Thanks for this; I'd be grateful for a fuller response to cover all the points in my previous email to you. Nevertheless I'll respond to this one below: INFORMATION I now see from your mention of my guitar stringing email that you seem to equate 'information' solely with figures whereas I also include other things such as tunings, examples of solo music, etc which you do not count as information - we'll bear this in mind. BOB SPENCER'S & LYNDA SAYCE'S PAPERS In fact, Bob Spencer gave examples of large double reentrant theorbos in A and G (with string lengths around 89 and 91cm - the same ones I gave details earlier). He also cites Mace on tuning of single and double theorbos in G and A and says that large theorbos need the two highest courses down the octave and not just the first (ie smaller theorbos just had the first course on actave down p. 412). Similarly, Lynda Sayce does in fact provide much information including sizes of some large extant theorbos. TALBOT MS Talbot fortunately gives more than the minimum number of dimensions and it is quite possible to recreate the instrument based on what he gives at a string length of between 88/91cm (as Michael Prynne and later others) without making unecessary assumptions as David did (I'm told it's mostly to do with measurements of body to body/neck joint or to the end of the tongue and not by excluding the rose diameter). David doesn't mention reentrant tuning type (Talbot gives double reentrant in A for his measured instrument) and I would surprised if Lynda Sayce doesn't tune her 78cm English theorbo as single reentrant - but you'll need to ask her. Incidentally, 78cm seems an ideal size for a single reentrant theorbo - mine is 76cm which I now feel is marginally too small. EVIDENCE In short, the evidence I gave still stands and, little as it is, is indeed overwhelming (100%). I still await David Tayler's or your own evidence that small theorboes (say 75 to 82cm) were generally tuned as double reentrant. PITCH I don't quite understand your last point on pitch but if you are equating maximum acceptable breaking stress of solo and continuo instruments, I refer you to my recent email to Rob McKillop ... it contains figures too. WHEN SINGLE OR DOUBLE REENTRANT? Whilst no one denies that it is physically possible to string a small theorbo in A or G as double reentrant (especially using modern overwound strings), the question I, at least, am trying to address is what would have been expected historically. Early sources, when bothering to mention the matter at all (eg Piccini, Mace - cited earlier), stress that smaller instruments are single reentrant and that double reentrant is only employed when the breaking stress of the highest pitched string (in this case the second course) is approached. I can, of course, well understand that if you play a small theorbo in an unlikely historical stringing (ie A or G double reentrant) you'll feel an almost Pavlovian obligation to defend your decision but surely you should be doing this on this basis of modern convenience and personal preference and not on the unsupportable position that it's somehow following historic models. MH howard posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martyn Hodgson wrote:
> 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 - Again, there was no information; just your own conclusion that smaller theorbos were not tuned double reentrant. You may be confusing these posts (I've just reread them) with your post about guitar stringing, which actually contained information. > 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 they don't. Spencer doesn't correlate single-reentrant stringing with size. Linda Sayce does, but like you, states only her conclusions. > 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. It's not that the sources aren't well known. It's that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. It boils down to "big theorbos were strung double reentrant because they had to be; smaller theorbos didn't have to be, therefore they never were." This makes sense only if you assume that necessity was the only reason for double reentrant, an assumption which is hardly justifiable (If it's correct, you've proved that the tiorbino never existed). Players obviously liked its possibilities and gleefully exploited it in solo music. > 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) The Talbot MS doesn't actually give the total length, does it? David van Edwards calculated the Talbot "English Theorbo" at 77 cm. See his explanation at http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/47.htm He made a "Talbot" theorbo for Linda Sayce. I gather from her web site that its fingerboard strings are 80cm (thus scaled up or down from the original, depending on your point of view) and she strings it single reentrant in G. > Talbot MS: Lesser French theorbo in D (double reentrant) string > length 76cm. If we have one 76cm French theorbo in double reentrant D and one 77cm English Theorbo in double reentrant A, we scarcely have a small- theorbo trend, let alone "overwhelming" evidence. > 'POWER' > I'm really not sure if I quite follow your argument here, Simply that it was not universally the only consideration in building or stringing a theorbo. This is not to say that it wasn't important. As I said, players and builders must have had a wide range of desires and motivations. And not everyone had to be heard in choruses in the Paris opera or with trombones in San Rocco in Venice. > there is no evidence to support A or G double rentrant theorbos > between the mid 70s and low 80s. And no evidence against it. There may be all sorts of practical or artistic reasons for drawing conclusions about smaller theorbos, but the appeal to history comes up empty. This whole discussion has glossed the complicating question of pitch. I have made the point before that we would expect an instrument designed to be played at AF6 to have strings about 83% the length of an instrument designed to be played at A=390. If so, all other things being equal, you'd expect that a 76cm instrument designed for AF5 to be tuned the same way as a 92cm instrument designed for A=390. Whether this was historically the case is a matter of speculation. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. --
