[LUTE] Re: Vivaldi
Bruno Correia wrote: > Is this a baroque lute? It is, but probably not what you mean by "baroque lute." It's probably best described as a liuto attiorbato. It's configured as a single-strung archlute in A. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF4GKIILF_U > > Seems to be single strung through out... -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Vivaldi
I think we are looking at a short scale single strung archlute tone transposing. Ed astutely pegs the tuning. You could call it attiorbato I supposethough that word may just mean theorbo. Having played this piece quite often, that is the easiest solution (down a step), though I prefer the middle movement slightly in D on the archlute. Also works nice on 6 course mandolin, and archlute in mandolin tuning. On mandolin you have not the parallel octaves, and the modulating parts are easier with the open e string in the middle. Extensive slurring on the fast notes in this performance, which is fine but I prefer those notes plucked. Orchestra is way bigger than I like for this piece, that little spot mic near the bridge (schoeps cardiod maybe) is doing the heavy lifting. In the slow movement I personally use piombi for the fiddles--mutes made of lead. With organo chiuso (the shutters closed). Often referred to as Vivaldi's guitar concerto, Vivaldi wrote no works for guitar, but everything else including the clarinet. dt To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Vivaldi
On Nov 12, 2007, at 6:15 PM, Bruno Correia wrote: > The neck looks a bit short Not for a liuto attiorbato. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Vivaldi
No, it is a single-strung archlute. Interestingly enough, the ensemble (and the archlutenist) are playing in a = 440, instead of 415. As well, if you notice his tuning, he is playing as though it were in the key of C major, instead of D major! Therefore, he is tuned with the top string in a, instead of g!! The neck of this single strung archlute appears short in proportion to the size of the body of the lute. He probably wanted a big sound, but at a higher pitch than the customary "g" lute. Notice that he has only 8 frets on the fingerboard. He is playing all synthetic strings, tuned in a, at a + 440. I have performed this concerto many times, and I have not decided on the best solution. Firstly, I did it on a "g" lute, but D major is awkward on a g lute. I did it in an alto lute in a, and it works marvelously like that (this is what this particular lutenist is doing). I have also done it on a soprano lute in d, but it is played an octave higher, and it gets fairly high on the fret board, but it really works well that way too. ed At 11:30 PM 11/12/2007 -0200, Bruno Correia wrote: >Is this a baroque lute? >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF4GKIILF_U > >Seems to be single strung through out... > >-- > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1125 - Release Date: >11/11/2007 9:50 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: Vivaldi
Well, that a possibility! The neck looks a bit short, did you noticed that? A liuto forte maybe? > > DR > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > --
[LUTE] Re: Vivaldi
On Nov 12, 2007, at 8:30 PM, Bruno Correia wrote: > Is this a baroque lute? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF4GKIILF_U > > Seems to be single strung through out... A liuto forte maybe? DR [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Vivaldi
Is this a baroque lute? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF4GKIILF_U Seems to be single strung through out... -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] was Double Meantone now meantone
I'm shifting the topic cause has nothing to do with my double meantone system with its superlow thirds (the thirds are too low to print, but if you add them to your cart they will show up in cents) now fetchingly called *drumroll* tiorba cromatica *end drumroll* Back to our show. Galilei falls PERFECTLY into the descriptive vs prescriptive argument, the prescriptors are the ones telling everyone else how to do it, and try to look good telling it. So I think, and this is interpretation, that it shows that some people were doing the tastini thing, and Galilei is playing Eeyore here. The reference to the local pros is simply explaining to his imaginary critics why he (Eeyore) is not doing it, yet is nonetheless superior, like a tennis pro saying the best players only use wood rackets (more historical, it is true). What we don't know is how many, but surely enough to get Galilei going, not just some fretloose and fancy free comma counters. Since it is prescriptive, it also shows that people were NOT tatstini-izing as well--like everything, a lumpy rather than smooth universe. And to be fair, it is his book and we are glad he wrote it, both for the information and the essential human qualities. dt PS as for famous, the best players are not the most famous ones. There's comfort, even if imaginary. At 12:41 PM 11/12/2007, you wrote: >>>Unless he meant it ironically/sarcastically. Take David vO. He is a >>>"universally known, skillful man" >> >>Leaving his skills out of it, he certainly isn't universally known. >>Not like David Beckham or Osama bin Laden or Paris Hilton. Or Sting. >>Or Paul O'Dette. >He is certainly known lutelistwide, with no less than 17 CD's to his >name, more than Barto and Karamazov combined. > >> >>>and quite given to aristophilia. >> >>I can't imagine any meaning of "aristophilia" that would be relevant >>to the discussion. My Random House Unabridged can't imagine a >>meaning for it at all. >Use inference. > >>>And if I say that he merits much emulation- would you really >>>believe me? >>Ha! A trick question! NOBODY ever knows whether to REALLY believe >>you, Roman. Anyway, you're not Vincenzo Galilei. You're probably a >>better composer, for one thing. >I feel flattered. > > >>But we're getting far afield here. Galilei was writing both an >>instruction and a polemic. If tastini were rare and not used by >>anyone prominent, why would he even bring them up? >There are levels of Prominence, and it is not necessarily achieved >by merit, as we all know... >RT > > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone ...
