you think Weiss called his instrument? If his director asked: Silvius, could we try this aria with you playing fundament on your theorbo?, o you really think he would reply: that's not a theorbo, it's a Weissophone!? With all their love for classifications the baroque has an amazing tendency to use terms as hypernyms. So, by he beginning of the galant style anything with a low ambitus and/or an extended neck might be labeled theorbo (and I have a nagging feeling that even a gallichon with extended neck was called theorbo) HTH Ralf Mattes If you don't think this is the case then, to repeat, what's your evidence (ie not merely simple assertion) for supposing otherwise? Further, it is widely understood that there is great diversity in the configuration and shape of these instruments - which is why it is better to identify an instrument in relation to its manner of tuning rather than to any particular physical feature. MH __ From: David Tayler [1]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 1:16 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Well, the evidence is in the museums--there are more than two types of instruments. Therefore, any attempt to categorize the historical lutes as two types does not reflect the historical record. If you look at allthe surviving lutes (I haven't seen all of them, but a pretty goodpercentage over the last 40 years) you will see that most of them aredifferent and there are many types and variations.The label problem is not limited to lutes, it is simply the modernopposite of historical practice.The biggest difference between the way we look at things and the way a 16th or 17th century person would look at things is that we preferuniformity and they preferred diversity. So the modern take on oldinstruments is simply a form of acculturation based on a 20th or 21stcentury point of view. Or you could call it preferential selection,like collecting art works or favorite music works. Preferentialselection--collecting things you like or think belong together, like asuite of dances-- is of course historical, just not the way we do it.Another way to look at it: if one labels as an archlute an instrumentwith a certain size tuning, you instantly create such an instrument, and possibly exclude others.However, if you use a neutral label, you can describe
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Iconographic sources depict theorbos and/or archlutes with highly variable numbers of courses and stringing setups. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing how any particular instrument was tuned. Modern gut, since its characteristics are quiet different from historical gut, does not provide an empirically reliable metric to determine pitch or tuning based upon string length. Beyond that, I'm wondering what exactly the overall point of this conversation is. If the object is to determine whether certain composers expected archlute or theorbo to the exclusion of the other, the historical evidence is inconclusive. Chris[1] Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad __ From: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; To: R. Mattes r...@mh-freiburg.de; David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 11:35:20 AM Have a look at: a) the early sources (Bob Spencer's famous paper still represents a good summary [2]http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/spencer/html/index.html ); b) tablatures identified for the two instruments and the tuning required MH __ From: R. Mattes [3]r...@mh-freiburg.de To: Martyn Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; David Tayler [5]vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute [6]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 11:22 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:59:29 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote This doesn't address the point I made to you: that the fundamental difference between the archlute and the theorbo is in the manner of stringing - theorbos have the top one or two courses lowered from nominal; archlutes do not. Yes, that's how you happen to match a name with a feature set. The open question is: can we assume that this mapping is historic? Let me just list some of the possible features that could come to mind: 1 reentrant tuning 2 low ambitus 3 tuning in vielle tone (even if reentrant) 4 extended neck 5 enough open bass strings to put (most of) the bass line on open strings 6 use of the instrument (orchestra vs. chamber vs. solo) Your claim is that feature 1 alone defined what was called a tiorba? IMHO this is wishfull thinking - esp. in places/times where there is a mixup of instruments used. Have a look at the early french theorbe sources (the first BC methods). It's pretty obvious that these prints where meant for instruments in vielle tone (I hope we can all agree on this). So, here the distinguishing feature was probably feature 4 and _not_ feature 1. If you look at the so-called theorbo book from the Goess collection you'll find a irritating mixture of pieces for reentrant and non-reentrant tuning (some might even be written for single-reentrant tuning). Also, let's not forget that feature 1 is only really relevant/obvious to the player himself - any observer would probably just use the name most common to him for an instrument with those _visual_ features. How do you think Weiss called his instrument? If his director asked: Silvius, could we try this aria with you playing fundament on your theorbo?, o you really think he would reply: that's not a theorbo, it's a Weissophone!? With all their love for classifications the baroque has an amazing tendency to use terms as hypernyms. So, by he beginning of the galant style anything with a low ambitus and/or an extended neck might be labeled theorbo (and I have a nagging feeling that even a gallichon with extended neck was called theorbo) HTH Ralf Mattes If you don't think this is the case then, to repeat, what's your evidence (ie not merely simple assertion) for supposing otherwise? Further, it is widely understood that there is great diversity in the configuration and shape of these instruments - which is why it is better to identify an instrument in relation to its manner of tuning rather than to any particular physical feature. MH __ From: David Tayler [1][7]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [2][8]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 1:16 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Well, the evidence is in the museums--there are more than two types of instruments. Therefore, any attempt to categorize the historical lutes as two types does not reflect the historical
