Stewart, Thank you, I'm going to have to print your fine letter in order to keep track of the terminology.
You are right, I was confused in my assumption. But I won't say I'm fully with the musical logic. > 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. So that means that the theorbo isn't just a "bass lute", the middle courses are tuned as a lute but the upper one are two drop an octave? (My original assumption, as you said, was the extra courses on the long neck, but as I first read this I assumed a drop of an octave on all courses, but a re-reading says the third and below are as on a lute). That makes the octaving of the strings logical, but still confuses me. > > If you have a renaissance lute in G, with its first course tuned to > the G above middle C, you have a lute. OK, got that. (although I'm still not clear on the definition of a Renaissance lute in contrast to a Baroque or Medieval one, assuming all to be gut fretted and allowing the differences of tuning and number of courses). > > 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. OK, I'm with you. > > 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. Actually, knowing strings, I was assuming the addition of an octave below the g', or a much smaller instrument in length that would take g'', but I see I was wrong. > > 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. OK, I'm a retired computer programmer at that level where we wrote the internal code. Re-entrant has a meaning to me that may be different than your use in the musical sense. But there may be a parallel. Do you mean that the theorbo tuning allows you to "run up" the instrument and re-enter the melody at a lower pitch? Ah, a Satori or Epiphany. I can't find the place in your message where you said the theorbo came to match the male voice, so it must have been another message or a message from another. I couldn't understand why one would do that instead of making a "baritone" lute by changing the length. Revelation, by dropping the first, and maybe the second, course an octave one can use the same instrument at a different basic pitch level. A bit complicated for "free play", but if notated not so bad. One uses the lower registers with a retuning, and the third or second course becomes the treble, and the first a re-entry into the melody. Logical, the string changes would only have to be for the treble (now baritone) as the others would be in range. Hell Stewart, you got me thinking and I always get in trouble when I do that (and drink beer). Let me know if I'm close to understanding the instruments. > > 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. When I had the unfortunate set of LaBella strings sent with my "flat back" kit, and tuned to e' at the top, yet with a lute spacing of relative intervals, did I have a lute (no wisecracks about the flat back and the fixed frets from purists)? Is the absolute pitch a defining criterion (don't see how it could be, absolute pitch wasn't prevalent in the days of the lute)? > 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. That message is carefully saved among my archives. I'll not look at it now, a number of messages to go through and I don't have the privilege of staying up all night tonight as I have a harp rehearsal tomorrow. Best, Jon