Unless he meant it ironically/sarcastically. Take David vO. He is a "universally known, skillful man" Leaving his skills out of it, he certainly isn't universally known. Not like David Beckham or Osama bin Laden or Paris Hilton. Or Sting. Or Paul O'Dette. He is certainly known lutelistwide, with no less than 17 CD's to his name, more than Barto and Karamazov combined. and quite given to aristophilia. I can't imagine any meaning of "aristophilia" that would be relevant to the discussion. My Random House Unabridged can't imagine a meaning for it at all. Use inference. And if I say that he merits much emulation- would you really believe me? Ha! A trick question! NOBODY ever knows whether to REALLY believe you, Roman. Anyway, you're not Vincenzo Galilei. You're probably a better composer, for one thing. I feel flattered. But we're getting far afield here. Galilei was writing both an instruction and a polemic. If tastini were rare and not used by anyone prominent, why would he even bring them up? There are levels of Prominence, and it is not necessarily achieved by merit, as we all know... RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone ...
On Nov 12, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Roman Turovsky wrote: > Unless he meant it ironically/sarcastically. Take David vO. He is a > "universally known, skillful man" Leaving his skills out of it, he certainly isn't universally known. Not like David Beckham or Osama bin Laden or Paris Hilton. Or Sting. Or Paul O'Dette. > and quite given to aristophilia. I can't imagine any meaning of "aristophilia" that would be relevant to the discussion. My Random House Unabridged can't imagine a meaning for it at all. > And if I say that he merits much emulation- would you really > believe me? Ha! A trick question! NOBODY ever knows whether to REALLY believe you, Roman. Anyway, you're not Vincenzo Galilei. You're probably a better composer, for one thing. But we're getting far afield here. Galilei was writing both an instruction and a polemic. If tastini were rare and not used by anyone prominent, why would he even bring them up? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: is it true?
On Nov 12, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Daniel Winheld wrote: > "The music will sound much more lute-like at that pitch." This > statement is misleading. Why would a Terz guitar (guitars scaled to > "G", built in the early 19th century and also sometimes seen in > Mariachi bands) or a capoed E instrument sound more "lute-" like than > my old E bass lute? Possibly because a capo at the 2nd or third fret is likely to cut down on the sustain of the guitar tones, especially the open strings. > Even a "G" lute at historic pitch levels (another > can of worms to be sure) will really be f# at its highest pitch, and > possibly as low as E if you credit A=370 as a legitimate historic > pitch. At G, (A=440) you actually have an A lute at an historic > pitch- nothing wrong with that, of course. Just don't pretend that a > particular pitch has anything whatsoever to do with defining an > instrument or its timbre. I think it's a matter of resonance, not pitch. Why do you think people prefer to play lute music on the lute, not the guitar? General lute snobbery? Well, maybe there is that, but mostly because on the guitar the resonance is all wrong for a lot of lute music. And if that sounds ridiculous, then consider all the discussions on this list about the subject of stringing, and how certain types of resonance with certain types of stringing is all wrong for the music. That's not a matter of pretending. Also, and this is purely a personal observation, but to me the more generally-expected sound of renaissance lute solo work is on the tenor lute, not the bass lute. My 10c is strung in F, and it sounds guitar-like to me at times because F is so close to what I tend to hear as the pitch of the guitar. David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone ...
