Well - it is one great big can of worms no doubt about that! But it does seem to me, and this is even more the case with the 5-course guitar, that most people just interpret the evidence in a way that supports their pre-conceived ideas as to how the music should sound. This is in the end a matter of personal taste. There is no accounting for tastes today - and probably wasn't in the 16th and 17th centuries either.
The one question which everyone seems to overlook today is "What would have worked best in practice in the 16th century with the instruments and the kind of strings available?" Double stringing and octave stringing improves the quality of the sound and I think we need to consider carefully whether leaving out one string of a course really was "standard" practice. Most of the 4-part chords in 4-course music are just the same old chords we know and love in 5-course music - without the 5th course. This just means that different ones will be 6/4s. We have absolutely no idea whether everyone played the 4-course guitar with the same right hand technique as the lute, but my guess is that they probably strummed at least some of the 4-part chords with the thumb. After all the instrument would originally have been played with a plectrum and I don't suppose everyone suddenly started strumming in 1570 or whenever. I find it hard to accept that chords like the one at the end of the Rippe fantasy are specifically notated in that way because the chord sounds better with open courses and that everyone left out the bordon. In any case this argument doesn't really hold good for e.g. the equivalent of chord I in alfabeto which on the 4-course has the 2nd, 3rd and 4th course stopped at the 2nd fret with the 1st open. There is surely a difference between what is acceptable in vocal polyphony and music for a popular instrument. We may not like 6/4 chords and octave doubling - but we probably wouldn't like a lot of other things about life in the 16th century - the complete lack of adequate sanitation for example! I have a nice quote about the French King Henry II - "After dinner he visits the said Silvius (i.e. his mistress, Diane de Poitiers ) .....and..seats himself upon her lap, a guitar in his hand, upon which he plays..." I'm not quite sure how he managed that but I don't think he would be too worried about 6/4 chords or octave doubling when doing that! Monica ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nelson, Jocelyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John Griffiths" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Vihuelalist Vihuelalist" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:36 AM Subject: [VIHUELA] 4c tuning > Everyone, > > Once I finally had a chance to read everything, Michael's article on 4 > course tuning and the comments made by others were very helpful to me, and > to my student as well. I really appreciate Michael's gathering of sources, > including the iconography. > > Since I'm working on some of the fantasies, I was especially interested in > the right hand technique Michael suggested on page 16, in which the thumb > is played on the 3rd course with the index finger above it. Michael points > out that this is a good way to pluck only the upper string of the 4h > course, and indeed, I find it a workable option. Between Michael's > article and John's comments on the courses and chord positions, we can see > 2 options for the musician, both with advantages and drawbacks: > > 1) The guitarist needs to perfect the ability to play one string of the > course according to the rules of counterpoint and the voicing of the > passage. This is an important skill for anyone who uses courses, I think. > This idea also has musical integrity and theoretical evidence, but might > not be so idiomatic to guitar literature. > 2) The guitarist can think of the courses the way John described it: the 2 > strings are meant to make up 1 sonic "whole." This seems idiomatic and > traditional, especially with strummed passages, but for some genres -- the > fantasies, as Michael shows -- it does seem to be lacking. > > (I don't mean to imply these are mutually exclusive approaches, or that > either Michael or John think they are.) > > But here's a possible 3rd option: At the risk of opening another can of > the slimy, squirmy creatures, are we really able to assume whether the > bourdon was placed higher or lower than the upper octave? When I played a > fantasy for Hoppy Smith last year on my 4-course guitar, his comment was > that he didn't know why I'd play the fantasies with the high string on > top, I believe for the very reason Michael put forward: contrapuntal > errors in voicing are quite glaring in this particular genre. Although > Hoppy agreed that the high string on top for the dances creates a bright, > charming sound, I did switch my bourdon to the highest (nearest to the > ceiling) position for the fantasies. > > Here's my 3rd option: until I'm wealthy enough to go around with a > different guitar for every tuning (not likely ever, but a guitarist can > dream), I consider bourdon placement for the most important pieces on my > program, and then also learn techniques to emphasize one string in a > course over the other, which can be helped by some fidgeting with the > string height at the bridge. This usually seems to work well enough, even > in the highly wrought fantasies. Perhaps 16th c. guitarists often used > only one of the strings in a course, but they probably also compromised in > these other ways, too. > > Best, > Jocelyn > > Jocelyn Nelson, DMA > Early Guitar, Music History > 336 Fletcher Music Center > School of Music > East Carolina University > 252.328.1255 Office > 252.328.6258 Fax > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ________________________________ > > From: John Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tue 5/22/2007 8:16 PM > To: Vihuelalist Vihuelalist > Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Early Music cover story > > > > Thanks Michael for your detailed response. The points you raise in > response all seem valid to me and serve to show the limits of our > knowledge, the limitations and ambiguities of the sources, etc. A few > of our observations, both yours and mine, show how our evolving > contemporary experience of early instruments, string technology etc, > are also informing our historical perspectives. > > > Good wishes > John > > On 23/05/2007, at 1:19, Michael Fink wrote: > >> Hello John, >> >> How great to have you joining the list! And I'm honored and >> grateful that >> you have read, analyzed, and thoughtfully commented on my paper. >> >> I have a few responses, interpolated below. >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Michael >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 10:14 PM >> To: Vihuelalist >> Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Early Music cover story >> >> Dear Vihuela list, >> a few days ago William Bartlett contacted me following an exchange >> of ideas >> about Bermudo etc on this list. I thank him for contacting me >> because I >> didn't know that this particular mail group existed, so I have just >> joined >> up. >> >> I also downloaded and read Michael Fink's paper with interest and >> have a bit >> of feedback. This business of stringing and tuning still has a bit >> further >> to travel, but it is good that someone has attempted to gather the >> information together. So, thank you Michael. >> >> At the same time, I don't think we have it exactly right yet. The >> insuperable problem is that we still have insufficient information >> to be >> able to arrive at definitve conclusions. That means that we finish >> coming to >> our own "beliefs" about what was practised centuries ago. >> Beliefs, as distinct from knowledge, are more personal, and are often >> strongly coloured by our own views on the world. >> >> Right. I don't mean to sound doctrinaire, but I do wish to take a >> strong >> stand on what I've found and pieced together -- that is, until >> something >> more persuasive can be found and pieced together. >> >> What I would specifically like to comment upon in relation to >> Michael's >> paper has to do with taking a broader view of "what the world >> sounded like" >> four hundred years ago. Michael gives us some wonderful examples of >> cases >> where the four-course guitar needed to be simultaneously strung for >> re-entrant tuning and for use with bourdons. Somewhere in all of >> this is the >> fact that there was an increased desire during the sixteenth >> century to play >> serious composed music on an instrument probably originally >> conceived for >> (a) different function(s). The sixteenth-century repertory shows >> the great >> skill of composers and arrangers to make sophisticated music for a >> rather >> simple 4-course instrument with real limitations. For musicians >> with real >> concerns about hearing 6/4 sonorities where root- position >> harmonies are >> preferable, the solution was to buy a lute or a vihuela with more >> strings. >> If you couldn't, you probably just had to make do. The ear can >> learn to >> accept this compromise. >> >> That's a possibility, but Mudarra and Fuenllana studiously avoid >> the 6-4 >> chord at cadences. A lute or vihuela will take the player to a >> different >> sort of sound (not to mention a different, far broader, often more >> difficult >> repertoire). Having played a 4-course guitar for a little while >> now, I can >> say there is something uniquely intriguing in its sound. In a way, the >> instrument also challenges you to bring more out of it, which could >> lead to >> getting "tricky," especially with the fourth course. (This last is >> personal, >> of course, not musicological.) >> >> On the specific conclusion that Michael makes on pages 6-7 of his >> paper >> about Mudarra, I would suggest considering interpreting Mudarra's >> comment >> "The guitar... has to have a bourdon on the fourth course" as >> primarily >> aimed at getting players not to play with a fully re-entrant fourth >> course >> (both strings high). This to me is more important than whether the >> strings >> are unison bourdons or with bourdon + octave string. So, Michael, I >> would >> rethink or extend your paragraph on page 7 about the 1547 >> guitarist. He may >> have had both strings requintadas before reading Mudarra's statement. >> >> Ah, this is probably the most controversial point in Spanish guitar >> music >> and theory. Reading only Mudarra's instruction with no other >> references, one >> can easily *infer* that the common practice was a fully re-entrant >> instrument, somewhat like that of Cerreto. This has been a common >> belief >> since at least 1981 (Gill). However, Tyler (1980) and (2002) did >> not buy >> into it, relying instead on Bermudo for tuning information before >> discussing >> Mudarra. My point is that we do have a contemporary theory source >> we must >> consider: Bermudo. If, in fact, the fully re-entrant tuning was common >> practice in Spain at the time, how can we account for Bermudo >> overlooking it >> in his detailed explanation of stringing and tuning the guitar? On >> the other >> hand, if the fourth course was usually tuned with both a bourdon >> and a high >> octave string (according to Bermudo), why would Mudarra find it >> necessary to >> tell the player the instrument must have a bourdon? >> >> Incidentally Michael, your example of the temple viejo on p. 7 >> needs the >> lowest course to be a tone lower, F rather than G. >> >> Thanks, John. I'll