[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
Excuse me for what may be a stupid question but which manuscripts are Paris BN 1575 and BN 25391? I have tried to search for these using Google with no success. Where are they located, names, and are they available? Regards David Smith -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Mathias Rösel Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:46 PM To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo > I would object to the idea that some > version is a "rewrite" of another version. I take all three version > (guitar/theorbo/score) as renderings of the same compositional idea. A bit more than that, no? Exact transpositions of the same pieces, I'd say. Perhaps we won't be able to tell which was first (as in Lessing's Ring Parable), but it's pretty clear that one _was_ first and the others are adaptations. > > These pieces were not published in print as theorbo pieces at all. > > The publication of the Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth in 1716 suggests > > that the music previously existed as theorbo music, but it wasn't > > published in print. Saizenay is dated 1699, but R1575 (and its > > sister ms.) is considerably earlier, probably. > > > You know of any source earlier than 1682? Would you mind sharing? Paris BN 1575 and BN 25391 are two theorbo mss. that abound with music by de Visee. Some concordances with Saizenay, but both mss. seem to be much earlier than 1699 and earlier than 1680, I'd say. > Why? It might well be a written down version of the "core" composition. > The instrument-specific versions adapt to the resp. instruments range. I for one have never heard of such a thing like a core composition, to be used for instrument-specific adaptations, in the 17th century. > But who claimed that? The statement I questioned (and still do) was > that since the scored version is a forth higher that implies a theorbo > tuned a forth higher. An idea that was positively maintained e. g. by Jose Moreno in the booklet to his CD with music by de Visee. I agree with you in doubting it. Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
> I would object to the idea that some > version is a "rewrite" of another version. I take all three version > (guitar/theorbo/score) as renderings of the same compositional idea. A bit more than that, no? Exact transpositions of the same pieces, I'd say. Perhaps we won't be able to tell which was first (as in Lessing's Ring Parable), but it's pretty clear that one _was_ first and the others are adaptations. > > These pieces were not published in print as theorbo pieces at all. > > The publication of the Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth in 1716 suggests > > that the music previously existed as theorbo music, but it wasn't > > published in print. Saizenay is dated 1699, but R1575 (and its > > sister ms.) is considerably earlier, probably. > > > You know of any source earlier than 1682? Would you mind sharing? Paris BN 1575 and BN 25391 are two theorbo mss. that abound with music by de Visee. Some concordances with Saizenay, but both mss. seem to be much earlier than 1699 and earlier than 1680, I'd say. > Why? It might well be a written down version of the "core" composition. > The instrument-specific versions adapt to the resp. instruments range. I for one have never heard of such a thing like a core composition, to be used for instrument-specific adaptations, in the 17th century. > But who claimed that? The statement I questioned (and still do) was that > since the scored version is a forth higher that implies a theorbo tuned > a forth higher. An idea that was positively maintained e. g. by Jose Moreno in the booklet to his CD with music by de Visee. I agree with you in doubting it. Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Renaissance lute & string length
A fellow named Greg Irwin has a series of hand/finger exercises on YouTube which are quite challenging, not damaging (as far as I can tell). Regards, Leonard Williams On 8/11/11 3:59 AM, "David van Ooijen" wrote: > On 10 August 2011 22:42, wrote: >> Take great care with stretching exercises of the hand!! I deal fairly often >> with musicians' injuries, and musicians are nearly as bad as competitive >> athletes as far as abusing their bodies to try to get better performance. > > I second that: take care with stretching. It's my observation that > those who are already flexible, can do those exercises. Those who have > stiffer tendons, should not try to do the same. I have a nasty case of > De Quervain Tendinitis (troubled tendon at the base of the thumb), and > over-stretching/too much playing is to blame. The closing remark of > the doctor is spot-on: in my hospital there is a special department > for musicians, as they tend to have specific complaints, but also > specific behaviour, all demanding specific treatment ... > > David > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:05:19 +0200, Mathias Rösel wrote > > > I was speaking of the "Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth, Mises en > > > Partition Dessus et Basse", 1716 (facsimile Madrid, 1983). The guitar > > > is not mentioned. > > > > I was speaking of the two printed guitar books from 1682 and 1686. No > theorbo > > mentioned in those. > > That being so, it was off-topic, wasn't it. > > > > One might take this to suggest that de Visée himself