[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G

[Christopher Wilke]

   If you're used to the G tuning, it's an option. If you're used to the A
   tuning, an easier solution that helps with flat keys is to have the
   second string in the high octave (if your string length allows for it).
   This gives you room to add more harmonies above bass notes in lower
   positions. Also, 5 of your six fingerboard strings would then be
   identical to modern guitar, so, if you come from that background, most
   chord shapes feel familiar.

   I used to wince whenever I saw flat keys, but nowadays I don't find the
   ordinary re-entrant A tuning so much of a bother for the flats. Must be
   the jazz I attempt to crudely hack out every now and then. ;-)

   Chris
   [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

   On Thursday, March 17, 2016, 12:18 PM, Edward Chrysogonus Yong
wrote:

   Hi Lutefolk!
   Just a thought - would a theorbo in G be useful for playing continuo in
   flat keys?
   Edward Yong
   
   II?III? I.I>>IuI-oIII?I 1/2I^1I-oII 1/2 II+-III'II?I 1/4IuI-I?I 1/2
   IuI-o IuI-I|II 1/2I?I IuI 1/4IuI IuIII 1/4II,I..
   HA| litterA| electronicA| ab iPhono missA| sunt.
   aeCURe>>aaeuae>>P:c, 1/4eae-oe-aaa 3/4iPhonea
   This e-mail was sent from my iPhone.
   To get on or off this list see list information at
   [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   Visible links
   1. https://yho.com/footer0
   2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   Hidden links:
   4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G

[Roland Hayes]

Mentioned by a few people in early 1600s; Praetorius for one. r

-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of 
Bruno Figueiredo
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:37 PM
To: Edward Chrysogonus Yong
Cc: Lute List
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G

   I have no doubt. It would work as a lute in g with reentrant tuning.

   2016-03-17 13:14 GMT-03:00 Edward Chrysogonus Yong
   <[1]edward.y...@gmail.com>:

 Hi Lutefolk!
 Just a thought - would a theorbo in G be useful for playing continuo
 in flat keys?
 Edward Yong
 
 II?III? I.I>>IuI-oIII?I 1/2I^1I-oII 1/2 II+-III'II?I 1/4IuI-I?I 1/2
 IuI-o IuI-I|II 1/2I?I IuI 1/4IuI IuIII 1/4II,I..
 HA| litterA| electronicA| ab iPhono missA| sunt.
 aeCURe>>aaeuae>>P:c, 1/4eae-oe-aaa 3/4iPhonea
 This e-mail was sent from my iPhone.
 To get on or off this list see list information at
 [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --
   Bruno Figueiredo

   Pesquisador autA'nomo da prA!tica e interpretaAS:A-L-o
   historicamente informada no alaA-ode e teorba.
   Doutor em PrA!ticas Interpretativas  pela
   Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.

   --

References

   1. mailto:edward.y...@gmail.com
   2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G

[Bruno Figueiredo]

   I have no doubt. It would work as a lute in g with reentrant tuning.

   2016-03-17 13:14 GMT-03:00 Edward Chrysogonus Yong
   <[1]edward.y...@gmail.com>:

 Hi Lutefolk!
 Just a thought - would a theorbo in G be useful for playing continuo
 in flat keys?
 Edward Yong
 
 II?III? I.I>>IuI-oIII?I 1/2I^1I-oII 1/2 II+-III'II?I 1/4IuI-I?I 1/2
 IuI-o IuI-I|II 1/2I?I IuI 1/4IuI IuIII 1/4II,I..
 HA| litterA| electronicA| ab iPhono missA| sunt.
 aeCURe>>aaeuae>>P:c, 1/4eae-oe-aaa 3/4iPhonea
 This e-mail was sent from my iPhone.
 To get on or off this list see list information at
 [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --
   Bruno Figueiredo

   Pesquisador autA'nomo da prA!tica e interpretaAS:A-L-o
   historicamente informada no alaA-ode e teorba.
   Doutor em PrA!ticas Interpretativas  pela
   Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.

   --

References

   1. mailto:edward.y...@gmail.com
   2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G

[Dan Winheld]

English Theorbo. Single re-entrant 1st String/course down the 8ve. 
Thomas Mace, Wilson, etc. in "G". I think also some large French lutes? 
Some old article or other in one of the lute publications.


On 3/17/2016 9:14 AM, Edward Chrysogonus Yong wrote:

Hi Lutefolk!

Just a thought - would a theorbo in G be useful for playing continuo in flat 
keys?

Edward Yong



τούτο ηλεκτρονικόν ταχυδρομείον εκ είΦωνου εμεύ επέμφθη.
Hæ litteræ electronicæ ab iPhono missæ sunt.
此電子郵件發送于自吾iPhone。
This e-mail was sent from my iPhone.



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? last gasp

[howard posner]

Martyn Hodgson wrote:

> I now see from your mention of my guitar stringing email that you  
> seem to equate 'information' solely with figures whereas I also  
> include other things such as tunings, examples of solo music, etc  
> which you do not count as information - we'll bear this in mind.


Actually I was thinking of the Stradivari notes, which contained no  
figures, but did give clues about stringing.  I was not referring to  
your conclusions about string tensions in the same post; I had either  
not noticed them or forgotten about them until I reread it just now.   
So you assumed that by "information" I meant to give the force of  
historical evidence to your conclusions, which in fact made no  
impression on me at all.  That pretty much tells you what you need to  
know about this dialogue.

Since this thread has exceeded its shelf life, I'll just summarize:

There are surviving "small" theorbos.  For each of these instruments,  
we can say with confidence:

We don't know how it was strung and tuned historically.
We don't know all the 17th and 18th-century players who owned it.
We don't know that it was strung/tuned the same way by all the 17th  
and 18th-century players who  played it.
We don't know the specific musical purpose for which it was built, or  
the purposes for which it was actually used.
We don't know where it was taken during the 17th or 18th centuries,  
so even with a lot of resarch, we could do no more than guess about  
the prevailing pitches at which it might have been played.
If it was built to allow double stringing, as several of them were,  
we don't know whether it was ever played single-strung, or double- 
strung in octaves.  We particularly don't know whether the second  
course was strung in octaves.

Indeed, we can make many of the same statements about bigger  
theorbos, though, as you repeatedly point out, there are physical  
limitations that narrow the possibilities.

Of course, I am equating "we don't know" with "we have no evidence."   
I suppose it might not be a valid equation to practitioners of faith- 
based musicology.

So yes, David Tayler can't claim historical support for his remark  
that "Anything over 82 is a specialty instrument, for people with  
huge hands, or for people who only play in very high positions,"  
which I assume is based on his own playing experience (I don't know  
about huge hands, but I'd caution that large theorbos are for people  
with no history of back, neck or shoulder problems), but is  
contradicted by other players' experience.

Nor can you claim historical support for your sweeping statement that  
any theorbo smaller than 82 cm, or whatever your cutoff number is,  
had to be a theorbo in D or tuned with the second course at lute  
pitch.  The statement assumes uniformity of practice over a century  
and a half, disregards questions of regional practice and pitch, and  
is grounded on a leap in logic from "Big theorbos had to be tuned  
double reentrant for physical reasons" to "Small theorbos didn't have  
to be tuned double reentrant and therefore never were."

BTW, you wrote:

> I would surprised if Lynda Sayce doesn't tune her 78cm English  
> theorbo as single reentrant  - but you'll need to ask her.

In the post to which you were responding, I had written:

>> I gather from her web
>> site that its fingerboard strings are 80cm (thus scaled up or down
>> from the original, depending on your point of view) and she strings
>> it single reentrant in G.

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G/A? Plus some guidelines

[Jerzy Zak]

Martyn,

All this is very persuasive, but what about the story of a double re- 
entrant instrument with double strings and the second course in  
octaves, in G or A?


From my sketchy calculations it appeares it must be an instrument of  
about 74 cm (stopped), considering on one side the breaking point of  
the high octave of the second (the _e'_) and the musical quality of  
the 6th (or 7th) course. As a theorbo it's a toy instrument, useless  
(?), but in therms of say a baroque d-m lute, with which it shares  
the tessitura, it is a huge one. In this case such a theorbo would  
have the 5th and the 6th (+ the 7th?) in octaves as well.


Someone said that already.

Gratefull for comments,
Jurek
__

On 2008-02-03, at 10:50, Martyn Hodgson wrote:



  Thanks for this; I'd be grateful for a fuller response to cover  
all the points in my previous email to you. Nevertheless I'll  
respond to this one below:


  INFORMATION

  I now see from your mention of my guitar stringing email that you  
seem to equate 'information' solely with figures whereas I also  
include other things such as tunings, examples of solo music, etc  
which you do not count as information - we'll bear this in mind.


  BOB SPENCER'S & LYNDA SAYCE'S PAPERS

  In fact, Bob Spencer gave examples of large double reentrant  
theorbos in A and G (with string lengths around 89 and 91cm - the  
same ones I gave details earlier). He also cites Mace on tuning of  
single and double theorbos in G and A and says that large theorbos  
need the two highest courses down the octave and not just the first  
(ie smaller theorbos just had the first course on actave down p. 412).


  Similarly, Lynda Sayce does in fact provide much information  
including sizes of some large extant theorbos.


  TALBOT MS

  Talbot fortunately gives more than the minimum number of  
dimensions and it is quite possible to recreate the instrument  
based on what he gives at a string length of between 88/91cm (as  
Michael Prynne and later others) without making unecessary  
assumptions as David did (I'm told it's mostly to do with  
measurements of body to body/neck joint or to the end of the tongue  
and not by excluding the rose diameter).


  David doesn't mention reentrant tuning type (Talbot gives double  
reentrant in A for his measured instrument) and I would surprised  
if Lynda Sayce doesn't tune her 78cm English theorbo as single  
reentrant  - but you'll need to ask her.  Incidentally, 78cm seems  
an ideal size for a single reentrant theorbo - mine is 76cm which I  
now feel is marginally too small.


  EVIDENCE

  In short, the evidence I gave still stands and, little as it is,  
is indeed overwhelming (100%). I still await David Tayler's or your  
own evidence that small theorboes (say 75 to 82cm) were generally  
tuned as double reentrant.


  PITCH

  I don't quite understand your last point on pitch but if you are  
equating maximum acceptable breaking stress of solo and continuo  
instruments, I refer you to my recent email to Rob McKillop ... it  
contains figures too.



  WHEN SINGLE OR DOUBLE REENTRANT?

  Whilst no one denies that it is physically possible to string a  
small theorbo in A or G as double reentrant (especially using  
modern overwound strings), the question I, at least, am trying to  
address is what would have been expected historically. Early  
sources, when bothering to mention the matter at all (eg Piccini,  
Mace - cited earlier), stress that  smaller instruments are single  
reentrant and that double reentrant is only employed when the  
breaking stress of the highest pitched string (in this case the  
second course) is approached. I can, of course, well understand  
that if you play a small theorbo in an unlikely historical  
stringing (ie A or G double reentrant) you'll feel an almost  
Pavlovian obligation to defend your decision but surely you should  
be doing this on this basis of modern convenience and personal  
preference and not on the unsupportable position that it's somehow  
following historic models.


  MH

















howard posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Martyn Hodgson wrote:


In subsequent messages I gave more information (you must have
missed it): - how such small instruments were strung (just top
course an octave down or at a much higher nominal pitch eg D), -
early written evidence of theorbo sizes, - examples of solo music
for such instruments -


Again, there was no information; just your own conclusion that
smaller theorbos were not tuned double reentrant. You may be
confusing these posts (I've just reread them) with your post about
guitar stringing, which actually contained information.


and gave Lynda Sayce's website and Bob Spencer's article as
providing more information. You may say that I only refer to these
articles because they support the position on theorbo sizes which I
take - which it is true they do -


But they don't. Spencer doesn't correlate single-reentrant stringing

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
  Thanks for this; I'd be grateful for a fuller response to cover all the 
points in my previous email to you. Nevertheless I'll respond to this one below:
   
  INFORMATION
   
  I now see from your mention of my guitar stringing email that you seem to 
equate 'information' solely with figures whereas I also include other things 
such as tunings, examples of solo music, etc which you do not count as 
information - we'll bear this in mind.
   
  BOB SPENCER'S & LYNDA SAYCE'S PAPERS
   
  In fact, Bob Spencer gave examples of large double reentrant theorbos in A 
and G (with string lengths around 89 and 91cm - the same ones I gave details 
earlier). He also cites Mace on tuning of single and double theorbos in G and A 
and says that large theorbos need the two highest courses down the octave and 
not just the first (ie smaller theorbos just had the first course on actave 
down p. 412).
   
  Similarly, Lynda Sayce does in fact provide much information including sizes 
of some large extant theorbos. 
   
  TALBOT MS
   
  Talbot fortunately gives more than the minimum number of dimensions and it is 
quite possible to recreate the instrument based on what he gives at a string 
length of between 88/91cm (as Michael Prynne and later others) without making 
unecessary assumptions as David did (I'm told it's mostly to do with 
measurements of body to body/neck joint or to the end of the tongue and not by 
excluding the rose diameter). 
   
  David doesn't mention reentrant tuning type (Talbot gives double reentrant in 
A for his measured instrument) and I would surprised if Lynda Sayce doesn't 
tune her 78cm English theorbo as single reentrant  - but you'll need to ask 
her.  Incidentally, 78cm seems an ideal size for a single reentrant theorbo - 
mine is 76cm which I now feel is marginally too small.
   
  EVIDENCE
   
  In short, the evidence I gave still stands and, little as it is, is indeed 
overwhelming (100%). I still await David Tayler's or your own evidence that 
small theorboes (say 75 to 82cm) were generally tuned as double reentrant.
   
