[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Eh!? Of course pitch is relevant to instrument size: as pointed out earlier, it's precisely why the top one, or two, courses were obliged to be lowered an octave. The point, as previously (and tediously) pointed out, is that historically pitch was such that the highest course(s) were obliged to be lowered an octave (as the Old Ones tell us). However, for mysterious reasons, some modern players string small theorboes with low octaves on the second course even when wholly unnecessary at the pitch in which they play. If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' it is clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. MH --- On Mon, 16/2/09, howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com wrote: From: howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale To: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Monday, 16 February, 2009, 8:10 PM Now you know the joke. You can have hours of fun by guessing exactly what relatively small size makes a theorbo a toy under Martin's criteria, then changing the assumed pitch level and doing it again. Martin misses the fun because he doesn't acknowledge that pitch is relevant to the question of instrument size, which spares him a lot of work with the more advanced branches of mathematics, such as multiplication and division. The part about Martyn's view of what size theorbos I favor -- as if I actually had theorbo preferences based on size, and there were someone else on the planet who cared what those preferences were -- is new, I think, and is silly without being funny. As far as I can tell, if Martyn thought about such things, he would say my theorbo is a toy at A92, definitely not a toy at AD0, and probably not a toy at AA5, before realizing that there was something wrong with his categorical one-size-fits-all construct. But he doesn't think of such things. Hence the joke. The fact is, I was taught in early adolescence that size doesn't matter. On Feb 16, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: A small theorbo is called a 'toy' theorbo when, because of its relatively small size which only really requires the first course to be at the lower octave, the second is also unnecessarily lowered: it's all down to how the individual player strings it, not some inherent characteristic of the instrument itself. Why some players do it is a mystery; although, of course, the use of modern overwpound strings (if you like them) allows a fairly strong bass even with a small fingered string length. I believe Howard Posner favours these small instruments in such a tuning - hence his advocacy of them I presume. There is much more, with historical evidence etc, in the archives of this list. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
--- On Tue, 17/2/09, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: From: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale To: David Rastall dlu...@verizon.net Date: Tuesday, 17 February, 2009, 8:30 AM That it is not a historic definition is precisely why it appears in inverted commas (as in 'toy' theorbos) In fact not just me who uses 'toy': for example Lynda Sayce. Historically single re-entrant theorboes were not uncommon (eg England in the 17thC) and are no less theorboes for not requiring both top courses to be at the lower octave. MH --- On Mon, 16/2/09, David Rastall dlu...@verizon.net wrote: From: David Rastall dlu...@verizon.net Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale To: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Monday, 16 February, 2009, 8:27 PM On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: A small theorbo is called a 'toy' theorbo when, because of its relatively small size As I recall, toy is your own appellation, rather than some general historical definition. which only really requires the first course to be at the lower octave, the second is also unnecessarily lowered: it's all down to how the individual player strings it, not some inherent characteristic of the instrument itself. You're saying that size brings about the necessity to use double reentrant tuning. But that's not to say that people with smaller instruments do it unnecessarily. I'm sure many of us (myself included) do it because of the way double reentrant tuning sounds. My theorbo is small enough at 79cm on the fretboard to use single reentrant tuning, but I personally prefer the sound of double reentrant over single. With single reentrant there's too much second-string sound, at least in my mind anyway. Besides, double reentrant provides the characteristic uniqueness of the theorbo! It's what makes a theorbo a theorbo, regardless of size. I can tune my 10-course in double reentrant if I want to. That would truly be a toy theorbo! Davidr [1]dlu...@verizon.net -- References 1. mailto:dlu...@verizon.net To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Toy therboes, director's cuts, Chaconnes and de Visee