a.. Eumatius [the student]: ... Also, how does it happen that you do not use frets that are spaced by unusual inequality of intervals, and some other little frets that take away the sharpness from the major third and tenth, as I have seen used by some universally known, skilful men, from whom I understand that both are exceedingly necessary and useful. b.. Fronimo [the teacher]: [ * * * [Then he points out that those using the tastini do not know much about theory, they just want to hear 'marvels'.] And indeed, Galilei sounds remarkably like Martyn, complaining that David van Ooijen's fretting is theoretically impossible even though David actually does it in practice. But the point here is not that Galilei thinks "frets that are spaced by unusual inequality of intervals" and dismissed tastini as wrongheaded. The point is that even in staking out his debating position, Galilei surprisingly concedes that the lutenists who disagree with him include "universally known, skillful men." He's aware that he's talking about a practice that's common, or respected, or both. Unless he meant it ironically/sarcastically. Take David vO. He is a "universally known, skillful man" and quite given to aristophilia. And if I say that he merits much emulation- would you really believe me? RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone ...
On Nov 12, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Roman Turovsky wrote: > a.. Eumatius [the student]: ... Also, how does it happen that you > do not use frets that are spaced by unusual inequality of > intervals, and some other little frets that take away the sharpness > from the major third and tenth, as I have seen used by some > universally known, skilful men, from whom I understand that both > are exceedingly necessary and useful. > b.. Fronimo [the teacher]: [ * * * > [Then he points out that those using the tastini do not know much > about theory, they just want to hear 'marvels'.] And indeed, Galilei sounds remarkably like Martyn, complaining that David van Ooijen's fretting is theoretically impossible even though David actually does it in practice. But the point here is not that Galilei thinks "frets that are spaced by unusual inequality of intervals" and dismissed tastini as wrongheaded. The point is that even in staking out his debating position, Galilei surprisingly concedes that the lutenists who disagree with him include "universally known, skillful men." He's aware that he's talking about a practice that's common, or respected, or both. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone ............
Via Arto: a.. Eumatius [the student]: ... Also, how does it happen that you do not use frets that are spaced by unusual inequality of intervals, and some other little frets that take away the sharpness from the major third and tenth, as I have seen used by some universally known, skilful men, from whom I understand that both are exceedingly necessary and useful. b.. Fronimo [the teacher]: [Opposes strongly with many words. Explains the reason why they do that:] ... They will respond (if they know) that singing and playing, particularly on the harpsichord and organ, the Tone is divided into two unequal parts and consequently is found as a major and a minor semitone. It is therefore reasonable, even necessary to use it on the Lute also. [After referencing to ancient 'distributions of strings' Fronimo continues his ideas:] ... but the unlearned ... [cannot] play or sing other intervals than those of they have cognizance. Not only that, but they believe there is nothing good apart from their knowledge and conviction. Now you must know that the distribution on the lute is one thing, that on keyboard instrument another, and singing is different from both; that is, the tones and semitones are of different measurements. ... Their variations cause the diversity of the affetti. [Fronimo goes on explaining the use of same frets for different purposes, sometimes you would need major sometimes minor semitones.] c.. Fronimo(page 162): ... Now I come to the matter of tastini [little frets], which lately some people seek to introduce in order to remove some of their sharpness from the thirds and major tenths (as they try to persuade those who are more foolish than they). [Then Fronimo refers to Galileo's Dialogo della antica e della moderna musica.] ... the Tones and the major and minor Thirds have the same measure in all places, on the strings and between the frets. [Then he points out that those using the tastini do not know much about theory, they just want to hear 'marvels'.] RT - Original Message - From: "howard posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:19 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Double Meantone On Nov 12, 2007, at 2:36 AM, LGS-Europe wrote: Galiliei disliking tastini shows there were about. Galilei wrote not only that he disliked tastini, but that they were used by some of the best players. He has his student ask: "Also, how does it happen that you do not use frets that are spaced by unusual inequality of intervals, and some other little frets that take away the sharpness from the major third and tenth, as I have seen used by some universally known, skilful men, from whom I understand that both are exceedingly necessary and useful." -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Johann Mattheson (1681-1764)
Yes Markus, you are right!: http://koelnklavier.de/quellen/matth-orch1/_titel.html Vielen Dank, Henk Pakker PS Do you know of Lutz Kirchoff is still performing? The last time I saw him (2001/2) was at Steffan Millbradts lauten wirkstaette in Meissen (who build my Tielke lute)... - Original Message - From: "Markus Lutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "H.L. Pakker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 7:41 PM Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Johann Mattheson (1681-1764) Hello Henk, as far as I know Michel Cardin uses the "Tonartencharakteristik" from Johann Mattheson: Das Neu-eröffnete Orchester. Hamburg 1713. Best regards Markus H.L. Pakker schrieb: Hi there, I'am looking for the/a title and/or book of Johann Mattheson (1681-1764). In his document "The London Manuscript unveiled" (see slweiss.com), Michel Cardin refers to this book a lot of times. Anyone has a hint? Thanks, Henk Pakker -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1125 - Release Date: 11-11-2007 21:50
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Johann Mattheson (1681-1764)
Hello Henk, as far as I know Michel Cardin uses the "Tonartencharakteristik" from Johann Mattheson: Das Neu-eröffnete Orchester. Hamburg 1713. Best regards Markus H.L. Pakker schrieb: Hi there, I'am looking for the/a title and/or book of Johann Mattheson (1681-1764). In his document "The London Manuscript unveiled" (see slweiss.com), Michel Cardin refers to this book a lot of times. Anyone has a hint? Thanks, Henk Pakker -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: is it true?
