Martyn,
Indeed, the Liste archives give ample exemples the 'Pittoni case' is
an unsolved problem. Of course you know, the problem is not only on
page 43, but on almost every page of this interesting from several
points of view publication. I've played in concert one of the sonatas
and have a score of it, and now I've examined the whole volume again.
There are several types of scalic passages. The ones before cadences
with lips of a seventh presents no problem at all, they are idiomatic
to any instrument of the time. But there are many others which are
broken around the second course. Some are explicable by common
practice of braking passages, say, like in transcriptions from one
medium to another - eg. JS Bach's own converting traverso flute part
to a flauto dolce part in one [or more] of his cantata, or many
adaptations of violin music to a traverso flute in the XVIIIth C. But
some others seems less hit home and it's either Pittoni's laziness to
get the 'proper' tone on the 3rd c. in high position or he had the
second in octave. In this case a matter of 'taste' in evaluation is
inevitable...
On the other hand Pittoni is a virtuoso and he knows well the very
'tiorbistic' campanella devises and is using them readily, often
high, using the 1st, the 3rd and the 4th c. (but I spoted also
campanella with 2nd). Sometime the campanellas are just neighbouring
with the 'spoiled' scalic passages ...In fact almost any possible
situation you can finde on the 44 + 40 pages of quite dense music.
There is no point for citations, it would have to be a long paper
including a fair number of statistics - not for a mailing liste.
I do not have an easy answer but I feel the second course in octave
would greatly _pacify_ most situations, at the same time not creating
a bright conflict in passing from the 1st to the 2nd c. As to the
sonic qualities of the so called 'toy theorbo', as I sad, it would be
a sort of 'big baroque lute' (a tone lower), nothing, really nothing
strange.
Besides, I have some other observation on music of the time and
lutenists/theorbists position within, which may add life to the
concept. How much of such solo music survived? - you know, very
little. And why? Becouse virtuosos might play anything at hand,
including the violin music. Having an instrument in A with 2nd c.
with the high octave - well, a hipothetical instrument - one can play
straight from the violin part, it will just sound and octave lower,
without any transposition. The same of course may concern an archlute
players.
Look for example at Maurizio Cazzati, ''Correnti, e balletti per
sonare nella spinetta, leuto, o tiorba; overo violino, e violone, col
secondo violino a beneplacito…'' opera XXX, Bologna 1662. Obviously,
only string parts in music notation exists. Italians on the list may
help, but for now I understand it as if Cazzati created his pieces
for 'spinetta, leuto, o tiorba', which now one can play them on bowed
strings, too.
Worth to bring back at this point is the Harrah/Spencer MS with
Italian anon. archlute concerti notated in treble (solos) or bass
(continuo) clef on one staff, or SL Weiss able to play 'violin
concerti straight from their notation' (Baron). Anyway, the exchange
of repertoire seems to me almost axiomatic at the time. No need to
publish it in tablature. The less paper and transmission techniques,
the better. In the end they were improvising much more then we now.
Perhaps then, there is no just ONE 'theorbo'?
Thanks for yours and Others attention to this longish epistle,
Jurek
_______________
On 2008-02-04, at 10:51, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Thank you Jerzy.
I take it you're referring to the hypothesis that the occasional
leap in a scalic passage played on the 2nd and 3rd course of a
double reentrant theorbo (say, as found in Pittoni 1669, eg last
bar page 43 in da Chiesa volume) might possibly suggest there could
have been octave stringing on the 2nd course. Pttoni writes for a
theorbo in A.
As you'll probably know, this was discussed some time ago (see
archives) and no concencus seemed to emerge as to wether one just
accepted this whenever it occurred or wether he did indeed employ a
high octave on the 2nd (or some other device? eg putting a low
octave on the 3rd!). You'll not be surprised that I fall into the
first camp and my and others views will be found in the archives.
But in short, as with similar 'discontinuities' in much baroque
guitar music, I believe that the 'Old Ones' weren't over concerned
about these occasional leaps (indeed, contemporary music for other
instruments, eg Corelli, sometimes employs wide leaps as a
compositional effect). The important thing for me (and this is, of
course, subjective) is that there is a clear sense of the melodic
and of the bass line and I find that with the firmer thumb stroke
on the bass line and/or allied with the continuo Pittoni calls for
(organo or clavicembalo) there is no real sense of any strange
harmonic inversion.
The bar on page 43 also illustrates another problem: if one accepts
an octave on the 2nd, where does it all end? - since here the
scalic passage, both ascending and descending, crosses all three
top courses: there has to be a discontinuity somewhere; wether it
be between the 2nd and 3rd or 1st and 2nd. Note also that at the
beginning of this bar he completes the previous ascending phrase on
the same course (3rd at fret 7) and then plays the same note on
course 2 (fret1) to start the next short phrase. This, I suggest,
shows he made a concious choice to start the next phrase at the
lower octave - in short double reentrant.
Personally, I rather like the octave leap at the end of the
bar....................
MH
Jerzy Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martyn,
All this is very persuasive, but what about the story of a double re-
entrant instrument with double strings and the second course in
octaves, in G or A?
From my sketchy calculations it appeares it must be an instrument of
about 74 cm (stopped), considering on one side the breaking point of
the high octave of the second (the _e'_) and the musical quality of
the 6th (or 7th) course. As a theorbo it's a toy instrument, useless
(?), but in therms of say a baroque d-m lute, with which it shares
the tessitura, it is a huge one. In this case such a theorbo would
have the 5th and the 6th (+ the 7th?) in octaves as well.
Someone said that already.
Gratefull for comments,
Jurek
______________
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
