>> Campion actually says that he reccommends his pupils to take a few lessons >> on the guitar before starting with the lute.
What I have found interesting is how Campionwho doesnt seem to be embarrassed to call himself both a theorbo and guitar masterseems to suggest that the way to play (or more precisely touch') the theorbo is really similar to the guitar. I wonder what this says about French eighteenth century performance style. Campion (my translations): There is an art to touching [the notes of] the chords. The thumb, after having touched the essential note, must then do a batterie with the other fingers, restruming [the strings] and alternately multiplying the chord, unless the strings are separated [ .] This is why I always give a dozen guitar lessons to those who intend to accompany on the theorbo. The harpègement of chords on theorbo makes up superbly when abbreviating the bass [in quick] movements. It is for this reason that I usually give, as I said, a dozen lessons on the guitar to those who intend to accompany on the theorbo. Its facility brings about in a short time [an understanding of] the touch [of the instrument]. Shaun Ng On 27 Feb 2014, at 9:46 am, Monica Hall <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > I have read all the messages in order but there are rather a lot of them and > no reason why I should reply to all of them in detail. To repeat again what > you > actually said... > > "First, as I've said before: a guitar accompaniment is not a vaild source > for continuo realizations! Guitar players where actually known for there > inability to play sophisticated music (and that's why everyone and their > grandmother sneered at them)." > > There were a lot of amateur guitarists but many of them were perfectly > capable of playing sophisticated music. In the passage which Jean-Marie has > quoted Gramont says > > The King's taste for Corbetta's compositions had made this instrument so > fashionable that everyone played it, well or ill. > The Duke > of York could play it fairly well, and the count of Arran as well as > Francisco himself. > > Clearly many of these people could play sophisticated music as well as a > professional player.. > > The memoires are a witty and entertaining account of life at the Restoration > Court but you don't have to take everything in them at face value. > > Some people may have sneered at the guitar but this is very often just a > matter of cultural snobbism which was alive and well in > the 17th century as it is today. > > There is no reason why a guitar accompaniment should not be a vaild source > of information about realizing a continuo. Many guitarists were quite able to > do this within the limitations which the instrument imposes and they may have > had a better grasp of the way chords can be used than some lutenists. Campion > actually says that he reccommends his pupils to take a few lessons on the > guitar before starting with the lute. > > That will have to do for tonight. > > Monica > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Mattes" <r...@mh-freiburg.de> > To: "Monica Hall" <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> > Cc: "Lutelist" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:18 PM > Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Bartolotti's continuo treatise > > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:10:03 -0000, Monica Hall wrote >> >> Monica - are you still reading up? It's really hard to answer without >> knowing which of my posts you have read so far. >> >>> > First, as I've said before: a guitar accompaniment is not a vaild >>> > source >>> > for continuo realizations! Guitar players where actually known for >>> > there >>> > inability to play sophisticated music (and that's why everyone and >>> > their >>> > grandmother sneered at them). >>> >>> This is an outrageous remark. Certainly there were some people in >>> the 17th century who disliked the guitar and had their own agenda to >>> pursue. There are apparently some in the 21st century too. >> >> Please, no conspiracy theories. Even the very text Jean-Marie posted and >> you had so much fun translating hints at the guitar's problems (as do >> many other 17th century sources). >> >>> But there is a substantial repertoire of fine music for the guitar - >>> by Bartolotti in particular, as well as Corbetta, De Visee and many >>> others. >> >> As I have said before - I'm not critisising baroque guitar music. >> There's indeed some very fine ideomatic music written for that >> instrument. >> >>> Several of the guitar books include literate example on how to >>> accompany a bass line. These do sometimes indicate that compromise was >>> necessary because the instrument has a limited compass. >> >> Yes, and the more refined these treaties get, the more the guitar gets >> treated like a "mini-lute". >> >>> There are for >>> examples in Granatas 1659 book where although the bass line indicates >>> a 4-3 suspension over a standard perfect cadence with the bass line >>> falling a 5th he has rearranged the parts so that the 4-3 suspension >>> is in the lowest sounding part. There is no earthly reason why this >>> should not be acceptable. >> >> Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. You can't have a 4-3 suspension >> in the lowest voice. You can have a forth between the lowest two voices, >> but than the higher on would need to resolve downwards to a third. What >> you describe sounds like a 4-3 voice played an octave to low (or rather, >> the bass voice being displaced an octave too high), but that would >> result in a 5th resolving to a 6th [1] ... I'm absolutely convinced that >> this would make any 17th century musician cringe. This is something that >> just does never happen outside the guitar world. It's not as if we had >> no information about how musicians (including amateurs) learned and >> perceived music. >> >> >>> And no reason why lutenists should not have done the same if this was >>> inconvenient. >> >> For me the issue pretty much is: should I (as a lute player) take as >> a model an instrument which is severly limited (as a _basso_ continuo >> instrument) as already noticed by contemporary writers or should I just >> follow contemporary BC instructions (literally hundreds of them!). When >> switching from the organ or harpsichord to a lute or theorbo, why should >> I all of a sudden ignore what I've learned about proper voice leading? >> With all the stylistic differences between the different continuo styles >> the common agreement seems to be that continuo should follow the "rules" >> of music (BC quasi beeing a "contapunto al mente") [2] >> >> There really seems to be a great divide between the so-called guitar >> world and the rest of the baroque crowd. To the later it seems pretty >> clear that BC was first and foremost a shorthand notation for >> colla-parte playing. It's rather unfortunate that modern time picked >> "basso continuo" and not Fundamentbass or "sopra la parte" or >> "partimento" (the last literally meaning "little score" or "short-hand >> score"). >> >> Cheers, Ralf Mattes >> >> >> [1] unless someone else provides a lower bass voice. >> [2] im very reluctant to use the word "rules" here. This sounds like >> something imposed from the outside. Maybe "grammar" would be the more >> fitting term. >> > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