fix it today. >> >> The difference between unison bourdons and octaves needs also to be >> considered in terms of timbre rather than counterpoint: the purpose of >> octave strings is for sonority not for pitch. Nobody wanted to hear >> parallel >> octaves all the time. The purpose of octave strings is to reinforce >> the >> harmonic series of the bourdon, and to add duration to thicker gut >> basses >> that otherwise die away very quickly. My own experience with gut >> strings in >> the bass is that is also much harder to get two bass strings from >> gut that >> are in tune all the way along their length. My experience with >> Peruffo's >> loaded gut basses on my vihuela was not good when I tried unisons, but >> fantastic using the loaded gut bass with an octave string -- in >> terms of >> both pitch and sonority. Getting the tension right between the >> octave and >> the bourdon is part of the trick. If you hear the result as a bass >> plus and >> octave string, then I suggest the tension is not right. I think it >> should >> sound as one single blended sonority in which the sound of the >> octave string >> is but part of the total harmonic series. >> >> Yes, I understand the advantage of high-octave strings on the lower >> courses >> of a lute. However, the shorter gut strings of a guitar would be >> much less >> muddy, I imagine. So, the function of a high-octave string on its >> 4th course >> may not be for "orchestration," as on the lute. The possibility of >> easily >> playing each of these strings separately or together opens the >> possibility >> of an undocumented performance practice. However, I emphasize >> *undocumented.* >> >> I would also be more cautious about the speed with which the new >> overtook >> the old around 1600. We still have very large lute books being >> compiled and >> or published after 1600, and many players/ composers who were not >> interested >> in changing to the latest fashion. >> I would therefore suggest that Michael's interpretation of Cerreto's >> comments on the guitar need to be considered in a broader context. >> Naples was not fast in taking up the new Florentine style, and >> Neapolitan >> instrumental music appears to have maintained its densely Spanish >> character >> into the early 17th century. To me, Cerreto is telling us that the >> guitar in >> 1601 was still being played by some people with its old re-entrant >> tuning, >> perhaps in the same way as a century or more earlier when it >> replaced the >> original guitarra (ie. >> gittern = small lute) as the treble instrument in lute duos such as >> those in >> the Petrucci books. >> >> Thanks, John. I yield to your erudite knowledge of Neapolitan >> music, and >> I'll look into revising this part of the paper. The re-entrant >> tuning may >> have been "old" in Naples. However, I don't think that we can infer >> that >> that was the case throughout Italy. In discussing the Brussels >> Conservatory >> ms (MS Lit. XY no. 24135), ca. 1570, Tyler gives no indication of >> tuning(s) >> suggested by the musical contexts, so that needs further study. On >> the other >> hand, the four "fantasias" by Barberiis (of Padua), published in >> Venice in >> 1549, all require a low-octave string on the 4th course for a >> proper bass >> voice in certain chords. >> >> In the continual process of revising our earlier opinions, I also >> recommend >> reading Renato Meucci who has recently published an important new >> study >> about Neapolitan guitar construction and evolution at about this >> period: >> "Da `chitarra italiana' a `chitarrone': una nuova interpretazione". >> Enrico Radesca di Foggia e il suo tempo: Atti del Convegno di >> studi, Foggia, >> 7-8 Aprile 2000, ed. Francesca Seller. Lucca: Libreria Italiana >> Musicale, >> 2001. 37-57. >> Also, Francesco Nocerino, who has found an inventory of lutemakers >> workshops >> in 16th century Naples: "La bottega dei `violari' >> napoletani Albanese e Matino in un inventario inedito del 1578". >> Liuteria, musica e cultura, 19-20 (19992000): 3-9. >> >> I have this paper, but I must confess I have not yet waded into it. >> I shall, >> however, when I work on the revisions mentioned above. >> >> Sorry for such a long e-mail. I usually write much more briefly as >> time >> pressures are constantly restricting me. >> Good wishes, >> John >> >> >> Thanks, again, John for taking your time and mental energies to >> address my >> work. I'm very grateful -- Michael >> >> >> >> On 20/05/2007, at 0:43, Michael Fink wrote: >> >>> Appropos, I have just completed a paper on this topic, "Stringing and >>> Tuning the Renaissance Four-Course Guitar: Re-Thinking the Primary >>> Sources." I have posted it to my website as a free download. Go to: >>> >>> http://www.guitarvihuela.com/Ren_guitar_tuning.htm >>> >>> I would welcome any and all feedback! >>> >>> Michael >>> _________________________ >>> Michael Fink >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> _________________________ >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Professor John Griffiths > Faculty of Music =95 The University of Melbourne 3010 =95 Victoria =95 > Australia > tel (61+3) 8344 8810 =95 fax (61+3) 8344 5346 =95 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > This e-mail and any attachments may contain personal information or > information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of > copyright. Any use, disclosure or copying of any part of it is > prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or any > attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any > attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this e- > mail is received in error please delete it and notify us by return e- > mail. > > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > --
