> > Corbetta's harmony is by no means unique. > > > It is a feature of the > > strummed repertoire. Nearly all of Corbetta's dissonance can be explained > in > > this way. > > I simply do not agree with your view on Corbetta's style. Your explanations > do not make much sense to me. When I say his harmony is very unusual, I do > not think of one ore two strange chords. No open mind? I hope you'll forgive > me that I do not take your judgement as a yardstick.
Sorry - but I can't take your judgement as any sort of yardstick whatever that is meant to mean. To what are you referring if not to the unusual chords? The 2/3 part counterpoint is fairly basic. Your suggestion that Corbetta included hundreds of letter in his tablature which are not intended to be played sounds like nonsense to me! You are completely oblivious to any of the practical implications of what you say - both as regards the printing of music in the 17th century - and stringing.. Your approach is entirely cerebral. These are the rules - nobody could possibly have done anything different. What I would like to ask you is whether you ever considered any alternative explanations before deciding on the one which you though was most appropriate. Had you even noticed that the chords are actually altered alfabeto chords for example? If you cannot even acknowledge this you inded have a closed mind. This could be an explanation as to why he has notated the music in the way that he has. As I recall I pointed out to you in a private correspondence that Corbetta's chords are not unique and that unusual dissonance is a feature of baroque guitar music. You seemed to be unaware of this - and a lot of other things too. > > Although he doesn't always put in the dots if you > > study the places where he does it is not difficult to understand what is > > standard. > > It is not logical. In your view we are dealing with a composer who wrote in > a highly advanced harmonic idiom. You have completely mistunderstood and misrepresented what I have said. I am saying that the unusual harmony is a direct result of the need to adapt the basic chord shapes to accommodate more elaborate passage work. I am not saying that he sat down and invented a whole new system - like Webern! His style arises entirely from his experience of playing the instrument - for which he writes with consummate skill. Obviously he was influenced more generally by the developments which were taking place around him. This would prompt him to experiment with what is practical on the guitar. As far as the dots are concerned if you take the trouble to study the places where he has remembered to put them in it is possible to formulate some general principles which give some guidance in other situations. I can't really go into details. As you say these messages are getting too long. Your colleague at the Conservatoire didnt go through the music of Kapsberger and decide that because the dissonance doesnt agree with the rules for accompanying a bass line in contemprary treatises it is wrong and should be eliminated. What she argues is that the rule books are very basic and to understand what musicians may actually have done in practice we have to study the music. You should start with the assumption that Corbetta has as far as possible notated the music in the way it is meant to sound and that he has explained his notation reasonably clearly in the preface. If he intended notes to be left out I would expect him to mention this - as it is an extremely unusual way of going to work. M > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >
