I really appreciate all the comments and feedback. Here is how 2 of the pieces sound on baroque guitar in âconventionalâ french baroque stringing.
https://youtu.be/RuTddcGOLRg <https://youtu.be/RuTddcGOLRg> > On Jan 7, 2018, at 4:40 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > It seems that this message and Martyn's which preceded it were sent to > the baroque lute list but not to this list. In the interests of > continuity I am forwarding my reply with his message below. Enjoy! > ----Original Message---- > From: [email protected] > Date: 07/01/2018 15:58 > To: <[email protected]>, "Daniel Shoskes"<[email protected]>, > "VihuelaList"<[email protected]>, "Baroque Lute List"<baroque- > [email protected]> > Subj: Re: Yet more Re: [VIHUELAR) Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five > course guitar stringing > > I can't possibly respond to all of this. You seem to be so muddled > that it is difficult to grasp what you actually mean.. > I think your interpretation of the tablature tuning checks is simply > wrong. The fact that much of the music does not use the sixth > unstopped > course,(or for that matter the seven unstopped courses of the mandora) > is irrelevant. The tablature tuning check for the gytara indicates > that it has 5 stopped courses and one unstopped bass. You are muddling > up two different facets of the manuscript. None of this has any > bearing > on how the 5-course guitar was strung. > > My analysis of the keys of the pieces is as accurate as I could make > in > the time available.The pieces which use the sixth course are in C > major > or flat keys and the ones which do not are almost all in A major, with > a few in D major. The manuscript was obviously copied over a period > of time. The pieces from f.76v form a new section with pieces > numbered > 1-56, probably copied at a later date. The manuscript is a very > complex document. > > You also seem to be confused about Stradivarius. It is not clear > whether these instruments are lute shaped or figure of 8 shaped. The > surviving patterns are of the neck and pegboxes only. The stringing > instructions for the one of them indicate that the high octave strings > are on the thumb side of the course. > > I will have to leave it there. > > As ever > Monica > > ----Original Message---- > From: [email protected] > Date: 07/01/2018 14:48 > To: "Monica Hall"<[email protected]>, "Daniel Shoskes" > <dshoskes@mac. > com>, "VihuelaList"<[email protected]>, "Baroque Lute List" > <[email protected]> > Subj: Yet more Re: [VIHUELAR) Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course > guitar stringing > > Dear Monica. > My responses are interposed below in bold, new roman and italic for > clear differentiation (sadly, though, not in my preferred typeface for > the others on the list version which only goes to them in standard > typeface and no spacing but, from what Wayne tells me, it'll reach you > with correct typeface etc) > I think we must still agree to disagree about much of > this!.......................... > Best wishes, > Martyn > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Daniel Shoskes <[email protected]>; > VihuelaList <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, 6 January 2018, 16:41 > Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Further to Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five > course guitar stringing > > Unfortunately the folio numbers are not very clear in the pdf. Some of > the pages seem to have been cropped on the right- hand side when the > film was made and the recto and verso of each folio is on a single > page > of the pdf.-[MH: Yes - it's a shame about this]- I will try to refer > to the correct ones. > To recapFolio 48r is headed âFundamenta Gytarraâ. -[MH: Indeed, and > not > as just 'Cytarra' (or Chytarra) as correctly pointed out in my last] > - The tablature checks indicate that this instrument has five stopped > courses and one additional unstopped bass course. Folio 48v is headed > âAccordo Gytarra et Mandoraâ. -[MH: This is an incorrect assumption. > The overwhelming bulk of pieces of pieces in this MS are clearly > written for just a five course instrument (see my telling note > earlier > about the transcription for a five course instrument - I naturally > suggest for gytarra for this version of the same (Losy?) > piece presented earlier for a six course instrument, the mandora).