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Dear Chris, Indeed Chris, as I also pointed out earlier, there is much variability in appearances though the tablatures (where extant) are generally clear (regarding the tuning required). But you ask about the point of this conversation. It is in the email query sent earlier to DT, which doesn't seem to have been addressed and which asked: 'You write that The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable. What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - generally single re-entrant if small enough or double re-entrant if large; whereas archlutes retained the highest course at the upper octave. Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may have used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute instrument with extended basses? regards, Martyn __ From: Christopher Wilke chriswi...@yahoo.com To: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 13:14 Subject: RE: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Iconographic sources depict theorbos and/or archlutes with highly variable numbers of courses and stringing setups. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing how any particular instrument was tuned. Modern gut, since its characteristics are quiet different from historical gut, does not provide an empirically reliable metric to determine pitch or tuning based upon string length. Beyond that, I'm wondering what exactly the overall point of this conversation is. If the object is to determine whether certain composers expected archlute or theorbo to the exclusion of the other, the historical evidence is inconclusive. Chris[1] Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad __ From: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; To: R. Mattes r...@mh-freiburg.de; David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 11:35:20 AM Have a look at: a) the early sources (Bob Spencer's famous paper still represents a good summary [2]http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/spencer/html/index.html ); b) tablatures identified for the two instruments and the tuning required MH __ From: R. Mattes [3]r...@mh-freiburg.de To: Martyn Hodgson [4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; David Tayler [5]vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute [6]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 11:22 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:59:29 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote This doesn't address the point I made to you: that the fundamental difference between the archlute and the theorbo is in the manner of stringing - theorbos have the top one or two courses lowered from nominal; archlutes do not. Yes, that's how you happen to match a name with a feature set. The open question is: can we assume that this mapping is historic? Let me just list some of the possible features that could come to mind: 1 reentrant tuning 2 low ambitus 3 tuning in vielle tone (even if reentrant) 4 extended neck 5 enough open bass strings to put (most of) the bass line on open strings 6 use of the instrument (orchestra vs. chamber vs. solo) Your claim is that feature 1 alone defined what was called a tiorba? IMHO this is wishfull thinking - esp. in places/times where there is a mixup of instruments used. Have a look at the early french theorbe sources (the first BC methods). It's pretty obvious that these prints where meant for instruments in vielle tone (I hope we can all agree on this). So, here the distinguishing feature was probably feature 4 and _not_ feature 1. If you look at the so-called theorbo book from the Goess collection you'll find a irritating mixture of pieces for reentrant and non-reentrant tuning (some might even be written for single-reentrant tuning). Also, let's not forget that feature 1 is only really relevant/obvious to the player himself - any observer would probably just use the name most common to him for an instrument with those _visual_ features. How do you think Weiss called his instrument? If his director asked: Silvius, could we try this aria with you playing fundament on your theorbo?, o you really think he would reply: that's not a theorbo, it's a Weissophone!? With all their love for classifications the baroque has an amazing tendency
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Am 28.01.2014 12:36, schrieb R. Mattes: On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:56:46 +0100, Markus Lutz wrote He criticises that theorbos often - he even says ordinarily - are played with nails and therefore have a coarse, harsh sound (also primarily his opinion!). Hmm, that's not what he writes - he writes that it sounds harch/coarse in close proximity. The same can be said of a tuba ;-) Yes, you're completely right. In fact he speaks about chamber music. The most interesting facts in this letter are (in my humble opinion): - Weiss had an adjusted lute for orchestra and church - the fact, that theorbos and archiluths also had been played with nails (if this was done ordinaryly, as Weiss says, I don't want to judge, but it seems to have been happening quite more often than we think today) Why would that be interesting? Doesn't he state what a lot of sources show? Still playing with nails sometimes or more often is said to be un-hip, isn't it? Best regards Markus Cheers, Ralf Mattes To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Markus Lutz Schulstraße 11 88422 Bad Buchau Tel 0 75 82 / 92 62 89 Fax 0 75 82 / 92 62 90 Mail mar...@gmlutz.de
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:35:20 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote Have a look at: This is either a non-answer (how utterly Zen) or pretty close to an (ad hominem) insult. a) the early sources (Bob Spencer's famous paper still represents a good summary http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/spencer/html/index.html ); Do you really imply that I haven't read this article? This article was valuable at it's time but of course shows also the goals of historical organology at that time, i.e. to classify and to create a (hopefully) one-to-one mapping between terminology and morphology of instruments. But, o.k., since you threw it in: just out of curiosity, did you recently read that article? Let's start with page 408: Defining the differences between the chitarrone, theorbo and archlute has always been difficult. Mersenne (1637) was confused, and few readers of his book on instruments seem to have noticed that he renamed his theorbe, arciliuto. And, shortly after that on the same page, about the chitarrone: Note that he says nothing about long un-stopped bass strings, which Piccinini says he invented for the arciliuto in 1594. I suggest that before 1594 the chitarrone may have been exactly what Piccinini says: bass lutes restrung at higher pitch with the top two courses lowered an octave, but without very long contrabassi. So, here we see that in the early 17 century, features 1 2 seem to define a chitarrone (later to be called tiorba). Presence of feature 4 defines the archlute. As we already see, these feature sets are disjunct, so an instrument with all three features might be given both names, depending on who refered to it and where. This is not at all problematic (at least for the speaker back then) as long as no conflict arises. So, in France in the mid of the 17th century a long-necked lute in vielle tone was called theorbe, the short-necked instrument being called lute. Only when instruments in the new (read: reentrant) tuning became more prominent (because of the italian players? Bartolotti?) there was a need for terminological adaptions. Reading Spencer's comments on Praetorius: the Testudo Theorbata (pressumably a liuto attiorbato, an instrument Piccinini prefers to call archiliuto) might easily be called a theorba by a german speaker ... b) tablatures identified for the two instruments and the tuning required So why don't you comment on the tow tablature examples I explicitly mentioned? Also: by looking at tablatures we might be looking at the wrong sources. Most of the music pulished explicitly for tiorba is published in common music notation, _not_ in tablature (maybe because there was no common tuning/pitch level a publisher could expect. For this see also the story of the Huygens music print). Regarding the qualtiy of the Spencer article: read the Weiss letter and read Spencer's interpretation. I also think that he fell into the old Germany trapp: you just can't talk about theorbo in Germany. You need to at least distingush between the austrian parts (where the theorbo most likely was introduced early on by the italian musicians in the royal chapel and not ... from France, along with the French lute.). Cheers, Ralf Mattes MH To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
I'm sorry you find Bob Spencer's paper so very poor. My point about the tablatures (rather than staff notation) is that it is with these that we find an unequivocal indication of the tuning required for a particular named instrument. I'm not aware of any tablature sources which require, for example, a re-entrant tuning for an archlute (or various cognates). Do you? MH __ From: R. Mattes r...@mh-freiburg.de To: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014, 16:57 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:35:20 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote Have a look at: This is either a non-answer (how utterly Zen) or pretty close to an (ad hominem) insult. a) the early sources (Bob Spencer's famous paper still represents a good summary [1]http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/spencer/html/index.html ); Do you really imply that I haven't read this article? This article was valuable at it's time but of course shows also the goals of historical organology at that time, i.e. to classify and to create a (hopefully) one-to-one mapping between terminology and morphology of instruments. But, o.k., since you threw it in: just out of curiosity, did you recently read that article? Let's start with page 408: Defining the differences between the chitarrone, theorbo and archlute has always been difficult. Mersenne (1637) was confused, and few readers of his book on instruments seem to have noticed that he renamed his theorbe, arciliuto. And, shortly after that on the same page, about the chitarrone: Note that he says nothing about long un-stopped bass strings, which Piccinini says he invented for the arciliuto in 1594. I suggest that before 1594 the chitarrone may have been exactly what Piccinini says: bass lutes restrung at higher pitch with the top two courses lowered an octave, but without very long contrabassi. So, here we see that in the early 17 century, features 1 2 seem to define a chitarrone (later to be called tiorba). Presence of feature 4 defines the archlute. As we already see, these feature sets are disjunct, so an instrument with all three features might be given both names, depending on who refered to it and where. This is not at all problematic (at least for the speaker back then) as long as no conflict arises. So, in France in the mid of the 17th century a long-necked lute in vielle tone was called theorbe, the short-necked instrument being called lute. Only when instruments in the new (read: reentrant) tuning became more prominent (because of the italian players? Bartolotti?) there was a need for terminological adaptions. Reading Spencer's comments on Praetorius: the Testudo Theorbata (pressumably a liuto attiorbato, an instrument Piccinini prefers to call archiliuto) might easily be called a theorba by a german speaker ... b) tablatures identified for the two instruments and the tuning required So why don't you comment on the tow tablature examples I explicitly mentioned? Also: by looking at tablatures we might be looking at the wrong sources. Most of the music pulished explicitly for tiorba is published in common music notation, _not_ in tablature (maybe because there was no common tuning/pitch level a publisher could expect. For this see also the story of the Huygens music print). Regarding the qualtiy of the Spencer article: read the Weiss letter and read Spencer's interpretation. I also think that he fell into the old Germany trapp: you just can't talk about theorbo in Germany. You need to at least distingush between the austrian parts (where the theorbo most likely was introduced early on by the italian musicians in the royal chapel and not ... from France, along with the French lute.). Cheers, Ralf Mattes MH -- References 1. http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/spencer/html/index.html To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:10:18 + (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote I'm sorry you find Bob Spencer's paper so very poor. No need to be sorry, esp. since I don't find Spencer's paper very poor (where did I write that?). I only tied to say that it a) shows it's age b) seems to be an overview-type of publication and hence tends to over-generalize c) seems to often prove my points more than yours. My point about the tablatures (rather than staff notation) is that it is with these that we find an unequivocal indication of the tuning required for a particular named instrument. And my point is that a lot of the tablatures I kow of and played are much less unequivocal in indicating the required tuning - just as an example there seem to be some rather equivocal places in the Pittoni on my music stand ... I'm not aware of any tablature sources which require, for example, a re-entrant tuning for an archlute (or various cognates). Do you? No, but there are hardly any archlute tablatures from the Corelli time I know of. Please provide some - I'm really interested in this topic. And of course there is the case of inverse reentrantness (read: excessive use of octave stringing) in the recently mentioned Basso Continuo/Partimento manuscipt from Rome. Cheers, Ralf Mattes To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
