Thanks for this; I'd be grateful for a fuller response to cover
all the points in my previous email to you. Nevertheless I'll
respond to this one below:
INFORMATION
I now see from your mention of my guitar stringing email that you
seem to equate 'information' solely with figures whereas I also
include other things such as tunings, examples of solo music, etc
which you do not count as information - we'll bear this in mind.
BOB SPENCER'S & LYNDA SAYCE'S PAPERS
In fact, Bob Spencer gave examples of large double reentrant
theorbos in A and G (with string lengths around 89 and 91cm - the
same ones I gave details earlier). He also cites Mace on tuning of
single and double theorbos in G and A and says that large theorbos
need the two highest courses down the octave and not just the first
(ie smaller theorbos just had the first course on actave down p. 412).
Similarly, Lynda Sayce does in fact provide much information
including sizes of some large extant theorbos.
TALBOT MS
Talbot fortunately gives more than the minimum number of
dimensions and it is quite possible to recreate the instrument
based on what he gives at a string length of between 88/91cm (as
Michael Prynne and later others) without making unecessary
assumptions as David did (I'm told it's mostly to do with
measurements of body to body/neck joint or to the end of the tongue
and not by excluding the rose diameter).
David doesn't mention reentrant tuning type (Talbot gives double
reentrant in A for his measured instrument) and I would surprised
if Lynda Sayce doesn't tune her 78cm English theorbo as single
reentrant - but you'll need to ask her. Incidentally, 78cm seems
an ideal size for a single reentrant theorbo - mine is 76cm which I
now feel is marginally too small.
EVIDENCE
In short, the evidence I gave still stands and, little as it is,
is indeed overwhelming (100%). I still await David Tayler's or your
own evidence that small theorboes (say 75 to 82cm) were generally
tuned as double reentrant.
PITCH
I don't quite understand your last point on pitch but if you are
equating maximum acceptable breaking stress of solo and continuo
instruments, I refer you to my recent email to Rob McKillop ... it
contains figures too.
WHEN SINGLE OR DOUBLE REENTRANT?
Whilst no one denies that it is physically possible to string a
small theorbo in A or G as double reentrant (especially using
modern overwound strings), the question I, at least, am trying to
address is what would have been expected historically. Early
sources, when bothering to mention the matter at all (eg Piccini,
Mace - cited earlier), stress that smaller instruments are single
reentrant and that double reentrant is only employed when the
breaking stress of the highest pitched string (in this case the
second course) is approached. I can, of course, well understand
that if you play a small theorbo in an unlikely historical
stringing (ie A or G double reentrant) you'll feel an almost
Pavlovian obligation to defend your decision but surely you should
be doing this on this basis of modern convenience and personal
preference and not on the unsupportable position that it's somehow
following historic models.
MH
howard posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martyn Hodgson wrote:
In subsequent messages I gave more information (you must have
missed it): - how such small instruments were strung (just top
course an octave down or at a much higher nominal pitch eg D), -
early written evidence of theorbo sizes, - examples of solo music
for such instruments -
Again, there was no information; just your own conclusion that
smaller theorbos were not tuned double reentrant. You may be
confusing these posts (I've just reread them) with your post about
guitar stringing, which actually contained information.
and gave Lynda Sayce's website and Bob Spencer's article as
providing more information. You may say that I only refer to these
articles because they support the position on theorbo sizes which I
take - which it is true they do -
But they don't. Spencer doesn't correlate single-reentrant stringing
with size. Linda Sayce does, but like you, states only her
conclusions.
As already said, I'm still waiting for David Tayler's and your own
evidence that small theorboes (say mid 70s to low 80s) in the A or
G tuning were generally strung as double reentrant. Regarding
evidence to support the case that such stringing only generally
applies to larger instruments (say mid 80s to high 90s), I had
hoped the sources I gave were sufficiently well known to avoid me
having to do more than refer to them, but obviously not.
It's not that the sources aren't well known. It's that your
conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. It boils down to "big
theorbos were strung double reentrant because they had to be; smaller
theorbos didn't have to be, therefore they never were." This makes
sense only if you assume that necessity was the only reason for
double reentrant, an assumption which is hardly justifiable (If it's
correct, you've proved that the tiorbino never existed). Players
obviously liked its possibilities and gleefully exploited it in solo
music.
The ones that come to mind include:
Praetorius (1620): Lang Romanische Theorbo:Chitarron). Scaled
engraving showing an instrument with six fingered and 8 long bass
courses, fingered string length 90/91cm. Tuning given as the
theorbo G tuning (double reentrant).
Talbot MS (c 1695): English Theorboe A tuning (double reentrant),
detailed measurement and tunings given. Fingered string length
88/89cm (you tell us that you have other information on the string
length of this instrument - I'd be grateful for it)
The Talbot MS doesn't actually give the total length, does it?
David van Edwards calculated the Talbot "English Theorbo" at 77 cm.
See his explanation at
http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/47.htm
He made a "Talbot" theorbo for Linda Sayce. I gather from her web
site that its fingerboard strings are 80cm (thus scaled up or down
from the original, depending on your point of view) and she strings
it single reentrant in G.
Talbot MS: Lesser French theorbo in D (double reentrant) string
length 76cm.
If we have one 76cm French theorbo in double reentrant D and one 77cm
English Theorbo in double reentrant A, we scarcely have a small-
theorbo trend, let alone "overwhelming" evidence.
'POWER'
I'm really not sure if I quite follow your argument here,
Simply that it was not universally the only consideration in building
or stringing a theorbo. This is not to say that it wasn't
important. As I said, players and builders must have had a wide
range of desires and motivations. And not everyone had to be heard
in choruses in the Paris opera or with trombones in San Rocco in
Venice.
there is no evidence to support A or G double rentrant theorbos
between the mid 70s and low 80s.
And no evidence against it. There may be all sorts of practical or
artistic reasons for drawing conclusions about smaller theorbos, but
the appeal to history comes up empty.
This whole discussion has glossed the complicating question of pitch.
I have made the point before that we would expect an instrument
designed to be played at AF6 to have strings about 83% the length
of an instrument designed to be played at A=390. If so, all other
things being equal, you'd expect that a 76cm instrument designed for
AF5 to be tuned the same way as a 92cm instrument designed for
A=390. Whether this was historically the case is a matter of
speculation.
--