  PITCH
   
  I don't quite understand your last point on pitch but if you are equating 
maximum acceptable breaking stress of solo and continuo instruments, I refer 
you to my recent email to Rob McKillop ... it contains figures too.
   
   
  WHEN SINGLE OR DOUBLE REENTRANT?
   
  Whilst no one denies that it is physically possible to string a small theorbo 
in A or G as double reentrant (especially using modern overwound strings), the 
question I, at least, am trying to address is what would have been expected 
historically. Early sources, when bothering to mention the matter at all (eg 
Piccini, Mace - cited earlier), stress that  smaller instruments are single 
reentrant and that double reentrant is only employed when the breaking stress 
of the highest pitched string (in this case the second course) is approached. I 
can, of course, well understand that if you play a small theorbo in an unlikely 
historical stringing (ie A or G double reentrant) you'll feel an almost 
Pavlovian obligation to defend your decision but surely you should be doing 
this on this basis of modern convenience and personal preference and not on the 
unsupportable position that it's somehow following historic models.
   
  MH
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
howard posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Martyn Hodgson wrote:

> In subsequent messages I gave more information (you must have 
> missed it): - how such small instruments were strung (just top 
> course an octave down or at a much higher nominal pitch eg D), - 
> early written evidence of theorbo sizes, - examples of solo music 
> for such instruments -

Again, there was no information; just your own conclusion that 
smaller theorbos were not tuned double reentrant. You may be 
confusing these posts (I've just reread them) with your post about 
guitar stringing, which actually contained information.

> and gave Lynda Sayce's website and Bob Spencer's article as 
> providing more information. You may say that I only refer to these 
> articles because they support the position on theorbo sizes which I 
> take - which it is true they do -

But they don't. Spencer doesn't correlate single-reentrant stringing 
with size. Linda Sayce does, but like you, states only her 
conclusions.

> As already said, I'm still waiting for David Tayler's and your own 
> evidence that small theorboes (say mid 70s to low 80s) in the A or 
> G tuning were generally strung as double reentrant. Regarding 
> evidence to support the case that such stringing only generally 
> applies to larger instruments (say mid 80s to high 90s), I had 
> hoped the sources I gave were sufficiently well known to avoid me 
> having to do more than refer to them, but obviously not.

It's not that the sources aren't well known. It's that your 
conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. It boils down to "big 
theorbos were strung double reentr

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

Rob,
   
  The Talbot MS gives the small (lesser) French theorbo string length c 76cm as 
tuned in D. If this was at 'French' pitch (whatever this means in the context - 
French pitch as recorded in England, French Opera pitch, chamber pitch) 
then, if the same pitch levels and string stresses are the same,  this equates 
to an instrument in A at 99cm (ie as the very largest extant instruments).
   
  However, solo instruments like the 'Lesser French Theorboe' seem to have been 
pitched at the uppermost extreme of gut breaking stress (to paraphrase: tune 
the highest pitched string as high as it will go) whereas even the longest 
theorboes seem to have had a small 'safety factor', possibly to allow for local 
variations (eg, a 98cm instrument in G at 440 is around a semitone/tone below 
the breaking pitch), so on this basis the French instrument could be between 89 
and 94cm. This also fits in very well with Talbot's measurements (88/89cm) for 
the English Theorbo in A and is, of course, very significantly larger than the 
small instruments some propose (75 to 82cm) for the double reentrant A tuning.  
   
  I'm not sure of the real evidence to suggest French theorbos were smaller 
than Italian instruments; certainly Talbot's measured instrument suggest much 
the same sizes and evidence from paintings of professional musicans (eg the 
Puget mentioned earlier) also show large theorboes in France (incidentally, in 
this latter case, not only double strung on the fingerboard but also the 
basses! - but note the hand position: plucking very close to the bridge).
   
  Incidentally, altho Talbot only gives measurements for the English Theorboe 
in A, he gives the same tuning for the French theorbo and since he describes 
the French theorbo with a string length of 76cm as being a small ('Lesser') 
French theorbo, it's not at all unreasonable to suppose (as Gill and later 
commentators did) that the string length of the French double reentrant theorbo 
in A would also have been around 89cm.
   
  Martyn
   
   
  
Rob Lute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Well I for one found that fascinating, Martyn. Thanks. Malcolm Prior has
just told me that - after a discussion with Lynda Sayce - my theorbo (which
he is making at this very moment) has grown to 85cms from 84. It will be
tuned to A=440. As I will be using it primarily for accompaniment, that
suits me fine. I can't afford multiple theorbos (Theorboes?) so this size
seems ideal - big enough for Italian ensemble work, but not too big for some
of the solo repertoire.

Something not mentioned in your message is pitch. I love French baroque at
low pitch, A = 392. My guitar is tuned that way, and 11c also. I know not
everyone agrees on 392, but I love it. Let's assume for the sake of
discussion (not arguement) that Robert de Visee played at 392, what would
that mean for the string length of the large French theorbo and also the
theorbe de pieces? We believe, do we not, that the large French theorbo was
smaller than its Italian counterpart, but not in the 70-80cms region? I'm
wondering if I could tune my 85cms theorbo to 392, thinking in A with double
re-entrant strings. I suppose that would be the same as tuning it to G (A 440).

Rob

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


   
-
 Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[howard posner]

> I have made the point before that we would expect an instrument
> designed to be played at AF6 to have strings about 83% the length
> of an instrument designed to be played at A=390.  If so, all other
> things being equal, you'd expect that a 76cm instrument designed for
> AF5 to be tuned the same way as a 92cm instrument designed for
> A=390.  Whether this was historically the case is a matter of
> speculation.


This got garbled in transmission; some server somewhere translated my  
"[equals sign] 4" as an F something.  I'll try to do an immune  
version here:

we would expect an instrument
designed to be played at A equals 466 Hz to have strings about 83%  
the length
of an instrument designed to be played at A=390.  If so, all other
things being equal, you'd expect that a 76cm instrument designed for
A equals 466 to be tuned the same way as a 92cm instrument designed for
A=390.  Whether this was historically the case is a matter of
speculation.


--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[howard posner]

Martyn Hodgson wrote:

> In subsequent messages I gave more information (you must have  
> missed it): - how such small instruments were strung (just top  
> course an octave down or at a much higher nominal pitch eg D), -  
> early written evidence of theorbo sizes, - examples of solo music  
> for such instruments -

Again, there was no information; just your own conclusion that  
smaller theorbos were not tuned double reentrant.  You may be  
confusing these posts (I've just reread them) with your post about  
guitar stringing, which actually contained information.

> and gave Lynda Sayce's website and Bob Spencer's article as  
> providing more information. You may say that I only refer to these  
> articles because they support the position on theorbo sizes which I  
> take - which it is true they do -

But they don't.  Spencer doesn't correlate single-reentrant stringing  
with size.  Linda Sayce does, but  like you, states only her  
conclusions.

> As already said, I'm still waiting for David Tayler's and your own  
> evidence that small theorboes (say mid 70s to low 80s) in the A or  
> G tuning were generally strung as double reentrant.  Regarding  
> evidence to support the case that such stringing only generally  
> applies to larger instruments (say mid 80s to high 90s), I had  
> hoped the sources I gave were sufficiently well known to avoid me  
> having to do more than refer to them, but obviously not.

It's not that the sources aren't well known.  It's that your  
conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.  It boils down to "big  
theorbos were strung double reentrant because they had to be; smaller  
theorbos didn't have to be, therefore they never were."  This makes  
sense only if you assume that necessity was the only reason for  
double reentrant, an assumption which is hardly justifiable (If it's  
correct, you've proved that the tiorbino never existed). Players  
obviously liked its possibilities and gleefully exploited it in solo  
music.

> The ones that come to mind include:
>
> Praetorius (1620): Lang Romanische Theorbo:Chitarron). Scaled  
> engraving showing an instrument with six fingered and 8 long bass  
> courses, fingered string length 90/91cm. Tuning given as the  
> theorbo G tuning (double reentrant).
>
> Talbot MS (c 1695):  English Theorboe A tuning (double reentrant),  
> detailed measurement and tunings given. Fingered string length  
> 88/89cm (you tell us that you have other information on the string  
> length of this instrument - I'd be grateful for it)

The Talbot MS doesn't actually give the total length, does it?
David van Edwards calculated the Talbot "English Theorbo" at 77 cm.   
See his explanation at
http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/47.htm
He made a "Talbot" theorbo for Linda Sayce.  I gather from her web  
site that its fingerboard strings are 80cm (thus scaled up or down  
from the original, depending on your point of view) and she strings  
it single reentrant in G.

>  Talbot MS: Lesser French theorbo in D (double reentrant) string  
> length 76cm.

If we have one 76cm French theorbo in double reentrant D and one 77cm  
English Theorbo in double reentrant A, we scarcely have a small- 
theorbo trend, let alone "overwhelming" evidence.

>  'POWER'
> I'm really not sure if I quite follow your argument here,

Simply that it was not universally the only consideration in building  
or stringing a theorbo.  This is not to say that it wasn't  
important.  As I said, players and builders must have had a wide  
range of desires and motivations.  And not everyone had to be heard  
in choruses in the Paris opera or with trombones in San Rocco in Venice.

> there is no evidence to support A or G double rentrant theorbos  
> between the mid 70s and low 80s.

And no evidence against it.  There may be all sorts of practical or  
artistic reasons for drawing conclusions about smaller theorbos, but  
the appeal to history comes up empty.

This whole discussion has glossed the complicating question of pitch.

I have made the point before that we would expect an instrument  
designed to be played at AF6 to have strings about 83% the length  
of an instrument designed to be played at A=390.  If so, all other  
things being equal, you'd expect that a 76cm instrument designed for  
AF5 to be tuned the same way as a 92cm instrument designed for  
A=390.  Whether this was historically the case is a matter of  
speculation.


--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Rob Lute]

Well I for one found that fascinating, Martyn. Thanks. Malcolm Prior has
just told me that - after a discussion with Lynda Sayce - my theorbo (which
he is making at this very moment) has grown to 85cms from 84. It will be
tuned to A=440. As I will be using it primarily for accompaniment, that
suits me fine. I can't afford multiple theorbos (Theorboes?) so this size
seems ideal - big enough for Italian ensemble work, but not too big for some
of the solo repertoire.

Something not mentioned in your message is pitch. I love French baroque at
low pitch, A = 392. My guitar is tuned that way, and 11c also. I know not
everyone agrees on 392, but I love it. Let's assume for the sake of
discussion (not arguement) that Robert de Visee played at 392, what would
that mean for the string length of the large French theorbo and also the
theorbe de pieces? We believe, do we not, that the large French theorbo was
smaller than its Italian counterpart, but not in the 70-80cms region? I'm
wondering if I could tune my 85cms theorbo to 392, thinking in A with double
re-entrant strings. I suppose that would be the same as tuning it to G (A 440).

Rob

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 12:50:27 + 
(GMT)
From: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines 
To: howard posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

   
  Thanks for this; I now better understand your position with which, you won't 
be surprised, I don't agree and I'll carefully explain why not. But just before 
responding, to ensure we don't write at cross purposes, let me take you down 
the short by-lane of the history of this thread.
   
  It came about after someone wrote saying they were obtaining a theorbo and 
asked views as to wether the nominal A or G tuning was the most useful.  A 
number of people responded including David Tayler who additionally said that 
normally theorbos in the A or G tuning should have string lengths in the range 
77-82cm which seemed bizarre to say the least and contrary to what I believed 
most players understood (even if they actually played smaller instruments for 
convenience).  Indeed, he went on to make the astonishing claim that  'anything 
over 82cm is a speciality instrument for people with huge hands'.   I 
therefore asked him for early evidence of such small theorbos in the A or G 
tuning with both the first and second courses an octave down ('double 
reentrant'), since the overwhelming early evidence (see below) was for such 
theorboes to be in the high 80s to 90s.  I'm still waiting for 
it perhaps you have some?
   
  In subsequent messages I gave more information (you must have missed it): - 
how such small instruments were strung (just top course an octave down or at a 
much higher nominal pitch eg D), - early written evidence of theorbo sizes, - 
examples of solo music for such instruments - and gave Lynda Sayce's website 
and Bob Spencer's article as providing more information. You may say that I 
only refer to these articles because they support the position on theorbo sizes 
which I take - which it is true they do - but I'd welcome any contrary evidence 
to test the case. It is important to come to these matters with an open mind 
and a willingness to look at the actual evidence available, such as it is, 
rather than merely indulging in empty rhetoric.
   
   
  To return to your email:
   
  SOME HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
   
  As already said, I'm still waiting for David Tayler's and your own evidence 
that small theorboes (say mid 70s to low 80s) in the A or G tuning were 
generally strung as double reentrant.  Regarding evidence to support the case 
that such stringing only generally applies to larger instruments (say mid 80s 
to high 90s), I had hoped the sources I gave were sufficiently well known to 
avoid me having to do more than refer to them, but obviously not. 
   
  The ones that come to mind include:
   
  Praetorius (1620): Lang Romanische Theorbo:Chitarron). Scaled engraving 
showing an instrument with six fingered and 8 long bass courses, fingered 
string length 90/91cm. Tuning given as the theorbo G tuning (double reentrant). 
 
   
  Talbot MS (c 1695):  English Theorboe A tuning (double reentrant), detailed 
measurement and tunings given. Fingered string length 88/89cm (you tell us that 
you have other information on the string length of this instrument - I'd be 
grateful for it)
   
  Talbot MS: Lesser French theorbo in D (double reentrant) string length 76cm. 
   