In a letter to Johann Mattheson written in 1723 Weiss describes the lutes he used: a|.I am of the opinion that after the keyboard there is no more perfect instrument than this one (the lute) especially for Galanterie. The theorbo and Arciliuto, which are quite different even from each other, cannot be used at all in Galanterie piecesa|I have adapted one of my instruments for accompaniment in the orchestra and in church. It has the same size, length, power and resonance of the veritable theorbo and has the same effect, only that the tuning is different. This instrument I use on these occasions. But in chamber music, I assure you that a cantata a voce sola, next to the harpsichord, accompanied by the lute has a much better effect than with the Arciliuto or even theorbo, since these two latter instruments are ordinarily played with the nails and produce in close proximity a coarse, harsh sound. Le Samedi 25 janvier 2014 10h45, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk a A(c)crit : You write that 'The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable.' What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - single re-entrant if small enough or double reentrant if large; whereas archlutes retained the highest course at the upper octave. Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may have used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute instrument with extended basses? MH __ From: David Tayler [1]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 19:14 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable. That is, they are not low or medium, and they are also not completely interchangeable (since they are sometimes used together). One could argue that they are medium instead of high, but it would be difficult to show this based on the sources. The correlation is the inverse of the degree, so in other words it is possible that the difference in terms may mean something, but of a low order of probability. Because of the degree order, it isn't really possible to assign uses in a general way, only in specific cases. For every case, there will be an exception. There are certainly some interesting specific cases. So either what we call the theorbo or the archlute could be used to play just the single notes of a bass part, or chords, or continuo, or any of a million shades in between, as well as the instruments of the lute family that we do not normally include in our modern designation of archlute and theorbo--that is, instruments without modern labels. However, in these specific cases, like obbligato parts, there is no reason to believe that there was one type of archlute, so then you get into label variations. The variations are also the inverse of correlation--that is, to make a conclusion about how an instrument was used, you would have to reconcile the variants. There are a few pieces where you can make a correlation based on range, but these would have to be fully written out obbligato parts, not bass parts, and even these could well be played on other instruments. If you look at list label-sets, like encyclopedias or books of measurements, each instrument is assigned a label; however, there is no other way to make a list, so there is no reason to believe that the label applied reflected common practice--which explains why the different label-lists use different labels. You can't have a list composed of duplicates. This explains why the lists exist, and also explains why the lists are different. 20th and 21st century mindsets require a label for every instrument; however, the renaissance and baroque mindsets required a small number of labels for a large number of instruments. By applying the small number of labels categorically, the effect is simply to exclude the larger number of instruments from the general discussion. For example the chitarrone has disappeared, because its label was changed. Same is true for the viola. To exist in the renaissance and baroque mindset, one must learn to think in the instrumentarium of a small number of terms and a large number of instruments. And within these terms, family has priority, So lute or flute or viola first refers to a family of instruments, and terms like
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Well, the evidence is in the museums--there are more than two types of instruments. Therefore, any attempt to categorize the historical lutes as two types does not reflect the historical record. If you look at all the surviving lutes (I haven't seen all of them, but a pretty good percentage over the last 40 years) you will see that most of them are different and there are many types and variations. The label problem is not limited to lutes, it is simply the modern opposite of historical practice. The biggest difference between the way we look at things and the way a 16th or 17th century person would look at things is that we prefer uniformity and they preferred diversity. So the modern take on old instruments is simply a form of acculturation based on a 20th or 21st century point of view. Or you could call it preferential selection, like collecting art works or favorite music works. Preferential selection--collecting things you like or think belong together, like a suite of dances-- is of course historical, just not the way we do it. Another way to look at it: if one labels as an archlute an instrument with a certain size tuning, you instantly create such an instrument, and possibly exclude others. However, if you use a neutral label, you can describe an instrument type. So pluckies, as folksy as it sounds, is historically a much more accurate term., and does not cause the disappearance of an instrument or group of instruments, like the double strung theorbo. One could try to argue that the terms are highly specific, and I would then simply direct people to the the lists of CDs over the last forty years, and you can see different fads about what is an archlute, chitarrone and so on. It clearly changes over time because it is an ongoing process of acculturation, or follows market driven ideas of what will sell or what is popular. And there is nothing wrong with that, it just is pretty far from the original sources. One of the surprising things about the internet is that now a lot of unusual and possibly historical instrument designs are resurfacing, owing to these same market forces. dt __ From: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk To: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net; lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 You write that 'The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable.' What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - single re-entrant if small enough or double reentrant if large; whereas archlutes retained the highest course at the upper octave. Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may have used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute instrument with extended basses? MH __ From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 19:14 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable. That is, they are not low or medium, and they are also not completely interchangeable (since they are sometimes used together). One could argue that they are medium instead of high, but it would be difficult to show this based on the sources. The correlation is the inverse of the degree, so in other words it is possible that the difference in terms may mean something, but of a low order of probability. Because of the degree order, it isn't really possible to assign uses in a general way, only in specific cases. For every case, there will be an exception. There are certainly some interesting specific cases. So either what we call the theorbo or the archlute could be used to play just the single notes of a bass part, or chords, or continuo, or any of a million shades in between, as well as the instruments of the lute family that we do not normally include in our modern designation of archlute and theorbo--that is, instruments without modern labels. However, in these specific cases, like obbligato parts, there is no reason to believe that there was one type of archlute, so then you get into label variations. The variations are also the inverse of correlation--that is, to make a conclusion about how an instrument was used, you would have to reconcile the variants. There are a few pieces where you can make a correlation based on range, but these would have to be fully written out obbligato parts, not bass parts, and even these could well be played on other