viewed the pieces > > > as theorbo and lute music. > > > > Not in 1680-something :-) > > No, I was speaking, as I said, of the "Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth, > Mises en Partition Dessus et Basse", 1716. Guitar is off-topic in > this context > (see headline above). > > > > In his 1983 preface, Juan Marcos remarked that "many of these pieces > > > had, years before, an edition of its guitar versions" (sic!). > > > However, that it was "impossible to know for what instruments were > > > they originaly conceived" > > > (sic!). I for one cannot see good reasons why one should claim that > > > what de Visee called music for the theorbo and the lute, in fact is > > > guitar music (that must have been rewritten for the theorbo and the > > > lute). > > > > Nobody here made such a claim. > > Yes, it has been made by means of implication. If a collection is labeled > Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth without even mentioning the guitar, but > you > (the editor of the facsimile edition) state that it isn't possible > to tell whether the pieces were originally conceived for the guitar, > the lute or the theorbo, you do claim in that vein that the music > was possibly conceived for the guitar. > Even so with "here" I clearly refered to this mailing list and the editor of the 1716 edition is not paticipating in this exchange, I have to agree with him: the music was published I three editions, two of them (the much earlier ones) contain both score and guitar version, none contains theorbo or lute versions. Clearly the are guitar music published by the composer. I would object to the idea that some version is a "rewrite" of another version. I take all three version (guitar/theorbo/score) as renderings of the same compositional idea. > > Just that these pieces in score where published > > in the context of a guitar publication ca. 30 year before the where > published as > > theorbo pieces. > > These pieces were not published in print as theorbo pieces at all. > The publication of the Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth in 1716 suggests > that the music previously existed as theorbo music, but it wasn't > published in print. Saizenay is dated 1699, but R1575 (and its > sister ms.) is considerably earlier, probably. > > > > As a matter of fact, pieces by de Visee that exist in versions for the > > > theorbo, the lute, the guitar and / or in score (en partition), have > > > in common that versions of a piece for lute, guitar and / or in score > > > share the same key, whereas the respective theorbo version is a 4th > > > lower. > > > > Maybe because they would be unplayable at the high pitch on a theorbo? > > Given that the keys of pieces are clearly given in manuscripts I think > there's little > > to argue about. > > Yes, agreed. After all, the leading question can be turned into the opposite > direction. Versions for the guitar and / or the lute stand a 4th higher > because they'd be unfeasible at the low theorbo pitch. Or the violin etc. > > > IMO it is safe to say about the 1716 score edition, that if pieces > > > exists in versions for the theorbo as well as other versions, the > > > theorbo version is original, nevertheless. > > > > I think that's a claim hard to be proven. The earliest sources are for > guitar. > > A claim hardly to be proved. You know of any source earlier than 1682? Would you mind sharing? > > I tend > > to take these pieces as music published for a wide range of instruments > (those > > most popular at the time: guitar, harpsichord, violin/flute/recorder with > BC or > > lute / theorbo). > > You are in good company. That is what de Visée wrote himself. > > > It seems futile to claim that they are "originally" for one > > instrument with the other versions being mere > "Bearbeitungen"/arrangements. > > I was under the impression that you take them as original guitar > music. Nowhere did I say this. > And if we take into account the difference of pitch between > versions of a piece for the lute (or guitar, for that matter) and > versions of the same piece for the theorbo, we may safely conclude > that one is the adaptation of the other. At least, I see no other > explanation. The edition en partition clearly is an adaptation. Why? It might well be a written down version of the "core" composition. The instrument-specific versions adapt to the resp. instruments range. > > I don't think we need to assume equal pitch for the different scorings > since there > > seems to be no indication that these are meant to be used together. > >
[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