The only really compelling reason to put a capo on is if you are playing something like a lute song or consort part, where you have to have the instrument at a specific pitch to make the tab match the parts that are written in staff notation (although singers typically don't mind if the pitch is a bit lower than written). Otherwise, just tune the third string down and think of it as an E lute. Guy -Original Message- From: Daniel Winheld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:53 AM To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: is it true? "The music will sound much more lute-like at that pitch." This statement is misleading. Why would a Terz guitar (guitars scaled to "G", built in the early 19th century and also sometimes seen in Mariachi bands) or a capoed E instrument sound more "lute-" like than my old E bass lute? Even a "G" lute at historic pitch levels (another can of worms to be sure) will really be f# at its highest pitch, and possibly as low as E if you credit A=370 as a legitimate historic pitch. At G, (A=440) you actually have an A lute at an historic pitch- nothing wrong with that, of course. Just don't pretend that a particular pitch has anything whatsoever to do with defining an instrument or its timbre. The only reason to capo a guitar would be to accommodate left hand fingerings if a particular performer needs it (hopefully while waiting for his 58cm lute to be built) but it seems that all dedicated guitarists who like to include Renaissance lute music in their repertoires have no trouble with the stretches. -Dan >Adding one tiny thing to Charles' instructions: since the tuning of >a guitar is a third lower than the 6 course lute in g, you can place >a capo at the 3rd fret to raise the guitar to the same pitch as the >lute. The music will sound much more lute-like at that pitch. > >Jim Parker -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: is it true?
I don't mean to be unduly negative here, but that remark hit an old sore spot- I started out on a classical guitar back in the 1960's and people used to tell me- "Put a capo on your guitar- NOW you have a lute!" Sorry, but I sure as hell did not. And then it took years just to get a bad lute, then more years to get a half decent one and more years learning to undo guitar technique and play it half way competently. -Dan "The music will sound much more lute-like at that pitch." This statement is misleading. Why would a Terz guitar (guitars scaled to "G", built in the early 19th century and also sometimes seen in Mariachi bands) or a capoed E instrument sound more "lute-" like than my old E bass lute? Even a "G" lute at historic pitch levels (another can of worms to be sure) will really be f# at its highest pitch, and possibly as low as E if you credit A=370 as a legitimate historic pitch. At G, (A=440) you actually have an A lute at an historic pitch- nothing wrong with that, of course. Just don't pretend that a particular pitch has anything whatsoever to do with defining an instrument or its timbre. The only reason to capo a guitar would be to accommodate left hand fingerings if a particular performer needs it (hopefully while waiting for his 58cm lute to be built) but it seems that all dedicated guitarists who like to include Renaissance lute music in their repertoires have no trouble with the stretches. -Dan >Adding one tiny thing to Charles' instructions: since the tuning of >a guitar is a third lower than the 6 course lute in g, you can place >a capo at the 3rd fret to raise the guitar to the same pitch as the >lute. The music will sound much more lute-like at that pitch. > >Jim Parker -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: is it true?