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
__ This is a very interesting quote because it falls in between the classical divisions of prescriptive and descriptive. So it is sort of descriptive in that Weiss is setting up a straw lute argument by describing and then downgrading the other (non-Weiss) instruments, and then it is both self-descriptive and prescriptive in that he goes on to describe the superior instrument, which of course he would be compelled by the rules of rhetoric to claim to have partially invented. You could argue based on this quote that no one played the gallichon, but of course that won't fly nowadays. In analyzing the quote, there is no way to know if it is true or not, but there is certainly no reason to doubt that Weiss had all or some custom instruments. However, there is also no reason to doubt that any of his competitors would not have had custom instruments, which would render his entire argument moot. Certainly it was standard procedure for someone to claim that their method was the right one and everyone else had it wrong, and musicologists rightly take such statements in that context. So for example, most German composers claim that they brought French music to Germany. And therefore those statements are all pretty much suspect. But--it certainly helps make the case that professionals had custom instruments and custom tunings, which would mean that new labels must be invented and applied (the Weiss Theorbo, etc.) or one could stay away from the labels d In a letter to Johann Mattheson written in 1723 Weiss describes the lutes he used: a|.I am of the opinion that after the keyboard there is no more perfect instrument than this one (the lute) especially for Galanterie. The theorbo and Arciliuto, which are quite different even from each other, cannot be used at all in Galanterie piecesa|I have adapted one of my instruments for accompaniment in the orchestra and in church. It has the same size, length, power and resonance of the veritable theorbo and has the same effect, only that the tuning is different. This instrument I use on these occasions. But in chamber music, I assure you that a cantata a voce sola, next to the harpsichord, accompanied by the lute has a much better effect than with the Arciliuto or even theorbo, since these two latter instruments are ordinarily played with the nails and produce in close proximity a coarse, harsh sound. Le Samedi 25 janvier 2014 10h45, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk a A(c)crit : You write that 'The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable.' What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - single re-entrant if small enough or double reentrant if large; whereas archlutes retained the highest course at the upper octave. Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may have used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute instrument with extended basses? MH __ From: David Tayler [1]vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute [2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 19:14 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable. That is, they are not low or medium, and they are also not completely interchangeable (since they are sometimes used together). One could argue that they are medium instead of high, but it would be difficult to show this based on the sources. The correlation is the inverse of the degree, so in other words it is possible that the difference in terms may mean something, but of a low order of probability. Because of the degree order, it isn't really possible to assign uses in a general way, only in specific cases. For every case, there will be an exception. There are certainly some interesting specific cases. So either what we call the theorbo or the archlute could be used to play just the single notes of a bass part, or chords, or continuo, or any of a million shades in between, as well as the instruments of the lute family that we do not normally include in our modern designation of archlute and theorbo--that is, instruments without modern labels. However, in these specific cases, like obbligato parts, there is no reason to believe that there was one type of archlute, so then you get into label variations. The variations are also the inverse of correlation--that is, to make a conclusion about how an instrument
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
You write that 'The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable.' What's your evidence for this? The two instruments were tuned in different ways: theorboes having re-entrant tuning - single re-entrant if small enough or double reentrant if large; whereas archlutes retained the highest course at the upper octave. Or are you suggesting the occasional possibility that a writer may have used the word archlute in a generic sense: implying any lute instrument with extended basses? MH __ From: David Tayler vidan...@sbcglobal.net To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014, 19:14 Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable. That is, they are not low or medium, and they are also not completely interchangeable (since they are sometimes used together). One could argue that they are medium instead of high, but it would be difficult to show this based on the sources. The correlation is the inverse of the degree, so in other words it is possible that the difference in terms may mean something, but of a low order of probability. Because of the degree order, it isn't really possible to assign uses in a general way, only in specific cases. For every case, there will be an exception. There are certainly some interesting specific cases. So either what we call the theorbo or the archlute could be used to play just the single notes of a bass part, or chords, or continuo, or any of a million shades in between, as well as the instruments of the lute family that we do not normally include in our modern designation of archlute and theorbo--that is, instruments without modern labels. However, in these specific cases, like obbligato parts, there is no reason to believe that there was one type of archlute, so then you get into label variations. The variations are also the inverse of correlation--that is, to make a conclusion about how an instrument was used, you would have to reconcile the variants. There are a few pieces where you can make a correlation based on range, but these would have to be fully written out obbligato parts, not bass parts, and even these could well be played on other instruments. If you look at list label-sets, like encyclopedias or books of measurements, each instrument is assigned a label; however, there is no other way to make a list, so there is no reason to believe that the label applied reflected common practice--which explains why the different label-lists use different labels. You can't have a list composed of duplicates. This explains why the lists exist, and also explains why the lists are different. 