-You > are right â I agree that these are two different instruments. The > Gytarra has five > stopped courses and one unstopped bass as shown in the first section > of > the tablature. - > {MH: No, you've got this mixed up, as explained earlier and again in > this mail. The gytarra has five courses, the madora six. The theorboed > instrument is probably a theorboed guitar a la Strad or similar...... > - The Mandora has seven unstopped basses as shown in the > second section of tablature. It is to be assumed that the stopped > courses of both instruments are tuned in the same way. It is not for a > five course gytarra or a six course mandora as you seem to suggest. > -[MH: This is a mistaken view of what the source tells us since, > as already pointed out, most of the pieces (some 85% of them) in the > MS are for just a five course instrument. You have assumed that the > part between the first set of double bar lines refers equally to the > gytarra and to the mandora. As already explained, this is mistaken > because the overwhelming bulk of pieces in the MS are, in fact, for > a > five course instrument (thegytarra) rather than for the common mandora > tuning with six courses. I examine this matter again below]-I donât > think either of these two examples refer to an instrument with > just five stopped courses. > -[ MH: as said above, you appear to have overlooked contrary > information about the tablature already brought to your attention > earlier.] -On Folio 96r there is a table of alfabeto chords and a > tablature tuning > chart headed âAccordo aliudâ (?). If that is right I assume it means > âanother tuningâ but my Latin or Czech is pretty basic. In the table > of > chords, the open courses to be included are only shown for Chord E; > Chord is very odd â Indeed, as pointed out, they are wrong - a B > flatminor chord with G on the first course. There are stroke marks on > thelowest line. -[MH: No - this is a simple bowlderisation and > inaccurate representation of nominal five course guitar tuning (as > employed in the following aria set in tablature AND with Alafbeto - > see > my earlier note about this feature in this particular piece which has > been overlooked). Clearly the tuning diagram showing an octave between > the open first and fifth fret on the third course makes no sense - > neither does that between the third fret of the second course and the > open third course! The scribehas simply got the courses wrong...... It > is the following aria (on f. 96v not on 96), identified in my last, > this piece clearly confirms this piece as being in the ordinary > nominal > guitar tuning intervals - and not any known lute (or mandora!) tuning. > Themandora never employed Alfabeto as appears in this work-As far as > the pieces are concerned, whether or not the unstopped sixth > course is used seems to depend on the key of the piece. Those on f. > 48v- f.59v which use the sixth course are mostly in C major or keys > without sharps, whilst those from f. 60r âf.76v are in A major or D > major i.e. keys with sharps where there is no call for a low G > natural. > -[MH: Surely you can't expect us to agree to this procrustean > interpreation?You singularly overlook thebulk of all the pieces also > in > C to F and those in G and D from later in the MS.And I've already > clearly identified where the same (Losy?) piece > was tellingly transcribed - which surely disproves your suggestion: > 'a single counter example ....disproves a proposition......!']-From f. > 76v the pieces are numbered starting with 1 which seems to > represent a new âcampaignâ of copying. None of them use the unstopped > G > â they could be for 5-course guitar or whatever instrument you wish. > There is nothing that lends weight to your suggestion that the gytarra > is a figure of eight-shaped instrument. It is could be lute shaped or > figure of eight - we simply don't know. > -MH: See my earlier:Particularly relevant here is the Rondeau C. > Loschi > (Losy?) on 51V > which employs the sixth course: however, the same piece is again > written out later in the collection (Rondon f.75) but, tellingly, > without the sixth course (g) and with the errant note simply > replaced by the open third course. Precisely the same practice > mighthave also been readily followed for the few earlier pieces (fol > 48v to 57)by a player with only a five course instrument. Finally, F > 96 > actually has a table for guitar Alfabeto giving both > the usual shorthand symbolsand their tablature interpretation. This is > followed (96v) by a piece in mixed notation employing both tablature > and Alfabeto symbols (in fact, symbols B, F and G). Whilst telling us > nothing unambiguous about theinstrument's shape, it is yet more weight > to suggest a normal guitar shaped instrument of the period was > expected > for the Gytarra.Regarding the heading on 48v, this actually reads > 'Accordo Gytarra > et Mandora' (ie tuning of gytarra AND mandora) - not Cytarra > A Mandore (perhaps the pdf is a poor copy?). This precise wording > also clearly implies different instruments but both having the same > basic tuning for five courses - otherwise it would have been 'Gytarra > aliterMandora', or similar, to show that two different words were in > that casereferring to one and the same instrument.I, of course, > understand that this says nothing explicit about the > shape of the gytarra (Just because something is called a "cytarra" > doesn'tmean that it is a figure of eight shaped insturment), but I > think it highlyunlikely to be lute shaped like the mandora - else why > have the very similartwo