> Note that the highest sounding string of the theorbo (e') > is the _third_ string, not the "top" string (d') which > is really a second lower. This cooresponds exactly to > the highest string of the angelique (also e'). > Placement on the instrument is different, but it > produces the same sound.
OK, see what you mean. > These companellas are > very frequently used by French theorbo composers to > great effect. Yepp, I know. I play them with much joy. > In fact, it is possible to play a descending step-wise > scale all the way from the theorbo's highest open > string (e' in our case) to the bottom of its register > using only THREE stopped notes. I'd prefer FOUR stopped notes like this: |---a-------------------------------------| |-------r---------------------------------| |-a---------------------------------------| |-----a-----------------------------------| |---------r-a-----------------------------| |-------------d-r-a-----------------------| | a /a //a ///a 4 5 6 7 | > (This makes for a scale of 17 notes - just like the open strings of the > angelique). The thing is, campanelle are preferably played with thumb and index. That's the technical advantage of re-entrant tuning. It is, however, inappropiate on the angelique. The same scale would be played like this: |-a----------------------------------------| |---a--------------------------------------| |-----a------------------------------------| |-------a----------------------------------| |---------a--------------------------------| |-----------a------------------------------| | a /a //a ///a 4 5 6 7 8 9 X | That requires an entirely different playing technique. > I have done no scientific research, but it seems that > the key of G major (for theorbo in A - this should be > the key of C for our lesser theorbo) may possibly be > the most favored key employed by theorbo composers. > Works in G major make up by far the largest collection > of theorbo pieces in the Saizenay MS., as well as > among Charles Hurel's suites and it appears very often > in the Goess MS (don't have time to go through it > personally at the moment). That may pass for Kapsberger's Libro primo and possibly for his fourth book, too. With Piccinini, however, it's different. And if you take a look at pieces for the theorbo by de Visée in Saizenay ms. you will notice that there are more pieces in D minor than in G major, and almost as many in G minor (the latter being a technically more demanding key without campanelle on open strings). > For someone who really got a kick out of these > overlapping notes on theorbo, it would be a small step > to add some extra strings to take the place of the > three fretted notes I mentioned above, arrange all of > them stepwise rather than bouncing back and forth > re-entrant-wise and - viola! - an angelique. Well, yes. But that's the point, stepwise instead of re-entrantwise is just a different thing. > So? These are just surviving instruments. They tell > us very little about the mass of instruments that > didn't survive. Would you mind to tell us what you know about those masses of non-surviving angeliques? (Just kidding.) > We're the blind men in a room each > describing an elephant from out own perspective. I'm > proposing what most likely occured. Like one of those blind men in a room, I suppose. > I guess Moreno would know from research and > experience... He says in the liner notes to 'Pieces > de theorbes Francaises,' "The angelique may > undoubtedly be classed in the family of theorbos." Read on. He says that's because theorboes have "two sets of tuning pegs", i. e. two pegboxes. That's all. According to that, swan neck lutes, archlutes, liuti attiorbati, would also qualify as theorbos (which they did, indeed, to contemporaries). Furthermore, he says, is the angelique distinct from the theorbo as well as the lute in that it is tuned differently. -- Best, Mathias -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