Now also in Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq2DvY51sAU Arto wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: [...] You'll find the recordings in YouTube: (seems to be slow tonight. I'll send the address later!) Vimeo: http://www.vimeo.com/3243140 And also the music - as facsimile ms. - is there; in case you want to try it by yourself, see page http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/wikla/mus/Tiorba/ and play it better! :-) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Toy therboes, director's cuts, Chaconnes and de Visee
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Arto Wikla wi...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: Now also in Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq2DvY51sAU Well done, Arto. Lovely toy you're playing there, btw. ;-) I've become a bit of a YouTuber myself (www.youtube.com/luitluit and www.youtube/meesterdavidgitaar for some other fun), and appreciate all people's efforts even more since. I've subscribed myself to your videos now. David -- *** David van Ooijen davidvanooi...@gmail.com www.davidvanooijen.nl *** To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Gehema Lutebook
Dear Collected Wisdom, is someone willing to sell her/his copy of Lautenbuch der Virginia Renata von Gehema (facsimile by Zentralantiquariat GDR 1984)? Please contact me off-list. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo Relativity
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, David Tayler wrote: I only play a toy theorbo in public. The Lorentz Fitzgerald contractions. Horrible. dt The theorbo player last night, His fingers much faster than light; He started his play, In a relative way, The fall fell the previous night. (freely adapted from: There was a young lady called Bright) At 07:47 PM 2/16/2009, you wrote: And then, since we are in a gravity well, you'll need to account for the local curvature of space... -Original Message- From: Robert Clair [mailto:rcl...@elroberto.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 7:29 PM To: Lute List Cc: howard posner Subject: [LUTE] Theorbo Relativity While I think that Howard has made an excellent beginning on a theory of Relativity of Theorbo Toyness, I think it's incomplete as it stands. To completely specify whether the theorbo is toy or not we need to know if the theorbo is in motion relative to the listener, the speed, whether the theorbo is oriented perpendicular of parallel to the direction of motion (if parallel, the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction will affect the string length) and whether the theorbo is approaching or receding (the Doppler effect will modify the pitch standard). You can have hours of fun by guessing exactly what relatively small size makes a theorbo a toy under Martin's criteria, then changing the assumed pitch level and doing it again. Martin misses the fun because he doesn't acknowledge that pitch is relevant to the question of instrument size, which spares him a lot of work with the more advanced branches of mathematics, such as multiplication and division. The part about Martyn's view of what size theorbos I favor -- as if I actually had theorbo preferences based on size, and there were someone else on the planet who cared what those preferences were -- is new, I think, and is silly without being funny. As far as I can tell, if Martyn thought about such things, he would say my theorbo is a toy at A92, definitely not a toy at AD0, and probably not a toy at AA5, before realizing that there was something wrong with his categorical one-size-fits-all construct. But he doesn't think of such things. Hence the joke. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html the next auto-quote is: The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, then they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, why does it exist? (Epicurus) /\/\ Peter Nightingale Telephone (401) 874-5882 Department of Physics, East Hall Fax (401) 874-2380 University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo Relativity
LOL Nice one! Lex van Sante Op 17 feb 2009, om 14:36 heeft Peter Nightingale het volgende geschreven: On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, David Tayler wrote: I only play a toy theorbo in public. The Lorentz Fitzgerald contractions. Horrible. dt The theorbo player last night, His fingers much faster than light; He started his play, In a relative way, The fall fell the previous night. (freely adapted from: There was a young lady called Bright) At 07:47 PM 2/16/2009, you wrote: And then, since we are in a gravity well, you'll need to account for the local curvature of space... -Original Message- From: Robert Clair [mailto:rcl...@elroberto.