instruments at all - but with a wholly > different name?Accordingly, I think, on the balance of probabilities, > that the MS's gytarra was,indeed, probably shaped differently to the > lute - and most likely as contemporaryearly eigteenth century guitar. > Moreover, surely by the early eighteenth century there was no longer > the earlier confusions over the renaissance gittern/guitar shape. I > therefore see no compelling reason to suggest that, by this > laterperiod, MS D-189 required a gytarra that was not just an early > eighteenth century gitarra/guitar shaped instrument. > instrument. ................. We may simply have to agree to disagree > over this. > -[MH: Further, the numerous gytarra pieces in Cmajor later in the > MS to > those you mention in your reply could very easily be played with a low > sixth course (as the {Losy?} example well demonstrates)if these later > pieces were truly, as you suggest, also for a six course instrument.I > think not - it is really stretching remote possibilities too far > over probabilities to suggest otherwise. Simply overlooked is that the > majority of pieces after F. 67 are in keys where low G is at least as > helpful as for the works on in the following keys of G, F. Cand D - > BUT > the scribe writes the G at the upper octave: a distintive feature of > the guitar, butnot not of the period mandora....., etc. Good practical > examples include: the Echo on f68 where the penultimate bar would > better with a low sixth course G - but the scribe writes a high third > course, guitar appropriate g and numerous similar examples.-As far as > I > can see nothing in the manuscript sheds any light on the position of > the high octave strings in the 18th century. -[MH: I disagree - see > numerous highly relevant observations both in > this, and earlier, notes]disagree- see numerous relevant observations > above]-As far as I can recall I have never agreed that eighteenth- > century placement of the octave strings might well not be the same as > the earlier seventeenth century usage. On the contrary the fact that > two mid-eighteenth century > sources (Corette and Rousseau in Diderotâs Encyclopedie)-MH: Both late > for comparison withD-189 and further not guitar speciaists]-to the > placement of the high octave strings on the thumb side of a > course suggests to me that this practice persisted well into the > eighteenth century whatever the style of the music. Corette's music > seems to be fairly standard Galant stuff. > - MH Not comparable with the works in D189 or Diesel, et als it isn't > ...... or by the large madora reperoire of the early/mid eigteenth > cenurt it aint]-Monica > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Original Message---- > From: [email protected] > Date: 05/01/2018 14:26 > To: "Monica Hall"<[email protected]>, "Daniel Shoskes" > <dshoskes@mac. > com>, "VihuelaList"<[email protected]> > Subj: [VIHUELA] Further to Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course > guitar stringing > > Dear Monica, > > Thanks for this. > - Further comments on MS D 189 Moravske zemske muzeum > -The numbering on the document (by the archivist?) is of folios - not > pages or pdf pages - I think it better to use folios to > avoid ambiguity (eg are your pdf pages in the correct folio > sequence?). > Folio 48 (presumably your pdf 49) is headed ' Fundamenta Gytarra'Folio > 48v (your 50?) is headed 'Accordo Gytarra et Mandora' > The principal tuning (given between the first set of double bar > lines) is for a six course mandora or five course gytarra. However, > thelow sixth course is only employed for the first few pieces (around > 15% only of the entire collection) and the remaining pieces employ a > five course instrument (whether a guitar or a mandora).-Particularly > relevant here is the Rondeau C. Loschi (Losy?) on 51V > which employs the sixth course: however, the same piece is again > written out later in the collection (Rondon f.75) but, tellingly, > without the sixth course (g) and with the errant note simply > replaced by the open third course. Precisely the same practice might > have also been readily followed for the few earlier pieces (fol 48v to > 57) by a player with only a five course instrument. Finally, F 96 > actually has a table for guitar Alfabeto giving both the usual > shorthand symbolsand their tablature interpretation. This is followed > (96v) by a > piece in mixed notation employing both tablature and Alfabeto symbols > (infact, B, F and G). Whilst telling us nothing unambiguous about the > instrument's shape, it is yet more weight to suggest a normal guitar > shaped instrument of the period was expected for the Gytarra. > Regarding the heading on 48v, this actually reads 'Accordo Gytarra > et Mandora' (ie tuning of gytarra AND mandora) - not Cytarra A Mandore > (perhaps the pdf is a poor copy?). This precise wording > also clearly implies two different instruments but both having the > same > basic tuning for fivecourses - otherwise it would have been