> > I was speaking of the "Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth, Mises en > > Partition Dessus et Basse", 1716 (facsimile Madrid, 1983). The guitar > > is not mentioned. > > I was speaking of the two printed guitar books from 1682 and 1686. No theorbo > mentioned in those. That being so, it was off-topic, wasn't it. > > One might take this to suggest that de Visée himself viewed the pieces > > as theorbo and lute music. > > Not in 1680-something :-) No, I was speaking, as I said, of the "Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth, Mises en Partition Dessus et Basse", 1716. Guitar is off-topic in this context (see headline above). > > In his 1983 preface, Juan Marcos remarked that "many of these pieces > > had, years before, an edition of its guitar versions" (sic!). > > However, that it was "impossible to know for what instruments were > > they originaly conceived" > > (sic!). I for one cannot see good reasons why one should claim that > > what de Visee called music for the theorbo and the lute, in fact is > > guitar music (that must have been rewritten for the theorbo and the > > lute). > > Nobody here made such a claim. Yes, it has been made by means of implication. If a collection is labeled Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth without even mentioning the guitar, but you (the editor of the facsimile edition) state that it isn't possible to tell whether the pieces were originally conceived for the guitar, the lute or the theorbo, you do claim in that vein that the music was possibly conceived for the guitar. > Just that these pieces in score where published > in the context of a guitar publication ca. 30 year before the where published as > theorbo pieces. These pieces were not published in print as theorbo pieces at all. The publication of the Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth in 1716 suggests that the music previously existed as theorbo music, but it wasn't published in print. Saizenay is dated 1699, but R1575 (and its sister ms.) is considerably earlier, probably. > > As a matter of fact, pieces by de Visee that exist in versions for the > > theorbo, the lute, the guitar and / or in score (en partition), have > > in common that versions of a piece for lute, guitar and / or in score > > share the same key, whereas the respective theorbo version is a 4th > > lower. > > Maybe because they would be unplayable at the high pitch on a theorbo? > Given that the keys of pieces are clearly given in manuscripts I think there's little > to argue about. Yes, agreed. After all, the leading question can be turned into the opposite direction. Versions for the guitar and / or the lute stand a 4th higher because they'd be unfeasible at the low theorbo pitch. > > IMO it is safe to say about the 1716 score edition, that if pieces > > exists in versions for the theorbo as well as other versions, the > > theorbo version is original, nevertheless. > > I think that's a claim hard to be proven. The earliest sources are for guitar. A claim hardly to be proved. > I tend > to take these pieces as music published for a wide range of instruments (those > most popular at the time: guitar, harpsichord, violin/flute/recorder with BC or > lute / theorbo). You are in good company. That is what de Visée wrote himself. > It seems futile to claim that they are "originally" for one > instrument with the other versions being mere "Bearbeitungen"/arrangements. I was under the impression that you take them as original guitar music. And if we take into account the difference of pitch between versions of a piece for the lute (or guitar, for that matter) and versions of the same piece for the theorbo, we may safely conclude that one is the adaptation of the other. At least, I see no other explanation. The edition en partition clearly is an adaptation. > I don't think we need to assume equal pitch for the different scorings since there > seems to be no indication that these are meant to be used together. By different scorings you mean theorbo tablatures and the 1680ish / 1716 score editions, I take it? Then that's what I said, the score edition is not a version for the theorbo in D. > There's also > astonishing little evidence for Theorbos in D from french sources. None, to put it straight. Mathias > > > > The theorbo pieces of de Visée's publication en musique stand a > > > > 4th higher than the correspondent tablature versions. > > > > > Can the transposition of a 4th "en musique" be because de Visee was > > > using his guitar pieces as his reference point? Most of the solo > > > theorbo pieces that also exist in guitar versions are pitched down a > > > 4th from the guitar. This makes sense since the guitar with > > > re-entrant 5th course will have the 4th course as its lowest pitch, > > > so as to be really "in d." > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > Christopher Wilke > > > Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer > > > www.christopherwilke.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu
[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:28:40 +0200, Mathias Rösel wrote > I was speaking of the "Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth, Mises en Partition > Dessus et Basse", 1716 (facsimile Madrid, 1983). The guitar is not > mentioned. I was speaking of the two printed guitar books from 1682 and 1686. No theorbo mentioned in those. > One might take this to suggest that de Visée himself > viewed the pieces as theorbo and lute music. Not in 1680-something :-) > In his 1983 preface, Juan Marcos remarked that "many of these pieces > had, years before, an edition of its guitar versions" (sic!). > However, that it was "impossible to know for what instruments were > they originaly conceived" > (sic!). I for one cannot see good reasons why one should claim that > what de Visee called music for the theorbo and the lute, in fact is > guitar music (that must have been rewritten for the theorbo and the > lute). Nobody here made such a claim. Just that these pieces in score where published in the context of a guitar publication ca. 30 year before the where published as theorbo pieces. > As a matter of fact, pieces by de Visee