Carre first book is not dedicated to Elizabeth Charlotte. I suggested
this in my introduction after consulting someone in France and
considering the
options.
However subsequently I realized that the "Princesse Palatine" must
actually
be
Anna Gonzaga, the sister of the Duke of Mantua who was one of Corbetta's
patrons.
So Carre's book must have been printed some time after February 1671 when
the licences were granted.
That seems more likely indeed. Interesting.
This suggests that after 6th November Corbetta had some idea of what Carre
was planning to do and that in some way it clashed with his own interest
plagiarism?
I don't think there is much doubt that Corbetta's book is earlier than
Carre's.
I don't see why we should believe that.
Most of the rest of what Lex has said on this aspect of things is really
just wishful thinking.
I don't think he is referring to what anyone else did. In the previous
paragraph he has been explaining how to play the repicco variations. What
he is saying is that as well as his sonatas requiring the strumming
patterns
that he has described it is also necessary to play the music with a
bourdon
on the fourth course.
It is also necessary to have your latte macchiato in time.
I really don't see the link between the two, the repicci and the 'harmony',
required for his sonatas.
Is it 'which my sonatas also require' or 'as also my sonatas require'? Maybe
we need the help of an Italian native speaker. (I do)
If he thought the two strings on the 5th course in unison didn't make the
harmony his sonatas call for it is surprising he hasn't said so. Why
should he compromise? Do composers usually compromise?
Some certainly do. Corbetta probably had a colourful life. Gambling,
intrigues etc. He was cunning enough to survive.
I do not know of
anyone apart from Lex who has claimed that the tablature charts found in
some Italian books are only applicable to one method of stringing.
That is indeed amazing. Because everyone comes up with campanelas,
ornaments, and the idea that these charts could mean anything. Since the
publication of Gill's 1975 article and Tyler's book from 1980 the usual
solution has been to drop the bourdons (or actually just one....) because
they would sound bad in contrapuntal textures. And to facilitate campanelas.
As far as I know there are no unambiguous references to dropping bourdons
from the 17th century (also not Sanz?), for such reasons.
In his
article Lex has said "Corbetta's first book - which has not a single
campanela or cascading scalar passage fits perfectly into that tradition".
Nearly all of the music in Corbetta's first book is in alfabeto. The
tradition which fits into is that of music which is entirely strummed.
But there are also the pieces with treble and bass. In the tradition of lute
music. Without campanelas. To me the 'accordatura' and 'prova' charts from
this book are quite clear. If you would like to interpret them in 'a more
general sense', go ahead.
There is no reason why players should not have used different stringing
for accompanying or had another instrument on the bass part.
'There is no reason why' is not a particular strong argument. There could be
thousands of reasons you and I don't know of.
But If they used different stringing, sure one would be with bourdons
(Sanz). Also in the 1670s.
Do we know many references from guitar books, to using a second guitar for
accompaniment?
Lex
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