20th and 21st century mindsets require a label for every instrument; however, the renaissance and baroque mindsets required a small number of labels for a large number of instruments. By applying the small number of labels categorically, the effect is simply to exclude the larger number of instruments from the general discussion. For example the chitarrone has disappeared, because its label was changed. Same is true for the viola. To exist in the renaissance and baroque mindset, one must learn to think in the instrumentarium of a small number of terms and a large number of instruments. And within these terms, family has priority, So lute or flute or viola first refers to a family of instruments, and terms like archlute have a familial tendency. Erase that, and the interconnections disappear. That's why we have fewer lute types today than in the past, as well as fewer instrument types, with the exception of sideways marketing, where an instrument is rediscovered or elevated for marketing purposes in a crowded subfield. Marketing definitely creates more labels. dt __ From: Gary R. Boye [1]boy...@appstate.edu To: jean-michel Catherinot [2]jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com; Martyn Hodgson [3]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; R. Mattes [4]r...@mh-freiburg.de; Ed Durbrow [5]edurb...@gmail.com; LuteNet list [6]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 6:19 AM Subject: [LUTE] archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Dear Jean Michel, Yes; interesting! We are only talking about Corelli's Op. 1 (Opp. 2-4 all call for archlute according to surviving editions--no mention of theorbo there). I suppose this could either reflect common practice in a city (Rome vs. Bologna/Venice) or publisher preference. Or just happenstance--what editions the publishers happened to copy. The raw
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
great, Gary!Thank you for this sum up. I searched some weeks ago on RISM with the key arciliuto and so on. Apart for its use in Roma (and +?), it's outstanding that you find arciliuto obligato in Dresden 's opera (Hasse's Cleofide for instance) at the time of Weiss (and not forgetting Haendel's works in Roma or London where arciliuto or/and tiorba is mentionned, but I have to get a new look on those), and it looks that the tuning is vieil ton (I have the feeling that both A and G tuning were common, depending on the key, and probably with semi chromatic bourdons, likely E, Eb and F, F# ).Out of topic, but may that ( perhaps) address the question of a new approach of lute in Bach's works (Passionen) ? Le Vendredi 24 janvier 2014 15h23, Gary R. Boye boy...@appstate.edu a ecrit : Dear Jean Michel, Yes; interesting! We are only talking about Corelli's Op. 1 (Opp. 2-4 all call for archlute according to surviving editions--no mention of theorbo there). I suppose this could either reflect common practice in a city (Rome vs. Bologna/Venice) or publisher preference. Or just happenstance--what editions the publishers happened to copy. The raw numbers: There are 15 known editions of Op. 1, published between 1681-1735. Archlute is called for in the first edition in Rome, as well as 2 other Roman editions, 1 edition from Modena, and 3 editions from London. Theorbo (tiorba) is called for in 7 editions, published between 1682-1707. 5 of the editions are from Bologna (printed by G. Monti or Silvani) and 2 are from Venice. There is an additional Dutch edition by Roger that calls for both instruments in a catalog published later. This seems to support Martyn's statement about different uses for the instruments in this music (violone vs. figured bass parts). There are some that see a very limited role for the archlute in general, mainly in Rome. But in addition to Corelli, the archlute was called for in title pages of other's music outside of Rome more often than in Rome itself: London 21 Rome 10 Amsterdam 10 Venice 6 Bologna 5 Modena 3 Antwerp 1 Florence 1 Lucca 1 [To search on my web page, go to: [1]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html and CRTL + F archlute] This is not counting the solo music in tablature, just the continuo sources. For a list of the solo music for archlute, see: [2]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.htm l So I have some trouble limiting the archlute to Rome, but perhaps it starts there . . . Gary On 1/24/2014 2:51 AM, jean-michel Catherinot wrote: Dear Gary , Here are the links to the first editions, on IMSLP. Both are published in Roma, and mention arcileuto. The publications you cited are all not in Roma. This fact is indeed interessant, isn'it? [3]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129 [4]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136 Le Jeudi 23 janvier 2014 17h45, Martyn Hodgson [5]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk a ecrit : Dear Gary, Indeed, and often overlooked (tho' I suspect not by you) is that theorbo is an alternative to the bass violin and not the principal figured bass continuo instrument so a stratospheric higher register is not required. rgds Martyn __ -- Dr. Gary R. Boye Professor and Music Librarian Appalachian State University To get on or off this list see list information at [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html 2. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.html 3. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129 4. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136 5. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk 6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