that exist in versions for > the theorbo, the lute, the guitar and / or in score (en partition), > have in common that versions of a piece for lute, guitar and / or > in score share the same key, whereas the respective theorbo version > is a 4th lower. Maybe because they would be unplayable at the high pitch on a theorbo? Given that the keys of pieces are clearly given in manuscripts I think there's little to argue about. > IMO it is safe to say about the 1716 score edition, that if pieces > exists in versions for the theorbo as well as other versions, the > theorbo version is original, nevertheless. I think that's a claim hard to be proven. The earliest sources are for guitar. I tend to take these pieces as music published for a wide range of instruments (those most popular at the time: guitar, harpsichord, violin/flute/recorder with BC or lute / theorbo). It seems futile to claim that they are "originally" for one instrument with the other versions being mere "Bearbeitungen"/arrangements. I don't think we need to assume equal pitch for the different scorings since there seems to be no indication that these are meant to be used together. There's also astonishing little evidence for Theorbos in D from french sources. Cheers, Ralf Mattes > Mathias > > > > The theorbo pieces of de Visée's publication en musique stand a 4th > > > higher than the correspondent tablature versions. > > > Can the transposition of a 4th "en musique" be because > > de Visee was using his guitar pieces as his reference > > point? Most of the solo theorbo pieces that also exist > > in guitar versions are pitched down a 4th from the > > guitar. This makes sense since the guitar with > > re-entrant 5th course will have the 4th course as its lowest > > pitch, so as to be really "in d." > > > > Chris > > > > Christopher Wilke > > Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer > > www.christopherwilke.com > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- R. Mattes - Hochschule fuer Musik Freiburg r...@inm.mh-freiburg.de
[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
Chris, Ralf, I was speaking of the "Pieces de Theorbe et de Luth, Mises en Partition Dessus et Basse", 1716 (facsimile Madrid, 1983). The guitar is not mentioned. One might take this to suggest that de Visée himself viewed the pieces as theorbo and lute music. In his 1983 preface, Juan Marcos remarked that "many of these pieces had, years before, an edition of its guitar versions" (sic!). However, that it was "impossible to know for what instruments were they originaly conceived" (sic!). I for one cannot see good reasons why one should claim that what de Visee called music for the theorbo and the lute, in fact is guitar music (that must have been rewritten for the theorbo and the lute). As a matter of fact, pieces by de Visee that exist in versions for the theorbo, the lute, the guitar and / or in score (en partition), have in common that versions of a piece for lute, guitar and / or in score share the same key, whereas the respective theorbo version is a 4th lower. IMO it is safe to say about the 1716 score edition, that if pieces exists in versions for the theorbo as well as other versions, the theorbo version is original, nevertheless. Mathias > > The theorbo pieces of de Visée's publication en musique stand a 4th > > higher than the correspondent tablature versions. > Can the transposition of a 4th "en musique" be because > de Visee was using his guitar pieces as his reference > point? Most of the solo theorbo pieces that also exist > in guitar versions are pitched down a 4th from the > guitar. This makes sense since the guitar with > re-entrant 5th course will have the 4th course as its lowest > pitch, so as to be really "in d." > > Chris > > Christopher Wilke > Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer > www.christopherwilke.com > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:49:33 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Wilke wrote > Mathias, > > --- On Thu, 8/11/11, Mathias Rösel > wrote: > > > The theorbo pieces of de Visée's publication en > > musique stand a 4th > > higher than the correspondent tablature versions. > > > > Can the transposition of a 4th "en musique" be because > deVisee was using his guitar pieces as his reference > point? Most of the solo theorbo pieces that also exist > in guitar versions are pitched down a 4th from the > guitar. This makes sense since the guitar with > re-entrant 5th course will have the 4th course as its lowest > pitch, so as to be really "in d." And, IIRC, de Visée's 'en musique' is in no way connected to the Theorbo - it's printed published as an apendix to his printed _guitar_ works. And even there there seems to be no indication that the music is meant to be performed together with the guitar. Cheers, Ralf Mattes > Chris > > Christopher Wilke > Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer > www.christopherwilke.com > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- R. Mattes - Hochschule fuer Musik Freiburg r...@inm.mh-freiburg.de
[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
