Dear Stuart
I don't really want to waste any more time going over this with you. It
must be obvious that I don't agree with most of what you are saying. Also
as I have said in my last message most people have more sense than to start
taking sides between Lex and myself. No doubt he will be thrilled to have
your support. (I'm a bit surprised at what you say since you seemed to be
very happy with the idea of octave stringing on the 3rd and 4th courses in
some of your reviews - for which there is no evidence at all).
It doesn't matter too much though, as long as
the real bass notes are present. Imagine how the music of Hans Newsidler
or Francesco da Milano would sound, if there were no bourdons on the
4th, 5th and 6th courses.
What you seem to be unaware of is that the music is intabulated in a very
different way from lute music with the emphasis on the 5th course being used
as a treble string rather than a bass string - and not just in campanellas.
> Why should the lower string of an octave pair on the baroque guitar be
placed on the treble side? This is the other way round from the lute,
and seems counter-intuitive.
In fact most of the evidence for this practice comes from the middle of the
18th century. As I pointed out in a previous discussion, this may be
because in the 17th century the guitar probably more often had a re-entrant
tuning of some sort and it was therefore not necessary to mention the
reverse stringing.
Unfortunately there will still be times when
the bourdon will sound in campanellas, which is presumably why Sanz and
others gave up bourdons altogether.
Unfortunately there are a lot of other places too which is probably why the
bordones were dropped altogether when more elaborate music began to be
played on the instrument.
Sanz rightly pointed out that bourdons do not help trills. I come back
to the question in my last email: how often do we see ornament signs
notated on the 4th and 5th courses of the guitar, and could this give us
a clue about how the instrument was strung.
That question is really beside the point as many sources (including Sanz)
indicate that ornamentation should be add ad lib. As Matteis says it is
tedious for the composer to have to add them.
Have a nice weekend.
Regards
Monica
-----Original Message-----
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
Behalf Of Monica Hall
Sent: 05 February 2011 12:49
To: Lex Eisenhardt
Cc: Vihuelalist
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Invertible counterpoint
I was not thinking of the type of strummed 3-part writing in closely
spaced chords.
The problem is the randomness. Some parts of the bass will be above
the
treble and others will not.
The point which you consistently ignore is that the bass will always be
above the treble as you like to put it because the high octave strings
on
the 4th and 5th courses overlap with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
It would be helpful if you could indicate an example in Bartolotti and
Foscarini where you think the randomness would be a problem.
As Stewart noticed, the bass line in Sanz's
Pavanas can be a problem. Should we first instruct the audience to
bear in
mind that the bass will rise above the treble.
I wonder whether Stuart has actually tried to play this or listened to
anyone else doing so. The point is that it will rise above what you
think
is the treble anyway. The "bass line" is doubled in octaves and crosses
the
chords
which accompany it in the "treble" part.
I have listened to several guitarists using re-entrant tuning
for the Pavanas and still I do not hear the f (of the fourth course)
in
bar 3 as a bass note.
This is because you are not supposed to. The note F is not part of the
bass
part. It belongs to the
upper part. The bass line goes G# - A in those two bars.
As a matter of interest I have put an example of the opening bars of
this
piece transcribed in three different ways on my page at
www.earlyguitar.ning
Unless you place the bordon on the bass side of the course you are going
to
hear the notes in the upper octave.
To me it is wishful hearing.
To me this suggests that you have heard it played by classical
guitarists so
many times that you can't adapt to the fact that it sounds different
with
both the re-entrant tuning and bordons. You are very inflexible in the
way
which you listen to music.
This story, together with David's, proves once more that it depends
much
on how the player brings out the harmony. It is clear that some
players
produce a very airy and undefined sound in strumming. The same
probably in
the 17th century. But for the discussion we should concentrate on
plucked
textures, in the music of Foscarini, Bartolotti or De Visee.
I think you should leave De Visee out of this discussion because he
clearly
didn't use a bordon on the 5th course.
In plucked
textures composers are usually much more sensitive to inversions.
They are also much more sensitive to octave doubling. It is the random
doubling of what is really an upper part which is so irritating - at
least
to me.
This harpsichord Lex would perhaps have been shocked if someone else
would
have played it (someone with the same first name, for example).
Maybe!
I can
assure you that I have met many people who can tell exactly what
inversion
is played. Plucked, but also strummed. And just like today, some
people
will have had better ears than others.
It is a good job I didn't name and shame the famous harpsichord player
then.
Monica
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