On 24/01/14 9:19 AM, Gary R. Boye wrote: Yes; interesting! We are only talking about Corelli's Op. 1 (Opp. 2-4 all call for archlute according to surviving editions--no mention of theorbo there). I suppose this could either reflect common practice in a city (Rome vs. Bologna/Venice) or publisher preference. Or just happenstance--what editions the publishers happened to copy. I downloaded the Corelli Op.1 parts. What I find odd is the third part, labelled violone o arcilevto. I can see how an archlute or theorbo player would have managed it, but what about the poor violone player? What was he supposed to do with the figures? Since the part is carefully figured, this suggests to me that it was really intended for archlute or theorbo; otherwise why bother going to all that work that the violone player would ignore? My other question is whether Corelli and his contemporaries made much distinction between archlute and theorbo. When I first got involved with lutes 30 years ago, there was massive confusion between the two, and I recall a presentation at an LSA seminar by Ray Nurse in which he cleared most of the confusion up. I suspect everyone today uses his definitions, but were things that clear back in the 17th century? Geoff -- Geoff Gaherty Foxmead Observatory Coldwater, Ontario, Canada http://www.gaherty.ca http://starrynightskyevents.blogspot.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Yes, and some of those archiliuto opera orchestral parts from Dresden have notations that have been identified as being in S.L. Weiss's handwriting! Some were displayed at the Freiburg Weiss Conference in 1984(??). Andre Bourget (liuto forte guy) gathered all kinds of interesting things for that conference. It was an exciting meeting. Were you there Ralf? --Arthur -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of jean-michel Catherinot Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 6:58 AM To: Gary R. Boye; Martyn Hodgson; R. Mattes; Ed Durbrow; LuteNet list Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 great, Gary!Thank you for this sum up. I searched some weeks ago on RISM with the key arciliuto and so on. Apart for its use in Roma (and +?), it's outstanding that you find arciliuto obligato in Dresden 's opera (Hasse's Cleofide for instance) at the time of Weiss (and not forgetting Haendel's works in Roma or London where arciliuto or/and tiorba is mentionned, but I have to get a new look on those), and it looks that the tuning is vieil ton (I have the feeling that both A and G tuning were common, depending on the key, and probably with semi chromatic bourdons, likely E, Eb and F, F# ).Out of topic, but may that ( perhaps) address the question of a new approach of lute in Bach's works (Passionen) ? Le Vendredi 24 janvier 2014 15h23, Gary R. Boye boy...@appstate.edu a ecrit : Dear Jean Michel, Yes; interesting! We are only talking about Corelli's Op. 1 (Opp. 2-4 all call for archlute according to surviving editions--no mention of theorbo there). I suppose this could either reflect common practice in a city (Rome vs. Bologna/Venice) or publisher preference. Or just happenstance--what editions the publishers happened to copy. The raw numbers: There are 15 known editions of Op. 1, published between 1681-1735. Archlute is called for in the first edition in Rome, as well as 2 other Roman editions, 1 edition from Modena, and 3 editions from London. Theorbo (tiorba) is called for in 7 editions, published between 1682-1707. 5 of the editions are from Bologna (printed by G. Monti or Silvani) and 2 are from Venice. There is an additional Dutch edition by Roger that calls for both instruments in a catalog published later. This seems to support Martyn's statement about different uses for the instruments in this music (violone vs. figured bass parts). There are some that see a very limited role for the archlute in general, mainly in Rome. But in addition to Corelli, the archlute was called for in title pages of other's music outside of Rome more often than in Rome itself: London 21 Rome 10 Amsterdam 10 Venice 6 Bologna 5 Modena 3 Antwerp 1 Florence 1 Lucca 1 [To search on my web page, go to: [1]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html and CRTL + F archlute] This is not counting the solo music in tablature, just the continuo sources. For a list of the solo music for archlute, see: [2]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.htm l So I have some trouble limiting the archlute to Rome, but perhaps it starts there . . . Gary On 1/24/2014 2:51 AM, jean-michel Catherinot wrote: Dear Gary , Here are the links to the first editions, on IMSLP. Both are published in Roma, and mention arcileuto. The publications you cited are all not in Roma. This fact is indeed interessant, isn'it? [3]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129 [4]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136 Le Jeudi 23 janvier 2014 17h45, Martyn Hodgson [5]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk a ecrit : Dear Gary, Indeed, and often overlooked (tho' I suspect not by you) is that theorbo is an alternative to the bass violin and not the principal figured bass continuo instrument so a stratospheric higher register is not required. rgds Martyn __ -- Dr. Gary R. Boye Professor and Music Librarian Appalachian State University To get on or off this list see list information at [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html 2. http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.html 3. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280129 4. http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/280136 5. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk 6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
The terms arciliuto and tiorba are high-degree interchangeable. That is, they are not low or medium, and they are also not completely interchangeable (since they are sometimes used together). One could argue that they are medium instead of high, but it would be difficult to show this based on the sources. The correlation is the inverse of the degree, so in other words it is possible that the difference in terms may mean something, but of a low order of probability. Because of the degree order, it isn't really possible to assign uses in a general way, only in specific cases. For every case, there will be an exception. There are certainly some interesting specific cases. So either what we call the theorbo or the archlute could be used to play just the single notes of a bass part, or chords, or continuo, or any of a million shades in between, as well as the instruments of the lute family that we do not normally include in our modern designation of archlute and theorbo--that is, instruments without modern labels. However, in these specific cases, like obbligato parts, there is no reason to believe that there was one type of archlute, so then you get into label variations. The variations are also the inverse of correlation--that is, to make a conclusion about how an instrument was used, you would have to reconcile the variants. There are a few pieces where you can make a correlation based on range, but these would have to be fully written out obbligato parts, not bass parts, and even these could well be played on other instruments. If you look at list label-sets, like encyclopedias or books of measurements, each instrument is assigned a label; however, there is no other way to make a list, so there is no reason to believe that the label applied reflected common practice--which explains why the different label-lists use different labels. You can't have a list composed of duplicates. This explains why the lists exist, and also explains why the lists are different. 