Mathias, --- On Thu, 8/11/11, Mathias Rösel wrote: > The theorbo pieces of de Visée's publication en > musique stand a 4th > higher than the correspondent tablature versions. > Can the transposition of a 4th "en musique" be because deVisee was using his guitar pieces as his reference point? Most of the solo theorbo pieces that also exist in guitar versions are pitched down a 4th from the guitar. This makes sense since the guitar with re-entrant 5th course will have the 4th course as its lowest pitch, so as to be really "in d." Chris Christopher Wilke Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer www.christopherwilke.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Renaissance lute & string length
It may take few month to achieve good level of stretching. But one should work very carefuly and slowly. Every day or (better) few times a day regulary. Good warming-up before and massage with some hand-cream (I used baby oil) after stretching. Dowland and many others are possible even with double courses (I used double courses on my video). But now I'm working on Bach's allegro ( [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQdL5IQGcaw )and it's almost impossible to play it on double courses so I have to use singles. Moreover I have in plans to play on lute some pieces from guitar repertoire where single courses are strictly necessary. I guess (watching videos and photos) that POD uses shorter string lenght when plays renaissance lute. 2011/8/10 Edward Mast <[2]nedma...@aol.com> Thank you Bruno and both Eugenes, Paul O'Dette's comments are very interesting - I'll read the whole interview, Eugene. ( I wonder what string length P O uses on his Renaissance lutes). Yes, scale passages are not a problem with longer string lengths, I'm sure. I would expect the problems to be with fingered chords, especially barred chords. Your stretching exercises are impressive, E.K. I can't achieve that kind of stretch myself - with practice?? Certainly no problems for you in performing the Dowland, at least using single stringing. -- References 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQdL5IQGcaw 2. mailto:nedma...@aol.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
> "Historical practice" was tuning small theorbos in dm, although even this is not > very certain (it's mostly based on a few examples, like the pieces by visee which > exist in staff notation and theorbo tablature). That's news to me, indeed. There is a theory that some theorbos were tuned in D, but vieil ton, not D minor. The tablature pieces in Saizenay are ordered by key, thus making it clear that the required instrument was tuned in A. The theorbo pieces of de Visée's publication en musique stand a 4th higher than the correspondent tablature versions. You could take a tablature version and play it on a theorbo in D, so as to accompany the flute, but you would double the upper voice. I don't think the edition en musique was meant to be executed that way. Lesser theorbos (Talbot) were used for solo music, or so I think. Is there any evidence other than late Baron for the idea that theorbos were tuned in D minor? Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
Just for clarity, I am working on the solo music. Once I am comfortable with that I can proceed to continuo. Thanks for the suggestions! Regards David -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Taco Walstra Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:57 AM To: Martyn Hodgson; lute net Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo On 08/11/2011 09:30 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: Playing close to the bridge is a story in itself. It's not proved that it was common practice on theorbo. It's logical however, but playing with nails was perhaps also used, or both. What you call "historical practice... only lower the first course..." was the tuning used on an english theorbo, not the "standard" theorbo. "Historical practice" was tuning small theorbos in dm, although even this is not very certain (it's mostly based on a few examples, like the pieces by visee which exist in staff notation and theorbo tablature). Even the small tiorbino usied in the italian Castaldi music has the 2 top course reentrant, if I remember well. But what is the problem with the second course? As you can see in the list by David he uses 0.78 mm. that's not 0.36 or whatever. with archlutes in G you encounter such problems, not theorbos. If you use a theorbo only for continuo playing, your advice can be a good idea, but I assume that David Smith will surely like to play Visee and other beautiful solomusic, which is problematic when you do this. Taco > > > Much depends on your technique and whether you play close to the bridge > (as the Old Ones generally seemed to have done) or up to the rose. > However whatever tension you decide upon, with such a small instrument > why don't you follow historical practice and only lower the first > course an octave? The stress of the second course at such a short > string length (at , say, A 415) is well below breaking stress. > > MH To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Renaissance lute & string length
On 10 August 2011 22:42, wrote: > Take great care with stretching exercises of the hand!! I deal fairly often > with musicians' injuries, and musicians are nearly as bad as competitive > athletes as far as abusing their bodies to try to get better performance. I second that: take care with stretching. It's my observation that those who are already flexible, can do those exercises. Those who have stiffer tendons, should not try to do the same. I have a nasty case of De Quervain Tendinitis (troubled tendon at the base of the thumb), and over-stretching/too much playing is to blame. The closing remark of the doctor is spot-on: in my hospital there is a special department for musicians, as they tend to have specific complaints, but also specific behaviour, all demanding specific treatment ... 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] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