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 7:29 PM To: Lute List Cc: howard posner Subject: [LUTE] Theorbo Relativity While I think that Howard has made an excellent beginning on a theory of Relativity of Theorbo Toyness, I think it's incomplete as it stands. To completely specify whether the theorbo is toy or not we need to know if the theorbo is in motion relative to the listener, the speed, whether the theorbo is oriented perpendicular of parallel to the direction of motion (if parallel, the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction will affect the string length) and whether the theorbo is approaching or receding (the Doppler effect will modify the pitch standard). You can have hours of fun by guessing exactly what relatively small size makes a theorbo a toy under Martin's criteria, then changing the assumed pitch level and doing it again. Martin misses the fun because he doesn't acknowledge that pitch is relevant to the question of instrument size, which spares him a lot of work with the more advanced branches of mathematics, such as multiplication and division. The part about Martyn's view of what size theorbos I favor -- as if I actually had theorbo preferences based on size, and there were someone else on the planet who cared what those preferences were -- is new, I think, and is silly without being funny. As far as I can tell, if Martyn thought about such things, he would say my theorbo is a toy at A92, definitely not a toy at AD0, and probably not a toy at AA5, before realizing that there was something wrong with his categorical one-size-fits-all construct. But he doesn't think of such things. Hence the joke. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html the next auto-quote is: The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, then they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, why does it exist? (Epicurus) /\/\ Peter Nightingale Telephone (401) 874-5882 Department of Physics, East Hall Fax (401) 874-2380 University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:37 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' Do you think we're all being pretentious? it is clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. It's impossible to be 100% historical about anything. Besides, the great variety of historical lutes-like instruments, and the radical changes that occurred in lute history, tell me that people were just as daft back then. Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Pretension: justifiable claim (OED). --- On Tue, 17/2/09, David Rastall dlu...@verizon.net wrote: From: David Rastall dlu...@verizon.net Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale To: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: lutelist Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Tuesday, 17 February, 2009, 2:55 PM On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:37 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' Do you think we're all being pretentious? it is clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. It's impossible to be 100% historical about anything. Besides, the great variety of historical lutes-like instruments, and the radical changes that occurred in lute history, tell me that people were just as daft back then. Davidr [1]dlu...@verizon.net -- References 1. mailto:dlu...@verizon.net To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: However, for mysterious reasons, some modern players string small theorboes with low octaves on the second course even when wholly unnecessary at the pitch in which they play. If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' it is clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. OK, guilty as charged, but. Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. ray To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Toy therboes, director's cuts, Chaconnes and de Visee
Now also in Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq2DvY51sAU Very beautiful indeed Arto. Flows very smoothly, good tone and feel. (Speaking as a daft old guy with an undersized sized stick myself.) -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, William Brohinsky wrote: Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. Daft old world, isn't it? And, according to Martyn's historical pretensions, daft new one too. ;-) Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. Mark Twain -Original Message- From: David Rastall [mailto:dlu...@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:10 AM To: William Brohinsky Cc: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; lutelist Net; howard posner Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, William Brohinsky wrote: Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. Daft old world, isn't it? And, according to Martyn's historical pretensions, daft new one too. ;-) Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Preferring my lute-alikes at ca. 33 cm without diapason, I certainly am daft. Daftly, Eugene -Original Message- From: William Brohinsky [mailto:tiorbin...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:33 AM To: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: lutelist Net; howard posner Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: However, for mysterious reasons, some modern players string small theorboes with low octaves on the second course even when wholly unnecessary at the pitch in which they play. If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' it is clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. OK, guilty as charged, but. Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. ray To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Transposed Dowland songs??
