Dear All,
Just a comment on the more general "what is an archlute?" question, in
terms of the surviving instruments and music:
Robert Spencer's article (1976) distinguished between the liuto
attiorbato and what I tend to call the "continuo archlute". The liuto
attiorbato seems to have been especially popular in Venice in the 1630s
and 40s and large numbers of them survive from the Sellas workshop.
They usually have 14 courses, all double, and string lengths of about
58/85 or 64/93 (two sizes a tone apart). I assume these are essentially
solo instruments. This is the instrument I associate with the music of
Piccinini and Melii.
The continuo archlutes appear later, 1660s-70s, and they are mostly
converted lutes with string lengths of about 67cm (double courses) and
single basses of about 145cm. I think Lynda Sayce has suggested that
these instruments were something of a Roman phenomenon, and indeed a low
Roman pitch would make sense of the size of these instruments - if they
are nominally in G we must be talking about a pitch at least a tone
below modern.
In modern times we have all kinds of hybrid instruments, small
single-strung liuti attiorbati, etc., and a tendency to play at a'=440
or a'=415, neither of which are really practical for continuo
archlutes. I think it is a pity to string any of these instruments with
wire-wound strings, since the design, with the extended basses, was
obviously intended to enhance the sound of gut strings. I suppose the
problem for the modern continuo player is that there are no modern
orchestras which play at a suitably low pitch.
When I hear the single-strung, wire-wound, small archlute I wonder why
pretend it is a historical instrument? The electric guitar is very
versatile, you can play at any volume you want, seems like a good idea
to me - oh, I forgot, it's not lute-shaped.
Best wishes,
Martin
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