  Spencer's paper covers much of the evidence for theorbo stringing and sizes 
("all this") and he does, in fact, mention that the long string length of the 
early chitarrone obliged the first and second course to be lowered  an octave 
ie would have exceeeded the breaking stress (EM Oct 76, p. 408)
   
  Regarding extant iconographic representations generally, clearly the larger 
of the theorbos depicted are double reentrant but they can tell us little as to 
where the precise cut-off point for single rentrant (small) theorbos occurs. It 
is, nevertheless, interesting to note that when professional theorbo players 
are depicted (eg The Musicians of Louis XIV (1687) Francois Puget, in the 
Louvre) the instruments shown are generally large.  
   
  'POWER'
   
  I'm really not sure if I quite follow your argument here, but you seem to 
suggest that loudness and/or projection is not (and was not) an important, if 
not crucial, feature of the theorbo. Leaving aside the practicalities of your 
suggestion (how is one heard in ensemble? - as much an issue for the 'Old Ones' 
as us today [see Lynda Sayce's website]),  it runs directly counter to our 
common experience that a longer bass string at the same tension and pitch as a 
shorter will sound more 'powerful'. This is generally taken as the reason for 
increasing the pitch of bass lutes (as Piccinni 1623 reports) which in turn 
obliged the first course and then the second cour

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[howard posner]

On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:44 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote:

> Not really what I wrote, but...

No; as I said, I was giving more information than you did.

> Perhaps I made assumptions as to the general level of knowledge.
> In particular I took it as read that nobody believed that A or G  
> instruments with a string length in the high 80s/90s would not  
> require the first two courses tuned down the octave; if this is  
> accepted than the rest naturally follows.

Nothing that we've actually been discussing follows from it.  Small  
instruments strung single reentrant certainly doesn't follow from big  
instruments requiring double reentrant stringing.

You made the emphatic but uninformative statement that "ALL the  
evidence on theorboes with first two courses an octave down is for  
instruments larger than the biggest you [i.e. David Tayler]  
recommend."  The obvious question was "WHAT historical evidence?"  
since most of us know that there is no evidence correlating any  
particular known instrument to any particular tuning or pitch.  So  
David Tayler and I both asked the question, David asking about  
evidence of stringing/tuning of specific surviving smaller theorbos.   
These were, of course, rhetorical questions to which the only  
rational response was an acknowledgment that your statement about  
"ALL evidence" was was unsupported.

>  Bob Spencer's article in Early Music (available online) was one of  
> the first papers to explain all this and, if you don't know it, it  
> is still a good overview.

I'm not sure what you mean by "all this."  Your statements on either  
side of this sentence are about  the effect of specific string  
lengths on tuning, what's needed for the "most powerful sound," and  
breaking points of strings.  Spencer's article does not discuss these  
things.

> In short, to obtain the most powerful sound from plain gut strings  
> requires the longest possible string length which is ultimately  
> governed by the breaking stress of gut of the highest pitched string.

There are two major problems with this statement, other than it's not  
bearing one way or another on the actual question.

First, it's grounded in the assumption that "most powerful sound" is  
the governing consideration in stringing a theorbo.  This could  
hardly have been universally true historically.  Why even build a  
double-strung theorbo if loudness is all you want?  Yet the majority  
of surviving instruments are made for double-stringing.   Indeed, why  
build the instruments under discussion at all?
An emphasis on loudness is not in keeping with what we know of French  
baroque aesthetic generally, and wasn't it Mersenne who said the  
archlutes in Italy were louder than French theorbos?  I'd guess that  
French theorbo tone was to Italian theorbo tone as French  
harpsichords were to Italian ones.

Players may have been more concerned with tone or playability, or  
with what would fit in a carriage and not get rained on.  They might,  
like David Tayler, have been concerned with an extra .3 kilos of  
weight, for what reason I don't know.  The range of motives and  
preferences of theorbists across Europe in 1635 or 1695 had to be at  
least as wide as our own, and almost certainly wider.

Second, as we all know, size isn't everything.  Bigger-is-louder is  
true only if all other things are equal.  My Hasenfuss Raillich model  
is a smallish theorbo (perhaps a "toy" at 81 cm) but louder than a  
lot of big ones.  It's basically the same model as Paul O'Dette's,  
which I imagine a lot of listers have seen.  I actually had mine made  
81cm instead of the standard 82cm because I wanted to be able to  
string it in single-reentrant in A, at 415 (I do know something about  
the relationship of length and tuning), which I did for a few  
months.  It worked with a nylon high string; I wouldn't have risked a  
gut one, and I wouldn't have tried it at all at 440.

So you can insist, as adamantly as you like, that a theorbo below a  
certain size (you've never said what size) had to be strung single- 
reentrant -- or that a double second course in octaves was/is  
impossible-- but it isn't helpful to claim that there's evidence to  
support those views, or to assume that anyone who disagrees with them  
simply doesn't understand and should be referred generally to  
previous discussions or the literature on the subject.
--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[LGS-Europe]

Lost in cybervoid. So her once more:

I don't. I keep mine (76cm) in a, first two courses down. All gut,  415 
to 466 tested. I don't see the point why not. I haven't seen  valid and 
or historical arguments against it. It would work in d  too, I'm sure.

David


I understand you, David, very well, I've also got older living for  years 
with the machine in 'a'. But who have a camparable experience  in playing 
in 'd'? Musicology maybe, but music performance is not a  theory class and 
I'm interested how one manages with the bass notes  below the _d_ on the 
6th course of the instrument tuned in 'd'. This  is more or less one third 
of the statistical bass notes in an everage  part to play (depending of 
course on period and instrumentation).

Jurek


The way I understand it, limited I'm sure, is that the theorbe de pieces in
d was used for ... pieces, meaning solo pieces.  Once you have one, I'm sure
you'll use it for continuo too, but that's another starting point. If you're
after one continuo theorbo with two first strings down,  a or g seems more
practical.

David 





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[LGS-Europe]

I don't. I keep mine (76cm) in a, first two courses down. All gut,  415 
to 466 tested. I don't see the point why not. I haven't seen  valid and 
or historical arguments against it. It would work in d  too, I'm sure.

David


I understand you, David, very well, I've also got older living for  years 
with the machine in 'a'. But who have a camparable experience  in playing 
in 'd'? Musicology maybe, but music performance is not a  theory class and 
I'm interested how one manages with the bass notes  below the _d_ on the 
6th course of the instrument tuned in 'd'. This  is more or less one third 
of the statistical bass notes in an everage  part to play (depending of 
course on period and instrumentation).

Jurek


The way I understand it, limited I'm sure, is that the theorbe de pieces in 
d was used for ... pieces, meaning solo pieces.  Once you have one, I'm sure 
you'll use it for continuo too, but that's another starting point. If you're 
after one continuo theorbo with two first strings down,  a or g seems more 
practical.


David 





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Jerzy Zak]

On 2008-01-31, at 20:42, Are Vidar Boye Hansen wrote:


A small price to pay for being able to play a three-note chord over
middle C in first position?


That's the point and the most promising bit. However the price  
seems to me not small, indeed, and therefore my quest for someone  
maybe experienced.


Play an archlute! ;-)


I do not have one, but I have two 'thorboes' and am thinking of a  
third one, perhaps a fourth... ;-((?

J
__




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Are Vidar Boye Hansen]

>> A small price to pay for being able to play a three-note chord over
>> middle C in first position?
>
> That's the point and the most promising bit. However the price seems to me 
> not small, indeed, and therefore my quest for someone maybe experienced.

Play an archlute! ;-)


Are



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Jerzy Zak]

Dear Howard,

On 2008-01-31, at 18:59, howard posner wrote:

On Jan 31, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Jerzy Zak wrote:

Hm..., how many of you are playing continuo on a theorbo in 'd', if
it's so obvoius?

I'm not sure what the "it" in your question is.


Martyn Hodgson in his recent reply stated quite categorically there  
are two correct options (and I think he'll not repet it agan):


EITHER   nominal A or G tuned but with only the first course tuned  
an octave down ie highest course is the second at e for an A  
theorbo or d for a G theorbo;


  OR   with first two courses an octave down but at a higher  
nominal pitch eg in D like Talbot MS French lesser theorboe for  
lessons; note that in this case the highest pitched course is the  
third at e'.


I have my opinion on it, but I may be wrong as living on the province  
of the western culture, so I asked if the instrument tuned in D is in  
on a par with the one in A? Do you know it from calculations or  
experience?



When Ensemble Chanterelle consisted of Sally Sanford, Cathy Liddell
and Kevin Mason, their basic setup was voice, theorbo in A and
theorbo in D.  That was a while ago.

Linda Sayce says on her web site that she plays a lot of continuo on
a 76cm theorbo in D.


After a second lecture in fact I've found maybe less then 1% of text  
devoted to the 'French lesser theorboe' on the Linda's page:

http://www.theorbo.com/Theorbo/Theorbo.htm

Only here:
http://www.theorbo.com/Instruments/Monsieur.htm
she says:
"...I find this instrument is also surprisingly useful for continuo,  
especially for chamber works and pieces where the bass line is often  
simply too high for the A-tuned instrument."

but...
"To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever for  
using a D theorbo for continuo, though I find it hard to believe that  
if the instrument was around, the professionals at least would not  
have used it for continuo!"


I beleve her! It is extremely tempting, but what about the register  
arround and below of the 6th course of the D theorbo? You say:



Answer 2: If you have eight fingerboard strings, you're chromatic
down to B-flat, so the only major problems are the low G#,F# and Eb.


That's cleare, but these are tricks! You have to learn them like solo  
fragments and they'll hardly pass as naturally as anything above 'd'.  
Try it on, say, Corelli or Couperin (middle to high baroque).



A small price to pay for being able to play a three-note chord over
middle C in first position?


That's the point and the most promising bit. However the price seems  
to me not small, indeed, and therefore my quest for someone maybe  
experienced.


Jurek
_



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[howard posner]

On Jan 31, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Jerzy Zak wrote:

> I'm interested how one manages with the bass notes below the _d_ on  
> the 6th course of the instrument tuned in 'd'. This is more or less  
> one third of the statistical bass notes in an everage part to play  
> (depending of course on period and instrumentation).

I've never tried it, so take this for what it's worth:

Answer 1: Manage the same way a guitarist manages without the bourdon A.

Answer 2: If you have eight fingerboard strings, you're chromatic  
down to B-flat, so the only major problems are the low G#,F# and Eb.
A small price to pay for being able to play a three-note chord over  
middle C in first position?

http://www.theorbo.com/Instruments/Monsieur.htm




--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[howard posner]

On Jan 31, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Jerzy Zak wrote:

> Hm..., how many of you are playing continuo on a theorbo in 'd', if  
> it's so obvoius?

I'm not sure what the "it" in your question is.

When Ensemble Chanterelle consisted of Sally Sanford, Cathy Liddell  
and Kevin Mason, their basic setup was voice, theorbo in A and  
theorbo in D.  That was a while ago.

Linda Sayce says on her web site that she plays a lot of continuo on  
a 76cm theorbo in D.
--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Jerzy Zak]

On 2008-01-31, at 18:20, LGS-Europe wrote:


Hm..., how many of you are playing continuo on a theorbo in 'd', if
it's so obvoius?


I don't. I keep mine (76cm) in a, first two courses down. All gut,  
415 to 466 tested. I don't see the point why not. I haven't seen  
valid and or historical arguments against it. It would work in d  
too, I'm sure.

David


I understand you, David, very well, I've also got older living for  
years with the machine in 'a'. But who have a camparable experience  
in playing in 'd'? Musicology maybe, but music performance is not a  
theory class and I'm interested how one manages with the bass notes  
below the _d_ on the 6th course of the instrument tuned in 'd'. This  
is more or less one third of the statistical bass notes in an everage  
part to play (depending of course on period and instrumentation).

Jurek
__



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[LGS-Europe]

Hm..., how many of you are playing continuo on a theorbo in 'd', if
it's so obvoius?


I don't. I keep mine (76cm) in a, first two courses down. All gut, 415 to 
466 tested. I don't see the point why not. I haven't seen valid and or 
historical arguments against it. It would work in d too, I'm sure.


David



David van Ooijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.davidvanooijen.nl







Jurek
___



On 2008-01-31, at 17:25, LGS-Europe wrote:



 I've already very clearly explained how small theorboes (ie up to  low 
80s) were tuned (and even given sources for tablature) and  generally 
really can't be bothered to continually repeat myself.  However, in case 
you personally missed it,  I'll do it one more time:


 EITHER   nominal A or G tuned but with only the first course  tuned an 
octave down ie highest course is the second at e for an A  theorbo or d 
for a G theorbo;


 OR   with first two courses an octave down but at a higher  nominal 
pitch eg in D like Talbot MS French lesser theorboe for  lessons; note 
that in this case the highest pitched course is the  third at e'.


 Interestingly, the fingered string length of this instrument  which 
belonged to a
 M. Crevecoeur(s) and made by 'Sellier' (Sellas?) works out at  76cm - 
squarely in the range that some modern players persist in  using for a 
nominal A or G tuned theorbo with top two courses an  octave down!

<<

Yes, I've missed it, sorry about that, so thank you for repeating 
yourself.
So 76cm works with first two strings down. I think so too. We  agree. 
Both French and Italians would have come to the same  conclusion: first 
two strings down works on 76cm. Your issue is  French theorbe de piece 
was in d, and some modern players use the  same string lengths with two 
first courses down at a or g.  Given a  low French pitch (presumably 
somewhere near 392Hz) and a high  Italian (440/466Hz at places), I see 
not much difference. If it  works with the strings and your instrument, 
it works with your  strings and your instrument. There will be a working 
range of  tunings, d and a included. Anyway, nominal tunings are just 
naming  conventions in a transposing world, with a floating pitch on top 
of  that!