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009, Sean Smith lutesm...@mac.com said: Dana, I had wondered about drift drift is more an issue of who chooses to adjust when; and to what challenge. I recall one easter piece, maybe by aligheri? The opening staggers entrances from each of, mmm, maybe seven parts, at intervals of a seventh; very challenging. I am also minded of something my first choirmaster said to me, he was always afraid of lengthy accapella passages where the organ rejoined the choir, he was skilled enough to play transposed by as much as a third should the choir have drifted that much, usually we werent that errant. -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: Pretension: justifiable claim (OED). I'll take that as a no to my question. Martyn, I'm not entirely sure what your justification is for advocating large theorbos only. I realize that this has been discussed on the list before, but as I don't want to comb through the archives to find it, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think that those who play small theorbos, especially in double reentrant tuning, are all daft (perhaps you can also provide an appropriate OED definition of daft). We accept the existence of the smaller French solo theorbo, and we know that music designed for double reentrant tuning was written for that instrument. Doesn't that constitute a justifiable claim that it isn't daft to string a French solo theorbo in double reentrant? David R dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
those who dance are thought mad by those who don't hear the music Anon On 2/17/09 11:29 AM, Guy Smith guy_m_sm...@comcast.net wrote: When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. Mark Twain -Original Message- From: David Rastall [mailto:dlu...@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:10 AM To: William Brohinsky Cc: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; lutelist Net; howard posner Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, William Brohinsky wrote: Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. Daft old world, isn't it? And, according to Martyn's historical pretensions, daft new one too. ;-) Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
The difference between me and a mad man is that I am not mad. - Salvador Dali those who dance are thought mad by those who don't hear the music Anon When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. Mark Twain To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Levoca
Could somebody supply me with details of the ms. LEVOCA, Evangelická cirkevná kniznica SK-Le. please ? thanks! Bernd To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] definitions, was Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
Pretension: state of the string before it is tuned up (BOB). -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
To be fair to Martyn, he is merely using one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. So if you have one of those small theorboes then tune the highest string (the 3rd course) to e, the first to d. Or as Martyn says tune only the first course down an octave for the first course at a. This is what they did back then, before modern stringing possibilities. Not daft just practical. All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: David Rastall [mailto:dlu...@verizon.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009 17:10 An: William Brohinsky Cc: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; lutelist Net; howard posner Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, William Brohinsky wrote: Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. Daft old world, isn't it? And, according to Martyn's historical pretensions, daft new one too. ;-) Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Mark Wheeler wrote: To be fair to Martyn, he is merely using one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. Fair enough. When they started making the big theorbos, reentrant tuning became necessary. No problem so far. So if you have one of those small theorboes then tune the highest string (the 3rd course) to e, the first to d. You mean I should simulate on my small theorbo the conditions imposed upon the stringing by the big ones? I'm not so sure about that one... Or as Martyn says tune only the first course down an octave for the first course at a. And to be fair to Martyn, that would work perfectly well for bc. But how about the French solo repertoire, which is written for a smaller instrument yet calls for double reentrant? If I have a larger string that I can use for a second course an octave lower on my toy theorbo, is that daft or practical? I think it's practical. Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Non-Toy Theorbo for sale
On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Mark Wheeler wrote: To be fair to Martyn, he is merely using one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. * * * This is what they did back then, before modern stringing possibilities. I'm very leery of they and then, seeing as we're talking about thousands of players and instruments over a period of 150 years or so. Does some historical source say both highest pitch possible and thinnest useable string in discussing theorbos? And if so, is there any reason to believe that every theorbist subscribed to it? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Non-Toy Theorbo for sale