Gytarra > aliter Mandora, or similar,to show that two different words were in > that case referring to one and thesame instrument.I, of course, > understand that this says nothing explicit about the > shape of the gytarra (Just because something is called a "cytarra" > doesn'tmean that it is a figure of eight shaped insturment), but I > think it highly unlikelyto be lute shaped like the mandora - else why > have the two instruments at all?Accordingly, I think, on the balance > of > probabilities, that the gytarra was,indeed, > probably shaped differently > to the lute - and most likely as contemporaryguitar ................. > We may simply have to agree to disagree over this. > - Further comments on Placement of high octaves on the lower courses > of the five course guitar-I had thought, following our earlier > discussion those few years > back, that you agreed that eighteenth century placement of the > octave strings might well not be the same as the earlier seventeenth > century usage.But let me stress: this is not really just about a > 'satisfactory > bass line' (and you know that we agree that this is not a > necessary feature of much seventeenth century guitar music) but more > to > do with therather different musical style and texture of the later > (early/mid) eighteenthcentury period.Regarding the placing of the high > octave string on the bass side as generaleighteenth practice, the > only source from the early eighteenth century (the rough date of D- > 189) > which suggests this are Stradivari's (c 1700) instructionswhich, in my > view, reflects earlier seventeenth century practice.The placement of > the octave string on the lower courses was raised > in my earlier about MS D-189 because, since we do know the placement > ofoctaves on the mandora (ie on the treble side of a course), > this sourcetherefore adds some further weight to the placing of these > on the instrument(s)actually expected for this musicFinally and again, > we may have to agree to disagree: - in this case about > central/northern > European guitar tuning in the eighteenth > century for music like that in D189 as well as the interesting > works > by Diesel later in the century and others.......................Best > wishes for 2018. > Martyn > - ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: VihuelaList <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, 4 January 2018, 15:12 > Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course guitar > stringing > Dear Martyn, Ralf and anyone else who is interested > First of all, the instrument referred to as a "Cytarra" or "Gytarra" > on > p.49 of the pdf (it's easiest to refer to these rather than the > original folio numbers) appears to have 5 stopped courses and one > unstopped bass string. If that is the case it is not a 5-course > guitar. > This should really be referred to as either chitarra (Italian) or > guitarra (Spanish). Some of the tablature pieces are for a 5-course > instrument with a sixth open bass. > The tuning chart on p.50 is for the "Cytarra A Mandore" which > suggests > to me that they are one and the same insrument â a 5-course > instrument > with 7 unstopped basses. The piece in tablature which follows is for > this configuration. > Just because something is called a "cytarra" doesn't mean that it is > a > figure of 8 shaped instrument. > The tuning chart on p. 97 â ignoring the first interval â the > first > three intervals are the standard unison intervals of French tuning > checks; however the last one indicates that the fifth course is in > unison with the 3rd course stopped at the 2nd fret. There is no > indication that there is a low octave string on the 5th course. The > first interval is odd; the first course can't be in unison with the > 3rd > course stopped at the 5th fret. I can't really read the heading â > but I > wonder if it is Accord a whatever the Czech word for unison is. > As for placing the high octave strings on the thumb side of a course > â > Ruiz de Ribayaz mentions this in "Luz y Norte musical (1677). The > fact > that several 18th century sources indicate this explicitly suggests > that it was the standard way of stringing â regardless of whether > to > our ears today this creates a satisfactory bass line. It is all a > matter of how you strike the strings. Having the high string on the > thumb side enables you to use the high octave string on its own more > easily as Corrette indicates. > A happy New Year to everyone. > Monica > ----Original Message---- > From: [1][email protected] > Date: 04/01/2018 11:33 > To: "[2][email protected]"<[3][email protected]>, > "[4][email protected]" > <[5][email protected]> > Cc: "VihuelaList"<[6][email protected]>, "Baroque Lute List" > <[7][email protected]> > Subj: Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course guitar stringing > Dear Monica, > Comments on D 189 Moravske zemske muzeum > We briefly discussed this interesting MS some four years ago - > partly > in the context of the placement of