David








 MH



LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 To the benefit of those not interested in a peeing contest but in 
theories
on theorbo stringing, as I am, and not in the happy possesion of a  list 
of
historical theorbos stating string length and setup, here's what  the 
guys
are talking about (info taken from one of the Pohlmanns lying  around 
here):


Atton
1x1, 5x2 = 77,5cm
6x1 = 147cm

Ecco
1x1, 5x2 = 75,5cm
6x1 = 161,5cm

Hoess
6x2 = 80cm
9x1 = 158cm

Kaiser
1x1, 6x2 = 73,1cm
6x1 = 157,6cm

Aman
1x1, 5x2 = 80,9cm
5x2 = 150,4cm

Koch
7x2 = 82,7cm
7x1 = 167,5cm

Langenwalder
6x1 = 76,4cm
8x1 = 141,5cm

Attore
1x1, 5x2 = 73cm
3x2 = 156cm

Attore
6x2 = 65,7cm
8x1 = 152cm

Mascotto
1x3, 4x2 = 74,5cm (original 1x1, 5x2)
6x1 = 158cm

The point here is, as I understand it from the discussion so far,  not 
their
setup (6+8; 7+7; 8+6) or double versus single strung, but their 
relative
short stopped strings. Granted that some/many/all instruments are 
modified
over the years not all figures above are to be taken at face  value. 
Perhaps
some instruments can be argued not to be therobos. Fine, but I'd  say 
there

are instruments left we would call theorbos that have a stopped  string
length of somewhere around 75 to 80cm. And I think enough of these  to 
assume
there have been more around in the old days. I'm curious too, how  were 
they

tuned according to you, Martyn?

David



David van Ooijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.davidvanooijen.nl





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html



-
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[howard posner]

Martyn Hodgson wrote:

I've already very clearly explained how small theorboes (ie up to  
low 80s) were tuned (and even given sources for tablature) and  
generally really can't be bothered to continually repeat myself.


Let me see if I can summarize then:

There is no historical information connecting any particular theorbo  
with any particular stringing, tuning or nominal pitch, though the  
Talbot ms does contain measurements that are subject to varying  
interpretations.


That's actually more information than was contained in Martyn's posts  
on the subject (which seemed to consist entirely of categorical  
statements of opinion and protestations that he had already explained  
himself), but what the hell...




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Jerzy Zak]

Hm..., how many of you are playing continuo on a theorbo in 'd', if  
it's so obvoius?

Jurek
___



On 2008-01-31, at 17:25, LGS-Europe wrote:



 I've already very clearly explained how small theorboes (ie up to  
low 80s) were tuned (and even given sources for tablature) and  
generally really can't be bothered to continually repeat myself.  
However, in case you personally missed it,  I'll do it one more time:


 EITHER   nominal A or G tuned but with only the first course  
tuned an octave down ie highest course is the second at e for an A  
theorbo or d for a G theorbo;


 OR   with first two courses an octave down but at a higher  
nominal pitch eg in D like Talbot MS French lesser theorboe for  
lessons; note that in this case the highest pitched course is the  
third at e'.


 Interestingly, the fingered string length of this instrument  
which belonged to a
 M. Crevecoeur(s) and made by 'Sellier' (Sellas?) works out at  
76cm - squarely in the range that some modern players persist in  
using for a nominal A or G tuned theorbo with top two courses an  
octave down!

<<

Yes, I've missed it, sorry about that, so thank you for repeating  
yourself.
So 76cm works with first two strings down. I think so too. We  
agree. Both French and Italians would have come to the same  
conclusion: first two strings down works on 76cm. Your issue is  
French theorbe de piece was in d, and some modern players use the  
same string lengths with two first courses down at a or g.  Given a  
low French pitch (presumably somewhere near 392Hz) and a high  
Italian (440/466Hz at places), I see not much difference. If it  
works with the strings and your instrument, it works with your  
strings and your instrument. There will be a working range of  
tunings, d and a included. Anyway, nominal tunings are just naming  
conventions in a transposing world, with a floating pitch on top of  
that!


David








 MH



LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 To the benefit of those not interested in a peeing contest but in  
theories
on theorbo stringing, as I am, and not in the happy possesion of a  
list of
historical theorbos stating string length and setup, here's what  
the guys
are talking about (info taken from one of the Pohlmanns lying  
around here):


Atton
1x1, 5x2 = 77,5cm
6x1 = 147cm

Ecco
1x1, 5x2 = 75,5cm
6x1 = 161,5cm

Hoess
6x2 = 80cm
9x1 = 158cm

Kaiser
1x1, 6x2 = 73,1cm
6x1 = 157,6cm

Aman
1x1, 5x2 = 80,9cm
5x2 = 150,4cm

Koch
7x2 = 82,7cm
7x1 = 167,5cm

Langenwalder
6x1 = 76,4cm
8x1 = 141,5cm

Attore
1x1, 5x2 = 73cm
3x2 = 156cm

Attore
6x2 = 65,7cm
8x1 = 152cm

Mascotto
1x3, 4x2 = 74,5cm (original 1x1, 5x2)
6x1 = 158cm

The point here is, as I understand it from the discussion so far,  
not their
setup (6+8; 7+7; 8+6) or double versus single strung, but their  
relative
short stopped strings. Granted that some/many/all instruments are  
modified
over the years not all figures above are to be taken at face  
value. Perhaps
some instruments can be argued not to be therobos. Fine, but I'd  
say there
are instruments left we would call theorbos that have a stopped  
string
length of somewhere around 75 to 80cm. And I think enough of these  
to assume
there have been more around in the old days. I'm curious too, how  
were they

tuned according to you, Martyn?

David



David van Ooijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.davidvanooijen.nl





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html



-
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[LGS-Europe]

 I've already very clearly explained how small theorboes (ie up to low 
80s) were tuned (and even given sources for tablature) and generally 
really can't be bothered to continually repeat myself. However, in case 
you personally missed it,  I'll do it one more time:


 EITHER   nominal A or G tuned but with only the first course tuned an 
octave down ie highest course is the second at e for an A theorbo or d for 
a G theorbo;


 OR   with first two courses an octave down but at a higher nominal pitch 
eg in D like Talbot MS French lesser theorboe for lessons; note that in 
this case the highest pitched course is the third at e'.


 Interestingly, the fingered string length of this instrument which 
belonged to a
 M. Crevecoeur(s) and made by 'Sellier' (Sellas?) works out at 76cm - 
squarely in the range that some modern players persist in using for a 
nominal A or G tuned theorbo with top two courses an octave down!

<<

Yes, I've missed it, sorry about that, so thank you for repeating yourself.
So 76cm works with first two strings down. I think so too. We agree. Both 
French and Italians would have come to the same conclusion: first two 
strings down works on 76cm. Your issue is French theorbe de piece was in d, 
and some modern players use the same string lengths with two first courses 
down at a or g.  Given a low French pitch (presumably somewhere near 392Hz) 
and a high Italian (440/466Hz at places), I see not much difference. If it 
works with the strings and your instrument, it works with your strings and 
your instrument. There will be a working range of tunings, d and a included. 
Anyway, nominal tunings are just naming conventions in a transposing world, 
with a floating pitch on top of that!


David








 MH



LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 To the benefit of those not interested in a peeing contest but in 
theories

on theorbo stringing, as I am, and not in the happy possesion of a list of
historical theorbos stating string length and setup, here's what the guys
are talking about (info taken from one of the Pohlmanns lying around 
here):


Atton
1x1, 5x2 = 77,5cm
6x1 = 147cm

Ecco
1x1, 5x2 = 75,5cm
6x1 = 161,5cm

Hoess
6x2 = 80cm
9x1 = 158cm

Kaiser
1x1, 6x2 = 73,1cm
6x1 = 157,6cm

Aman
1x1, 5x2 = 80,9cm
5x2 = 150,4cm

Koch
7x2 = 82,7cm
7x1 = 167,5cm

Langenwalder
6x1 = 76,4cm
8x1 = 141,5cm

Attore
1x1, 5x2 = 73cm
3x2 = 156cm

Attore
6x2 = 65,7cm
8x1 = 152cm

Mascotto
1x3, 4x2 = 74,5cm (original 1x1, 5x2)
6x1 = 158cm

The point here is, as I understand it from the discussion so far, not 
their

setup (6+8; 7+7; 8+6) or double versus single strung, but their relative
short stopped strings. Granted that some/many/all instruments are modified
over the years not all figures above are to be taken at face value. 
Perhaps

some instruments can be argued not to be therobos. Fine, but I'd say there
are instruments left we would call theorbos that have a stopped string
length of somewhere around 75 to 80cm. And I think enough of these to 
assume
there have been more around in the old days. I'm curious too, how were 
they

tuned according to you, Martyn?

David



David van Ooijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.davidvanooijen.nl





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html



-
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. 

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Joseph Mayes]

Collected wisdom

I, for one, am grateful for the information on theorbo tuning and sizes.
I hope the discussion does not get too prickly to continue - Please, swallow
your rancor.

Joseph Mayes


On 1/31/08 8:36 AM, "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  
>   I've already very clearly explained how small theorboes (ie up to low 80s)
> were tuned (and even given sources for tablature) and generally really can't
> be bothered to continually repeat myself. However, in case you personally
> missed it,  I'll do it one more time:
>
>   EITHER   nominal A or G tuned but with only the first course tuned an octave
> down ie highest course is the second at e for an A theorbo or d for a G
> theorbo;
> 
>   OR   with first two courses an octave down but at a higher nominal pitch eg
> in D like Talbot MS French lesser theorboe for lessons; note that in this case
> the highest pitched course is the third at e'.
>
>   Interestingly, the fingered string length of this instrument which belonged
> to a 
>   M. Crevecoeur(s) and made by 'Sellier' (Sellas?) works out at 76cm -
> squarely in the range that some modern players persist in using for a nominal
> A or G tuned theorbo with top two courses an octave down!
>
>   MH
>
>
>   
> LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   To the benefit of those not interested in a peeing contest but in theories
> on theorbo stringing, as I am, and not in the happy possesion of a list of
> historical theorbos stating string length and setup, here's what the guys
> are talking about (info taken from one of the Pohlmanns lying around here):
> 
> Atton
> 1x1, 5x2 = 77,5cm
> 6x1 = 147cm
> 
> Ecco
> 1x1, 5x2 = 75,5cm
> 6x1 = 161,5cm
> 
> Hoess
> 6x2 = 80cm
> 9x1 = 158cm
> 
> Kaiser
> 1x1, 6x2 = 73,1cm
> 6x1 = 157,6cm
> 
> Aman
> 1x1, 5x2 = 80,9cm
> 5x2 = 150,4cm
> 
> Koch
> 7x2 = 82,7cm
> 7x1 = 167,5cm
> 
> Langenwalder
> 6x1 = 76,4cm
> 8x1 = 141,5cm
> 
> Attore
> 1x1, 5x2 = 73cm
> 3x2 = 156cm
> 
> Attore
> 6x2 = 65,7cm
> 8x1 = 152cm
> 
> Mascotto
> 1x3, 4x2 = 74,5cm (original 1x1, 5x2)
> 6x1 = 158cm
> 
> The point here is, as I understand it from the discussion so far, not their
> setup (6+8; 7+7; 8+6) or double versus single strung, but their relative
> short stopped strings. Granted that some/many/all instruments are modified
> over the years not all figures above are to be taken at face value. Perhaps
> some instruments can be argued not to be therobos. Fine, but I'd say there
> are instruments left we would call theorbos that have a stopped string
> length of somewhere around 75 to 80cm. And I think enough of these to assume
> there have been more around in the old days. I'm curious too, how were they
> tuned according to you, Martyn?
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> David van Ooijen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.davidvanooijen.nl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 
> 
>
> -
>  Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
> --

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
  I've already very clearly explained how small theorboes (ie up to low 80s) 
were tuned (and even given sources for tablature) and generally really can't be 
bothered to continually repeat myself. However, in case you personally missed 
it,  I'll do it one more time:
   
  EITHER   nominal A or G tuned but with only the first course tuned an octave 
down ie highest course is the second at e for an A theorbo or d for a G theorbo;

  OR   with first two courses an octave down but at a higher nominal pitch eg 
in D like Talbot MS French lesser theorboe for lessons; note that in this case 
the highest pitched course is the third at e'. 
   
  Interestingly, the fingered string length of this instrument which belonged 
to a 
  M. Crevecoeur(s) and made by 'Sellier' (Sellas?) works out at 76cm - squarely 
in the range that some modern players persist in using for a nominal A or G 
tuned theorbo with top two courses an octave down!  
   
  MH
   
   
  
LGS-Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  To the benefit of those not interested in a peeing contest but in theories 
on theorbo stringing, as I am, and not in the happy possesion of a list of 
historical theorbos stating string length and setup, here's what the guys 
are talking about (info taken from one of the Pohlmanns lying around here):

Atton
1x1, 5x2 = 77,5cm
6x1 = 147cm

Ecco
1x1, 5x2 = 75,5cm
6x1 = 161,5cm

Hoess
6x2 = 80cm
9x1 = 158cm

Kaiser
1x1, 6x2 = 73,1cm
6x1 = 157,6cm

Aman
1x1, 5x2 = 80,9cm
5x2 = 150,4cm

Koch
7x2 = 82,7cm
7x1 = 167,5cm

Langenwalder
6x1 = 76,4cm
8x1 = 141,5cm

Attore
1x1, 5x2 = 73cm
3x2 = 156cm

Attore
6x2 = 65,7cm
8x1 = 152cm

Mascotto
1x3, 4x2 = 74,5cm (original 1x1, 5x2)
6x1 = 158cm

The point here is, as I understand it from the discussion so far, not their 
setup (6+8; 7+7; 8+6) or double versus single strung, but their relative 
short stopped strings. Granted that some/many/all instruments are modified 
over the years not all figures above are to be taken at face value. Perhaps 
some instruments can be argued not to be therobos. Fine, but I'd say there 
are instruments left we would call theorbos that have a stopped string 
length of somewhere around 75 to 80cm. And I think enough of these to assume 
there have been more around in the old days. I'm curious too, how were they 
tuned according to you, Martyn?