Dear David, You wrote You mean I should simulate on my small theorbo the conditions imposed upon the stringing by the big ones? I'm not so sure about that one... In regards to conditions between big and small theorbos, I don't see any difference, if the diapasons are also small or better said short. If you are using gut then to get the same amount of power that you have on a big theorbo, you will need to have the basses tuned higher. Or use octaves on the basses. This is the reason that small archlutes, swan neck baroque lutes and English Theorbos had octave strings. But I would not worry, if you have a look at the concert halls around the world today you will find enough toy theorbos and single strung archlutes in action, make sure to sit up front and get your own mike if you are recording... the main thing is that that peg box extension is visible.. All the best Mark -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: howard posner [mailto:howardpos...@ca.rr.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009 22:54 An: lutelist Net Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Non-Toy Theorbo for sale On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Mark Wheeler wrote: To be fair to Martyn, he is merely using one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. * * * This is what they did back then, before modern stringing possibilities. I'm very leery of they and then, seeing as we're talking about thousands of players and instruments over a period of 150 years or so. Does some historical source say both highest pitch possible and thinnest useable string in discussing theorbos? And if so, is there any reason to believe that every theorbist subscribed to it? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Non-Toy Theorbo for sale
Dear Howard, You are right to say that there was considerable variety in size, shape and tuning of the theorbo. Bigger instruments tend to be better for playing in consort or accompanying a singer, because the extra size gives a fuller sound. Smaller theorboes are better for tricky solo pieces. However, there is no reason why one shouldn't use a large instrument for solos (if your hands are big enough), or a small theorbo in a consort (as long as it is sufficiently audible). There are various 17^th-century sources which tell us things about theorboes, but it is futile to dismiss them all out of hand, just because they don't happen to have exactly the wording we want, or because what they say doesn't apply to all circumstances. We have to interpret what they say as best we can, and we may sometimes draw different conclusions. Thomas Mace (Musick's Monument, p. 208) explains how the tuning is determined by the size of the instrument. Of the theorbo he writes: By Reason of the Largeness of It, we are constrain'd to make use of an Octave Treble-String, that is, of a Thick String, which stands Eight Notes Lower, than the String of a Smaller Lute, (for no Strings can be made so Strong, that will stand to the Pitch of Consort, upon such Large Sciz'd Lutes) and for want of a Small Treble-String, the Life and Spruceness of such Ayrey Lessons, is quite lost, and the Ayre much altered. Nay, I have known, (and It cannot be otherwise) that upon some Theorboes, they have been forc'd to put an Octave String in the 2d. String's Place; by reason of the very long Scize of the Theorboe, which would not bear a Small String to Its True pitch; because of Its so great Length, and the Necessity of setting the Lute at such a High Pitch, which must Agree with the rest of the Instruments. This concurs with the points Martyn made earlier, that the tuning of the theorbo is determined by the size of the instrument. The largest theorboes need the first two courses to be tuned an octave lower, because otherwise the strings would break. Smaller instruments may be tuned the same way, of course, but there is not the same need, since the shorter strings will not necessarily break at the higher octave. Some years ago I witnessed the re-invention of the theorbo on an early music course in Latvia. The students had been lent a lute, and one of the strings broke. It was the first course. All they had to hand was a metal guitar string, but they thought that tuning it up to pitch would put too great a strain on the instrument. Nevertheless, they used the guitar string, because that was all they had, but they tuned it an octave lower to be on the safe side. They did so without knowing about theorboes. Fortunately I had some spare lute strings, so the guitar string was taken off, and the theorbo became a lute again. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. -Original Message- From: howard posner [mailto:howardpos...@ca.rr.com] Sent: 17 February 2009 21:54 To: lutelist Net Subject: [LUTE] Re: Non-Toy Theorbo for sale On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Mark Wheeler wrote: To be fair to Martyn, he is merely using one of the fundamentals of historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. * * * This is what they did back then, before modern stringing possibilities. I'm very leery of they and then, seeing as we're talking about thousands of players and instruments over a period of 150 years or so. Does some historical source say both highest pitch possible and thinnest useable string in discussing theorbos? And if so, is there any reason to believe that every theorbist subscribed to it? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: Non-Toy Theorbo for rent
