[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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! #45; a smarter inbox.
--
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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 reentrant because they
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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 course to be lowered an octave; in
short, if there was no increase in 'power', why bother - why not just use a
lute in A or G?
DOUBLE STRUNG THEORBOES
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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
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
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
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! #45; a smarter inbox. --
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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
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! #45; a smarter inbox. --
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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! #45; a smarter inbox. --
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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! #45; a smarter inbox.
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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! #45; a smarter inbox.
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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
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! #45; a smarter inbox.
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTEydmViNG02BF9TAzIxMTQ3MTcxOTAEc2VjA21haWwEc2xrA3RhZ2xpbmUTry it now. --
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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! #45; a smarter inbox. --
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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
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
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 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
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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
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 percentage based on G. All the keys are obviously possible on a theorbo in A, but I wonder if their theorbo was in
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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
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
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
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
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
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, with
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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? Plus some guidelines
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! #45; a smarter inbox. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