David



David van Ooijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.davidvanooijen.nl





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


   
-
 Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[LGS-Europe]

To the benefit of those not interested in a peeing contest but in theories 
on theorbo stringing, as I am, and not in the happy possesion of a list of 
historical theorbos stating string length and setup, here's what the guys 
are talking about (info taken from one of the Pohlmanns lying around here):


Atton
1x1, 5x2 = 77,5cm
6x1 = 147cm

Ecco
1x1, 5x2 = 75,5cm
6x1 = 161,5cm

Hoess
6x2 = 80cm
9x1 = 158cm

Kaiser
1x1, 6x2 = 73,1cm
6x1 = 157,6cm

Aman
1x1, 5x2 = 80,9cm
5x2 = 150,4cm

Koch
7x2 = 82,7cm
7x1 = 167,5cm

Langenwalder
6x1 = 76,4cm
8x1 = 141,5cm

Attore
1x1, 5x2 = 73cm
3x2 = 156cm

Attore
6x2 = 65,7cm
8x1 = 152cm

Mascotto
1x3, 4x2 = 74,5cm (original 1x1, 5x2)
6x1 = 158cm

The point here is, as I understand it from the discussion so far, not their 
setup (6+8; 7+7; 8+6) or double versus single strung, but their relative 
short stopped strings. Granted that some/many/all instruments are modified 
over the years not all figures above are to be taken at face value. Perhaps 
some instruments can be argued not to be therobos. Fine, but I'd say there 
are instruments left we would call theorbos that have a stopped string 
length of somewhere around 75 to 80cm. And I think enough of these to assume 
there have been more around in the old days. I'm curious too, how were they 
tuned according to you, Martyn?


David



David van Ooijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.davidvanooijen.nl





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

You can easily work it out yourself from what I've told you

David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  OK, I'm asking, how would you, 
specifically, tune the theorbos I just 
mentioned?

Atton, Ecco, Hoess,
Kaiser, Aman, Koch, Langenwalder, Attore, Mascotto, Stehelin, Greiff,
Tieffenbrucker
dt

At 12:32 AM 1/30/2008, you wrote:
>you replied to it
>
>David Tayler wrote:
>I must have missed that post, if you can tell me how the following
>instruments were tuned
>Atton, Ecco, Hoess,
>Kaiser, Aman, Koch, Langenwalder, Attore, Mascotto, Stehelin, Greiff,
>Tieffenbrucker
>Then I can do some analysis.
>dt
>
>
>At 05:03 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
> >see earlier
> >
> >David Tayler wrote: How were they tuned?
> >dt
> >
> >
> >At 12:42 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
> > >As very carefully explained earlier, theorbos of your recommended
> > >size existed but not tuned as you believe.
> > >
> > > MH
> >
> >
> >
> >To get on or off this list see list information at
> >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
> >
> >
> >-
> > Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good
> >--
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. 
>Try 
>it now.

--


   
-
 Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[David Tayler]

OK, I'm asking, how would you, specifically, tune the theorbos I just 
mentioned?

Atton, Ecco, Hoess,
Kaiser, Aman, Koch, Langenwalder, Attore, Mascotto, Stehelin, Greiff,
Tieffenbrucker
dt

At 12:32 AM 1/30/2008, you wrote:
>you replied to it
>
>David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I must have missed that post, if you can tell me how the following
>instruments were tuned
>Atton, Ecco, Hoess,
>Kaiser, Aman, Koch, Langenwalder, Attore, Mascotto, Stehelin, Greiff,
>Tieffenbrucker
>Then I can do some analysis.
>dt
>
>
>At 05:03 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
> >see earlier
> >
> >David Tayler wrote: How were they tuned?
> >dt
> >
> >
> >At 12:42 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
> > >As very carefully explained earlier, theorbos of your recommended
> > >size existed but not tuned as you believe.
> > >
> > > MH
> >
> >
> >
> >To get on or off this list see list information at
> >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
> >
> >
> >-
> > Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good
> >--
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. 
>Try
> 
>it now.

--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[David Tayler]

I must have missed that post, if you can tell me how the following 
instruments were tuned
Atton,  Ecco, Hoess,
Kaiser, Aman, Koch, Langenwalder, Attore, Mascotto, Stehelin, Greiff,
Tieffenbrucker

Then I can do some analysis.
dt



At 05:03 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
>see earlier
>
>David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  How were they tuned?
>dt
>
>
>At 12:42 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
> >As very carefully explained earlier, theorbos of your recommended
> >size existed but not tuned as you believe.
> >
> > MH
>
>
>
>To get on or off this list see list information at
>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
>
>-
>  Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good
>--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[chriswilke]

Martyn,


  Yes, I'm familiar with the previous discussion.

 Far from being "modern" in my approach to this
music, it needs to be approached on its own terms. 
Abrupt leaps of a major or minor seventh in an
otherwise scalar passage are fine for Stravinsky.  In
baroque music they are not - unless the composer is
aiming for a special effect.  Personally, my modern
ears don't find such a sudden jump too objectionable
but I can't imagine that baroque listeners wouldn't
find it extremely disturbing.

Suffice it to say that, without some sort of adaption
of the re-entrant theorbo tuning (i.e. an octave
second course being the most logical) many passages in
Pittoni and especially Melli make no sense in light of
standard baroque practice.  (Even in Stravinsky's use
of octave displacement, examples of only one or two
notes being in the "wrong octave" as is found in
Pittoni is quite unusual.)

One other argument is favor of the octave second
course: most of the questionable passages present no
aural or technical problem is the "wierd" notes are
played on the "proper" course.  So why write it in tab
the way it is written?

Anyway, the point of the octave course - to me quite
impossible to refute - is that there must have been
theorbos short enough or strings strong enough to
stand the pitch.  (From experience, I opt for the
former.)

Chris



--- Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  
>   You'll find the earlier (longish) discussion on
> Pittoni in the archives. By inventing such a thing
> as octaves on the second course, you're in danger of
> imposing your views on the music to make it fit your
> pre-conceptions.  
>
>   MH
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>   Martyn,
> 
> 
> Yes, I know many have used the term "toy"
> theorbo. That doesn't mean it isn't inappropriate or
> short-sighted.
> 
> Much impressive scholarly work has been done by
> Lynda and others. Unfortunately, for the question of
> stringing and pitch, so much of what we have to go
> on
> is conjecture of gut's capabilities based upon our
> modern reproductions of the strings. Many people
> have
> put a lot of effort into researching how
> contemporary
> strings would have been made, but most will agree
> that
> we're not quite there yet.
> 
> (As for Lynda's website - While I'm by no means
> the theorbo specialist she is, I notice a couple of
> inconsistencies. She says, for example, that all
> existing solo theorbo music can be played with only
> six courses on the board. Bartolotti apparently
> calls
> for a fretted 7th course. Also, while arguing that
> most theorbos were double-strung, most of the
> illustrations on the site show single-strung
> instruments. I suppose its not fair to judge her
> scholarly work by the website but these are two
> obvious points.)
> 
> And what about something like Pittoni's or Melli's
> theorbo music which obviously demands a low
> (re-entrant) AND high octave on the second course?
> As
> far as I know there is no written evidence for this
> but the music clearly demands it from context. This
> in effect calls for a non-reentrant tuning of the
> second course and either points to a shorter neck
> and
> more robust gut (or brass???) strings than what we
> have today. Since Pittoni includes an obligato part
> for keyboard, (organ and cembalo) comparing the tab
> with the standard notation shows that he wrote for
> an
> instrument in A. He also presumably expected the
> theorbo part to be heard as a soloist over the
> keyboard so it seems unliky that he would have liked
> a
> tubby-sounding and impossible-in-practice "toy."
> 
> 
> Chris 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Martyn Hodgson wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm merely pointing out that his advice to others
> > is based on no evidence. I, and others, have used
> > the expression 'toy' theorbos many times to
> describe
> > such unhistorical instruments. Theorbos do,
> indeed,
> > come in various sizes but those of the size he
> > indicates would have only had the first course an
> > octave down or be tuned much higher (as the Talbot
> > MS's 'Lesser Fr. theorboe for lessons').
> > 
> > May I suggest you look at Lynda Sayces website for
> > more on this.
> > 
> > MH
> > 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Martyn,
> > 
> > --- Martyn Hodgson wrote:
> > 
> > > Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy'
> > > theorboes are possible but that is insufficient
> > > reason for suggesting them as the first choice
> > > 
> > > MH
> > > 
> > 
> > Is it really necessary to use such condescending
> > language? The iconographical and historical record
> > you sighted actually work against the point you're
> > making: theorbos clearly came in all shapes and
> > sizes
> > with varying numbers of strings and stringing
> setup
> > (i.e. double, single, etc). Trying to "lay down
> the
> > law" and state unequivocally that we can posit
> > exactly
> > how and to what pitch all of these different types
> > of
> > theorbos were tuned is simply untenable as of now.
> 
> > There may not h

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

see earlier

David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  How were they tuned?
dt


At 12:42 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
>As very carefully explained earlier, theorbos of your recommended 
>size existed but not tuned as you believe.
>
> MH



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


   
-
 Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good
--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[David Tayler]

How were they tuned?
dt


At 12:42 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
>As very carefully explained earlier, theorbos of your recommended 
>size existed but not tuned as you believe.
>
>   MH



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

As very carefully explained earlier, theorbos of your recommended size existed 
but not tuned as you believe. 
   
  MH
   
  
David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Thank you all for your comments. As a musicologist, I don't always 
agree with my colleagues, but of course I respect their work.
The partial list I mentioned in my original post

Snip
Atton, Ecco, Hoess,
Kaiser, Aman, Koch, Langenwalder, Attore, Mascotto, Stehelin, Greiff,
Hoffmann,Tieffenbrucker, and a big bunch of later ones. They can't 
all be fakes.
Snip

is not only a significant historical record, but reflects what the 
iconography clearly shows. They came in all sizes.
The "uniformity" rule is clearly in play here, and any statement that 
"theorbos were all larger, mostly larger" etc, has to deal with the 
uniformity rule, which is almost
always accurate in that the past is simply not uniform, but diverse, 
just like the lute list.

Even if only one instrument from one of the makers listed above 
survived, if it were a great instrument (and the lesser 
Tieffenbrucker, C47, is a great instrument),
that would be enough, because of course there would have been more: 
surviving instruments are just placeholders; but there are more anyway.

Assuming that there was no "one size fits all", there must have been 
solo size, chord size, and one-line size instruments, to do just 
that. Plus smaller instruments for higher pitches and larger 
instruments for lower pitches.
Conflating the sizes does not reveal the difference; rather it 
conceals the variety of form and function.
And that is exactly what the historical record shows. The smaller and 
medium sized instruments in musea cannot be ignored, they should be enjoyed

Conflation is the biggest problem. The historical record shows 
approximately twelve types of extended lutes, in various sizes and 
dispositions. Conflating all these into one "ubertheorbo", however 
large, consigns the historical record
to insignificance, rather than elevating it to illumination.

We all have different perspectives; mine is to get more people to 
play, and play better. Most theorbos are too heavy and have playing 
problems--that's important as well. Did they have overweight theorbos 
back then?
Absolutely. And after 40 years of playing, you might go for a lighter 
one. Would an older historical player have felt the same?

I think if one wants to help promote the theorbo, a website is great. 
Maybe start with a list of all the different sizes, Pohlmann could 
use an update. The list will be large, and diverse, or it will be incomplete.

Of what use is a preselected list for study?

As for whether I can handle a larger instrument, well, I await the 
"Lauten Werfen" in the next Olympics, or perhaps I should say
"ge yo swo chang" since it will be on the mainland.

dt




>At 12:39 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
> >Would you kindly tell me the precise evidence you have for
> >suggesting such small instruments (ie 77-82cm)? The overwhelming
> >historical evidence (iconography, extant instruments, written
> >descriptions) is that theorboes with both the first and second
> >course lowered the octave had string lengths in the high 80s to low 90s.
> >
> >Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy' theorboes are possible
> >but that is insufficient reason for suggesting them as the first choice
> >
> >MH
>
>
>
>To get on or off this list see list information at
>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html




   
-
 Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[David Tayler]

Thank you all for your comments. As a musicologist, I don't always 
agree with my colleagues, but of course I respect their work.
The partial list I mentioned in my original post

Snip
  Atton,  Ecco, Hoess,
Kaiser, Aman, Koch, Langenwalder, Attore, Mascotto, Stehelin, Greiff,
Hoffmann,Tieffenbrucker, and a big bunch of later ones. They can't 
all be fakes.
Snip

is not only a significant historical record, but reflects what the 
iconography clearly shows. They came in all sizes.
The "uniformity" rule is clearly in play here, and any statement that 
"theorbos were all larger, mostly larger" etc, has to deal with the 
uniformity rule, which is almost
always accurate in that the past is simply not uniform, but diverse, 
just like the lute list.

Even if only one instrument from one of the makers listed above 
survived, if it were a great instrument (and the lesser 
Tieffenbrucker, C47, is a great instrument),
that would be enough, because of course there would have been more: 
surviving instruments are just placeholders; but there are more anyway.

Assuming that there was no "one size fits all", there must have been 
solo size, chord size, and one-line size instruments, to do just 
that. Plus smaller instruments for higher pitches and larger 
instruments for lower pitches.
Conflating the sizes does not reveal the difference; rather it 
conceals the variety of form and function.
And that is exactly what the historical record shows. The smaller and 
medium sized instruments in musea cannot be ignored, they should be enjoyed

Conflation is the biggest problem. The historical record shows 
approximately twelve types of extended lutes, in various sizes and 
dispositions. Conflating all these into one "ubertheorbo", however 
large, consigns the historical record
to insignificance, rather than elevating it to illumination.

We all have different perspectives; mine is to get more people to 
play, and play better. Most theorbos are too heavy and have playing 
problems--that's important as well. Did they have overweight theorbos 
back then?
Absolutely. And after 40 years of playing, you might go for a lighter 
one. Would an older  historical player have felt the same?

I think if one wants to help promote the theorbo, a website is great. 
Maybe start with a list of all the different sizes, Pohlmann could 
use an update. The list will be large, and diverse, or it will be incomplete.

Of what use is a preselected list for study?

As for whether I can handle a larger instrument, well, I await the 
"Lauten Werfen" in the next Olympics, or perhaps I should say
"ge yo swo chang" since it will be on the mainland.

dt




>At 12:39 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
> >Would you kindly tell me the precise evidence you have for
> >suggesting such small instruments (ie 77-82cm)? The overwhelming
> >historical evidence (iconography, extant instruments, written
> >descriptions) is that theorboes with both the first and second
> >course lowered the octave had string lengths in the high 80s to low 90s.
> >
> >Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy' theorboes are possible
> >but that is insufficient reason for suggesting them as the first choice
> >
> >MH
>
>
>
>To get on or off this list see list information at
>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[howard posner]

OK, gang: inquiring minds want to know.

Is there any historical source that correlates the size of a theorbo  
with pitch, or tuning, or stringing (single/double courses, single/ 
double re-entrant)?

On Jan 28, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote:

>   I'm merely pointing out that his advice to others is based on no  
> evidence.  I, and others, have used the expression 'toy' theorbos  
> many times to describe such unhistorical instruments.  Theorbos do,  
> indeed, come in various sizes but those of the size he indicates  
> would have only had the first course an octave down or be tuned  
> much higher (as the Talbot MS's 'Lesser Fr. theorboe for lessons').


--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
  You'll find the earlier (longish) discussion on Pittoni in the archives. By 
inventing such a thing as octaves on the second course, you're in danger of 
imposing your views on the music to make it fit your pre-conceptions.  
   
  MH

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Martyn,


Yes, I know many have used the term "toy"
theorbo. That doesn't mean it isn't inappropriate or
short-sighted.

Much impressive scholarly work has been done by
Lynda and others. Unfortunately, for the question of
stringing and pitch, so much of what we have to go on
is conjecture of gut's capabilities based upon our
modern reproductions of the strings. Many people have
put a lot of effort into researching how contemporary
strings would have been made, but most will agree that
we're not quite there yet.

(As for Lynda's website - While I'm by no means
the theorbo specialist she is, I notice a couple of
inconsistencies. She says, for example, that all
existing solo theorbo music can be played with only
six courses on the board. Bartolotti apparently calls
for a fretted 7th course. Also, while arguing that
most theorbos were double-strung, most of the
illustrations on the site show single-strung
instruments. I suppose its not fair to judge her
scholarly work by the website but these are two
obvious points.)

And what about something like Pittoni's or Melli's
theorbo music which obviously demands a low
(re-entrant) AND high octave on the second course? As
far as I know there is no written evidence for this
but the music clearly demands it from context. This
in effect calls for a non-reentrant tuning of the
second course and either points to a shorter neck and
more robust gut (or brass???) strings than what we
have today. Since Pittoni includes an obligato part
for keyboard, (organ and cembalo) comparing the tab
with the standard notation shows that he wrote for an
instrument in A. He also presumably expected the
theorbo part to be heard as a soloist over the
keyboard so it seems unliky that he would have liked a
tubby-sounding and impossible-in-practice "toy."


Chris 




--- Martyn Hodgson wrote:

> 
> 
> I'm merely pointing out that his advice to others
> is based on no evidence. I, and others, have used
> the expression 'toy' theorbos many times to describe
> such unhistorical instruments. Theorbos do, indeed,
> come in various sizes but those of the size he
> indicates would have only had the first course an
> octave down or be tuned much higher (as the Talbot
> MS's 'Lesser Fr. theorboe for lessons').
> 
> May I suggest you look at Lynda Sayces website for
> more on this.
> 
> MH
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Martyn,
> 
> --- Martyn Hodgson wrote:
> 
> > Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy'
> > theorboes are possible but that is insufficient
> > reason for suggesting them as the first choice
> > 
> > MH
> > 
> 
> Is it really necessary to use such condescending
> language? The iconographical and historical record
> you sighted actually work against the point you're
> making: theorbos clearly came in all shapes and
> sizes
> with varying numbers of strings and stringing setup
> (i.e. double, single, etc). Trying to "lay down the
> law" and state unequivocally that we can posit
> exactly
> how and to what pitch all of these different types
> of
> theorbos were tuned is simply untenable as of now. 
> There may not have even been - and probably wasn't -
> such a thing as THE theorbo back in the day. We may
> eventually be able to uncover the truth, but we may
> also never know. The situation is confusing enough
> without the ol' Early Music Police showing up on the
> scene. ;-)
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
>

> Looking for last minute shopping deals? 
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
> --
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 




Looking for last minute shopping deals? 
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping


   
-
 Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.
--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[chriswilke]

Martyn,


  Yes, I know many have used the term "toy"
theorbo.  That doesn't mean it isn't inappropriate or
short-sighted.

  Much impressive scholarly work has been done by
Lynda and others.  Unfortunately, for the question of
stringing and pitch, so much of what we have to go on
is conjecture of gut's capabilities based upon our
modern reproductions of the strings.  Many people have
put a lot of effort into researching how contemporary
strings would have been made, but most will agree that
we're not quite there yet.

(As for Lynda's website - While I'm by no means
the theorbo specialist she is, I notice a couple of
inconsistencies.  She says, for example, that all
existing solo theorbo music can be played with only
six courses on the board.  Bartolotti apparently calls
for a fretted 7th course.  Also, while arguing that
most theorbos were double-strung, most of the
illustrations on the site show single-strung
instruments.  I suppose its not fair to judge her
scholarly work by the website but these are two
obvious points.)

And what about something like Pittoni's or Melli's
theorbo music which obviously demands a low
(re-entrant) AND high octave on the second course?  As
far as I know there is no written evidence for this
but the music clearly demands it from context.  This
in effect calls for a non-reentrant tuning of the
second course and either points to a shorter neck and
more robust gut (or brass???) strings than what we
have today.  Since Pittoni includes an obligato part
for keyboard, (organ and cembalo) comparing the tab
with the standard notation shows that he wrote for an
instrument in A.  He also presumably expected the
theorbo part to be heard as a soloist over the
keyboard so it seems unliky that he would have liked a
tubby-sounding and impossible-in-practice "toy."


Chris 




--- Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  
>
>   I'm merely pointing out that his advice to others
> is based on no evidence.  I, and others, have used
> the expression 'toy' theorbos many times to describe
> such unhistorical instruments.  Theorbos do, indeed,
> come in various sizes but those of the size he
> indicates would have only had the first course an
> octave down or be tuned much higher (as the Talbot
> MS's 'Lesser Fr. theorboe for lessons').
>
>   May I suggest you look at Lynda Sayces website for
> more on this.
>
>   MH
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>   Martyn,
> 
> --- Martyn Hodgson wrote:
> 
> > Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy'
> > theorboes are possible but that is insufficient
> > reason for suggesting them as the first choice
> > 
> > MH
> > 
> 
> Is it really necessary to use such condescending
> language? The iconographical and historical record
> you sighted actually work against the point you're
> making: theorbos clearly came in all shapes and
> sizes
> with varying numbers of strings and stringing setup
> (i.e. double, single, etc). Trying to "lay down the
> law" and state unequivocally that we can posit
> exactly
> how and to what pitch all of these different types
> of
> theorbos were tuned is simply untenable as of now. 
> There may not have even been - and probably wasn't -
> such a thing as THE theorbo back in the day. We may
> eventually be able to uncover the truth, but we may
> also never know. The situation is confusing enough
> without the ol' Early Music Police showing up on the
> scene. ;-)
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
>

> Looking for last minute shopping deals? 
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> 
> 
>
> -
>  Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
> --
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 



  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Benjamin Narvey]

Even better, interested parties may wish to dip their noses into Lynda's
thesis, which really does the background work for the articles mentioned.
It is by leaps and bounds the only comprehensive scholarship on the subject
to date.

It is available through the British Thesis Service.

My two eurocents.

Bon theorbe ! (;

Benjamin

On 28/01/2008, Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm merely pointing out that his advice to others is based on no
> evidence.  I, and others, have used the expression 'toy' theorbos many times
> to describe such unhistorical instruments.  Theorbos do, indeed, come in
> various sizes but those of the size he indicates would have only had the
> first course an octave down or be tuned much higher (as the Talbot MS's
> 'Lesser Fr. theorboe for lessons').
>
> May I suggest you look at Lynda Sayces website for more on this.
>
> MH
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Martyn,
>
> --- Martyn Hodgson wrote:
>
> > Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy'
> > theorboes are possible but that is insufficient
> > reason for suggesting them as the first choice
> >
> > MH
> >
>
> Is it really necessary to use such condescending
> language? The iconographical and historical record
> you sighted actually work against the point you're
> making: theorbos clearly came in all shapes and sizes
> with varying numbers of strings and stringing setup
> (i.e. double, single, etc). Trying to "lay down the
> law" and state unequivocally that we can posit exactly
> how and to what pitch all of these different types of
> theorbos were tuned is simply untenable as of now.
> There may not have even been - and probably wasn't -
> such a thing as THE theorbo back in the day. We may
> eventually be able to uncover the truth, but we may
> also never know. The situation is confusing enough
> without the ol' Early Music Police showing up on the
> scene. ;-)
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> 
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
>
>
> -
> Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>



-- 
Benjamin Narvey Luthiste:

http://www.luthiste.com

--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Daniel Shoskes]

You are one to talk. Do you honestly think Straube wore jeans when he  
performed???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Eal16Wa3A

DS

On Jan 28, 2008, at 8:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>  We may
> eventually be able to uncover the truth, but we may
> also never know.  The situation is confusing enough
> without the ol' Early Music Police showing up on the
> scene. ;-)
>

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
   
  I'm merely pointing out that his advice to others is based on no evidence.  
I, and others, have used the expression 'toy' theorbos many times to describe 
such unhistorical instruments.  Theorbos do, indeed, come in various sizes but 
those of the size he indicates would have only had the first course an octave 
down or be tuned much higher (as the Talbot MS's 'Lesser Fr. theorboe for 
lessons').
   
  May I suggest you look at Lynda Sayces website for more on this.
   
  MH

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Martyn,

--- Martyn Hodgson wrote:

> Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy'
> theorboes are possible but that is insufficient
> reason for suggesting them as the first choice
> 
> MH
> 

Is it really necessary to use such condescending
language? The iconographical and historical record
you sighted actually work against the point you're
making: theorbos clearly came in all shapes and sizes
with varying numbers of strings and stringing setup
(i.e. double, single, etc). Trying to "lay down the
law" and state unequivocally that we can posit exactly
how and to what pitch all of these different types of
theorbos were tuned is simply untenable as of now. 
There may not have even been - and probably wasn't -
such a thing as THE theorbo back in the day. We may
eventually be able to uncover the truth, but we may
also never know. The situation is confusing enough
without the ol' Early Music Police showing up on the
scene. ;-)

Chris



Looking for last minute shopping deals? 
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping


   
-
 Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

 
  I'm sorry to say it but all that you write on this is mere personal 
preference with scant regard for the historical facts.  ALL the evidence on 
theorboes with first two courses an octave down is for instruments larger than 
the biggest you recommend.  You mention the Talbot MS but say the large theorbo 
he reports is smaller than generally reckoned  - how do you conclude this? 
   
  Smaller theorbos did, of course, exist but with the first course an octave 
down as also commonly used throughout the 17thC.  I'd refer you to Lynda 
Sayce's website where she discusses the matter of theorbo size.
   
  It's difficult to escape the conclusion that because you are not able to 
manage a proper sized instrument you feel obliged to favour smaller 
unhistorical instruments. If this merely affected you it would be of no 
consequence; the problem is that you're offering spurious advice to others.
   
  MH
   
   
  .
   
  
David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
I'll say one thing about the iconography, it is not consistent. They 
come in all sizes. I don't see any overwhelming items except they 
used double strings alot, we don't.

I'm not saying they didn't have big instruments, they did. Really big 
ones. And I've played them, I would never recommend buying one, if 
you read my post, as the only theorbo. By all means, as a third instrument.
There's lot's of reasons not to as the only instrument. And it is 
great to have all the different sizes.

The thing is, it is entirely possible that the really big instruments 
had there own repertory and technique. And that's important.
Clearly, they had back then "one line players", and a big instrument 
with a big sound can do that, and a lot more.

Everyone has a different perspective, for me, there is a musicianship 
gap. The faster that is closed, the better. A medium (which may seem 
on the small side, but makers often call them medium) instrument is
better at closing the muscianship gap. Historically, I don't see a 
problem there, extant instruments come in all sizes, shapes, colors, 
and setups in both surviving examples and iconography.

If those are all toys, well that may be. I notice that people are 
still recalculating Talbot--I project the Talbot instruments will fit 
in a shoebox at this rate. I think the Talbot instruments were big--why not?
But people make them smaller because they want them smaller.

But even if they did not, let's look at the situation with other 
instruments. All the baroque cellists nowadays play cut down cellos. 
An up and coming professional will be playing in an ensemble with a 
really loud cello, with heavy metal strings, and so on.
And it's a competitive marketplace. The double basses are strung with 
telephone wire.

At a lute gathering, I am always struck by the fact that the 
renaissance lutes have often been made smaller, though that is really 
changing. But there were small lutes, and I would never advise anyone 
to buy, as their only renaissance lute,
a 70 cm Laux Maler. I have one, and it's a stretch. I have a smaller 
one as well for that parlous chord in Hunsdon's Puff. On the other 
hand, one of my best theorboes is a Tieffenbrucker which has been 
made bigger (scaled up to 82)

Did they have medium theorboes?
Looking through my by-no-means complete list I see Anonymous, (not 
the 98cm anon here in Berkeley, the other one) , Atton, Ecco, Hoess, 
Kaiser, Aman, Koch, Langenwalder, Attore, Mascotto, Stehelin, Greiff, 
Hoffmann,Tieffenbrucker,
and a big bunch of later ones. They can't all be fakes. I think a 
Greiff would be fun, More fun than a Kaiser

I'm a big fan of historical performance, I'd like to see it make a 
comeback instead of heading towards modernism; the big anachronisms 
seems to me to be more in the area of style, articulation, 
musicianship, ornamentation; and, in continuo, doublings and voice leading.
If I had to teach a class on continuo and the student with the 
theorbosaurus could not grip all the chords--not just the basics but 
the ones with the right voicing, I would never get past square one; 
happens all the time.
In fact, I'm still at square one myself.

Historically, as a musicologist, I know that for the repertory I 
love, you need a boxy harpsichord with a short octave, As a 
performer, that does not happen much. There's a conflict there.
But I would never recommend someone buy a harpsichord with a short 
octave as their only instrument.

Also, the smaller theorbos go through revolving doors better and 
quicker, important if you spend lots of time in Hotels. Historically, 
Hotels did not have revolving doors.

dt




At 12:39 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
>Would you kindly tell me the precise evidence you have for 
>suggesting such small instruments (ie 77-82cm)? The overwhelming 
>historical evidence (iconography, extant instruments, written 
>descriptions) is that theorboes with both the first and second 
>course lowered the octave had string lengths in the high 80s to low 90s.
>
>Clearly,

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[chriswilke]

Martyn,

--- Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
   
>   Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy'
> theorboes are possible but that is insufficient
> reason for suggesting them as the first choice
>
>   MH
> 

Is it really necessary to use such condescending
language?  The iconographical and historical record
you sighted actually work against the point you're
making: theorbos clearly came in all shapes and sizes
with varying numbers of strings and stringing setup
(i.e. double, single, etc).  Trying to "lay down the
law" and state unequivocally that we can posit exactly
how and to what pitch all of these different types of
theorbos were tuned is simply untenable as of now. 
There may not have even been - and probably wasn't -
such a thing as THE theorbo back in the day.  We may
eventually be able to uncover the truth, but we may
also never know.  The situation is confusing enough
without the ol' Early Music Police showing up on the
scene. ;-)

Chris


  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[David Tayler]

I'll say one thing about the iconography, it is not consistent. They 
come in all sizes. I don't see any overwhelming items except they 
used double strings alot, we don't.

I'm not saying they didn't have big instruments, they did. Really big 
ones. And I've played them, I would never recommend buying one, if 
you read my post, as the only theorbo. By all means, as a third instrument.
There's lot's of reasons not to as the only instrument. And it is 
great to have all the different sizes.

The thing is, it is entirely possible that the really big instruments 
had there own repertory and technique. And that's important.
Clearly, they had back then "one line players", and a big instrument 
with a big sound can do that, and a lot more.

Everyone has a different perspective, for me, there is a musicianship 
gap. The faster that is closed, the better. A medium (which may seem 
on the small side, but makers often call them medium) instrument is
better at closing the muscianship gap. Historically, I don't see a 
problem there, extant instruments come in all sizes, shapes, colors, 
and setups in both surviving examples and iconography.

If those are all toys, well that may be. I notice that people are 
still recalculating Talbot--I project the Talbot instruments will fit 
in a shoebox at this rate. I think the Talbot instruments were big--why not?
But people make them smaller because they want them smaller.

But even if they did not, let's look at the situation with other 
instruments. All the baroque cellists nowadays play cut down cellos. 
An up and coming professional will be playing in an ensemble with a 
really loud cello, with heavy metal strings, and so on.
And it's a competitive marketplace. The double basses are strung with 
telephone wire.

At a lute gathering, I am always struck by the fact that the 
renaissance lutes have often been made smaller, though that is really 
changing. But there were small lutes, and I would never advise anyone 
to buy, as their only renaissance lute,
a 70 cm Laux Maler. I have one, and it's a stretch. I have a smaller 
one as well for that parlous chord in Hunsdon's Puff. On the other 
hand, one of my best theorboes is a Tieffenbrucker which has been 
made bigger (scaled up to 82)

Did they have medium theorboes?
Looking through my by-no-means complete list I see Anonymous, (not 
the 98cm anon here in Berkeley, the other one) , Atton,  Ecco, Hoess, 
Kaiser, Aman, Koch, Langenwalder, Attore, Mascotto, Stehelin, Greiff, 
Hoffmann,Tieffenbrucker,
and a big bunch of later ones. They can't all be fakes. I think a 
Greiff would be fun, More fun than a Kaiser

I'm a big fan of historical performance, I'd like to see it make a 
comeback instead of heading towards modernism; the big anachronisms 
seems to me to be more in the area of style, articulation, 
musicianship, ornamentation; and, in continuo, doublings and voice leading.
If I had to teach a class on continuo and the student with the 
theorbosaurus could not grip all the chords--not just the basics but 
the ones with the right voicing, I would never get past square one; 
happens all the time.
In fact, I'm still at square one myself.

Historically, as a musicologist, I know that for the repertory I 
love, you need a boxy harpsichord with a short octave, As a 
performer, that does not happen much. There's a conflict there.
But I would never recommend someone buy a harpsichord with a short 
octave as their only instrument.

Also, the smaller theorbos go through revolving doors better and 
quicker, important if you spend lots of time in Hotels. Historically, 
Hotels did not have revolving doors.

dt




At 12:39 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
>Would you kindly tell me the precise evidence you have for 
>suggesting such small instruments (ie 77-82cm)? The overwhelming 
>historical evidence (iconography, extant instruments, written 
>descriptions) is that theorboes with both the first and second 
>course lowered the octave had string lengths in the high 80s to low 90s.
>
>Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy' theorboes are possible 
>but that is insufficient reason for suggesting them as the first choice
>
>MH



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines

[Martyn Hodgson]

Would you kindly tell me the precise evidence you have for suggesting such 
small instruments (ie 77-82cm)? The overwhelming historical evidence 
(iconography, extant instruments, written descriptions) is that theorboes with 
both the first and second course lowered the octave had string lengths in the 
high 80s to low 90s.
   
  Clearly, with modern overwound strings, 'toy' theorboes are possible but that 
is insufficient reason for suggesting them as the first choice
   
  MH

David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  You can ALWAYS change the strings on a theorbo, shortening the neck, 
etc big problem.
Make sure you have enough pegs and holes and grooves to string it and 
tune it anyway you want!

Guidelines (highly subjective, of course)
It should fall between these very general guidelines
String length 77-82 cm, 80 is very safe if you change your mind
Holes & grooves 6+8, 7+7, 8+6 ( I use 15c but 14 is enough if you 
don't play a lot of Bach & Handel)
Weight 1.3 KG (2.9 lbs) for my 82cm Holst Don't go over 1.5 kg unless 
you need the exercise.
Balance point at the seventh fret. It should balance.

You have to decide, are you going to play this thing for hours at a 
time? Caude if so, you don't want a Cricket Bat or a Louisville 
Slugger, believe me.
If it weighs more than 1.5 kg, where is the extra weight coming from? 
Perhaps the neck has a music desk inside :)
The balance point gives you a good idea of where the xtra weight is, 
if any, as well as the overall experience of crafting a design.

DECIDING BETWEEN G AND A
There are several ways to look at this, but for me it boils down to 
mileage. Remember you need to learn both tunings anyaway.
1. Ask two people who have played 5,000 pieces and 50 operas. You 
might not get the same answer, but it will give you enough to go on. 
For me, it is 65/35 g/a, but I use the G 80 percent of the time. But 
not all the time.

OR
2. Play the 50 operas, half on one, half on the other.

NB Don't get an 84 cm instrument unless you have some smaller ones as 
well. You can't tune it in single reentrant, which is a huge 
negative. Anything over 82 is a specialty instrument, for people with 
huge hands, or for people
who only play in very high positions (which of course creates other problems).
If you have doubts, borrow a 72cm Laux Maler, play lute solos on it, 
then tape two fingers together and try it again.

Other notes:
1. it isn't the key as much as the excursions. It isn't where it 
starts; it's where it goes. It isn't the key, it's the range. If the 
bass note is F above middle C, how do you play the A and C above it?
2. If you play in A, double reentrant, you are MUCH more likely to 
make more voice leading mistakes. The two biggies are bass crossings 
and parallels. Some people will notice this; some people won't.
Most conductors will.

Caccini: you are looking at a small sample, but the thing to remember 
is that you are using a fixed pitch reference instead of a moveable 
one. Lute songs are different.
You can look at the A minor and play it in G minor on a lute a tone 
higher and it will come out the same pitch. And so on. But even in 
that small sample, I would start with a G instrument, and the picture 
is similar for other composers as well.

If you are playing a Handel opera it is a different picture--you 
might be limited in how often you can change instruments, although 
for recording purposes, people do just that.

If you are still unsure, take an piece you wan't to learn, and write 
it out in BOTH tunings. Really look at voice crossings, parallels, 
and so no. If you don't have a theorbo just restring a guitar.
Put it into tab, have a few people play it for and listen to the 
effect. Play it again and see how it feels.


dt



At 07:29 PM 1/26/2008, you wrote:
>But look at how many pieces are in the key of F for a nominal G
>Renaissance lute. I would expect something close to the same
>proportions transposed up a tone for a theorbo in A.
>cheers,
>
>On Jan 16, 2008, at 2:07 AM, Rob wrote:
>
>>I have a theorbo being made now by Malcolm Prior for delivery by
>>the end of
>>February. Very much looking forward to it as I haven't played a
>>theorbo in
>>ten years or more. It is an 84cms Koch model, Italian tuning.
>>
>>
>>
>>Now, I've been looking at the song repertoire by Giulio and Francesca
>>Caccini, a repertoire ideally suited to theorbo accompaniment.
>>Giulio played
>>it, and his daughter possibly played it - she was respected as a lute
>>player, although the type of lute was never specified. At least in
>>Giulio's
>>music one might expect 'theorbo keys' - Am, Dm, A, D. Here are the
>>keys from
>>his 1614 edition (the only one I have to hand):
>>
>>
>>
>>G or Gm / / / / /
>>
>>D or Dm 
>>
>>A or Am ///
>>
>>F / //
>>
>>E /
>>
>>
>>
>>And Francesca's (from 'Il primo libro delle musiche' 1618 - Indiana
>>University Press)
>>
>>
>>
>>G or Gm / /
>>
>>Am //
>>
>>F ///
>>
>>Bb /
>>
>>C /
>>
>>
>>
>>So, a very high percen

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[Roland Hayes]

gm not nearly as bad as it seems on an A theorbo. Peri also wrote a lot in g 
and G maj. and his pieces work well too.  Even F is okay once you figure out 
how to stay away from the Bb barr chord on the first fret.  Reentrant tuning 
helps .   R. 



From: Ed Durbrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 1/26/2008 10:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; LuteNet list
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?



But look at how many pieces are in the key of F for a nominal G 
Renaissance lute. I would expect something close to the same 
proportions transposed up a tone for a theorbo in A.
cheers,

On Jan 16, 2008, at 2:07 AM, Rob wrote:

> I have a theorbo being made now by Malcolm Prior for delivery by 
> the end of
> February. Very much looking forward to it as I haven't played a 
> theorbo in
> ten years or more. It is an 84cms Koch model, Italian tuning.
>
>
>
> Now, I've been looking at the song repertoire by Giulio and Francesca
> Caccini, a repertoire ideally suited to theorbo accompaniment. 
> Giulio played
> it, and his daughter possibly played it - she was respected as a lute
> player, although the type of lute was never specified. At least in 
> Giulio's
> music one might expect 'theorbo keys' - Am, Dm, A, D. Here are the 
> keys from
> his 1614 edition (the only one I have to hand):
>
>
>
> G or Gm / / / / /
>
> D or Dm 
>
> A or Am ///
>
> F / //
>
> E /
>
>
>
> And Francesca's (from 'Il primo libro delle musiche' 1618 - Indiana
> University Press)
>
>
>
> G or Gm / /
>
> Am //
>
> F ///
>
> Bb /
>
> C /
>
>
>
> So, a very high percentage based on G. All the keys are obviously 
> possible
> on a theorbo in A, but I wonder if their theorbo was in G. I 
> imagine someone
> (or more than one) has done research into this, and it would be 
> interesting
> to read their findings.
>
>
>
> I've also noticed that a few theorbo recordings are on a theorbo in 
> G, both
> solo and continuo. Is it common among modern players? I imagine G 
> would be
> an easier transition for Renaissance players who think in G more 
> easily than
> A. I'm planning on having it tuned in A, with A=440, but I'm 
> interested in
> what others are doing, and general thoughts pro and contra any 
> particular
> tuning.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> www.rmguitar.info
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Ed Durbrow
Saitama, Japan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/






--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[Ed Durbrow]

But look at how many pieces are in the key of F for a nominal G  
Renaissance lute. I would expect something close to the same  
proportions transposed up a tone for a theorbo in A.

cheers,

On Jan 16, 2008, at 2:07 AM, Rob wrote:

I have a theorbo being made now by Malcolm Prior for delivery by  
the end of
February. Very much looking forward to it as I haven't played a  
theorbo in

ten years or more. It is an 84cms Koch model, Italian tuning.



