[LUTE] Re: Back to the 4-cours guitar
Names, as we all know, are funny things that shift with time, leading to all kinds of confusion for modern musicians and scholars. One that struck me recently on a visit to a museum was a card proclaiming that a swan-necked 13c lute was a 'theorbo'. At first I winced, then thought "What the hell, it's still the same instrument", and I'd be surprised if future scholarship doesn't continue to relabel instruments. Having said that, once we've associated a particular instrument with a particular name (at least for some part of its history) we can be more confident in associating it with particular compositions. Bill From: Monica Hall To: Sean Smith Cc: Lutelist Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 8:04 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Back to the 4-cours guitar Perhaps - in the end - it doesn't matter what these things were called or what shape they were. Monica - Original Message - From: "Sean Smith" <[1]lutesm...@mac.com> To: "lute" <[2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:47 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Back to the 4-cours guitar > > Indeed. Morlaye takes his liberties re-serving the likes of Francesco, Borrono and Paladin(o). It may be name value only that got Albert's name attached to those 'guitar' pieces. > > I was plinking through the Vaccaro/deRipa last night and #20 is entirely built upon the the theme of Josquin's Adieu mes amours. What square does that put us on?? > > s > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Monica Hall wrote: > > Well - to keep the ball rolling here are a few observations. > It's interesting that you mention the Ripa fantasias - but how do we know > that they were written for the guitar in the first place? A lot of the > 4-course music is arrangements of pre-existing pieces. One of the pieces in > Barberiis is also found in Morlaye's "Second livre". > The repertoires of all these instruments are interchangeable. Some music > from vihuela books is found in later lute sources. > The music itself can be played on any instrument which has the appropriate > number of courses tuned to the appropriate intervals. It wasn't necessarily composed for one instrument rather than another and it tells us nothing > about the identity of the different instruments which were in use at the time. > Back to square one. > > Monica > > > - Original Message - From: "Sean Smith" <[3]lutesm...@mac.com> > To: "lute" <[4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:11 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: 6c guittar > > >> >> Well, it's hard to say whether the train of this argument has run its >> course or whether it's all gone off the rails now. I still think some sort >> of ren. guitar would be possible in Dalza's Italy and have heard no >> evidence that it couldn't. We may disagree as to the instrument portrayed >> in the intarsia. Personally, I'm unconvinced it is a vihuela, or more to >> the point, unconvinced it is a six-course vihuela. I'm less moved by >> instruments described (or defined) significantly outside Dalza's dates and >> area. There is too much leeway in definitions, too many terms and too few >> descriptions of instruments used in a typical Dalza performance. I believe >> his (and G. Pacaloni's) are only two of very few publications --and may >> include the Castelfranco ms.-- actually written with working bands in mind >> and, as such, allowed a greater variety of possible instruments than those >> listed in titles and notes. And I doubt either cared about Tinctoris' >> definitions. >> >> A strummed C chord on it works fine for the formal Dalza duets (especially >> with a second lute) and there are other dances and intabulations where the >> melody and harmony sit rather nicely to my poor yank ears. I will refrain >> from intabulating motets and writing anything more complex than deRippe >> fantasies for it. (Could his have been written before coming to France? >> Does his Mantouan nature make them, by definition, Italian guitar >> fantasies, albeit published posthumously for a French public? and >> furthermore in a book containing the frottole-era, Scaramela?) I will >> continue to use it in an upcoming performance of frottole (replacing an >> A-lute with a second singer singing bass) as
[LUTE] Re: Back to the 4-cours guitar
Perhaps - in the end - it doesn't matter what these things were called or what shape they were. Monica - Original Message - From: "Sean Smith" To: "lute" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:47 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Back to the 4-cours guitar Indeed. Morlaye takes his liberties re-serving the likes of Francesco, Borrono and Paladin(o). It may be name value only that got Albert's name attached to those 'guitar' pieces. I was plinking through the Vaccaro/deRipa last night and #20 is entirely built upon the the theme of Josquin's Adieu mes amours. What square does that put us on?? s On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Monica Hall wrote: Well - to keep the ball rolling here are a few observations. It's interesting that you mention the Ripa fantasias - but how do we know that they were written for the guitar in the first place? A lot of the 4-course music is arrangements of pre-existing pieces. One of the pieces in Barberiis is also found in Morlaye's "Second livre". The repertoires of all these instruments are interchangeable. Some