Dear Stewart,
I agree with some of what you say (in particular perhaps Sanz was
expressing a desire for the most 'modern' style even if still composing
some pieces with bourdons) but I think you overlook an obvious
possibility when you write '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. There must
be a difference in sound, or guitarists would not have strung their
guitars that way. The only reason I can think why it was done, was so
that players could catch just the high octave with their right-hand
thumb, which would be a huge advantage when playing campanellas.'
The other reason for the disposition of the pair, and one which I think
is more significant, is that the string struck first with the thumb
tends to predominate. So that on the lute, where a more procrustean
adherence to the rules of counterpoint/voice leading might have been
expected, it is the bass (the lower) of the octave pair which
predominates whereas on the guitar with its peculiar tuning, the upper
of the pair tends to be heard primarily thus allowing an ambiguity
which can deceive the ear.
I'm really not convinced about selecting which octave of a pair to
pluck, not so much that it can't be done - it clearly can - though with
trouble if the passage is rapid, but on the basis that there seems to
be no evidence that this was early practice. Or have I missed a vital
source? - I'm sure I'll be told if so.
rgds
M
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, Stewart McCoy <lu...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
From: Stewart McCoy <lu...@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: [VIHUELA] Invertible counterpoint
To: "Vihuela List" <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Saturday, 5 February, 2011, 16:46
Dear Monica,
Just for the record, I have played Sanz' Pavanas por la D on my baroque
guitar. I have done so with bourdons and without, and I have to say
that
I find the piece unconvincing without bourdons. The campanella passage
following it is a different kettle of fish, and sounds fine without
bourdons.
In a recent email you mentioned Gordon Ferries' recording of this
piece.
I have looked out the CD, La Preciosa, DCD34036, and listened to his
performance of Pavanas por la D, and come to the same conclusion: the
Pavanas is unconvincing without bourdons. There is a passage towards
the
end of the piece, where Sanz takes the melody up the neck on the lowest
strings. The effect is lost without bourdons.
You are right to say that the upper octave notes of the 4th and 5th
courses will sometimes sound at the same pitch or above notes on the
other strings. However, this is more of a problem if bourdons are not
present, because, if these notes are heard only at the high octave,
they
can only be heard as a second treble. If bourdons are present, you hear
the high octave notes in a different way. They are heard as the first
harmonic of the bourdons, and hence become part of a bass line. This
reduces the impact of any interference with the treble notes.
Lute players used octave stringing, of course, and although this
troubled Dowland (see his comments in Varietie), it doesn't seem to
have
bothered anyone else. When you have the 4th, 5th and 6th courses of the
lute in octaves, as was the norm in the 16th century, you sometimes
have
the effect you describe. 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.
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. There must be a difference in sound, or
guitarists would not have strung their guitars that way. The only
reason
I can think why it was done, was so that players could catch just the
high octave with their right-hand thumb, which would be a huge
advantage
when playing campanellas. Unfortunately there will still be times when
the bourdon will sound in campanellas, which is presumably why Sanz and
others gave up bourdons altogether.
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.
Best wishes,
Stewart.
-----Original Message-----
From: [1]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
[mailto:[2]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
> [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
2. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