Now, I've been looking at the song repertoire by Giulio and Francesca
Caccini, a repertoire ideally suited to theorbo accompaniment.  
Giulio played

it, and his daughter possibly played it - she was respected as a lute
player, although the type of lute was never specified. At least in  
Giulio's
music one might expect 'theorbo keys' - Am, Dm, A, D. Here are the  
keys from

his 1614 edition (the only one I have to hand):



G or Gm / / / / /

D or Dm 

A or Am ///

F / //

E /



And Francesca's (from 'Il primo libro delle musiche' 1618 - Indiana
University Press)



G or Gm / /

Am //

F ///

Bb /

C /



So, a very high percentage based on G. All the keys are obviously  
possible
on a theorbo in A, but I wonder if their theorbo was in G. I  
imagine someone
(or more than one) has done research into this, and it would be  
interesting

to read their findings.



I've also noticed that a few theorbo recordings are on a theorbo in  
G, both
solo and continuo. Is it common among modern players? I imagine G  
would be
an easier transition for Renaissance players who think in G more  
easily than
A. I'm planning on having it tuned in A, with A=440, but I'm  
interested in
what others are doing, and general thoughts pro and contra any  
particular

tuning.



Rob



www.rmguitar.info








--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


Ed Durbrow
Saitama, Japan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[David Tayler]

Paintings & Engravings exist, but the single strung thing is mainly 
modern guitar practice.
There is also a hybrid style used quite a bit nowadays that has 
guitar style theorbo  (heavy single strings, etc) plus semi 
historical technique.
Zero is an awfully big number, but it freezes well.
dt


At 01:28 PM 1/21/2008, you wrote:
>David:
>
>Thanks for sharing your abundant practical wisdom - the only thing 
>you forgot to mention under 'historical' is that there is zero 
>evidence that single-strung theorbos were ever used anywhere.
>
>Best,
>
>Ron Andrico
>
>
> >



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[David Tayler]

This is a very interesting question that has several answers: 
practical, modern, professional  & historical.
The "griffen" element is subjective, of course.

1. Professional. As a professional, you need several theorbos. For my 
work, I require at least four. Therefore, the theorbo in G at 465 
doubles of course as a theorbo in A at 415, and so on.
If you play multiple services per day, you can't tune up and down all 
day, every day, you will always be out of tune. If you play out of 
tune all the time. someone will notice; at music festivals, I often 
play at three pitches per day.
If you play in ensembles that are picky about voice leading and 
parallels, you will require at least one single reentrant tuning 
instrument, and for a greater percentage of music an instrument in G 
will be better:
better chords, fewer parallels. I would say, based on playing at 
least a few thousand pieces, that the ratio is about 65-35. YMMV. 
Maybe you only play in A major :).
There are definitely groups out there that will not rehire someone 
who plays bad bass crossings and parallels, but it is not the 
majority, it is definitely a consideration. They may also appreciate 
it on a subconcious level, that some of the chords sound strange.
If you don't play every day in different groups, this is not for you.

2. Practical. If you have only one theorbo, you must make some 
choices. If you play mainly solo music, tune your instrument where it 
sounds the best, plain and simple. A lot of people play their 
instrument at the wrong pitch. Keep marked packs of strings
for each tuning you will need, and only change the fretted strings. 
By changing the strings you maintain the tension and the stability of 
the instrument.
In a tone transposing scenario, keep the lowest long string at F, and 
read it as a G in the other tuning.
For half step scenarios, it is marginally better to leave the basses 
where they are for short term, or tune DOWN a half step.
If you mainly play continuo, G tuning is better, marginally, as per 
comments above.

3. Modern practice is different from historical practice. Modern 
practice follows the guitar. Evaluate the situation depending on the 
types pf ensembles you play in. For example, if you play Opera, you 
will not be allowed to tune as often as you would need to,
choose your strings accordingly for the theorbo. You may play with 
modern instruments as well. Modern baroque ensembles use wound 
strings on the violins, violas, and cellos: you cannot realistically 
compete with that in a pure historical setup.
I have never seen an ensemble or orchestra of any size play in pure 
historical setup--strings, bows, bridges & bassbars--maybe they are 
out there, I have not seen it.

4. Historical: this goes to training. If you are trained in a 
transposing system, which the musicians of the Ren & Bar were, then 
there is effectively no difference between G, A, F and so on. They 
look the same. If you want to play more historically, you have to start with
this system. There are no shortcuts, except a modified Alphabeta, 
which I often use, and then it comes down to preference. You can be 
"Even Keyed" "Favor A, play G" "Favor G play A".  I'm somewhere in 
between Favor G and Even Keyed.
As far as the historical record goes, it is clear that they had the G 
tuning and the A tuning and other tunings as well, that they were 
pretty Even Keyed, and that the A tuning gives more sound in DOUBLE 
reentrant, for obvious reasons, and so is better for solo music, or 
music in which you play often an octave lower to avoid bad crossings, 
like a Quint bass. Thinking like a Quint is important. The very early 
sources show a leaning towards G but that is deceptive: there are not 
enough sources and of course, G looks like A if you are a transposer. 
Nonetheless, G makes an early showing, and modern practice clearly 
follows the guitar.

A nice compromise is to have a larger theorbo in G, single reentrant, 
415 for continuo and a smaller theorbo in A, 415, double reentrant 
for solo. The A instrument doubles as a G instrument at the 465 
pitch. Keep a set of strings handy for 440.
This mirrors Ren practice of the lute in G and A. Coincidence?
Add a 440 instrument for Vespers and Modern Opera and an archlute and 
you have most of it covered. One more theorbo and you are therealmost.

dt



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[Martyn Hodgson]

I very much agree and I deprecate the various lute societies making editions of 
Italian music in French tablature  when they ought to be encouraging people to 
read the latter - it's really not difficult.
   
  MH

Are Vidar Boye Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  >> As you imply: I guess it's because they can't be bothered to
>> learn to read on an A instrument
>
> A lot of people prefer to work in those areas they're most familiar
> with. We have modern editions of Italian music in French tablature,
> because French tab is the one that a lot of people feel more at home
> with. We tend to stay with the techniques we're most familiar with,
> and in some cases we tend to stay with the types of music we're most
> familiar with. Someone (a most renowned and magisterial figure in
> the lute world ;-) ;-) ;-)) said to me last year: "Baroque lute is
> late-period and decadent. I don't accept it." Another equally
> renowned luter told me last year, "if it's not renaissance music I
> don't play it." It's not laziness; just a reluctance to go beyond
> what's familiar.

If people are obcessive about renaissance music that is fine, but I am 
sceptic about publishing italian music in french tabulature. There is so 
much interesting music out there which is still unpublished, so to me its 
just a waste of time and effort to translate italian music to french 
tabulature. Its not difficult to learn to read italian tabulature, and I 
consider it laziness not to try it.


Are (about to learn german tabulature)



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


   
-
 Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
--

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[G. Crona]

What do you call a tablature polyglot? A tablyglot?
G.
- Original Message - 
From: "Are Vidar Boye Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:45 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?



  As you imply: I guess it's because they can't be bothered to
learn to read on an A instrument


A lot of people prefer to work in those areas they're most familiar
with.  We have modern editions of Italian music in French tablature,
because French tab is the one that a lot of people feel more at home
with.  We tend to stay with the techniques we're most familiar with,
and in some cases we tend to stay with the types of music we're most
familiar with.  Someone (a most renowned and magisterial figure in
the lute world ;-)  ;-)  ;-)) said to me last year:  "Baroque lute is
late-period and decadent.  I don't accept it."  Another equally
renowned luter told me last year, "if it's not renaissance music I
don't play it."  It's not laziness;  just a reluctance to go beyond
what's familiar.


If people are obcessive about renaissance music that is fine, but I am
sceptic about publishing italian music in french tabulature. There is so
much interesting music out there which is still unpublished, so to me its
just a waste of time and effort to translate italian music to french
tabulature. Its not difficult to learn to read italian tabulature, and I
consider it laziness not to try it.


Are (about to learn german tabulature) 




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[Are Vidar Boye Hansen]

>>   As you imply: I guess it's because they can't be bothered to
>> learn to read on an A instrument
>
> A lot of people prefer to work in those areas they're most familiar
> with.  We have modern editions of Italian music in French tablature,
> because French tab is the one that a lot of people feel more at home
> with.  We tend to stay with the techniques we're most familiar with,
> and in some cases we tend to stay with the types of music we're most
> familiar with.  Someone (a most renowned and magisterial figure in
> the lute world ;-)  ;-)  ;-)) said to me last year:  "Baroque lute is
> late-period and decadent.  I don't accept it."  Another equally
> renowned luter told me last year, "if it's not renaissance music I
> don't play it."  It's not laziness;  just a reluctance to go beyond
> what's familiar.

If people are obcessive about renaissance music that is fine, but I am 
sceptic about publishing italian music in french tabulature. There is so 
much interesting music out there which is still unpublished, so to me its 
just a waste of time and effort to translate italian music to french 
tabulature. Its not difficult to learn to read italian tabulature, and I 
consider it laziness not to try it.


Are (about to learn german tabulature)



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[howard posner]

On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Rob wrote:

> so why do people choose to tune to G?
> Is it purely because they already think 'in G', or is there another  
> reason?

G tuning (with the second course at lute pitch) seems to have been  
common in England.  Mace wrote that the theorbo was just a big lute  
("our old English lute") with the first course down an octave.


--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[David Rastall]

On Jan 16, 2008, at 3:21 AM, Martyn Hodgson wrote:

>   As you imply: I guess it's because they can't be bothered to  
> learn to read on an A instrument

A lot of people prefer to work in those areas they're most familiar  
with.  We have modern editions of Italian music in French tablature,  
because French tab is the one that a lot of people feel more at home  
with.  We tend to stay with the techniques we're most familiar with,  
and in some cases we tend to stay with the types of music we're most  
familiar with.  Someone (a most renowned and magisterial figure in  
the lute world ;-)  ;-)  ;-)) said to me last year:  "Baroque lute is  
late-period and decadent.  I don't accept it."  Another equally  
renowned luter told me last year, "if it's not renaissance music I  
don't play it."  It's not laziness;  just a reluctance to go beyond  
what's familiar.

> and don't appreciate that the theorbo isn't just a big lute.

The lute list's favorite riddle:  "when is a lute not a lute?"  If I  
see theorbos in general as continuo-lutes, and the large theorbos as  
double-bass lutes, what am I failing to appreciate?  Am I missing  
something?

David R
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[David Rastall]

On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Rob wrote:

> ...so why do people choose to tune to G?
> Is it purely because they already think 'in G', or is there another  
> reason?

That's the reason I would do it.  I spent so long playing renaissance  
lute that I "think in G."  Also the first methods I found for  
instruction in BC were designed for G tuning.

David R
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G?

[Martyn Hodgson]

Rob,
   
  I play theorbo more than anything (the only instrument which seems to pay and 
you do get a lot of variety)  - mine is in A at 93cm. 
   
  In fact G is a very strong key (possibly with D the strongest) on the A 
theorbo - quite a few open strings and the relative keys are also strong.  
Actually all the keys you mention are good on the A instrument and have 
generally less stronger resonant shapes on the G instrument which favours flat 
keys - hence why I also have a small theorbo in G (76cm) with only the top 
course the octave down which I use mostly for the small scale English domestic 
repertoire (Lawes, Lanier et al) who frequently favour these keys.  
   
  Problem is also that 84cm is towards the lower end of the scale for a theorbo 
and if you tune down a tone to G you may find some of the lower fingered 
courses are not as strong as you wld wish (assuming you wont use overwound on 
the 5th even if you do on the 6th). Indeed, if I had a large Italian instrument 
in G I'd expect it to be like the biggest of the Italian instruments ie around 
98/99cm.
   
  regards,
   
  Martyn

Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  I have a theorbo being made now by Malcolm Prior for delivery by the end of
February. Very much looking forward to it as I haven't played a theorbo in
ten years or more. It is an 84cms Koch model, Italian tuning.



Now, I've been looking at the song repertoire by Giulio and Francesca
Caccini, a repertoire ideally suited to theorbo accompaniment. Giulio played
it, and his daughter possibly played it - she was respected as a lute
player, although the type of lute was never specified. At least in Giulio's
music one might expect 'theorbo keys' - Am, Dm, A, D. Here are the keys from
his 1614 edition (the only one I have to hand): 



G or Gm / / / / /

D or Dm 

A or Am ///

F / //

E /



And Francesca's (from 'Il primo libro delle musiche' 1618 - Indiana
University Press)



G or Gm / /

Am //

F ///

Bb /

C /



So, a very high percentage based on G. All the keys are obviously possible
on a theorbo in A, but I wonder if their theorbo was in G. I imagine someone
(or more than one) has done research into this, and it would be interesting
to read their findings. 



I've also noticed that a few theorbo recordings are on a theorbo in G, both
solo and continuo. Is it common among modern players? I imagine G would be
an easier transition for Renaissance players who think in G more easily than
A. I'm planning on having it tuned in A, with A=440, but I'm interested in
what others are doing, and general thoughts pro and contra any particular
tuning.



Rob 



www.rmguitar.info








--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


   
-
 Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.
--