20th and 21st century mindsets require a label for every instrument; however, the renaissance and baroque mindsets required a small number of labels for a large number of instruments. By applying the small number of labels categorically, the effect is simply to exclude the larger number of instruments from the general discussion. For example the chitarrone has disappeared, because its label was changed. Same is true for the viola. To exist in the renaissance and baroque mindset, one must learn to think in the instrumentarium of a small number of terms and a large number of instruments. And within these terms, family has priority, So lute or flute or viola first refers to a family of instruments, and terms like archlute have a familial tendency. Erase that, and the interconnections disappear. That's why we have fewer lute types today than in the past, as well as fewer instrument types, with the exception of sideways marketing, where an instrument is rediscovered or elevated for marketing purposes in a crowded subfield. Marketing definitely creates more labels. dt __ From: Gary R. Boye boy...@appstate.edu To: jean-michel Catherinot jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com; Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; R. Mattes r...@mh-freiburg.de; Ed Durbrow edurb...@gmail.com; LuteNet list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 6:19 AM Subject: [LUTE] archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Dear Jean Michel, Yes; interesting! We are only talking about Corelli's Op. 1 (Opp. 2-4 all call for archlute according to surviving editions--no mention of theorbo there). I suppose this could either reflect common practice in a city (Rome vs. Bologna/Venice) or publisher preference. Or just happenstance--what editions the publishers happened to copy. The raw numbers: There are 15 known editions of Op. 1, published between 1681-1735. Archlute is called for in the first edition in Rome, as well as 2 other Roman editions, 1 edition from Modena, and 3 editions from London. Theorbo (tiorba) is called for in 7 editions, published between 1682-1707. 5 of the editions are from Bologna (printed by G. Monti or Silvani) and 2 are from Venice. There is an additional Dutch edition by Roger that calls for both instruments in a catalog published later. This seems to support Martyn's statement about different uses for the instruments in this music (violone vs. figured bass parts). There are some that see a very limited role for the archlute in general, mainly in Rome. But in addition to Corelli, the archlute was called for in title pages of other's music outside of Rome more often than in Rome itself: London 21 Rome 10 Amsterdam 10 Venice 6 Bologna 5 Modena 3 Antwerp 1
[LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1
Hello dear Arthur, 1984 I was living in Karlsruhe and working on my PhD-Thesis in Chemistry. Ah, those pre-Internet times, FORTRAN computer programming with punch cards, text only monitors, etc. My contact with the lute-world was through the Gitarre Laute magazin and the only lute-player I was lucky to see in Karlsruhe was Julian Bream ( with a lute/guitar program, ... the guitar players in the audience only gave warm applause after he finished the 12 Villalobos etudes, fantastic, by the way ). So I had my baroque-lute, a facsimile of the SLWeiss Dresden printed in the German Democratic Republic and the EM Dombois disc Die Barrocklaute as a model how the music should sound. Quite lonesome times ... So the answer would be, no, I had no idea there was an academic lute world out there ;-) Best wishes, Ralf Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:56:14 -0800 To: jeanmichel.catheri...@yahoo.com; boy...@appstate.edu; hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; r...@mh-freiburg.de; edurb...@gmail.com; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu From: arthurjn...@verizon.net Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 Yes, and some of those archiliuto opera orchestral parts from Dresden have notations that have been identified as being in S.L. Weiss's handwriting! Some were displayed at the Freiburg Weiss Conference in 1984(??). Andre Bourget (liuto forte guy) gathered all kinds of interesting things for that conference. It was an exciting meeting. Were you there Ralf? --Arthur -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of jean-michel Catherinot Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 6:58 AM To: Gary R. Boye; Martyn Hodgson; R. Mattes; Ed Durbrow; LuteNet list Subject: [LUTE] Re: archlute/theorbo in Corelli's Op. 1 great, Gary!Thank you for this sum up. I searched some weeks ago on RISM with the key arciliuto and so on. Apart for its use in Roma (and +?), it's outstanding that you find arciliuto obligato in Dresden 's opera (Hasse's Cleofide for instance) at the time of Weiss (and not forgetting Haendel's works in Roma or London where arciliuto or/and tiorba is mentionned, but I have to get a new look on those), and it looks that the tuning is vieil ton (I have the feeling that both A and G tuning were common, depending on the key, and probably with semi chromatic bourdons, likely E, Eb and F, F# ).Out of topic, but may that ( perhaps) address the question of a new approach of lute in Bach's works (Passionen) ? Le Vendredi 24 janvier 2014 15h23, Gary R. Boye boy...@appstate.edu a ecrit : Dear Jean Michel, Yes; interesting! We are only talking about Corelli's Op. 1 (Opp. 2-4 all call for archlute according to surviving editions--no mention of theorbo there). I suppose this could either reflect common practice in a city (Rome vs. Bologna/Venice) or publisher preference. Or just happenstance--what editions the publishers happened to copy. The raw numbers: There are 15 known editions of Op. 1, published between 1681-1735. Archlute is called for in the first edition in Rome, as well as 2 other Roman editions, 1 edition from Modena, and 3 editions from London. Theorbo (tiorba) is called for in 7 editions, published between 1682-1707. 5 of the editions are from Bologna (printed by G. Monti or Silvani) and 2 are from Venice. There is an additional Dutch edition by Roger that calls for both instruments in a catalog published later. This seems to support Martyn's statement about different uses for the instruments in this music (violone vs. figured bass parts). There are some that see a very limited role for the archlute in general, mainly in Rome. But in addition to Corelli, the archlute was called for in title pages of other's music outside of Rome more often than in Rome itself: London 21 Rome 10 Amsterdam 10 Venice 6 Bologna 5 Modena 3 Antwerp 1 Florence 1 Lucca 1 [To search on my web page, go to: [1]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/continuo.html and CRTL + F archlute] This is not counting the solo music in tablature, just the continuo sources. For a list of the solo music for archlute, see: [2]http://applications.library.appstate.edu/music/lute/C17/archlute.htm l So I have some trouble limiting the archlute to Rome, but perhaps it starts there . . . Gary On 1/24/2014 2:51 AM, jean-michel Catherinot wrote: Dear Gary , Here are the links to the first editions, on IMSLP. Both are published in Roma, and mention arcileuto. The publications you cited are all not in Roma. This fact is indeed interessant, isn'it? [3]http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex
