Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 12:50:27 +0000
(GMT)
From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
To: howard posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks for this; I now better understand your position with which, you won't
be surprised, I don't agree and I'll carefully explain why not. But just before
responding, to ensure we don't write at cross purposes, let me take you down
the short by-lane of the history of this thread.
It came about after someone wrote saying they were obtaining a theorbo and
asked views as to wether the nominal A or G tuning was the most useful. A
number of people responded including David Tayler who additionally said that
normally theorbos in the A or G tuning should have string lengths in the range
77-82cm which seemed bizarre to say the least and contrary to what I believed
most players understood (even if they actually played smaller instruments for
convenience). Indeed, he went on to make the astonishing claim that 'anything
over 82cm is a speciality instrument for people with huge hands....'. I
therefore asked him for early evidence of such small theorbos in the A or G
tuning with both the first and second courses an octave down ('double
reentrant'), since the overwhelming early evidence (see below) was for such
theorboes to be in the high 80s to 90s. I'm still waiting for
it.................... perhaps you have some?
In subsequent messages I gave more information (you must have missed it): -
how such small instruments were strung (just top course an octave down or at a
much higher nominal pitch eg D), - early written evidence of theorbo sizes, -
examples of solo music for such instruments - and gave Lynda Sayce's website
and Bob Spencer's article as providing more information. You may say that I
only refer to these articles because they support the position on theorbo sizes
which I take - which it is true they do - but I'd welcome any contrary evidence
to test the case. It is important to come to these matters with an open mind
and a willingness to look at the actual evidence available, such as it is,
rather than merely indulging in empty rhetoric.
To return to your email:
SOME HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
As already said, I'm still waiting for David Tayler's and your own evidence
that small theorboes (say mid 70s to low 80s) in the A or G tuning were
generally strung as double reentrant. Regarding evidence to support the case
that such stringing only generally applies to larger instruments (say mid 80s
to high 90s), I had hoped the sources I gave were sufficiently well known to
avoid me having to do more than refer to them, but obviously not.
The ones that come to mind include:
Praetorius (1620): Lang Romanische Theorbo:Chitarron). Scaled engraving
showing an instrument with six fingered and 8 long bass courses, fingered
string length 90/91cm. Tuning given as the theorbo G tuning (double reentrant).
Talbot MS (c 1695): English Theorboe A tuning (double reentrant), detailed
measurement and tunings given. Fingered string length 88/89cm (you tell us that
you have other information on the string length of this instrument - I'd be
grateful for it)
Talbot MS: Lesser French theorbo in D (double reentrant) string length 76cm.
Spencer's paper covers much of the evidence for theorbo stringing and sizes
("all this") and he does, in fact, mention that the long string length of the
early chitarrone obliged the first and second course to be lowered an octave
ie would have exceeeded the breaking stress (EM Oct 76, p. 408)
Regarding extant iconographic representations generally, clearly the larger
of the theorbos depicted are double reentrant but they can tell us little as to
where the precise cut-off point for single rentrant (small) theorbos occurs. It
is, nevertheless, interesting to note that when professional theorbo players
are depicted (eg The Musicians of Louis XIV (1687) Francois Puget, in the
Louvre) the instruments shown are generally large.
'POWER'
I'm really not sure if I quite follow your argument here, but you seem to
suggest that loudness and/or projection is not (and was not) an important, if
not crucial, feature of the theorbo. Leaving aside the practicalities of your
suggestion (how is one heard in ensemble? - as much an issue for the 'Old Ones'
as us today [see Lynda Sayce's website]), it runs directly counter to our
common experience that a longer bass string at the same tension and pitch as a
shorter will sound more 'powerful'. This is generally taken as the reason for
increasing the pitch of bass lutes (as Piccinni 1623 reports) which in turn
obliged the first course and then the second course to be lowered an octave; in
short, if there was no increase in 'power', why bother - why not just use a
lute in A or G?
DOUBLE STRUNG THEORBOES
This is an interesting diversion which neatly follows on from emails a few
weeks ago about plucking position of the right hand.
In brief, the message is that we should pay more attention to early written
evidence and take a much closer look at iconography evidence (from, say, 1600)
on the plucking position of the right hand. This clearly indicates a thumb out
position with the little finger much closer to, or on, or even behind, the
bridge than most are accustomed to do these days. One great advantage of this
is that relatively low tension double courses can be strongly plucked without
excessive string 'jangle'. I've even suggested this as the origin of the names
'lute stop' or 'theorboe stop' for the rank of harpsichord jacks closest to the
keyboard on English harpsichords.