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Stewart McCoy wrote: There are various 17^th-century sources which tell us things about theorboes, but it is futile to dismiss them all out of hand, just because they don't happen to have exactly the wording we want, or because what they say doesn't apply to all circumstances. Nobody suggested doing anything of the sort. I was responding to a categorical statement that what they did back then was tune to the highest pitch that is possible with the thinnest useable string. If I read a statement like that, I immediately ask: 1. Who was THEY? There were players all over Europe, and we know that there were drastic differences in the sound of their instruments; e.g. Mersenne's comment that archlutes in Italy were louder than French theorbos (a suspicious statement, I know, since I doubt he heard them side by side, but still in line with what we know of Italian and French style of the day). 2. When was THEN? 1603? 1712? Was the the theorbo player in Handel's Giulio Cesare in London in 1724 stringing and playing his instrument the same way as the third theorbo player in Monteverdi's Orfeo in 1610? 3. What is the thinnest useable string? Is thinnest useable a valid concept? Assuming it is, what does it mean? The thinnest string that won't break as soon as you put it on and tune it up? Not likely. More likely the thinnest string that will give you a sound you like, which is to say, the criterion is not maximum thinness (which has been scientifically proven to equal minimum thickness) but the optimum thickness, which is to say the thickness the player likes, which is to say the whole concept of thinnest useable string is meaningless. This is one reason I was curious to know if any historical source says highest pitch possible with the thinnest useable string. By Reason of the Largeness of It, we are constrain'd to make use of an Octave Treble-String, that is, of a Thick String, which stands Eight Notes Lower, than the String of a Smaller Lute, (for no Strings can be made so Strong, that will stand to the Pitch of Consort, upon such Large Sciz'd Lutes) and for want of a Small Treble-String, the Life and Spruceness of such Ayrey Lessons, is quite lost, and the Ayre much altered. Nay, I have known, (and It cannot be otherwise) that upon some Theorboes, they have been forc'd to put an Octave String in the 2d. String's Place; by reason of the very long Scize of the Theorboe, which would not bear a Small String to Its True pitch; because of Its so great Length, and the Necessity of setting the Lute at such a High Pitch, which must Agree with the rest of the Instruments. This concurs with the points Martyn made earlier, that the tuning of the theorbo is determined by the size of the instrument. No it doesn't. It says that at some unknown size and unknown pitch an English theorbo, which was normally single re-entrant, needed to be double re-entrant. It does not say that double re-entrant tuning (or single re-entrant, for that matter) is invariably limited to instruments of a certain size. It tells us nothing about Castaldi or Pittoni. It does not explain the tiorbino. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic-Nic Beeblbeeblbeebl ftang
On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:43 PM, chriswi...@yahoo.com wrote: How many of us really follow this fundamental of lute stringing today? We tune our instruments to arbitrarily agreed upon pitches like 415, 392, 440 etc because its practical. If we were to do the truly historical thing, Jeff's G lute would be at 449, Joe's at 412, Tina's at 463 and Bill's at 398. That wouldn't have worked in 1610 either. They all had to use an agreed pitch if they were going to play together, unless they were into the whole John Cage thing. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Breaking pitch
Oh, this is classic, Golden Age lute list stuff here! Hah!! DR On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:42 PM, alexander wrote: No one seems to object, and the talk continues as if the very people that gave us all the amazing instruments we play, were totally ignorant as far as the oh, so stupid tune almost to the breaking point line goes. The simple truth of the matter is that any string made of the same material will break at the same pitch, no matter its' diameter, as long as the string length is the same. Some here still remember Eph Segerman?.. The stress on the string (represented by S) is the tension divided by the cross-sectional area, so S=T/A. The tensile strength of a material is defined as the stress at breaking (which we can represent by SB). Then the breaking frequency, represented by fB becomes: fB = (1/2L)sqrt(SB/ï²). This demonstrates that the breaking pitch is inversely proportional to the string stop. In the formula, (as can not be seen here, unfortunately) the invert relation is only between the pitch, length and the breaking point stress. Diameter plays no role. All this means a very simple truth - all the instruments of the same mensura tuned close to the breaking point of a given material, will have the same pitch, to the same degree as an organ pipe of the same length and diameter will produce the same pitch, be it in France or England. I hazard to say that, among professionals who used no rotten strings and preferred particular strings made by the same makers and even at particular time of the year, the pitch standard was no worse then nowadays. alexander On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:29:32 -0800 howard posner howardpos...@ca.rr.com wrote: On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:43 PM, chriswi...@yahoo.com wrote: How many of us really follow this fundamental of lute stringing today? We tune our instruments to arbitrarily agreed upon pitches like 415, 392, 440 etc because its practical. If we were to do the truly historical thing, Jeff's G lute would be at 449, Joe's at 412, Tina's at 463 and Bill's at 398. That wouldn't have worked in 1610 either. They all had to use an agreed pitch if they were going to play together, unless they were into the whole John Cage thing. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html dlu...@verizon.net --