music from vihuela books is found in later lute sources. The music itself can be played on any instrument which has the appropriate number of courses tuned to the appropriate intervals. It wasn't necessarily composed for one instrument rather than another and it tells us nothing about the identity of the different instruments which were in use at the time. Back to square one. Monica - Original Message - From: "Sean Smith" To: "lute" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:11 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: 6c guittar Well, it's hard to say whether the train of this argument has run its course or whether it's all gone off the rails now. I still think some sort of ren. guitar would be possible in Dalza's Italy and have heard no evidence that it couldn't. We may disagree as to the instrument portrayed in the intarsia. Personally, I'm unconvinced it is a vihuela, or more to the point, unconvinced it is a six-course vihuela. I'm less moved by instruments described (or defined) significantly outside Dalza's dates and area. There is too much leeway in definitions, too many terms and too few descriptions of instruments used in a typical Dalza performance. I believe his (and G. Pacaloni's) are only two of very few publications --and may include the Castelfranco ms.-- actually written with working bands in mind and, as such, allowed a greater variety of possible instruments than those listed in titles and notes. And I doubt either cared about Tinctoris' definitions. A strummed C chord on it works fine for the formal Dalza duets (especially with a second lute) and there are other dances and intabulations where the melody and harmony sit rather nicely to my poor yank ears. I will refrain from intabulating motets and writing anything more complex than deRippe fantasies for it. (Could his have been written before coming to France? Does his Mantouan nature make them, by definition, Italian guitar fantasies, albeit published posthumously for a French public? and furthermore in a book containing the frottole-era, Scaramela?) I will continue to use it in an upcoming performance of frottole (replacing an A-lute with a second singer singing bass) as well as proper G and E lutes for other pieces. Instrumentation in some ways is like orthography: it is a poor imagination indeed that can think of only one way to spell a word. That said, I do appreciate the time and work by all showing the variety of sources and arguments pro- and con- as well as observations on the inconclusitivity of the evidence. I'm impressed with the going-to-the-matt certainty wherever it developed though such bruisings are hardly necessary in the paucity of evidence. I had hoped for more evidence pro- of course but I will continue to take the intarsia at its probable (for me) face value of a 4-c waisted instrument whatever its title. I worked with a builder a few years ago to design such a 4-c instrument based on the intarsia and we reckon the measurements and ratios will yield a pretty instrument. It will probably be the next instrument in my zoo when the time is right. Many thanks to all who weighed in. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Back to the 4-cours guitar
Indeed. Morlaye takes his liberties re-serving the likes of Francesco, Borrono and Paladin(o). It may be name value only that got Albert's name attached to those 'guitar' pieces. I was plinking through the Vaccaro/deRipa last night and #20 is entirely built upon the the theme of Josquin's Adieu mes amours. What square does that put us on?? s On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Monica Hall wrote: Well - to keep the ball rolling here are a few observations. It's interesting that you mention the Ripa fantasias - but how do we know that they were written for the guitar in the first place? A lot of the 4-course music is arrangements of pre-existing pieces. One of the pieces in Barberiis is also found in Morlaye's "Second livre". The repertoires of all these instruments are interchangeable. Some music from vihuela books is found in later lute sources. The music itself can be played on any instrument which has the appropriate number of courses tuned to the appropriate intervals. It wasn't necessarily composed for one instrument rather than another and it tells us nothing about the identity of the different instruments which were in use at the time. Back to square one. Monica - Original Message - From: "Sean Smith" To: "lute" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:11 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: 6c guittar > > Well, it's hard to say whether the train of this argument has run its > course or whether it's all gone off the rails now. I still think some sort > of ren. guitar would be possible in Dalza's Italy and have heard no > evidence that it couldn't. We may disagree as to the instrument portrayed > in the intarsia. Personally, I'm unconvinced it is a vihuela, or more to > the point, unconvinced it is a six-course vihuela. I'm less moved by > instruments described (or defined) significantly outside Dalza's dates and > area. There is too much leeway in definitions, too many terms and too few > descriptions of instruments used in a typical Dalza performance. I believe > his (and G. Pacaloni's) are only two of very few publications --and may > include the Castelfranco ms.