Very few players use this technique nowadays, but I do see an awakening of
interest. Part of the problem is, I think, we've got so used to the mellow
sound of playing over or closer to the rose and the rather more metallic sound
of close bridge plucking may well take some time to be established - hence
perhaps the reluctance of many players to use large double strung theorboes.
Of course, the still common use of overwound strings also adds considerably to
the problem of 'jangle' but recent developments in gut strings may, at last,
see goodbye to these.
SIZE
Finally, I note that you say your small theorbo is 'louder than a lot of big
ones'; actually, I'd be very surpised if this applied to the all important
basses as well as the upper pitched strings in comparison with any decent large
instrument.
To summarize, there is clear evidence for stringing and sizes of double
reentrant theorbos in the A or G tuning having a string length between the mid
80s and high 90s; there is no evidence to support A or G double rentrant
theorbos between the mid 70s and low 80s. If you press me, I'd say that around
82cm is a reasonable cut-off point: instruments below this are small single
reentrant theorbos in A or G, or double reentrant if at a much higher pitch eg
in D.
Hope this is useful
MH
howard posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:44 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
> Not really what I wrote, but...
No; as I said, I was giving more information than you did.
> Perhaps I made assumptions as to the general level of knowledge.
> In particular I took it as read that nobody believed that A or G
> instruments with a string length in the high 80s/90s would not
> require the first two courses tuned down the octave; if this is
> accepted than the rest naturally follows.
Nothing that we've actually been discussing follows from it. Small
instruments strung single reentrant certainly doesn't follow from big
instruments requiring double reentrant stringing.
You made the emphatic but uninformative statement that "ALL the
evidence on theorboes with first two courses an octave down is for
instruments larger than the biggest you [i.e. David Tayler]
recommend." The obvious question was "WHAT historical evidence?"
since most of us know that there is no evidence correlating any
particular known instrument to any particular tuning or pitch. So
David Tayler and I both asked the question, David asking about
evidence of stringing/tuning of specific surviving smaller theorbos.
These were, of course, rhetorical questions to which the only
rational response was an acknowledgment that your statement about
"ALL evidence" was was unsupported.
> Bob Spencer's article in Early Music (available online) was one of
> the first papers to explain all this and, if you don't know it, it
> is still a good overview.
I'm not sure what you mean by "all this." Your statements on either
side of this sentence are about the effect of specific string
lengths on tuning, what's needed for the "most powerful sound," and
breaking points of strings. Spencer's article does not discuss these
things.
> In short, to obtain the most powerful sound from plain gut strings
> requires the longest possible string length which is ultimately
> governed by the breaking stress of gut of the highest pitched string.
There are two major problems with this statement, other than it's not
bearing one way or another on the actual question.
First, it's grounded in the assumption that "most powerful sound" is
the governing consideration in stringing a theorbo. This could
hardly have been universally true historically. Why even build a
double-strung theorbo if loudness is all you want? Yet the majority
of surviving instruments are made for double-stringing. Indeed, why
build the instruments under discussion at all?
An emphasis on loudness is not in keeping with what we know of French
baroque aesthetic generally, and wasn't it Mersenne who said the
archlutes in Italy were louder than French theorbos? I'd guess that
French theorbo tone was to Italian theorbo tone as French
harpsichords were to Italian ones.
Players may have been more concerned with tone or playability, or
with what would fit in a carriage and not get rained on. They might,
like David Tayler, have been concerned with an extra .3 kilos of
weight, for what reason I don't know. The range of motives and
preferences of theorbists across Europe in 1635 or 1695 had to be at
least as wide as our own, and almost certainly wider.
Second, as we all know, size isn't everything. Bigger-is-louder is
true only if all other things are equal. My Hasenfuss Raillich model
is a smallish theorbo (perhaps a "toy" at 81 cm) but louder than a
lot of big ones. It's basically the same model as Paul O'Dette's,
which I imagine a lot of listers have seen. I actually had mine made
81cm instead of the standard 82cm because I wanted to be able to
string it in single-reentrant in A, at 415 (I do know something about
the relationship of length and tuning), which I did for a few
months. It worked with a nylon high string; I wouldn't have risked a
gut one, and I wouldn't have tried it at all at 440.
So you can insist, as adamantly as you like, that a theorbo below a
certain size (you've never said what size) had to be strung single-
reentrant -- or that a double second course in octaves was/is
impossible-- but it isn't helpful to claim that there's evidence to
support those views, or to assume that anyone who disagrees with them
simply doesn't understand and should be referred generally to
previous discussions or the literature on the subject.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.
--
