On 24/01/14 9:19 AM, Gary R. Boye wrote:
Yes; interesting! We are only talking about Corelli's Op. 1 (Opp. 2-4 all call for archlute according to surviving editions--no mention of theorbo there). I suppose this could either reflect common practice in a city (Rome vs. Bologna/Venice) or publisher preference. Or just happenstance--what editions the publishers happened to copy.
I downloaded the Corelli Op.1 parts. What I find odd is the third part, labelled "violone o arcilevto." I can see how an archlute or theorbo player would have managed it, but what about the poor violone player? What was he supposed to do with the figures? Since the part is carefully figured, this suggests to me that it was really intended for archlute or theorbo; otherwise why bother going to all that work that the violone player would ignore?
My other question is whether Corelli and his contemporaries made much distinction between archlute and theorbo. When I first got involved with lutes 30 years ago, there was massive confusion between the two, and I recall a presentation at an LSA seminar by Ray Nurse in which he cleared most of the confusion up. I suspect everyone today uses his definitions, but were things that clear back in the 17th century?
Geoff -- Geoff Gaherty Foxmead Observatory Coldwater, Ontario, Canada http://www.gaherty.ca http://starrynightskyevents.blogspot.com/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
