But surely the 'barre' was an integral part of 5 course guitar from the
first: how else are many of the movable alfabeto shapes to be played?
Indeed, the technique was clearly highly developed: look at
Valdambrini's books of 1646 and 1647 for example.
MH
--- On Wed, 1/9/10, Chris Despopoulos <despopoulos_chr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
From: Chris Despopoulos <despopoulos_chr...@yahoo.com>
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: stringing and performance
To: "Lex Eisenhardt" <eisenha...@planet.nl>, "Vihuelalist"
<vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 1 September, 2010, 13:01
[It's likely] I would not argue that point at all. I'd say it
indicates that there was not a physical limitation of the hand in
taking on a more varied repertoire. It's the later stage I'm talking
about, in comparison to the earlier stage. The theoretical
difficulties were overcome, and the barre was accepted technique.
Sanz
includes it liberally in his laberinto. Likewise, if the advantage
of
6 strings had been sufficiently recognized at the time, I believe
any
theoretical impediments would have been overcome. Well, indeed that
did happen -- it just took a long time, and it seems to have
coincided
with (or at least reinforced) hearing the bass in the 4, 5, and 6th
courses.
cud
__________________________________________________________________
From: Lex Eisenhardt <[1]eisenha...@planet.nl>
To: Vihuelalist <[2]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 7:35:11 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: stringing and performance
[Perhaps] we should have a closer look at the early use, >1600 -
1620,
of the five-course guitar and the choice of alfabeto chords that we
find there. The number of barre's is very limited, and there seems
to
be a clear preference for 'open' chords, including unfingered
strings.
The other point I mentioned is the theoretical complication of
leaving
out the strings that do not belong to the chord (like for instance
the
sixth string in a D chord), for which alfabeto has no sign. Another
problem is the very frequent G minor chord, which would be far more
difficult to make than it is now (letter O).
Of course, in a later stage, when the guitar had reached great
popularity, the barre became part of the guitar technique.
Lex
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Despopoulos"
<[1][3]despopoulos_chr...@yahoo.com>
To: "Vihuelalist" <[2][4]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:48 PM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: stringing and performance
>
> I like thinking about the evolution from 4 to 6 strings. I'm
sure
we
> can only speculate, unless there are explicit statements made at
the
> time that we can uses as guides. Monica and Lex, you both use
words
> like "perhaps" and "likely"...
> I'm not convinced that the requirement of barre chords is an
> overarching impediment. The 5-course alfabeto includes barres,
and
> Sanz (for all his simplicity) often calls for them. Also,
12-string
> guitars exist -- modern ones as well as those reaching back into
> Mexico's past -- with music that includes barre's. (I don't
agree
with
> excluding the living relatives from the discussion.) If the
musical
> requirements of a piece ask for more strings, we have many and
> fantastic examples of builders adding on strings to meet the
> requirements... Or even adding on another instrument joined at
the
> hip. I don't see an argument for a physical impediment to
6-course
> instruments, either in construction, strings, or playing
capabilities.
> I see the impediment as conceptual, and not in any pejorative
sense.
> There's a practical tension between range and voicing that is
captured
> in this issue. The most difficult intervals to play on the
modern
> guitar are close intervals. Scordaturae exist to address this
issue
> because these voicings can be essential to a certain mood or
> expression. Re-entrant tuning is one way to address this issue.
But
> with re-entrance, you sacrifice range on the scale. I see this
as a
> practical issue, not a historical one. The simple fact is, I can
play
> and compose music on a guitar tuned in the Sanz style that I
cannot
> play or compose on a modern guitar -- and vis versa. The issue
is
> historical to the extent that practice emphasized different
things
at
> different times. But it's the practice that interests me.
> I also believe ("perhaps" it is "likely") that with the tuning
scheme
> we have for the guitar, 5 courses is the limit for re-entrant
tuning.
> Any more becomes redundant -- you have to worry about it when
> strumming, but it doesn't add anything new. So as long as
players
> think in terms of re-entrant tuning, they will not have any
interest
in
> a 6-course instrument. That interest can only arise when they
think
in
> terms of extending the range of the instrument, and that
extension
is
> necessarily either up or down in pitch. It so happens for the
guitar
> it was down. But to me it indicates that at some point the
practice
> shifted from using the close intervals of re-entrant tuning to
using
> the extended range of bass strings. And I'm sure that shift
occurred
> before guitars became single-strung. I'm also sure it did not
occur
> over night.
> In any event, you have to ask whether a bordon means bass, or
just
> loud. Or does it mean you get to choose? When talking about a
> transition in practice and construction, I'm sure you can argue
for
> whichever you feel is most appropriate for the situation. You
could
> use a timeline to assign probability to one approach or another.
But
> that is a false friend, because even Darwin would tell you that
> innovation isn't necessarily a smooth continuum. We can use
musical
> theory of the era, but that was also in transition -- I just
learned
> about a flame war between Monteverdi and Artusi that was not
unlike
> something you'd see on this forum. It was all about transitions
in
> taste, theory, and composition. What other guides do we have?
> Physically, we're pretty much the same as people of the era, and
our
> instruments are fairly close replicas. We can use practical
> limitations to guide us as well. In other words, what can you do
> convincingly on the instrument?
> I will add that for process and flow studies, the transitions are
very
> interesting. The boundary between still and boiling water, the
eddies
> and currents that arise before a flow becomes turbulent, the
explosion
> of forms when bicycles were first invented, or during the
Cambrian
> explosion of life forms...
> By the way, I see no incompatibility in the 150 years it took for
a
> 6-course instrument to become the norm. How long did it take for
5
> course guitars to come on the scene? Also, I believe there are
> contemporary examples of 4, 5, and 6 course guitar-like
instruments
--
> their popularity rests on the popularity of their reportoir at
least
as
> much as the problems or advantages of playing them. The 4-course
> guitar is in use today in Portugal, the Pacific, and in lots of
ukulele
> clubs sprinkled across the US. I think Mexico has an example,
and
even
> uses the old bridge style. Maybe these are decadant relative of
the
> original 4-course guitar, but my point is, we haven't killed it
yet...
> the evolution is still happening many centuries later. So 150
years
> don't put me off in a terrible way.
> cud
>
__________________________________________________________________
>
To get on or off this list see list information at
[3][5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:[6]despopoulos_chr...@yahoo.com
2. mailto:[7]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
3. [8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=eisenha...@planet.nl
2. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
3.
http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=despopoulos_chr...@yahoo.com
4. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
6.
http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=despopoulos_chr...@yahoo.com
7. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