"The music will sound much more lute-like at that pitch." This statement is misleading. Why would a Terz guitar (guitars scaled to "G", built in the early 19th century and also sometimes seen in Mariachi bands) or a capoed E instrument sound more "lute-" like than my old E bass lute? Even a "G" lute at historic pitch levels (another can of worms to be sure) will really be f# at its highest pitch, and possibly as low as E if you credit A=370 as a legitimate historic pitch. At G, (A=440) you actually have an A lute at an historic pitch- nothing wrong with that, of course. Just don't pretend that a particular pitch has anything whatsoever to do with defining an instrument or its timbre. The only reason to capo a guitar would be to accommodate left hand fingerings if a particular performer needs it (hopefully while waiting for his 58cm lute to be built) but it seems that all dedicated guitarists who like to include Renaissance lute music in their repertoires have no trouble with the stretches. -Dan >Adding one tiny thing to Charles' instructions: since the tuning of >a guitar is a third lower than the 6 course lute in g, you can place >a capo at the 3rd fret to raise the guitar to the same pitch as the >lute. The music will sound much more lute-like at that pitch. > >Jim Parker -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: Double Meantone ............
This was meant for the LUTE site, not the LUTE BUILDER site - I've now forwarded it accordingly. MH Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:27:56 + (GMT) To: LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lute builder Net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [LUTE-BUILDER] Re: Double Meantone I'm afraid you don't appear to grasp the essentials (as the opening sentence and indeed paragraph of your reply [below] also demonstrates): in short, (and yet again) because the open strings of the 'renaissance' lute are tuned to different notes (except of course the double octave between the 1st and 6th course) then the semitone fret intervals on each string do not follow precisely the same sequence of diatonic and chromatic intervals as you move up the fingerboard (it is of course, as I trust you understand, the difference in width between chromatic and diatonic semitones that is the fundemental problem). As you modulate you therefore require different semitone frets to act as chromatic or diatonic semitones - hence why modulation is a difficulty - and particularly in your 'system' of using 'tastini'. I had assumed that you would also understand, but maybe not, that the situation on keyboard instruments with the octave divided into 12 semitones (equal in equal temperament but not in others such as your own 'meantone') is wholly different: here it is indeed possible to tune each note (key) to a unique pitch since there is nothing to restrict this as with fretted instruments (ie a straight fret running across a number of strings). Of course, even on keyboard instruments, as one moves away from the the key of C, the increasing number of sharps/flats soon increases the out of tunefulness - hence why so much effort was displayed by early musicians in coming up with a variety of temperaments. Finally, regarding double fret loops: a bit like Galilei and tastini, with the single exception of Mace (who mentions them but goes on to describe the usual double loop) the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that double loops were the norm. Perhaps you assume that because single loops are a common practice nowadays this was the practice in earlier times I'm very sorry to say that much of what you write is simply personal affirmation (a bit like astrology) with scant regard for any actual evidence. MH LGS-Europe wrote: Dear Martyn >> The point about modulation is that since you acknowlege your frets >> (including 'tastini') are necessarily straight, then the change of some >> notes from diatonic to chromatic intervals, consequent on the modulation, requires such a change since the modulation will very rarely (if ever in practice) effect all the fret positions on each of the courses the same. >> The beauty of meantone temperaments is that intervals in different keys have the same relative distances, as long as you stay away from the wolf. Music written for meantone temperament (if you accept such a thing, I do, looking at organs and wind instruments) does that, unless it's needed to make the wolf howl. This is why meantone temperaments work on fretted instruments in the first place, opposed to unequal temperaments like the Werckmeisters, but here colour in keys can be written into the piece by means of modulation. Time to go back to my broken-record argument I haven't seen disputed yet: How about organs in meantone? Don't they modulate the same way as retted instruments? Unless you have an organ with many split keys in the octave, they will modulate like we do. Theory is fine, but practice is where lute players then and now have to earn their money. Playing as much in tune as possible is part of the requirements. I see no other way than moving my frets to match the organ. >> Yes, I'm afraid wether or not such chimeric things (as 'tastini') were used is very much to the point: if we pretend to play period music using instruments and styles familiar to the 'Old Ones' and what their audiences might have expected and heard, then we ought not impose tuning (fretting) systems which have no historic justification. << Galiliei disliking tastini shows there were about. But, fine, skip the tastini, as I said, you can do without. Double frets like viols have, some advocate these for lutes on historical grounds, are another option, as you can split them, like viol players do. Whatever you do, you must play in tune with the organ &c. You're not going to if you stick with ET. Common sense to me as it must have been to players and audiences alike in the 17th century. What is your altenative? David - played very much out of tune with a 19th century pianoforte (in the Finchcocks piano museum in Engleand, last month), that was tuned in something Orwellian with some fifths more equal than others. There was no way my fixed-fretted 19th century guitar was going to match that. Horrible f-minor ch
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone ............
Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:27:56 + (GMT) From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Double Meantone To: LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lute builder Net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm afraid you don't appear to grasp the essentials (as the opening sentence and indeed paragraph of your reply [below] also demonstrates): in short, (and yet again) because the open strings of the 'renaissance' lute are tuned to different notes (except of course the double octave between the 1st and 6th course) then the semitone fret intervals on each string do not follow precisely the same sequence of diatonic and chromatic intervals as you move up the fingerboard (it is of course, as I trust you understand, the difference in width between chromatic and diatonic semitones that is the fundemental problem). As you modulate you therefore require different semitone frets to act as chromatic or diatonic semitones - hence why modulation is a difficulty - and particularly in your 'system' of using 'tastini'. I had assumed that you would also understand, but maybe not, that the situation on keyboard instruments with the octave divided into 12 semitones (equal in equal temperament but not in others such as your own 'meantone') is wholly different: here it is indeed possible to tune each note (key) to a unique pitch since there is nothing to restrict this as with fretted instruments (ie a straight fret running across a number of strings). Of course, even on keyboard instruments, as one moves away from the the key of C, the increasing number of sharps/flats soon increases the out of tunefulness - hence why so much effort was displayed by early musicians in coming up with a variety of temperaments. Finally, regarding double fret loops: a bit like Galilei and tastini, with the single exception of Mace (who mentions them but goes on to describe the usual double loop) the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that double loops were the norm. Perhaps you assume that because single loops are a common practice nowadays this was the practice in earlier times I'm very sorry to say that much of what you write is simply personal affirmation (a bit like astrology) with scant regard for any actual evidence. MH LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Martyn >> The point about modulation is that since you acknowlege your frets >> (including 'tastini') are necessarily straight, then the change of some >> notes from diatonic to chromatic intervals, consequent on the modulation, requires such a change since the modulation will very rarely (if ever in practice) effect all the fret positions on each of the courses the same. >> The beauty of meantone temperaments is that intervals in different keys have the same relative distances, as long as you stay away from the wolf. Music written for meantone temperament (if you accept such a thing, I do, looking at organs and wind instruments) does that, unless it's needed to make the wolf howl. This is why meantone temperaments work on fretted instruments in the first place, opposed to unequal temperaments like the Werckmeisters, but here colour in keys can be written into the piece by means of modulation. Time to go back to my broken-record argument I haven't seen disputed yet: How about organs in meantone? Don't they modulate the same way as retted instruments? Unless you have an organ with many split keys in the octave, they will modulate like we do. Theory is fine, but practice is where lute players then and now have to earn their money. Playing as much in tune as possible is part of the requirements. I see no other way than moving my frets to match the organ. >> Yes, I'm afraid wether or not such chimeric things (as 'tastini') were used is very much to the point: if we pretend to play period music using instruments and styles familiar to the 'Old Ones' and what their audiences might have expected and heard, then we ought not impose tuning (fretting) systems which have no historic justification. << Galiliei disliking tastini shows there were about. But, fine, skip the tastini, as I said, you can do without. Double frets like viols have, some advocate these for lutes on historical grounds, are another option, as you can split them, like viol players do. Whatever you do, you must play in tune with the organ &c. You're not going to if you stick with ET. Common sense to me as it must have been to players and audiences alike in the 17th century. What is your altenative? David - played very much out of tune with a 19th century pianoforte (in the Finchcocks piano museum in Engleand, last month), that was tuned in something Orwellian with some fifths more equal than others. There was no way my fixed-fretted 19th century guitar was going to match that. Horrible f-minor chords with clashing a-flats, especially. This led us
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: Double Meantone ............
