[LUTE] Re: theorbo sizes; theorbo definitions
Piccinini certainly reports this MH --- On Tue, 3/6/08, "Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: theorbo sizes; theorbo definitions > To: "David Tayler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" > Date: Tuesday, 3 June, 2008, 2:17 PM > I seem to recall that chitarone / theorbo did at first not > refer to the > extended neck but to the reentrant high tuning which was at > first used > on bass lutes (then still without bass extension). > Chitarone being the > big version of the chitara francese, a type of _lute_ > played in Italy. > Only later, when the extension was put up, the extended > neck remained > its distinctive feature, and the instrument came to be > called theorbo > exclusively. > > According to that draught of a definition, archlutes, > arciliuti, and > liuti attiorbati are not theorbos. > > Not sure about chapter and verse, maybe Jan Grueter's > thesis on continuo > playing with lutes. > > Mathias > > "David Tayler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > schrieb: > > > > >Exactly-- > > > > the distinction is a modern one, the historical one > > semi-interchangeable based on time & region. > > The only way to "define" an archlute as > distinct from a theorbo is to > > ignore the myriad historical examples where the terms > are used interchangeably. > > This distinction is similar to calling the classical > piano the > > "fortepiano"--it is not the precise > historical term, it is what we > > choose to call it. > > > > What we need is a new definition, and I'm happy to > have you improve > > on mine, it is just a starting point. > > In its broadest sense, the term to me seems to me to > refer to the > > neck, as in the theorbo-lute. > > An archlute then, is in its most general sense a > theorbo (according > > to the people who played it), > > and in its narrow sense, as well as modern sense, a > special type of > > theorbo, perhaps based more on the lute, perhaps > several different instruments. > > > > I don't see how we can discount the historical > record. The time for > > saying "they must have been mistaken", > "they" being the eyewitnesses, > > surely is past. > > How can they have made hundreds of mistakes with the > terms? The fact > > that the historical record does not reflect in any > sense two types of > > instruments with two uniform terms should be > interpreted, not discounted. > > > > I think a critique would be most helpful if followed > by an improved definition. > > > > > > dt > > > > > > > > > > Theorbo > > > > A bass lute or renaissance lute with an > extended neck enabling > > > > additional, unfretted bass notes: > instruments based on, or developed > > > > from these models. > > > > > >This definition includes archlutes and most > baroque-era lutes, which > > >makes it useful for persons who are not > lute-literate and useless as > > >a term of art for us insiders. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
[LUTE] Re: theorbo sizes; theorbo definitions
I seem to recall that chitarone / theorbo did at first not refer to the extended neck but to the reentrant high tuning which was at first used on bass lutes (then still without bass extension). Chitarone being the big version of the chitara francese, a type of _lute_ played in Italy. Only later, when the extension was put up, the extended neck remained its distinctive feature, and the instrument came to be called theorbo exclusively. According to that draught of a definition, archlutes, arciliuti, and liuti attiorbati are not theorbos. Not sure about chapter and verse, maybe Jan Grueter's thesis on continuo playing with lutes. Mathias "David Tayler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > >Exactly-- > > the distinction is a modern one, the historical one > semi-interchangeable based on time & region. > The only way to "define" an archlute as distinct from a theorbo is to > ignore the myriad historical examples where the terms are used > interchangeably. > This distinction is similar to calling the classical piano the > "fortepiano"--it is not the precise historical term, it is what we > choose to call it. > > What we need is a new definition, and I'm happy to have you improve > on mine, it is just a starting point. > In its broadest sense, the term to me seems to me to refer to the > neck, as in the theorbo-lute. > An archlute then, is in its most general sense a theorbo (according > to the people who played it), > and in its narrow sense, as well as modern sense, a special type of > theorbo, perhaps based more on the lute, perhaps several different > instruments. > > I don't see how we can discount the historical record. The time for > saying "they must have been mistaken", "they" being the eyewitnesses, > surely is past. > How can they have made hundreds of mistakes with the terms? The fact > that the historical record does not reflect in any sense two types of > instruments with two uniform terms should be interpreted, not discounted. > > I think a critique would be most helpful if followed by an improved > definition. > > > dt > > > > > > > Theorbo > > > A bass lute or renaissance lute with an extended neck enabling > > > additional, unfretted bass notes: instruments based on, or developed > > > from these models. > > > >This definition includes archlutes and most baroque-era lutes, which > >makes it useful for persons who are not lute-literate and useless as > >a term of art for us insiders. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: theorbo sizes; theorbo definitions
>Exactly-- the distinction is a modern one, the historical one semi-interchangeable based on time & region. The only way to "define" an archlute as distinct from a theorbo is to ignore the myriad historical examples where the terms are used interchangeably. This distinction is similar to calling the classical piano the "fortepiano"--it is not the precise historical term, it is what we choose to call it. What we need is a new definition, and I'm happy to have you improve on mine, it is just a starting point. In its broadest sense, the term to me seems to me to refer to the neck, as in the theorbo-lute. An archlute then, is in its most general sense a theorbo (according to the people who played it), and in its narrow sense, as well as modern sense, a special type of theorbo, perhaps based more on the lute, perhaps several different instruments. I don't see how we can discount the historical record. The time for saying "they must have been mistaken", "they" being the eyewitnesses, surely is past. How can they have made hundreds of mistakes with the terms? The fact that the historical record does not reflect in any sense two types of instruments with two uniform terms should be interpreted, not discounted. I think a critique would be most helpful if followed by an improved definition. dt > > > > Theorbo > > A bass lute or renaissance lute with an extended neck enabling > > additional, unfretted bass notes: instruments based on, or developed > > from these models. > >This definition includes archlutes and most baroque-era lutes, which >makes it useful for persons who are not lute-literate and useless as >a term of art for us insiders. >-- > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