On 08/11/2011 09:30 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote: Playing close to the bridge is a story in itself. It's not proved that it was common practice on theorbo. It's logical however, but playing with nails was perhaps also used, or both. What you call "historical practice... only lower the first course..." was the tuning used on an english theorbo, not the "standard" theorbo. "Historical practice" was tuning small theorbos in dm, although even this is not very certain (it's mostly based on a few examples, like the pieces by visee which exist in staff notation and theorbo tablature). Even the small tiorbino usied in the italian Castaldi music has the 2 top course reentrant, if I remember well. But what is the problem with the second course? As you can see in the list by David he uses 0.78 mm. that's not 0.36 or whatever. with archlutes in G you encounter such problems, not theorbos. If you use a theorbo only for continuo playing, your advice can be a good idea, but I assume that David Smith will surely like to play Visee and other beautiful solomusic, which is problematic when you do this. Taco Much depends on your technique and whether you play close to the bridge (as the Old Ones generally seemed to have done) or up to the rose. However whatever tension you decide upon, with such a small instrument why don't you follow historical practice and only lower the first course an octave? The stress of the second course at such a short string length (at , say, A 415) is well below breaking stress. MH To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] [LUTE] [LUTE] Robert de Visée
Thank you Alan. That was it! On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Alan Hoyle wrote: I think if you tick the box to the left of 'En cochent...', it will then work; at least, it just has for me. All you will be doing by ticking is agreeing to the usual amateur undertaking Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan [1]http://www.musicianspage.com/musicians/9688/ [2]http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ -- References 1. http://www.musicianspage.com/musicians/9688/ 2. http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Lute Strings for theorbo
On 08/10/2011 07:54 PM, David van Ooijen wrote: Hi, I've the same type of S&S theorbo, but in a 7+7 setup. Indeed it's a bit of searching for the right (5), 6 and 7th gutstringtype/diameter with the relative short 76 cm. I'm using only a loaded gut on the G (7th). This string behaves rather differently than the other strings when playing in an environment with changing humidity, but not very problematic. I'm using a slightly thinner b course 0.52 if I remember well. Another possibility is to setup the instrument in d minor, as a theorbo de pieces. Arto Wikla has experience with that. You'll need to learn again the BC chords however. You can ask Aquila or Gamut directly, but it's part of the fun to experiment yourself. also to test different manufacturers, because the differences in sound are interesting too. Taco David I play a S&S theorbo like yours: 76/140cm, build for me in 1988. Current set-up is 6+8. First two strings re-entrant, tuned in a. 415/440 as required with the same set of strings. I've had all sorts of tensions over the years, but this is what it is at the moment: All-gut, obviously. 76cm 1 = a 0.62mm 2 = e 0.78mm 3 = b 0.58mm 4 = g 0.66mm 5 = d 0.88mm 6 = A 1.16mm 140mm 7 = G 0.74mm 8 = F 0.82mm 9 = E 0.86mm 10 = D 0.97mm 11 = C 1.09mm 12 = B1 1.14mm 13 = A1 1.28mm 14 = G1 1.44mm (Or the nearest available diameter, of course.) Strings 1 to 5 are plain gut by any maker. 6 is a bit of a bother, but I'm reasonably happy with Aquila's loaded gut at the moment. Strings 7 to 14 are Gamut Diapassons, the best I've played so far, but fret gut will do if in trouble (still better than nylgut ;-). I used to play it with a much higher string tension, but have gone down over the years: less punch and more resonance, less metallic sound and more warmth. It would be nice to have the instrument in balance: top set in a tension that is comparable to the diapassons. If you like the tension of what you're having on the instrument now, just replace the top seven strings. The carbon you can measure. There are lists around (or ask this list) that translate carbon diameters to comparable gut diameters. If you ever decide to change to a different tension, you'll be able to reuse most of your diapassons by moving them up a place, and just buy the missing one string. No need to replace good diapasson, and some of these thick basses get better over time anyway. On a side-note. I've noticed string makers tend to advice rather high string tensions. Better ask a player. I'm sure the string makers know best at what tension their strings give optimum performance, but I think players tend to give a more informed, and more varied!, answer to the question of ideal string tension for actual playing. enjoy your new toy! David To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