[LUTE] Re: Breaking pitch
Hello guys, Just an observation: the suggested average of the Breacking Index of a modern gut string is 260 Hz/m. However, the full range of modern lute strings ranging between 240- 300 Hz.mt. This is true for the range of lute 1st string gauges. I mean 38 till 46 mm (more or less), were strings are made with a very low twist and gut is made harder by chemicals. The Breacking Index drop in the case that we are speacking of thicker 1st strings, were they are made with more twist than the lute chantarelles. Example: on the 1st bass gamba strings the Breacking Index drop of a semitone-tone than the lute 1st strings. In fact this is function of some technological things: the twist quantity and the use (or not) of some substances ables to do gut harder etc etc. If we go in the range of the violone 1st strings the breacking Index drop again and again because such strings are made very very high twist and without any chemical tretment able to do gut stiffer. This is why, in my wiew, the calculated Working Indexes (the product of the string scale X the supposed frequencies of the 1st strings) of the bowed instruments in the Praetorous tables drop step- by -step when the instrument became longer. So on Violins we are in the average of 210 HZ/mt while, on violones, we drop to arround 180 Hz/m only. Ciao Mimmo alexander ha scritto: No one seems to object, and the talk continues as if the very people that gave u s all the amazing instruments we play, were totally ignorant as far as the oh, s o stupid tune almost to the breaking point line goes. The simple truth of the matter is that any string made of the same material will break at the same pitch , no matter its' diameter, as long as the string length is the same. Some here s till remember Eph Segerman?.. The stress on the string (represented by S) is the tension divided by the cross-sectional area, so S=T/A. The tensile strength of a material is defined as the stress at breaking (which we can represent by SB). Then the breaking frequency, represented by fB becomes: fB = (1/2L)sqrt(SB/r). This demonstrates that the breaking pitch is inversely proportional to the string stop. In the formula, (as can not be seen here, unfortunately) the invert relation is only between the pitch, length and the breaking point stress. Diameter plays no role. All this means a very simple truth - all the instruments of the same mensu ra tuned close to the breaking point of a given material, will have the same pit ch, to the same degree as an organ pipe of the same length and diameter will pro duce the same pitch, be it in France or England. I hazard to say that, among pro fessionals who used no rotten strings and preferred particular strings made by the same makers and even at particular time of the year, the pitch standard was no worse then nowadays. alexander On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:29:32 -0800 howard posner [1]howardpos...@ca.rr.com wrote: On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:43 PM, [2]chriswi...@yahoo.com wrote: How many of us really follow this fundamental of lute stringing today? We tune our instruments to arbitrarily agreed upon pitches like 415, 392, 440 etc because its practical. If we were to do the truly historical thing, Jeff's G lute would be at 449, Joe's at 412, Tina's at 463 and Bill's at 398. That wouldn't have worked in 1610 either. They all had to use an agreed pitch if they were going to play together, unless they were into the whole John Cage thing. -- To get on or off this list see list information at [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Messaggio e-mail verificato da Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.386) Versione database: 5.11780 [4]http://www.pctools.com/it/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - [5]www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1957 - Release Date: 02/17/09 07:07 :00 Messaggio e-mail verificato da Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.386) Versione database: 5.11780 [6]http://www.pctools.com/it/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ Messaggio e-mail verificato da Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.386) Versione database: 5.11780 [7]http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ -- References 1. mailto:howardpos...@ca.rr.com 2. mailto:chriswi...@yahoo.com 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 4. http://www.pctools.com/it/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ 5. http://www.avg.com/ 6. http://www.pctools.com/it/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ 7. http://www.pctools.com/it/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
