On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:52:18 +0000 (GMT), Martyn Hodgson wrote > > Thank's for this. > > I can't actually see that inverted 7 6 sequences dictate a non > re-entrant tuning - the low tessitura one sometimes has is just part > and parcel of the instrument. And I agree with the anonymous author of > the Facebook article you mention who wote:
That would be Matthew Jones. > ' ........in the second section of the example bars 3 and 4 show > this. The 7 6 chain shown gets very low and dark, the 7 6 from 2nd to > 4th course would be v odd with a higher octave 2nd course. Yes, that particular meassure would be odd. But that oddness _does_ exist in Bartolotti's solo music (as M. Jones points out in another post). And this is an oddness that could easily be avoided by playing the e on the fifth string, second fret. So this measure clearly is an argument against the example being written for an non-reentrant instrument. But the fist few are odd (no, they are actually gibberish). And since there are examples for the first kind of oddness (i.e. resolving to the wrong octave) I have yet to find one of the second kind (i.e. inverting 73-63 to 24-35) > [M. Jones continues ...] > I personally accept harmony below the bass with 2 reentrant strings > as a pleasant sonority. the bass played with the thumb stretched out > and the fingers v close to the bridge ameliorates the effect to me. > There is no such thing as "harmony below bass". Please, get all out of your Berkeley Jazz shoes, now. If you play a realization like the given Bartolotti example on a reentrant instrument you simply create a new bass voice (and a pretty bad on, in this case). The continuo bass is the lowest voice - that's not a concept I invented, it's at the core of what Banchieri calls 'basso seguente' (and probably one of the main techniques that triggered the development of B.C. - at some point organists realized that a basso sequente together with some hints (read: numbers) would be enough to sketch down a composition, nad way easier to produce than the intabulations they had to prepare to be able to play colla parte). [now Martin:] > Further, when realising accompaniments I do think there's a modern > tendency to be overly concerned about considerations of part writing > and of ensuring a particular line doesn't jump the octave. Is there? More than back then? The continuo methods I've read so far (quite some, if I might say) that deal with dissonances at all (i.e. those that go beyond the three sheet "Idiot's guide to B.C.") all take great care to keep the parts in order. Just as an example: look at Muffat's treaties (IMHO one of the best to start with for an aspiring lute player), when he describes chains of parallel 6th chords (trivial if you play three voices - nasty if you want four) he takes great care that the fourth voice in his four voice example is "correct". Actually, even the Bartolotti examples (sans the odd measures) is a fine example of partwriting. And just to mention it: "full" playing (i.e. more than four voices) is always a "correct" core plus some notes doubled. > A concern > not always shared by early players: some of the few intabulated > realisations we have don't often seem too bothered about jumping > around or being focused on maintaining the integrity of an upper > line. For example passages in Kapsberger's 1612 'Libro Primo di > Arie.....' As I see it, the theorbo is principally an instrument > for producing a bass with, where possible, straightforward harmony to > accompany others. A good example of this is Corradi's 1616 'Le > Stravagaze....' which generally exhibits simple block chords played > with the bass with little or no independent contrapuntal lines. I am more than a little bit reluctant to compare accompainments for Villanella type music with Bartolotti's refined continuo realizations. I think we desperately need to try distinguish between different styles (as the old ones did). Villanella style is know for it's (purpously!) "rustic" counterpoint. The only dissonances in Corradi are the cadencial 4th and the passing 7th on the antepenultima. And those never violate counterpoint. BTW, I've probably said It before - I think it's very problematic to simply read such sources as Kapsberger and Corradi as BC realizations. There's a big chance that they where meant as _alternative_ ways to accompain the music. Remember: While every BC is an accompainment, not every accompainment is a BC. > 'Going up the neck' is necessary if one has a re-entrant tuning > (single or double) and a high bass note which you wish to play at the > notated octave together with some harmony (altho of course there's no > prohibition on taking notes/sequences of notes an octave down). For > example, with a double re-entrant instrument in nominal A tuning: a d > just above the bass clef must be taken on the fourth course (rather > than the third) if one wishes to play some harmony above it (say a f# > on the third or on the first course). With non re-entrant one could > simply play the bass on the third course and the 3rd and, indeed, a > 5th on the second and first respectively. Hence why 'going up the > neck' suggests a re-entrant tuning. Hmm - but as soon as the bass is one note higher (e) the air gets pretty thin on an archlute as well ;-) Sorry, I don't know how you do it, but I tend to end up high on the third or fourth string on an archlute as well. Cheers, RalfD To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