the octave strings on the fourth > (and fifth) course of the five course guitar. I also recall posting > something on Wayne's baroque guitar list (or was it Early guitar. > ning?....) around this time. I was especially interested in the > stated > link in this MS between (aka mandora) and the guitar and possible > implications for placement of the high octave strings on the fourth > (and fifth?) course. > This MS contains pieces for five course guitar, mandora/callichon, > and > the viola di(a) gamb(a). Folio.3 has tunings for a five course > instrument which the MS calls the 'Calledono' and folio 48 (gamba > pieces and blanks between) gives elementary instructions for the > five > course guitar ' Fundamenta Chytarra'. > Of special interest is folio 48v headed 'Accorde Chytarra et > Mandora' > which unequivocally relates the two instruments and gives the > identical > tuning in note names for both: a, d, g, h(ie B), e. Especially > note > that the note names for each course are all given as low case (even > the > extended basses, see below) and there is no octave or octave > stringing > indicated - accordingly from this alone, no conclusive judgements > can > be made whether the source requires re-entrant or low bourdons, or > what > arrangement for bass stringing.. > This is followed by instructions for tuning seven addition bass > course > (presumably a theorboed guitar and/or mandora - both instruments not > entirely unknown of course) from sixth down to twelfth course > (notated > by numbers 6 through to 12): g, f or f#, e, d, c or c#, h(B) or b > (Bb), a. However only the first musical example employs these > additional low basses - and even then only as an alternative to > fingered fifth course which is also notated - presumably meant to > illustrate the practice. > Playing the music I was struck by how similar they pieces were in > texture to contemporary works for mandora and also the guitar works > attributed to Logy and also, and especially, those by Nathanial > Diesel. > It all made me wonder if the high octave on the 'bass' side was as > general as we all nowadays usually suppose? From the texture of the > music I'm confident that the Diesel is for a low octave on the bass > side - it's also not that much later than the attrib Logy pieces. So > I > wonder if in German speaking (and Nordic lands) around this time (ie > early/mid eighteenth century) the practice may have been closer to > the > 5 course mandora where the low octave is certainly on the bass side. > This paper below discusses some possible sources of Logy's > works [8]http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Musicology_Today/Musicolog > > > > y_Today-r2004-t1/Musicology_Today-r2004-t1-s77-95/Musicology_Today- > r200 > 4-t1-s77-95.pdf > Placement of high octaves on the lower courses of the five course > guitar > The sources which clearly indicate the high octave on the 'bass' > side > of the five course are all eighteenth century: principally > Stradivari's (c 1710) instructions for stringing a sort of theorboed > guitar; Diderot in 1757 and Merchi in 1761. A couple of iconographic > sources may, or may not, indicate the earlier placement continuing > into > the eighteenth century ...... > The placement of the high octave on the 'bass' side in the French > (aka > Corbetta) tuning has nowadays been generally accepted and, in some > circumstances, may seem to resolve some problems of voice leading > etc - > conversely it can also do exactly the opposite! My view is that for > much seventeenth century music, voice leading jumps etc resulting > from > a fully re-entrant or French tuning are simply a part of the > instrument's novel texture and style, but that in the more treble > and > bass orientated works of the eighteenth century (eg the above) the > bass > string of the fourth (and fifth) course is more suitable if on the > 'bass' side of the guitar > This is much based on my own experience in playing Diesel, the > 'Losy' > guitar works, D-189 MS and some other late 'guitar' sources on the > mandora (with its bass strings on the bass side). In my view this > arrangement gives a much more satisfactory musical result for the > style > and period of this later music. But, of course, this is something of > a > subjective judgement........... > Martyn > From: "[9][email protected]" <[10][email protected]> > To: [11][email protected] > Cc: VihuelaList <[12][email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, 3 January 2018, 20:28 > Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Moravsky Manuscript > > The music in tablature appears to be for 5-course guitar. There are > a > few 5-part chords which could be strummed but it seems to be mainly > in > lute style and perhaps mid 18th century. How do we know that the > music > is actually by Losy? Which library owns it today? > The rest seems to be for mandora or gallichon. Martyn may know more > about it if he has read this. > Monica > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
