> > 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 didn’t go through the music of
Kapsberger and decide that because the dissonance doesn’t 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
>
>



Reply via email to