I'm afraid you don't appear to grasp the essentials (as the opening sentence and indeed paragraph of your reply [below] also demonstrates): in short, (and yet again) because the open strings of the 'renaissance' lute are tuned to different notes (except of course the double octave between the 1st and 6th course) then the semitone fret intervals on each string do not follow precisely the same sequence of diatonic and chromatic intervals as you move up the fingerboard (it is of course, as I trust you understand, the difference in width between chromatic and diatonic semitones that is the fundemental problem). As you modulate you therefore require different semitone frets to act as chromatic or diatonic semitones - hence why modulation is a difficulty - and particularly in your 'system' of using 'tastini'. I had assumed that you would also understand, but maybe not, that the situation on keyboard instruments with the octave divided into 12 semitones (equal in equal temperament but not in others such as your own 'meantone') is wholly different: here it is indeed possible to tune each note (key) to a unique pitch since there is nothing to restrict this as with fretted instruments (ie a straight fret running across a number of strings). Of course, even on keyboard instruments, as one moves away from the the key of C, the increasing number of sharps/flats soon increases the out of tunefulness - hence why so much effort was displayed by early musicians in coming up with a variety of temperaments. Finally, regarding double fret loops: a bit like Galilei and tastini, with the single exception of Mace (who mentions them but goes on to describe the usual double loop) the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that double loops were the norm. Perhaps you assume that because single loops are a common practice nowadays this was the practice in earlier times I'm very sorry to say that much of what you write is simply personal affirmation (a bit like astrology) with scant regard for any actual evidence. MH LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Martyn >> The point about modulation is that since you acknowlege your frets >> (including 'tastini') are necessarily straight, then the change of some >> notes from diatonic to chromatic intervals, consequent on the modulation, requires such a change since the modulation will very rarely (if ever in practice) effect all the fret positions on each of the courses the same. >> The beauty of meantone temperaments is that intervals in different keys have the same relative distances, as long as you stay away from the wolf. Music written for meantone temperament (if you accept such a thing, I do, looking at organs and wind instruments) does that, unless it's needed to make the wolf howl. This is why meantone temperaments work on fretted instruments in the first place, opposed to unequal temperaments like the Werckmeisters, but here colour in keys can be written into the piece by means of modulation. Time to go back to my broken-record argument I haven't seen disputed yet: How about organs in meantone? Don't they modulate the same way as retted instruments? Unless you have an organ with many split keys in the octave, they will modulate like we do. Theory is fine, but practice is where lute players then and now have to earn their money. Playing as much in tune as possible is part of the requirements. I see no other way than moving my frets to match the organ. >> Yes, I'm afraid wether or not such chimeric things (as 'tastini') were used is very much to the point: if we pretend to play period music using instruments and styles familiar to the 'Old Ones' and what their audiences might have expected and heard, then we ought not impose tuning (fretting) systems which have no historic justification. << Galiliei disliking tastini shows there were about. But, fine, skip the tastini, as I said, you can do without. Double frets like viols have, some advocate these for lutes on historical grounds, are another option, as you can split them, like viol players do. Whatever you do, you must play in tune with the organ &c. You're not going to if you stick with ET. Common sense to me as it must have been to players and audiences alike in the 17th century. What is your altenative? David - played very much out of tune with a 19th century pianoforte (in the Finchcocks piano museum in Engleand, last month), that was tuned in something Orwellian with some fifths more equal than others. There was no way my fixed-fretted 19th century guitar was going to match that. Horrible f-minor chords with clashing a-flats, especially. This led us to the speculation that our obsession with playing in tune might be a modern one, making this whole discusion a moot one. ;-) David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl To get on
[LUTE] Re: Is it true?
A lot of lute music is written for 6c lutes so after tuning down the 3rd guitar string to F# you have the same relative tuning as a 'g' lute albeit lower by a third. There is a very large corpus of 6c lute music. If you want to play later lute music on a 6 stringed instrument there are problems of arrangement and/or transcription that might make playing more difficult on an instrument with fewer strings. Quite often the lower courses on a 10/11 course lute are played 'open' and do not always require fingering. If you re-arrange those bass notes in a higher register your fingers will be very busy. There are many guitarists who have learned to play from tablature by first playing on a re-tuned guitarand if you just want to play occasional renaissance lute music that is a very good way to do it. Be careful! you might get hooked!! best wishes Charles -Original Message- From: Joshua E. Horn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 November 2007 05:38 To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Is it true? Is it true that most lute music can be played on guitar if you retune the g string? -- Joshua E. Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Is it true?
Is a lot of the archived lute tabs on the LSA page Renaissance? -- Joshua E. Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] bakfark "ultimi mei sospiri"
hi all, i am looking for a facsimile of bakfarks "ultimi mei sospiri". thanks for help wolfgang w. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone ............
The point about modulation is that since you acknowlege your frets (including 'tastini') are necessarily straight, then the change of some notes from diatonic to chromatic intervals, consequent on the modulation, requires such a change since the modulation will very rarely (if ever in practice) effect all the fret positions on each of the courses the same. Yes, I'm afraid wether or not such chimeric things (as 'tastini') were used is very much to the point: if we pretend to play period music using instruments and styles familiar to the 'Old Ones' and what their audiences might have expected and heard, then we ought not impose tuning (fretting) systems which have no historic justification. MH LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Martyn > So when you modulate I suppose you must stop and move your frets. Of course not. One of the points of period temperaments is that keys have different flavours to them. Modulation in a piece is a change of colour. See the whole baroque theory on the affects of different keys. > What is your evidence for the use of 'tastini' in the earlier period? None, apart from Galilei disliking them. I think there are theorbos with marks of double first frets? Might be wrong here. But that's not the point, is it? If you want to play something other than ET, and you'll have to if you're going to play with cornetti, sackbuts, the local organ or harpsichord, a viol consort, a cittern, traverso, recorders, etc, you'll have to do something to play in tune with them. Moving your frets and retuning your strings will be your only option. You can play in mean tone without tastini if you like, it makes life a little harder, that's all. I don't particular like them, so sometimnes I don't use them. It means I have more no-go areas on the fingerboard. I don't quite understand the opposition to this basic idea, which to me is just common sense. If you want to play in tune with someone not tuned in ET, adapt. A lute has movable frets, so move them. David David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html - For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month. --
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone
Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:21:50 + (GMT) From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Double Meantone To: LGS-Europe [EMAIL PROTECTED] So when you modulate I suppose you must stop and move your frets. What is your evidence for the use of 'tastini' in the earlier period? MH LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> different 'tastini' positions on each of the courses (your analysis seems to only focus on the first course): in short, unplayable. << Dear Martyn My analysis was about fret position 2 on courses 3 and 4, as David tayler brought that up. Not about the first course. As it happened, this was one of the situations where the theory was perfect and did not need a compromise. Perfectly playable, then? But as I explained, not all fret positions on all strings are perfect. But this is life and we live by finding practical solutions to practical problems. I find that aspect of musical life appealing, by the way. My 'theory' is just to explain my practice, which is playing on lutes/theorbo/baroque guitar in perfectly playable, different shades of meantone. My mathematics is shaky, but enough to calculate fret positions starting with cents deviations from ET. All this does, is get me theoretical positions for all frets on all courses. Because frets are straight I make compromise positions for some if not all frets. If the compromise is too bad, I decide a fret unplayable (on a g'-lute: g# third fret on fourth course is an obvious one, in meantone temperament with a high third fret). The first fret needs special attention: either a double fret (theorbo is ok for me with double first fret) or high first fret and tastini on courses 4, 5 and 6 and a non-playable first fret on the first string (tastini on first fret first string I cannot set up: always buzzing). Or low first fret and tastini for courses 2 and 3. Somehow the last option seems more practical, but I always end up with a high first fret and tastini for all the bass courses ... Easier for my hands, whatever. I have colleages who manage fine with a low first fret and tastini on course 2 and 3, so that must be me. So far this was theory only: setting up frets with a ruler. Utterly useless if you don't go to the next step: check and adjust by ear and/or tuner. You may skip the calculating and setting by ruler: just push frets 1 and 3 up, 2 and 4 down and go straight to the checking and adjusting. Apart from the obvious compromise notes, it is to be expected that some notes will be better than others. But that's the same with ET, because thick basses and thin trebles react differently to the same fret positions, so course 1 and 6 already need a different fret position, especially higher up the fingerboard. Gut bass players may end up with rather slanting frets in ET as well. Octave strings can be a problem. All of these practical problems are normal for us anyway, they just require practical solutions. I remember a (metal fretted) guitar recording of a particular song where I had to record introduction, song and coda in three different takes, as each section was in a different position on the fingerboard. I had to tune three times! It was an old Panormo, strung left handed and with nylgut. That alone would have required it to be tuned thrice. ;-) David David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl > > MH > > LGS-Europe wrote: > > I don't yet see how the second fret can be minus 7 for B and plus 7 >> for G but once I try it perhaps I will see. > > Deviations from ET in cents. > > A = 0 > B = -7 > G = +7 > F = +14 > > Course 3 = A, 0 cents deviation from ET. > Fret 2 = -7 gives B = -7. > Course 4 = F, +14 cents deviation from ET. > Fret 2 = - 7 gives G= +7. > > It's not perfect everywhere on the fingerboard, but here it is. > > David > > > > David van Ooijen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.davidvanooijen.nl > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > - > For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this > month. - For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month. - For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month. --
