I am sorry to say that what Michael has said in this article is highly
contentious and doesn't support the idea that the 4-course guitar was
deliberately strung so that the strings of the fourth course could be used
independently.
1. The three examples which Michael refers to are flawed
Bakfarks use of split-course technique in the Krakow lute book:
1. Jesu nomen sanctissimum. Secunda pars: Sit nomen domini, measure 9
2. Circumdederunt me, measure 25, measure 56
3. Secunda pars: Quoniam tribulatio, measure 15
4. Qui habitat in adjutorio, measure 59
5. Secunda
It seems we have at least 5 different threads going here under the same
heading. I think several are still worth discussing so maybe we could
divide them up somehow?
1. split string early 16th century where one fingers only one string of
the course but strikes both Capirola etc.
I'm very open to Michael's ideas, but am really not sure about a few
things. Could we collectively look at Carlo Cantu playing the guitar
(easy to google) and decide whether he is playing a 4 or 5 course
guitar? There sure is plenty of space for 10 pegs.
If he really split his 4th
It's the same thing with the Cellier illustration (search Cellier 4
course guitar pictures).
Why split for both hands? It makes no sense if you just want one octave
or the other.
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avast.com
To get on or off
First of all - given that Cantu was apparently born in 1609 this portrait of
him must date from the mid 1630s at least - some eighty years after the
French 4-course books were printed and therefore hardly a suitable model for
the earlier instument. The kind of music which he is playing -
I don't really understand what you mean by this.
In fact the Cellier drawing has been copied from an earlier source and there
another copy of the same drawing in a different manuscript in the Brtish
Library. Neither drawing is very clear and not very well drawn.
Monica
- Original
I'm sorry if I was unclear.
What I'm saying is that in both pictures the 4th course is wider for
both the right and left hands which does not support Michael's ideas.
If you're going to split the course, then only for the right hand.
The Cantu picture looks to me like a 5 course with single
Yes - I understand what you mean about the spacing for the left hand. I
don't know what the size of the original drawing is but I would guess that
there just isn't room for the artist to fit in all the details. The 4th and
5th courses are look single but would have been double.
Good night
Another music plea to the list-
Can anyone supply, or point me to a source, of lute duets where the
parts are in modern G clef/F clef keyboard oriented staff notation,
based on/for G instruments- or unequal duets where one of the parts is
for a G instrument? I have been working with a harp
On 2015-05-13 7:16 PM, Dan Winheld wrote:
I have already done a lot of searching, and come up with nothing- so
have been slowly transcribing parts myself (old school, pen manuscript
paper. Good discipline but a tad slow). So far, we have Dowland's Lord
Willoughby's Welcome Home and the
Do we know whether the 'split-course technique' as it is sometimes
termed nowadays was a notation to indicate that only one particular
string of an octave course was actually to be employed, or whether it
was pedantic intabulation to indicate in which octave the
composer/arranger
As far as I know there are only two sources which actually indicate in the
music/tablature that one
or other string only of an octave strung course should be played.
These are Mouton - Pieces de lute (1699) who indicates that first the bass
string and then the treble of the 6th course should be
The early German lutenist Adolf Blindhamer indicates the use of this split
course technique in a few of his praeambulum pieces found in the manuscript
that commonly bears his name. It is approximately dated 1526.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Martin Shepherd
Albert de Rippe, Douce Memoire intab (1562), bar 26--emphasize, or play only,
the high octave of the fourth course on the first and third beats, or it'll
sound kind of dumb.
Sent from my Ouija board
On May 13, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Dick Hoban rpho...@gmail.com wrote:
The early German lutenist
Thanks Monica,
I was aware of the 17thC lute sources (another besides Mouton uses the
Aa notation) and the Corrette but raised the matter in the context of
the much earlier supposed practice.
Martyn
__
From:
The technique is also found in Johann Christian Beyer's Herrn
Professor Gellerts Oden, Lieder und Fabeln..., published by Breitkopf
in Leipzig in 1760. There is a table of Zeichen und Manieren in which
there are two symbols for Gebrochner Bass. One looks like an upright
percent
But does Rippe actually say that you should do so and notate it in the
tablature?
We can all think of places where it might be a good idea to leave out one
string of a course but that's not the same thing at all.
- Original Message -
From: John Lenti johnle...@hotmail.com
To:
Corrette is interesting in also having published a 1772 mandolin method. If
the mandolin is to be considered--and this is obviously not of direct
application to much earlier supposed practice--but Gabriel Leone's more
professional sets of variations for solo mandolin almost always included
19 matches
Mail list logo
