Not surprisingly, Sanz indicates trills or mordents for the two lower
courses in the first two books:
* Marionas in two separate pieces
* El que gustare de falsas ponga cuidado en estos cromaticos
* Gallardas
* Espanoletas #3
* Pasacalles por la O
* Clarines y Trompetas
__________________________________________________________________
From: Monica Hall <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: Vihuelalist <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Sun, February 6, 2011 11:41:41 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Ambiguity
> Incidentally, earlier in this discussion I asked if there was any
early
> source which mentioned selective plucking of individual strings of
an
> octave pair - no response so far.
No - the only source which mentions it is Corrette in -can't remember
the
exact date - 1760 or there abouts. I think the fact that Sanz doesn't
mention this as an option is of some significance. His solution is to
change the stringing.
Incidentally when practicing Bartolotti's Ciaccona from Book 1 this
morning
I noted that there are three trills on the 4th course and one on the
5th but
obviously because of the left-hand fingering there are fewer
opportunities
to fit in ornamentation.
Monica
> From: Stewart McCoy <[1]lu...@tiscali.co.uk>
> Subject: [VIHUELA] Invertible counterpoint
> To: "Vihuela List" <[2]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> Date: Sunday, 6 February, 2011, 12:47
>
> Dear Martyn,
> Thanks for your message. I agree with what you say about the effect
of
> reverse stringing, that it causes the upper octave to be more in
> evidence than it would be with a more conventional (i.e. lute)
> stringing. Yet why should a guitarist have wanted the high octave to
> predominate? It must be that he wanted to hear the high octave as a
> note
> in its own right - a melody note - rather than merely enhance a bass
> note on a duff gut string.
> There are instances in lute music, where the upper octave of a
course
> is
> used melodically. My favourite example is the opening of Haray tre
> amours from Spinacino (Bk 2, 15v) which is notated as
> --------------------------|-----
> --------------------------|--2--
> --------------------------|-----
> --2--4--5--4--5--4--2--4--|-----
> --------------------------|-----
> --------------------------|-----
> but sounds as
> --------------------------|-----
> --------------------------|--2--
> --------------------------|-----
> --2--4--5--4--5--4--2--4--|-----
> --------------------------|--0--
> --------------------------|-----
> The high octave of the 5th course acts as a bass and a treble at the
> same time.
> Seventeenth-century guitarists wanted to exploit this possibility,
but
> unfortunately there were times when they wanted notes to be heard
only
> at one octave. Either they wanted just the low octave for a bass
note,
> and had to put up with the high octave interfering with the treble
line
> (as described recently by Monica), or they wanted just the high
octave,
> and had to tolerate unwanted bourdons creeping in below.
> The various ways of stringing the baroque guitar are attempts to
> overcome this basic dilemma. It seems that composers writing serious
> pieces for the guitar wanted to exploit the melodic possibilities of
> the
> upper octave notes, but felt hampered by the bourdons. Reverse
> stringing, having no bourdon at the fifth, or at the fourth and
fifth
> courses, are all attempts to purify the sound. As Monica says,
quoting
> Sanz, removing the bourdons will sweeten the sound. We cannot tell
from
> Sanz whether or not it was a new idea, but it certainly implies that
at
> least some guitarists were using bourdons in the 1670s.
> Unfortunately we have little evidence to know what each guitarist
did.
> I
> am grateful to Monica for writing:
> "The only reference to reverse stringing is in Ruiz de Ribayaz in
1677
> .. the earliest mention of the "French" tuning is in 1670 ..."
> Is that really all we have to go on? Is there nothing written about
> stringing before 1670? If that is the case, no wonder there is so
much
> controversy. Without evidence, we are forced to rely on our
intuition,
> and to try to glean what we can from the music itself (hence my
> question
> about trills notated at the 4th and 5th courses, and my mention of
high
> notes on the 4th and 5th courses in Sanz' Pavanas).
> Sometimes the answer is obvious. For example, in his recording of
music
> by Franc,ois Campion (Arion ARN68483) Michel Amoricis unfortunately
has
> a
> bourdon at the fifth course, which wreaks havoc with the
campanellas.
> Other times it is less clear what we should do. By coming to
different
> conclusions, we may be duplicating what actually happened in the
17th
> century, when guitarists will have had their own preferences,
depending
> on what music they were playing.
> Best wishes,
> Stewart.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martyn Hodgson [mailto:[1][3]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: 06 February 2011 08:55
> To: Vihuela List; Stewart McCoy
> Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Invertible counterpoint
> 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
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> [2][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
> --
>
> References
>
> 1.
>
[5]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.
uk
> 2. [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
--
References
1. mailto:lu...@tiscali.co.uk
2. mailto:vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
3. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
5. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
