David,
I have to disagree with the prevailing opinion
somewhat: bigger is not always better. I speak from
some experience, owning both a gigantic theorbo (99cm
on the board(!), diapasons around 6 1/2 feet long) and
a smaller one (76cm fingerboard/119 diapasons).
Nowadays I use the small one for almost everything.
The large one FELT great when I played it in
ensembles. Big, booming bass, lots of all-around
resonance. But a huge hastle to lug around and a pain
to play. When, for convenience sake, I brought my
small theorbo, I felt lost in the group. So, other
than ease of transport/playing, why would I want to
use this small one for groups? Simple: the sound that
actually gets out front. I listened to recordings of
myself with these groups, sometimes even rehearsals of
the same piece played by turns on both instruments.
I could tell that the big one had a richer sound, but
this was only when I was accompanying a single singer
or instrument with no other bass. Whenever there was
more than one other person involved - be that two
singers/players or even just a bowed bass playing
along, much of that richness was covered. There was
one area in which the smaller one clearly WAS
superior, however: orchestral tuttis. With ol'
Frankenstein, I might as well have left and gotten a
bite to eat whenever there was a passage multiple
instruments. My small one cut right through the mix.
At some places, I've even learned to hold back when I
use the small guy so that the sound doesn't get too
annoying.
And another benefit to the small one: what it lacks in
tonal richness in sparse passages is more than made up
for by the fact that I can play more intricate
accompaniments there.
I should mention strings: I use some gut and some
synthetics on my big theorbo, all synthetic on the
small one. Possibly with all modern gut, my
experience would be different.
This reminds me of what I was always told about
evolution of guitar in undergraduate school: the
modern classical guitar wit high tension is an
"improvement" over the 19th century style because it
is "so much louder and better" sounding. This simply
isn't true. The 19th century guitar has a special
character all its own. Not as deep or rich, but
punchier and just as easy to hear as the modern
guitar.
Of course there's another area of theorbo playing in
which the small one does better, too: solo music. I
used it for all of my Hurel CD.
Chris
--- David Rastall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear collective wisdom.
>
> I'm finding out about some of the size variants
> available in
> theorboes. For example, I've been looking at one
> which is 79 cm
> playing length on the fingerboard, and 159 cm on the
> diapasons. That
> seems quite a long neck extension since, with 10
> frets on the
> fingerboard, the body is not exactly huge. I've
> also seen theorboes
> with larger bodies with eight or nine frets on the
> fingerboard and
> around 120 cm.diapasons: large body, short neck
> extension. So my
> question is: which is more important to the
> production of a full,
> substantial theorbo sound...long playing length, or
> a large body? Or
> is it a combination of both?
>
> Another continuo question: is it appropriate to
> ornament the bass
> line? Either in basso continuo situations, or as
> part of the bass
> part of a Baroque lute piece?
>
> Thanks for your thoughts on this,
>
> David R
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.rastallmusic.com
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
