Or to wish away historical evidence for theorbo sizes..........
--- On Sun, 1/6/08, howard posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: howard posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [LUTE] Theorbo sizes (was Choosing Strings) > To: "Lutelist" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Date: Sunday, 1 June, 2008, 10:09 PM > Sorry, I missed this post for a week, then inadvertently hit > the send > button in mid-thought. > > Discounting the idea that there's a relationship > between historical > theorbo sizes and variations in pitch, Martyn Hodgson > wrote: > > >> It seems to me that much of the problem about > pitches , especially > >> in the 17thC and especially in Italy, is the > heavy, if > >> understandable, reliance on church organ pitches > and, to some > >> extent, statements by such as those by Doni (eg > relating these > >> pitches at Naples, Rome. Lombardy/Florence and > Venice in discrete > >> semitone steps). > >> Domestic music making, especially with lutes, > might well have not > >> reflected such a significant and discrete > variation > > Which is to say, you want to disregard the verifiable > evidence and > rely on no evidence at all. This is essential to your > argument, > because if you argue the sole determinant of historical > theorbo size > is maximum volume and that all non-toy theorbos had a > string length > greater than 82cm, you pretty much have to deny that there > were > enormous variations in pitch. > > So as not to be mysterious for other listers, I should > explain that > Doni did indeed write of five discreet semitones (thus, a > range of a > major third) in Italy, which seems suspiciously convenient, > but is > supported by considerable evidence, and indeed the range > was even > greater. Pitch in Naples is thought to have been around A > 370 > (modern F#), though I can't recall what that's > based on; the 17th- > century church organ in Rome tend to run between 384 and > 391 (roughly > modern G), though the Sistine Chapel organ was a half-tone > higher; > organs in Bologna and wind instruments made in Venice are > at around > 466 )(modern Bb). An organ in Padua is at 393 (modern B), > and two > 16th-century organs in Sienna are at 517 and 528 (modern C, > > roughly). So there's evidence for a variation of a > fourth from the > lowest pitch in Italy to the highest. > > Let's assume that these pitch levels are real; > there's no compelling > reason not to. Let's also assume a strictly > arithmetical > relationship between length and pitch, which should be > close enough > even if it's not exactly right. And let's assume > I'm a player who > works in a church in Bologna, visiting Rome to hear > Carissimi's > oratorios, and I'm really impressed with the famous > Roman theorbist > Clyde Schwartzbaum and his instrument, the 89cm Buchenberg > now in the > Victoria and Albert Museum along with all the other highly > prized > Victorias and somewhat less valuable Alberts. So I visit > Buchenberg > and tell him I want an instrument with just the same > relationship of > length to pitch. He quickly consults Arto's online > calculator and > figures that he has to scale the instrument down to 83% of > its Roman > size to play at Bolognese pitch. This would mean the 89cm > string > length would wind up shortened to 73cm. "I can't > do that," he says. > Martyn Hodgson would think it was a toy." > > "Just make the loudest instrument you can," I say > before I give him a > deposit and go back to Bologna. Two months later, I get a > Federal > Express package from Buchenberg containing a shawm. > > And suppose we assume that lutes were built for A 370 in > Naples and A > 517 in Sienna. All other things being equal, a Siennese > instrument > would need to be 72% of the length of a Neapolitan one. An > 86cm > string length in Naples would be equivalent to 62cm in > Sienna. So is > your 62cm instrument a Siennese theorbo or a Neapolitan > archlute? > > Can local pitch variation explain historical sizes? Not > without a > lot of dancing around to explain the evidence. For one > thing, there > were big theorbos made in Venice. Meant to play in nominal > G? Made > for Roman players? > > But if you don't assume that all theorbos were built as > big as the > physical limits of string technology would allow, you have > far less > to explain. A player may not have considered loudness the > sole > factor. He may have wanted a smaller theorbo so he could > use thicker > strings and get a mellower sound. He may have wanted an > instrument > that was easier to lug around. > > The one thing that makes no sense is to simply wish away > the range of > pitches that existed historically because it doesn't > mesh with our > preconceptions of what a theorbo should be. > > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