-- actually written with working bands in mind > and, as such, allowed a greater variety of possible instruments than those > listed in titles and notes. And I doubt either cared about Tinctoris' > definitions. > > A strummed C chord on it works fine for the formal Dalza duets (especially > with a second lute) and there are other dances and intabulations where the > melody and harmony sit rather nicely to my poor yank ears. I will refrain > from intabulating motets and writing anything more complex than deRippe > fantasies for it. (Could his have been written before coming to France? > Does his Mantouan nature make them, by definition, Italian guitar > fantasies, albeit published posthumously for a French public? and > furthermore in a book containing the frottole-era, Scaramela?) I will > continue to use it in an upcoming performance of frottole (replacing an > A-lute with a second singer singing bass) as well as proper G and E lutes > for other pieces. Instrumentation in some ways is like orthography: it is > a poor imagination indeed that can think of only one way to spell a word. > > That said, I do appreciate the time and work by all showing the variety of > sources and arguments pro- and con- as well as observations on the > inconclusitivity of the evidence. I'm impressed with the going-to-the-matt > certainty wherever it developed though such bruisings are hardly necessary > in the paucity of evidence. I had hoped for more evidence pro- of course > but I will continue to take the intarsia at its probable (for me) face > value of a 4-c waisted instrument whatever its title. > > I worked with a builder a few years ago to design such a 4-c instrument > based on the intarsia and we reckon the measurements and ratios will yield > a pretty instrument. It will probably be the next instrument in my zoo > when the time is right. > > Many thanks to all who weighed in. > > Sean > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Back to the 4-cours guitar
Well - to keep the ball rolling here are a few observations. It's interesting that you mention the Ripa fantasias - but how do we know that they were written for the guitar in the first place? A lot of the 4-course music is arrangements of pre-existing pieces. One of the pieces in Barberiis is also found in Morlaye's "Second livre". The repertoires of all these instruments are interchangeable. Some music from vihuela books is found in later lute sources. The music itself can be played on any instrument which has the appropriate number of courses tuned to the appropriate intervals. It wasn't necessarily composed for one instrument rather than another and it tells us nothing about the identity of the different instruments which were in use at the time. Back to square one. Monica - Original Message - From: "Sean Smith" To: "lute" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:11 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: 6c guittar Well, it's hard to say whether the train of this argument has run its course or whether it's all gone off the rails now. I still think some sort of ren. guitar would be possible in Dalza's Italy and have heard no evidence that it couldn't. We may disagree as to the instrument portrayed in the intarsia. Personally, I'm unconvinced it is a vihuela, or more to the point, unconvinced it is a six-course vihuela. I'm less moved by instruments described (or defined) significantly outside Dalza's dates and area. There is too much leeway in definitions, too many terms and too few descriptions of instruments used in a typical Dalza performance. I believe his (and G. Pacaloni's) are only two of very few publications --and may include the Castelfranco ms.-- actually written with working bands in mind and, as such, allowed a greater variety of possible instruments than those listed in titles and notes. And I doubt either cared about Tinctoris' definitions. A strummed C chord on it works fine for the formal Dalza duets (especially with a second lute) and there are other dances and intabulations where the melody and harmony sit rather nicely to my poor yank ears. I will refrain from intabulating motets and writing anything more complex than deRippe fantasies for it. (Could his have been written before coming to France? Does his Mantouan nature make them, by definition, Italian guitar fantasies, albeit published posthumously for a French public? and furthermore in a book containing the frottole-era, Scaramela?) I will continue to use it in an upcoming performance of frottole (replacing an A-lute with a second singer singing bass) as well as proper G and E lutes for other pieces. Instrumentation in some ways is like orthography: it is a poor imagination indeed that can think of only one way to spell a word. That said, I do appreciate the time and work by all showing the variety of sources and arguments pro- and con- as well as observations on the inconclusitivity of the evidence. I'm impressed with the going-to-the-matt certainty wherever it developed though such bruisings are hardly necessary in the paucity of evidence. I had hoped for more evidence pro- of course but I will continue to take the intarsia at its probable (for me) face value of a 4-c waisted instrument whatever its title. I worked with a builder a few years ago to design such a 4-c instrument based on the intarsia and we reckon the measurements and ratios will yield a pretty instrument. It will probably be the next instrument in my zoo when the time is right. Many thanks to all who weighed in. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
