Dear Jon, Yes, I think you still haven't grasped the fundamental point about the tuning of theorbos, and it is causing you no end of confusion. Forget the long neck. The long neck is a complete red herring. A theorbo is simply a lute with the first course (or first two courses) tuned an octave lower. That's all it is. Nothing else matters apart from the tuning.
If you have a renaissance lute in G, with its first course tuned to the G above middle C, you have a lute. If you take off the first course, replace it with a thicker string, and tune it down an octave to the G below middle C, you have a theorbo. Same instrument, but different tuning. Where I think you are getting confused, is that you are imagining adding a string to the lute, which is an octave higher than the G above middle C, instead of an octave lower. It is true that theorbos generally had giraffe necks with an extra pegbox stuck on the end, and it is that feature which results in phrases like "liuto attiorbato" (theorboed lute). People associated the word "theorbo" with long necks and extra pegboxes. I think you're doing the same, but it's causing you no end of confusion. It's the re-entrant tuning which defines the theorbo, not the long neck. Just for the record, if you have a lute with a long neck and extra pegbox, and it keeps its lute tuning (G above middle C), you have an archlute. If you have the same lute with a long neck, and you re-tune the first course (to G below middle C), you have a theorbo. I hope that helps. If you still have a copy of my message "Double 1st (HIP message included)" on 7th January, do have another look at it, and see if you understand it differently now. Best wishes, Stewart. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:15 AM Subject: Re: Double 1st (HIP message included) > Gentlemen, I am confused. > > And I'm not embarrassed by my confusion, the number of instruments with > different names in the registry of lutes is a bit daunting. I am aware that > guitars, violins and cellos - and all sorts of other similar instruments are > categorized as lutes, and made by Luthiers. But within the close family > there are the citterns, the mandolas and the modern mandolin - although the > latter is quite different when played in the Appalachians. > > So what is a Theorbo, I know it is a lute with extra bass strings that are > longer than than the base length of the instrument (perhaps on a swan neck - > see, I do learn some things here <g>). Could there be a small Theorbo, > perhaps we could call it a "tenor Theorbo" with a shorter base length such > that one could "octave" the first and second courses and yet be within the > breaking pitch? Or does that instrument have a different name? > > I don't present argument, I merely ask the question so I can better > understand the conversation. One could easily design a smaller instrument > with a 1st course an octave above the g that is normal, and then octave that > g' as g. It would have a quite different timbre, but it may have been done. > The low courses, of course, would yet be tenor, but it is an interesting > thought. > > Enough, it seems to come down to nomenclature - and the differing attitudes > as to what is properly a lute. > > Best, Jon > > PS, a bass and a tenor can sing the same song in the same key, the timbre > may be different, but each is singing the music as he feels it. I'm sure the > "Old Ones" would have enjoyed the variations on their compositions that come > with the change of pitch and voice.
